Harnack’s book Marcion: The Gospel of the Alien God has been translated into English but with the omission of the valuable appendices containing the notes regarding the text of Marcion. So I’d like to go some way towards addressing this. Harnack’s text is actually in three languages (German, Greek, and Latin), so all of them are translated for easier study. I have relied on the translations of others for many of the quotations (Evans for Tertullian, Williams for Epiphanius, and the ESV for the New Testament).
I have re-arranged Harnack’s text in blocks, one block per footnote. The footnotes exceed the text itself and provide the most interesting information, the various references used to support the readings. For accurate comparison of my translations with the original German, please refer to the scanned originals online at Archive.org, thanks to Roger Pearse and Wieland Willker.
For further study, Harnack’s reconstruction and notes can be compared with Detering, van Manen, Waugh, Mahar, Clabeaux, BeDuhn, and Schmid (Amazon/Google) along with comments by Quispel, Lieu, Moll, Roth, Barnikol, Carlson, Eysinga, McGuire, Baarda, Waugh, and Huller.
The work of translation is fairly arduous, but it is also very rewarding, and I hope to release other letters of Paul as found in Harnack’s reconstruction of Marcion’s Apostolikon, as I find time.
Galatians (Προς Γαλατας)
The title Ἀποστολικον according to Epiphanius and Adamantius (both in several places), in Jerome on Gal. 1, 1, “Apostolicum.” Epiphanius [Panarion, book 1, section 42, verse 11:8]: ἡ πρὸς γαλατασ ἐπιστολῇ παρὰ μαρκιωνι πρώτη κεῖται [the letter to the Galatians with Marcion stood first], thus also Tertullian.
I, 1. Παῦλος ἀπόστολος, οὐκ ἀπ’ ἀνθρώπων οὐδὲ δι’ ἀνθρώπου ἀλλὰ διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ ἐγείραντος αὐτὸν ἐκ νεκρῶν. [Paul, an apostle—not from men nor through man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead.]
I, 1. “Ipse se apostolum est professus, non ab hominibus nec per hominem, sed per Jesum Christum” (Tertullian V, 1) [He himself, says Marcion, claims to be an apostle, and that not from men nor through any man, but through Jesus Christ]; “non ab hominibus neque per hominem” [not from men, nor by a man] (l. c.). The omission of the words καὶ θεοῦ πατρὸς [and God the Father] by Ἰ. Χρ. [Jesus Christ] is mentioned by Origen (according to Jerome in Commentary on Galatians): “Sciendum quoque in Marcionis Apostolico non esse scriptum ‘Et per deum patrem’ volentis exponere, Christum non a deo patre, sed per semetipsum suscitatum”. [It should be remembered, too, that it is not written in Marcion’s Apostolikon ‘and by God the Father’, who wished to set forth, that Christ has been raised up, not by God the Father, but by himself .] This text is confirmed by the fake Marcionite Laodiceans, v. 1: “Paulus apostolus non ab hominibus neque per hominem, sed per Jesum Christum, fratribus” [Paul, an apostle, not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, to the brethren]. Again, God is missing, due to Marcion’s particular theological and christological teaching.
The greeting (v. 2-5) was not missing; as χάρις καὶ εἰρήνη [grace and peace] are attested; whether it were unchanged, is uncertain.
3. On 1 Cor. 1:3, Tertullian (V, 5) mentions that gratia et pax [grace and pace] stands in 1 Cor. and Galatians in Marcion.
6 Θαυμάζω ὅτι οὕτως ταχέως μετατίθεσθε ἀπὸ τοῦ καλέσαντος ὑμᾶς ἐν χάριτι Χριστοῦ εἰς ἕτερον εὐαγγέλιον,
“‘Miror vos tam cito transferri ab eo, qui vos vocavit in gratiam, ad aliud evangelium'” [I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into grace, unto another gospel] (Tertullian V, 2). Tertullian writes in Prescription against Heretics, 27: “‘Miror quod sic tam cito transferimini ab eo qui vos (al. suos) vocavit in gratia, ad aliud evangelium‘” [I marvel that ye are so quickly removed from him that called you (others mss. read, his children) in grace unto another gospel] (“tam” only otherwise found in g, “sic tam” found in Itala and Vulgate). In agreement only with Rufinus but not with the Greek text, Megethius quotes (Adamantius, Dialogue I, 6): “Miror quod sic tam Cito transferimini in aliud evangelium” [I marvel that ye are so soon removed unto another gospel]. Rufinus has added this because the subsequent quote, Gal. 1:7, abruptly enters here. Χριστοῦ after χάριτι is missing also in Cyprian, Lucifer, Victorinus, Gg and Fgr* and in Tertullian himself.
7 ὃ ἄλλο (ἕτερον?) οὐκ ἔστιν κατὰ τὸ εὐαγγέλιον μου (εν χριστῷ ἰησοῦ), εἰ μή τινές εἰσιν οἱ ταράσσοντες ὑμᾶς καὶ θέλοντες μεταστρέψαι τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τοῦ Χριστοῦ,
7 Tertullian (V, 2) cites only the beginning and indirectly: “Nam et adiciens ‘quod aliud evangelium omnino non esset’, creatoris confirmat id, quod esse defendit” [For when he also adds that there is no possible other gospel, he confirms that that is the Creator’s, which he claims is the gospel]. Immediately afterwards he presents Old Testament sources for the promise of the Gospel and then: “Est autem evangelium atiam dei novi, quod vis tunc ab apostolo defensum, iam ergo duo sunt evangelia apud duos deos, et mentitus erit apostolus dicens, ‘quod aliud omnino non est’, cum sit et aliud, cum sic suum evangelium defendere potuisset, ut potius demonstraret, non ut unum determinaret” [So that if there is also a gospel of this new god, and you will have it that this is what the apostle was then upholding, in that case there are two gospels, belonging to two gods, and the apostle told a lie when he said there was no possible other gospel, though there is another, and he could just as well have upheld his own gospel by proving it the better one, not by laying it down that it is the only one]. Here, therefore, Tertullian must have read “omnino” [at all, “possible“] (Hans von Soden: he might even have inserted it); at which point whether ἄλλο (ἕτερον?) stood there cannot be determined. Megethius (Dialogue I, 6) quotes: οὐκ ἔστιν ἄλλο κατὰ τὸ εὐαγγέλιον μου εἰ μὴ τινες εἰσίν οἱ ταράσσοντες ὑμᾶς και θέλοντές μεταστρεφαι εἰς ἕτερον εὐαγγέλιον τοῦ χριστοῦ [not that there is another one according to my gospel, but there are some who trouble you and want to turn you unto another gospel of