Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

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.

Τῆς πρὸς Κολασσαεῖς, <η> παρὰ τῷ Μαρκίωνι κειμένης, παρὰ δὲ τῷ ἀποστόλῳ <ζ> κειμένης. / From the Epistle to the Colossians, the eighth Epistle in Marcion but the seventh in the Apostle.

Tertullian, Against Marcion 5.19.1: [1] Soleo in praescriptione adversus haereses omnes de testimonio temporum compendium figere, priorem vindicans regulam nostram omni haeretica posteritate. Hoc nunc probabit et apostolus dicens, De spe reposita in caelis, quam audistis in sermone veritatis evangelii, quod pervenit ad vos, sicut et in totum mundum. Nam si iam tum traditio evangelica ubique manaverat, quanto magis nunc? / [1] I am accustomed in my prescription against all heresies, to fix my compendious criterion (of truth) in the testimony of time; claiming priority therein as our rule, and alleging lateness to be the characteristic of every heresy. This shall now be proved even by the apostle, when he says: "For the hope which is laid up for you in heaven, whereof ye heard before in the word of the truth of the gospel; which is come unto you, as it is unto all the world." For if, even at that time, the tradition of the gospel had spread everywhere, how much more now!
Tertullian, Against Marcion 5.19.3-6: [3] Invisibilis dei imaginem ait Christum. Sed nos enim invisibilem dicimus patrem Christi, scientes filium semper retro visum, si quibus visus est, in dei nomine, ut imaginem ipsius; ne quam et hinc differentiam scindat dei visibilis et invisibilis, cum olim dei nostri sit definitio: Dominum nemo videbit et vivet. [4] Si non est Christus primogenitus conditionis, ut sermo creatoris per quem omnia facta sunt et sine quo nihil factum est, si non in illo condita sunt universa in caelis et in terris, visibilia et invisibilia, sive throni sive dominationes sive principatus sive potestates, si non cuncta per illum et in illo sunt condita (haec enim Marcioni displicere oportebat), non utique tam nude posuisset apostolus, Et ipse est ante omnes. Quomodo enim ante omnes, si non ante omnia? Quomodo ante omnia, si non primogenitus conditionis, si non sermo creatoris? Unde ante omnes probabitur fuisse qui post omnia apparuit? Quis scit priorem fuisse quem esse nesciit? [5] Quomodo item boni duxit omnem plenitudinem in semetipso habitare? Primo enim, quae est ista plenitudo, nisi ex illis quae Marcion detraxit, conditis in Christo, in caelis et in terris, angelis et hominibus, nisi ex illis invisibilibus et visibilibus, nisi ex thronis et dominationibus et principatibus et potestatibus? Aut si haec pseudapostoli nostri et Iudaici evangelizatores de suo intulerint, edat plenitudinem dei sui Marcion, qui nihil condidit. Ceterum quale est ut plenitudinem creatoris aemulus et destructor eius in suo Christo habitare voluerit? Cui denique reconciliat omnia in semetipsum, pacem faciens per crucis suae sanguinem, nisi quem offenderant universa, adversus quem rebellaverant per transgressionem, cuius novissime fuerant? Conciliari enim extraneo possent, reconciliari vero non alii quam suo. [6] Ita et nos quondam alienatos et inimicos sensu in malis operibus creatori redigit in gratiam, cuius admiseramus offensam, colentes conditionem adversus creatorem. Sicubi autem et ecclesiam corpus Christi dicit esse, ut hic ait adimplere se reliqua pressurarum Christi in carne pro corpore eius, quod est ecclesia, non propterea et in totum mentionem corporis transferes a substantia carnis. Nam et supra reconciliari nos ait in corpore eius per mortem; utique in eo corpore, in quo mori potuit per carnem, mortuus est, non per ecclesiam, plane propter ecclesiam, corpus commutando pro corpore, carnale pro spiritali. / [3] He calls Christ "the image of the invisible God." We in like manner say that the Father of Christ is invisible, for we know that it was the Son who was seen in ancient times (whenever any appearance was vouchsafed to men in the name of God) as the image of (the Father) Himself. He must not be regarded, however, as making any difference between a visible and an invisible God; because long before he wrote this we find a description of our God to this effect: "No man can see the Lord, and live." [4] If Christ is not "the first-begotten before every creature," as that "Word of God by whom all things were made, and without whom nothing was made; " if "all things were" not "in Him created, whether in heaven or on earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones or dominions, or principalities, or powers; "if "all things were" not "created by Him and for Him" (for these truths Marcion ought not to allow concerning Him), then the apostle could not have so positively laid it down, that "He is before all." For how is He