Harnack's Edition of Marcion's Apostolikon (Gal 1:1-2:10)

[Peter Kirby]

I am presently endeavoring to make an English translation of this important work.

It is very slow going, but also quite rewarding.

Here's what I have so far....

Harnack's book Marcion: The Gospel of 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 to 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 the quotations.

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, Greek, and Latin, please refer to the scanned originals online at Archive.org, thanks to Roger Pearse and Wieland Willker.

https://archive.org/details/AdolfHarnac ... remdenGott
http://www.archive.org/details/AdolfHar ... t-Addendum

Galatians (Προς Γαλατασ)

The title Ἀποστολικον according to Epiphanius and Adamantius (both in several places), in Jerome on Gal. 1, 1, "Apostolicum." Epiphanius p. 155: 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 καὶ Θεοῦ Πατρὸς 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.] The greeting (v. 2-5) was not missing; as χάρις καὶ εἰρήνη [grace and peace] are attested; whether it were unchanged, is uncertain.
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.
3. On 1 Cor. 1:3, Tertullian (V, 5) mentions that gratia et pax [grace and pace] in 1 Cor. and Galatians in Marcion stands.

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" . 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,
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. Because Tertullian can continue twice from κοινωνίας [partnership], it is missing, but that it should be that way is also probable. The text, as it is, without Barnabas, with the repeated "I" (unlike ἡμεῖς [we] in the original text, namely Paul and Barnabas) and 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.

[slevin]

Thank you for this labor of love. Von Harnack is one of my heroes, despite his support for WWI. While I understand that folks are keen on Marcion (as was Harnack), I think there is much, much more to his contribution, than just Marcion.

Harnack rejected, I believe, John's gospel. I acknowledge not knowing why. I simply find it fascinating that a Christian theologian could look so critically at some texts, but uncritically accept others, without blinking an eye.

In that regard, I find it curious that Harnack, and forum members today, discuss "Marcion's" text, despite having not even one word written by Marcion, himself.

How can Harnack reject John's gospel, and accept Tertullian's (the apostate) text of Marcion as reliable?

Here's the very first phrase of this text, today, Galatians 1:1 and the corresponding passage from Codex Sinaiticus, essentially identical.

Παῦλος ἀπόστολος, οὐκ ἀπ’ ἀνθρώπων οὐδὲ δι’ ἀνθρώπου ἀλλὰ διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ καὶ Θεοῦ Πατρὸς τοῦ ἐγείραντος αὐτὸν ἐκ νεκρῶν
παυλοϲ αποϲτολοϲ ουκ απ ανθρωπω ουδε δι ανου αλλα δια ιυ χυ και θυ πατροϲ του εγιραντοϲ αυτων εκ νεκρω

But, we know that Paul was not an apostle. He was not appointed through or by, "dia", Jesus. So, why wouldn't Harnack have rejected this bit of text, as clearly not historical, the same way he rejected John's gospel as ahistorical?

Von Harnack was the main librarian at the Prussian National Library in Berlin, he therefore would have had access to lots of important original documents, one supposes. Then, what Greek text did he use, as his gold standard, and how did he reconcile the Latin text of Tertullian, with a supposed Greek original for Marcion?

Good topic, lots of educational material here, worthy of our inquiry.

[arnoldo]

Judith M. Lieu will soon be publishing a book entitled, Marcion and the Making of a Heretic: God and Scripture in the Second Century,which is being described as "the first comprehensive monograph on the 'heretic' Marcion in nearly a century." Professor Judith Lieu also has a lecture on Marcion in the video below which starts roughly around the four minute mark.

[Peter Kirby]

But, we know that Paul was not an apostle. He was not appointed through or by, "dia", Jesus. So, why wouldn't Harnack have rejected this bit of text, as clearly not historical, the same way he rejected John's gospel as ahistorical?

This is not a historical inquiry. It's not some Jesus Seminar beads exercise.

I'm pretty sure that (a) he didn't "reject" (whatever that would mean) the text of the canonical Gospel of John and (b) that he would be quick to admit we are on better footing regarding the text of the canonical Gospel of John than we are regarding Marcion's Apostolikon.

[Peter Kirby]

The entire text of Harnack's reconstruction of Galatians in Marcion's Apostolikon has been posted here, for the first time, in English translation:

http://peterkirby.com/harnack-marcion-galatians.html

[Stephan Huller]

slevin: "... Von Harnack is one of my heroes, despite his support for WWI"

WTF? Who is he supposed to side with in the First World War, he's fucking German? This is getting out of hand. It was wrong to support Hitler and the Nazi party, but surely we should expect Germans to fight on behalf of their country no less than the British for Great Britain, Americans for America and the French for France. Why on earth should we expect that von Harnack would betray his country in the Great War? Then and only then we can admire him - you infer - once he has showed loyalty to 'us' by betraying his own people. Who the fuck made you the measure of all things? Who appointed you arbiter of determining who 'the right side' was throughout history. That was the single stupidest thing said at this forum this week next to your imbecilic mythicist ramblings about Paul not being an apostle a close second. Taking up a banner doesn't make you seem more intelligent. It's quite the contrary in fact.