Christ]. (Rufinus does not offer the interpolated kata to euaggelion mou – in the Greek text it is mentioned a few lines later; Rufinus writes here: “Quod evangelizavimus vobis” [that gospel we preached you]: but according to the context he had κατὰ τὸ εὐαγγέλιον μου [according to my gospel] before this, as Caspari also assumes – and it is also below an ordinary text: “volunt pervertere evangelium Christi” [want to distort the gospel of Christ]). This text is difficult, but too original to be set aside as a future corruption, although πάντως is removed; but it does not need to have been so in the Greek but only in the Latin. Κατὰ τὸ εὐαγγέλιον μου [According to my gospel] Marcion placed here, to highlight the Pauline Gospel as the authentic form of the Gospel of Christ, and μεταστρέψαι [turned] is referring to the seduced, perhaps because they were ταράσσοντες [troubled], still too weak. But then τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τοῦ χριστοῦ [the gospel of Christ] floated in the air and had to be transformed into εἰς ἕτερον εὐαγγέλιον τοῦ χριστοῦ [unto another gospel of Christ]. That εἰς ἕτερον εὐαγγέλιον [unto another gospel] according to Megethius in v. 7 is transferred from v. 6 is possible but not probable. Tertullian’s silence can not argue forcefully against the rendering κατὰ τὸ εὐαγγέλιον μου, since he quotes the verse only up to ὁ πάντως. Incidentally, it is likely that we can place the four words in the sentence: “Cum sic suum evangelium defendere potuisset, ut potius demonstraret, non ut unum determinaret” [and he could just as well have upheld his own gospel by proving it the better one, not by laying it down that it is the only one]. – Also according to John Chrysostom (T. X. p. 667), invoked by the Marcionites for their gospel on this point as a basic point. Origen writes (Commentary on John, V, S. 104 Preuschen) – and thus brings the submission to Adamantius, Dial. I, 6 -: Ῥητὸν ὰποστολικὸν μὴ νενοημενον ὑπὸ τῶν Μαρκιωνοσ καὶ διὰ τοῦτο αθετουντων τὰ ευαγγελια τω γὰρ τὸν ἀπόστολον λέγειν: ‘κατα τὸ εὐαγγέλιον μου ἐν Ξρ Ἰησοῦ‘ καὶ μὴ φάσκειν ‘ευαγγελια‘ ἐκεῖνοι εφισταντεσ φασίν οὐκ ἂν πλειόνων ὄντων ευαγγελιων τὸν ἀπόστολον ενικωσ ‘το ευαγγελιον‘ εἰρηκέναι.” [I will add to the proof of this an apostolic saying which has been quite misunderstood by the disciples of Marcion, who, therefore, set the Gospels at naught. The Apostle says: ‘According to my Gospel in Christ Jesus’; he does not speak of ‘Gospels’ in the plural, and, hence, they argue that as the Apostle only speaks of one ‘Gospel’ in the singular, there was only one in existence.] Κατὰ τὸ εὐαγγέλιον μου [according to my gospel] is also in the Marcionite verse Rom. 16:25.
8 ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐὰν ἡμεῖς ἢ ἄγγελος ἐξ οὐρανοῦ εὐαγγελίζηται παρ’ ὃ εὐηγγελισάμεθα, ἀνάθεμα ἔστω. [But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed.] 9 … εἴ τις ὑμᾶς εὐαγγελίζεται [if anyone is preaching a gospel to you] … ἀνάθεμα ἔστω [let him be accursed].
8, 9. Adamantius (Dialogue I, 6): ἀλλὰ κἂν ἡμεῖς ἡ ἄγγελος ἐξ οὐρανοῦ ευαγγελισηται ὑμῖν παρ᾿ ὁ εὐηγγελισάμεθα vobis [But if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you] (“anathema sit” [let him be accursed] + Rufinus), before Megethius: εἰ τίς ὑμᾶς ευαγγελισεται παρ᾿ ὁ εὐηγγελισάμεθα ὑμῖν ἀνάθεμα ἔστω [if any should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed] (Rufinus: “Si vobis quis aliter evangelizaverit, anathema sit” [If anyone should preach to you another gospel, let him be accursed]) – thus a mixture of v. 8 and v. 9 stood in Marcion, and in v. 8 ἄλλως was present; because even Rufinus has it. It is also certain to have contained παρ᾿ ὁ εὐηγγελισάμεθα [contrary to the gospel preached], but the following ὑμῖν [to you] is uncertain (it’s also absent in Tertullian, On the Flesh of Christ, 6), since only the Dialogue offers it. In the 9th verse it is obtained from the verse which stood above it. The ὑμῖν after εὐαγγελίσηται will be considered absent, despite the Dialogue (accordingly, also, א*, G, g, Tertullian in two places, Cyprian, Lucifer).
10 (Do I seek to please men?) Without witness.
11-17 (the description of how Paul had received by his conversion to the gospel) is covered by the single sentence in Tertullian (V, 2): “Ex inde decurrens ordinem conversionis suae de persecutore in apostolum” [After that, as he briefly describes the course of his conversion from persecutor to apostle]. Nothing in Marcion here needed to be changed.
15 Dialogue IV, 15 ὅτε δὲ εὐδόκησεν ὁ θεός [But when God was pleased] (ὁ θεός [God] with half of the witnesses), ὁ ἀφορίσας με ἐκ κοιλίας μητρὸς μου [having selected me from the womb of my mother]. But there is no guarantee that quote comes from Marcion’s Bible.
16 In accordance with Jerome, Commentary on Galatians, who has “plerique” [most]. and also with Porphyrius, with the words (οὐ προσανεθέμην) σαρκὶ καὶ αἵματι [did not consult with flesh and blood], based on the original Apostle. Certainly one may think of “plerique” [most] as belonging to the Marcionites.
18-24 (The first meeting with the apostles, the relocation to Syria and Cilicia, the attitude of the first churches in Judea against Paul) were all ignored by Tertullian. If this section were not entirely lacking (which is probable), Marcion must have corrected it. Certainly he did not have the first visit in Jerusalem (cf. 2, 1).
II, 1. 2. (The departure for the Apostolic Council): Here were the words Ἔπειτα διὰ ἴδ ἐτῶν ἀνέβην εἰς Ιεροσαλυμα [Then after fourteen years I went up to Jerusalem] and μὴ πῶς εἰς κενόν ἔδραμον ἡ τρέχω [lest somehow, in vain, I have run or should be running], but otherwise the text has been, therefore, changed, because the omission of the section of Chapter 1 (from v. 18 and 19) leads likewise to the omission of the purpose of the second journey.
3 ἀλλ’ οὐδὲ Τίτος ὁ σὺν ἐμοί, Ἕλλην ὤν, ἠναγκάσθη περιτμηθῆναι· [But even Titus, who was with me, was not forced to be circumcised, though he was a Greek.]
3 Tertullian (V, 3): “Cum ver nec Titum dicit circumcisum” [not even was Titus circumcised] and immediately afterwards: “Sed nec Titus, qui mecum erat, cum esset Graecus, coactus est circumcidi” [But not even Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised].
