The phrase εἶπεν δὲ in Luke and in the Marcionite gospel.

[Secret Alias]

My own examination has led me to the conclusion that the author of DA did not actually have a Marcionite text in front of him

And Tertullian did? Where's that rolling on the floor laughing icon? My conclusion is the exact opposite. Dialogues knew the text directly, Tertullian reworked an earlier source. Why? Because Tertullian says almost as much at the beginning of the AM.

[Secret Alias]

And finally we can look at one of the alleged 'Tertullian witnesses to the Marcionite text' cited by 'Stuart.' Here it is IN FULL:

For that too, as far as the surface of scripture goes, is set before us abruptly (subito propositum est), though as concerns the purport of its meaning it too is linked with the reference to the ill usage of John and his disapproval of Herod's unlawful marriage: for it delineates the latter end of both, Herod in torment, and John comforted, so that even while alive Herod might hear it said, They have there Moses and the prophets, let them hear them. But Marcion twists it into another direction (sed Marcion aliorsum cogit), so as to claim that both of the Creator's rewards in hell, whether of torment or of comfort, are intended for those who have obeyed the law and the prophets, while he defines as heavenly the bosom and the haven of his particular Christ and god. I shall have an answer to this: his <defective> eyesight is put to reproof by the scripture itself, which in distinction from hell marks off for the poor man Abraham's bosom.

My God, what will it take these myopic participants at this forum to see with their own eyes that there IS ABSOLUTELY NO PROOF THAT MARCION'S TEXT IS BEING CITED HERE. None whatsoever. It reminds me of the 'I could have had her' discussion that goes on in high school among male virgins recounting their parade of first dates that went nowhere.

What will it take these people to see there's no 'there there'? There's nothing here. They're just fucking their own hand. THERE'S NOTHING HERE which points in the direction of a 'witness' of an exact scriptural reading in Marcion. Nothing at all. Does a piano have to fall on their heads to break out of their narcissistic quest to think Marcion's gospel can be known by them? The clear sense of the passage is that the author - again reusing something written by Justin based on Justin's gospel harmony - has clearly taken John's death at the hands of Herod (Luke 3) and connected it with Luke 16. Why else would he suppose that the two completely unrelated passages 'belong together'?

So then using Justin's original commentary on scripture Tertullian or likely Irenaeus originally in Greek is the best explanation of this remarkable 'connection.' Pretending the original author used Luke is implausible especially given the other evidence (constantly remarking things outside of Luke have been cut from Marcion's gospel). But beyond that it is a crime against truthfulness to argue that phrases like - sed Marcion aliorsum cogit - and - subito propositum est - 'must mean' that he has Marcion's text before him. The more natural sense is that the author is working from his own text and simply assumes that Marcion twisted THAT text in his own way either by maintaining it as read or changing it. There is NO FUCKING CONFIRMATION THAT THIS 'EXACT' WORDING IS IN MARCION'S TEXT. Grow a pair of eyes and stop groveling around on the ground searching for scraps of 'truth' pretending that we have 'proof' for this or that is in Marcion's gospel. The only thing we can be sure of is:

this is the reading that appeared in the original manuscript that a third century Latin writer 'reworked' to 'purify' from the alleged tampering of an 'apostate' (likely in the circle of Tatian if not Tatian himself).

Whether or not Marcion had this exact reading is not clear. The fact that Epiphanius might or might not have a similar reading is hardly proof of anything given the pattern that we see in modern observers of Marcion - namely that if Tertullian could assume that this is Marcion's text and Stuart and every other modern could similarly assume this, Epiphanius working from the same original source did the same is hardly surprising either. Scholars are a lazy, desperate lot who can engage in collective lying in order to deny the hopelessness of our situation (in this case knowing what Marcion's gospel looked like). The fact that they will come back with - if everyone thought this it must be true is complete bullshit. This is the lemming mentality of scholars. The fact that everyone reads Tertullian like this is hardly proof of anything WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE ORIGINAL WORDING OF THE PASSAGE.

All we are observing is a pattern of desperation and lack of intellectual hygiene on the part of lazy dishonest people (ancient and modern) who work in the shadows and collectively fudge the truth in order to have something to say about Marcion.

[Secret Alias]

And almost every 'citation of Marcionite scripture' in Tertullian is constructed with this dishonest methodology by desperate modern scholarship. All that Tertullian is proof of is that a second century author had THIS or THAT reading in HIS canon and used it against Marcion because he assumed HE (the author) had the true text and Marcion corrupted that text. That's all. Given that Irenaeus likely represents the previous stage of development of this text in Greek before Tertullian rendered it into Latin and it can be demonstrated that Irenaeus consistently uses scriptures NOT IN MARCION'S CANON against Marcion it is hardly a leap of logic to suggest that when confronted with Justin's commentary he twisted innocent citation of Justin's allusion of a commonly held gospel against Marcion without taking the time to check whether or not (a) 'something like' the passage was actually in the Marcionite canon or (b) that this was the actual reading of the Marcionite gospel.