[DCHindley]

For comparison, Jason BeDuhn, The First New Testament (2013) pp 260ff

To GaIatians

Prologue Galatae sunt Graeci. Hi verbum veritatis primum ab apostolo acceperunt,
sed post discessum eius temptati sunt a falsis apostolis, ut in legem et
circumcisionem verterentur. Hos apostolus revocat ad fidem veritatis scribens
eis ab Epheso. Cf. Marius Victorinus, Commentary on Galatians PL 8,1146
D: Paulus scribit hanc epistolam eos volens corrigere et a iudaismo revocare,
ut fidem tantum in Christum servent. There is nothing in the content of
Galatians to identify Ephesus as the place where Paul composed it.
On the priority of Galatians to the Corinthian correspondence, see the
reference in 1 Cor 16.1 to prior instructions given to the Galatians.

1.1 Tertullian, Marc. 5.1.3, 6. Harnack includes "who raised him from the
dead," while omitting the previous "and through God the Father."
This apparently nonsensical reading is based upon the testimony
of Jerome, Comm. Gal. 1.1 (presumably derived from Origen's lost
commentary):

One should know that in the Apostle of Marcion the words "and through
God the Father" have not been written, because he wanted to stress his
point that Christ has not been raised by God the Father, but arose spontaneously
through his own strength.

T. Baarda, "Marcion's Text of Gal. 1:1," challenges the value of Jerome's
testimony, arguing that either Jerome or Origen (Baarda inclines to the
latter) drew an erroneous inference about the state of Marcion's text.
In any case, the idea that God raised Jesus from the dead is found in
at least three other passages included in the Apostolikon (1 Cor 6.14
[Marc. 5.7.4]; Rom 8.11 [Marc. 5.14.5]; Laod 1.20 [Marc. 5.17.6]). Baarda
concludes (251) that we have no firm basis to assert that Marcion's text
differed at all from canonical Galatians in this verse. Clabeaux (A Lost
Edition of the Letters of Paul, 162) is equally noncommittal on any variant
here.

Gal 1.2 is unattested.

1.3 Tertullian, Marc. 5.5.1-2 (≠Schmid). Tertullian retroactively discusses
this verse in his treatment of the superscription of 1 Corinthians.

Gal 1.4-5 is unattested.

1.6 Tertullian, Marc. 5.2.4; Adam* 1.6 (Latin only; Schmid erroneously
cites Tertullian, Marc. 5.1.4, and does not accept the evidence of
Adamantius). Rufinus' Latin translation of Adamantius alone supplies
v. 6, omitting "from the one who called you in (the) favor [of Christ]"
before "to a different proclamation," while the Greek gives only v.
7, which is the relevant part of the quotation for the argument being
made. Tertullian's quotation of v. 6 includes most of the words omitted
in Adamantius and omits only "of Christ," also omitted in Praescr. 27.3
and Gk mss P46, F, G, some witnesses to the OL, and by Ephrem Syrus,
and considered by Clabeaux, A Lost Edition o f the Letters of Paul, 83-84,
to be the original reading of the verse.

1.7 Tertullian, Marc. 5.2.5 (v. 7a), 4.3.2 (v. 7b); Adam* 1.6 (=Schmid v.
7a only, not crediting the evidence of Marc. 4.3.2 or Adamantius).
Tertullian's wording (nam et adiciens quod aliud evangelium omnino
non esset: "when he also adds that there is no possible other gospel")
suggests that Marcion's text lacked the relative pronoun ho at the
beginning of the verse (cf. Ephrem Syrus); on the other hand, it suits
Tertullian's subsequent argument to read it this way, rather than with
ho (Schmid assumes the presence of ho). The verse is alluded to in
Adam* 1.6 first with the words, "The Apostle says that there is only
one proclamation," and again, "The Apostle did not say 'according
to my proclamations,' but 'according to my proclamation.'" Then the
verse is quoted verbatim, with additional words as indicated: "There
is no other in accord with my proclamation (kata to euaggelion mou, cf.
Rom 2.16), except that there are certain people who are disturbing you
and wishing to change (it) into a different proclamation of the Christos
(metastrepsai eis heteron euaggelion tou christou)." Eis heteron is apparently
drawn from v. 6; most witnesses to the catholic text read "wishing
to misrepresent the proclamation of the Christ (metastrepsai to
euaggelion tou christou)/' and this is what Tertullian, Marc. 4.3.2, attests
(pervertentes evangelium Christi).

