A collection of witnesses to the Marcionite texts.

[Ben C. Smith]

I know there are a few sayings only found in gMatthew that Tertullian accused Marcion to have deleted from his gospel. My opinion (shared by many scholars) is that Tertullian probably was not doing any checking from a copy of gLuke when writing AM and got confused about thinking some gospels sayings were from gLuke, when in fact, they are only in gMatthew.

This is, I think, correct. Moreover, the wording of some of the statements attributed to the Evangelion have been attracted to the Matthean version, especially statements that were (A) extremely well attested for the Evangelion and therefore often talked about and (B) statements that were short and sweet enough to have memorized from the popular gospel of Matthew.

According to the textual context, there is nothing to indicate Tertullian found that saying in gMarcion. Instead, Tertullian used that saying, without indicating where it comes from, to make a point against Marcionites and Marcion.

This, however, is incorrect. The saying about good fruit and bad (Luke 6.43) is one of the best attested parts of the Evangelion. In book 4, sure, one might not be able to tell that Tertullian actually found the verse in the Marcionite text; but he (in other passages) and others definitely place it there. In point of fact, the concept of good fruit and bad was one that Marcion pressed into service as a prooftext for his concept of two gods: basically, he argued that a good God cannot do evil things as we find the Old Testament demiurge doing.

From Tertullian, Against Marcion 1.2.1:

Passus infelix huius praesumptionis instinctum de simplici capitulo dominicae pronuntiationis in homines non in deos disponentis exempla illa bonae et malae arboris, quod neque bona malos neque mala bonos proferat fructus....

The unhappy man became afflicted with the idea of this wild guess in consequence of that plain statement which our Lord made, which applies to men, not to gods, the example of the good tree and the bad, that neither does the good tree bring forth bad fruit nor the bad tree good fruit....

Ibidem 2.4.2:

Agnoscat hinc primum fructum optimum utique optimae arboris Marcion.

Let Marcion here take note of the first excellent fruit of a no less excellent tree.

Ibidem 2.24.3:

Et quia et Marcion defendit arborem bonam malos quoque fructus non licere producere, sed malitiam tamen nominavit, quod optimus non capit, numquid aliqua interpretatio subest earum malitiarum intellegendarum quae possint et in optimum decucurrisse?

And since even Marcion retains (the statement) that a good tree cannot bring forth evil fruits, and yet (the scripture) has used the word 'wickedness' — which one supremely good is incapable of — surely there remains the possibility of some interpretation by which to understand the kind of wickednesses which can have come to exist in one supremely good.

Hippolytus, Refutation of All Heresies 10.19.3a:

...διὸ καὶ ταῖς παραβολαῖς ταῖς εὐαγγελικαῖς χρῶνται, οὕτως λέγοντες· «οὐ δύναται δένδρον καλὸν καρποὺς πονηροὺς ποιεῖν» καὶ τὰ ἑξῆς, εἰς τοῦτο φάσκων εἰρῆσθαι <ταῦτα>, τὰ ὑπ' αὐτοῦ κακῶς νοθευόμενα.

Wherefore also they [the Marcionites and Cerdonites] thus employ the evangelical parables, saying, A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, and the rest of the passage. Now Marcion alleges that the conceptions badly devised by the (just one) himself constituted the allusion in this passage.

Pseudo-Tertullian, Against All Heresies 6.2:

Post hunc discipulus ipsius emersit Marcion quidam nomine, Ponticus genere, episcopi filius, propter stuprum cuiusdam virginis ab ecclesiae communicatione abiectus. Hic ex occasione qua dictum sit, Omnis arbor bona bonos fructus facit, mala autem malos, haeresim Cerdonis approbare conatus est, ut eadem diceret quae ille superior haereticus ante dixerat.

After him emerged a disciple of his, one Marcion by name, a native of Pontus, son of a bishop, excommunicated because of a rape committed on a certain virgin. He, starting from the fact that it is said, "Every good tree beareth good fruit, but an evil evil," attempted to approve the heresy of Cerdo; so that his assertions are identical with those of the former heretic before him.

From Origen, On First Things 2.5.4:

Sed iterum ad scripturae nos revocant verba, proferentes illam suam famosissimam quaestionem. Aiunt namque: Scriptum est quia non potest arbor bona malos fructus facere, neque arbor mala bonos fructus facere; ex fructu enim arbor cognoscitur.

