andrewcriddle

There has been recent discussion (partly based on the work of Detering) of the idea that the earliest ascertainable form of Paul's Epistles is that of Marcion's version.

This is sometimes expressed as the idea that Marcion composed Paul's Epistles which is IMO improbable, but the idea that Marcion's version of Paul is the source all other surviving versions is compatible with a pre-Marcionite Paul.

I've tried to see if there are any readings of Marcion's version that seem clearly secondary.

One problem is that although there are several readings attributed to Marcion in the standard text-critical works that seem clearly secondary, I have become sceptical on examining the primary sources as to how confidently these can be attributed to Marcion.

For other readings the priority of Marcion's version will depend on theological judgments of a controversial nature.

However there seems one good example of a secondary reading by Marcion. 1 Corinthians 15 verse 47

This has various forms

A/ Most late manuscripts and the KJV read The first human being from the earth earthy the second human being the lord from heaven

B/ Most early manuscripts and most modern versions read The first human being from the earth earthy the second human being from heaven

C/ P46 our earliest manuscript reads The first human being from the earth earthy the second human being spiritual from heaven

D/ Marcion read The first human being from the earth earthy the second the lord from heaven

E/ There is limited support for The first human being from the earth earthy the second human being from heaven heavenly (the Latin Vulgate reading)


Marcion's reading seems solid being attested by Tertullian and Adamantius and seems clearly secondary.

Of the five readings C/ and E/ appear derived from B/ the precise relation of A/ and D/ appears unclear but B/ must be ultimately the original of both. Marcion could plausibly change human being to the lord (deriving D/ from B/) or delete human being (deriving D/ from A/). An orthodox corrector could add the lord (deriving A/ from B/) or conflate the lord and human being (deriving A/ from B/ and D/). However it seems almost impossible that an orthodox corrector would remove a reference to the lordship of Christ (B/ cannot be derived from A/ and/or D/).

Hence we have at least here a pre-Marcionite reading found in our ancient manuscripts of Paul. Hence Marcion's version is not the original.

Andrew Criddle

S.C.Carlson

A very relevant book you might find useful is John J. Clabeaux, A Lost Edition of the Letters of Paul: A Reassessment of the Text of the Pauline Corpus Attested by Marcion (CBQMS 21; Washington, DC: CBAA, 1989).

Clabeaux gives a list of secure (pre-)Marcionite readings along with an assessment of whether they are secondary.

Toto

It appears that it can be ordered here: Catholic Bible Association of America, but I don't know if that website is current.

It is not available on Amazon, but it if were, you could order it here or through the The Center for Marcionite Research Bookstore

Detering criticizes Clabeaux here:

S.C.Carlson

As with a lot of text critical studies, what makes Clabeaux's book useful is his conveniently laying out the relevant data, rather than is evaluative methodology.

ADDED: Clabeaux goes through a lot of effort trying to determine if a reading is securely Marcionite based on our fragmentary sources; Detering's criticism has more to with Clabeaux's next step (assessing which readings are pre-Marcionite and secondary to identify Marcion's text-type).

andrewcriddle

Thanks Stephen for the information.

Andrew Criddle

Vorkosigan

That's exactly the kind of book I was looking for. Thanks, Stephen.

Michael

andrewcriddle

I've got hold of Clabeaux's book from a library and I'll try and post about it in a few days.

Andrew Criddle

andrewcriddle

Clabeaux has a long list of Marcionite readings in Galatians 1 Corinthians Ephesians Colossians 1-2 Thessalonians and Philippians. This only includes readings which Clabeaux regards as partly or wholly pre-Marcionite. The ten or so readings which he regards as clearly Marcionite corrections are not listed but presumably could plausibly be claimed by Detering as cases of Orthodox correction of an original Marcionite reading.

In a large minority of Clabeaux’s Marcionite readings the Marcionite reading is listed as original, in the rest the Marcionite reading is regarded as secondary (although according to Clabeaux at least mostly pre-Marcionite). This evaluation is supposedly done on internal evidence but in some cases Detering could plausibly claim that the criteria are biased against his position. Eg Clabeaux regards the omission of hO KAI PARELABON in 1 Corinthians 15:3 as secondary but pre-Marcionite. Detering on his principles could plausibly regard the reference to Paul receiving tradition from others as an orthodox correction. Some of Clabeaux’s other cases seem uncertain on internal grounds alone by any criteria.

However in the majority of cases where Clabeaux claims the reading is secondary on internal evidence appear IMO sound. A list of these follows.

1/ Gal 1:8 Marcion reads EUAGGELISHTAI with others reading EUAGGELIZHTAI or EUAGGELIZETAI. Here EUAGGELIZHTAI is the easiest reading to explain the origin of the other two.

2/ Gal 2:4 Marcion reads DIA instead of DIA DE. DE probably omitted by mechanical error following DIA.

3/ Galatians 3:14 Marcion reads EULOGIAN for EPAGGELIAN with considerable manuscript support. This is an assimilation to EULOGIA earlier in the verse.

4/ Galatians 4:26 Ephesians 1:21 is apparently present in Marcion’s text as an explanation of Jerusalem above. This seems to be a gloss which has got into the text.

5/ Gal 5:14 Marcion has EN hUMIN PEPLHRWTAI for EN hENI LOGW(i) PEPLHRWTA EN TW(i) with some support for EN hUMIN EN hENI LOGW(i) PEPLHRWTA and some early evidence replacing EN hENI LOGW(i) (in one word) by EN OLIGW(i). (in few) I am less certain than Clabeaux what the original was but agree that the absence of EN hENI LOGW(i) in Marcion is secondary resulting from the same motives as caused EN OLIGW(i). ie the command to love your neighbour is pedantically not one word but several.

