The Journal of Theological Studies Advance Access originally published online on July 14, 2008
The Journal of Theological Studies 2008 59(2):580-597; doi:10.1093/jts/fln100
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Matthean Texts and Tertullian's Accusations in Adversus Marcionem
University of Edinburgh
Correspondence: dieter_t_roth{at}yahoo.com
 |
Abstract |
|---|
This article examines the curious phenomenon that Tertullian, despite explicitly contending that Marcion mutilated the Gospel of Luke, appears to accuse Marcion of having excised passages from it which are found in, and usually only in, Matthew. Scholarly explanations for this phenomenon include his having committed some type of error, his employing the term ‘Gospel’ for the fourfold Gospel, and his text of Luke containing readings from Matthew or Mark that are not in Luke as we know it. A version of the view that Tertullian's text of Luke contained harmonizations to Matthew or Mark was advocated by David S. Williams in a 1991 article, and subsequently embraced by Andrew Gregory. Though the possibility of harmonizations in Tertullian's text must be taken seriously, Williams's ‘exploratory and programmatic’ arguments for Tertullian's potentially extensive use of a harmonized source are, for both methodological and conceptual reasons, less than persuasive. After discussing the weaknesses in Williams's view, this article argues that in all but one case, where Tertullian's memory failed him, the best explanation for his accusations is that he viewed the four gospels as comprising ‘the Gospel’, and therefore that his accusations in Adversus Marcionem were motivated by Marcion having rejected the Gospel of Matthew.