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

[TedM]

Uh, that's a statement that Luke wrote a gospel, not Paul.

[Stephan Huller]

we aren't debating the "full Marcion" here. Eusebius only goes part of the way. But still Eusebius implies he had or knew a written gospel

[Stephan Huller]

And I should have specified, Eusebius is citing Origen saying that. So Origen in his Commentary on Matthew is quoted by Eusebius as saying, “The third, according to Luke, the Gospel commended by Paul, which was written for the converts from the Gentiles." So Eusebius knew that Origen knew that Paul knew a written gospel.

[Stephan Huller]

Jerome too so all the closeted heretics:

"It was the opinion of Jerome, and of several other writers, that when Paul spoke of his gospel, (Rom. 2.16; 16. 25; 2d Thess. 2. 14,) he referred to a written gospel then in circulation." http://books.google.com/books?id=D3tbAA ... 22&f=false

[Stephan Huller]

Elsewhere in Tertullian too:

If Luke is dependent on Paul, as Tertullian thinks and assumes Marcion did also, then a question arises about “that gospel which Paul found, that to which he [Paul] gave his assent, that with which shortly afterwards he was anxious that his own should agree" (Adv Marc 4.2.5) Referring here to Gal 2:2 (which recounts Paul's journey to Jerusalem to confirm with the pillars there that he was not running or had run in vain), Tertullian paraphrases the story of the Jerusalem visit in Gal 2:2—9 to highlight Paul's own desire to confirm his gospel with a prior authority. The way Tertullian writes of a gospel Paul “found” (invenit) suggests he thought Paul possessed a written gospel which the Jerusalem apostles later compared with their own and declared authentic (integrum evangelium,Adv. Marc. 4.3.4). [Cooper Communis Magister Paulus http://books.google.com/books?id=tXnQjP ... 22&f=false]

I read the material the same way but this citation saves me the work of having to prove it should be read that way. The argument is strange because it seems sort of like Marcion-lite. What I mean is that even though Tertullian is attacking Marcion he strangely accepts the Marcionite idea that Galatians 2 is about a written gospels. Very interesting. What I love about this stuff is that it makes 'sense' up to a point but then it is very difficult to make sense of on the bigger level.

[Stephan Huller]

So you have basically everyone except Irenaeus it seems who holds to the idea that Paul had a gospel ... but Irenaeus somehow wins anyway! And more interestingly in the case of Tertullian at least that gospel has Matthew 'in it.'

[Stephan Huller]

delete

[TedM]

flimsy, nobody "knew" that late and they only thought Paul favored Luke. no surprise there. it is all weak

[Stephan Huller]

Do you have the capacity to look at your presuppositions from a neutral point of view? What are you basing your certainty that Paul didn't know a gospel? It seems to me that it develops from general 'information' that derives from second hand (= Sunday school, Reader's Digest-type articles) interpretation of information from the second - fourth century authors. I don't mean that entirely disparagingly. You haven't actually gone to the sources themselves and seen what the state of affairs are in those early sources. Clement of Alexandria says explicitly Paul had a (weird from our POV) gospel, Tertullian now twice hints at the same thing (1) the first reference sounds like Matthew, (2) the other he accepts the Marcionite paradigm but claims that Galatians was written in a way which still supports his assumptions. Eusebius quotes Origen approvingly in a similar way to (2). Jerome apparently (and not surprisingly) agrees with Origen (and Eusebius). The Marcionites said that when Paul refers to 'my gospel' he means a written text (i.e. their gospel).

Surely there is enough in all of this to assume that this was a well attested position in antiquity. It doesn't mean that it is 'correct' or absolutely true. But surely Irenaeus standing on his own doesn't always get the last word. Where do you get your certainty that (a) none of these sources ever said this or (b) that even if they said this Irenaeus is correct?

[TedM]

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