6/ 1 Cor 2:8 Marcion OUDEPOTE for OUK rhetorical/stylistic change to emphasis the awfulness of crucifying Christ.

7/ 1 Cor 5:3 Marcion GAR hWS for GAR. This is majority text and is stylistic improvement balancing hWS later in verse.

8/ Marcion omits H in ESThIEI H TIS. No motive for deliberate addition omission may be stylistic effect (9:7 now has 3 clauses beginning TIS) or by miscopying from spoken ESThIEI H.

9/ 1 Cor 9:9 Marcion PhIMWSEIS for KHMWSEIS. This is majority text and is an assimilation to the Septuagint.

10/ 1 Cor 12:9 Marcion has ChARISMA for ChARISMATA Similarly

11/ 1 Cor 12:10 Marcion has DIAKRISIS for DIAKRISEIS in both cases the rather problematic plural has been replaced by a singular for stylistic reasons.

12/ 1 Corinthians 14:19 Marcion reads DIA TON NOMON apparently through misreading TW(i) NOI MOU

13/ 1 Corinthians 14:21 Marcion has hETEROIS for hETERWN. This is majority text and is an assimilation to the Septuagint.

14/ 1 Cor 14:34 Marcion reads EKKLHSIA(i) for EKKLHSIAIS. Changing ‘the churches’ to ‘the church’ makes the passage more general and seems secondary.

15/ 1 Cor 15:45 Marcion has KURIOS for (2nd) ADAM similarly

16/ 1 Cor 15:47 Marcion has KURIOS for (2nd) ANTHRWPOS. Both secondary see my first post in this thread.

17/ 1 Cor 15:50 Marcion has GAR for DE which clarifies the connection berween vs 49 and 50. Marcion also reads BASILEIAN ThEOU OU KLHRONOMHSOUSIV (will not inherit the kingdom of God) for BASILEIAN ThEOU KLHRONOMHSAI OU DUNANTAI (cannot inherit the kingdom of God) This is probably an assimilation to passages like 1 Cor 6:9,10 and Gala 5:21

18/ Eph 1:13 Marcion has EN hW(i) PISTEUSANTES for EN hW(i) KAI PISTEUSANTES probably a stylistic improvement by a scribe who saw the clause as referring to believing in the Gospel rather than in Christ himself.

19/ Eph 2:15 Marcion has hEAUTW(i) for AUTW(i) This is majority text and is a clarification.

20/ Eph 2:17 Marcion omits second EIRHNHN This is majority text and is a stylistic improvement.

21/ Eph 5:28 Marcion reads ‘Men ought to love their wives. He loves his own flesh who loves his wife as Christ loves the church’. Instead of ‘Men ought to love their wives as their own flesh. He who loves his wife loves himself’ I’m not convinced by Clabeaux’s detailed reconstruction of the history of this variant but I agree that ‘as Christ loves the church’ is secondary here.

22/ Eph 5:29 Marcion has MISEI ALLA KAI for EMISHSEN ALLA which is a stylistic improvement.

23/ Col 4:10 Marcion has hINA OUN for EAN which clarifies the passage.

24/ Col 2:11 Marcion reads MONOI MOI EISI for MONOI which clarifies the passage.

25/ 1Thess 2:15 Marcion reads IDIOUS PROPhHTAS (their prophets) for PROPhHTAS although this is clearly a difference of Marcionite and orthodox understanding of Paul IDIOS used in this way is non-Pauline (unless you regard Titus 1:12 as Pauline.)

26/ 2 Thess 1:9 Marcion reads OLEThRION (destructive) for OLEThRON (destruction) OLEThRON is the Pauline term see 1 Cor 5:5 and especially 1 Thess 5:3 and OLEThRION is an easy mistake.

27/ Phil 2:7 Marcion reads ANThRWPOU for ANThRWPWN. This is a change of the anomalous plural to singular on stylistic grounds.


(Hope there are no errors in this list)

Not all of these examples will be equally convincing but together they present a strong argument that Marcion’s text is not always original.

Andrew Criddle

jakejonesiv

HDetering considers 1 Cor. 15:1-11 to contain an anti-Marcionite interpolation.
Hi Andrew,

That is a lot of work by you! Thanks.

Several of these items appear to be "easy to make" scribal errors.

Did Clabeaux consider the possibility that Tertullian introduced any of these proposed scribal errors when copying Marcion? I think this could be a possibility especially where the differences are neutral with respect to the doctrinal issues.

Jake Jones

andrewcriddle

Clabeaux attempts to take factors like this into account. As well as his list of secure readings in Appendix A he has another list in Appendix B of readings he thinks probable but which don't pass his criteria for confidence.

Actually Clabeaux uses as his sources for Marcion's text Epiphanius and Adamantius as well as Tertullian. He spends some time arguing these are independent sources for Marcion's text.

Of the examples I quoted variants 1/ 5/ 13/ 14/ 15/ 16/ and 20/ are found in two of the three sources Clabeaux uses for Marcion's text. (Mostly Tertullian with either Adamantius or Epiphanius though 14/ is witnessed by Adamantius and Epiphanius but not Tertullian.) Hence these seem pretty rock solid as genuinely Marcionite.

Andrew Criddle.