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

[Stephan Huller]

I'm just pointing out how weak your position is. If you can give evidence that within 100 years of Paul's death SOMEONE said that Paul WROTE a gospel, then you might have something. Anything else IMO is a very weak case for his having written a gospel. It would help if the later ones referenced a chain of tradition that goes back to that 100 year period, but they don't even do that.

Hmmm. So since there is no substantive reference to Paul or things Pauline until Marcion and those references are hostile and mostly second hand what do you propose is our guide to the question of whether Paul KNEW OF a written gospel? You seem to be arguing for the 'shared assumptions' of church believers from the 5th century onward settles the question. I don't even know if Irenaeus's explicitly says that Paul didn't know 'according to Luke' or whether it was certainly written after Paul's death. Here is the reference in Irenaeus - "After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him." Certainly if 'departure' means death Irenaeus means to say that Mark wrote his gospel after that event. But it is well documented that some of the ancients assumed that Mark wrote his gospel in Alexandria (and not just Clement in to Theodore). There seems to have been ambiguity if one gospel was written along with Peter and another on his own authority and this - I believe - becomes the basis for the claim that Marcion wrote (or edited) a gospel against the gospel of the apostles while Paul's original written gospel (= according to Luke) agreed with their written gospel. But more on that later.

But are we to simply assume from that statement that he also means that Luke was written after the death of Paul? I am not so sure. Would Origen and Eusebius have argued that Paul knew 'according to Luke' on that basis alone. I remember Carlson showed a number of different ordering of the gospels where Luke actually was placed before Mark in some reckonings, and many of those were explicitly (or at least implicitly) arranged in chronological order (i.e. Luke written before Mark). Why does Tertullian accept that Paul knew of a gospel if the issue was plainly settled by Irenaeus? I am no sure that Irenaeus can be brought forward as a witness for the idea that Paul definitely did not have a written gospel. I will have to research that.

At least in the case of Irenaeus, we have that, but we also have Papias. How does Papias support you Stephan? Or Barnabas, or Ignatius, or ANY of these earliest writers.

Irenaeus is post-Marcion and Papias doesn't mention Paul. How do any of these people 'reject' the idea that Paul had a written gospel at his disposal?

If PAUL had written a gospel don't you think we would have early testimony of that?

Since Marcion is the earliest Pauline tradition and the information about Marcion is second hand and hostile we have a bad time figuring anything out about Paul to the degree of certainty that you demand or expect. I don't understand what your fallback position is. Acts doesn't mention written correspondences nor does it reference the question of whether Paul had a written gospel. So how do we settle the question of whether Paul had at his disposal a written gospel?

Don't you think Paul would have referenced it in ANY of his epistles, especially since he took great pains to remind his 'flock' of the things he had taught them? As Earl likes to say "The silence is deafening", and as such I'm perplexed as to why want to rely so heavily on late attestations, some of which are not even about a written gospel by Paul.

1. when Clement cites the gospel Paul had at his disposal it is a non-canonical reference albeit one that is paralleled in our existing gospels in a different form.
2. when Origen and Eusebius say that Paul knew 'according to Luke' it fits within the framework Irenaeus sets up. Only now the production of Luke took place within Paul's lifetime. Why is this position so problematic for your understanding of the development of the gospel(s)? Why couldn't Paul have known 'according to Luke'? Why couldn't the gospel have been written while Paul was still alive? I find your objection to this proposition perplexing given the fact that we have two pre-Nicene attestations and more when Jerome and the neo-Origenists are factored in.
3. when Tertullian's source in Adv Marc objects to the Marcionite position that Paul wrote the first gospel he nevertheless reads Galatians in a Marcionite manner (i.e. that Paul's 'gospel' in the text = a written gospel and moreover that the Jerusalem Church had another written gospel). His point is that the two gospels agreed (undoubtedly in the same way that 'according to Luke' and 'according to Matthew' are said to 'agree' with one another). The strange part is that Tertullian's source later cites a saying that only appears in Matthew but this isn't as 'strange' as it seems given that Tertullian's source has a strange habit of citing Matthew against Marcion and similarly accuses Marcion of 'cutting' things from his gospel that don't appear now in Luke. William's solution to this difficulty is that Tertullian's 'according to Luke' had Matthean (and Markan) elements in it. I take it one step further and argue that Tertullian is actually using an anti-Marcionite text written by Justin or Rhodo or someone who used a Diatessaron (like Ephrem etc). Still the basic paradigm assumes an understanding compatible with Marcionitism insofar as a wall isn't put up around the common reading of Galatians and the shared assumption that there was a dispute over 'written gospels' in the apostolic era.
4. the Marcionites again assumed 'my gospel' = Paul's written gospel which had no name ascription (like according to Mark)

