Key Points in Tertullian's On Going Use of Luke Against Marcion

[Secret Alias]

Scholars skew research in favor of manageable propositions.
So the preferred translation of the opening line assumes that Marcion's gospel read like Luke.

Anno quintodecimo principatus Tiberiani proponit eum descendisse in civitatem Galilaeae Capharnaum, utique de caelo creatoris, in quod de suo ante descenderat.

This is supported by one manuscript. Nevertheless two of the surviving manuscripts read:

Anno quintodecimo principatus Tiberiani proponit deum descendisse in civitatem Galilaeae Capharnaum, utique de caelo creatoris, in quod de suo ante descenderat.

In the fifteenth year of the leadership of Tiberianus, it is proposed/[Marcion proposes] that God descended into the city of Capernaum in Galilee.

In other words, the first reading assumes that Marcion assumed the specific date of the 15th of Tiberius. The other reading it is Tertullian who brings forward the "15th of Tiberius" (from Luke presumably) and adds that Marcion's gospel here assumes a god, not a mere human being, descended from heaven. The lines that follow support the unusualness of the God descending for Tertullian because he focuses on what heaven he descended from for comic effect:

Marcion premises that in the fifteenth year of the principate of Tiberius he came down into Capernaum, a city of Galilee—from the Creator's heaven, of course, into which he had first come down out of his own. Did not then due order demand that it should first be explained how he came down from his own heaven into the Creator's? For why should I not pass censure on such matters as do not satisfy the claims of orderly narrative, <but let it> always tail off in falsehood? So let us ask once for all a question I have already discussed elsewhere, whether, while coming down through the Creator's territory and in opposition to him, he could have expected the Creator to let him in, and allow him to pass on from thence into the earth, which no less is the Creator's.

The reason I think this is important if this discussion develops from Irenaeus's promise to battle Marcion from the parts of Luke which he still retains "the fifteenth of Tiberius" could simply be assumed to be there. The context is clearly that without the birth narratives Marcion is free to assume what he wants, but Adversus Marcionem isn't free to discuss the omission because of the promise to battle Marcion from the parts of Luke he retains. That's why, I think, there is a curious silence about the omission of the birth narrative which is otherwise unexplained. Why doesn't Tertullian mention Marcion removing this? Epiphanius makes reference to it. Adversus Marcionem is trying to limit itself only to an imagined "point of contact" at the beginning of Marcionite gospel/which is somehow Luke. The very next line, the reference to "appearance" and "appear" does not seem to be in our surviving editions of Luke:

Viderit enim sicubi appamisse positum est. Apparere subitum ex inopi- nato sapit conspectum, qui semel impegerit oculos in id quod sine mora apparuit.

Sider explains this as follows:

The argument moves rapidly on , and Tertullian looks at the implications of the word descendere used in the narrative . This implies , as a word like apparere would not have , that the action was open to prolonged viewing . Hence Tertullian can demand of the narrative all the evidence of artificial and inartificial proof , and in one sentence runs through the suitable topics from each . He asks first for the artificial proofs : Etiam ordinem facit atque ita cogit exigere , quali habitu , quali suggestu , quonam impetu vel tempera- mento , etiam quo in tempore diei noctisve descenderit ... ( 7. 2 ) . This is a neatly balanced series of attributes . The first two , best under- stood rather broadly as appearance and resources ( habitus , suggestus ) belong to ' the person ' , and are set over against two attributes of the action , manner ( quonam impetu vel temperamento ) and time (tempus).

The point I am trying to make here is that the "proponit deum descendisse" makes more sense as the original reading than the preferred proponit eum descendisse because it is clear that the Marcionite proposition for God descending is the source of controversy for Tertullian.

This is why in the material that immediately precedes the citation we read:

Certainly that is why he has expunged all the things that oppose his view, that are in accord with the Creator, on the plea that they have been woven in by his partisans; but has retained those that accord with his opinion. These it is we shall call to account, with these we shall grapple, to see if they will favour my case, not his, to see if they will put a check on Marcion's pretensions. Then it will become clear that these things have been expunged by the same disease of heretical blindness by which the others have been retained. Such will be the purpose and plan of my treatise, on those precise terms which have been agreed by both parties. Marcion lays it down that there is one Christ, who in the time of Tiberius was revealed by a god formerly unknown, for the salvation of all the nations; and another Christ who is destined by God the Creator to come at some time still future for the re-establishment of the Jewish kingdom. Between these he sets up a great and absolute opposition, such as that between justice and kindness, between law and gospel, between Judaism and Christianity. From this will also derive my statement of claim, by which I lay it down that the Christ of a different god has no right to have anything in common with the Creator; and again, that Christ must be adjudged to be the Creator's if he is found to have administered the Creator's ordinances, fulfilled his prophecies, supported his laws, given actuality to his promises, revived his miracles, given new expression to his judgements, and reproduced the lineaments of his character and attributes. I request you, my reader, always to bear in mind this undertaking, this statement of my case, and begin to be aware that Christ belongs either to Marcion or the Creator, <but not to both>.

