Tertullian Accepts Paul had a Written Gospel, Matthew (!)

[bcedaifu]

Why did Jesus speak in riddles initially but later plainly?

The fictional character "Jesus of Nazareth" may have been presented, in our extant texts, as having spoken "in riddles initially" [? "initially" defined in terms of ?], and "plainly" later [? but how is "later" defined?], as a consequence of the conference in Nicea in the fourth century.

I haven't followed this thread, so I don't know any of the arguments for, or against, the notion that Tertullian had written, (in Latin, though), that "Paul" possessed a written gospel. Why do we imagine that Tertullian would have possessed knowledge of the documents employed by the authors of "Paul"?

A link to the post which illustrates Tertullian's assertion would be helpful.

My own claim, presented previously on the forum, is that 1 Corinthians 11:25, ("This cup the new covenant is") largely copying Mark 14:24 ("this is the blood of me of the covenant"), but adding "new", consistent with someone who has a copy of Mark in front of him, and wishes to add something of distinction. Matthew 26:28, ("this indeed is the blood of me of the covenant"), similarly, omits "new", in harmony with Mark's exposition, so if Tertullian argues that "Paul" had a copy of Matthew, that would represent the same pattern. Matthew added one word, gar, "indeed", to Mark, and "Paul" then added "new" to distinguish his version, from those of Matthew and Mark.

Does it make sense, as Koine Greek, to write the other way around: initially write "new covenant", but then subsequently, years, or decades later, delete "new", but insert "indeed"? I find it illogical to think that Greek authors would omit something as crucial as "new" in describing the formal, time honored relationship between YHWH, and the humans. One writes, "indeed", because of skepticism regarding the claim that the cup contains blood, meant for human consumption as evidence of acceptance of this contract--which, by virtue of a requirement to exhibit bizarre behaviour, most certainly is "new". This implies, to me, at least, that Mark's version has already aroused hostility, doubt, and disbelief at the description of these cannibals. If Mark's version had not aroused doubt, then, why would Matthew write, "indeed"?

[Stephan Huller]

Actually BCE your point for once is on the money (at least the initial observation). This has been noticed about Tertullian's gospel. It seems to be a mix of Matthew, Luke and Mark hence my other observation that it was a Diatessaronic text.

[andrewcriddle]

On the meaning of mystery

There is an ancient metaphorical use of mystery as meaning secrets going back to Plato.
Thaetetus

Σωκράτης
εἰσὶν γάρ, ὦ παῖ, μάλ᾽ εὖ ἄμουσοι: ἇλλοι δὲ πολὺ κομψότεροι, ὧν μέλλω σοι τὰ μυστήρια λέγειν. ἀρχὴ δέ, ἐξ ἧς καὶ ἃ νυνδὴ ἐλέγομεν πάντα ἤρτηται, ἥδεαὐτῶν, ὡς τὸ πᾶν κίνησις ἦν καὶ ἄλλο παρὰ τοῦτο οὐδέν, τῆς δὲ κινήσεως δύοεἴδη, πλήθει μὲν ἄπειρον ἑκάτερον, δύναμιν δὲ τὸ μὲν ποιεῖν ἔχον, τὸ δὲ πάσχειν.ἐκ δὲ τῆς τούτων ὁμιλίας τε καὶ τρίψεως πρὸς ἄλληλα γίγνεται ἔκγονα πλήθειμὲν

Socrates
So they are, my boy, quite without culture. But others are more clever, whose secret doctrines I am going to disclose to you. For them the beginning, upon which all the things we were just now speaking of depend, is the assumption that everything is real motion and that there is nothing besides this, but that there are two kinds of motion, each infinite in the number of its manifestations, and of these kinds one has an active, the other a passive force. From the union and friction of these two are born offspring, infinite in number, but always twins, the object of sense

The relation to mystery religions is a live metaphor but still a metaphor. (There are complications in usage from the 3rd century CE onwards but that is post-Pauline.)

Andrew Criddle

[Stephan Huller]

Christianity is different Andrew surely you recognize that. What you are suggesting is that a purely metaphorical reference to 'mystery' eventually became an actual mystery religion. That seems very evangelical of you. But you must recognize that:

(a) the members of the fourth century mystery religion believed that Jesus instituted that mystery cult
(b) we don't really know anything about the living Church in the second and third centuries beyond the things they disliked (heresies) and new rules that they established (various canons)

While I know that you don't accept the Letter to Theodore as authentically ancient, you must acknowledge that it suggests that Mark established a mystery religion. I have always found this very unusual from the POV of Morton Smith being the author. Whether or not Smith reviewed Vincent's book on the gospel of Mark what is written in to Theodore goes way beyond anything we might expect from Smith. It reads like a piece of 8th or 10th century Coptic propaganda. At the very least it acknowledges Christianity as a mystery religion set up in Alexandria. Whether or not you object to using the text as evidence for that, this is plainly what it says. If it said 'Paul' in place of 'Mark' we would all be hailing the discovery of some independent confirmation of the phenomenon described in Tertullian's Prescription Against the Heretics 25 - 28. What throws everyone off is the 'Mark' reference, but that is implicit in the Philosophumena's description of Marcion.