[TedM]

Since Marcion is the earliest Pauline tradition and the information about Marcion is second hand and hostile we have a bad time figuring anything out about Paul to the degree of certainty that you demand or expect. I don't understand what your fallback position is. Acts doesn't mention written correspondences nor does it reference the question of whether Paul had a written gospel. So how do we settle the question of whether Paul had at his disposal a written gospel?

we don't. the evidence isn't there. all that is left is based on things people that you don't trust said.

2. when Origen and Eusebius say that Paul knew 'according to Luke' it fits within the framework Irenaeus sets up. Only now the production of Luke took place within Paul's lifetime. Why is this position so problematic for your understanding of the development of the gospel(s)? Why couldn't Paul have known 'according to Luke'? Why couldn't the gospel have been written while Paul was still alive? I find your objection to this proposition perplexing given the fact that we have two pre-Nicene attestations and more when Jerome and the neo-Origenists are factored in.

If they really knew something, i would think they would have indicated their sources, but they don't. this suggests they simply thought luke was written earlier than it was--probably they believed acts was written before Paul died, and since Luke was before that, Paul would have known of it. i don't see anything revolutionary in that. Ireneaus most likely thought since Luke knew paul that he wrote the gospel of Luke in accordance with paul's message. seems a reasonable speculation. none of this points to Luke preceeding mark or john or being different in theology either. The interesting question to me is if Marcion DID pick and alter Luke among existing gospels when he had several to choose from, why did he choose Luke? Maybe the answer is simply that it was more geared toward Gentiles--certainly Acts was..

3. ... Still the basic paradigm assumes an understanding compatible with Marcionitism insofar as a wall isn't put up around the common reading of Galatians and the shared assumption that there was a dispute over 'written gospels' in the apostolic era.

too much info for me to comment. maybe you are onto something with that..i must let this subject go for now. happy hunting

[Stephan Huller]

But what are you putting up against my 'weak evidence'? Things that are taught in Sunday school? Generally believed assumptions? Where does it say that Paul didn't have a gospel? You often complain about arguments from silence. The argument that Paul doesn't seem to mention a gospel is just the same thing. Maybe Paul had a different written gospel (that's the Marcionite position and it would seem Tertullian's of his source as well). In Prescriptionem 20 - 25 Tertullian complains that the heretics believed that Paul had a secret gospel (look and see for yourself). Why isn't this an explanation for your 'silence' argument? Indeed what is the threshold that information from ancient witnesses has to leap over? You belief in what you were taught as a child or a student? This is silly.

[Stephan Huller]

If a fair assessment of ancient witnesses is brought forward the idea that Paul had a written gospel outweighs anyone that explicitly says Paul did not have a written gospel. I want you to distinguish between

1. you don't think Paul had a written gospel and you don't think any ancient witnesses thought Paul had a gospel

from

2. you don't think Paul had a written gospel and you don't give a fuck whether ancient witnesses say that he did

as long as you acknowledge (2) we can agree to disagree. I don't think you are an authority on things Pauline.

