Did Against Marcion Book 5 Originally Begin with Romans Rather than Galatians?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Did Against Marcion Book 5 Originally Begin with Romans Rather than Galatians?

Post by Secret Alias »

It is a curious thing. Our Pauline canon begins with Romans. It is alleged in Epiphanius that Marcion's canon began with Galatians. But nowhere in Tertullian's Against Marcion is that point explicitly made. Epiphanius may have inferred the primacy of Galatians based on a variant text of Against Marcion. Orthodox communities in the East had a Galatians-first canon. But is the order of Against Marcion Book 5 jumbled? I think there are several points in favor of this idea.

Let's first deal with the structure of the present work. Book 5 begins strangely. We have been building up from Book 1 in anticipation of a discussion of Marcion's Antitheses. Mention is made of the work throughout Books 1, 2, 3 and 4. Strangely though mention of the Antitheses disappears in Book 5. Book 5 begins with an even stranger discussion of 'the person of Paul' which seems entirely divorced from what precedes it in Book 4. The Marcionite Paul is unknown. Tertullian confesses he is a 'new convert' to Christianity and then a long digression with no mention of the origin or form of the Marcionite canon.

Instead the Galatians section begins with the following words - again wholly attached from anything which precedes it in Books 1 - 4:
The epistle which we also allow to be the most decisive against Judaism, is that wherein the apostle instructs the Galatians. For the abolition of the ancient law we fully admit, and hold that it actually proceeds from the dispensation of the Creator,----a point which we have already often treated in the course of our discussion, when we showed that the innovation was foretold by the prophets of our God.46 Now, if the Creator indeed promised that "the ancient things should pass away,"47 to be superseded by a new course of things which should arise, whilst Christ marks the period of the separation when He says, "The law and the prophets were until John"48 ----thus making the Baptist the limit between the two dispensations of the old things then terminating----and the new things then beginning, the apostle cannot of course do otherwise, (coming as he does) in Christ, who was revealed after John, than invalidate "the old things" and confirm "the new," and yet promote thereby the faith of no other god than the Creator, at whose instance49 it was foretold that the ancient things should pass away. [2] Therefore both the abrogation of the law and the establishment of the gospel help my argument even in this epistle, wherein they both have reference to the fond assumption of the Galatians, which led them to suppose that faith in Christ (the Creator's Christ, of course) was obligatory, but without annulling the law, because it still appeared to them a thing incredible that the law should be set aside by its own author.
Now remember there is NO discussion of anything that precedes these words. There is just the bald statement that Galatians is the most decisive against Judaism out of the blue. Of course this is also debatable. Romans has many antinomian statements that the heretics loved. But let's look at the Romans section by comparison which form chapter 13 of the 21 chapter work:
As this little opus comes to an end (quanto opusculum profligatur), I must treat but briefly the points which still occur, whilst those which have so often turned up must be put aside. I regret still to have to contend about the law----after I have so often proved that its replacement (by the gospel)595 affords no argument for another god, predicted as it was indeed in Christ, and in the Creator's own plans ordained for His Christ. (But I must revert to that discussion) so far as (the apostle leads me, for) this very epistle looks very much as if it abrogated597 the law. [2] We have, however, often shown before now that God is declared by the apostle to be a Judge; and that in the Judge is implied an Avenger; area in the Avenger, the Creator. And so in the passage where he says: "I am not ashamed of the gospel (of Christ): for it is the power of god unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek; for therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith,"598 he undoubtedly ascribes both the gospel and salvation to Him whom (in accordance with our heretic's own distinction) I have called the just God, not the good one. It is He who removes (men) from confidence in the law to faith in the gospel----that is to say,599 His own law and His own gospel. When, again, he declares that "the wrath (of God) is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness,"600 [3] (I ask) the wrath of what God? Of the Creator certainly. The truth, therefore, will be His, whose is also the wrath, which has to be revealed to avenge the truth. Likewise, when adding, "We are sure that the judgment of God is according to truth,"601 he both vindicated that wrath from which comes this judgment for the truth, and at the same time afforded another proof that the truth emanates from the same God whose wrath he attested, by witnessing to His judgment. Marcion's averment is quite a different matter, that602 the Creator in anger avenges Himself on the truth of the rival god which had been detained in unrighteousness. [4] But what serious gaps Marcion has made in this epistle especially, by withdrawing whole passages at his will, will be clear from the unmutilated text of our own copy.603 It is enough for my purpose to accept in evidence of its truth what he has seen fit to leave unerased, strange instances as they are also of his negligence and blindness. If, then, God will judge the secrets of men----both of those who have sinned in the law, and of those who have sinned without law (inasmuch as they who know not the law yet do by nature the things contained in the law)604 ----surely the God who shall judge is He to whom belong both the law, and that nature which is the rule605 to them who know not the law. But how will He conduct this judgment? [5] "According to my gospel," says (the apostle), "by (Jesus) Christ."606 So that both the gospel and Christ must be His, to whom appertain the law and the nature which are to be vindicated by the gospel and Christ----even at that judgment of God which, as he previously said, was to be according to truth.607 The wrath, therefore, which is to vindicate truth, can only be revealed from heaven by the God of wrath;608 so that this sentence, which is quite in accordance with that previous one wherein the judgment is declared