DCHindley

I'm just not so sure what to make of this lack of mention of omissions (when compared to the orthodox version) in the first two chapters of Marcion's Galatians. If Tert's avowed mission is to lambast Marcion for what his version "retained" (had in common with the orthodox version) that undermined his own avowed gospel, why would Tert feel obligated to mention that certain passages contrary to Marcion's gospel exist in the orthodox version but not in Marcion's?

It is clear, though, that Marcion's Galatians did include some passages that exist also in the orthodox version:

1:1 Paul an apostle, not of men nor through man, but through Jesus Christ,

6 I marvel that you are so quickly transferred from Him Who called you in His goodness unto a different gospel:

7 Which is not entirely another according to my gospel ; but there are some who trouble you and would change (you) unto a different gospel of Christ.

8 But even if an angel out of heaven should announce another gospel [to you], let him be accursed!

9 As I said before, so I say now again, If any one announces another gospel to you let him be accursed.

15 But when was well-pleased, the (Supreme) God having selected me from my mother's womb

2:1 I went up to Jerusalem; After fourteen years

2b and I set before them the canon of the gospel

2d (fearing) that for nothing I should go or had gone

3 But not even Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised:

4 But because of those who crept in to spy out this liberty of ours which we enjoy in Christ, so that they might enslave us -

5 To these not even for an hour we yielded in subjection

Bold = Tertullian
Italics = Origen (via Hieronymus)
Underline = Adamantius

I can certainly see how 1:1 through 2:5 could be seen by Marcion as reflecting his own journey to Rome to present to the Church hierarchy his Antithesis and the conclusions about Paul's "gospel" that he drew from them. He was implying that the church at Rome had deviated from Paul's "gospel" by Judiazing.

Just as Paul had to turn to preach his gospel to the nations, while the earthly disciples of Jesus continued to preach it to the Jews, so Marcion also had to turn away from the Judiazed church and seek fresh ground. Galatia was closest to Pontus, and a Pauline letter to vaguely defined "Galatians" would offer a great lead-in to a new cannon of Paul's writings.

DCH

jakejonesiv

If Tertullian didn't have some version of the Marcioite text, how could he write this?
Let Marcion's eraser be ashamed of itself: except that it is superfluous for me to discuss the passages he has left out, since my case is stronger if he is shown wrong by those he has retained.

It may be. But I think Ireneaus' main purpose was to promote the proto-orthodox scriptures that were developed in response to Marcion's canon. And as far as you have citations of Ireneaues' works in later authors, then you have a textual basis for your arguments. This is precisely what we have for Marcion in the works of several church fathers.

I assume this will be the basis for your book. I look forward to its publication.
I like you fine, and you are a smart guy. I like most of "Against Polycarp" and you had to have something on the ball to be well regarded by R.Price. But when you went down the path of The Real Messiah (i bought the book) with Marcus Agrippa sitting on a teeny tiny throne and all the baggage that goes with it, I am sorry but I cannot follow you.

Jake

stephan huller

DCH

But are there any examples of an accusation that Marcion deleted something or a confirmation that Marcion had any of these passages aside from Gal 1:1?

stephan huller

Jake

I have to take my son to his karate lesson but just to make clear I am writing an article for a journal not writing another book. And just for the record, I still think Agrippa is the most likely known historical candidate for Mark (“known” being the key word). I was attempting to write a book for a popular audience and failed. No harm done (at least from my perspective). If people were familiar with Marqe they'd have understood me better. When I win the lottery I will find Mar Saba 65 and pay someone to translate Ben Hayyim's Marqe (and get a decent English translation of the Yosippon and throw in some Marcion) and try again.

Sometimes the messenger isn't up for the task of delivering the message

DCHindley

There are three that I know of from Mahar's/Detering's reconstructions, and these are

Gal.1:1b >kai qeou patros< Origen (by Hieronymus , Commentary to Galatians): “...in Marcion’s Apostolikon “and by God the Father” (et per Deum patrem) is not written, in order to expound, that Christ was not by God the Father, but of his own self awakened ( semetipsum suscitatum )”.

Gal.3:6-9 omitted! Hieronymus (Origen) "From this place (Gal.3:6) up till this, where it is written "they who are of faith, are blessed with faithful Abraham", Marcion has erased from his Apostle".

Gal.4:24-25 (Tert., V.4): secundum generans in servitutem. Hieronymus, VII.473 (Zahn, p.502): “Here Marcion and Manichaeus, where the apostle said “which is allegorical” (quae sunt allegorica) and the rest which follows, hesitate not to remove from their codices, thinking the opposite we bequeath, that it is obviously the law which is understood, what is written”. i.e., they omitted a reference to the written Law of Moses [How then does Tertullian preserve text that corresponds to what Hieronymus claims was omitted? Detering assumes it must be an omission to the written Law, yet "it is of Sinai" is a sidewise reference to the Law given to Moses on Mt Sinai. Some unpacking is warranted here. - dch]

All the other passages claimed to be omitted from, or included in, the Marcionite version of Galatians, are the conjectures of van Manen, Jon Mahar, or Herman Detering. However, if you only take into consideration what the ancient sources attest to be included or specifically omitted, as I had outlined in another recent thread, the text comes out remarkably coherent, maybe as much as 90% complete by my guess.