Perhaps the profoundest criticism of Harnack's exhaustive work on Marcion is that refashioned the heretic into a kind of proto-Luther. There were mysteries in the Marcionite religion. It probably appeared quite 'Catholic' at least from the perspective of mystery rites and acting like a mystery religion. Those damn Germans.

[andrewcriddle]

While I know that you don't accept the Letter to Theodore as authentically ancient, you must acknowledge that it suggests that Mark established a mystery religion. I have always found this very unusual from the POV of Morton Smith being the author. Whether or not Smith reviewed Vincent's book on the gospel of Mark what is written in to Theodore goes way beyond anything we might expect from Smith. It reads like a piece of 8th or 10th century Coptic propaganda. At the very least it acknowledges Christianity as a mystery religion set up in Alexandria. Whether or not you object to using the text as evidence for that, this is plainly what it says. If it said 'Paul' in place of 'Mark' we would all be hailing the discovery of some independent confirmation of the phenomenon described in Tertullian's Prescription Against the Heretics 25 - 28. What throws everyone off is the 'Mark' reference, but that is implicit in the Philosophumena's description of Marcion.

Formally speaking it would be evidence that Clement believed that Mark established a nystery religion. Clement (or pseudo-Clement) interprets longer Mark in ways linked to the mystery religions, but the text of longer Mark does not in itself need to be read that way.

Andrew Criddle

[Stephan Huller]

You're right as always. You spell everything out perfectly. Yes that's it exactly

[MrMacSon]

On the meaning of mystery

There is an ancient metaphorical use of mystery as meaning secrets going back to Plato.
Thaetetus

Σωκράτης
εἰσὶν γάρ, ὦ παῖ, μάλ᾽ εὖ ἄμουσοι: ἇλλοι δὲ πολὺ κομψότεροι, ὧν μέλλω σοι τὰ μυστήρια λέγειν. ἀρχὴ δέ, ἐξ ἧς καὶ ἃ νυνδὴ ἐλέγομεν πάντα ἤρτηται, ἥδεαὐτῶν, ὡς τὸ πᾶν κίνησις ἦν καὶ ἄλλο παρὰ τοῦτο οὐδέν, τῆς δὲ κινήσεως δύοεἴδη, πλήθει μὲν ἄπειρον ἑκάτερον, δύναμιν δὲ τὸ μὲν ποιεῖν ἔχον, τὸ δὲ πάσχειν.ἐκ δὲ τῆς τούτων ὁμιλίας τε καὶ τρίψεως πρὸς ἄλληλα γίγνεται ἔκγονα πλήθειμὲν

Socrates
So they are, my boy, quite without culture. But others are more clever, whose secret doctrines I am going to disclose to you. For them the beginning, upon which all the things we were just now speaking of depend, is the assumption that everything is real motion and that there is nothing besides this, but that there are two kinds of motion, each infinite in the number of its manifestations, and of these kinds one has an active, the other a passive force. From the union and friction of these two are born offspring, infinite in number, but always twins, the object of sense

The relation to mystery religions is a live metaphor but still a metaphor. (There are complications in usage from the 3rd century CE onwards but that is post-Pauline.)

Andrew Criddle

Christianity is different Andrew surely you recognize that. What you are suggesting is that a purely metaphorical reference to 'mystery' eventually became an actual mystery religion. That seems very evangelical of you. But you must recognize that:

(a) the members of the fourth century mystery religion believed that Jesus instituted that mystery cult
(b) we don't really know anything about the living Church in the second and third centuries beyond the things they disliked (heresies) and new rules that they established

Christianity now or post-4th C may be 'different' [to a mystery religion] but, as Stephan alludes, "we don't really know anything about the living Church in the second and third centuries beyond the things they disliked (heresies) and new rules that they established".

Was anything concrete in the 1st-3rd centuries? or even a wider time range (say, 2nd C BC/BCE to late 4th C AD/CE)??

Were the "new rules that they established" canonized then?

[Stephan Huller]

Our familiar representations of the nativity scene (and those from the earliest apocryphal gospels) reflect the primacy of the Diatessaron http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/dail ... apocrypha/

[Stuart]

Tertullian is referring to "his" Paul, as opposed to Marcion's Paul. The Catholic version of Romans declares Davidic lineage in the flesh for Jesus, which is drawn from Matthew 1:1.

But Marcion's Paul does not have that Gospel, and his Roman's begins blandly almost identical to Ephesians (see Clabeaux's analysis of the relationship between Romans and Laodiceans opening), and lacking an addressed church; note Tertullian does indicate the title was ΠΡΟΣ ΡΩΜΑΙΟΥΣ as we have in the Catholic form. There was no Davidic formula in Marcion. Were there, of course Tertullian would have commented on it as showing Marcion's hypocrisy.

So Tertullian is basically stating what we already know, the commonality of the theology of the Gospel of Matthew and the Catholic version of Paul. I am glad you have found that, its a start. But you should also read Adversus Marcionem book 5 to see the "other" Paul.

[Stephan Huller]

I am not sure even that Marcion called his apostle 'Paul.' Interesting point about the lineage from Matthew. I have read Clabeaux's analysis. I am not sure he knows any more than we do about what the Marcionite canon looked like. You can't always assume that Tertullian will comment on something. His reporting is erratic. Not convinced that we know (a) what the Marcionite gospel was (i.e. 'Luke') or (b) what the Marcionite canon looked like beyond some vague similarities to our existing canon.