to be the Creator's,609 cannot possibly be ascribed to another god who is not a judge, and is incapable of wrath. It is only consistent in Him amongst whose attributes are found the judgment and the wrath of which I am speaking, and to whom of necessity must also appertain the media whereby these attributes are to be carried into effect. even the gospel and Christ. [6] Hence his invective against the transgressors of the law, who teach that men should not steal, and yet practise theft themselves.610 (This invective he utters) in perfect homage611 to the law of God, not as if he meant to ten sure the Creator Himself with having commanded612 a fraud to be practised against the Egyptians to get their gold and silver at the very time when He was forbidding men to steal,613 ----adopting such methods as they are apt (shamelessly) to charge upon Him in other particulars also. Are we then to suppose614 that the apostle abstained through fear from openly calumniating God, from whom notwithstanding He did not hesitate to withdraw men? [7] Well, but he had gone so far in his censure of the Jews, as to point against them the denunciation of the prophet, "Through you the name of God is blasphemed (among the Gentiles)."615 But how absurd, that he should himself blaspheme Him for blaspheming whom he upbraids them as evil-doers! He prefers even circumcision of heart to neglect of it in the flesh. Now it is quite within the purpose of the God of the law that circumcision should be that of the heart, not in the flesh; in the spirit, and not in the letter.616 Since this is the circumcision recommended by Jeremiah: "Circumcise (yourselves to the Lord, and take away) the foreskins of your heart; "617 and even of Moses: "Circumcise, therefore, the hardness of your heart,"618 ----the Spirit which circumcises the heart will proceed from Him who prescribed the letter also which clips619 the flesh; and "the Jew which is one inwardly" will be a subject of the self-same God as he also is who is "a Jew outwardly; "620 because the apostle would have preferred not to have mentioned a Jew at all, unless he were a servant of the God of the Jews. [8] It was once621 the law; now it is "the righteousness of God which is by the faith of (Jesus) Christ."622 What means this distinction? Has your god been subserving the interests of the Creator's dispensation, by affording time to Him and to His law? Is the "Now" in the hands of Him to whom belonged the "Then"? Surely, then, the law was His, whose is now the righteousness of God. It is a distinction of dispensations, not of gods. [9] He enjoins those who are justified by faith in Christ and not by the law to have peace with God.623 With what God? Him whose enemies we have never, in any dispensation,624 been? Or Him against whom we have rebelled, both in relation to His written law and His law of nature? Now, as peace is only possible towards Him with whom there once was war, we shall be both justified by Him, and to Him also will belong the Christ, in whom we are justified by faith, and through whom alone God's625 enemies can ever be reduced to peace. [10] "Moreover," says he, "the law entered, that the offence might abound."626 And wherefore this? "In order," he says, "that (where sin abounded), grace might much more abound."627 Whose grace, if not of that God from whom also came the law? Unless it be, forsooth, that628 the Creator intercalated His law for the mere purpose of629 producing some employment for the grace of a rival god, an enemy to Himself (I had almost said, a god unknown to Him), "that as sin had" in His own dispensation630 "reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto (eternal) life by Jesus Christ,"631 His own antagonist! [11] For this (I suppose it was, that) the law of the Creator had "concluded all under sin,"632 and had brought in "all the world as guilty (before God)," and had "stopped every mouth,"633 so that none could glory through it, in order that grace might be maintained to the glory of the Christ, not of the Creator, but of Marcion! [12] I may here anticipate a remark about the substance of Christ, in the prospect of a question which will now turn up. For he says that "we are dead to the law."634 It may be contended that Christ's body is indeed a body, but not exactly635 flesh. Now, whatever may be the substance, since he mentions "the body of Christ,"636 whom he immediately after states to have been "raised from the dead,"637 none other body can be understood than that of the flesh,638 in respect of which the law was called (the law) of death.639 [13] But, behold, he bears testimony to the law, and excuses it on the ground of sin: "What shall we say, therefore? Is the law sin? God forbid."640 Fie on you, Marcion. "God forbid!" (See how) the apostle recoils from all impeachment of the law. I, however, have no acquaintance with sin except through the law.641 But how high an encomium of the law (do we obtain) from this fact, that by it there comes to light the latent presence of sin!642 [14] It was not the law, therefore, which led me astray, but "sin, taking occasion by the commandment."643 Why then do you, (O Marcion, ) impute to the God of the law what His apostle dares not impute even to the law itself? Nay, he adds a climax: "The law is holy, and its commandment just and good."644 [15] Now if he thus reverences the Creator's law, I am at a loss to know how he can destroy the Creator Himself. Who can draw a distinction, and say that there are two gods, one just and the other good, when He ought to be believed to be both one and the other, whose commandment is both "just and good? "Then, again, when affirming the law to be "spiritual"645 he thereby implies that it is prophetic, and that it is figurative. Now from even this circumstance I am bound to conclude that Christ was predicted by the law but figuratively, so that indeed He could not be recognised by all the Jews.
I have always wondered why Tertullian exclaims that the little opus is ending in the middle of Book 5? Book 5 can't be the 'little opus.' The only opus is the work itself - i.e. all of the book. As such doesn't it make more sense to assume that the original work began with Romans (as our canon has it) and later one of the many changes wrought by the 'apostate' (cf. AM 1.1) was the reordering of the letters according to the eastern ordering of the Pauline letters (cf. Ephraim's canon) viz. "[t]herefore, there are indications from both Ephrem and the Syriac canon list that the Old Syriac had the letters of Paul in the order Galatians, Corinthians, Romans" https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&tbm ... qxKTMirETM