If he cut down an allready existing orthodox version of Galatians, he must have been a remarkable editor. Marcion, it appears, was exceptionally familiar with the (presumably greek translation of) Jewish scriptures, maybe just the 5 books of the Law but maybe also the Prophets, so I would not be surprised if he could do a decent job at it. However, seeing Marcion's edition as the product of cutting (selective editing) is easier for me to accept than the alternative that the orthodox re-edited and Judaized Marcion's text. I can detect Marcion's agenda in what he may have omitted, but fail to find one in the orthodox revisions. The orthodox version is confused and full of contradictions, and they are not even about matters dear to the heart of Marcion.

DCH

stephan huller

I agree that these are clearly things deleted by the Marcionite text. But it is equally unlikely that all of Tert's references are reflections of Marcionite readings. Some of Schmid's (and everyone else's) reconstruction of the material is simply untenable especially in Gal chapter 2. Peter first instead of James first. Paul accepting the authority of the Jerusalem church. The list goes on and on

aa5874

Well, if Marcion's Son of God was NOT born of a woman then you will NOT find Galatians 1, Galatians 2, Galatians 3, Galatians 4, Galatians 5 and Galatians 6 used for doctrinal purposes by Marcion.

Marcion does NOT need anything which states the Son of God was born of a Woman, the God of the Jews, and is based on Hebrew Scriptures.

Marcion USED Empedocles based on Hippolytus, an apologetic source.

Marcion PREACHED DUALISM like Empedocles.

You SHOULD read the WRITTEN STATEMENTS of antiquity in "Refutation of ALL Heresies" by Hippolytus, an apologetic source.

Refutation of All Heresies" 7.19 It is FAR MORE likely that Marcion would have used writings that were SIMILAR to his doctrine such as Empedocles rather than use Galatians which should have been KNOWN for 100 years and CIRCULATED all over the Roman Empire by Paul who PREACHED and TAUGHT that Jesus was born of a woman of the seed of David and was the Son of the God of the JEWS.

Marcion's Son of God was NOT of the Jewish God.

Marcion preached ANOTHER GOD and ANOTHER SON according to Justin Martyr, an apologetic source.

Sorry, Tertullian "Against Marcion" is Total ridiculous fiction or Full of Mistakes.

stephan huller

Ignoring aa's strange fixation with capitalizing the beginning of random words in a sentence, I was just thinking again - if Tertullian or his source knew that Marcion used chapter 2 wouldn't this be a trump card for the Catholics? Yes Book Four's statement cited by Jake could be read as a claim that Marcion just found Galatians and used it pretty much as is, it is strange - very strange - that no one makes explicit reference to the Marcionite use of the biographical material in Gal 2. Indeed the beginning of Adv Marc 5 (and Adv Marc 4) seems to imply the exact opposite - ie that the apostle's identity was totally unknown or hidden

aa5874

The claims by Tertullian in "Against Marcion" are CONTRADICTED by Apologetic sources. This is EXTREMELY significant.

Justin Martyr, an apologetic source, claimed Marcion DENIED that the God of the Jews was the Maker of the Universe.

"First Apology" XXVI" Based on Justin Marcion did NOT accept the Jewish God.

Marcion did NOT need Hebrew Scripture or the Pauline writings.

Next, Justin will give MORE information about Marcion who was HIS contemporary.

"First Apology" LVIII It is simply NOT credible that Marcion would NEED GALATIANS to teach people that the God of the Jews was NOT the Creator and that Christ was NOT his Son.

It is claimed by Tertullian that MARCION was a member of the Church before he started his heretical teachings so Marcion and PEOPLE of the Roman Empire should have ALREADY KNOWN that there was an ORIGINAL letter in the HANDS of the Church of Galatia and in their possession for 100 years.

It makes ZERO, absolute ZERO, sense for Marcion to mutilate a copy of Galatians when the GALATIA Church had the ORIGINAL LETTER for 100 years in their possession. And not only that, it is claimed other Churches in the Roman Empire had COPIES of the Pauline Epistles.

Marcion did NOT live in the 1st century so there is NO need for him to have used Galatians which is about a character that supposedly lived BEFORE c 70 CE.

Duvduv

Marcion did? Well so says our friend Tertullian, but I take what he says with a huge grain of salt. I don't believe his claim, even if he thought it was true. It makes no sense as I have described previously.