TedM

Andrew, thanks for sharing what you've found. I'm sorry to say thought that I"m having trouble following the terms you are using. Are you saying that there is evidence that Marcion deliberately altered an original--and that therefore the claims by Tertullian that he had done so in order to support his heretic views are correct? Or something else?

Are you also suggesting that according to Clabeaux in some places there is evidence that the orthodox version is not the original and that Marcion's was?

thanks,

ted

jakejonesiv

I can see why Clabeaux would plead that the texts were independent. The natural assumption would be that the marconite texts had been copied multiple times before being used by the church fathers, and the alleged textual corruptions Clabeaux noted need not have been in the "original" Marcionite text.

Jake

jakejonesiv

Hi ted,

During the second century there arose two versions of the Pauline material that were at odds with each other.

There was a shorter version used by the Marconite churches. There was a longer version used by the proto-orthodox which corresponds, more or less, with the versions found in our Bibles today.

The shorter, Marconite version disappeared. There is not a single extant copy. However, the text of marcion's version can be recreated to some extent by reading the church fathers. They quoted a great deal, much apparently verbatim, in order to refute it.

The question we are examining is, which was more original? The traditional answer is that the marconites took the longer version and cut it down. The alternative is that the proto-orthodox took the marconite version and added to it.

Andrew has put forth a good effort by obtaining Clabeaux's book, which examines the textual evidence, in order to aid in the determination of which version came first. Andrew's conclusion thus far is "Marcion’s text is not always original." (empasis added)

Jake

TedM

Thank you Jake. It seems to me that Andrew is concluding that Marcion probably was guilty of altering an earlier copy, and that there may be SOME grounds for claiming the same for the orthodox version, though that is less clear. Do I understand correctly? Another question is: If BOTH Marcion and the orthos altered text, are we assuming they altered an original the preceded each of them, as opposed to the text claimed by the other? Also, do the specifics of the proposed alterations give away the motives for each group?

ted

jakejonesiv

Hi ted,

Apparently both sides accused the other of altering text. This is explicitly mentioned for the gospel in Against Marcion, Tertullian, 4.5.1. I see no reason for the epistles to be any different.

The theology in different in each version. Marcion's is dualistic, docetic, and antinomian. I think on balance, this is an argument in favor of Marcionite priority with the Paulinics.

This link is to HDetering's reconstruction of Galatians, translated into English by Frans-Joris Fabri. Clabeaux is referenced in this work. This includes arguments for Marcionite priority. One interesting comment is by Detering is "The reason for the broad spreading of Marcionite variants in Latin manuscripts, recently observed by CLABEAUX as well, might be that this group of manuscripts was closer to the original Marcionite text than to the later Catholic one.". This way, you can see both sides of the debate.

Thanks,
Jake Jones IV

andrewcriddle

To avoid confusion I'm going to first say what Clabeaux believes then briefly comment about my own opinions.

Clabeaux believes that Marcion sometimes deliberately altered the text. However he believes that he did so much less than most other scholars believe. Almost all of the examples I gave (In fact every example except Ephesians 5:28) Clabeaux regards as part of the text Marcion started with, and not a result of his deliberate changes. (Clabeaux doesn't just believe this he gives evidence of variuos kinds for this position.)

Clabeaux believes that the text Marcion started with was sometimes right compared to the later orthodox text but mostly wrong. For example he regards 'at Ephesus' in Ephesians 1:1 which was lacking in Marcion's text as not authentic. ('At Ephesus' is lacking here in several ancient manuscripts and is omitted in some modern versions. Marcion regarded what we call the Epistle to the Ephesians as the Epistle to the Laodiceans) There are other relatively minor readings where Clabeaux regards Marcion's text as preferable to the later orthodox text.

My use of Clabeaux was in response to Detering's claim that the Marcionite text is the original text of Paul. For these purposes it doesn't matter whether a particular reading is a change made by Marcion or a change made by an earlier copyist or editor. All that matters is a/ that the reading be in Marcion's text b/ that on purely internal grounds it is unlikely to be original.

However, FWIW I think most of what Clabeaux lists as pre-Marcionite readings are indeed pre-Marcionite but some eg IDIOUS in 1 Thess 2:15 I suspect were introduced by Marcion himself. There are also a few cases where I suspect that the Marcionite text is original although Clabeaux does not agree eg cases where Marcion has 'Christ' and the orthodox text has 'Christ Jesus'.

I hope this clarifies things.

Andrew Criddle

jakejonesiv

Hi Andrew,

Good work.

Detering would argue that the marconite version is more original in more than a few cases, so let's leave aside which version has the most original readings.

For the sake of argument, let's merely assume that sometimes Marcion's text is more original. If that is true, how did the more original readings get into the marconite version, but not the catholic version?

Jake

andrewcriddle

Clabeaux presents evidence that the readings he regards as original (and most of the ones I think may be original although Clabeaux doesn't) have wider support than Marcion alone particularly in the Old Latin.

Marcion's edition of Paul was produced before 150 CE. On the assumption that Marcion is not the author of Paul's epistles, his text was based on one going back to the early 2nd century.

There is nothing implausible in this text having some original readings which have been modified in most other text families, particularly if such readings have limited support outside Marcion.

What Detering's position seems to require is that Marcion's text should almost never be secondary on internal evidence. Once we accept that some readings in the catholic text go back to Paul independently of Marcion and that most of the plausibly original readings in Marcion have limited non-Marcionite attestation, then we can plausibly use the fact that a reading is unique to Marcion as strong external evidence against authenticity.

Andrew Criddle

jakejonesiv

HDetering uses Clabeaux in his reconstructions.

Jake