Recherche – Detailansicht
Ausgabe: | November/2018 |
Spalte: | 1148–1150 |
Kategorie: | Kirchengeschichte: Alte Kirche, Christliche Archäologie |
Autor/Hrsg.: | Vinzent, Markus |
Titel/Untertitel: | Tertullian’s Preface to Marcion’s Gospel. |
Verlag: | Leuven: Peeters 2016. VI, 398 S. = Studia Patristica Supplements, 5. Kart. EUR 86,00. ISBN 978-90-429-3320-0. |
Rezensent: | Dieter T. Roth |
Markus Vinzent has provided several contributions, in both book and article form, to the renewed scholarly interest in Marcion and Marcion’s Gospel. In this volume, V. largely takes up positions already set forth in previous publications, especially in Marcion and the Dating of the Synoptic Gospels (Leuven 2014), and discusses them within the context of several of the prefaces found in Tertullian’s works. As stated in his introduction, though V. is keenly interested in the preface found in Marc. 4.1–6, he also wishes to consider the way »Tertullian deals with Marcion and his Gospel in several other prefaces in his various works« (1). This latter task is executed in »Part One: The Likeable Sinner,« which is also the longest section of the book (11–254). V. provides the Latin text and published translations of along with commentary on the prefaces of Tertullian’s works On the Prescription of Heretics, On the Flesh of Christ, and On the Resurrection of the Flesh, for V. believes that these are also works in which »Marcion is the main target« (32). The presentation of the text is discussed further below, and for the moment it can simply be noted that interspersed throughout the commentary one can already find distinctive positions set forth by V., e. g., Marcion played a »key role in the making of Scripture« (34); Marcion charged Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John with falsifying and plagiarizing the Gospel he had written (95.160); Marcion may have enriched the community in Rome »considerably, endowing it not only with writings, but also in liturgicis and allowing it to build upon his innovations« (198); and that Marcion »not only used, but probably even introduced« the cross as the sign on one’s forehead (202–203).
Part Two is an exceedingly brief discussion of »Tertullian and Marcion’s Gospel« (255–265) in which, as also noted below, the discussion of the work of other contemporary scholars working on Marcion contains some unfortunate mischaracterizations. In »Part Three: Tertullian, Against Marcion IV 1: His response to Marcion’s Antitheses« (267–292) and »Part Four: Tertullian, Against Mar-cion IV 2–6: Preface to Marcion’s Gospel« (293–347) attention is given to the preface of Against Marcion. The most controversial elements of these sections are V.’s discussions of those passages in which he finds confirmation for several of his bold theses. Included in these are the idea that »Marcion’s Gospel must have existed in at least two different versions, first as a pre-published stand-alone draft, and second as a published edition framed by the Antitheses and the ten Pauline Letters« (261); that terminology like videatur falsum and aemulatio should be understood as »plagiarism« on the part of the canonical Gospel writers (262–263.324); that the use of the description evangelizator should be understood as identi-fying Marcion as a »Gospel-writer« (265.333–334); and that Tertullian is shockingly contradictory in his opening words to book 4 of Against Marcion in the statement omnem sententiam et omnem paraturam impii atque sacrilegi Marcionis ad ipsum iam evange-lium eius provocamus quod interpolando suum fecit (269). Each of these interpretations and/or translations, in addition to many others, is at the very least debatable, especially since V. often and rightly makes comments to the effect of »Tertullian’s information is not easy to understand« (276).
As noted above, throughout the volume, V. provides extensive blocks of text of the passages that he is discussing. The text is presented in three columns with the first containing Tertullian’s Latin text, the second offering a published English translation, and the third a published German translation. In general, such a presenta-tion is quite helpful, even though it is, at times, a source of confu-sion. For instance, V. has occasionally altered the English translation when he believes it needs to be corrected and indicates that change to the reader. At the same time, however, as far as I can tell, he never changes the German translation, which results in the translations being at odds with each other (cf., e. g., Praescr. 41.6 on p. 209). Perhaps more significant are instances in which V. simply follows the English translation for his argument when the German provides a different, and in my estimation, more accurate translation. For instance, the English translation (by Evans) renders aut si ipsum erit verum, id est Apostolorum, quod Marcion habet solus (et quomodo nostro consonat quod non Apostolorum, sed Lucae refertur?) in Marc. 4.3.5 as »Or if that is to be the true one, if that is the Apostles’, which Marcion alone possesses, then how is it that that which is not of the Apostles, but is ascribed to Luke, is in agreement with ours?« whereas the German translation (by Kellner) reads, »Oder wenn eben das das echte Evangelium, d. h. das apostolische Evangelium ist, welches Marcion allein hat, wie kann es denn mit dem unsern, das nicht apos-tolisch ist, sondern dem Lukas zugeschrieben wird, übereinstimmen?« (314) V. employs Evans’s translation for his argument that Tertullian is comparing Marcion’s Gospel and Luke with Matthew, whereas I would contend that the point of comparison is rightly presented in the German, namely, Marcion’s Gospel is being compared with Luke. Matthew’s Gospel is not in view here. An example such as this highlights in nuce the types of interpretive differences that are often not discussed, let alone resolved.
A final issue to be raised is one that has also been brought up by reviewers of other works by V. dealing with Marcion and related issues, namely, problems in V.’s representation of the works of other scholars in his writings. For instance, I do not recognize my own work in V.’s description of it as an »attempt to review Harnack’s reconstruction of Marcion’s Gospel based on the apologist’s claim of Lukan priority« (259). I am at an even greater loss to explain how V. can assert that I methodologically start »without even questioning the apologetic view: ›The church fathers agreed that Marcion’s Gospel was simply a mutilated version of Luke‹,« and then go on to claim that I make assertions »drawing from this as a fact« (259). V. has here cited a descriptive statement of the views of the church fathers from the opening paragraph of the history of research in my monograph The Text of Marcion’s Gospel (Leiden 2015), a statement that is in no way prescriptive for my method-ology. It would be de-cidedly more helpful for V. to formulate his representation of my methodological starting point on the basis of the chapter in my volume entitled »Sources and Methodology« as opposed to the chapter entitled »History of Research.« Or again, since Judith Lieu explicitly stated that »Marcion did edit the ver-sion of the written Gospel that he received, although arguably not to such an extent as his opponents believed« ( Marcion and the Making of a Heretic: God and Scripture in the Second Century [Cambridge 2015], 209), it is more than curious to find V. claiming that she subscribes to the view that »Marcion neither tempered Luke nor adapted an earlier Gospel, but simply adopted and made use of an unknown early Gospel« (259). Such misrepresentations are an unfortunate hindrance to productive scholarly debate and to the advancement of scholarship concerned with Marcion.
In sum, despite continued misgivings concerning many of the interpretations of Tertullian set forth by V., I can fully agree with the statements at the outset of V.’s epilogue: »Reading Tertullian is fascinating, […] It is not without its challenges either« (349). It is nigh on to certain that these challenges will keep the debate going concerning Tertullian’s discussion of Marcion and Marcion’s Gospel and V.’s voice in these debates remains one with which one needs to reckon.