So the preferred translation of the opening line assumes that Marcion's gospel read like Luke.
This is supported by one manuscript. Nevertheless two of the surviving manuscripts read:Anno quintodecimo principatus Tiberiani proponit eum descendisse in civitatem Galilaeae Capharnaum, utique de caelo creatoris, in quod de suo ante descenderat.
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: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.
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: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.
Sider explains this as follows:Viderit enim sicubi appamisse positum est. Apparere subitum ex inopi- nato sapit conspectum, qui semel impegerit oculos in id quod sine mora apparuit.
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.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).
This is why in the material that immediately precedes the citation we read:
Tertullian then posits the following scheme as he interprets MarcionismCertainly 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>.
- 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
and then he goes on for several sentences to consider the various implications of this "god descending" as we noted above.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.