Tertullian then posits the following scheme as he interprets Marcionism

• Marcionite god in his heaven
  Creator god in his heaven
  Christ of the Marcionite god descending to earth under Tiberius
  Christ of the Creator god to reconquer Judea

So it is that immediately following this he mentions:

In the fifteenth year of the leadership of Tiberianus, it is proposed/[Marcion proposes] that God descended into the city of Capernaum in Galilee from the Creator's heaven, of course, into which he had first come down out of his own.

and then he goes on for several sentences to consider the various implications of this "god descending" as we noted above.

[Secret Alias]

But we should take Tertullian's reconstruction of:

Marcionite god in his heaven
Creator god in his heaven
Christ of the Marcionite god descending to earth under Tiberius
Christ of the Creator god to reconquer Judea

as the Marcionite understanding of history. For me this is better described as a polemic orthodox reconstruction of "the implications of the Marcionite division of the one Christ and one God" rather than the actual Marcionite claims. Let's start step by step.

1. the Marcionites, like contemporary Jewry, believed in two powers in heaven, one just the other merciful.
2. the Marcionites, denied that the Jewish expectations of a manifestation of a royal messiah applied to the figure who manifest himself in the gospel.

That's all there is to it. The Marcionites said that God descended from the highest heaven presumably from the Father God. I don't know if "Christ" was understood by the Marcionites to BE the Father God or his Son. This all has to be sorted out. It was Irenaeus who developed the idea that because of the implications of the Marcionite system as he understood it, there were two separate Christs, as well as two Gods and two testaments. Not sure the Marcionites actually held all of this.

[Stuart]

I think you are finally catching on, not just to Marcionism, but Gnostic opinions.

The Catholic/Orthodox presentation claims multiple high gods by their opponents, but in reality the division was over the properties of the high god.

The Catholics gave the properties of creation and Jewish law giving tribal god to the high god. The Gnostics and Marcionites did not, instead ascribing such properties to archangels (demigods, "sons of El," who include all the various nations/ethnics local gods). Note, even this debate was not a dividing point early on between the camps, as well into the 2nd century they were happily able to absorb later ascribed heretics like Apelles who held Gnostic views on this subject.

Almost all the polemic, especially the evolving carnality of Jesus, can be seen as outgrowths of debate between the two camps on the issue of properties of the high god.

It has been suggested by many scholars, Price perhaps the most well known, that the Marcionites were in fact the first form of Catholicism, attempting to create a canon, and make the new scripture the source of authenticity. Whether by accident or choice, they were the ones who put a post in the sand, placing Jesus in the time of Tiberius. It would not surprise me if the original text had nothing more than a generic governor from a timeless era trying a crucifying Jesus. Most likely the entire story was assembled in combination of savior texts (synoptic form) and participants like Peter added from apocryphal legends, giving name to previously unnamed disciples. But this nascent attempt at Catholicism ultimately pigeonholed the Marcionites, as others who had not yet fixed a text allowed it to evolve to incorporate a larger constituency for a new Catholicism that reflected the results of decades of debate which advanced the theology to something closer to what we know today. The Marcionites held beliefs that were superseded, causing them to break away with a text frozen at an earlier point, which was not all their making, maybe not even mostly.

[Secret Alias]

The final sentences of the last section is particularly puzzling. As I demonstrated Tertullian questions Marcion's "proposal" that a god descended from heaven. He ends the discussion with a queer saying:

It is quite wrong in fact, that Romulus should have had Proculus to vouch for his ascent into heaven, yet that Christ should not have provided himself with a reporter of his god's descent from heaven—though that one must have gone up by the same ladder of lies by which this one came down.

But here's what's strange. Doesn't the gospel report on the descent of Christ from heaven?

When all the people were being baptized, Jesus was baptized too. And as he was praying, heaven was opened and the Holy Spirit descended on him in bodily form like a dove. And a voice came from heaven: “You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased.”

Surely the Holy Spirit is some sort of divinity. A god? Maybe be not. But it was thought that "Christ" descended from heaven by many contemporaries. The point I am getting at, and this is rarely mentioned, is that surely Tertullian can't be splitting hairs with Marcion. If this passage was in Marcion's gospel how would it have read? Let's suppose it wasn't in the Marcionite gospel. In what sense did Marcion "propose" that "God descended from heaven"? Tertullian doesn't tell us and actually acts as if the Marcionite gospel HAS NO WITNESS which can't be true. So why does Tertullian act as if a testimony is missing? I think all Tertullian knows is that Luke isn't "retained." What is in the Marcionite gospel either isn't known by Tertullian or he doesn't say. This is important because it goes to the heart of whether Adversus Marcionem knows the Marcionite gospel or is telling us the details about the Marcionite gospel. All Adversus Marcionem "knows" (or all it is telling us) is what is missing.

This is followed oddly by an assumption that Christ lands in Galilee. Yes this is what Luke says. It is what all the synoptics confirm. But we know from other sources the Marcionite gospel said he descended somewhere between Jericho and Jerusalem in Judea. So why does Tertullian immediately go on to write:

Also what had he to do with Galilee, if he was not the Creator's Christ, for whom that province was predestined <as the place> for him to enter on his preaching? For Isaiah says: Drink this first, do it quickly, province of Zebulon and land of Naphtali, and ye others who <dwell between> the sea coast and Jordan, Galilee of the gentiles, ye people who sit in darkness, behold a great light: ye who inhabit the land, sitting in the shadow of death, a light has arisen upon you.a It is indeed to the good that Marcion's god too should be cited as one who gives light to the gentiles, for so there was the greater need for him to come down from heaven—though, if so, he ought to have come down into Pontus rather than Galilee.