before all, if He is not before all things? How, again, is He before all things, if He is not "the first-born of every creature"----if He is not the Word of the Creator? Now how will he be proved to have been before all things, who appeared after all things? Who can tell whether he had a prior existence, when he has found no proof that he had any existence at all? [5] In what way also could it have "pleased (the Father) that in Him should all fulness dwell? " For, to begin with, what fulness is that which is not comprised of the constituents which Marcion has removed from it,----even those that were "created in Christ, whether in heaven or on earth," whether angels or men? which is not made of the things that are visible and invisible? which consists not of thrones and dominions and principalities and powers? If, on the other hand, our false apostles and Judaizing gospellers have introduced all these things out of their own stores, and Martian has applied them to constitute the fulness of his own god, (this hypothesis, absurd though it be, alone would justify him; ) for how, on any other supposition, could the rival and the destroyer of the Creator have been willing that His fulness should dwell in his Christ? To whom, again, does He "reconcile all things by Himself, making peace by the blood of His cross," but to Him whom those very things had altogether offended, against whom they had rebelled by transgression, (but) to whom they had at last returned? Conciliated they might have been to a strange god; but reconciled they could not possibly have been to any other than their own God. [6] Accordingly, ourselves "who were sometime alienated and enemies in our mind by wicked works" does He reconcile to the Creator, against whom we had committed offence----worshipping the creature to the prejudice of the Creator. As, however, he says elsewhere, that the Church is the body of Christ, so here also (the apostle) declares that he "fills up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in his flesh for His body's sake, which is the Church." But you must not on this account suppose that on every mention of His body the term is only a metaphor, instead of meaning real flesh. For he says above that we are "reconciled in His body through death; " meaning, of course, that He died in that body wherein death was possible through the flesh: (therefore he adds, ) not through the Church (per ecclesiam), but expressly for the sake of the Church (proper ecclesiam), exchanging body for body----one of flesh for a spiritual one.
Tertullian, Against Marcion 5.5.1-2: [1] Praestructio superioris epistulae ita duxit, ut de titulo eius non retractaverim, certus et alibi retractari eum posse, communem scilicet et eundem in epistulis omnibus. Quod non utique salutem praescribit eis quibus scribit, sed gratiam et pacem, non dico. Quid illi cum Iudaico adhuc more, destructori Iudaismi? Nam et hodie Iudaei in pacis nomine appellant, et retro in scripturis sic salutabant. Sed intellego illum defendisse officio suo praedicationem creatoris: Quam maturi pedes evangelizantium bona, evangelizantium pacem. [2] Evangelizator enim bonorum, id est gratiae dei, pacem quam praeferendam sciebat. Haec cum a deo patre nostro et domino Iesu annuntians communibus nominibus utatur, competentibus nostro quoque sacramento, non puto dispici posse quis deus pater et dominus Iesus praedicetur, nisi ex accedentibus cui magis competant. / [1] My preliminary remarks on the preceding epistle called me away from treating of its superscription, for I was sure that another opportunity would occur for considering the matter, it being of constant recurrence, and in the same form too, in every epistle. The point, then, is, that it is not (the usual) health which the apostle prescribes for those to whom he writes, but "grace and peace." I do not ask, indeed, what a destroyer of Judaism has to do with a formula which the Jews still use. For to this day they salute each other with the greeting of "peace," and formerly in their Scriptures they did the same. But I understand him by his practice plainly enough to have corroborated the declaration of the Creator: "How beautiful are the feet of them that bring glad tidings of good, who preach the gospel of peace!" [2] For the herald of good, that is, of God's "grace" was well aware that along with it "peace" also was to be proclaimed. Now, when he announces these blessings as "from God the Father and the Lord Jesus," he uses titles that are common to both, and which are also adapted to the mystery of our faith; and I suppose it to be impossible accurately to determine what God is declared to be the Father and the Lord Jesus, unless (we consider) which of their accruing attributes are more suited to them severally.