They again recall us, however, to the words of Scripture, by bringing forward that celebrated question of theirs, affirming that it is written, "A bad tree cannot produce good fruits; for a tree is known by its fruit."

From Philastrius, Book of Diverse Heresies 45.2:

Quid est, inquit [Marcion], quod in evangelio dicente domino scriptum est? "Nemo pannum rudem mittet in vestimentum vetus, neque vinum novum in utres veteres, alioquin rumpuntur utres et effunditur vinum." Et iterum: "Non est arbor bona quae facit malum fructum, neque arbor mala quae faciat bonum fructum.

What is it, says he, that is written in the gospel, the Lord speaking? "No one puts a piece of raw fabric on an old garment, nor new wine in old skins, or else the skins are ruptured and the wine is poured out." And again: "It is not a good tree which makes evil fruit, nor an evil tree which makes good fruit."

The wording of this verse is diverse enough to draw from Roth the following assessment:

...the precise wording [is] obscure. It is likely that the order of the elements was δένδρον καλόν followed by δένδρον σαπρόν, and it is clear that the references to the impossibility of these trees bearing bad or good fruit, respectively, was present. The verb most likely used is ποιέω.

Ben.

[Ben C. Smith]

I am working on a good way to present the Lucan text, both in the Greek and in English translation, with links leading to catenae of sources like I just presented for Bernard. Lots and lots and lots of work, though. Not going to happen overnight.

[Bernard Muller]

I overlooked "Luke" had a similar saying (therefore a "Q" one in my book).

Luke 6:43 YLT 'For there is not a good tree making bad fruit, nor a bad tree making good fruit;
οὐ γάρ ἐστιν δένδρον καλὸν ποιοῦν καρπὸν σαπρόν οὐδὲ πάλιν δένδρον σαπρὸν ποιοῦν καρπὸν καλόν

Matthew 7:18 YLT A good tree is not able to yield evil fruits, nor a bad tree to yield good fruits.
οὐ δύναται δένδρον ἀγαθὸν καρποὺς πονηροὺς ποιεῖν οὐδὲ δένδρον σαπρὸν καρποὺς καλοὺς ποιεῖν

Tertullian's AM Google translate A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit,
Non potest arbor bona malos fructus facere: neque arbor mala bonos fructus facere.

Observations:
a) In AM 1.2.1, it looks that Tertullian's version is closer to gLuke than gMatthew:
that neither does the good tree bring forth bad fruit nor the bad tree good fruit

b) In AM 2.4.2, Tertullian is not any closer to gMatthew than gLuke:
the first excellent fruit of a no less excellent tree

c) In AM 2.24.3, Tertullian is closer to gMatthew:
a good tree cannot bring forth evil fruits

d) In book 4 of AM, Tertullian is very close to gMatthew against gLuke.

e) In book 4 of AM, Tertullian mentioned the good tree saying in the same location as in gLuke.

My conclusion here is that Tertullian, because of AM 1.2.1, must have found the saying in gMarcion very similar of the same saying in gLuke, but then some 1 to 3 books later, adopted (consciously or not) gMatthew version in order to make his points against Marcion & Marcionites.

Hippolytus, Pseudo-Tertullian, Origen & Philastrius were paraphrasing the saying, so they are of no help about knowing its exact wording in gMarcion.

Cordially, Bernard

[Ben C. Smith]

I overlooked "Luke" had a similar saying (therefore a "Q" one in my book).

Luke 6:43 YLT 'For there is not a good tree making bad fruit, nor a bad tree making good fruit;
οὐ γάρ ἐστιν δένδρον καλὸν ποιοῦν καρπὸν σαπρόν οὐδὲ πάλιν δένδρον σαπρὸν ποιοῦν καρπὸν καλόν

Matthew 7:18 YLT A good tree is not able to yield evil fruits, nor a bad tree to yield good fruits.
οὐ δύναται δένδρον ἀγαθὸν καρποὺς πονηροὺς ποιεῖν οὐδὲ δένδρον σαπρὸν καρποὺς καλοὺς ποιεῖν

Tertullian's AM Google translate A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit,
Non potest arbor bona malos fructus facere: neque arbor mala bonos fructus facere.