4 διὰ τοὺς παρεισάκτους ψευδαδέλφους, οἵτινες παρεισῆλθον κατασκοπῆσαι τὴν ἐλευθερίαν ἡμῶν ἣν ἔχομεν ἐν Χριστῷ, ἵνα ἡμᾶς καταδουλώσουσιν, [Because of false brothers secretly brought in, who slipped in to spy out our freedom that we have in Christ Jesus, so that they might bring us into slavery,]
5 οὐδὲ πρὸς ὥραν εἴξαμεν τῇ ὑποταγῇ, ἵνα ἡ ἀλήθεια τοῦ εὐαγγελίου διαμείνῃ πρὸς ὑμᾶς. [to them we did not yield in submission even for a moment, so that the truth of the gospel might be preserved for you.]
6-9a (the introduction to the apostles Convention with the differentiation of the εὐαγγέλιον τῆς ἀκροβυστίας [gospel to the uncircumcised] and τῆς περιτομῆς [to the circumcised] and the sentence γνόντες τὴν χάριν τὴν δοθεῖσαν μοι [perceived the grace that was given to me]) are entirely without witness and, if they were not completely redacted, were missing.
4 f. Tertullian (V, 3) “Propter falsos,” inquit, “superinducticios fratres, qui subintraverant ad speculandam libertatem nostram, quam habemus in Christo, ut nos subigerent servituti, nec ad horam cessimus subiectioni” [So he says, On account of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ, that they might reduce us to bondage, we gave place by subjection not even for an hour]. Tertullian does not read a δὲ after διὰ in the second place, where he quotes (“propter superinducticius falsos fratres”) as the beginning of the verse (against this also Jerome and the Antiochian have spoken). The strange word “superinducticius” is not found in Against Marcion I, 20; it may belong to the Marcionite version, and it is in Tertullian’s On Monogamy 14 where it is accepted. The assumption of a large gap after “servituti” [slavery] (Kroymann) and the interpolation there: “ad horam cessimus subiectioni [gave place by subjection not even for an hour], non, ut mavult Marcion [not, as Marcion prefers]” is superfluous. With the agreement of all other witnesses, Ἰησοῦ next to Χριστῷ is mising here. – οὐδὲ is present in the vast majority of witnesses (Tertullian accuses Marcion of forgery here: “apparebit vitiatio scripturae” [falsification of scripture will become evident]); it is absent in D*, d, according to Irenaeus, Victorinus, Ambrosiaster, and Pelagius; Marcion does not know of οἷς before οὐδὲ. Zahn points out that Marcion’s verses 3 and 5 may have written οὔτε for οὐδὲ (cf. Victorinus). The words ἵνα ἡ αληθ. κτλ. [so that the truth, etc.] are not attested to by Tertullilan, but stand firm for Marcion; because from the Marcionite prologues we know that ἡ ἀληθείᾳ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου [the truth of the Gospel] was the central concept (cf. also 2, 14): maybe he had διαμένῃ [continue speaking] written, as in G.
9b-10 Πέτρος καὶ Ἰάκωβος καὶ Ἰωάννης . . . δεξιᾶς ἔδωκαν ἐμοὶ ἵνα ἐγὼ εἰς τὰ ἔθνη αὐτοὶ δὲ εἰς τὴν περιτομήν μόνον τῶν πτωχῶν ἵνα μνημονεύωμεν.
9 b “Dexteras ei darent antecessores … ex censu eorum in nationes praedicandi munus subiret.” [Those who were apostles before him gave him their right hands … with their agreement he undertook the task of preaching among the gentiles.] Bene igitur, quod et dexteras Paulos dederunt Petrus et Jacobus et Johannes et de officii distributione pepigerunt, ut Paulus in nationes, illi in circumcisionem, tntum ut meminissent egenorum.” [Well it is therefore that Peter and James and John gave Paul their right hands, and made a compact about distribution of office, that Paul should go to the gentiles, and they to the circumcision: only that they should remember the poor.] With this order of names [Peter and James and John], so D, G, d, g, Jerome, Ambrosiaster, Victorinus. Οἱ δοκοῦντες στῦλοι εἶναι [those esteemed to be pillars] after the names is not attested but would not have been lacking [in Marcion]. Because Tertullian can continue twice from κοινωνίας [partnership], it is missing [from Tertullian’s quotations], but that it should be that way is also probable. The text, as it is, is without Barnabas and with the repeated “I” (not ἡμεῖς [we], as in the original text, namely Paul and Barnabas), so the plural “meminissent” [were mindful of] can only be understood as Barnabas being absent from the text (as also in 2, 1), and that the duty of caring for the poor should apply to Paul as it does to the original apostles. That this was completely eliminated by Marcion shows that a one-sided version of Paul was made. The words καὶ ὁ ἐσπούδασα κτλ. [and that was the very thing I was earnest, etc.] are not attested, but will not have been missing.
11-21 (The dispute with Peter in Antioch and the subsequent statement): Marcion had them, as they are well-attested, essentially unchanged, v. 12 φοβούμενος τοὺς ἐκ περιτομῆς [fearing those of the circumcision], v. 14. οὐκ ὀρθοποδοῦσιν (ὀρθοποδοῖ?) πρὸς τὴν ἀλήθειαν τοῦ εὐαγγελίου [was not in step with the truth of the gospel], v. 16 οὐ δικαιοῦται ἄνθρωπος ἐξ ἔργων νόμου ἐὰν μὴ (ἀλλὰ?) διὰ πίστεως [a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith], v. 18 εἰ γὰρ α κατέλυσα ταῦτα πάλιν οἰκοδομῶ [For if I rebuild what I tore down], v. 20 ὁ δὲ νῦν ζῶ ἐν σαρκὶ ἐν πίστει ζῶ τῇ τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ ἀγοράσαντος με. [And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me.]
11-21 Tertullian (V, 3): “Reprehendit Petrum non recto pede incedentem ad evangelii veritatem” [he censures Peter for not walking uprightly according to the truth of the gospel]. “Timens eos qui erant ex circumcisione” [through fear of those who were of the circumcision]. “Et aliis in facium restisset” [he would have withstood any others to their face]. “Negans ex operibus legis iustificari hominem, sed ex fide” [by the works of the law a man is not justified, but only by faith]. “Merito non reaedificabat quae destruxit” [Quite naturally, he was not rebuilding the things he had pulled down]. See in Acta Archelai 45. – verse Gal. 2:20 from Dialogue V, 22 repeated verbatim (Rufinus offers the not-otherwise-attested Old Latin “qui redemit me” [who ransomed me], the Greek has the usual ἀγαπήσαντος με [loved me]).
III, 1-5 (The painful question to the Galatians, who has bewitched them, and the question of whether they would receive the Spirit by observing the law or by faith) are without witness, but will not have been absent.