Adamantius Dialogue 2.12.
Peter Kirby remarks concerning Colossians 1.15b-16: BeDuhn writes, “Tertullian appears to say that Marcion’s text lacked vv. 15b-16.” And he quotes: “If Christ is not ‘the firstborn of creation,’ as being the word of the creator ‘by whom all things were made and without whom nothing was made,’ if it is not true that ‘in him all things were created in heaven and on earth, things visible and things invisible, whether thrones or dominations or principalities or powers,’ if it is not true that ‘by him and in him all things were created’ – for it was really necessary that Marcion would disapprove of this (haec enim Marcioni displicere oportebat) – then the apostle would not have stated so plainly, ‘and he is before all (people),’ for how can he be before all (people) if he were not before all (things)? And how before all (things) if he were not the firstborn of creation?” (Marc. 5.19.3-5) BeDuhn writes, “While there have been a great many proposals for the original wording of the hymn used by Paul in this part of the letter, and the possibility of various interpolations, I have not been able to find one that exactly corresponds with the form found in the Apostolikon as reported by Tertullian (although suggestions of editorial expansions or interpolations in v. 16 are quite common). For those conditioned by the catholic form of the text, the redundancy of v. 17 with 15b-16 has passed unnoticed; one would expect, at least, a ‘therefore’ (oun) rather than an ‘and’ (kai) at the beginning of v. 17. … It could be argued that the form of the passage attested for the Apostolikon possesses an equally clear structure and coherent meaning without vv. 15b-16 (and with or without v. 18).” (The First New Testament, p. 316) On the Colossians hymn, see Bowen, Robinson, McCown, Martin, Balchin, Lamp, Andrie, Nakagawa, and Waugh.
Peter Kirby's criteria: (1) Passages attested as absent from the Marcionite version by the patristic writers. (2) Unattested passages that have miscellaneous manuscript support and/or patristic support for omission. (3) Unattested passages that Tertullian is likely to have cited were they present in the Marcionite version. (4) Unattested passages that correspond to a scholarly conjecture for interpolation on grounds other than the alleged absence in the Marcionite version.

Tertullian, Against Marcion 5.19.7: [7] At cum monet cavendum a subtililoquentia et philosophia, ut inani seductione, quae sit secundum elementa mundi, non secundum caelum aut terram dicens, sed secundum litteras saeculares et secundum traditionem, scilicet hominum subtililoquorum et philosophorum, longum est quidem et alterius operis ostendere hac sententia omnes haereses damnari, quod omnes ex subtililoquentiae viribus et philosophiae regulis constent. Sed Marcion principalem suae fidei terminum de Epicuri schola agnoscat, dominum inferens hebetem, ne timeri dicat eum, collocans et cum deo creatore materiam de porticu Stoicorum, negans carnis resurrectionem, de qua proinde nulla philosophia consentit. / [7] When, again, he warns them to "beware of subtle words and philosophy," as being "a vain deceit," such as is "after the rudiments of the world" (not understanding thereby the mundane fabric of sky and earth, but worldly learning, and "the tradition of men," subtle in their speech and their philosophy), it would be tedious, and the proper subject of a separate work, to show how in this sentence (of the apostle's) all heresies are condemned, on the ground of their consisting of the resources of subtle speech and the rules of philosophy. But (once for all) let Marcion know that the principle term of his creed comes from the school of Epicurus, implying that the Lord is stupid and indifferent; wherefore he refuses to say that He is an object to be feared. Moreover, from the porch of the Stoics he brings out matter, and places it on a par with the Divine Creator. He also denies the resurrection of the flesh,----a truth which none of the schools of philosophy agreed together to hold.