This doesn't make sense to me. How can Tertullian chide Marcion for omitting to providing a witness for Christ's descent from heaven when it was clearly his apostle and the gospel he wrote and go on to assume that the gospel "knew" that Jesus began his ministry in Galilee? The scriptural references are from Matthew not Luke. So there is something else going on here rather than a discussion of Marcion's gospel.

I think the scriptural reference was part of an anti-Marcionite treatise that later became incorporated into the Gospel of Matthew by Irenaeus. It was one of many in Book Four we will examine. So what I am proposing is:

EXAMPLE 1 of Adversus Marcionem BEING WRITTEN BEFORE THE CANONICAL GOSPELS WERE ESTABLISHED.

c. 150 Justin wrote Adversus Marcionem and said something like:

Also what had he to do with Galilee, if he was not the Creator's Christ, for whom that province was predestined <as the place> for him to enter on his preaching? For Isaiah says: Drink this first, do it quickly, province of Zebulon and land of Naphtali, and ye others who <dwell between> the sea coast and Jordan, Galilee of the gentiles, ye people who sit in darkness, behold a great light: ye who inhabit the land, sitting in the shadow of death, a light has arisen upon you.a It is indeed to the good that Marcion's god too should be cited as one who gives light to the gentiles, for so there was the greater need for him to come down from heaven—though, if so, he ought to have come down into Pontus rather than Galilee.

c. 180 Irenaeus copied out Adversus Marcionem and applied it to Luke, developing it as an anti-Marcionite gospel and then took this scriptural reference and added it to Matthew around the same time.

Matthew 4:13 - 17 "Leaving Nazareth, he went and lived in Capernaum, which was by the lake in the area of Zebulun and Naphtali— 14 to fulfill what was said through the prophet Isaiah:

15 “Land of Zebulun and land of Naphtali,
the Way of the Sea, beyond the Jordan,
Galilee of the Gentiles—
16 the people living in darkness
have seen a great light;
on those living in the land of the shadow of death
a light has dawned.”[f]
From that time on Jesus began to preach, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven has come near.”

[Secret Alias]

Next Tertullian accuses Marcion of cutting Matthew 5:18 from his gospel. This is perplexing and no one has ever explained this satisfactorily. Clearly though this shows that at some level Adversus Marcionem IS NOT ABOUT MARCION CUTTING THINGS FROM LUKE OR STRICTLY A STUDY OF THE MARCIONITE GOSPEL. Instead, as I have noted many times, it comes from a tradition that extolled Matthew or the "Jewish Christian gospel" (the Gospel of the Hebrews) as the best gospel because it reflects the dominical logoi (as Papias). This explains why these pre-canonical gospel parallels with the Jewish scriptures are present. The author was originally making the arguments from Matthew before Irenaeus adapted the text to be about Luke. Luke hadn't even existed at the time. So too the next line which makes reference to Matthew 15:28 being "cut" by Marcion:

But in vain will he deny that Christ said in words a thing which he at once partly accomplished in act. For in the meanwhile he fulfilled the prophecy in respect of place. From heaven straightway into the synagogue. As the saying goes, let us get down to it: to your task, Marcion: remove even this from the gospel, I am not sent but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, and, It is not <meet> to take away the children's bread and give it to dogs:c for this gives the impression that Christ belongs to Israel.

Again by my theory Matthew 15:28 was made at the beginning of the gospel and came from the environment which assumed that Christ came only for the Jews (or Israel) but now Jesus says no I also came for the Gentiles. There seems to be some tradition that "Justa" (the name of the woman in the Clementine Homilies 2.19) was a Herodian even the mother of Berenike who is the daughter. If this is true isn't it a coincidence that the location Jerome gives for the Marcionite "coming down" on the road between Jericho and Jerusalem turns out to be near a Herodian fortress. Could this acknowledge a Herodian basis to the ur-gospel? We will likely never know.

What is clear that whatever source material was used for Adversus Marcionem it clearly assumed that this story from Matthew 15:28 appeared BEFORE the first entry into the synagogue (look at highlighted words):

I have plenty of acts, if you take away his words. Take away Christ's sayings, and the facts will speak; See how he enters into the synagogue: surely to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. See how he offers the bread of his doctrine to the Israelites first: surely he is giving them preference as sons. See how as yet he gives others no share of it: surely he is passing them by, like dogs. Yet on whom would he have been more ready to bestow it than on strangers to the Creator, if he himself had not above all else belonged to the Creator? Yet again how can he have obtained admittance into the synagogue, appearing so suddenly, so unknown, no one as yet having certain know- ledge of his tribe, of his nation, of his house, or even of Caesar's census, which the Roman registry still has in keeping, a most faithful witness to our Lord's nativity? They remembered, surely, that unless they knew he was circumcised he must not be admitted into the most holy places. Or again, even if there were un- limited access to the synagogue, there was no permission to teach, except for one excellently well known, and tried, and approved, and already either for this occasion or by commendation from elsewhere invested with that function.

