I CORINTHIANS and TERTULLIAN'S PERPLEXING COMMENTS.docx

I CORINTHIANS and TERTULLIAN’S PERPLEXING COMMENTS We have been misreading both texts. Chris Albert Wells Motivated by Markus Vinzent’s interest in Tertullian whom he considers unreliable when addressing Marcion’s Gospel, Pr. Markus Vinzent sees in Marcion the author of the first Gospel that inspired the other canonical Gospels. I decided to explore Tertullian’s comments on Paul and selected 1 Corinthians that stood out as being considerably more analyzed than the other letters. The results of this arbitrary choice went beyond expectations, clarifications comprising: First, that too many contents of 1 Cor. point to an end of second century Church document that would have been unknown to Marcion and excludes the pen of a first century apostle. Next, attributing the late second century Church document to Paul, Marcion’s preferred apostle, explains the reactions recorded in Adversus Marcionem, book V, 1 Cor., chapters 5-10. Third, Adversus Marcionem on the other Pauline letters always publicizes Paul as a first century letter writer, his epistles collected by heretical Marcion who abusively censored them. The conflicting findings lead to uncover the reasons of the fabricated Marcion-bashing. Furthermore, if not more importantly, revising 1 Corinthians that becomes out of reach of Marcion’s days affects ideas on his Apostolikon Marcion’s Apostolikon, or canon, comprised according to a widespread academic consensus his Antithesis, a pre-canonical Luke-like gospel, and Paul’s epistles, Galatians particularly prized. that is held to comprise a complete collection of Pauline letters supposedly composed during the mid-first century CE. The unforeseen results of this essay also clarify Tertullian’s book IV on Luke’s Gospel. * PRELIMINARY STANDPOINTS. I have previously shown that the ‘Letter to the Romans attributed to Paul’ (Academia.edu) is a composite second-century Church document built according to the different phases of the history of the Roman Church community, evolving from an essentially Jewish institution to an essentially Greco-Roman one. Supporting the contention, parts of chapter 3, entirely chapters 4 and 9-11 borrow from Justin’s Dialogues. These findings exclude a first century document and a first century writer, making Paul lose his first century hideout. Removed from first century traditions, Paul appears as a second century symbolic figure closely connected with Marcion. But although I consider that Marcion created Paul—he is always held to be the only one to display any interest in him—the present essay will recurrently show that their mutual implications have been deliberately falsified for partisan Church reasons. Consequently, even experienced readers can expect to be met with many surprises. The text assigned to Paul and labelled ‘Corinthians’ is constructed differently, with a different purpose. Here, the more established Greco-Roman Church was weighing later second-century controversies. We find entire chapters and important paragraphs on spiritual gifts, prophecy and ecstatic revelations that clearly evoke Montanism, (or New Prophecy) that spread from Phrygia to North Africa during the last twenty years of the second century. We also find ethical deliberations pertaining to marriage, divorce, virginity, abstinence and to food permitted, not all specifically inspired by Montanist rigors. Considering the recurrent late second-century landmarks—they are not restricted to a few interpolated verses—this ‘Pauline’ letter could neither have been a mid-first century text nor would it have been known to Marcion. The initial drive of the document was the need of institutional evaluation on Montanism, the Church assessing its orthodoxy and ethics, accepting, tolerating, or refuting the claims. Within this context, reading Tertullian’s early third century Adversus Marcionem on 1 Corinthians and focusing entirely our interest on Marcion the heretical, who would have been unaware of the text, versus the apostle who could not have written it, doesn’t seem very fitting. Curiously, Marcion is hardly accused here of using scissors or adding his own theories as with the endless attacks against him in the other Pauline letters. What’s behind the stage to explain so many oddities? Here we start treading on unexplored grounds and must answer two important issues: —Why on earth would Tertullian raise his voice against Marcion for a text that was written after Marcion’s days and that did not belong to his school of thought? —Just as disturbing, in all logic, Tertullian should not have manifested either against the document’s Montanism, a Christian faction he admittedly defended. Can we find any clues from Tertullian’s (155-220 CE) flash biography? He received a solid education at home in Carthage, came to Rome in his early twenties to study law, became interested in the Christians, converted before or only after he was back to Carthage where he discovered Montanism. As a well-trained lawyer, he was learned, brilliant, political, provocative, and certainly not naïve. As a Christian he efficiently defended their cause against false accusations. As a persistent defender of the New Prophecy, Rome’s admiration for Tertullian deteriorated, leading to unsettled speculations as to whether he was excommunicated or not. He was the most contemporary author to extensively comment on the late second-century Church document and curiously ignores the Corinthian community disputes. And we must admit that we don’t really understand the tireless attacks against Marcion. Something important is still missing that connects the two compositions. Identifying the reasons behind the amazing discrepancy between a rather sober end of second century Church document and Tertullian’s hostility towards Marcion who would not have known the text will be decisive keys to understand the apparently inappropriate reactions. * REEVALUATING THE CONTEXT We must start questioning the texts differently, not only their contents but their signatures. Creating the Church Document The Montanist’s beliefs had already spread from Phrygia to the African provinces where Tertullian, severely criticizing Rome, became Carthage’s most prominent defender during the early third century. At Rome, the Church authorities probably met with Proculus, much respected by Tertullian, who represented the Montanists. The purpose of the initial Roman Church mediators was to evaluate and officially record Church policies facing the rapidly expanding New Prophecy based on ecstatic revelations while communicating with the Holy Spirit. The New Prophecy also comprised ethical issues and disciplinary measures. Their debates were confided to a Church Document. How was the New Prophecy, with its ecstatic disclosures, perceived at Rome? Around the end of the second century, pope Eleutherius (174-189) and his successor pope Victor (189-199), accepted the New Prophecy as a branch of Christianity and wrote letters in support. Montanism, expanding, was initially considered by the church at Rome as an offshoot within orthodoxy. Two negative accounts then appear: first, according to Tertullian the pope Victor was dissuaded by a certain Praxeas; second, influenced by Irenaeus, pope Victor seems to be the first to have reconsidered the Church’s policy regarding Montanism Irenaeus criticized the Montanists and wanted to keep them out of Rome. (Adversus Haereses, 3:11:9 and 4:33:6). Some scholars consider that Tertullian’s Praxeas was a pseudo for Irenaeus.. An official charge against Montanism emerges at Rome around 202 CE with the dispute between Proculus and Gaius, in the presence of pope Zephyrinus (199-217 CE). It denotes an institutional hostility. The group debated on the Johannine authorship of the Apocalypse and the fourth Gospel, both books praised by Montanists. Gaius held the gospel to be the work of the Jewish heretic Cerinthus. Gaius also refused to look at the sayings Montanus had written for his supporters. The pope being against heresies, in particular Marcion, Valentinius and Montanism, the 202 CE encounter was a planned dismissal. The Church held against Montanus his own texts that followers trusted to be authoritative for Christian faith and ethics, competing with the Gospels. The Church also feared that the Holy Spirit and the new prophets would obscure the centrality of the Messiah and the apostles. Confronted within the church, Proculus’ support of Montanism became officially categorized as deviating from orthodoxy. As a result, questioning and recusing Montanism, the initial Church document underwent significant revisions, with criticisms and controversies devaluing the New Prophecy. The disputes show significant aspects of Church policies. Irenaeus’ declaration that the Ephesian Gospel was written by John still retained a smell of heresy at the end of his life in 202 CE. His famed proclamation on the four Gospels as the four pillars of the Church had not received full official recognition in his days and could correspond to a delayed proclamation. Echoing later directives, the Muratorian list This list of New Testament books, discovered in 1740 at Milan, is a seventh century document, or fragment consisting of 85 lines. The statement that Pius was recently bishop of Rome (140-154 to 161 CE) indicates that officially, the status of all texts was declared as being settled no later than 161 CE. Considering the opposition to the Johannine texts by Gaius and pope Zephyrinus, the Muratorian list is certainly not from the second century. shows that the Church steered the contested Apocalypse of John and the Gospel of John into the ranks of canonicity, even if implausibly during the earlier office of pope Pius (140-154 to 161 CE), whereas the writings of Miltiades (A Montanist leader) and of the Asian founder of the Cataphrygians (Montanus himself) continued to be declared heretical and not significant to the Church. * The Pauline authorship I will assume that the Church document, updating the Roman Institution’s situation around the end of the second century, was not immediately recorded as a Pauline epistle. What did Paul represent at that time? Most will accept that Paul was Marcion’s preferred apostle. The relationship is publicized in Adversus Marcionem book 4,2: “The apostle whom he followed, and that no doubt was Paul.” The writer defends a second century Marcion collecting a first century Paul. Considering however that nobody showed any interest in Paul before Marcion, a closer complicity can be suspected. Further supporting the proximities, Romans relying heavily on Justin and 1 Cor. addressing Montanism indisputably indicate a second century signature on Church documents. Paul loses here his first century authorship. A second century figure closely related to Marcion pilots the idea that Paul was Marcion’s creation. Just as the anonymous OT writers created their emblematic figures to counter rivaling factions. (See Moses and the Early Abram cycle: Two versions of the Exodus (Acadelia.edu) And steered by Marcion, Paul’s purpose, as in the Acts of the Apostles started around 130-140 CE, was to counter the Judean orthodoxy voiced by Peter We do not know if the defense of the Judean orthodoxy expressed by Peter in Acts initially aimed at discrediting Valentinius who also defended anti-Jewish doctrines, or Marcion.. Only a second century Paul closely linked to Marcion can explain the damaging reputation Paul had earned as ‘the apostle to the heretic.’ Marcion having substantially promoted Paul, and having also criticized the Judean legacies of the early Church orthodoxy while defending a different god, meant that within the Church the apostle had either to be condemned with the heretic, or somehow rehabilitated. Inseparable from Marcion, the successive phases of Paul’s rehabilitation aimed at distancing him ideologically then chronologically from his second century promoter. Paul’s ideological rehabilitation at Rome Within the Church the heretic’s second century apostle was first made to undergo a politically correct metamorphosis by melting him within Judaism. The transformation, shaped by the ecclesial faction, is staged in the Acts of the Apostles indicating a mid to later second century intervention where we find a radically changed Paul. Combined with Marcionite standpoints, he becomes described as a follower of the Creator God and of Scripture. He addresses the Jews first before turning to Gentiles, spoke Hebrew, practiced circumcision, had a strict Pharisee education (Gamaliel) and undertook the Nazarene vows. Paul, a Roman citizen with a Roman patronym who challenged Peter the Jew from Jerusalem in Acts is changed into a Jewish predicator. Rival religious/political factions rumoring fake news is certainly not a modern prerogative. Marcion is discredited for following an apostle just as Jewish as Peter. The disinformation, redefining Marcion’s own apostle, essentially meant that Marcion’s doctrines were falsely attributed to an observant Jew. Contrasting Paul and Marcion placed Paul within the spheres of the Creator God, departing from Marcion’s Docetism, and within Scripture that Marcion had criticized in his Antithesis. It is likely that a redefined Paul, distanced from his second century mentor, was not immediately and unanimously a settled debate within the Church. Counter propaganda takes time to melt within any political party, and we can well imagine that Paul’s heresy tag was not easy to dissipate, imposing a more subtle propaganda. Paul’s initial ideological transformation that relied entirely on discrediting Marcion is likely to have remained precarious. Until completed by a chronological revision. Paul’s belonging to the historical niche of the thirties. This second phase of Paul’s rehabilitation will have a considerable impact. The change of paradigm within the Church, from the dominant Judean orthodoxy to an essentially Greco-Roman orthodoxy, as documented in the Letter to the Romans, modified outlooks. Marcion who was accused of anti-Judaism rejecting the Creator God and Scripture, remained however a forbidden reference. The mismatch, obliging to juggle between Marcion’s apostle redefined as an observant Jew and their persisting bad reputation, could only be resolved by completely separating the apostle’s timeframe from Marcion’s, as transferring the apostle to an earlier epoch. (In Biblical literature, different party opinions were reconciled by generating family links or gained precedence by creating an anteriority claim for a given faction.) Recorded as Gamaliel’s student in Jerusalem, as per the Acts of the Apostles Peter having been under trial facing Gamaliel, Paul’s scholarship intended to show that both apostles were contemporaneous. Being Gamaliel’s student, revealed so late in Acts 22:3, allowed shifting Paul to the ‘thirties.’ made Paul belong to the historical niche of the thirties and join the Jesus-Peter tandem in Jerusalem. The first century ‘niche’ traditions for Jesus were unknown to Justin showing how late they were. According to his Dialogues (chapters 16, 17, 72, 104 and 111) the Jews are accused of slaying the Just One, without any allusions to Rome’s supposed intervention. The first century was silent on Jerusalem and the timeframe of Jesus’ trial that remained immemorial. Justin’s unawareness is not convincingly corrected by the few allusions to Pontius Pilate that polluted the patristics. Around the mid-second century, the Roman Jesus Messiah assembly had only very basic information concerning the Jerusalem week. Writers of Peter addressing the Jews in the Acts of the Apostles knew no more than “this man, handed over to you according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified.” The proclamation is very vague, even if completed later by making Gentiles and Pilate intervene. Jerusalem becomes extensively publicized in the Peter chapters of the Acts of the Apostles lending support to the Judean legacies, while the first timeframe for the ‘Jesus events’ is given by Gamaliel at Peter’s trial Creating the historical niche was a consequence of Peter’s trial facing Gamaliel, the last of the wise Pharisee leaders. The story recorded in the Acts of the Apostles had nothing to do with Jesus’ trial but intended to show that followers of the new messiah of the God of Israel were not heretics as claimed by the Pharisaic Jamnia verdict. Gamaliel’s staged wisdom enacted the Roman Assembly’s self-defense facing official rejection (Acts 5:38-39) The firm Pharisaic condemnation of the Jesus (or Yeshua) followers is amply exploited by Justin in his Dialogues with Trypho to show that the Jews officially rejected the new messiah of the God of Israel. . Entering the historical niche, Paul is at long last completely separated from Marcion who had promoted him. A century now stands between them. The Church could start publicizing Paul as a first century Jewish missionary and letter writer who announced, in Galatians, the separation between Judean orthodoxy and Hellenistic ideals, more conform to Greco-Roman culture. As all Church traditions, political intentions prevailed over historicity. Paul’s belonging to the first century progressively (a generation? A century?) matured into a Roman Church tradition, while propagandists necessarily intervened within earlier texts to confirm the new standards. We will soon see how the propagandists proceeded. Why addressed to the Corinthians? The decision must have been influenced by important deliberations on which we can now gain some insight. Rome had already a letter addressed to the Corinthians. Clement’s letter (c 98 CE) to the church of God at Corinth stood as the earliest letter from Rome to a Christian community. It was considered as a landmark. Clement’s letter however is not an administrative letter, analyzing and concluding on a given dysfunction. It hardly addresses the problem that supposedly called for arbitration—the Corinthian community divisions, previous leaders contested—and instead essentially spreads doctrinal instructions. It is more in the line of a lecture on general policies where Clement appears to be addressing his own defense within a troubled Roman community. He will be dismissed, leaving the assembly to Evaristus’ guidance (97-105 CE), a Jewish Christian from Antioch. The unsigned letter was attributed to Clement based on a name lists given by early Church Fathers and the letter’s recipients could have served to cover Clement’s local problems. Regardless of the uncertainties that cloud Clement’s letter, transferring Paul to the historical niche of the mid-first century inverted the normal chronologies. The revision implied that apostle Paul was earlier than Clement. Addressing the second century Church document to the Corinthians as a first century Pauline letter enabled the Church to secure Paul’s new timeframe by creating a continuity of community problems. Today, traditions settled, Paul’s difficulties with the Corinthians appear as a forerunner making readers, those who are aware of 1 Clement, expect the later petitions. We will find a confirmation of the speculations when examining 1 Corinthians that imposed a few ‘adjustments’ both to the Church document and to the earlier 1 Clement’s letter. How was Paul perceived, beyond Rome’s influence, at the end of the second century? Regardless how we choose to explain the relations between Marcion and Paul—options ranging from Marcion somehow collected all of Paul’s letters to Marcion created Paul—both actors were undeniably closely linked. Paul’s initial reputation was connected to the heretic who promoted him. The church will repeatedly intervene to make Paul become acceptable, radically changing Paul’s profile in the Acts of the Apostles, anchoring his timeframe within the historical niche, creating the Pastoral epistles as well as introducing ‘Paul our dear brother’ within the Patristics. The ongoing efforts to bring Paul under control make plain a persistent tension concerning his domestication. The Ebionites or Jewish Christians will constantly view Paul negatively as the arch-heretic and apostate. At the other end of the Christian spectrum, tenants of Hellenistic creeds, spread by Marcionites and Gnostics, considered that Paul enduringly represented their values. Paul’s prestige, removed from Marcion’s reputation, was far from being universally settled within Christianity at the turn of the second to third century. Entering a battle of texts, pseudonymous writings under the persistent notoriety of Marcion and/or his apostle were used in the interest of the ‘heresies.’ Dionysus of Corinth, bishop from 171-199, formulated such reproaches, his letters being intercepted and corrupted by the bad weeds of Satan that diffused falsified documents to his recipients. We find similar complaints in the Muratorian Canon (lines 63-68) that heretics have forged letters in the name of Paul to make propaganda for their false teachings. The Church’s effort to impose Paul’s renewed prestige as part of its anti-heretical front had not uniformly spread to all geographical areas. Outside of Rome’s sphere of influence, Paul remained attached to Marcion’s challenges, and Rome remained confronted by groups considered as subversive. How did Tertullian perceive Marcion’s apostle? Tertullian could not have ignored that the Church document debating on the New Prophecy was later than Marcion’s days and we have still to understand why Tertullian went against the initial document evaluating Montanism that should have met his approval. Could Tertullian’s reactions have had something to do with the late second century Pauline authorship Rome decided? We have a few significant indices in this direction. Some of his comments on the Church document associate beyond doubt the apostle and the heretic, both criticized. Such reactions tend to show that viewed from Carthage, distancing the second century Paul from his mentor, redefining the apostle within Judaism, was not Tertullian’s norm. Furthermore, Tertullian shows no awareness of Paul’s revised first century chronology and remains silent on the Corinthian’s community discords. The breach is highly significant. These unexpected finds will become central to the present essay. They imply that, in his mind, Paul’s signature still validated Marcion. We must then explain differently the comments that clearly criticize Marcion while defending the apostle. And explain the commentaries on the other Pauline letters that extensively criticize Marcion’s handling of them. Viewed from Carthage, reading the initially anonymous Roman Church document to which Proculus had participated completely changed when recorded under Paul’s name. The entire document becomes falsely attributed to the heretic. That is precisely what Tertullian held against Rome and made him react so caustically: Paul’s signature still validated Marcion the heretic, explaining that he should associate both actors that will only become segregated with Paul’s chronological revision that Tertullian ignores. Placing Tertullian within his own mental context is necessary to understand his recriminations before his own text was rectified, probably much later, according to revised Church policies as will shortly be shown. Indignation flaring, the reputedly hot-blooded Tertullian was above all lecturing the Roman curia (that he no longer admired) for having falsified the text by using the heretic’s apostle’s signature. Defending his case, Tertullian’s main concern, siding with conservative Christianity, was to show that the original text evaluating Montanism repeatedly relied on the Creator God and Scripture, thus excluding the other god and the imported authorship the Church had imposed. He examines the text for the inconsistencies created by the apostle’s signature he associates with Marcion. And his motivations become alive. Accordingly, two currents run through his text: anti-Paul and a rectified pro-Paul current. * Tertullian’s remarks seemed incoherent because as all the early texts, his Adversus Marcionem had been visited by later propagandists. It was not the same writer who sarcastically questioned Marcion on the origin of his apostle, who qualified his apostle as being hostile to Judaism, and the pen that defended Paul as his apostle, a man of the Creator God and of Scripture. The following examples will prove the point, taken from the introduction to book 5 where Tertullian’s arbitration and a redactor’s disproving answer coexist. Chapter 1. Introduction Tertullian: While cross-questioning Marcion, he is very suspicious and speaks up for himself using the personal pronoun ‘I’. “I require to know of Marcion the origin of his apostle.... since a man is affirmed to me to be an apostle whom I do not find mentioned in the Gospel, in the catalogue of apostles... I feel a kind of improvidence is imputable to Christ for not knowing before that this man was necessary to Him...I should be glad if you would inform us under what bill you admitted the apostle Paul on board... who handed him to you... He professes himself to be an apostle, to use his own words, (In Galatians) not of men, nor by men, but by Jesus Christ. You have read no doubt that many shall come saying ‘I am Christ.’ Now if anyone can pretend that he is Christ, how much more might a man profess to be an apostle of Christ? I may even thus both refute your (Marcion) belief, and confound your shamelessness who makes claims without possessing the means of establishing them... that even an apostle who is said not to belong to the creator, nay, is displayed as in actual hostility to the Creator... Christ had made no such revelation concerning God; then there was all the greater need why the apostle should reveal a God who could not be made known by no one else...” The arguments are pertinent, coming from a trained lawyer. Marcion and Paul are in the same basket. Chapter 1. Introduction The Redactor: As a preliminary guideline, the redactor is not addressing Marcion but Tertullian he confronts. The redactor’s intervention is to be read as an ‘Open letter to Tertullian’ who is the interlocutor designated by ‘you.’ Lecturing Tertullian: “Let there be a Christ, let there be an apostle, although of another god; but what the matter since they are only to draw their proofs out of the Testament of the Creator. Even Genesis long ago promised Paul to me. Among those figures and prophetical blessings over his sons, when Jacob had got to Benjamin he said, Benjamin is a ravening wolf: until morning he will still devour, and in the evening will distribute food.  He foresaw that Paul would arise of the tribe of Benjamin, a ravening wolf devouring until the morning, that is, one who in his early life would harass the Lord's flock as a persecutor of the churches, and then at evening would distribute food, that is, in declining age would feed Christ's sheep as the doctor of the gentiles. Also, the harshness at first of Saul's pursuit of David, and afterwards his repentance and contentment on receiving good for evil, had nothing else in view except Paul in Saul according to tribal descent, and Jesus in David by the Virgin's descent from him. If these figurative mysteries do not please you, certainly the Acts of the Apostles have handed down to me this history of Paul, nor can you deny it. From them I prove that the persecutor became an apostle, not from men, nor by a man: from them I am led even to believe him: by their means I dislodge you (Tertullian) from your claim to him (Paul), (or I expel you from his defense) and have no fear of saying, ‘do you deny that Paul is an apostle?’ I speak no evil against him whom I retain for myself. If I deny, it is to force you to prove. If I deny, it is to enforce my claim that he is mine. Otherwise, if you have your eye on our belief, accept the evidence on which it depends. If you challenge us to adopt yours, tell us the facts on which it is founded. Either prove that the things you believe really are so: or else, if you have no proof, how can you believe? So then accept the apostle on my evidence, as you do Christ: he is my apostle, as also Christ is mine. Here too, our contest shall take place on the same front: an apostle you deny being the Creator’s, whom in fact you represent as hostile to the Creator... From now on I claim I shall prove that no other god was the subject of the apostle's profession, on the same terms as I have proved this of Christ: and my evidence will be Paul's epistles. That these have suffered mutilation even in number, the precedent of that gospel, which is now the heretic's, must have prepared us to expect.” (all italics mine) As seen from the above excerpts, a redactor addressing Tertullian defies his opinion that depreciates the apostle. His main intention, as the text says, was to ‘dislodge Tertullian from his claim to the apostle.’ The redactor’s apostle, contrary to Tertullian’s, belongs to the Creator God and is not related to the heretic. Paul’s signature no longer validates Marcion but stands in opposition. The redactor, repairing Tertullian’s hostility to Marcion’s apostle, shows that Paul’s ideological transformation and still more importantly his chronological revision segregating both actors needed to be defended, contra Tertullian’s outdated views. Comparing I Cor. as we have the text today, and Adversus Marcionem we will find many other instances where Tertullian, corrected by a redactor, supposedly immensely valued Paul. Adding to Tertullian’s comments to be in accord with official standpoints proved to be very efficient. Even circumspect Markus Vinzent considers that Tertullian was separating Paul from Marcion’s previous hold, that Tertullian contrasts Paul’s authority, repeatedly, against Marcion who was accused of altering the original wording and arguments. As becomes apparent, Tertullian defended the Church document against the apostle’s authorship, but his comments were overpowered by a redactor determined to lend support to a first century context. * The backbone of the present investigation will be the Church document read through the lens of Montanism, and concomitantly evaluate the corresponding reactions in Adversus Marcionem. Tertullian’s silences are just as important as his comments, indicating later additions archived within the Church document. They essentially concerned verses depreciating Montanism and ‘proofs’ of a first century apostle addressing the Corinthian recipients. On the other hand, a redactor frequently intervened to criticize Marcion, champion the apostle, and explicitly defend his first century timeframe, removing the text from Tertullian’s hold. Facing a text loyal to the Creator’s realm, the dual interventions can confuse deciding if Tertullian is addressing the mismatch created by the heretic’s apostle’s signature, or if a later redactor defends Paul as the author and criticizes Marcion. Evans’ translation is also greatly dependent on his conventional perception of the context. As guidelines we must keep in mind that Tertullian was setting scores with the Roman curia and not answering Marcion who knew nothing of the Church document. We can even consider that mishandling Marcion, nominally designated, usually indicates a redactor’s intervention because Tertullian didn’t have to demonstrate that Marcion and his apostle were connected—an evidence to him—nor to attempt separating them. We can also affirm that a redactor’s pen is always the case when the Church document lends support to a first century apostle of which Tertullian consistently shows no awareness. Despite these difficulties, important conclusions will come to the fore. The above preliminaries are tools for a more realistic reading of 1 Cor. and Tertullian’s comments who can’t accept that the Church made such an offensive decision and shows the inconsistencies of the abusive authorship, while a redactor later rectifies his outdated ideas. *** CONFRONTING THE TEXTS ACCORDING TO THE REVISED PERSPECTIVE 1 Corinthians Chapter 1. The opening credentials in 1 Cor.1:1-2 did not belong to the initially anonymous Roman Church document. They were added to fit the later decided authorship and recipients. The Church document being secondarily attributed to Paul, we can expect a feigned authorship recurring throughout the text, and chronological adjustments to impose a first century apostle. 1 Cor.1:3 “Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.” This ordinary Church benediction probably preceded any assembly. It is presently read as Paul’s salutations. Tertullian 5,5 :1. « Quid illi cum Iudaico adhuc more, destructori Iudaismi? »  Ernest Evans gives two translations in successive editions: “I do not ask indeed what a destroyer of Judaism has to do with a formula which the Jews still use.” (2014 Beloved Publishing. USA) Or: “What had he still to do with Jewish custom if he was the destroyer of Judaism?” The second proposal (version online) completely changes the outlook and reads as negating the apostle as a destroyer of Judaism. Ernest Evans was trying to make improvements on a difficult and authoritative text bringing it closer to his own perception of Tertullian’s mind. He believed, according to the traditionally accepted context, that Tertullian necessarily supported Paul, the first century apostle and letter writer, while condemning the second century heretic who misused him. The first translation is closer to a literal translation of Tertullian’s Latin text: “What has he to do with the Jewish custom, the destroyer of Judaism?” Tertullian is addressing the Roman curia, pointing out the absurdity of attributing the benediction to Paul who still is, in his mind, the apostle to the heretic, a destroyer of Judaism. Tertullian’s riposte was later corrected by: “But I do understand how he claimed as his function the preaching of the Creator.” A redactor specifies that Paul’s function is preaching the Creator, (contrary to Marcion), rectifying the ‘destroyer of Judaism.’ Tertullian then authenticates the ‘God our Father’ by eliminating the apostle’s other god who is alien to any form of judgment and taking offence. Tertullian 5,5:3-4. “For neither does grace exist, except after offence; nor peace, except after war.” Grace and peace, offence, and war, implicitly belong to the world of the Creator and are out of place for a destroyer of Judaism. The focus is then set on Marcion: “But Marcion’s god could not have been offended, both because he was unknown to everybody, and because he is incapable of being irritated.” The comment demonstrates that Marcion’s god is not compatible with the apostle’s God who has been offended. Tertullian’s own negative judgments on the apostle and the other god already alternate in the first paragraphs with a redactor’s corrections, neutralizing Tertullian. The benedictions (1 Cor.1:4-6) lead to the day’s topic: 1 Cor.1:7 “So that you are not lacking any spiritual gift as you wait for the revealing of our Lord Jesus Christ.” The ‘spiritual gifts’ and ‘waiting for the revealing of our Lord’ are Montanist declarations, precisely the topic to be discussed. ‘Spiritual gifts’ is not a widespread expression, confined to 1 Cor., Romans (12:6-8) and Montanists. Tertullian ends his work on the soul by concluding “And the Paraclete most frequently recommended this also, if one shall have received his words by recognizing them as spiritual gifts.” According to the New Prophecy, the Lord was expected to reveal himself soon, and not wait for a millennium. Spiritual gifts will be considerably developed in later chapters of 1 Corinthians. 1 Cor.1:8 “He will also strengthen you to the end, so that you may be blameless We find an equivalent in Justin’s Dialogue: Chapter XXX: “after our conversion by Him to God, we may be blameless.” on the day of our Lord Jesus Christ.” The Montanist topic appears to be presented according to the traditional Church expectations. There is no frontal opposition, since “God is faithful; by Him you were called into the fellowship of His Son, Jesus Christ our Lord.” (1 Cor. 1:9) After opening the session, the topic presented and the call into fellowship were, in all probability, shouldered by a high-ranking and approving late second century church dignitary. * 1 Cor. 1:10 then introduces a different theme: Unity is proclaimed, but the text strangely and immediately contradicts the assertion of community concord: 1 Cor. 1:11 “It has been reported to me that there are quarrels among you.” Tertullian makes no comments on these community divisions, so central to readers of 1 Corinthians. The anomaly shows that the Church document was first attributed to the apostle, rehabilitated as an observant Jew, and later addressed to the Corinthians exploiting the apostle’s later acquired first century status. Tertullian, who reacted against the imposed authorship, was unaware of the apostle’s new chronology that allowed disconnecting him from Marcion. The actors of the community disputes will thereafter be repeatedly emphasized by a redactor. The ‘quarrels among you’ were inspired by Clement’s letter to the Corinthians that expressed concern about damaging divisions that followed community harmony. Responding to Paul’s acquired anteriority, the same theme was introduced into the text now labeled to the Corinthians to show a continuity of community problems. The quarrels in 1 Corinthians are therefore to be understood as announcing Clement’s community complaints and implicitly confirm Paul’s belonging to the early ‘historical niche.’ For these reasons, it was important to place the quarrels early in the revised text. Thus, we find: 1 Cor. 1:12 “I belong to Paul, to Apollos, to Cephas, to Christ.” Paul, presented with Cephas, and Christ confirms the historical niche tradition extending from early to mid-first century. Paul, Cephas, and Christ are presented as contemporary actors. Who then is this unknown Apollos cited with important teachers joined within the same past? Are we, as Robert M. Price suggests, to understand Apollos as a cryptic transcription of Apelles, Marcion’s successor, and apostate? Price’s interpretation does not seem very pertinent when one considers that the Church is writing a ’first century’ scenario to seam 1 Corinthians and 1 Clement. Therefore, Apollos more reasonably represents the famous early first century teacher Apollonius of Tyana, an Essenian reputed for his miracles, prophecies, egalitarianism, who even defied Nero. Incorporating the reputed historical character (3 BCE-97 CE) intended to confirm Paul’s first century timeframe Just as Paul in Acts was associated with historical Gallio (chapter 18), and Agrippa (chapter 26) to confirm his first century epoch. Bart D Ehrman has amply publicized the proximities between Apollonius and Jesus.. 1 Cor. 1:13 A Church writer detailing the disputes, asks: “Has Christ been divided.” “Was it Paul who was crucified for you? Was it in Paul’s name into which you were baptized?” Within a divided community, Paul appears to be contested. Why? Comparing the text with 1 Clement shows the source of inspiration: Clement chapter 1: “That shameful and detestable sedition, utterly abhorrent to the elect of God, which a few rash and confident persons have kindled to such a pitch of frenzy.” Clement chapter III “The worthless rose up against the honored, those of no reputation against such as were renown, the foolish against the wise, the young against those advanced in age.” Clement chapter XIV also complains that the authors of sedition have become leaders of a detestable emulation. Previous leaders were contested, through envy, but Clement found no fault in them. In 1 Corinthians 1:13 Paul enacts the contested leader, a man whom they had previously esteemed. Clement chapter XLVI “Why are there strife, and tumults, and divisions, and schisms, and wars among you? Have we not one God and one Christ? Is there not one spirit of grace poured out upon us? And have we not one calling in Christ? Why do we divide and tear to pieces the members of Christ, and raise up strife against our own body, and have reached such a height of madness as to forget that “we are members one of another?” ... Your schism has subverted the faith of many, has discouraged many, has given rise to doubt in many, and has caused grief to us all. And still your sedition continues.” The revised chronology, placing Paul’s quarrels before Clement’s, is also publicized in 1 Clement chapter XLVII: “Your recent discord is worse than the former which took place in the times of Paul. Take up the epistle of the blessed Paul the Apostle. What did he write to you when the gospel first began to be preached? Truly, under the inspiration of the Spirit, he wrote to you concerning himself, and Cephas, and Apollos, because even then parties had been formed among you.” Both texts were made to dialogue in mutual support, attenuating if not erasing the manipulations. Quoting the same verses also confuse analysts: 1.Cor. 1:31 “Let the one who boasts, boast in the Lord.” 1 Clement 13:1 “but he that boasts, let him boast in the Lord.” (See also 1 Cor.2:9 and 1 Clement 34:8) Harmonizing 1 Corinthians with 1 Clement, and vice-versa, also shows that the church was the owner of the texts and could intervene accordingly. Most scholars consider that the community divisions were the core of Paul’s letter; they appear to have been entirely fabricated for the sake of confirming Paul’s first century frame, making him plagiarize and show continuity with Clement’s well-known community problems. Read out of context, reciprocal harmonizing makes it difficult to decide where the egg and where the hen; meaning who copied from whom? That was precisely their purpose. Relying on storytelling is indecisive and primacy can be accorded to either Paul or Clement as the analyst needs to prove. Keeping to Church strategies can alone enable to grasp motivations and chronologies. The church document attributed to Paul being a late second century text dealing with Montanism implies the real chronologies and reveals the manipulations. In Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity (Chapter 9 The Old Testament, the Lord, and the Apostles. Page 214) Walter Bauer, attempting to verify how familiar the second century church actors were with Paul’s letters, states that Hegesippus (110-180 CE) was acquainted with 1 Clement, but not with Paul’s 1 Corinthians. Bauer’s remarks support the contention that the Church discussions on Montanism, even if they had started to be recorded, were not yet archived as Paul and 1 Corinthians in Hegesippus’ days and that the secondary additions to 1 Clement chapter XLVII pointing so clearly to Paul and his letter were still absent. * The parenthesis seaming community divisions ends, we come back to the original text. 1 Cor.1:18-31, deliberating on Christ the Power and Wisdom of God must be placed in continuity with 1 Cor. 1:7-9. The topic under discussion having been presented, a word of caution is presently forwarded not to judge too hastily Gamaliel’s wise judgment in Acts 5:38-39 concerning the Peter group is in the background, addressing the new Christian religion: “if this plan is of human origin, it will fail; but if it is of God, you will not be able to overthrow them.”. Montanism receives support through deliberations that had previously affected mainstream Christianity, criticized as foolishness. 1 Cor.1:18 The message about “the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but for us who are being saved it is the power of God” is a warning against premature judgments. 1 Cor.1:19 For it is written, (Isaiah 29) “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the discernment of the discerning I will thwart.” New beliefs have always faced skepticism on behalf of traditional wisdom, God’s innovative paths distrusted. Justin’s Dialogue with Trypho amply develops the theme: Faith in Christ was considered the faith of fools by Jews and skeptical Greco-Romans. Chapter XLVIII: Trypho considered Justin’s assertions as unproven, paradoxical, and foolish. Chapter VII: “But pray that, above all things, the gates of light may be opened to you; for these things cannot be perceived or understood by all, but only by the man to whom God and His Christ have imparted wisdom.”  Chapter XXXII equally quoting Isaiah: “I will strip the wise of their wisdom and will hide the understanding of their prudent men.” “Learn from us who have been taught wisdom by the grace of Christ.” Chapter XXXIX, Rebuking Trypho: “the wise in yourselves, and the men of understanding in your own eyes are foolish.” 1 Cor.1:20 “Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?” 1 Cor.1:21 “For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, God decided, through the foolishness of our proclamation, to save those who believe.” The ‘foolishness of our proclamation’ is believing in the resurrection of bodies. 1 Cor.1:26-31 continue the warnings not to boast about Christian beliefs at the expense of others who also believe in the Creator God, His Son and Scripture: “Consider your own call, brothers, and sisters, not many of you were wise by human standards... But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise.” Facing the New Prophecy, the Church assembly is calling for moderation, for God’s wisdom is not easily understood by men. Tertullian book 5, 5:9 comments: “What is that ‘Foolishness of God that is wiser than men’ but the cross and the death of Christ? What is that ‘Weakness of God that is stronger than men’ but the nativity and incarnation of God?” “Can the Creator by any means have made any pronouncement with reference to the cross of a Christ not his own?” Tertullian shows that the sayings concern the Creator, and not the apostle’s other god. Tertullian 5, 5:10 “The whole of the Old Testament, the heretic, to the best of my belief, holds in derision.” Tertullian, who associates the heretic and his apostle who has nothing to do with the text, refutes that one could attribute to the apostle texts relying on Scripture. The same argument will soon be recycled (book 5,6:9) by a redactor clearly aiming at Marcion and sparing the apostle. * 1 Corinthians Chapter 2. The chapter continues presenting the topic under discussion. Preliminary precautions are settled, and the following messages possibly recorded Proculus’ defense of Montanism. 1 Cor.2:2 “For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and him crucified.” The New Prophecy is shown to be rooted in orthodoxy. 1 Cor.2:4-5 “My speech and my proclamation were not with plausible words of wisdom, but with a demonstration of the Spirit and of power, so that your faith might rest not on human wisdom but on the power of God.” The statement parallels the founding declaration of Montanism that relies on ecstatic revelations that do not convey plausible words of wisdom. They rely on the Holy Spirit—the power of God—and not on human wisdom. Montanus believed he was a prophet of God and that the Paraclete (The Holy Spirit) spoke through him. Montanists called themselves spiritales (spiritual people) in contrast to other Christians they called psychici (carnal, natural people). 1 Cor.2:7 “But we speak God’s wisdom, secret and hidden, which God decreed before the ages for our glory.” God’s wisdom, secret and hidden, here prophesized, is a defining declaration common to many new convictions. ‘Before the ages for our glory’ is commonly understood as relying on the early prophets who knew and warned, announcing Christianity “before the ages.” Tertullian book 5,6:4 a redactor claims that ‘the ages’ are necessarily those of the Creator God (as would Tertullian) and defies Marcion to prove that ‘the ages’ belong to his god. * 1 Cor.2:8 “None of the princes of this age knew it for had they known they would not have crucified the Lord of Glory”. This age, as with 1 Cor. 2:6, no longer refers to archaic times but to the ages of the killing of God’s Messiah by the princes of this age. Here we find contradictions leading to one of the most difficult passages in Adversus Marcionem on 1 Corinthians. It is an interesting case to verify the assumption that in Tertullian’s mind, the apostle’s signature validated Marcion, and was not acceptable. To know or not to know, that was the question. Tertullian book 5,6:6 “Our glory must be regarded as issuing from the Creator... the Creator settled it in His own secret purpose, unknown to all the princes and powers of the Creator, on the principle that servants are not permitted to know the secrets of their master’s plans.” Verdict: neither the princes nor the powers of the Creator had been informed, which is precisely the conclusion reached by 1 Cor.2:8. The agreement associating the Creator’s secrets and the apostle’s declaration being incompatible, Tertullian concludes that: Tertullian book 5,6:7 “But now it is not permissible even for me to interpret the princes of this world as meaning the virtues and powers of the Creator, on the ground that to them the apostle imputes ignorance.” Tertullian having forwarded that the Creator kept his intentions secret, considers that the apostle was not referring to the Creator God, his princes, and his Lord of glory but to the other god. In Tertullian’s mind, the apostle does not follow the Creator God. * A redactor later interceded to separate the apostle and the heretic: Tertullian book 5,6:5 “But when, in reference to our glory, he (the apostle) adds that none of the princes of this world knew it, because if they had known they would not have crucified the Lord of glory, the heretic argues that the princes of this world crucified the Lord (the Christ of the rival god) in order that this blow Marcion considered that Christ’s sacrifice by his god was the price to pay to remove humanity out of the hands of the Creator God. Taking over from the lesser Creator God was the ransom for the many to be saved. might even recoil on the Creator himself.” Because the apostle says ‘none knew’ the heretic argues that... The redactor is separating the ‘earlier’ apostle from the second century heretic. Here the apostle is now referring to the Creator God. But how to deal with the imputation of ignorance and cancel Tertullian’s argument? If ignorance belonged to the other god, then it cannot apply to the Creator. The demonstration relies on the Gospel. Tertullian book 5,6:7 “According to our gospel even the devil at the temptation knew who Jesus was, and according to the document you (the redactor is again addressing Tertullian) share with us (refers to Luke’s Gospel as in Adv. Marcionem book 4) the evil spirit knew that he was the holy one of God and was named Jesus and had come to destroy them.” “The inevitable inference, therefore, as it seems to me, is that we must believe that the princes and powers of the Creator did knowingly crucify the God of glory in His Christ.” We find the exact opposite of the 1 Cor. text—the princes were kept in ignorance—and of Tertullian’s own declaration: princes and powers, as servants, were not permitted to know. Tertullian book 5,6:8 “Also if that parable of the strong man armed, whom another stronger than he has overcome, and has taken possession of his goods, is, as Marcion has it, taken for a parable of the Creator, in that case the Creator could no longer have remained in ignorance of your god of glory (Tertullian’s) while he (Marcion’s god) was being overcome by him (Creator): nor could he have hanged upon a cross that one against whom his strength was of no avail.” The parable of the strong man is used as referring to Marcion’s powerful god having failed to overcome the lesser Creator God. “And so, it remains for me to argue that the virtues and powers of the Creator did know, and did crucify the God of glory, their own Christ,” The redactor who considers that the apostle is now speaking of the Creator God, must still explain why the apostle apparently supported the ‘imputation of ignorance.’ Tertullian book 5,6:8. “According to Marcion however, not even the apostle in this passage permits of ignorance against the Lord of glory, being ascribed to the powers of the Creator.” The apostle’s debated declaration is then explained: “But the apostle evidently didn’t speak of spiritual princes; so that he meant secular ones, the princely people and its rulers, the king Herod and even Pilate, and as represented by him, that power of Rome which was the greatest in the world.” The ecclesial verdict contra Tertullian: the apostle was speaking of the Creator God and the secular princes who did not ignore the issues. The redactor freely interpreted Marcion to support his disputation and has differently explained the apostle’s imputation of ignorance, twisting the arguments out of Tertullian’s hands. Tertullian book 5,6:9. “Why does your god (addressing Marcion) employ the same Scripture which the apostle also relies on? What has your god to do with all the sayings of the prophets?” A redactor presents a replica of the argument given in Tertullian 5, 5:10 “The whole of the OT, the heretic, to the best of my belief, holds in derision.” In the present case, the apostle is said to rely on Scripture, not Marcion, differentiating them. * 1 Cor.2:10-16 stands apart. Human wisdom and wisdom taught by the Spirit are contrasted more extensively than previously (1 Cor. 2: 7) But is it only a Montanist declaration? “These are the things God has revealed to us by his Spirit. The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God.  For who knows a person’s thoughts except their own spirit within them? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. What we have received is not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may understand what God has freely given us. This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, explaining spiritual realities with Spirit-taught words. The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit. The person with the Spirit makes judgments about all things, but such a person is not subject to merely human judgments, for, “Who has known the mind of the Lord to instruct him? (Derived from Isaiah 40:13) But we have the mind of Christ.” Accepting the text as recording a pro-Montanist creed, I initially missed the meaning of this important section. Tertullian very helpfully makes no comments on 1 Cor.2:10-16, steering the idea of a later revival of the Church’s interest in the Holy Spirit of God. This basically means that the Church has appropriated the theme of the Holy Spirit. Here, the recipients of the Spirit of God are not confined to an outside group, ‘we’ and ‘us’ indicating a creed within the ecclesial Church, but as a gift for all, removed from the Montanist prophet’s exclusivity and ecstatic exhibitionism. Their founders gone, the New Prophecy confidently continued claiming being inspired by the Holy Spirit, a concept that gained respectability. Using themes of successful factions responds to basic political scheming. The ecclesial Church was promoting the Holy Spirit, dispossessing the Montanists of their defining trademark. 1 Cor.2:10-16 is a Church declaration. The Holy Spirit within the Church will be documented in the 325 CE Nicene Council a century after Tertullian’s days where the Holy Spirit is just mentioned as a postscript. In the Constantinople Council (381 CE), the Holy Spirit already receives greater attention. The Trinitarian declaration is probably accountable to Montanism, on the principle that heretics are precursors that influence revised orthodoxies, their specific markers transferred to the Church. The Holy Spirit, within the Church, will become a recurrent topic throughout the text, proclaiming spiritual gifts as a shared activity as we will see later, particularly in chapter 12. * 1 Corinthians Chapter 3 The Church records now start officially depreciating Montanism. Rome is turning its back to the New Prophecy and the Holy Spirit’s cryptic messages that Montanists claimed to understand. Opponents considered that the prophets to whom Montanists appealed never existed, or else were victims of demoniac possession. They considered impossible that a discourse delivered in a state of frenzy could be induced by the Spirit of God. In return the Montanists complained: “Do you not believe that there could be prophets after the appearance of the Lord? But the Savior himself said ‘Behold, I am sending prophets to you’.” (Mt. 23:23) Montanus and his inner circle considered themselves to be the new prophets. The anti-Montanist depositions are to be read, not in continuity with 1 Cor.2:10-16, but as a response to the belief that valued the spiritales, those who were receptive to wisdom taught by the Spirit. Tertullian makes no comments on verses 1-9 that introduce anti-Montanist statements suggesting that they were later than his initial reactions. 1 Cor. 3:1-3 A debater explains that Paul could not speak to his audience as spiritual people, but rather as people of the flesh precisely because of their quarrels. The writer inverts the Montanist’s precedence of the spiritales over the psychici. Tertullian considered the Roman Church to represent the Psychici as opposed to the Spiritales, the followers of the Paraclete. He denies the possibility of forgiveness of sins by the Church. 1 Cor. 3:4, the nail is further driven home: “For when one says, “I belong to Paul,” and another “I belong to Apollos,” are you not merely human?” Believers are human, and not divinely inspired true or false prophets or apostles. Making Paul’s opinion rely on actors of the community quarrels shows the later writer’s familiarity with 1 Cor.1:10-13 that seamed 1 Corinthians and 1 Clement of which Tertullian had been unaware. The writer is hitting two birds with one stone: opposing the Montanist’s spiritales and lending support to the first century timeframe. 1 Cor. 3:5 As humans, “What then is Apollos? What is Paul?” They are “Servants through whom you came to believe, as the Lord assigned to each.” Emphasis is removed from teachers that belong to the past, to focus on the believers. A new attitude toward founders seems to be materializing within the Roman Church. Saturated by the earlier Peter versus Paul disputes, the contemporary pro and anti-Montanist disputes, emphasis is presently placed on the individual believers rather than on bygone teachers and initiators, retaining only the centrality of God and his Son. The foundation of the Church is Jesus Christ, and not the quarrels around servants. (Nor the Holy Spirit and its prophets) The verses that follow convey an important message: none of the earlier teachers and disagreeing dividers matter anymore, except if their teachings survive. 1 Cor.3:6-9 “I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the growth. So, neither the one who plants, nor the one who waters is anything, but God who gives the growth. We are God’s servants, working together. You are God’s field, God’s building.” The writer is defending the centrality of institutional Church authority against the diversity of teachers. 1 Cor. 3:10 “According to the grace of God given to me, like a skilled master builder I laid the foundation and somebody else is building on it. The foundation is Jesus Christ.” The writer showcases Paul as a first century missionary who laid the foundations, meaning a letter writer and teacher of the gospel (as in Adv. Marcion. book 4 on Luke). And even if others built on the early teachings (As Montanus), the Church affirms that the foundation is and remains Jesus Christ. Tertullian 5,6:10 “Of this too, the Creator speaks, (a skilled master builder—the foundation is Jesus Christ) by the same prophet” (Isaiah). “And was it not Paul himself who was there foretold, destined to be taken away from Judah, meaning from Judaism, for the erection of Christianity in order “to lay that only foundation which is Christ?” The redactor makes Paul enact his newly understood role, the early erection of Gentile Christianity foretold, affirming once again the centrality of Christ. * 1 Cor.3:16-17: “Do you not know that you are God’s temple and that God’s Spirit dwells in you? If anyone destroys God’s temple, God will destroy that person. For God’s temple is holy, and you are that temple.” The significance of Paul’s role, as a founder of Gentile Christianity having been affirmed, the statement that God’s Spirit dwells in you, without restrictions, does not seem to address the exclusivity upheld by the Montanist prophets. The foundation is Jesus Christ, but God’s Holy Spirit belongs to all, recalling 1 Cor.2:10-16. Tertullian 5,6:11 “If man is both the property and the work and the image and the likeness of the Creator and is flesh by the virtue of the Creator’s earth, and soul by the virtue of his breathing, then Marcion’s god is dwelling entirely on someone else’s property, if it is not the Creator whose temple we are.” Marcion is attacked, not the apostle. Tertullian 5,6:12 “He who destroys God’s temple will be destroyed by the God of the temple. When you threaten him with an avenger, it is the Creator you will be threatening him with.” Paul is read at face value; it is the Creator God who threatens. A redactor is segregating the heretic—it would be absurd to make him belong to the Creator’s realm—and his apostle. 1 Cor.3:21-23: ends the chapter with Paul, Apollos, or Cephas “So let no one boast about human leaders... you belong to Christ, and Christ belongs to God.” The centrality of Christ is reaffirmed, beyond human divisions, a call for unity. * 1 Corinthians Chapter 4. This chapter continues recording the confrontations between the Church and Montanists. We first find a voice defending the New Prophecy that was under the fire of inquisitorial contestation. They were facing accusations of unorthodoxy if not of heresy. 1 Cor.4:1 “Think of us as servants of Christ.” The petition, that recalls 1 Cor. 3:5 “Servants through whom you came to believe,” places the Montanists within the Church. 1 Cor.4:3 “But with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged by you or by any human court.” Montanists start biting back and dismiss the centralized Church authority. 1 Cor.4:4b-5 “It is the Lord who judges me. Therefore, do not pronounce judgment before the time, before the Lord comes, who will bring to light the things now hidden in darkness...” Servants of Christ, no Judgment by a human court, the Lord when he comes is the sole judge. These are Montanist declarations of independency from the institution’s arbitration. We then find a warning against the New Prophecy disguised as Apollos and Paul verses. 1 Cor.4:6: “I have applied all this to Apollos and myself....so that you may learn through us the meaning of the saying, “Nothing beyond what is written.” We possibly find here a pique invalidating the new ecstatic prophetic messages that go beyond accepted Gospel declarations. The admonition is followed by verses that reveal the Montanist’s self-perception enduring Church persecution, Apollos and Paul still supposedly speaking, lending support to a first century context. 1 Cor.4:9. “For I think God has exhibited us apostles as last of all, as though sentenced to death, because we have become a spectacle to the world, to angels and to mortals.” ‘us apostles’ does not refer to Paul and Apollos. The designation should be understood according to its original meaning: a messenger sent to spread a message. Montanists spread the word they received directly from the Holy Spirit. Within the Roman Church they were becoming denigrated as the last if not least of all messengers. The excommunication that menaced them implied their exclusion from salvation (sentenced to death). Last and not least, they were criticized for their ecstatic exhibitionism (a spectacle to the world) as intermediaries between ‘angels and mortals.’ Tertullian V, 7:1 “He himself (the apostle) will bring to light hidden things of darkness—evidently by Christ as agent—who has promised that Christ will be a light and has declared that he himself will be a lantern.” The Church document is taken at face value, the apostle speaking. Tertullian book 5, 7:1-2 “The Holy Ghost has providentially explained this passage ‘because we have become a spectacle to the world’ namely to the angels who minister the world, and the men to whom they minister. Of course, a man of the noble courage of our apostle to say nothing about the Holy Ghost was afraid, when writing to the children he had begotten in the gospel, to speak freely of the God of the world, for against him he could not possibly seem to have a word to say. Tertullian’s remarks are combined with a redactor’s (set in italics) that contradict Tertullian’s criticism of the apostle. The redactor gives himself away by establishing the apostle as a letter writer and connecting him with the gospel he taught The gospel he taught is derived from book 4 on Luke’s Gospel as we will see later.. He also supports the apostle who could not possibly have said a word against the God of the world. 1 Cor. 4:10. “We are fools for the sake of Christ, but you are wise in Christ. We are weak, but you are strong. You are held in honor, but we in disrepute... when reviled, we bless; when persecuted, we endure.” We find here the ‘lamentations of Montanism’ facing the Roman Church. When persecuted we endure was a central command to Montanists. 1 Cor.4:15-16 “In Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel.” “I appeal to you then, be imitators of me.” This paternalistic declaration resumes the Roman Church closing the debate, urging a side group to join the official current. * “For this reason, I sent you Timothy, who is my beloved and faithful child in the Lord.” Timothy is a cosmetic addition that links 1 Cor. and Acts of the Apostles read as Paul’s biography, affirming his status as a first-century apostle. * 1 Corinthians chapters 5 to 8 start evaluating ethical issues bearing on sexuality, equitable judgments, and dietary recommendations. The Montanist’s defended being a post-apostolic ethical revival, not a doctrinal renewal. According to Tertullian, the Spirit proclaimed no innovations in doctrine, but only gave directions about matters on church discipline, which were coming to be the prerogative of the bishop. He was also very critical toward the moral laxism of the Roman church. All Church leaders were confronted with ethical issues. Pope Eleutherius was concerned about rules, their observance, and difficulties, in particular the dietary rules, and where to place the red line without being too severe not to discourage neophytes. His successor pope Callixtus I (217-222 CE) admitted into the Church converts from sects or schisms who had not done penance. He established the practice of absolution of sins, including adultery and murder The wide range of inclusion shows that the Church was trying to recruit within all strata of the society. . Dionysius of Corinth wrote on marriage and celibacy and recommended a charitable treatment to those who had fallen into sin or heresy. He recommended that the yoke of celibacy should not be too heavily imposed on brethren but to consider the weakness most of them had From Knossos he received the bishop’s answer “hoping that Dionysius would send strong meat next time so his people might not grow up on the milk of babes.” In other words, stop infantilizing us.. Montanism claimed strict ethical rigorism and ascetism and was hostile to any compromise with sin. Marriage was discouraged, and second marriages were prohibited. Virgins were required to wear veils. Followers were forbidden to flee from martyrdom. The Lapsi (Apostates under roman torture) were not restored back into fellowship. Infant baptism, not being a personal choice, was discouraged. Time of fasting was prolonged. The Church document including attenuating circumstances dictated by a sense of realism to consider the imperfections of the multitudes relative to moral obligations shows that the ethical deliberations are not specifically Montanist, uncompromising with sin. They nevertheless conveniently believed, referring to their founders, in the power of modern apostles and prophets to forgive sins, interceding while on earth and probably also in heaven. * 1 Corinthians 5. We find various statements on judging sexual immorality. 