Observations:
a) In AM 1.2.1, it looks that Tertullian's version is closer to gLuke than gMatthew:
that neither does the good tree bring forth bad fruit nor the bad tree good fruit

b) In AM 2.4.2, Tertullian is not any closer to gMatthew than gLuke:
the first excellent fruit of a no less excellent tree

c) In AM 2.24.3, Tertullian is closer to gMatthew:
a good tree cannot bring forth evil fruits

d) In book 4 of AM, Tertullian is very close to gMatthew against gLuke.

e) In book 4 of AM, Tertullian mentioned the good tree saying in the same location as in gLuke.

My conclusion here is that Tertullian, because of AM 1.2.1, must have found the saying in gMarcion very similar of the same saying in gLuke, but then some 1 to 3 books later, adopted (consciously or not) gMatthew version in order to make his points against Marcion & Marcionites.

Hippolytus, Pseudo-Tertullian, Origen & Philastrius were paraphrasing the saying, so they are of no help about knowing its exact wording in gMarcion.

Whew! Close one, Bernard. I mean, you made one evaluation of one datum, and it supported your conclusion that the gospel of Marcion is Lucan in nature, and then when 8 more data came in all at once, you made your evaluation of all 9 of them combined, and (saints be praised!) it still supported your conclusion that the gospel of Marcion is Lucan in nature.

In all seriousness, though, while I so far, based on what I have gathered so far, tend to agree that the gospels of Marcion and Luke are related in some special way, it is not worthwhile to claim that Origen is paraphrasing here; what we find here, far from a paraphrase of anything, is an exact rendition of the Vulgate text of this verse; but of course Origen wrote in Greek, and this is a Latin translation of his words, by Rufinus, I believe, who was friends with Jerome (responsible for most of the Vulgate) until Origen became a hot potato and the two found themselves on different sides of the controversy. So Origen's exact wording is unclear here, I think; he certainly did not quote the Vulgate, which did not yet exist in his time. It would be more accurate to say that we cannot recover his exact original wording than to say that he is paraphrasing.

Ben.

[Ben C. Smith]

The Marcionite prologues (listed in Marcionite canonical order; translations by F. C. Burkitt):

To the Galatians: 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. / Galatians are Greeks. These accepted the word of truth first from the apostle, but after his departure were tempted by false apostles to turn to the law and circumcision. These the apostle recalls to the faith of the truth, writing to them from Ephesus.

To the Corinthians: Corinthii sunt Achaei. et hi similiter ab apostolis audierunt verbum veritatis et subversi multifarie a falsis apostolis, quidam a philosophiae verbosa eloquentia, alii a secta legis Iudiciae* inducti. hos revocat ad veram et evangelicam sapientiam scribens eis ab Epheso per Timotheum. / Corinthians are of Achaia. And these similarly heard the word of truth from the apostle and were perverted variously by false apostles, some by the wordy eloquence of philosophy, others brought in by the sect of the Jewish law. These the apostle recalls to true evangelical wisdom, writing to them from Ephesus by Timothy.

To the Romans: Romani sunt in partibus Italiae. hi praeventi sunt a falsis apostolis et sub nomine domini nostri Iesu Christi in legem et prophetas erant inducti. hos revocat apostolus ad veram evangelicam fidem scribens eis a Corintho. / Romans are in the parts of Italy. These were reached beforehand by false apostles, and under the name of our Lord Jesus Christ had been brought in to the law and the prophets. These the apostle recalls to the true evangelical faith, writing to them from Corinth.

To the Thessalonians: Thessalonicenses sunt Machedones in Christo Iesu qui accepto verbo veritatis persteterunt in fide etiam in persecutione civium suorum; praeterea nec receperunt ea quae a falsis apostolis dicebantur. hos conlaudat apostolus scribens eis ab Athenis. / Thessalonians are Macedonians, who having accepted the word of truth persevered in the faith even in persecution from their fellow-citizens. Moreover, also, they received not the things said by false apostles. These the apostle praises, writing to them from Athens.

To the Laodiceans (hypothetical, not extant; reconstructed by Harnack from the Colossian prologue): Laudiceni sunt Asiani. hi praeventi erant a pseudoapostolis.... ad hos non accessit ipse apostolus.... hos per epistulam recorrigit.... / Laodiceans are Asians. These had been reached by pseudo-apostles.... The apostle himself did not come to them.... These he corrects by a letter....

