Thursday, November 20, 2014
43 Tertullian adapted an already altered MS of Justin's Against Marcion which transformed this 'Diatessaron based' commentary into a 'Luke based' critique of Marcion likely edited by Irenaeus
Tertullian 'says' that Marcion erased things from his gospel which do not appear in Luke but only Matthew because Justin wrote the original treatise working from his 'gospel harmony' and these references were left intact ignored by subsequent reworking of the MS. This would also account for Tertullian's use of videtur "it seems" when identifying Marcion's alleged corruption of Luke. As Raschke (p 37) notes Tertullian's endorsement of the Marcion's 'cutting' of Luke is rather weak. It is only a presumption for Tertullian for he begins "It seems Marcion chose Luke as the one to mutilate" (caederet, Tert Adv Marc. 2). He uses videtur "it seems" because either he is uncertain or he is aware that his audience might be aware of another version of the text (cf. Adv Marc 1:1) where a Diatessaron based critique of the gospel of Marcion was floating around. His words are nam ex iis commentatoribus quos habemus Lucam videtur Marcion elegisse quem caederet. Evans translates the passage - "out of those authors whom we possess, Marcion is seen to have chosen Luke as the one to mutilate" but Holmes "now, of the authors whom we possess, Marcion seems to have singled out Luke for his mutilating process." It is rarely noted that the entire thesis of Book Four is based on a truth which only 'seems' to be true. Tertullian does not claim to know 'for a fact' that the Marcionite gospel = cut Luke.
Email email@example.com with comments or questions.