1 Cor.5:1-2 “It is reported that there is sexual immorality among you... a man is living with his father’s wife.... he who has done this should have been removed from among you.” Tertullian 5,7:2 “I make no claim that it was by the Creator’s law that the apostle disapproved of a man who had his father’s wife: I suppose him to have followed the rule of natural or state religion. But when he condemns him to be delivered to Satan, he becomes the apparitor of a God who condemns.” The apostle who does not follow the Creator’s law according to Tertullian’s judgment is not compatible with a Creator God who condemns. A very similar commentary will soon follow, with a different conclusion. 1 Cor.5:3: “For though absent in the body, I am present in spirit; and as if present I have already pronounced judgment in the name of the Lord Jesus on the man who has done such a thing. When you are assembled and my spirit is present with the power of our Lord Jesus, you are to hand over this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord.” ‘Big Brother’ is watching, judging, and condemning. The warning evokes Montanist’s severe perfection defending a legalistic moral rigorism sanctioning offenders. ‘Absent in the body but present in spirit’ can even suggest a posthumous cult around the founder’s heavenly guidance to perpetuate the sect. It seems difficult to attribute the threats to a rehabilitated apostle or to a Church that could defend the absolution of sins, including adultery and murder. Tertullian 5,7:2 “I pass over also what he (the apostle) means by, ‘For the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved on the day of the Lord,’ provided that you admit that by destruction of the flesh and saving of the spirit he has spoken as a judge, and that when he orders that the wicked person to be put away from among them, he has in mind one of the Creators most regular expressions. “Clean out the old yeast so that you may be a new batch, as you are really unleavened.” These verses plagiarize the previous comments (5,7:2), and then turn to a different track. We first read that Tertullian fails again to see how the verses apply to the apostle and how he also considers that the apostle speaks as a judge. Then the apostle is said to have in mind one of the Creator’s most regular expressions: “Clean out the old yeast.” It is neither related to the ethical discussion on sexual misbehavior nor is it one of the Creator’s most regular expressions Old yeast and unleavened bread are brought in to evoke the change of paradigm in Exodus.. The redactor intends to connect the apostle with Scripture and to validate the discussion on the Easter celebration that now appears in 1 Corinthians. * 1 Cor.5:7-8 “For our paschal lamb, Christ, has been sacrificed. Therefore, let us celebrate the festival, not with the old yeast, the yeast of malice and evil, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.” The Quartodeciman controversy had become alive once more opposing Polycrates and pope Victor who decided to excommunicate all the Christian leaders who supported the Jewish festivity (the old yeast of malice and evil) against the Sunday celebration (the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth) as per the Gospel of John. A certain Blastus, leader of the Roman Montanists took part in the schism at Rome, maybe even initiating it, by arguing that Christians should follow the Jewish calendar. Recording the Easter dispute can be understood as archiving a key debate involving the Montanists’ nuisance capacity and using Paul’s acquired authority to transfer the papal veto to a first century witness, close to earliest Christianity. Tertullian 5,7:3 “Yet how can Christ be the Passover except that the Passover is the figure of Christ because of the similitude between the saving blood of the paschal lamb and of Christ? How can he (Paul) have applied to us and to Christ the likenesses of the Creator’s solemnities, if they are not ours already?” A redactor intends to confirm the Paschal decision as a first century debate, therefore excluding Tertullian’s pen. From a discussion on Montanism, the Church document, more firmly connected to a first century apostle, becomes a test bench to explore the advantages of an early campaigner. What late Church policies could be transferred closer to the Lord? The Paschal debate is only one of the many transfers. Paul in 1 Corinthians is becoming the Church’s Safety Deposit Locker to secure later policies and doctrines as will soon become apparent. * Tertullian did not intervene either on 1 Cor. 5:9-13 suggesting later additions. These ‘I’ verses have in common to personalize the Pauline authorship. 1 Cor.5:9-10 “I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral persons, not at all meaning the immoral of this world, (outside of the community) or the greedy and robbers, or idolators.” Paul is supposedly addressing the Corinthians for the first time, creating a useless academic hunt for a presumed lost letter. 1 Cor.5:11 “But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother or sister (inside the community) who is sexually immoral or greedy, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or robber. Do not even eat with such a one.” 1 Cor.5:12-13 “What have I to do with judging those outside? Is it not those inside that you are to judge? God will judge those outside: “Drive out the wicked person from among you.” (Deuteronomy 13:5, 17:7 and 22:21) The declaration shows the Church’s embarrassment facing communities that divided the Roman curia: leave deliberations to God’s hands. * 1 Corinthians 6. Tertullian does not comment either on 1 Cor.6:1-13a that discusses lawsuits among believers, preparing the grounds for an autonomous Roman Church jurisdiction: “but a believer goes to court against a believer—and before unbelievers at that.” Ethical directives follow, possibly derived from Justin’s Dialogues. The discussions could represent later interventions where the Church, not very praised for its morality according to Tertullian, is catching up on ethics. 1 Cor.6:13c-15: “The body is meant not for fornication but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body.” Fornication is not a very specific marker, but linking the body to the Lord evokes Justin’s Dialogue chapters XCIII, CXVI. Moralizing is completed by a declaration of submission to orthodoxy: “And God raised the Lord and will also raise us by his power.” Followed by: “Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ?” Justin’s Dialogue ch. XLII: “Such a thing as you may witness in the body: although the members are enumerated as many, all are called one, and are a body. For, indeed, a commonwealth and a church, though many individuals in number, are in fact as one, called and addressed by one appellation.” Tertullian 5,7:4: “When again he warns us against fornication, he gives evidence of the resurrection of the flesh Opposing fornication and resurrection of the flesh is an argument derived from a later interpretation of the very Marcionite declaration in Galatian’s ‘flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God.” Flesh was conveniently reinterpreted as indicating lust, dodging the heretic’s rejected bodily revival. A redactor will reuse the argument in Tertullian 5,8:3 when commenting on 1 Cor.11:23-33 and 1 Cor. 15:50 . Just as the temple is for God and God for the temple. You see then, that “He who raised up the Lord will also raise us up.” And suitably does he add the question: “Know you not that your bodies are the members of Christ?” The apostle having suitably lent his voice to the resurrected body, Tertullian and the apostle are in harmony, indicating a redactor’s intervention. 1 Cor.6:15 “Do you not know that whoever is united to a prostitute becomes one body with her? For it is said, “The two shall be one flesh.” (Genesis 2:24) 1 Cor.6:17-20 “Anyone united to the Lord becomes one spirit with him. Every sin that a person commits is outside the body; but the fornicator sins against the body itself. Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, (repeats 3:16-17) which you have from God, and that you are not your own?” The Holy Spirit of God within you evokes the later appropriation of the Spirit by the Church, a doctrine also transferred to the first century. * These edifying maxims are followed by a very unexpected statement: “For you were bought with a price; therefore, glorify God in your body.” Bought with a price? Marcion considered that Christ’s sacrifice was the price to pay to remove humanity out of the hands of the Creator God. Using a Church document to include the very Marcionite idea shows that the ransom paid had gained official recognition within the Church, as shows in 1 Peter 1:18-19 “For you know that God paid a ransom to save you from the empty life you inherited from your ancestors. And it was not paid with mere gold or silver, which lose their value. It was the precious blood of Christ, the sinless, spotless Lamb of God.” As shows also in the Gospels: Matthew 20:28: “Just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and give his life as a ransom for the many.” Confiding the previously rejected Marcionite confession to 1 Cor., the Church’s ‘first century safety locker,’ implies that the comments on the price paid belong to a redactor. Tertullian 5,7:4 What has the heretic to say? “That these members of Christ will not rise again, for they are no longer our own. For he says: “You are bought with a price.” The redactor addresses the heretic, and not the apostle under whose name the debate is recorded. He associates the Marcionite conviction that members of Christ will not rise again (no bodily revival) and ‘the price paid’. He then destroys the heretic’s declarations: “Evidently at no price at all if Christ was a phantom without any corporeal assets which he could pay over as the purchase-price for our bodies.” Having taken the purchase-price out of Marcion’s hands, the redactor then reinterprets the price-tag for the ecclesial Christ. He obviously must explain ‘bought with a price’ ascribed to the apostle. Tertullian 5,7:5 “and since in fact he (Christ) has at some great price redeemed these bodies against which we are not to commit fornication because they are now not ours but Christ's, he will surely bring to salvation for himself possessions he has acquired at so great a cost. And besides, how can we glorify God, and how can we exalt him, in a body meant for destruction?” Reinterpreting the ‘price paid’ added to 1 Corinthians separates the heretic (who is denied any price paid for his god) from his apostle (who conveys the corrected meaning) displaying the mechanism of the redactor’s clarifications. * 1 Corinthians 7. Advice concerning marital affaires. 1 Cor.7:1-2. Now concerning matters about which you wrote Paul appears to have been solicited by the Corinthians, reproducing a feature of 1 Clement.: “It is well for a man not to touch a woman.” “But because of cases of sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband.” 1 Cor.7:8-9 “To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain unmarried as I am. But if they are not practicing self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than be aflame with passions.” These church recommendations could have been inspired by Justin Justin’s Dialogue: ch. VIII “cultivating endurance, self-control and moderation, rather than deceived by false words.” Chapter CX “each man possessing his own married wife” And ch. CXXXIV condemning “groveling and corrupting passions.”. The discussions then take us again on a different path: 1 Cor.7:10-11 “To the married I give this command—not I but the Lord—that the wife should not separate from her husband (but if she does separate, let her remain unmarried or else be reconciled with her husband), and that the husband should not divorce his wife.” Tertullian 5,7:6: “We must now encounter the subject of marriage, which Marcion, more continent than the apostle, prohibits. For the apostle, although preferring the grace of continence, yet permits the contraction of marriage and the enjoyment of it and advises the continuance rather than the dissolution.” Tertullian contrasts Marcion and his apostle, indicating a redactor’s intervention who plays cat and mouse with the heretic. Tertullian 5,7:6 “Christ plainly forbids divorce; Moses unquestionably allows it. Now when Marcion wholly prohibits all carnal intercourse to the faithful and when he prescribes repudiation of all engagements before marriage, (also translated as: demanding divorce even before marriage) whose teachings does he follow, that of Moses or of Christ?” In matters of marriage and divorce it is unlikely that Marcion would have followed Moses or the Christ of the Creator God. Tertullian 5,7:7 “Even Christ, however, when He here commands "the wife not to depart from her husband, or if she depart, to remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband," both (Moses and Christ) permitted divorce, which indeed He (Christ) never absolutely prohibited, and confirmed (the sanctity) of marriage, by first forbidding its dissolution; and, if separation had taken place, by wishing the nuptial bond to be resumed by reconciliation.” The commands given, not by the apostle but by the Lord in 1 Cor.7:10-11 refer to the ethics that were secondarily incorporated into the Gospels. Questioning divorce, using similar wording, was addressed in Matthew 5:25, 19:3 and in Luke 16:18. Just as the price paid, these marital ethics were later than the initial draft of the original Church document and later than Tertullian’s days. We have again an example of multiple harmonizing: the marital rule receiving mutual support between gospels, Paul, and Tertullian making readers believe that they were early resolutions. All guidelines labeled ‘Top-Secret’ will be confided to a first century Paul, leading to the belief that Paul, for once, quotes one of the Lord’s sayings. * 1 Cor.7:25-40 is a mixed bag on unmarried and widows, cancelling extremist views, dancing on one foot then the other, ethical problems unresolved except “if pleasing to the Lord.” “Concerning virgins,” I think that in view of the impending crisis, it is well for you to remain as you are.” The impending crisis was a Montanist fingerprint. “Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be free.” “Are you free from a wife? Do not seek a wife.” “But if you marry, you do not sin, and if a virgin marries, she does not sin.” “Yet those who marry will experience distress in this life, and I would spare you that.” “I mean that the appointed time has grown short; from now on, let even those who have wives be as though they had none.... For the present form of this world is passing away.” Expressions as ‘In view of the impending crisis’ and ‘the present form of this world is passing away’ echo the Montanist’s belief on the imminence of Christ’s return. This eschatological expectation is integral to Montanism. Tertullian book 5,7:8 asks: “But what reasons does the apostle allege for continence? Because “the time is short.” I had almost thought it was because in Christ there was another god!” Tertullian not having intervened in the previous discussions imparts that a redactor is mocking Tertullian’s belief that the apostle relates to the other god. The redactor then addresses Marcion: “You degrade your god, O Marcion, when you make him circumscribed at all by the Creator’s time.” The redactor also teases Marcion for his god’s subjection to the Creator’s time. Furthermore, “When the apostle rules that the marriage should ‘only be in the Lord,’ (1 Cor. 32-40) that no Christian should intermarry with a heathen, (1 Cor. 39) he maintains a law of the Creator, who everywhere prohibits marriage with a stranger.” The redactor is imparting that the apostle follows the Creator’s law, contrary to Marcion. * 1 Corinthians 8. The young Roman Church’s deliberations on food sacrificed to Caesar, undermining an imperial tradition of universal submission to authorities, represented an uneasy intrusion into state affairs on behalf of a new religion that also sought to gain official recognition. Accordingly, the Roman Church guidelines will be nuanced. 