Tertullian, Against Marcion 5.19.9-11: [9] Denique si nos deus cum Christo vivificat, donans delicta nobis, non possumus credere ab eo delicta donari in quem admissa non fuerint, ut retro ignotum. Age iam, cum dicit, Nemo vos iudicet in cibo et potu et in parte diei festi et neomeniae et sabbati, quae est umbra futurorum, corpus autem Christi, quid tibi videtur, Marcion? De lege iam non retractamus, nisi quod et hic quemadmodum exclusa sit edocet, dum scilicet de umbra transfertur in corpus, id est de figuris ad veritatem, quod est Christus. Ergo et umbra eius cuius et corpus, id est et lex eius <cuius> et Christus. Segrega alii deo legem, et alii deo Christum, si potes aliquam umbram ab eo corpore cuius umbra est separare. Manifeste legis est Christus, si corpus est umbrae. [10] Si autem et aliquos taxat qui ex visionibus angelicis dicebant cibis abstinendum (ne attigeris ne gustaveris), volentes in humilitate sensus incedere, non tenentes caput, non ideo legem et Moysen pulsat, quasi de angelica superstitione constituerit interdictionem quorundam edulium. [11] Moysen enim a deo accepisse legem constat. Denique hanc disciplinam, Secundum praecepta, inquit, et doctrinam hominum, deputavit in eos qui caput non tenerent, id est ipsum in quo omnia recensentur, in Christum ad initium revocata etiam indifferentia escarum.Cetera praeceptorum, ut eadem, satis sit iam alibi docuisse quam a creatore manarint, qui cum vetera praedicaret transitura, nova facturus universa, mandans etiam, Novate vobis novamen novum, iam tum docebat exponere veterem hominem et novum induere. / [9] Then, if God "quickens us together with Christ, forgiving us our trespasses," we cannot suppose that sins are forgiven by Him against whom, as having been all along unknown, they could not have been committed. Now tell me, Marcion, what is your opinion of the apostle's language, when he says, "Let no man judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of a holy day, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath, which is a shadow of things to come, but the body is of Christ? " We do not now treat of the law, further than (to remark) that the apostle here teaches clearly how it has been abolished, even by passing from shadow to substance----that is, from figurative types to the reality, which is Christ. The shadow, therefore, is His to whom belongs the body also; in other words, the law is His, and so is Christ. If you separate the law and Christ, assigning one to one god and the other to another, it is the same as if you were to attempt to separate the shadow from the body of which it is the shadow. Manifestly Christ has relation to the law, if the body has to its shadow. [10] But when he blames those who alleged visions of angels as their authority for saying that men must abstain from meats----"you must not touch, you must not taste"----in a voluntary humility, (at the same time) "vainly puffed up in the fleshly mind, and not holding the Head," (the apostle) does not in these terms attack the law or Moses, as if it was at the suggestion of superstitious angels that he had enacted his prohibition of sundry aliments. [11] For Moses had evidently received the law from God. When, therefore, he speaks of their "following the commandments and doctrines of men," he refers to the conduct of those persons who "held not the Head," even Him in whom all things are gathered together; for they are all recalled to Christ, and concentrated in Him as their initiating principle ----even the meats and drinks which were indifferent in their nature. All the rest of his precepts, as we have shown sufficiently, when treating of them as they occurred in another epistle, emanated from the Creator, who, while predicting that "old things were to pass away," and that He would "make all things new," commanded men "to break up fresh ground for themselves," and thereby taught them even then to put off the old man and put on the new.