III, 1. From Jerome (by way of Origen) [Commentary on Galatians, Migne vol. 26, col. 569]: “Interrogemus ergo hoc loco Marcionem, qui prophetas repudiat, quomodo interpretur id quod sequitur” [Let us interrogate Marcion, who rejects the prophets, regarding how he interprets that which follows in this place] (namely προεγράφη [clearly portrayed]), we cannot conclude with certainty that Jerome knew what stood in this place in Marcion.
6-9 (Abraham’s faith and blessing) were missing.
6 ff. Origen by way of Jerome [Commentary on Galatians, Migne vol. 26, col. 377]: “Ab hoc loco usque ad eum, ubi scribitur: ‘Qui ex fide sunt, benedicentur cum fideli Abraham’ (v. 9), Marcion de suo apostolo erasit” [From this point down to where it is written, “He that is of faith is blessed with faithful Abraham,” Marcion has erased from the apostle]. Tertullian [Against Marcion V, 3] also passes over these verses but has a keyword of the original text of verse 9 in mind when he writes: “Proinde si in lege maledictio est, in fide vero benedictio” [Moreover if in the law there is a curse, but in faith a blessing] (which scarcely can have come from verse 14 b).
10-12 Μάθετε ὅτι ὁ δίκαιος ἐκ πίστεως ζήσεται ὅσοι γὰρ ὑπὸ νόμον ὑπὸ κατάραν εἰσίν ὁ δὲ ποιήσας αὐτά ζήσεται ἐν αὐτοῖς. [Learn that the just shall live by faith. For as many as are under the Law are under a curse; but, The man that doeth them shall live by them]
10-12 So Epiphanius [Panarion, Book I, part 42, verse 11:8]. The verses 10b, 11a and 12a have thus been missing for him; the reference to the Old Testament (γέγραπται) is removed; and the change is plausible. From Tertullian’s loose presentation (V, 3): “ut iam ex fidei libertate iustificaretur homo, non ex legis servitute, ‘Quia iustus ex fide vivit’ (vivet?). quod si prophetes Abacuc promuntiavit, habes et apostolum prophetas confirmantem, sicut et Christus” [so that now a man is justified by the freedom of faith and not by the bondage of the law: because the just liveth by faith: and as the prophet Habakkuk said this first, you have also the apostle expressing agreement with the prophets, as Christ himself did], one can conclude it is very unlikely that 11a (although it is there in some form) were not missing; on the other hand, it is clear that the words “quod si prophetes” [as the prophet] etc. are Tertullian’s own. – Μάθετε is Marcion’s own liberal interpolation. – Ὑπὸ νόμον is otherwise unattested (> ἐξ ἔργων νόμου εἰσίν, but immediately afterwards ὑπὸ κατάραν), similarly ὁ δὲ (> αββα ὁ).
13 Χριστός ἡμᾶς ἐξηγόρασεν ἐκ τῆς κατάρας τοῦ νόμου γενόμενος ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν κατάρα ὅτι γέγραπται ἐπικατάρατος πᾶς ὁ κρεμομενοσ ἐπὶ ξύλου [Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us—for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree“]:
13 Tertullian (V, 3): “Neque enim quia creator pronuntiavit: ‘Maledictus omnis ligno suspensus’, ideo videbitur alterius dei esse Christus” [Because the Creator has given judgement, Cursed is everyone that hangeth on a tree, it will not follow from that that Christ belongs to another god]. Megethius (Dialogue I, 27): Παῦλος λέγει Ὅτι Χριστός ἡμᾶς εξηγορασε [Paul says that Christ redeemed us]. Epiphanius [Panarion, Book I, part 42, verse 11:8]: “Ἐπικατάρατος πᾶς ὁ κρεμάμενος ἐπὶ ξύλου” [Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree]. So also haer. 42, 8 [Panarion, Book 1, Part 42, verses 8:4-5], which gives the explanation of ἐξαγοράζειν [redeem] and ἀγοράζειν [purchase], which probably goes back to Origen. In this regard also Jerome, Commentary on Galatians, before [Migne vol. 26, p. 385]: “Subrepit in hoc loco Marcion de potestate creatoris, quem sanguinarium, crudelem infamat (Marcion has made this the most important point of the Antitheses) et iudicem, asserens nos redemptos esse per Christum, qui alterius boni dei filius sit” [Marcion asserts in this place that the power of the creator, who is both a blood-stained heartless disgrace and a judge, was stolen, and that we have have been ransomed by Christ, who is the son of another, good God]; this follows a description of the difference between “emere” [purchase] and “redimere” [redeem], as in Megethius and Epiphanius. Not directly attested are the words from ἐκ τῆς κατάρας to κατάρα, but they cannot have been missing.
14 ἐλάβομεν οὖν τὴν εὐλογίαν τοῦ πνεύματος διὰ τῆς πίστεως. [so that we might receive the promised Spirit through faith]
14 The first half (ἵνα εἰς ἔθνη ἡ εὐλογία τοῦ Ἀβραάμ γένηται ἐν Χρ. Ἰ. [so that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles]) Tertullian passes over, and the contents of both, with 14b as a reformulation [of the first half], confirm that they were both missing. Tertullian (V, 3): “‘Accepimus (or, accipimus) igitur benedictionem spiritalem per fideum‘, inquit” [So we have received, he says, a spiritual blessing by faith]. – Εὐλογίαν [blessing] with D*, G, d, g, Ambrosiaster, Vigilantius. > ἐπαγγελίαν [the promise].
15-25 (The grand exposition of the Testament, Abraham, and the Law) is absent.
15-25 Tertullian goes from 3, 14 immediately to 3, 26 onwards (V, 3): “Sed et cum adicit: ‘Omnes enim filii estis fidei’, ostenditur quid supra haeretica industria eroserit, mentionem scilicet Abrahae” [And again when he adds, For ye are all the sons of faith, it becomes evident how much before this the heretic’s diligence has erased, the reference, I mean, to Abraham] etc., and then remarks (V, 4): “Erubescat spongia Marcionis! uisi quod ex abundanti retracto quae abstulit” [Let Marcion’s
eraser be ashamed of itself: except that it is superfluous for me to discuss the passages he has left out] (he had quoted Gal. 3:15-16 from the genuine Epistle to the Galatians, and in V, 13 he likewise cites the unadulterated Gal. 3:22).
26 πάντες γὰρ υἱοὶ θεοῦ ἐστε διὰ τῆς πίστεως [For you are all sons of God, through faith] (found defective in the Latin text “‘omnes enim filii estis fidei‘” [For all of you are children of faith]).
26 Tertullian (V, 3): “Sed cum adicit: ‘Omnes enim filii estis fidei‘” [And again when he adds, For ye are all the sons of faith]; Tertullian says this is the text: but he cannot be right, as can be easily explained from dittography, which had the omission of the words per fidem [through faith] as its result. Why would Marcion have changed the basic text? (cf. above S. 51*) By the way, the quote in Hilary (Hom. in Psalm 921 p. 345 of the Vienna edition) has the same mistake: is it older than the Marcionite version, or does it come to Hilary from the Marcionite version?