To the Colossians: Colossenses et hi sicut Laudicenses sunt Asiani. et ipsi praeventi erat a pseudoapostolis, nec ad hos accessit ipse apostolus, sed et hos per epistulam recorrigit. audierant enim verbum ab Archippo qui et ministerium in eos accepit. ergo apostolus iam ligatus scribit eis ab Epheso. / Colossians ---- these also like the Laodiceans are of Asia, and they had been reached beforehand by pseudo-apostles, nor did the apostle himself come to them. But these also by a letter he corrects, for they had heard the word from Archippus, who also accepted a ministry unto them. Therefore the apostle already in custody writes to them from Ephesus.

To the Philippians: Philippenses sunt Machedones. hi accepto verbo veritatis persteterunt in fide, nec receperunt falsos apostolos. hos apostolus conlaudat scribens eis a Roma de carcere per Epaphroditum. / Philippians are Macedonians. These having accepted the word of truth persevered in the faith, nor did they receive false apostles. These the apostle praises, writing to them from Rome out of prison by Epaphroditus.

To Philemon: Philemoni familiares litteras facit pro Onesimo servo eius. scribit autem ei a Roma de carcere. / He composes a familiar letter to Philemon on behalf of Onesimus his servant. He writes to him, however, from Rome, from prison.

[Ben C. Smith]

Hegemonius, Acts of Archelaus 44-45.