It cannot be denied that the source material behind Adversus Marcionem assumed that Matthew 15:28 came before Jesus entered into the self-described "house of Israel." Of course in the present context (where Tertullian applies this to Luke's Capernaum synagogue) this is a Galilean location. But clearly anyone can see that "house of Israel" only meant "synagogue" in a post-70 CE context. Maybe it could be argued this was an anachronism at the time of the gospel writer. I don't think so. I think the ur-text behind Adversus Marcionem somehow "knew" that Marcion had Jesus descend into Judea (as Irenaeus AH 1.27 and various other sources) and now assumes that the visit to the Herodian "Justa" preceded entry into the Jerusalem temple as with the Gospel of John. I've mentioned this many times before. But clearly the use of Matthew in a non-Matthean context (and specifically Lukan context) makes no sense.

Origen has already noted that the canonical gospels don't make sense and are difficult to reconcile with respect to the Capernaum synagogue. Matthew for instance now reads:

Leaving Nazareth, he went and lived in Capernaum, which was by the lake in the area of Zebulun and Naphtali— 14 to fulfill what was said through the prophet Isaiah:

15 “Land of Zebulun and land of Naphtali,
the Way of the Sea, beyond the Jordan,
Galilee of the Gentiles—
16 the people living in darkness
have seen a great light;
on those living in the land of the shadow of death
a light has dawned.”[f]

17 From that time on Jesus began to preach, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven has come near.”

This has been influenced by Adversus Marcionem but isn't the source of the various statements. It doesn't make sense to use Matthew 15:28 as a "foreshadowing" of the Capernaum synagogue healing/demoniac episode. I will contend that the Marcionite gospel had all of this happen in the temple of Jerusalem, Irenaeus knew this but reconstructed a "safe" (i.e. less antinomian Lukan narrative) which happened in Galilee rather than Jerusalem, a synagogue rather than the temple and where "Justa" isn't or wasn't at the center of the gospel.

[Secret Alias]

The biggest and best reason to suppose that early Syriac reporting that the Marcionite gospel began on the road between Jericho and Jerusalem meant that the Tertullian's "house of Israel" (οἴκου Ισραηλ) reference (from Matthew 15:28 or the equivalent in the Hebrew gospel) applied to a visitation to the temple. This is not at all surprising given that the only reference to οἴκου Ισραηλ in the LXX applies to the destruction of the Jerusalem temple. Ezekiel 22 reads:

And the word of the Lord came to me, saying, 2And thou, son of man, wilt thou judge the bloody city? yea, declare thou to her all her iniquities. 3And thou shalt say, Thus saith the Lord God: O city that sheds blood in the midst of her, so that her time should come, and that forms devices against herself, to defile herself; 4in their blood which thou hast shed, thou hast transgressed; and in thy devices which thou hast formed, thou hast polluted thyself; and thou hast brought nigh thy days, and hast brought on the time of thy years: therefore have I made thee a reproach to the Gentiles, and a mockery to all the countries, 5to those near thee, and to those far distant from thee; and they shall mock thee, thou that art notoriously unclean, and abundant in iniquities.

Behold, the princes of the house of Israel (οἴκου Ισραηλ) have conspired in thee each one with his kindred, that they might shed blood. 7In thee they have reviled father and mother; and in thee they have behaved unjustly toward the stranger: they have oppressed the orphan and widow. 8And they have set at nought my holy things, and in thee they have profaned my sabbaths. 9There are robbers in thee, to shed blood in thee; and in thee they have eaten upon the mountains: they have wrought ungodliness in the midst of thee. 10In thee they have uncovered the father's shame; and in thee they have humbled her that was set apart for uncleanness. 11They have dealt unlawfully each one with his neighbor's wife; and each one in ungodliness has defiled his daughter-in-law: and in thee they have humbled each one his sister, the daughter of his father. 12In thee they have received gifts to shed blood; they have received in thee interest and usurious increase; and by oppression thou hast brought thy wickedness to the full, and hast forgotten me, saith the Lord.

13And if I shall smite my hand at thine iniquities which thou hast accomplished, which thou hast wrought, and at thy blood that has been shed in the midst of thee, 14shall thy heart endure? shall thine hands be strong in the days which I bring upon thee? I the Lord have spoken, and will do it. 15And I will scatter thee among the nations, and disperse thee in the countries, and thy uncleanness shall be removed out of thee. 16And I will give heritages in thee in the sight of the nations, and ye shall know that I am the Lord.

17And the word of the Lord came to me, saying, 18Son of man, behold, the house of Israel are all become to me as it were mixed with brass, and iron, and tin, and lead; they are mixed up in the midst of the silver. 19Therefore say, Thus saith the Lord God; Because ye have become one mixture, therefore I will gather you into the midst of Jerusalem. 20As silver, and brass, and iron, and tin, and lead, are gathered into the midst of the furnace, to blow fire into it, that they may be melted: so will I take you in my wrath, and I will gather and melt you. 21And I will blow upon you in the fire of my wrath, and ye shall be melted in the midst thereof. 22As silver is melted in the midst of a furnace, so shall ye be melted in the midst thereof; and ye shall know that I the Lord have poured out my wrath upon you.

