Why Do We Assume that Whenever Tertullian Cites an Unknown Variant It's Marcion's?

The Misattribution of Variants

In scholarly discussions about early Christian texts, a prevalent assumption is that any variant cited by Tertullian, especially those unknown or unique, must belong to Marcion's gospel. This presumption often goes unchallenged, but it merits closer scrutiny. Why do we instinctively attribute these variants to Marcion? Is there a robust basis for this practice, or does it reflect deeper biases in textual criticism?

A Case Study from Against Marcion, Chapter 33

Consider an example from chapter 33 of Tertullian’s Against Marcion. Here, Tertullian discusses the following passage:

“If then these expressions do not apply to the Creator but to mammon, the questions Who will entrust to you that which is more true? and, Who will give you that which is mine? cannot be taken for questions by one god about another god's grace. He might indeed have been thought to mean this if by censuring them for unfaithfulness towards the Creator, not towards mammon, he had by mentioning the Creator introduced distinctions between <him and> some second god who would refuse to entrust his own truth to those unfaithful to the Creator; as likewise he can indeed be taken for the Christ of that other god, except that he is set before us in terms by which he is kept at a distance from the subject under discussion.”

In this passage, it is assumed that “Who will give you that which is mine?” is a Marcionite reading. But why? Tertullian is likely citing from his own text of Luke. The immediate leap to attribute this to Marcion lacks concrete evidence and seems to be an unfounded assumption.

Alleged Marcionite Combinations

Another instance where Marcion is assumed to have combined texts is seen in the alleged combination of Luke 16:17 with 21:33:

“…and if old things have come to an end, and new things have begun, with John as the point of division: then that which conforms to the Creator's ordinance will not be so unexpected as to amount to proof that the kingdom of God takes its origin from every imaginable source except the sunset of the law and the prophets upon John, and the daybreak that came after. So then let heaven and earth pass away, as have the law and the prophets, more quickly than one tittle of the words of the Lord: for Isaiah says, The word of our God abideth for ever. For Christ, who is the Word and Spirit of the Creator, had in Isaiah so long before prophesied of John.”

Here, the supposed Marcionite combination is inferred without sufficient justification. It is crucial to recognize that these assumptions may lead to misinterpretations of both Marcion's text and Tertullian's arguments.

Challenging the Assumptions

The tendency to attribute unknown variants to Marcion reflects broader issues in textual criticism:

1. Bias Towards Marcion: Scholars often approach Marcion's gospel with a preconceived notion of its radical divergence from canonical texts. This bias can color interpretations and lead to unwarranted assumptions.

2. Circular Reasoning: Attributing variants to Marcion because they are unknown or unique can become circular reasoning. It presumes Marcion's text is significantly different and then uses that presumption to explain differences.

3. Neglect of Context: Ignoring the possibility that Tertullian might be citing from his own canonical text or an otherwise lost variant from early Christian traditions. This neglect can distort our understanding of early Christian textual transmission.

Moving Forward

To advance our understanding of early Christian texts, we must critically reassess our assumptions. When Tertullian cites an unknown variant, we should consider multiple possibilities:

• It might be a variant from Tertullian's text of Luke.
• It could represent a broader textual tradition within early Christianity.
• It may indeed be from Marcion's gospel, but this needs to be substantiated with more evidence.

By adopting a more nuanced approach, we can better appreciate the complexities of early Christian textual transmission and avoid the pitfalls of unwarranted assumptions. It is time to move beyond the default attribution to Marcion and embrace a more rigorous, evidence-based methodology in textual criticism.