27-29 (The baptized have put on Christ, all are one in Christ, etc.) are not attested, but can scarcely have been absent; of course, the words ἄρα τοῦ Αβραμ σπέρμα ἐστε [then you are Abraham’s offspring] had to be missing.
IV, 1, 2. (“As long as the heir is a child, etc.”) are without witness, but they certainly were not missing and also gave no reason for correction.
IV, 1. 2 cannot have been missing, since the Marcionite version of v. 3 calls for it.
3 Ἔτι κατὰ ἄνθρωπον λέγω, ὅτε ἦμεν νήπιοι, ὑπὸ τὰ στοιχεῖα τοῦ κόσμου ἤμεθα δεδουλωμένοι, I still speak after the manner of a man: when we were children, were enslaved to the elementary principles of the world.
Tertullian (V, 4): “‘Adhuc‘, inquit, ‘secundum hominem dico: dum essemus parvuli, sub elementis mundi eramus positi ad deserviendum eia‘” [I still, he says, speak after the manner of a man: so long as we were children we were placed under the elements of the world, so as to be in bondage to them]. Tertullian criticized (regarding 3:15) the words κατὰ ἄνθρωπον here as inappropriate; it is otherwise unattested at this point (> οὕτως καὶ ἡμεῖς [In the same way we also]). For Marcion, the peculiar “ad huc” [still] calls for an explanation in v. 1 f. Zahn believes the Latin text must bear a strictly accurate record and writes: ἤμεθα τεθειμενοι εἰς τὸ δουλουσαι αὐτοῖς [so as to be in bondage to them]; but it is surely only a paraphrase of the translator who could not give δεδουλωμένοι [enslaved] a short definition.
4 ὅτε δὲ ἦλθεν τὸ πλήρωμα τοῦ χρόνου, ἐξαπέστειλεν ὁ θεός τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ, [But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son]
4 Tertullian (V, 4): “‘Cum autem evenit impleri tempus misit deus filium suum‘” [But when it came
about that the time was fulfilled, God sent his Son]. Zahn represents this as ὅτι δὲ ἐγένετο πληρουσθαι τὸν χρόνον [but when the fullness of time had begun], again, but only this can be an accurate translation, however; τὸ πληρομα [the fullness] could not be replaced by a noun; Tertullian himself wrote shortly afterwards [quoting the same verse in V, 8]: “At ubi tempus expletum est” [But when the time was fulfilled]. – Erased the words γενόμενον ἐκ γυναικός γενομ νον ὑπὸ νόμον [born of a woman, born under the law]. Jerome confused Marcion and Valentinus, when he, writing down Origen’s Commentary on Galatians, remarked: “Diligenter adtendite, quod (apostolus) non dixerit: ‘Factum per mulieren‘, quod Marcion et ceterae haereses volunt, qui putativam Christi carnem simulant, sed ‘ex muliere‘, ut non per illam sed ex illa natus esse credatur” [Pay close attention, that he (the apostle) did not say: ‘Came through a woman‘, as Marcion and other heresies would have it, that the flesh of Christ was pretended to be, but ‘of a woman‘, that he should not be believed to be ‘through‘ her, but he was born ‘of‘ her]. Zahn renders it, dubiously, ἀπέστειλεν [sent out].
5 ἵνα τοὺς ὑπὸ νόμον ἐξαγοράσῃ (καὶ) ἵνα τὴν υἱοθεσίαν ἀπολάβωμεν [to redeem those who were under the law (and) that we might receive adoption as sons] (al. εἰς υἱοθεσίαν ληφθῶμεν [in order that we might grasp adoption as sons]).
5 Tertullian (V, 4): “‘Ut eos qui sub lege erant redimeret … et ut adoptionem filiorum acciperemus‘” [To redeem them that were under the law … and that we might receive the adoption of sons]. Markus (Dialogue II, 19) twice: εἰς υἱοθεσίαν ἐλήφθημεν [in order that we might grasp adoption as sons] (Rufinus writes in the first place “in adoptione vocati sumus” [we are called into adoption], in the second “in adoptione nos susciperet” [we receive adoption]). It is possible that Marcion’s text was written as it is found in the Dialogue.
6 ὅτε δὲ ἐστε υἱοὶ ἐξαπέστειλεν ὁ θεός τὸ πνεῦμα τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ εἰς τὰς καρδίας ἡμῶν κρᾶζον αββα ὁ πατὴρ. [And because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, “Abba! Father!”]
6 Tertullian (V, 4), apparently rendering freely at first: “Itaque ut certum esset (Mss. “est et“), nos filios dei esse, misit spiritum suum in corda nostra clamantem: Abba, pater” [And so as to make it
certain that we are God’s sons, he hath sent his own Spirit into our hearts, crying Abba, Father]. It is therefore dared to deviate from the original text and, with Zahn (who, incidentally, doubts it himself), to write: ὅτι οὖν (καὶ ἡμεῖς?) ἐσμεν υἱοὶ θεοῦ, ἀπέστειλεν τὸ πνεῦμα αὐτοῦ κτλ. [that therefore we are sons of God, the spirit was sent out, etc.]
7 (So that you are no longer a slave but a son and heir) is without witness but will not have been missing.
8 f. Εἰ οὖν (γνόντες θεόν, μᾶλλον δὲ γνωσθέντες ὑπὸ θεοῦ?) τοῖς ἐν τῇ φύσει οὖσι θεοῖς δουλεύετε, πῶς ἐπιστρέφετε πάλιν ἐπὶ τὰ ἀσθενῆ καὶ πτωχὰ στοιχεῖα, οἷς πάλιν ἄνωθεν δουλεύειν θέλετε; (the beginning is uncertain, the end is not explicitly witnessed).
8, 9 Tertullian (V, 4), loosely: “Post has itaque divitias non erat revertendum ad infirma et mendica elementa . . . non ergo per mundialium elementorum derogationem a deo eurum avertere cupiebat, etsi dicendo supra: ‘Si ergo his qui in natura sunt dei servitis‘, physicae, i. e. naturalis, superstitionis elementa pro deo habentis suggillat errorem, nec sic tamen elementorum deum taxans‘.” [So then after these riches there had to be no turning back to the weak and beggarly elements. … So it was not his wish, by derogatory language about the elements of the world, to alienate people from the God of those elements: even if, when he said just now, If therefore ye do service to these which by nature are no gods, he was castigating the error of physical, or natural, superstition which puts the elements in the place of God, not even so did he censure the God of those elements.] It seems that Tertullian knew a Marcionite interpretation here and that a reconstruction of the text is not safe to make; Tertullian gives no explanation of why Marcion says what he does. Most important is the term used by Marcion “qui in natura sunt dei” [to these which by nature are no gods] (> τοῖς φύσει μὴ οὖσιν θεοῖς [those that by nature are not gods], and μὴ φύσει οὖσιν [are not by nature], and μὴ οὖσι [not being]). Schwiergkeit gives this placement of the conditional clause; it is not probable that such a welcome sentence as 9a (νῦν δὲ γνόντες θεόν, μᾶλλον δὲ γνωσθέντες ὑπὸ θεοῦ [But now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God]) has been suppressed by Marcion (contrary to Zahn).