Epiphanius, Panarion 42.11.7: <α> (<λθ>). «Μὴ οὖν τις ὑμᾶς κρινέτω ἐν βρώσει ἢ ἐν πόσει ἢ ἐν μέρει ἑορτῆς ἢ νεομηνίας καὶ σαββάτων, ὅ ἐστι σκιὰ τῶν μελλόντων». / 1(39). 'Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holy day, or of the new moon and sabbath days, which are a shadow of things to come.'
Epiphanius, Panarion 42.12.3: <α> <καὶ> <λθ> <σχόλιον>. «Μὴ οὖν τις ὑμᾶς κρινέτω ἐν βρώσει ἢ ἐν πόσει ἢ ἐν μέρει ἑορτῆς ἢ νεομηνίας καὶ σαββάτων ὅ ἐστιν σκιὰ τῶν μελλόντων». <α> <καὶ> <λθ> <ἔλεγχος>. Οὐδαμόθεν ὑποπίπτει σκιά, ὦ Μαρκίων, ἀλλ' ἢ ἀπὸ σώματος καὶ σῶμα οὐ δύναται εἶναι, σκιᾶς ἀπ' αὐτοῦ μὴ φαινομένης. ὅθεν πεισθῆναι ὀφείλουσιν οἱ ἀπὸ σοῦ ἠπατημένοι διὰ τῶν ἔτι παρὰ σοῦ φυλαττομένων τῆς ἀληθείας τῶν θείων γραφῶν λειψάνων, ὅτι μελλόντων ἀγαθῶν ἀποκαλύπτεσθαι οὐκ ἀλλότρια ἦν τὰ τότε δικαιώματα, προσκαίρως προστεταγμένα περὶ βρώσεως καὶ πόσεως καὶ μέρους ἑορτῶν καὶ νεομηνιῶν καὶ σαββάτων· ὧν ἀγαθῶν σκιαὶ ἦσαν τὰ προειρημένα, δι' ὧν σκιῶν τὸ σῶμα κατειλήφαμεν τῶν ἐνεστώτων ἀγαθῶν, ἐν νόμῳ μὲν σκιαγραφηθέντων ἐν Χριστῷ δὲ τελειωθέντων. / Scholion 1 and 39. 'Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holy day, or of the new moon and sabbath days, which are a shadow of things to come.'
(a) Elenchus 1 and 39. A shadow, Marcion, is not cast in any way but by a body, and there cannot be a body if a shadow is not cast by it. (b) Therefore, by the remains of the truth of the sacred scriptures which you still preserve, your dupes should be convinced that the ordinances of those times were not foreign to the good things to be revealed. They were temporary provisions about food and drink, and concerning festivals, new moons and sabbaths. (c) These were the shadows of those good things. And by these shadows we have apprehended the body of the good things now present, which were foreshadowed in the Law and fulfilled in Christ.

Tertullian, Against Marcion 5.19.11: [11] Moysen enim a deo accepisse legem constat. Denique hanc disciplinam, Secundum praecepta, inquit, et doctrinam hominum, deputavit in eos qui caput non tenerent, id est ipsum in quo omnia recensentur, in Christum ad initium revocata etiam indifferentia escarum.Cetera praeceptorum, ut eadem, satis sit iam alibi docuisse quam a creatore manarint, qui cum vetera praedicaret transitura, nova facturus universa, mandans etiam, Novate vobis novamen novum, iam tum docebat exponere veterem hominem et novum induere. / [11] For Moses had evidently received the law from God. When, therefore, he speaks of their "following the commandments and doctrines of men," he refers to the conduct of those persons who "held not the Head," even Him in whom all things are gathered together; for they are all recalled to Christ, and concentrated in Him as their initiating principle ----even the meats and drinks which were indifferent in their nature. All the rest of his precepts, as we have shown sufficiently, when treating of them as they occurred in another epistle, emanated from the Creator, who, while predicting that "old things were to pass away," and that He would "make all things new," commanded men "to break up fresh ground for themselves," and thereby taught them even then to put off the old man and put on the new.