23And the word of the Lord came to me, saying, 24Son of man, say to her, Thou art the land that is not rained upon, neither has rain come upon thee in the day of wrath; 25whose princes in the midst of her are as roaring lions seizing prey, devouring souls by oppression, and taking bribes; and thy widows are multiplied in the midst of thee. 26Her priests also have set at nought my law, and profaned my holy things: they have not distinguished between the holy and profane, nor have they distinguished between the unclean and the clean, and have his their eyes from my sabbaths, and I was profaned in the midst of them. 27Her princes in the midst of her are as wolves ravening to shed blood, that they may get dishonest gain. 28And her prophets that daub them shall fall, that see vanities, that prophesy falsehoods, saying, Thus saith the Lord, when the Lord has not spoken. 29That sorely oppress the people of the land with injustice, and commit robbery; oppressing the poor and needy, and not dealing justly with the stranger. 30And I sought from among them a man behaving uprightly, and standing before me perfectly in the time of wrath, so that I should not utterly destroy her: but I found him not. 31So I have poured out my wrath upon her in the fury of mine anger, to accomplish it. I have recompensed their ways on their own heads, saith the Lord God.

Everyone and their uncle takes the "House of Israel" reference to be a sign that Jesus PREFERRED the Jews to the Gentiles. Once we see that it is rooted in Ezekiel 22 it becomes clear that, given the context that Adversus Marcionem testifies to - i.e. a hostile visit to a Jewish "house of worship" - that "house of Israel" likely had a rooting in a visit like that described at the beginning of the gospel of John:

When it was almost time for the Jewish Passover, Jesus went up to Jerusalem. 14 In the temple courts he found people selling cattle, sheep and doves, and others sitting at tables exchanging money. 15 So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple courts, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables. 16 To those who sold doves he said, “Get these out of here! Stop turning my Father’s house into a market!” 17 His disciples remembered that it is written: “Zeal for your house will consume me.”[c]

18 The Jews then responded to him, “What sign can you show us to prove your authority to do all this?”

19 Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days.”

20 They replied, “It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and you are going to raise it in three days?” 21 But the temple he had spoken of was his body. 22 After he was raised from the dead, his disciples recalled what he had said. Then they believed the scripture and the words that Jesus had spoken.

23 Now while he was in Jerusalem at the Passover Festival, many people saw the signs he was performing and believed in his name.[d] 24 But Jesus would not entrust himself to them, for he knew all people. 25 He did not need any testimony about mankind, for he knew what was in each person.

The point is that one can be a "Jewish gospel" or a "Jewish Christ" and still draw from an anti-Jerusalem tradition within the so-called "Old Testament."

[Secret Alias]

Another supporting piece of evidence is found in the material that we just saw earlier. Tertullian preserves the words:

See how he enters into the synagogue: surely to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. See how he offers the bread of his doctrine to the Israelites first: surely he is giving them preference as sons. See how as yet he gives others no share of it: surely he is passing them by, like dogs. Yet on whom would he have been more ready to bestow it than on strangers to the Creator, if he himself had not above all else belonged to the Creator? Yet again how can he have obtained admittance into the synagogue, appearing so suddenly, so unknown, no one as yet having certain knowledge of his tribe, of his nation, of his house, or even of Caesar's census, which the Roman registry still has in keeping, a most faithful witness to our Lord's nativity? They remembered, surely, that unless they knew he was circumcised he must not be admitted into the most holy places. Or again, even if there were unlimited access to the synagogue, there was no permission to teach except for one excellently well known, and tried, and approved, and already either for this occasion or by commendation from elsewhere invested with that function.

If you read this information the question was HOW COULD JESUS HAVE JUST ENTERED THE "HOUSE OF ISRAEL"? Surely we can see levels or layers to this original argument. At the core, based on the application of Matthew 15:28 immediately preceding it, there was a "house of Israel" to which Jesus committed. This "house" was at once a house of worship which, at the most original layer prevented the uncircumcised from entering. This original statement was applied by Irenaeus to the synagogue of Capernaum in Luke but it cannot have been originally so conceived because Adversus Marcionem immediately realizes that the uncircumcised likely could enter a synagogue. It was only to the real "house of Israel" - the temple of Israel - that such a prohibition applied.

Ezekiel 44:9 Thus says the Lord GOD: No foreigner, uncircumcised in heart and flesh, of all the foreigners who are among the people of Israel, shall enter my sanctuary.

[Secret Alias]

The Second Example of the Canonical Gospels Developing FROM Adversus Marcionem

I have is why exactly are there demons in a synagogue in the first place. No one asks why there were demons in a synagogue. But demons in the temple of Jerusalem. That's a well established story that finds its way to Jewish and early Christian literature.

On the same occasion the spirit of the demon cries out, What have we to do with thee, Jesus? Thou art come to destroy us. I know who thou art, the Holy One of God. Here I shall not discuss whether even this appellation was at all appropriate to one who had no right even to the name of Christ unless he belonged to the Creator.