[TedM]

basically i am not a big fan of massive conspiracy theories. i put them in the category of Roswell. Some may in fact be true, but the likelihood is very small. paul would have mentioned his written gospel if he had one. period. You must claim it was interpolated out and that orthodoxy decided to incorporate their very enemy by changing his message. too far out there. give me stronger evidence and then it will appeal to me more than Roswell.

[Stephan Huller]

But how is this a conspiracy theory when it comes from the very pillars of the Church? This is completely demented. For those who care about ancient tradition(s), notice that Jerome points to a tradition that Paul had a written gospel:

Some suppose that whenever Paul in his epistle says according to my gospel he means the book of Luke and that Luke not only was taught the gospel history by the apostle Paul who was not with the Lord in the flesh, but also by other apostles. (Lives of Illustrious Men, Luke).

Jerome clearly has Origen and Eusebius in mind but not only Origen and Eusebius in mind. Indeed if the idea that Paul had a written gospel was only limited to Origen it makes Jerome's informed understanding that Origen's patron Ambroses 'conversion' from Marcionism may well explain Origen and the entire Alexandrian tradition - viz. the understanding that Paul had a written gospel (admittedly not obvious from our Luke when compared to the Pauline letters) is based on information from another canon of 'gospel' and 'apostle' where parallels were more obvious (viz Clement of Alexandria's statement). In other words, Paul's letters and the gospels were edited to deny the logic of the tradition that 'my gospel' = a written gospel. That would also explain Tertullian's statement that Paul had Matthew 5 in mind when he wrote/spoke in 2 Corinthians 4.

[Stephan Huller]

The important thing Ted is that a real truth seeker doesn't deny the consistent testimony that 'my gospel' = a written gospel merely because it contradicts his/her childhood beliefs. At least attempt to deal with evidence you don't like other than saying you refuse to consider it.

[robert j]

So the list of people who though Paul had a written gospel grows - Marcion, Clement of Alexandria, Origen and Eusebius:

Stephan Huller,

This is the second time I’m asking for you to provide evidence for your claim that Clement of Alexandria thought that Paul had a written gospel. Last time you said you were too busy to provide any more than a vague reference to two long books of the Stromata.

I’m not sure how meaningful Clement’s belief here would be. From his late second-century catholic perspective, he certainly may have thought that one or more of the synoptic gospels had already been written by the time Paul was evangelizing, but I would like to review the pertinent passage.

Would you provide the citation along with the book and chapter numbers to support your claim.

Are you still unwilling or unable to provide a pertinent supporting citation from Clement of Alexandria?

[TedM]

But how is this a conspiracy theory when it comes from the very pillars of the Church? This is completely demented. For those who care about ancient tradition(s), notice that Jerome points to a tradition that Paul had a written gospel:

Some suppose that whenever Paul in his epistle says according to my gospel he means the book of Luke and that Luke not only was taught the gospel history by the apostle Paul who was not with the Lord in the flesh, but also by other apostles. (Lives of Illustrious Men, Luke).

this means nothing. some would suppose that today too if they read it -- and you are living proof. as i said what is missing is any kind of source that goes back far enough to show that they actually knew that Paul was using a written gospel, or had written it. And even if it does you still have the hurdle of showing that it was the first one, and that the marcion group didn't pervert it, which are the real issues you care about. As i pointed out Papias doesn't help you at all in this respect, nor does Justin. so you are left looking at sources that are simply too late and relying on conspiracy coverups that you gleen through questionable interpretations of people whose writings you don't trust in the first place.

In other words, Paul's letters and the gospels were edited to deny the logic of the tradition that 'my gospel' = a written gospel. That would also explain Tertullian's statement that Paul had Matthew 5 in mind when he wrote/spoke in 2 Corinthians 4.

In other words, a questionable conspiracy. Tertullian's statement is laughable as evidence Stephan but you are so intent on supporting this thing that you clutch onto it like you would a newborn baby.

[Stephan Huller]

Apparently Macknight some time back gives a long note to show that evangelion, 2 Cor. 8. 18 stands for a written gospel, and that Luke's Gospel is meant in this passage.