1 Cor. 8:4 “Hence, as to the food offered to idols, we know that “no idol in the world really exists,” and that there is no God but one.” Tiptoeing into a minefield is completed by: 1 Cor. 8:5 “Indeed, even though there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth... yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.” The foundation is God through Jesus Christ, defining official Church policy. There is no mention here of the Holy Spirit. Tertullian book 5,7:9 declares that “Marcion however does not say that the Creator is not God so that the apostle can hardly be thought to have ranked the Creator amongst those who are called gods and yet are not.” A redactor clumsily disconnects the apostle from Marcion’s other god. We must remark that Marcion’s supposed thoughts precede and guide the apostle’s interpretation. Would a highly trained lawyer as Tertullian use such unskillful reasoning? Tertullian book 5,7:9 “He (the apostle) makes the Creator the God of all things, from whom proceed both the world and life and death which cannot possibly belong to the other god.” The apostle sides with the Creator. The next verse denigrates Marcion’s god: “He (the other god) wanted divine authority. What was the use, however, of adducing the Creator’s which he was destroying? It was vain to do so; for his god has no such authority.” Tertullian 5,7:9 “And from whom have we all things, if not from him whose are all things? And what are these? You have it in what he has said already: All things are yours, whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas, or the world of life and death, or things present or things to come. Thus, he makes the Creator the God of all men and things, for from him are the world of life and death, and these cannot belong to the other god. Therefore, among those all things, is Christ.” A redactor, borrowing from 1 Cor. 3:21-23, obliges Tertullian to side with the previously unnoticed Paul, Apollos, and Cephas, making Tertullian validate Paul’s antiquity. Confirming the historical niche was an ongoing strategic necessity to free Paul from the heretic. 1 Cor. 8:7-13 gives various views concerning eating food offered to idols, all however considered Christian-compatible as long as no one is offended. Refusing to eat meat is an accepted option, not to disturb Christians of feeble faith and make them fall. Dietary problems became significant with a larger audience that the Church did not want to upset. Pope Eleutherius intervened in dietary laws affirming that “No food should be repudiated by Christians strong in their faith, as God created it, provided however that it is sensible and edible.” An open door to personal judgment. * 1 Corinthians 9. The rights of an apostle. Tertullian skips 1 Cor 9:1-8 imparting that these verses were unknown to him. 1 Cor 9:1-2 “Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? Are you not my work in the Lord? If I am not an apostle to others, at least I am to you; for you are the seal of my apostleship in the Lord.” Praising Paul did not belong to the original Church document. These declarations, derived from Acts of the Apostles, are securing Paul’s acquired first century status. Paul is thereafter used to argue the rights of church leaders and/or Montanus Montanist prophets were accused of taking gifts under the guise of offerings and sending out paid preachers. accused of corruption, misuse of funds, and immorality. 1 Cor 9:3-5 “This is my defense to those who would examine me; Do we not have the right to our food and drink?” The vindication probably addresses using donated money. “Do we not have the right to be accompanied by a believing wife, as do the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas?” Cephas married is derived from Jesus healing his mother-in-law. Matthew 8:14-16, 19:27 and Luke 4:38-40. In the NHL, Jesus will be married to Mary Magdalena to show that the marital status of church leaders cannot be condemned. Little is known about the marital status of second to third century popes or bishops, nor of their sexual lives. Celibacy and abstinence were not institutionalized Roman Church rules but were loudly voiced by Christian leaders outside of Rome’s influence. (Marcion, Tatian and the Encratites, Montanus...) The red line between vice, tolerance and virtue was an ongoing subject of tensions with extremists. Tertullian, leader of the Montanist Christian congregation at Carthage was married. His criticism of Marcion’s views are expressed in Adversus Marcionem book 1 chapter XXIX. He also criticized the Roman Church as gluttons and adulterers who hate to fast and love to remarry. 1 Cor 9:7 “Who plants a vineyard and does not eat any of its fruit? 1 Cor 9:9 “Does not the law say the same? For it is written in the law of Moses “You shall not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain.” 1 Cor 9:11 “If we have sown spiritual good among you, is it too much if we reap your material benefits?” Tertullian 5,7:10 The apostle says: For it is written in the law of Moses “Thou shalt not muzzle the ox while it is treading out the grain.” Tertullian asks: “Does God take care of oxen? Yes, of oxen for the sake of men! For he says it is written for our sakes.” The intension here is to show that the apostle sides with Scripture, contrary to Marcion. A redactor then equates the law, the apostle, the gospel preacher, and the God of the law: Tertullian book 5,7:11 “Consequently, as our claim is, this is his proof that the law is allegorical, lending its support to those who make their living out of the gospel, and that therefore the preachers of the gospel belong to that same God whose is the law which has made provision for them: this when he says, Yes, for our sakes it is written.” (1 Cor. 9:10) The apostle unequivocally belongs to the God of the law and (again) preaches the gospel. * 1 Corinthians 10. With the warnings from Israel’s history, the Church document presents a more sophisticated approach to defend the rights of church leaders and adds a layer to ethics. 1 Cor.10:2-4 “And all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, and all ate the same spiritual food, and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank from the spiritual rock that followed them, and the rock was Christ.” The writer calls to the authority of Scripture: Moses, God’s servant, gets his share of the heavenly manna, harvesting material goods for spiritual defense. Rather than the previous complaining, examples from Scripture offer a more pertinent support. 1 Cor.10:5 “Nevertheless, God was not pleased with them, and they were struck down in the wilderness.” The writer aims to show that a new group was anticipated to take over. 1 Cor. 10:6 “Now these things occurred as examples for us.” Tertullian 5,7:12 “For behold, Marcion in his blindness, stumbled at the rock whereof our fathers drank in the wilderness. For since ‘that rock was Christ’, it was of course the Creator’s, to whom also belonged the people. But why resort to the figure of a sacred sign given by an extraneous god?” (Also translated: “with what right does he expound this as a type of a different god's religion?”) A redactor, quoting from the apostle’s text, refers directly to Marcion and excludes his extraneous god. 1 Cor 10:6-14 give examples of Israel’s failures and the sins not to commit. Idolatry, indulging in sexual immorality, one must not put Christ to the test. 1 Cor 10:11-12 “These things happened to them to serve as an example, and they were written down to instruct us, on who the end of the ages have come.” “So, if you think you are standing, watch out that you do not fall.” Tertullian 5,7:13 “Now these things were done as examples for us. Tell me, (addressing Tertullian) were they done by the Creator as examples for the men of some other god, an unknown one? Or does that other god borrow them as examples from another God, his opponent?” * A new reason, under cover of Israel’s past, is given to condemn the worship of idols and sharing the product of their sacrifices. Tertullian does not comment on these verses. They don’t introduce, but bitterly defend the cultic Eucharist. We are facing a violent confrontation. 1 Cor 10:14-22 “The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not sharing with the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not sharing in the body of Christ? I imply that what pagans sacrifice, they sacrifice to demons and not to God. I do not want you to be partners with demons. You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons. You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons.” Who is really targeted here as pagans and demons: the imperial cult that Rome admittedly tries not to openly offend? More probably the Lord Mithra The Church’s cultic Eucharist was probably derived from the Mithra mystery cult that was well known among the Roman leading class from the early third century CE, on. Ernest Renan (mid-nineteenth century) claimed that had Christianity failed, the cult of Lord Mithra would have emerged as the leading state religion. mysteries that professed a similar creed against which the Church aggressively reacted to discredit the competing sacred cult. * 1 Cor.10: 23-30 on eating meats proposed by unbelievers, Christians are told to refuse if informed that they were offered to idols. Tertullian 5,7:14 “A great argument for another god is the permission to eat of all kinds of meats, contrary to the law. The burdensome ordinances of the law were abrogated by Him who imposed them.” Here again a redactor contrasts the permissive ‘other god’ and cancels his arbitration by claiming that the ancient laws were abrogated by the Creator God himself. 1 Cor. 10:32-11:1 shows the difficult position the Church faced when trying to “Give no offense to Jews or to Greeks or to the church of God, just as I try to please everyone in everything I do, not seeking my own advantage, but that of the many so that they may be saved. Be imitators of me as I am of Christ.” Facing inside and outside tensions, the Church enters her claws, claims humility but also leadership to guarantee salvation to those who follow Christ. * 1 Corinthians 11. Church dressing codes and submission to authority, with contrasting points of view. 1 Cor.11:3-10 “The head of every man is Christ.” The affirmation leads to the entire submission of women to men and to God. Women therefore should be veiled when praying, a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. Montanists required that virgins have their head covered, otherwise they accepted that women had equal rights and could preach or experience ecstatic communications with the Holy Spirit. 1 Cor.11: 11-12 convey an egalitarian mood: “Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man or man independent of woman. For just as women came from man, so man comes through woman; but all things come from God.” The discussion ends with a stalemate declaration: “But if anyone is disposed to be contentious — we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God.” In other words, no stringent rules have been decreed. Tertullian 5,7 “The man should not cover his head because he is the image of God. For He, when looking at Christ His Word, who was to become man, said “Let us make man in our own image, after our likeness,” (associates John’s Gospel and Genesis) how can I possibly have another head but Him whose image I am? Explaining woman’s submission, the apostle adds “because of the angels.” What angels? If he means the fallen angels of the Creator, (not Tertullian’s option) it is right that they should wear some mark of a humble guise and obscure beauty. If, however, the angels of the rival god are referred to, (Tertullian’s option concerning the apostle) what fear is there for them? For not even Marcion’s disciples (to say nothing of his angels), have any desire for women,” For once, the redactor displays a sense of humor. * The cultic Eucharist is now presented. (The previous 1 Cor 10:14-22 outburst was demonizing an outside group) We will be peeping once again into the ‘Top Secret Box’ confided to the Church’s first century safety locker. First with the misconduct during community gatherings partaking in a canteen abusively called the Lords Supper (1 Cor. 11 :17-22). Second with the Institution of the Lord’s Supper (1 Cor.11:23-26) and warnings against abuse (1 Cor. 27-33) with veiled threats of being accountable to the Lord and condemned along with the outside world. Tertullian 5,8:3 “We have often shown before now that the apostle calls heresies as evil among ‘works of the flesh,’ and he would have those persons accounted estimable who reject heresies as evil things. In like manner, when treating of the gospel, we have proved from the sacrament of the bread and the cup of the verity of the lord’s body and blood in opposition to Marcion’s phantom...” A redactor intervenes, first by separating the apostle from heresies, making Paul consider them to be the summit of evil, then by introducing the cultic Eucharist. A rather odd combination! Opposing Marcion’s phantom to justify a cannibalistic mystery that was introduced within the Church much later than his days suggests that the cultic Eucharist still stood disputed and needed to be firmly anchored, once again derisively at Marcion’s expense. 1 Corinthians intended to establish the creed as a very early first century ritual traced down to Jesus. The cultic Eucharist was certainly not an early first century Jewish benediction as believed by its incorporation into the Synoptics’ Last Supper. Consuming blood, even symbolically, would have been offensive to Jews. Geza Vermes did not miss the point. With the cultic Eucharist, 1 Corinthians is again used to lend support to a later Church doctrine, as previously the Holy Spirit for all, the Paschal debate, the ransom for the many, and the marital laws. * 1 Corinthians Chapters 12-13-14. Spiritual gifs and prophecy are closely related to Montanism. We would expect Tertullian to be judge and party and to react very promptly against their attribution to Marcion’s apostle. In Book 5, the chapter 8 essentially covers these three chapters of 1 Corinthians. Tertullian uses his usual strategy, concentrating his efforts on Scripture to show that the spiritual gifts and prophecy are entirely accountable to the Creator God, not to a supposed other god, and that the apostle should keep away from the law he tries to destroy. (italics mine) We also find that a redactor intervened more and more invasively to associate the apostle and the Creator God, making the apostle nod his approval for God, the prophets, and the law, contra Marcion and concludes with the remark most still accept as Tertullian’s: “without doubt, the apostle belongs to my God.” But something much more significant to the Church is being presented, easily overlooked. * 1 Corinthians chapter 12. 1 Cor. 12:4-7 “Now there are a variety of gifts, but the same Spirit; and there are varieties of services, but the same Lord; and there are varieties of activities, but it is the same God who activates all of them in everyone. To each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good.” The manifestations of the Spirit are presented as an activity within orthodoxy. But not only. The Spirit is shown to be a shared activity, a multi-faceted inspiration coming from the Lord and given to each. 1 Cor.2:10-16 had prepared us to see that after the initial acceptation and later skepticism, paths parting, the Church was appropriating an essential marker of the New Prophecy. The Holy Spirit addresses everybody, Montanists are disowned of their elitism. Tertullian Book 5,8:4 “Now on the subject of spiritual gifts (1 Cor.12:1-3) I must remark that these also were promised by the Creator through Christ.” Who holds the pen? As an isolated remark, we can switch back and forth between Tertullian and a redactor. 1 Cor. 12:8-11 “The enumerated gifts are the utterance of wisdom, the utterance of knowledge, faith, gifts of healing, the working of miracles, prophecy, discernment of spirits, various kinds of tongues, interpretation of tongues.” “All these are activated by one and the same spirit, who allots to each one individually just as the Spirit chooses.” A very similar paragraph is found in Romans 12:6-8 on the variety of gifts “We have different gifts, according to the grace given to each of us. If your gift is prophesying, then prophesy in accordance with your faith; if it is serving, then serve; if it is teaching, then teach; if it is to encourage, then give encouragement; if it is giving, then give generously; if it is to lead, do it diligently; if it is to show mercy, do it cheerfully.” . These later additions to 1 Cor. and to Romans show that even if Montanism is officially rejected, the role of the Spirit remained appealing to certain church factions and will be developed from within. Tertullian 5,8:8 compares sayings from Isaiah and the apostle’s spiritual gifts, leading to the conclusion that “the apostle is in full agreement with the prophet Isaiah.” The full agreement shows that the writer is defending the Church’s appropriation of the Spiritual gifts as a shared activity distributed to all, prophesized, and therefore justified by the authority of Scripture. 1 Cor. 12:12-31 “One body with many members” is probably accountable to Justin Justin’s Dialogue XLII “Such a thing as you may witness in the body: although the members are enumerated as many, all are called one, and are a body. For, indeed, a commonwealth and a church, though many individuals in number, are in fact as one, called and addressed by one appellation.”. The allegory is used to explain the diversity of the spiritual gifts, no longer confined to Montanists. Tertullian 5,8:9 “This I affirm: the fact that he (the apostle) has brought the unity of our body, in its many diverse members, into comparison with the compact structure of the various spiritual gifts, shows that there is one and the same Lord both of the human body and of the Holy Spirit.” The redactor sides again with the apostle and defends that the spiritual gifts are a shared manifestation of the Spirit. 