And goes on to write:

On the same occasion the spirit of the demon cries out, What have we to do with thee, Jesus? Thou art come to destroy us. I know who thou art, the Holy One of God. Here I shall not discuss whether even this appellation was at all appropriate to one who had no right even to the name of Christ unless he belonged to the Creator. I have fully discussed his titles in another place.5 At present I require to know how the demon knew that he had this name, when no prediction referring to him had ever been made in the past by a god unknown and until that time dumb, a god as whose holy one he had no means of invoking him, a god unknown even to the demon's Creator. <I ask also> what sort of indication he now gave of a new divinity, that by it he could be taken for the holy one of a different god. Merely that he had gone inside the synagogue and not even in word had taken any sort of action against the Creator? As then he had no means of recognizing that one whom he had no knowledge of was Jesus and the Holy One of God, it follows that this recognition was of one whom he did know: for he remembered, that the prophet had prophesied of the Holy One of God, and that Jesus was God's name in the son of Nun. He had had these names given by an angel, our gospel relates: Therefore that which shall be born in thee shall be called holy, the Son of God:d and, Thou shalt call his name Jesus. Also, though he was only a demon, he had in fact some sense of the Lord's purpose, more than if it had been a stranger's and not yet well enough known. For he began by asking, What have we to do with thee, Jesus?, not as though addressing a stranger, but as one whose concern the Creator's spirits are. For his words were not, What hast thou to do with us?, but, What have we to do with thee?, in sorrow for himself and in regret at his own case: and as he now sees what this is he adds, Thou art come to destroy us. To that extent he had recognized Jesus as the Son of the judge, the avenger, and <if I may say so> the severe God, not of that perfectly good god who knows nothing of destruction and punishment.

This is a bit unusual but let's consider the argument. Marcion apparently viewed Jesus's discussion with the demons in the following way. The demons lived in the Jerusalem temple. They were associated with the law and prophets (through Solomon who established them in the pool). They didn't recognize Jesus and the Father god in whose name he came.

Tertullian's answer is to go to back to chapter 1 of Luke and note that the angel prophesizes that (a) he will be called Jesus and (b) the Holy One (of God) but also implicitly that in the next chapter Jesus was brought into the temple of Jerusalem and spent considerable time there.

When the time came for the purification rites required by the Law of Moses, Joseph and Mary took him to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord 23 (as it is written in the Law of the Lord, “Every firstborn male is to be consecrated to the Lord”), 24 and to offer a sacrifice in keeping with what is said in the Law of the Lord: “a pair of doves or two young pigeons.” 25 Now there was a man in Jerusalem called Simeon, who was righteous and devout. He was waiting for the consolation of Israel, and the Holy Spirit was on him. 26 It had been revealed to him by the Holy Spirit that he would not die before he had seen the Lord’s Messiah. 27 Moved by the Spirit, he went into the temple courts. When the parents brought in the child Jesus to do for him what the custom of the Law required, 28 Simeon took him in his arms and praised God, saying:

29 “Sovereign Lord, as you have promised,
you may now dismiss your servant in peace.
30 For my eyes have seen your salvation,
31 which you have prepared in the sight of all nations:
32 a light for revelation to the Gentiles,
and the glory of your people Israel.”

33 The child’s father and mother marveled at what was said about him. 34 Then Simeon blessed them and said to Mary, his mother: “This child is destined to cause the falling and rising of many in Israel, and to be a sign that will be spoken against, 35 so that the thoughts of many hearts will be revealed. And a sword will pierce your own soul too.”

36 There was also a prophet, Anna, the daughter of Penuel, of the tribe of Asher. She was very old; she had lived with her husband seven years after her marriage, 37 and then was a widow until she was eighty-four.[e] She never left the temple but worshiped night and day, fasting and praying. 38 Coming up to them at that very moment, she gave thanks to God and spoke about the child to all who were looking forward to the redemption of Jerusalem.

39 When Joseph and Mary had done everything required by the Law of the Lord, they returned to Galilee to their own town of Nazareth. 40 And the child grew and became strong; he was filled with wisdom, and the grace of God was on him.

The Boy Jesus at the Temple
41 Every year Jesus’ parents went to Jerusalem for the Festival of the Passover. 42 When he was twelve years old, they went up to the festival, according to the custom. 43 After the festival was over, while his parents were returning home, the boy Jesus stayed behind in Jerusalem, but they were unaware of it. 44 Thinking he was in their company, they traveled on for a day. Then they began looking for him among their relatives and friends. 45 When they did not find him, they went back to Jerusalem to look for him. 46 After three days they found him in the temple courts, sitting among the teachers, listening to them and asking them questions. 47 Everyone who heard him was amazed at his understanding and his answers. 48 When his parents saw him, they were astonished. His mother said to him, “Son, why have you treated us like this? Your father and I have been anxiously searching for you.”

49 “Why were you searching for me?” he asked. “Didn’t you know I had to be in my Father’s house?”[f] 50 But they did not understand what he was saying to them.

51 Then he went down to Nazareth with them and was obedient to them. But his mother treasured all these things in her heart. 52 And Jesus grew in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and man.