So in the end nothing in Adv Marc is proof of anything in Marcion's canon unless the author explicitly says HERE IS WHAT MARCION'S READING LOOKED LIKE and even then these Church Fathers were a dishonest lot so caveat emptor

[Secret Alias]

And who would think that Ephrem writing also against Marcion frequently in his Commentary on the Gospel (= the Supergospel) makes a very similar argument to Tertullian with regards to connecting (a) what is an 'isolated' reference to Herod's execution of John with (b) another 'isolated' reference to the fate of
a rich man' in another part of the gospel. What are the odds of that? What is the likelihood that this is yet another 'coincidental' connecting of passages that aren't connected in our canonical gospels? Yet as Hogan notes Ephrem:

mentions the 'riches of that rich man' and Herod's relationship with Herodias (Commentary on the Diatessaron vi:7), suggesting that these two units are linked in a particular way. (p. 274)

Why would two separate authors make the same connection between passages dealing with an anonymous rich man in our gospels connect these two Herod's execution of John? In Ephrem's case it is because he used a 'harmony gospel.' But why isn't it true also with Justin - the original author/source of Tertullian's treatise? I have long argued that the original gospel had a section where a rich man asks what it takes to have eternal life, he says that he 'knows all the commandments' and then - in the commonly held gospel by Marcionites and Justin's community (a 'harmony' according to our familiar four gospel structure) the 'antitheses' of Jesus follow and likely the rich man and the poor man (Dives and Lazarus) are used as an illustration of the fate of those who follow the Law. Notice that in Ephrem's original commentary in this section the Marcionites - i.e. those who castrate themselves according to Matthew 19:19 are explicitly mentioned here also:

But I say to you, that whoever looks and lusts after [a woman] has committed adultery .1 Because there were those who loved possessions, and those who loved luxury and evil words, our Lord said, your hand or your foot. 2 If I have spoken to you even with regard to the limbs [of your body], how can you have regard for possessions or luxury or for words which are easy to cut off? For if, by the cutting off of a limb, you put an end to the desire for abuse and cursing that is in you, why then do you not cut off your tongue? For it is necessary thus to learn the solution of all pains from one of your limbs. Or concede that you have acted wickedly, or that you have not listened well, or that you have cut off the limb badly. Or, that you have understood the command foolishly. With that which you did not cut off, you accuse yourself that you have cut it off very badly. For you were afraid of the pain, and you preferred to break the commandment rather than lose your limb. 7. Let us therefore see if blasphemies cease through the cutting off of the tongue? And if they cease, whether those who do not cut it off do very badly? Or, if they do not cease, whether those who cut it off have understood badly? Or, how be cut off, with the result that the body perishes in their being cut off, but without the propensity towards evil being uprooted? It is not the good limbs which the divinity has fashioned that should be cut off, but the evil thoughts which freewill has fashioned. Our Lord also showed to what extent we should have to struggle even in this way, lest we be vanquished. This is [like], Tear your hearts, and not your robes. (Joel 2:13) The riches of that rich man were his right eye, and it caused him to stumble. But he did not pluck it out, nor cast it aside.4 The right hand of Herod was Herodias, and instead of cutting it off and casting this unclean hand away, he cut off and cast away a holy head.5

Again it has to be explained why two separate authors (one who did use a lost harmony, the other who might have) make the same connection between Herod and the rich man.

[Secret Alias]

At this point it should be acknowledged that it is pointless to continue to pretend that 'it is certain' that Adv Marc ORIGINALLY based its assault on Marcion from Luke. There are just too many anomalies.

[Stuart]

The real Stephen Huller, angry man emerges again. I had thought a polite guy had replaced him as SecretAlias. Somebody one could converse with. But the cussing is back, the short fused temper. Well the polite guy was nice while he lasted. I kinda liked him.

Anyway, Stephen. I know you have this crazy theory that Tertullian, whose works we have in Latin, wrote in Aramaic, and that Justin is the real author, and that Marcion had some different Tatian like text different than what we all think, and Ephram at the edge of the empire in the era of Bardassian challenge was more accurate than those generations before him, and yada yada yada. I'm much more mainstream on the issue of Tertullian, and your conspiracy theory looks like a house of cards to me, built on intricate stilts of changing languages underlying texts and so on - a lot of moving parts, a lot of Stephen Huller interpretations to get from point A to B, C to D, F to G and so on.. I really think its a case where you have overthought and overworked it. The thinking man, which is your moniker, is not a symbol of the smartest man, but the most contemplative and thus humble. So relax and accept that you have not flipped minds.