10 ἡμέρας παρατηερεισθε καὶ μῆνας καὶ καιροὺς καὶ ἐνιαυτούς [You observe days and months and seasons and years.];
10 Tertullian (V, 4): “‘Dies observatis et menses et tempora et annos‘” [Ye observe days and months
and times and years].
11-20 (The personal discussion of the Apostle to the Galatians) is without witness but can hardly have been missing; possibly preserved is 19 τέκνα μου, οὖς ὠδίνω πάλιν [my children, for whom I am in anguish again].
19 In the middle of his views expressed regarding 1 Cor., Tertullian quotes this verse casually, (V, 8: “‘Filii mei quos parturio rursus‘” [O my sons, whom for a second time I bring to birth]; other Mss. πάλιν ὠδίνω [again in anguish]), but was it from Marcion’s New Testament?
21-26 The introductory words: Λέγετε μοι, οἱ ὑπὸ νόμον θέλοντές εἶναι, τὸν νόμον οὐκ ἀκούετε [Tell me, you who desire to be under the law, do you not listen to the law?]; 22 γέγραπται γὰρ ὅτι [For it is written that], could either have stood or have been missing (Marcion did not shrink before a “γέγραπται” [it is written] in every situation). Ἀβραάμ δύο υἱοὺς ἔσχεν, ἕνα ἐκ τῆς παιδίσκης καὶ ἕνα ἐκ τῆς ἐλευθέρας [Abraham had two sons, one by a slave woman and one by a free woman], 23 ἀλλ᾿ ὁ μὲν ἐκ τῆς παιδίσκης κατὰ σάρκα γεγέννηται, ὁ δὲ ἐκ τῆς ἐλευθέρας διὰ τῆς ἐπαγγελίας [But the son of the slave was born according to the flesh, while the son of the free woman was born through promise]. 24. ἅτινα ἔστιν ἀλληγορούμενα [Now this may be interpreted allegorically]: αὗταί γὰρ εἰσίν αἱ δύο ἐπιδειξεις [these women are two displays] (ἐνδείξεις? [demonstrations?]), μία μὲν ἀπὸ ὄρους Σινᾶ, εἰς τὴν συναγωγὴν τῶν Ἰουδαίων κατὰ τὸν νόμον, γεννῶσα εἰς δουλείαν [One is from Mount Sinai, for the synagogue of the Jews according to the law, bearing children for slavery;]. 26 ἄλλη δὲ ὑπεράνω πάσης ἀρχῆς γεννῶσα καὶ δυνάμεως καὶ ἐξουσίας καὶ παντὸς ὀνόματός ὀνομαζομένου [the other bearing children above all principality and power and authority and every name that is named] – οὐ μόνον ἐν τω αἰῶνι τούτῳ ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐν τω μέλλοντι [not only in this world but also in that which is to come] – εἰς ἣν [in whom] (ἂν -? [anyhow]) ἐπηγγειλάμεθα ἁγίαν ἐκκλησίαν, ἥτις ἔστιν μήτηρ ἡμῶν [we have professed our faith, for she is our mother].
21 f. Tertullian (V, 4): “Sed ut furibus solet aliquid excidere de praeda in indicium, ita credo et Marcionem novissimam Abrahae mentionem dereliquisse, nullam magis auferendam [nulla-auferenda Kroym., needlessly], etsi ex parte convertit, si enim Abraham duos liberos habuit, unum ex ancilla et alium ex libera, sed qui ex ancilla carnaliter natus est, qui vero ex libera per repromissionem – quae sunt allegorica (i. e. aliud portendentia); haec sunt enim duo testamenta (sive ‘duae ostensiones‘, sicut invenimus interpretatum), unum a monte Sina in synagogam Iudaeorum secundum legem generans in servitutem, alium super omnem principatum generans vim dominationem et omne nomen quod nominatur, non tantum in hoc aero sed et in futuro, quae est mater nostra, in quaem (Codd. quem) repromisimus sanctam ecclesiam’ (Kroym. represents the words “quae est mater nostra” here, which is to be approved) – ideoque adiecit (31): ‘Propter quod, fratres, non sumus ancillae filii, sed liberae‘, utique manifestavit et Christianismi generositatem in filio Abrahae ex libera nato allegoriae habere sacramentum, sicut et Iudaismi servitutem legalem in filio ancillae” etc. [“and so I think Marcion has left behind him this final reference to Abraham [thus all of the previous was missing, above]—though none had more need of removal—even if he has changed it a little. For if Abraham had two sons, one by a bondmaid and the other by a free woman, but he that was by the bondmaid was bom after the flesh, while he that was by the free woman was by promise: which things are allegorical, which means, indicative of something else : for these are two testaments—or two revelations, as I see they have translated it—the one from Mount Sinai referring to the synagogue of the Jews, which according to the law gendereth to bondage: the other gendering above all principality, power, and domination, and every name that is named not only in this world but also in that which is to come: for she is our mother, that holy church, in whom we have expressed our faith: and consequently he adds, So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free. In all this the apostle has clearly shown that the noble dignity of Christianity has its allegorical type and figure in the son of Abraham born of a free woman, while the legal bondage of Judaism has its type in the son of the bondmaid: and consequently, that both the dispensations derive from that God with whom we have found the outline sketch of both the dispensations. And the very fact that he speaks of that liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free—does not this establish the fact that he who sets free is he who has been the possessor?”] Epiphanius (Panarion, Book 1, Chapter 42, verse 11:8): ‘Ὅ δε ἐξ ἐπαγγελίας διὰ τῆς ἐλευθέρας‘ [or, ὁ δὲ ἐκ τῆς ἐπαγγελίας, διὰ τῆς ἐλευθέρας, i.e. but he that is of promise is by the freewoman]. Origen by way of Jerome on 4, 24: “Marcion (et Manichaeus) hunc locum, in quo dixit apostolus ‘Quae sunt allegorica‘ et cetera quae secuntur, de codice suo tollere noleurunt, putantes adversus nos relinqui, quod scilicet lex aliter sit intelligenda, quam scripta sit” [Marcion (and Mani) in this place, in which the apostle speaks of “which things are allegorical” and the other things which follow after them, they did not want to take away from his book, supposing it could be left against us, namely that the law must be understood differently than that which is written]. The text in Tertullian is hardly passed down error free; it is certain that “ostensio” [revelation] stood in Marcion’s Latin Bible (Zahn corrected it with “sponsio” [promise]). “Ostensio” [revelation] cannot be a translation of διαθήκη [covenants], but leads back to ἐπιδειξεις (ἐνδείξεις) or a similar word (cf., above, p. 52*). Such a redaction of the text with the transplantation of a passage from another letter (Ephes. 1, 21) Marcion has otherwise never allowed; therefore no suspicion is assigned to Marcion himself. It has the words “in quam repromisimus sanctam ecclesiam” [as promised to the holy church] that we want to cross out; but they are by “in synagogam Iudaeorum” [in the synagogues of the Jews] protected; if you strike it out, we must deny the whole text to Marcion, but can give no account of how it originated in Tertullian. Maybe he had heard only the Latin Marcionite Bible – you can credit the Marcionites with greater arbitrariness than the master -; but the assumption has not significantly changed the problem, Zahn provides, without powerful reasoning, the second γεννῶσα [begetting] just before εἰς ἣν [from her] and summarizes v. 26 as: ἥτις ἔστιν μήτηρ ἡμῶν γεννῶσα εἰς ἣν επηγγειλαμε θα ἁγίαν ἐκκλησίαν [that is our mother who begets us, in whom we have expressed our faith, that holy church]. The passage Ephes. 1, 21 is also cited in Dialogue V, 13 with κυριότητος [lordship] and καὶ δυνάμεως [and with power] and παντὸς [all] and without designation of the letter.