Acta Archelai	Acts of Archelaus
[44] Archelao episcopo Diodorus salutem dicit. Scire te volo, religiosissime pater, quoniam advenit quidam in diebus istis nomine Manes ad loca nostra, qui novi testamenti doctrinam se adinplere promittit. Et quidem erant quaedam in his quae ab eo dicebantur nostrae fidei, quaedam vero adserebat longe diversa ab iis quae ad nos paterna traditione descendunt. Interpretabatur enim quaedam aliene, quibus etiam ex propriis addebat, quae mihi valde peregrina visa sunt et infida. Pro quibus etiam permotus sum scribere haec ad te, sciens doctrinae tuae perfectum et plenissimum sensum, quoniam latere te horum nihil potest; et ideo confisus sum ad explananda nobis haec invidia te non posse prohiberi. Quamvis nec ego quidem in alterum aliquem inclinari potuerim sensum, tamen propter simplices quosque tuae auctoritatis conpulsus sum inplorare sermonem. Re vera enim vir valde vehemens tam sermone quam opere, sed et adspectu ipso atque habitu adparet. Sed et pauca quaedam, (quae) retinere possum ex iis quae ab eo dicta sunt, scribo tibi sciens quia ex iis etiam reliqua intelleges. Nosti quia morem hunc habent qui dogma aliquod adserere volunt, ut quaecumque voluerint de scripturis adsumere, haec propensius sui intellegentia depravent. Sed hos praeveniens apostolicus sermo denotat dicens: Si quis vobis adnuntiaverit praeterquam quod accepistis, anathema sit. Itaque post haec quae semel ab apostolis tradita sunt ultra non oportet quicquam aliud suscipere discipulum Christi. Verum ne sermonem longius protraham, ad propositum redeo. Legem Moysi, ut breviter dicam, dicebat hic non esse dei boni, sed maligni principis nec habere eam quicquam cognationis ad novam legem Christi, sed esse contrariam et inimicam, alteram alteri obsistentem. Ego audiens dicebam ei sermonem euangelicum, quomodo dixit dominus noster lesus Christus: Non veni solvere legem, sed adinplere. Ille vero ait nequaquam eum hunc dixisse sermonem; cum enim ipsara inveniamus eum resolvisse legem, necesse est nos hoc potius intellegere quod fecit. Deinde coepit dicere plurima ex lege, multa etiam de euangelio et apostolo Paulo, quae sibi viderentur esse contraria, quae etiam cum iiducia dicens nihil pertimescit, credo quod habeat adiutorem draconem illum qui nobis semper inimicus est. Dicebat ergo quod ibi dixerit deus: Ego divitem et pauperem facio; hic vero lesus beatos diceret pauperes. Addebat etiam quod nemo possit eius esse discipulus, nisi renuntiaret omnibus quae haberet; ibi vero Moyses argentum et aurum ab Aegyptiis sumens cum populo fugisset ex Aegypto; lesus autem nihil proximi desiderandum esse praeceperit. Deinde quod ille oculum pro oculo, dentem pro dente in lege cavisset expendi; noster vero dominus percutienti unam maxillam iuberet etiam alteram praeparari. Quod ibi Moyses eum qui sabbato opus fecisset et non permausisset in omnibus quae scripta sunt in lege puniri lapidarique praeceperit, sicut factum est ei, qui adhuc ignorans in sabbato fascem ligni collegerat; lesus vero in sabbato etiam lectum portare praecepit a se curato, sed et discipulos in die sabbati vellere spicas ac manibus confricare non prohibet, quod sabbatis utique fieri non licebat.	[44] Diodorus sends greeting to Bishop Archelaus, I wish you to know, most pious father, that in these days there has arrived in our parts a certain person named Manes, who gives out that he is to complete the doctrine of the New Testament. And in the statements which he has made there have been some things, indeed, which may harmonize with our faith; but there have been also certain affirmations of his which seem very far removed from what has come down to us by the tradition of our fathers. For he has interpreted some doctrines in a strange fashion, imposing on them certain notions of his own, which have appeared to me to be altogether foreign and opposed to the faith. On the ground of these facts I have now been induced to write this letter to you, knowing the completeness and fullness of your intelligence in doctrine, and being assured that none of these things can escape your cognizance. Accordingly, I have also indulged the confident hope that you cannot be kept back by any grudge from explaining these matters to us. As to myself, indeed, it is not possible that I shall be drawn away into any novel doctrine; nevertheless, in behalf of all the less instructed, I have been led to ask a word with your authority. For, in truth, the man shows himself to be a person of extraordinary force of character, both in speech and in action; and indeed his very aspect and attire also bear that out. But I shall here write down for your information some few points which I have been able to retain in my memory out of all the topics which have been expounded by him: for I know that even by these few you will have an idea of the rest. You well understand, no doubt, that those who seek to set up any new dogma have the habit of very readily perverting into a conformity with their own notions any proofs they desire to take from the Scriptures. In anticipation, however, of this, the apostolic word marks out the case thus: If any one preach any other gospel unto you than that which you have received, let him be accursed. And consequently, in addition to what has been once committed to us by the apostles, a disciple of Christ ought to receive nothing new as doctrine. But not to make what I have got to say too long, I return to the subject directly in view. This man then maintained that the law of Moses, to speak shortly, does not proceed from the good God, but from the prince of evil; and that it has no kinship with the new law of Christ, but is contrary and hostile to it, the one being the direct antagonist of the other. When I heard such a sentiment propounded, I repeated to the people that sentence of the Gospel in which our Lord Jesus Christ said of Himself: I am not come to destroy the law, but to fulfil it. The man, however, averred that He did not utter this saying at all; for he held that when we find that He did abrogate that same law, we are bound to give heed, above all other considerations, to the thing which He actually did. Then he began to cite a great variety of passages from the law, and also many from the Gospel and from the Apostle Paul, which have the appearance of contradicting each other. All this he gave forth at the same time with perfect confidence, and without any hesitation or fear; so that I verily believe he has that serpent as his helper, who is ever our adversary. Well, he declared that there in the law God said, I make the rich man and the poor man; while here in the Gospel Jesus called the poor blessed, and added, that no man could be His disciple unless he gave up all that he had. Again, he maintained that there Moses took silver and gold from the Egyptians when the people fled out of Egypt; whereas Jesus delivered the precept that we should lust after nothing belonging to our neighbour. Then he affirmed that Moses had provided in the law, that an eye should be given in penalty for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth; but that our Lord bade us offer the other cheek also to him who smote the one. He told us, too, that there Moses commanded the man to be punished and stoned who did any work on the Sabbath, and who failed to continue in all things that were written in the law, as in fact was done to that person who, yet being ignorant, had gathered a bundle of sticks on the Sabbath day; whereas Jesus cured a cripple on the Sabbath, and ordered him then also to take up his bed. And further, He did not restrain His disciples from plucking the ears of grain and rubbing them with their hands on the Sabbath day, which yet was a thing which it was unlawful to do on the Sabbaths.