And yet your post, which included the full quote from Tertullian is instructive to my point about the text presented by Epiphanius for Luke 16:29-31. Tertullian, whose interpretation shows the reading he as a Catholic had for the story, rather than the Marcionite for the most part, does enlighten one point:

But Marcion twists it into another direction (sed Marcion aliorsum cogit), so as to claim that both of the Creator's rewards in hell, whether of torment or of comfort, are intended for those who have obeyed the law and the prophets, while he defines as heavenly the bosom and the haven of his particular Christ and god.

Tertullian shows that the Marcionites did in fact separate the two, the Law and Prophets, and Christ, and also the two abodes of the demi-God Creator and the High God of Christ. This is what is reflected in Epiphanius' but not in the Catholic text of Adamantius.

BTW, on Tertullian (or should I say "Justin" to keep Stephen happy, if not Tertullian's wife), I merely said his text does not include εἶπεν δὲ so he is not a witness of the words being in Marcion. That still would hold true if all the weird things Stephen proposes held, the passages simply don't include evidence of the Lukan words.

[Secret Alias]

I know you have this crazy theory that Tertullian, whose works we have in Latin [copied a version of Against Marcion written by Irenaeus in Greek] ... and that Justin is the real author

Take that one up with Andrew Criddle who thinks the suggestion that Justin is the original author is plausible (unless I have misunderstood him).

[Secret Alias]

And the point that gets lost in this is that Tertullian isn't citing Marcion here or anywhere else - at least not certainly. That's what is so frustrating. This is all mental masturbation. The idea that you can get a hundred academics to 'agree' that every time Tertullian makes reference to the gospel or the writings of Paul in a treatise written 'against Marcion' that that reference is an acknowledgement of what is found in Marcion's gospel does not mean it is so. I cited the material as an example of what is taken to be 'Marcion's reading' when in reality it is the furthest thing from that. Taking the plain meaning of the citation, Tertullian (or his source) is only citing what is in HIS text and assuming (or implying, alleging - whatever word you want) that Marcion shared that reading or had that text. THAT'S ALL. There is no explicit confirmation here or the other dozens of references to 'a text' that it is Marcion's reading. I can't believe you can't see how methodologically barren this whole approach since Harnack has been. Just mental (and literary) masturbation. There's no reality to the claim that every time Tertullian cites a reading it's Marcion's especially when the alleged variant is acknowledged as the author's own. But it is made to be so - in the name of 'certainty.' Now we 'know' what Marcion's text is. Hurray! And you know why that's good news. Because now academic papers can be written. Great! Just what the word needs! The reality is that in each case it is possible that the two readings (the author's and Marcion's) coincide or that whenever the author brings up a passage IT MIGHT BE in Marcion's text. Yes it's possible. But is it likely that EVERY TIME the author cites a reading and says this or that about how Marcion APPLIED the reading that EVERY TIME the cited reading is EXACTLY CORRECT or that we can take for granted the Marcionites had this passage even in their gospel. Of course not! Why can't you see this?

The argument for this proposition always comes down to something like - well why would the author have misrepresented what's in the Marcionite text. The obvious reply is 'why not?' Why would we expect the author to be honest? Were the Jews 'fair' in their negative assessment of the Samaritans? Of course not. We should in fact expect that enemies treated their opponents wretchedly and composed wholly unfair arguments in order that they win that argument given that these treatises were always directed at fellow partisans - i.e. people who shared the author's hostility against the 'other party.' It's baffling how naive these arguments become. Tertullian was not a 'scholar' he was a lawyer, a partisan, and above all else - a dishonest broker of information. He wanted to win an argument. He wasn't 'studying' the Marcionites for God's sake.

As such citing from one's own gospel - as Irenaeus inevitably does in Adv Haer and Tertullian does elsewhere - to disprove one's opponents should be expected to occur every other reference to the gospel. Then you layer on top of it that the treatise itself was reworked countless times. So in the end it should be plain to see that the idea that every allusion to 'the gospel' in Adv Marc is to the Marcionite gospel is among the most naive things ever perpetrated in scholarship.

[Secret Alias]

It's like spin's old analogy of the sandwich being dropped in the garbage. Do you eat the sandwich? There is no way to know that any given reading is Marcion's given the state of corruption of the surviving manuscript of Adv Marc.

[andrewcriddle]

I know you have this crazy theory that Tertullian, whose works we have in Latin [copied a version of Against Marcion written by Irenaeus in Greek] ... and that Justin is the real author

Take that one up with Andrew Criddle who thinks the suggestion that Justin is the original author is plausible (unless I have misunderstood him).

Just to clarify. I think that book IV of Tertullian Against Marcion is based on a lost work by Justin.
I don't regard it as plausible that the whole of Against Marcion is based on a lost work by Justin.

Andrew Criddle