1 Cor. 12:27 “Now you are the body of Christ and individually members of it.” The writer coalesces the factions beyond the divisions created by apostles, prophets, teachers, deeds of power, gifts of healing, forms of assistance, forms of leadership, various kinds of tongues. 1 Cor. 12:29-31 “Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? Do all possess gifts of healing? Do all speak in tongues? Do all interpret? The Holy Spirit is diversely manifested in everyone. All the differences converge toward a unified message: “Strive for the greater gifts. And I will show you a still more excellent way.” * 1 Corinthians Chapter 13 All you need is love. This short chapter is entirely devoted to the theme. Tertullian book 5,8:9-10 “On the subject of the superiority of love above all these gifts, He (God) even taught the apostle that it was the chief commandment, just as Christ has shown it to be: “Thou shall love the Lord with all thine heart and soul, with all thy strength, and with all thy mind, and thy neighbor as thine own self.” “He (the apostle) cannot be thought to have affirmed that the gift was that of another god by his reference to the Creator’s prediction.” The apostle cannot belong from the other god. Presently, all tendencies belong to Christ who has a unifying message beyond prophecies that will come to an end, tongues that will cease, knowledge that will come to an end. But love never ends. The Church has found a common ground: ‘love one another as I have loved you,’ basically meaning ‘stop quarreling between members of Christ.’ * 1 Corinthians chapter 14. Concerning the gifts of prophecy, tongues, and the mysteries of spiritual gifts we presently find an amusing mix of pro, anti, and coalescing declarations. For readers, it is important to retain that prophecy is equated with clear speech, tongues with ecstatic speech. 1 Cor. 14:1-23 “Pursue love and strive for the spiritual gifts and especially that you may prophecy.” “Those who speak in a tongue do not speak to other people but to God.” Maximillia, one of Montanus’ female partners claimed, regarding her ecstatic pronouncements: “Hear not me but hear Christ.” Epiphanius, Heresies xlviii, 11 “Nobody understands them since they are speaking mysteries in the Spirit.” “One who prophesies is greater than one who speaks in tongues, unless someone interprets, so that the church may be built up.” “If in a tongue you utter speech that is not intelligible, how will anyone know what is being said?” “Therefore, one who speaks in a tongue should pray for the power to interpret.” “I thank god that I speak in tongues more than all of you; nevertheless, in church I would rather speak five words with my mind, to instruct others also, than ten thousand words in a tongue.” (clear speech is more understandable and worthy than ecstatic speech). Ecstatic speech is further contested by using a biblical quote from Isaiah 33:19: “By people of strange tongues and by the lips of foreigners I will speak to this people; yet even then they will not listen to me, says the Lord.” “Tongues then are a sign not for believers but for unbelievers, while prophecy is not for unbelievers but for believers.” The respective roles of strange speaking and clear prophecy are tentatively evaluated, but immediately refuted: “If therefore, the whole church comes together and all speak in tongues, and outsiders and unbelievers enter, will they not say that you are out of your mind?” And he [Montanus] became beside himself and being suddenly in a sort of frenzy and ecstasy he raved, and began to babble and utter strange things, prophesying in a manner contrary to the constant custom of the Church handed down by tradition from the beginning. Eusebius of Caesarea: Ecclesiastical History: Vol. 5) The accusation of being ‘out of one’s mind’ is just as severe as ‘the lying pens of scribes.’ Evaluating the impact of ecstatic speech versus normal talking, we face a spectrum of pro, anti and conciliating messages related to the spiritual gifts that all believers must strive for. Tertullian 5,8:9 A redactor rounds up all the above records and concludes here again that “he (the apostle) cannot be supposed to have used the Creator's prophecy to express approval of a different god's spiritual gift,” separating Paul and Marcion. A redactor will soon enumerate all the spiritual gifts credited to the apostle of which Marcion showed no evidence. 1 Cor. 14:37-40 ends the previous deliberations on tongues and prophecies by rounding the angles of 1 Cor. 14:23 that raised the accusation of ‘being out of your mind’: “So, my friends, be eager to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues.” Tertullian book 5,8:12 “Let Marcion then exhibit, as gifts of his god, some prophets, such as not spoken by human sense, but with the Spirit of God, such as have both predicted things to come, and have made manifest the secrets of the heart; let him produce a psalm, a vision, a prayer----only let it be by the Spirit, in an ecstasy, that is, in a rapture, whenever an interpretation of tongues has occurred to him;” “Let him (Marcion) also show, that any woman of boastful tongue in his community has ever prophesied from among those especially holy sisters of his.” Prophecy, ecstasy, rapture, the Holy Spirit, and women prophesizing Walter Bauer. Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity. Sigler Press 1996; Chapter 8 p. 178 A woman endowed with the gifts of prophecy was present in Tertullian’s own community. During Sunday services, she experienced Spirit induced ecstasies, conversed with angels and sometimes with the Lord himself. She sees and hears mysteries. are all markers of Montanism that Tertullian defended. And that Marcion would have been unaware of. Addressing Marcion directly, a redactor is showing the difference between the declarations attributed to the apostle of which no traces are found in Marcion, lending support to the variety of spiritual gifts for all believers that the Church has made her own. Tertullian book 5,8:12 “If all such proofs are more readily put in evidence by me and are in full concord with the rules and ordinances and regulations of the Creator, without doubt both Christ and the Spirit [and the apostle] will belong to my God. [Anyone who cares to demand it has here the statement of my case.”] (Square brackets mine) [And the apostle] is adding a third party, not in line with the statement ‘both Christ and the Spirit.’ This fabricated appendage, simply by adding ‘et apostolus’ Si haec omnia facilius a me proferuntur, et utique conspirantia regulis et dispositionibus et disciplinis creatoris, sine dubio dei mei erit et Christus et spiritus et apostolus. at the end of the Latin sentence, is once again skillfully taking the apostle out of the heretic’s hands, integrating him within the Creator God’s realm. The main impression is that Tertullian has practically disappeared from the discussions, indicating that the original Church document set under Paul’s name was much shorter than the later canonical version that turned into a much more complex account on Church policies. * 1 Corinthians chapter 15. The ‘apparition’ verses receive no remarks from Tertullian, nor from a redactor. They have a very special role. Forget biographies, they exclusively convey strategic messages. 1 Cor 15:5 “and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.” The verse intends to confirm Luke 24:36-53 where Jesus appears to his disciples and tells them to stay in Jerusalem as well as to confirm the introduction of the Acts of the Apostles 1:2-3 According to Tyson in Luke-Acts and Marcion, a Defining Struggle, the end of Luke was staged to be conform with the beginning of the Acts of the Apostles, seaming both compositions. 1 Cor 15:6 “Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers and sisters at one time, most of whom are still alive.” The meaning of this strange affirmation is that Paul's anchoring within the historical niche is gaining the status of an institutionalized tradition. The apparition event is supposedly to have taken place around 36 CE, and Paul, now belonging to the first century, can boast that many are still alive. The simple tale is defending a very strategic claim. 1 Cor 15:7 “Then he appeared to James and to all the apostles.” James is getting a recognition nearly at par with Cephas, as with the Jerusalem Conference. 1 Cor 15:8-9 “Last of all, to one untimely born, he appeared also to me. For I am the least of the apostles, unfit to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.” The writer accepts but nuances Paul. ‘Untimely born’ means not at the same time as the other apostles, an avowal that Paul was a late comer to the church debates. Jesus appearing to Paul confirms the road to Damascus episode in Acts of the Apostles. Paul persecuting the church of God has been falsely understood as referring to the early church in Jerusalem and Judea that didn’t exist before the historical niche had been established; It refers to the second century Marcionite ‘persecution’ of the church opposing the Judean legacies. This paragraph on Paul is recycling the discussions on Paul in Adversus Marcionem book 4, chapters 2 and 3, on Luke’s Gospel. (Untimely born and latecomer are synonymous) 1 Cor 15:10 “But by the grace of God, I am what I am...” ambiguously saves Paul. The main role of the apparition verses was to stage the three main actors, Cephas, James, and Paul within the same early period. The writer was not giving a biography but perfecting a church strategy to secure the first century traditions where all the Christian events are becoming recorded. An important contribution is still missing and will soon appear. * The rest of chapter 15 on the Resurrected Body will be left out. It opens to imponderables where we find famous pages that rely on Justin 1 Cor. 15: 42-43 and 51-54 on perishable and imperishable, mortal body and immortality. Justin’s Dialogue chapters XLVI, LXIX, and CXVII. and the very Marcionite declaration ‘flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God’ that will be taken out of context. They added many pages without bringing anything fundamentally new, except that it is the only instance where a redactor claims that Marcion manipulated the epistle. Tertullian 5, 10 “Although this heretic in his folly has refused to let it be so, for instead of 'last Adam' he has written 'last Lord', fearing that if he treated the Lord as the last Adam, we might claim that as the last Adam, Christ belongs to the same God as the first Adam. But the falsification is evident.” A redactor is denouncing a falsification by the heretic who knew nothing about the Church document. This single accusation contrasts with the overflowing complaints about Marcion censoring the other Pauline letters as well as expurgating Luke’s Gospel. We will now leave the confrontations between 1 Corinthians and Adversus Marcionem book 5:5-10 and evaluate the most important consequences of the revised analysis. *** MARCION’S COLLECTION of PAUL’S LETTERS. What ‘Pauline documents’ did Marcion really have that could have served as a basis for his Apostolikon? Shaping his Apostolikon, scholars relied on Paul’s traditional belonging to the first century, making his letters accessible to the mid-second century Marcion. Standing as a collector of Pauline letters, however he managed to gather them, made Harnack boldly consider that Marcion was the first person to really grasp Paul’s significance. Scholars at large also relied on the recorded Marcionite collection of Paul’s letters with Latin prologues they considered as a confirmation that Marcion was the original collector. Robert M. Price, rejecting Paul’s existence as an historical first century figure, defends that Marcion authored all the Pauline letters which, due to Church prejudice, were edited by ‘catholicizing’ them. Price’s views save the entire Pauline collection that supposedly went into Marcion’s Apostolikon. Furthermore, contradicting Robert M. Price, the Church document named 1 Cor. was entirely written by the Church, essentially creating outside reactions. Marcion being unaware of the Church document on Montanism The dates given as to when Montanus first began his prophetic activity vary from 135 to 177 CE. The New Prophecy only turned into a Christian movement in the late second century. (Marcion died 160 CE). that was later attributed to Paul and still later addressed to the Corinthians, the common belief that his Apostolikon comprised a complete collection of Pauline letters simply collapses. 1 Corinthians excluded, then 2 Corinthians can follow. 1 Thessalonians, that Bauer considered spurious, relies so extensively on 1 Corinthians that it can equally be eliminated. The other letters, even within a ‘first century’ frame are held to be later productions. That really empties not only Marcion’s personal basket, but also Paul’s supposed first century writings. Marcion, at best, authored Galatians of which nobody shows the slightest awareness before Marcion appears. It was later professionally corrupted by the ecclesial church (The famed Abraham exegesis and the curses rely entirely on Justin’s Dialogues. Additions comprise also the Jerusalem episodes that served to anchor Paul within the same timeframe as Peter and James, his Arabian travelling accounting for not being known by name to the churches in Judea, therefore absent from the Gospels). Galatians stands as the only Marcionite letter later redacted by ‘catholicizing’ it. I would also consider that Marcion had a short Romans-like text that was probably a Marcionite treatise later incorporated into the larger canonical Romans, chapters 5-8. And that’s all. Marcion himself had no knowledge of canonical Romans Justin, Marcion’s contemporary, shows no awareness of Romans either, although many chapters bear his marks with verbatim quotes. nor of the other canonical Pauline letters. Marcion had neither to collect them from the first century, nor from his own epoch. And Marcion, the culprit, supposedly intervened, according to Adversus Marcionem, in all these letters that he personally vandalized with scissors and pen! * TERTULLIAN’S KNOWLEDGE OF PAUL’S LETTERS Did Tertullian, more than a generation later than Marcion, dispose of a complete collection of Pauline letters as understood by Adversus Marcionem? I noted at the beginning of this essay that Tertullian’s comments seemed to address 1 Cor. extensively, which was the reason I arbitrarily chose the text, while the other letters appeared to be analyzed more succinctly. It progressively came to the fore that the comments found on 1 Corinthians had been heavily edited to correct Tertullian’s outdated views and offer a redactor’s opinion on later evolutions of the original Church document, comprising the negative evaluations on Montanism, and above all the efforts undertaken to anchor the text and Paul within a first century frame to separate the heretic from his apostle. Tertullian’s own comments appeared to be limited and addressed the Church document’s attribution to Marcion’s second century apostle. He was unaware of the document being labeled to the Corinthians that anchors Paul within the mid-first century. The redactor’s intervention within the Introduction to book 5 clearly sermons Tertullian for associating the heretic, the apostle, and their allegiance to the other god. From Tertullian’s silences, repeatedly corrected by a redactor, we can affirm that he did not know about canonical 1 Corinthians, casting a serious doubt concerning the comments on all the other canonical Pauline letters. Adversus Marcionem on the other Pauline letters systematically lends support to a first century apostle, that only received backing in 1 Corinthians from a redactor. They also focus considerably more on Marcion’s supposed censorship concerning canonical texts of which Marcion knew nothing. Considering the isolated accusation of editing 1 Cor. in chapter 15, Marcion censoring Paul’s letters doesn’t even seem to have dawned on Tertullian. A lot of evidence concurs to show that Tertullian knew and wrote much less that traditionally believed. Furthermore, in Adversus Marcionem, Paul’s letters follow the same order as found in the later Marcionite list with the Latin prologues As the VI th century codex Fuldensis, that places Galatians on the top of the list. , Laodiceans added. Using this late list to comment on canonical Pauline epistles all unknown to Marcion, developing the same prospects as the redactor who intervened in 1 Corinthians, and systematically accusing Marcion inevitably leads to consider that the entire book V is spurious, except for Tertullian’s personal concern. Tertullian was aware of the initial Church document on Montanism, but not of its subsequent evolutions. He knew no more than Marcion about the canonical Pauline letters. * The redactor’s comments on the Pauline epistles uncover the