Notice that Luke is so arranged in chapter 1 and 2 to establish (a) that Jesus was called "Holy One" and (b) spent considerable time in the temple and was known to all who lived there. This is clearly the second example of the structure of the canonical gospels being developed in reaction to Adversus Marcionem.

[Secret Alias]

If I am right that the reference to Luke chapter 1 and 2 was an addition from a later stage of the text developed in order to disprove the Marcionite interpretation of the material, the understanding hinges on the two meanings of the nomen sacrum that Justin assigns - "man" and "Jesus." Luke makes clear that "Jesus" was the child's name and he was called "Holy One" by the angel and was known to those who operated the temple. That's what Luke claims as a response to the original Marcionite claim that demons were in the temple of Jerusalem. This interpretation was added to the second or third rewrite of Adversus Marcionem. If we want to get some idea what the original line of attack was we need only pick up where we left off in Adversus Marcionem:

For he began by asking, What have we to do with thee, Jesus?, not as though addressing a stranger, but as one whose concern the Creator's spirits are. For his words were not, What hast thou to do with us?, but, What have we to do with thee?, in sorrow for himself and in regret at his own case: and as he now sees what this is he adds, Thou art come to destroy us. To that extent he had recognized Jesus as the Son of the judge, the avenger, and <if I may say so> the severe God, not of that perfectly good god who knows nothing of destruction and punishment. With what purpose have I begun with this episode? To show you that Jesus was acknowledged by the demon, and affirmed by himself, to belong to none other than the Creator. But still, you object, Jesus rebuked him. Of course he did: he was an embarrassment: even in that acknowledgement he was impertinent, and submissive in the wrong way, giving the impression that it would be the sum total of Christ's glory to have come for the destruction of demons and not rather for the salvation of men: for it was he who would have his disciples rejoice not because the spirits were subject to them but because of their election to salvation. Else why did he rebuke him? If because he was wholly a liar, then he himself was neither Jesus nor in any sense holy: if because he was partly a liar, in having rightly thought him to be Jesus and the Holy One of God, but to belong to the Creator, it was most unjust of him to rebuke one who took the view which he knew he must take, and did not entertain the idea which he did not know he needed to entertain, that he was a different Jesus, and the holy one of a different god. But if his rebuke has no more likely ground than the interpretation we put upon it, in that case the demon told no lie, and was not rebuked for lying: for Jesus was Jesus himself, and the demon had no means of affording recognition to any besides him: and Jesus gave assurance of being that one whom the devil had recognized, seeing that his rebuke to the demon was not on account of a lie.

Clearly I think this early material comes from Justin and the places were "Jesus" is now read in the Latin translation originally read "man" especially (as I think they read):

If because he was wholly a liar, then he himself was neither Man nor in any sense holy: if because he was partly a liar, in having rightly thought him to be Man and the Holy One of God, but to belong to the Creator, it was most unjust of him to rebuke one who took the view which he knew he must take, and did not entertain the idea which he did not know he needed to entertain, that he was a different man, and the holy one of a different god. But if his rebuke has no more likely ground than the interpretation we put upon it, in that case the demon told no lie, and was not rebuked for lying: for Man was man himself, and the demon had no means of affording recognition to any besides him: and Man gave assurance of being that one whom the devil had recognized, seeing that his rebuke to the demon was not on account of a lie.

What we have filtering through the text then is the repeated understanding in "gnostic" literature of the demons "knowing" the existence of the Holy One Man before the beginning of Creation. We see this in multiple passages at Nag Hammadi:

Then when Pistis saw the impiety of the chief ruler, she was filled with anger. She was invisible. She said, "You are mistaken, Samael," (that is, "blind god"). "There is an immortal man of light who has been in existence before you, and who will appear among your modelled forms; he will trample you to scorn, just as potter's clay is pounded. And you will descend to your mother, the abyss, along with those that belong to you. For at the consummation of your (pl.) works, the entire defect that has become visible out of the truth will be abolished, and it will cease to be, and will be like what has never been." Saying this, Pistis revealed her likeness of her greatness in the waters. And so doing, she withdrew up to her light.

Now when Sabaoth, the son of Yaldabaoth, heard the voice of Pistis, he sang praises to her, and he condemned the father [...] at the word of Pistis; and he praised her because she had instructed them about the immortal man and his light. Then Pistis Sophia stretched out her finger and poured upon him some light from her light, to be a condemnation of his father. Then when Sabaoth was illumined, he received great authority against all the forces of chaos. Since that day he has been called "Lord of the Forces".

I don't need to provide all the various references to this concept it is well understood. But clearly the demons were made aware of the Primal Man.

