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

[TedM]

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 a newborn baby.

My explanation to the well attested phenomenon of equating 'my gospel' = written gospel - one which you refuse to acknowledge - is to seriously consider the Marcionite claim that the four gospels were forgeries of a text still in their possession.

'four gospels were forgeries of a text'? what does that even mean? citation please that shows the marcionite's claimed no gospels existed prior to their own.

The idea that Matthew and Luke are forgeries of Mark is well attested in modern scholarship.

your definition of 'forgery' leaves a lot to be desired. using other material is not a 'forgery'.

I am not 'inventing' a position, merely examining one that is generally ignored for obvious apologetic reasons.

seriously? 99% of scholars are being apologetic in nature? that's conspiracy-thinking. i don't buy it.

You don't even know the reasons why you believe what you believe, you just believe them because it's yours.

i've given you plenty of logical reasons having nothing to do with my background, but you continue to hang on to flimsy conspiracy thinking. There is no hope that i can get through that so will stop trying.

[Stephan Huller]

'four gospels were forgeries of a text'? what does that even mean? citation please that shows the marcionite's claimed no gospels existed prior to their own.

Really? You haven't noticed that whole passages in Mark are transposed into Matthew and Luke? The only alternative explanation is that the Holy Spirit spoke the same words to each of the three. Is that your position?

your definition of 'forgery' leaves a lot to be desired. using other material is not a 'forgery'.

Well the fact that someone copied out Mark and altered it a little bit is only the first part of the story. You aren't seriously suggesting that the apostle Matthew actually wrote the gospel attributed to him? The Marcionites as early as the second century denied this possibility (de Recta in Deum Fide). As such they are officially classified as forgeries.

seriously? 99% of scholars are being apologetic in nature? that's conspiracy-thinking. i don't buy it.

Not all scholars 'ignore' the fact that Marcion, Clement, Tertullian, Origen, Eusebius and Jerome identify Paul as having a written gospel. Andrew Criddle for instance is religious and recognizes that fact. Many - if not most scholars - whether or not they are religious recognize that Marcion, Clement, Tertullian, Origen, Eusebius and Jerome say this. The only reason I can come up with as to why someone would deny this incontrovertible fact is that they are not engaging in truth-seeking but only apologetics. I have been conversing with you for the sole purpose if you - an apologist - can come up with a reasonable explanation as to why you refuse to acknowledge the obvious facts in this regard. Until now, no other explanation has been forthcoming.

i've given you plenty of logical reasons having nothing to do with my background, but you continue to hang on to flimsy conspiracy thinking. There is no hope that i can get through that so will stop trying.

You haven't given any explanation. You merely label evidence you don't like as 'weak' and continue to engage in half-baked apologetics. This has been consistent in your posting at this forum and the other one. I have nothing against a believer who searches through the evidence in order to help define his faith. What you engage in is the opposite. You - like many other Americans - have a set of 'beliefs' and then expect the facts to agree with those beliefs, otherwise you ignore them.

[Stephan Huller]

That the canonical gospels were later forgeries is attested in De Recta in Deum Fide. I have cited the passage a number of times at this forum. At some point there must be a statute of limitations on repeating evidence here. This should be common knowledge by now.

[Stephan Huller]

I am splitting off the question of where the idea that Paul DIDN'T HAVE a gospel into a new thread.

[TedM]

'four gospels were forgeries of a text'? what does that even mean? citation please that shows the marcionite's claimed no gospels existed prior to their own.

Really? You haven't noticed that whole passages in Mark are transposed into Matthew and Luke? The only alternative explanation is that the Holy Spirit spoke the same words to each of the three. Is that your position?

no, a forgery occurs when someone is pretending to be someone else. We have no evidence that whoever wrote Matthew or Luke were doing that when they incorporated external material in their works. why would you think they were?

Well the fact that someone copied out Mark and altered it a little bit is only the first part of the story. You aren't seriously suggesting that the apostle Matthew actually wrote the gospel attributed to him? The Marcionites as early as the second century denied this possibility (de Recta in Deum Fide). As such they are officially classified as forgeries.

I do not agree with that definition of forgery. Just because OTHER people claimed Matthew wrote GMatthew doesn't make it a forgery. You are using the word in a very strange manner.

seriously? 99% of scholars are being apologetic in nature? that's conspiracy-thinking. i don't buy it.

Not all scholars 'ignore' the fact that Marcion, Clement, Tertullian, Origen, Eusebius and Jerome identify Paul as having a written gospel. Andrew Criddle for instance is religious and recognizes that fact.