1.8-9 Tertullian, Marc. 5.2.5-6 (v. 8); Adam* 1.6 (=Schmid v. 8 only, not
crediting the evidence of Adamantius). In Adamantius, the Marcionite
Megethius quotes these verses in reverse order: "If someone among
you proclaims (something) other than what we proclaimed to you, may
that one be damned" (=v. 9b, with "proclaimed" instead of "delivered"
in agreement with Gk ms Ψ). A few lines later, Adamantius quotes v.
8, leaving off the final "may that one be damned." At first, Tertullian
has: "Even if an angel from (the) celestial sphere were to proclaim differently,
may he be damned," omitting "we or" before "an angel," and
"than what we have proclaimed to you" following "differently"; but
when he repeats the quotation, he has the missing "we or."

1.10-12 is not directly attested, but vv. 11-12 are central to the image of
Paul held within the Marcionite Church, and provide an implicit foundation
of its view of Paul's role.

1.13-17 Tertullian, Marc. 5.2.7, 5.3.5 (v. 17). In 5.2.7, Tertullian refers
vaguely to this section of the letter: "After that, as he briefly describes
the course of his conversion from persecutor to apostle, he confirms
what is written in the Acts of the Apostles." The quotation of v. 17 in
Tertullian, Marc., 5.3.5 is more exact.

Gal 1.18-24 is unattested.

It's a pretty complete analysis and footnoting system, and readily available in English. However, one thing I have learned while fanning between the footnotes of von Manen, Detering and Mahar, the citing the references is an art, not a science. Whether you agree with BeDuhn's direction or not, or like the fact that he transliterates Greek into English letters, he offers a pretty comprehensive analysis like this for the Marcionite Evangelion and all the books Marcion had included in his Apostolikon (not stopping at Galatians and Romans).

DCH

[andrewcriddle]

slevin: "... Von Harnack is one of my heroes, despite his support for WWI"

WTF? Who is he supposed to side with in the First World War, he's fucking German? This is getting out of hand. It was wrong to support Hitler and the Nazi party, but surely we should expect Germans to fight on behalf of their country no less than the British for Great Britain, Americans for America and the French for France.

FWIW the issue is presumably that Harnack was among the signatories to the Manifesto of the 93

Andrew Criddle

[slevin]

FWIW the issue is presumably that Harnack was among the signatories to the Manifesto of the 93

Thanks very much, Andrew, I appreciate your clarification of my hastily written point about Von Harnack. In my mind I had been juxtaposing Harnack's behaviour, with that of Albert Einstein who had written a counter-manifesto, in opposition to the "Manifesto of the 93", just about the time, 1914 if memory serves me right, Einstein returned to Germany from Switzerland, and renewed his previously discarded citizenship in his homeland. In my opinion, both Harnack and Einstein were remarkable scholars. I don't believe there is another figure in history, comparable to Einstein, at least not in physics, who had published in a single year, Annus Mirabilis, 110 years ago, four fantastic contributions to the theory and practice of the science, that is ultimately responsible for many of the technologies, which we today take for granted.

I sought to highlight Harnack's distinctive rejection of John's gospel, as ahistorical, with his passive acceptance, (ganz im gegenteil!) as a key government appointee, of the German war effort. Maybe Ehrman rejects mythicism, yet supports Schleiermacher's adoption of a Leibnizian continuum. Harnack's study of Marcion, and his assessment of John's gospel, should not be weighed using a balance of faith.

[Peter Kirby]

For comparison, Jason BeDuhn, The First New Testament (2013) pp 260ff

It's a pretty complete analysis and footnoting system, and readily available in English. However, one thing I have learned while fanning between the footnotes of von Manen, Detering and Mahar, the citing the references is an art, not a science. Whether you agree with BeDuhn's direction or not, or like the fact that he transliterates Greek into English letters, he offers a pretty comprehensive analysis like this for the Marcionite Evangelion and all the books Marcion had included in his Apostolikon (not stopping at Galatians and Romans).

Thanks, DCH!

I have this book. I just got it. Looks like really interesting stuff.

I cannot afford to buy Schmid's $200 magisterial opus in German on the text of Marcion's Apostolikon, but I can afford to swipe pictures of the second appendix from Amazon's free "look inside" feature and assemble them into a PDF. Here is Schmid's appendix 2, containing the "safe readings" of Marcion, along with copious references to textual witnesses other than Marcion to support these readings.