What is most interesting about this discussion of our "Jesus" being really "Man" in the original Justinian layer of Adversus Marcionem is the fact that the next chapter begins with a discussion of Nazareth/Nazarene. This leads me to believe that this was originally a continuous frontal assault of the Marcionite interpretation of "Jesus of Nazareth" as "the Hidden Man" (Ish Nazarene):

According to the prophecy, the Creator's Christ was to be called a Nazarene.a For that reason, and on his account, the Jews call us by that very name, Nazarenes. For we are also those of whom it is written, The Nazarenes were made whiter than snow,b having previously of course been darkened with the stains of sin, and blackened with the darkness of ignorance. But to Christ the appellation of Nazarene was to apply because of his hiding-place in infancy, for which he went down to Nazareth, to escape from Archelaus, the son of Herod.c My reason for not leaving this out is that Marcion's Christ ought by rights to have forsworn all association even with the places frequented by the Creator's Christ, since he had all those towns of Judaea, which were not in the same way conveyed over to the Creator's Christ by the prophets. But Christ has to be the Christ of the prophets, wherever it is that he is found to accord with the prophets. Even at Nazareth there is no indication that his preaching was of any- thing new, though for all that, by reason of one single proverb, we are told that he was cast out.

It would of course be of absolute significance to the Marcionite argument if "Jesus of Nazareth" originally read "Hidden Man" in Hebrew. I think whomever re-edited the material in Adversus Marcionem looked at Justin and perhaps Irenaeus's first attempt to argue that the "Man" still belonged to the Creator (notice that "Nazarene/Nazareth" isn't actually cited in the narrative) and then decided to blow it up and approach it differently because it wasn't really working. As it stands the reference to Lamentations 4:7 makes no sense in a discussion of Luke.

[Secret Alias]

Even at Nazareth there is no indication that his preaching was of anything new, though for all that, by reason of one single proverb, we are told that he was cast out.

Of course, against my previous understanding, the discussion of "Nazarene" could be argued to be related to the Nazareth narrative which follows in Tertullian's commentary. Why exactly Adversus Marcionem has the descent into Capernaum FIRST and the passing through the crowds at Nazareth SECOND is difficult to explain for anyone. If it is, as people claim, the order of the Marcionite gospel, why doesn't Tertullian mention the reversing of Luke's order and come up with some proof that it was done to avoid seeing Jesus as belonging to the Creator (as he is wont to do)? I think the reversal has more to do with Adversus Marcionem being pre-canonical than anything else. As noted in the last section "Jesus the Nazarene" spoken out of the mouth of the demoniac is the cause of the discussion of "Nazarene" at the beginning of chapter 8 in the previous discussion. Jesus coming out of heaven is the obvious starting point. Rather than a place on the road between Jericho and Jerusalem as in the Marcionite gospel, Capernaum becomes the Galilean locale. The next scene at "Nazareth" has more to do with the implausibility of beginning chapter 8 with a discussion of Lamentations 4:7. Marcion said "Hidden" or "Secret Man" was the reference by the demoniac. The later editor of Adversus Marcionem wanted to avoid all that crazy stuff and (a) confirms that "Jesus" was really the name of the Savior using Luke 1 and 2 and (b) brings into his text Justin's previous reference to "Man" at the end of chapter 7 and (c) Nazarene/Nazareth at the beginning of chapter 8. But you got to do something with "Nazareth" so Luke now (because of Adversus Marcionem again):

EXAMPLE 4 of Adversus Marcionem BEING WRITTEN BEFORE THE CANONICAL GOSPELS WERE ESTABLISHED.

so Nazareth becomes the locale of the passing through crowds when in the Marcionite gospel it is connected with the crowds trying to kill the scapegoat and Jesus as the new scapegoat (as in the Epistle of Barnabas). So Luke now has an entire narrative at Nazareth and Jesus's "hometown" is Nazareth to explain the aforementioned parable:

14 Jesus returned to Galilee in the power of the Spirit, and news about him spread through the whole countryside. 15 He was teaching in their synagogues, and everyone praised him.

16 He went to Nazareth, where he had been brought up, and on the Sabbath day he went into the synagogue, as was his custom. He stood up to read, 17 and the scroll of the prophet Isaiah was handed to him. Unrolling it, he found the place where it is written:

18 “The Spirit of the Lord is on me,
because he has anointed me
to proclaim good news to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners
and recovery of sight for the blind,
to set the oppressed free,
19 to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.”[f]

20 Then he rolled up the scroll, gave it back to the attendant and sat down. The eyes of everyone in the synagogue were fastened on him. 21 He began by saying to them, “Today this scripture is fulfilled in your hearing.”

22 All spoke well of him and were amazed at the gracious words that came from his lips. “Isn’t this Joseph’s son?” they asked.

23 Jesus said to them, “Surely you will quote this proverb to me: ‘Physician, heal yourself!’ And you will tell me, ‘Do here in your hometown what we have heard that you did in Capernaum.’”

24 “Truly I tell you,” he continued, “no prophet is accepted in his hometown. 25 I assure you that there were many widows in Israel in Elijah’s time, when the sky was shut for three and a half years and there was a severe famine throughout the land. 26 Yet Elijah was not sent to any of them, but to a widow in Zarephath in the region of Sidon. 27 And there were many in Israel with leprosy[g] in the time of Elisha the prophet, yet not one of them was cleansed—only Naaman the Syrian.”

28 All the people in the synagogue were furious when they heard this. 29 They got up, drove him out of the town, and took him to the brow of the hill on which the town was built, in order to throw him off the cliff. 30 But he walked right through the crowd and went on his way.