rationale behind this Marcion-bashing that concerned canonical texts Marcion ignored. It aimed at consolidating the separation between Marcion and his apostle creating the belief that Marcion, a century later, collected all the Pauline letters he so admired on behalf of a Jewish missionary, but considerably manipulated them. The Punch and Judy Show staging Marcion’s abusive conduct became inherent to the Church’s strategies to anchor a rehabilitated Jewish Paul within the first century. The ‘first century apostle’ deception had many collateral consequences. It removed Marcion’s essential manifesto, ‘Galatians’ out of his hands and placed his antinomianism under the authorship of his revised apostle, a conservative and rigorist Jew who becomes praised for his amazing insight, having announced so early—a century before anyone else— a fundamental Gentile Christianity prerequisite. Church exegesis of ancient prophets, especially Isaiah, served to announce Paul’s inspired discernment and justify the falsification. In the other letters later added to Paul’s portfolio, pro-Gentile views will be further developed, also archiving contesting points of view. Paul thereafter becomes the very early founder of Gentile Christianity, struggling against Jewish exigencies. A first century apostle also became very useful to Church records, allowing to antedate significant later policies and doctrines.: the Paschal debate, the price paid, the ethical decisions on marriage, the cultic Eucharist, and accepting the Holy Spirit as a shared gift for all. The historical niche overflowed with additions. In the days of Augustine (354-430 CE), over a century after Tertullian’s days, Paul was confidently perceived as a first century writer of great significance. The deception, creating a first century apostle, had by then melted into a tradition. Augustine can praise Paul and pay little attention to Marcion he criticizes via the Manichean pantheon. Marcion’s bones are left for the occasional heretic hunter’s trophies Epiphanius (315-402 CE) in the Panarion gives an account of 80 heresies and their refutation. He was the first to suggest that Marcion got expelled from the Church because of his prejudiced interpretation of the parable of the old and new wine. But with Epiphanius, the heretic hunter, are we facing Marcion’s biography suddenly remembered two centuries later, or Church propaganda as is more often, if not always the case? The purpose of this staged incident where Marcion challenged the Church was probably to transfer Jesus-parables that had been incorporated into the Synoptics much later than previously accepted, to a much earlier period, 144 CE considered to represent Marcion’s dismissal from Rome. Just as the Muratorian list claimed that all the canonical texts were settled before 161 CE. It is noteworthy that the parable of the strong man was used, not by Tertullian, but by a redactor commenting on 1 Corinthians. It was also used by the writer of Tertullian on Luke’s Gospel as concerning the failure of Marcion’s god against the Creator God. It seems doubtful that a large collection of Thomas sayings would have been incorporated within the Synoptics before the Johannine Gospel had reached canonicity, opening the door between Alexandria and Rome. This was not the case in the early third century. .. *** TERTULLIAN’S COMMENTS ON LUKE ARE ALSO PSEUDEPIGRAPHIC. The Church manipulation that had rehabilitated Paul as a first century apostle and letter writer, a century separating him from Marcion, seeded the idea of also separating Marcion and his Luke-like Gospel and transferring Luke and the other versions to the first century. I will limit my comments to the writer’s presentation of his case and explain the reasons that make him so repeatedly rely on Paul, show why it is entirely a redactor’s intervention, and expose the Church project behind all this late Marcion-bashing. * A: The writer’s rationale is similar to the redactor’s interventions on 1 Corinthians. —The writer intends to transfer canonical Luke to the first century, making Marcion’s anonymous Luke-like version appear to have been a later plagiarism censored by the heretic. —As with Paul’s letters, Marcion is accused of censoring texts he was unaware of. The canonical versions of the Gospels and their purported authors were not known to Marcion nor to his contemporary Justin. The ± canonical versions appear at Rome at best around 170 CE with Tatian. John’s canonical Gospel that is, according to Adv. Marcionem book 4, the foremost Gospel, was not yet accepted as such during pope Zephyrinus’ office (199-217 CE). —Within the first chapters of book 4, the historical niche is systematically emphasized not only for Jesus but also for Paul who plays an important role, whereas Tertullian himself showed no knowledge of Paul becoming a first century actor. * B: The first chapters of Adversus Marcionem book 4 on Luke’s Gospel... are on Paul! Surprising, no? The reasons will become obvious, and the Church strategy clarified. Chapter 1 announces that “the whole scheme of the impious and sacrilegious Marcion was a process of interpolation for a gospel he made his own.” The statement replicates the redactor’s state of mind throughout Adversus Marcionem book 5:1 “Now the garbled form in which we have found the heretic’s Gospel will have already prepared us to expect to find the epistles also mutilated by him with like perverseness.” The writer wants readers to believe that Tertullian’s initial interest was Luke’s canonical Gospel and that the Luke chapters were written before book 5. In other words, that the Gospel was written before the letters, a feature central to his demonstration. Gospels and apostles are then associated, meaning that both belong to the early to mid-first century. The writer frequently refers to Paul to anchor the Gospels within the same period. “The nations are judged by the new law of the Gospel and the new word of the apostles.” Note that the Gospels come first. Paul is included with the new word of the apostles by explaining his message to the Gentiles: “The change of law was foreseen by the prophets Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Malachi (with quotes), and didn’t need a new god, as Marcion’s. The antinomianism in Galatians is validated as being Pauline, who was just as Jewish as the above prophets who foresaw the change of the law. The Apostle’s revision of the law is set in continuity with ancient seers. Meanwhile the historical niche is repeatedly emphasized, Paul associated with the first century Jerusalem teachers, Peter, John, and James. Marcion having been accused of mutilating his Gospel and Paul’s epistles, his god is then invalidated to complete the depreciation: “Why in your interpolation, do you impute a difference in the state of things (the revocation of the law) to a difference of powers (to a different god)?” The declaration shows that Marcion’s interpretation does not belong to the Creator as Paul’s. The writer then attacks Marcion’s Antithesis: “God’s works and plans exist in the way of Antitheses (opposites difficult to understand) so also by the same rules exist the mysteries of His religion.” On one side we find the Gospels and the apostles, on the other side Marcion the culprit. Chapter 2: “I pass on to give proof of the Gospel—not of Jewry, to be sure, but of Pontus—having become meanwhile adulterated.” Marcion falsified (once more) a Jewish text. “Our first position is that the evangelical testament has apostles for its authors.” “Apostles John and Matthew first installed faith in us.” “Apostolic men, Luke and Mark renewed it afterwards.” “Marcion associates no author to his gospel. Of the authors whom we possess, Marcion seems to have singled out Luke for his mutilating process.” The writer confirms that Marcion’s anonymous Gospel was a Luke-like text as generally accepted. Thus, Marcion is accused of selecting canonical Luke to mutilate the text, just as he had been accused of mutilating all Paul’s first century canonical letters. The writer then raises a question that needed to be cleared: as an apostle, why didn’t Paul write a Gospel? The answer is that Paul was later than the others (untimely born). But not only. Complaining about Marcion’s anonymous gospel, the writer recuses it because falsified, and explains that “The apostle whom he followed, no doubt Paul, was subsequent to the others” but “even if Marcion had published his gospel in the name of Paul himself, the simple authority of the document, destitute from all support from preceding authorities, would not be a sufficient basis for our faith.” Why this clumsy trial of intent since no gospel is set in Paul’s name? Paul is a late comer and the preceding authorities mentioned above, whose support Paul needed, were Peter and James. The writer relies on canonical Galatians, read as Paul’s biography (storytelling always secure strategic political messages) to explain that Paul, who was later than the other apostles, went up to Jerusalem to consult the pillars that his own teachings be not in vain. They accepted Paul still much later—at the Jerusalem conference—and decided that Peter and James were to go to the Jews, Paul to the Jews and the Gentiles. With his trial of intent, the writer wanted to show that Marcion so admired Paul—the first century writer—that he collected all his letters, however much he mistreated them, and could even have been tempted to associate Paul with his anonymous gospel rather than Luke. The sloppy arguments serve above all to announce that it was Paul who inspired the Gospel to Luke, and therefore it necessarily belonged to the first century. Chapter 3 continues the theme on “who inspired Marcion’s Gospel?” “In the scheme of Marcion, on the contrary, the mystery of the Christian religion begins from the discipleship of Luke.” (not an apostle, therefore ‘on the contrary’) “Marcion finding the Epistle of Paul to the Galatians labors very hard to destroy the character of those Gospels which are published as genuine and under the name of apostles to secure for his own Gospel the credit which he takes away from them.” “But even if he (Paul) censures Peter, John, and James, who were thought to be pillars, it is for a manifest reason.” The writer, quoting form 2 Corinthians that Tertullian did not know—"Paul became all things to all men that he might gain all”—explains that Peter, changing his company from respect of persons, probably also did not always practice what he preached. The redactor’s insistence on Paul who came later, had difficulties with the Jewish pillars Peter and James, and did not write a Gospel (but a full collection of letters) is held to explain Marcion’s choice of Luke. Because Luke had been Paul’s companion during his travelling in Acts, apostle Paul had inspired the apostolic man Luke who wrote the first century apostolic Gospel that Marcion mutilated. In other words, Marcion mutilated a Pauline inspired Gospel, as he had mutilated all the Pauline letters. This explains why, in book 5, the redactor frequently referred to the gospel that the apostle Paul had taught, (harmonizing books 4 and 5) emphasizing Paul’s unique stature as the founder of Gentile Christianity. The writer then mentions that Marcion’s gospel started with the days of Tiberius. In Marcion’s days the historical niche for the Jesus events had not yet been acknowledged, showing that the writer is using a later version of Luke accepted by the Marcionites. Chapter 4. Emphasis is set on the authority of the more ancient text. Luke is said to belong to the first century, much earlier than Marcion’s version. Truth precedes error. (Writers in those days did not use the term ‘Canonical’ to categorize a Gospel) Chapter 5. The writer then names Paul’s epistles. “Let us see what milk the Corinthians drank from Paul; to what rule of faith the Galatians were brought for correction; what Philippians, the Thessalonians, the Ephesians read by it; what utterance also the Romans give, so very near to the apostles, to whom Peter and Paul conjointly bequeathed the gospel even sealed in their blood.” The epistles are quoted, not according to the late Marcionite list with Latin prologues, but the Muratorian list that starts with Corinthians, then Galatians and ends with Romans (but changes the order of the letters in between). The impressive collection is there to show that Paul’s letters were all known before 161 CE, as also the canonical Gospels. Implicitly, the canonical Gospels being associated to the canonical letters within the same document, they were necessarily known to the first century Paul. He had no time to write a Gospel but knew about them and taught the gospel as repeatedly announced. “The Gospel of Luke which we are defending with all our might has stood its ground from its very first publication; whereas Marcion’s Gospel is not known to most people, and to none whatever is it known without being condemned.” “For even Luke’s form of the Gospel men usually ascribe to Paul.” “Luke’s Gospel has come down to us in like integrity until the sacrilegious treatment of Marcion. In short, when Marcion laid his hands on it, it then became diverse and hostile to the Gospels of the apostles.” “A late date is the mark of forgers.” Today, for most analysts, the forgery consists in the early dating of the canonical Gospels. Having presented the preliminary frame that is to guide his study, that relies so heavily on Paul, the writer can thereafter confront Marcion’s pre-canonical Luke he does not possess, and the canonical version Marcion had not known. * C: A Unified Church Strategy. Since a redactor started intervening in Adversus Marcionem, the strategies converged toward a specific purpose: Creating a single platform to stage the Christian tragedy and message of salvation: Unity of place, Unity of time and Unity of action. They knew their classics. Thus, the historical niche becomes the cradle of nascent Christianity around the Jesus events, comprising a full collection of Paul’s letters, the Jew who founded the premises of Gentile Christianity, and the Gospels that recount, at variance, Jesus’ biography At variance, because the ancient authors were not concerned about biographies. As political parties, all their writings exclusively recorded partisan and conflicting points of view.. All the mysteries and witnesses involving the Christian adventure are present on the same stage. Christianity appears to have spread very rapidly, expanding from East to West as an early consequence of the initial ‘Big Bang,’ God offering His Son for our salvation. The focus occulted earlier antecedents that had implanted messianic speculations as a political lever, while the later Church becomes decontaminated of all the recurrent challenges that shaped her orthodoxy, safely stored away in Paul’s letters and in the Gospels. Unity of time and place were thus completed by transferring Paul and then the Gospels to the early first century. The redactors used Tertullian’s anti-Marcionite reputation to consolidate Paul’s first century landmarks at Marcion’s expense, and to explain that Paul also taught to Luke his canonical Gospel, showing how pivotal Paul was for the writer’s validation. Their arguments always pointed toward the first century to establish an authoritative anthology for the History of early Christianity. Marcion is dispossessed of his essential impacts. He loses Paul, his Luke-like Gospel, his antitheses. He is left naked and bruised for the sake of creating a more appealing Church vitrine. Marcion the offender is ruined, Paul and Luke’s Gospel are safe, the Christian saga is perfected, and modern readers taken for a ride. *** RECAPITULATING -The late second century Church document that became recorded under the name of a rehabilitated Paul and thereafter addressed to the Corinthians evaluated the new doctrines on Montanism that Rome defended before revising her support. -Paul’s first century status becoming secured, the Church document changed outlooks and became a safety deposit locker allowing to antedate later policies. Paul’s new status thereafter opened the doors to a series of pseudepigraphic Pauline texts. -Tertullian’s own comments reacted against attributing the text on Montanism to the heretic’s apostle. Tertullian’s reactions were obscured by a later redactor whose officially guided strategy aimed at repairing Tertullian’s archaic views and confirming Paul’s belonging to the historical niche. -The still later Marcion-bashing to discredit Marcion’s Luke-like Gospel also served to transfer canonical Luke and the approved canonical gospels to a much earlier period. -The final Church strategy behind all the fabricated Marcion-bashing can be resumed as lending support to a unified stage showcasing nascent Christian. -Marcion who knew nothing about the Church document and even less of its later attribution to his reformed apostle, implies that his Apostolikon needs to be revised. As also all the studies on Marcion that fail to recognize the propaganda a redactor spread via Tertullian. 1