No, Andrew did not agree with your use of Tertullian. I agree with Andrew in that there is a reasonable alternative explanation which is consistent with the orthodox view.

The only reason I can come up with as to why someone would deny this incontrovertible fact is that they are not engaging in truth-seeking but only apologetics. I have been conversing with you for the sole purpose if you - an apologist

I love how everyone here thinks i'm an apologist. I'm not. i just don't agree with your intepretations that lean heavily on believing that everybody is a liar when it suits you and sometimes the 'truth' slips out when it supports your Marcionite position.

You haven't given any explanation.

But I have Stephan. I don't think Tertullian was referring to a gospel written by Paul because he would have quoted or attributed it to a written gospel, most likely as he did just in the prior sentence he wrote in the very same para you quoted. He calls it 'the Gospel' not 'his Gospel' as one would more reasonable expect. I think Irenaeus thought Luke wrote his gospel while paul was alive and of course it would have been known by paul and reflected paul's thoughts. I think the fact that Marcion had a version similar to gLuke is fodder enough for later claims of this type, but i don't think we have anything concrete to substantiate it to be true. I've told you what I would expect if it were true--clear mention by Paul himself. Sure it could have been excised but why would the orthodoxy do that Stephan when they went ahead and accepted GLUKE? It makes no sense to me.

[Stephan Huller]

Andrew acknowledges that Origen thought (and Eusebius and Jerome acknowledge that Origen thought) that when Paul says 'my gospel' he means he had a written text. This is what the Marcionites also say. Clement arrives at the same idea through a different method. Andrew did not deny my proposition that Tertullian here means 'Paul had a gospel' (while this wasn't the point of my original post nut it is worth noting Andrew said 'you might be right') Now let's turn to your brain. Do you really deny that Origen thought this? That Marcion thought this? That Tertullian thought this?

[TedM]

no, i deny the significance of it. read my last post for what i think. I'm going to have to stop--just too much other stuff to do. I just think the best stuff you need is missing, most likely because it never existed, and not because it was covered up.

[TedM]

read this again please:

But I have Stephan. I don't think Tertullian was referring to a gospel written by Paul because he would have quoted or attributed it to a written gospel, most likely as he did just in the prior sentence he wrote in the very same para you quoted. He calls it 'the Gospel' not 'his Gospel' as one would more reasonable expect. I think Irenaeus thought Luke wrote his gospel while paul was alive and of course it would have been known by paul and reflected paul's thoughts. I think the fact that Marcion had a version similar to gLuke is fodder enough for later claims of this type, but i don't think we have anything concrete to substantiate it to be true. I've told you what I would expect if it were true--clear mention by Paul himself. Sure it could have been excised but why would the orthodoxy do that Stephan when they went ahead and accepted GLUKE? It makes no sense to me.

[Stephan Huller]

I don't think Tertullian was referring to a gospel written by Paul because he would have quoted or attributed it to a written gospel,

How do you propose that Tertullian should have referred to a written gospel in Latin? What about the Latin text tells you that it is not a reference to something written? What about the phraseology of the Latin tells you this is a reference to something oral rather than something written? I have studied the sentence over and over again. I see nothing certain in that respect.

[Stephan Huller]

I don't think Tertullian was referring to a gospel written by Paul because he would have quoted or attributed it to a written gospel, most likely as he did just in the prior sentence he wrote in the very same para you quoted. He calls it 'the Gospel' not 'his Gospel' as one would more reasonable expect.

So here is the original reference:

It is still the same sentiment which he follows up in the passage in which he puts the recompense above the sufferings: "for we know; "he says, "that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens; " in other words, owing to the fact that our flesh is undergoing dissolution through its sufferings, we shall be provided with a home in heaven. He remembered the award (which the Lord assigns) in the Gospel: "Blessed are they who are persecuted for righteousness' sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven."270 Yet, when he thus contrasted the recompense of the reward, he did not deny the flesh's restoration; since the recompense is due to the same substance to which the dissolution is attributed,-that is, of course, the flesh.

So the only way that Paul would have referred to a text he wrote called 'the gospel (τὸ εὐαγγέλιον) of Christ' or 'the gospel (τὸ εὐαγγέλιον) of Jesus' would be as 'my gospel' not 'the gospel' (τὸ εὐαγγέλιον). Come on Ted this isn't even worth considering. Even the Marcionites did not reference the text as being called 'my gospel' or 'Paul's gospel' but 'the gospel of Christ' - 'the gospel' (τὸ εὐαγγέλιον) in any respect. That was the name of the work. You're not even trying any more.