31 Διὸ (or ἄρα), ἀδελφοὶ, οὐκ ἐσμεν παιδίσκης τέκνα, ἀλλὰ τῆς ἐλευθέρας [So, brothers, we are not children of the slave but of the free woman]
31 Attested to by Tertullian (above). Has Marcion read here Διὸ (unique > ἄρα)?
V, 1a ἡ ἐλευθερία [freedom] (οὖν [for]) Χριστός ἡμᾶς ἠλευθέρωσέν [Christ has set us free].
1b στήκετε καὶ μὴ πάλιν ζυγῷ δουλιασ ἐνέχεσθε [stand firm and do not entangle yourselves in a yoke of slavery again].
2 (If you accept circumcision, Christ is of no use to you) is without witness but will hardly have been absent.
3 Μαρτύρομαι δὲ πάλιν ὅτι ἄνθρωπος περιτετημενοσ ὀφειλέτης ἔστιν ὅλον τὸν νόμον πληρῶσαι. [I testify again to every man who accepts circumcision that he is obligated to keep the whole law.]
4, 5 (You who are severed from Christ, have fallen away; we ourselves eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness.) is without witness but hardly erased.
6 Ἐν γὰρ Χριστῷ οὔτε περιτομὴ τι ἰσχύει οὔτε ἀκροβυστία ἀλλὰ πίστις δι ἀγάπης ἐνεργουμένη [For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith working through love].
7-26 (Exhortations). From this section, which perhaps has not been erased, are obtained:
9 μικρὰ ζύμῃ ὅλον τὸ φύραμα δολοῖ, [A little leaven corrupts the whole lump.]
9 Epiphanius (Panarion, Book 1, Part 42, verse 11:8): δολοῖ [corrupts] with D* g vulg. and most of the Latin mss. > ζυμοῖ [leavens].
10 ὁ δὲ ταράσσων ὑμᾶς τὸ κρίμα βαστάσει, ὅστις ἂν ἡ.
Tertullian (V, 4): “Qui autem turbat vos iudicium feret” [But he that troubleth you shall bear his judgement], (alone > βαστάσει τὸ κρίμα [will bear the judgment]). Markus (Dialogue II, 5): Ὁ ταράσσων ὑμᾶς βαστάσει τὸ κρίμα (Rufinus adds: “quicunque est ille” [whoever he is]); Dialogue II. 18, where the saying is once again cited, also offers the Greek ὅστις ἂν ἡ [whoever he might be]. Those who found a nasty allusion to Peter (cf. Jerome, Commentary on Galatians: “Occulte, inquiuunt, Petrum lacerat, cui supra in faciem restitisse se scribit” etc. [Covertly, they say, Peter is jabbed, whom he wrote above that he opposed to his face]), could have been Marcionites or Porphyry; it was probably both. But this is the remark of Jerome from Origen, for whom only they can be meant.
12 ὄφελόν καὶ αποκοφονται οἱ ἀναστατοῦντες ὑμᾶς [I wish those who unsettle you would emasculate themselves!].
12 Origen by way of Jerome, Commentary on Galatians: “Qua ratione Marcion et Valentinus hoc in apostolo boni dei valent excusare?” [Why, in this, according to Marcion and Valentinus, is the apostle of the good God able to make excuses?]
14 ὁ γὰρ πᾶς νόμος ἐν ὑμῖν, πεπλήρωται ἀγαπήσεις τὸν πλησίον σου ὡς σεαυτὸν [For the whole law is fulfilled in you, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”].
14 Tertullian (V, 4): “‘Tota enim‘, inquit, ‘lex in vobis adimpleta est: diliges proximum tuum tamquam te.'” [For all the law, he says, has been fulfilled in you: thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.] Epiphanius (): Ὁ γὰρ πᾶς νόμος (ἐν) ὑμῖν πεπλήρωται: ἀγαπήσεις τὸν πλησίον σου ὡς σεαυτὸν. [For all the Law is fulfilled by you; thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.] – ἐν ὑμῖν [by you] with D* G d g and the other Latin mss., but all of them that provide a witness for these words also offer ἐν ἑνὶ λόγῳ [in one word]. Was there an old Marcionite exemplar where ἐν ἑνὶ λόγῳ [in one word] after ἐν ὑμῖν [in you] was accidentally omitted, whereby the error was propagated in Tertullian and Epiphanius? Or did Marcion write ἐν ὑμῖν [in you] (and strike ἐν ἑνὶ λόγῳ [in one word]), thinking to the contrary: “Not in the Jews?” This is much more likely. – ἀγαπήσεις [you will love] with the above Latin witnesses > ἐν τω: ἀγαπήσεις [in this: you will love] (tendentious correction).
19 φανερὰ δὲ ἔστι τὰ ἔργα τῆς σαρκὸς, ἅτινα ἔστι πορνείᾳ, ακαθαρσις, ἀσέλγεια, 20 ειδωλολατρεια, φαρμεκεια, ἔχθραι, ἐρεῖς, ζηλοῖ, θυμοί, ἐριθείαι, διχοστασίαι, αἱρέσεις, 21 φθόνοι, μέθαι, κῶμοι <καὶ τὰ ὁμοία τούτοις>, α προλέγω ὑμῖν, καθὼς καὶ προεῖπον, ὅτι οἱ τὰ τοιαῦτα πράσσοντες βασιλείαν θεοῦ οὐ κληρονομήσουσιν. [19 Now the works of the flesh are evident: sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, 20 idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, cdivisions, 21 envy, drunkenness, orgies, <and things like these>. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.]