[45] Et quid plura dicam? multis et variis adsertionibus huiuscemodi dogmata ab eo summo nisu atque summo studio adfirmabantur. Nam ex auctoritate apostoli Moysi legem legem esse mortis conabatur adserere; Iesu vero legem legem esse vitae, per id quod ait: In quo et idoneos nos fecit deus ministros novi testamenti non littera, sed spiriiu. Littera enim occidit, spiritus autem vivificat. Quod si ministerium mortis in litteris formatum in lapidibus factum est in gloria, ita ut non possent intendere filii Istrahel in faciem Moysi propter gloriam vultus eius, quae destruitur, quomodo non magis ministerium spiritus erit in gloria? Si enim ministerium damnationis gloria est, multo magis abundabit ministerium iustitiae ad gloriam. Neque enim glorificatum est quod gloriosum factum est in hac parte, propter eam quae supereminet gloriam; si enim quod destruitur per gloriam, multo magis quod manet in gloria est. Sed haec quidem, sicut ipse nosti, in secunda ad Corinthios epistula. Addit autem ex prima epistula, terrenos esse dicens discipulos veteris testamenti et animales et ideo carnem et sauguinem regnum dei possidere non posse. Ipsum quoque Paulum ex propria sua persona dicebat adserere id quod ait: Si ea quae destruxi iterum aedifico, praevaricatorem me constituo; sed et illud eundem ipsum evidentissime de carnis circumcisione dixisse; non esse ludaeum eum qui (in manifesto est neque quae) in manifesto in carne est circumcisio neque secundum litteram legeni quicquam utilitatis retinere. Et rursum quod Abraham hahet gloriam, sed non apud deum; tantummodo agnitionem peccati per legem fieri. Sed et alia multa legi obtrectans inserebat, eo quod lex ipsa peccatum sit, in quibus simplices quique, dicente eo, movebantur; et usque ad Iohannem igitur aiebat lex et prophetae; aiebat autem Iohannem regnum caelorum praedicare, nam et abscisione capitis eius hoc esse indicatum quod, omnibus prioribus et superioribus eius abscisis, posteriora sola servanda sint. Ad haec igitur nobis, o religiosissime Archelae, paucis rescribe; audivi enim non mediocre tibi esse in talibus studium; dei enim donum est idcirco quod dignis et amicis suis sibique propositi societate coniunctis deus donat haec munera. Nostrum enim est propositum praeparare et proximos fieri benignae ac diviti menti, et continuo ab ea largissima munera consequimur. Quoniam ergo in iis voto et proposito meo sermonis non sufficit eruditio (idiotam enim me esse confiteor) ad te misi, sicut saepius dixi, quaestionis huius exolutionem plenissimam recepturus. Incolumis mihi esto, pater inconparabilis et honorabilis.	[45] And why should I mention other instances? For with many different assertions of a similar nature these dogmas of his were propounded with the utmost energy and the most fervid zeal. Thus, too, on the authority of an apostle, he endeavoured to establish the position that the law of Moses is the law of death, and that the law of Jesus, on the contrary, is the law of life. For he based that assertion on the passage which runs thus: In which also may God make us able ministers of the New Testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter kills, but the spirit gives life. But if the ministration of death, engraven in letters on the stones, was made in glory, so that the children of Israel could not steadfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be done away; how shall not the ministration of the Spirit be rather glorious? For if the ministration of condemnation be glory, much more does the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory. For even that which was made glorious had no glory in this respect, by reason of the glory that excels. For if that which shall be done away is glorious, much more that which remains is glorious. And this passage, as you are also well aware, occurs in the second Epistle to the Corinthians. Besides, he added to this another passage out of the first epistle, on which he based his affirmation that the disciples of the Old Testament were earthly and natural; and in accordance with this, that flesh and blood could not possess the kingdom of God. He also maintained that Paul himself spoke in his own proper person when he said: If I build again the things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor. Further, he averred that the same apostle made this statement most obviously on the subject of the resurrection of the flesh. when he also said that he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, neither is that circumcision which is outward in the flesh, and that according to the letter the law has in it no advantage. And again he adduced the statement, that Abraham has glory, but not before God; and that by the law there comes only the knowledge of sin. And many other things did he introduce, with the view of detracting from the honour of the law, on the ground that the law itself is sin; by which statements the simpler people were somewhat influenced, as he continued to bring them forward; and in accordance with all this, he also made use of the affirmation, that the law and the prophets were until John. He declared, however, that John preached the true kingdom of heaven; for verily he held, that by the cutting off of his head it was signified that all who went before him, and who had precedence over him, were to be cut off, and that what was to come after him was alone to be maintained. With reference to all these things, therefore, O most pious Archelaus, send us back a short reply in writing: for I have heard that you have studied such matters in no ordinary degree; and that capacity which you possess is God's gift, inasmuch as God bestows these gifts upon those who are worthy of them, and who are His friends, and who show themselves allied to Him in community of purpose and life. For it is our part to prepare ourselves, and to approach the gracious and liberal mind, and immediately we receive from it the most bountiful gifts. Accordingly, since the learning which I possess for the discussion of themes like these does not meet the requirements of my desire and purpose, for I confess myself to he an unlearned man, I have sent to you, as I have already said more than once, in the hope of obtaining from your hand the amplest solution to this question. May it be well with you, incomparable and honourable father!

