I find some of Dunn’s arguments to go beyond what I believe can be stated with any certainty. For example, on p. 20 of the item linked below, he quotes (?) from Alders: “… in some of these cases, Tertullian did not depend upon his Old Latin text slavishly; sometimes he corrected or improved the Latin, obviously with his eye on a Greek text.” Given the relative great paucity of old Latin mss when compared with Greek, I don’t see how anyone could assume that any old Latin ‘quotes’ that do not agree in all details with any existing mss must have been ‘corrected or improved’ towards the Greek readings. It seems to me that all you can really say is that the readings in these ‘quotes’ lie part way between the extant old Latin and Greek mss, and anything relating to how this came about is pure conjecture.
Dunn also refers to Higgins, who in the conclusion of ‘The Latin Text of Luke in Marcion and Tertullian’ writes:
1. The many differences in vocabulary between the quotations from Luke in Adv. Marc. IV and in Tertullian's other writings, supported by Tertullian's choice of other words in discussing the passages quoted in Adv. Marc. IV, point to his use of two translations, the Marcionite (M) and the Catholic (T).
2. The clear European nature of the Latin of the quotations in Adv. Marc. IV compared with Tertullian's other quotations cannot be explained on the hypothesis that he translated all these passages from the Greek himself.
3. T, while not identical with the Cyprianic text, is much more African than M, and may be regarded as an earlier form of the African translation.
4. M is quite independent of the African, while its affinities with the European are very marked. Its kinship with the European is, in fact, clearer than that of T with the African.
5. M, while strongly European in colouring, also possesses some distinctive features, and is to some extent independent of the European translations as well as of the African.
These conclusions agree exactly with those drawn by von Soden from his similar study of Tertullian's quotations from Paul.
Higgins’ point 5 basically agrees with what I suggest above, i.e. indicating that the old Latin in M does not always agree with either the European or African old Latin mss, but without going so far as suggesting a reason. However, even if Tertullian did have an old Latin copy of the whole of Marcion’s gospel, this doesn’t tell us much (if anything) about whether the original was in Latin or Greek.
David Inglis, Lafayette, CA, 94549, USA
] On Behalf Of David Mealand
Sent: Thursday, November 03, 2011 5:01 AM
Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] Was Marcion's gospel originally in Latin or Greek?
This is really a question for a Marcion or a Tertullian specialist but no-one has responded as yet.
Geoffrey D. Dunn, Tertullian, 2004 pp.20-21 has some discussion of how much Tertullian did or did not use existing Greek or Latin texts of the NT and of Marcion. He cites some earlier scholarly literature on the two questions.
It will probably come up by googling Marcion Greek Latin but otherwise copy and paste this lengthy item in - if it survives the trip around the web:
David Mealand, University of Edinburgh
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]