19-21 Epiphanius (Panarion, Book 1, Part 42, verse 11:8) (in the second quotation from Epiphanius, further on, the words φαρμακεία [to use drugs, or, sorcery] and φόνοι [murder] for φθόνοι [envying], – κ᾿ τ᾿ ὁμοία τούτοις [with the rest as above], are probably missing and only happen to be in Epiphanius accidentally).
24 οἱ δὲ τοῦ Χριστοῦ τὴν σάρκα ἐσταύρωσαν σὺν τοῖς παθημασι καὶ ταῖς ἐπιθυμίαις. [And those who belong to Christ have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires.]
24 Epiphanius (Panarion, Book 1, Part 42, verse 11:8) – Χριστοῦ with D G K L d g vulg > Χρ. Ἰησοῦ.
From chapter VI, there is attested: 2 Ἀλλήλων τὰ βάρη (or Τὰ βάρη ἀλλ᾿.). βαστάζετε, καὶ οὕτως ἀναπληρώσετε τὸν νόμον τοῦ Χριστοῦ. [Bear one another’s burdens, and so fulfill tthe law of Christ.]
VI, 2 Tertullian (V, 4): “‘Onera vestra invicem sustinete, et sic adimplebitis legem Christi.'” [Bear ye one another’s burdens, and so ye shall fulfil the law of Christ.] Immediately thereafter: “‘Invicem onera vestra portate'”. [Bear ye one another’s burdens.]
6 Κοινωνείτω δὲ ὁ κατηχούμενος τὸν λόγον τω κατηχοῦντι ἐν πᾶσιν ἀγαθοῖς. [For in Christ Jesus eneither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith working through love.]
6 Origen by way of Jerome, Commentary on Galatians: “Marcion hunc locum ita interpretatus est, ut putaret fideles et catechumenos simul orare debere et magistrum communicare in oratione discipulis, illo vel maxime elatus, quod sequetur: ‘In omnibus bonis‘”. [Marcion has thus interpreted in this place, so that one should think that the faithful and the catechumens alike should pray to communicate with the master, and that, in the prayer of these especially-puffed-up disciples, this would follow: “There is good in everything.”]
7 Πλανᾶσθε. θεός οὐ μυκτεριζεται: ἄ γὰρ ἐὰν σπείρῃ ἄνθρωπος, ταῦτα καὶ θερίσει. [You are mistaken. God is not mocked: For whatever a man sows, that will he also reap.]
7 Tertullian (V, 4): “‘Erratis: deus non deridetur; quod enim severit homo, hoc et metet.'” Adamantius (Dialogue II, 5): ἄ γὰρ ἂν σπείρῃ ἄνθρωπος, ταῦτα καὶ θερίσει [For whatever a man sows, this will he also reap.] (but Rufinus: “quodcunque seminaverit homo, hoc et metet” [whatever a man sows, this also he reaps]). The absence of μὴ [not] before πλανᾶσθε [be mistaken] is otherwise unattested; the pluarl ἄ – ταῦτα with D G d g vulg. Jerome > ὁ – τοῦτο. Tertullian’s omission may belong to the Latin translation.
8 Partly preserved, see below.
8 Tertullian (V, 4): “Si retributionem praedicat, ab eodem erit et corruptionis messis et vitae.” ‘[But if he makes a promise of retribution, from the same God will come the harvest both of corruption and of life.]
9 Τὸ δὲ καλὸν ποιοῦντες μὴ ενκακωμεν, καιρῷ δὲ ἰδίῳ θερίσομεν. [And let us not grow weary of doing good, so in due season we shall reap.]
9 Tertullian (V, 4): “‘Bonum autem facientes non fatigemur … Tempore autem suo metemus.'” [But let us not become weary in well-doing. … Yet in his own time we shall reap.] – autem [but, Greek δὲ] without witnesses > γὰρ [for].
10 ὡς ἔχομεν καιρὸν, ἐργαζώμεθα τὸ ἀγαθὸν. [As we have time, let us do good.]
10 Tertullian (V, 4): “‘Dum habemus tempus, operemur bonum‘” [While we have time let us work that which is good] > καιρὸν ἔχομεν κτλ. [as we have occasion, etc.]
13a Οὐδὲ γὰρ οἱ περιτεμνόμενοι αὐτοὶ νόμον φυλάσσουσιν. [He that loveth his neighbour hath fulfilled the Law.]
13a So Epiphanius (Panarion, book 1, part 42, verse 11:8).
14b Ἐμοὶ κόσμος ἐσταύρωται κἀγὼ κόσμῳ. [To me the world has been crucified, and I to the world.]
14b Tertullian (V, 4): “‘Mihi mundus crucifixus est et ego mundo.'” [To me the world is crucified and I to the world.]
17 Τῶν δ᾿ ἄλλων εἰκῇ κόπους [Of the others toiling in vain]; μοι μηδεὶς παραχέσθω [they by no means compare to me]: ἐγὼ γὰρ τὰ στίγματα τοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐν τω σώματι μου βαστάζω [for I bear on my body the marks of Christ.].
17 So Dialogue V, 22 (but Ἰησοῦ [Jesus] for Χριστοῦ [Christ]. Rufinis in the ordinary text: “De cetero nemo mihi molestus sit; ego eniu stigmata domini nostri Iesu Christi in corpore meo porto” [From henceforth let no man trouble me; I bear in my body the marks of the Lord Jesus Christ]). Tertullian (V, 4): “Persecutores vocat Christi; cum vero adicit stigmata Christi in corpore suo gestare se” [He calls them persecutors of Christ. But when he adds that he bears in his body the brand-marks of Christ] etc. Tertullian, as the Dialogue with τῶν δ᾿ ἄλλων, read and understood these Ἄλλοι as the enemies of Christ. (“Of the others, namely the persecutors of Christ, let no one cause me trouble”). Zahn and Kroymann have not seen it this way; this wipes out “Persecutores vocat Christi” [namely the persecutors of Christ], which would otherwise require that Tertullian was referencing some text no longer to be found in v. 17. – Τῶν δ᾿ ἄλλων [of the others] without other witnesses > τοῦ λοιποῦ [from now on]: this reading is only from Latin. His interpretation of τοῦ λοιποῦ [from now on] = “de ceteris” [of the others] does not originate here: So read Adamantius in a Greek text of Marcion, which was already influenced by the Latin translation; see above, pp. 54*. εἰκῇ [for nothing, in vain, without cause] has no other witnesses; the meaning of this ambiguous word as it is used here in Paul is not clear. – παραχέσθω [compare, allow] is without other witnesses > παρεχέτω [bring]. – Χριστοῦ [Christ] with P cop arm aeth, Theodotus from Clement of Alexandria, Ignatius (long recension), Gregor Nyss. > Ἰησοῦ [Jesus] and τοῦ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ [the Lord Jesus], etc.