[Secret Alias]

Archelaus also thinks Paul is the Paraclete another heretical Pauline (Marcionite) belief cf. Origen Homilies on Luke 25 (from what I remember). It is repeated over and over again in the text. Archelaus's church is situation in the part of the world Bauer noted Marcionism was the orthodoxy and the Catholic 'Palutians' the minority. Of course the references to the Paraclete only appear now in 'according to John' but no one in that part of the world used the fourfold gospel at that time. No biggie.

This understanding of the term Paraclete was clearly influential. As Pederen (Titus of Bostra's Contra Manichaeos) notes, it was developed from a different text of the letters of Paul which - I note - is clearly Marcionite. He writes that we should:

turn to another passage from Contra Manichaeos which also makes it likely that Titus depended on Acta Archelai. The passage in question is to be found in Contra Manichaeos IV.86, where Titus apparently presents a Manichaean interpretation of 1 Cor 13:9 - 10, in that he writes:

Paul said that he (only) knows a little out of much, and he (only) prophesies a little out of much, but when perfection comes, (then) that which was a little comes to an end. Now because he speaks through me, perfection has been introduced precisely through me, and also that which was a little is being repaired and cleansed (Sy 169.34–170.3 → Ch. XI.47).

This quotation is especially interesting because it is in the 1st person singular and clearly must have been intended as spoken by Mani. At first glance one might imagine that it came from one of Mani's own works or from the Kephalaia-literature. Both in Augustine (Contra Faustum XV.6; XXXII.17) and in the Manichaean Felix (Contra Felicem I.IX) we can also read that Mani invoked 1 Cor. 13.9–10. We also find the same information in Acta Archelai XV, and XLI. Ch. XV is particularly interesting: Mani has finally arrived in the city of Carchar in Mesopotamia, and the rich Marcellus has arranged a public disputation in which Mani is first allowed to present himself and his message. Here we can read the following in Vermes' translation:

and, as Paul who was sent before me said, he “knew in part and prophesied in part”, thus reserving for me that which is complete, so that I might destroy that which is in part.

Yet another quotation in the 1st person singular! Is Titus in fact quoting from Acta Archelai? One must observe here that although the two quotations are very close to one another, there are nonetheless certain differences. Thus at the end of the Acta Archelai quotation we are told that Mani “might destroy that which is in part”, “hoc quod ex parte est destruam”, which follows the text of the Greek Bible (καταργηθησεται) (13,10), whereas in Titus we read that “that which was a little is being repaired and cleansed”. The use of two verbs in Contra Manichaeos, ie Nqt and akd, is presumably a so-called hendiadys translation, which is often found in the Syriac translation of Titus, ie out of regard for semantic precision the Syriac translator renders a single Greek concept with two Syriac words. I am unaware, however, of which Greek concept is being referred to, though it cannot have been καταργηθησεται.

The reason why the Titus text does not have a word that corresponds to καταργηθησεται at this point is because, in contrast to Acta Archelai Titus has quoted the whole of 1 Cor. 13.9–10 in the previous sentences, while at this juncture Acta Archelai shortens the quotation from Paul.

This is admittedly a minor variant, but it seems a more important difference that the quotation in Titus states that Paul “speaks through me”, and that “perfection has been introduced precisely through me”; these formulations are not found in this form at this point in Hegemonius. However, much further on in the disputation (Acta Archelai XLI), in distancing themselves from the heresiarch, the men who have been appointed judges between Mani and the Catholic Bishop Archelaus, return to the question of 1 Cor. 13:9 - 10. Here we find the remarks:

Therefore when you said that the Paraclete was present in Paul and that the Paraclete attested everything, why did Paul say: “We know in part and we prophesy in part; but when what is perfect comes, what is in part shall be abolished.

Here we at least find the point that the Paraclete was Paul ... [p. 150, 151]

Sorry for going outside of Lukan material but any fair-minded assessment of Marcion necessarily goes outside of the trap laid for him by Irenaeus and company.