The point of course is that not only does the author speak of the 'little opus' coming to an end but the cursory mention of things in the epistles. This is true for ALL sections not just Romans and what follows. The discussion of Luke is much more thorough. Hence the statement makes more sense in that context.
Last edited by Secret Alias on Thu Nov 14, 2019 10:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Did Against Marcion Originally Begin with Romans Rather than Galatians?

Post by Secret Alias »

Also note that the term 'opusculum' consistently applies to the entire work throughout the work. Starting in Book 1:
Nothing I have previously written against Marcion is any longer my concern. I am embarking upon a new little opus (primum opusculum i.e. the entire work Against Marcion is the 'opusculum' for the author) to replace an old one. My first edition, too hurriedly produced, I afterwards withdrew, substituting a fuller treatment. This also, before enough copies had been made, was stolen from me by a person, at that time a Christian but afterwards an apostate, who chanced to have copied out some extracts very incorrectly, and shewed them to a group of people. Hence the need for correction. The opportunity provided by this revision has moved me to make some additions. Thus this written work, a third succeeding a second, and instead of third from now on the first, needs to begin by reporting the demise of the work it supersedes (et de tertio iam hinc primus hunc opusculi sui exitum necessario praefatur), so that no one may be perplexed if in one place or another he comes across varying forms of it.
This is a very powerful argument that opsculum was used to describe the entire work in what is now chapter 13 of the 21 chapter Book 5 and that - by inference - the material originally stood at the beginning of a Romans-first edition of Against Marcion Book 5 and was later changed by an editor in either the second or third editions of the work. Moreover it stands that there must have been a fourth revision of the work as the person who wrote the introduction admitting to changes also wrote the Romans-first commentary of the 'opusculum' only to have a subsequent editor reorder book 5 according to the eastern ordering of the Pauline epistles. Checkmate.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
perseusomega9
Posts: 1030
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 7:19 am

Re: Did Against Marcion Originally Begin with Romans Rather than Galatians?

Post by perseusomega9 »

Nothing I have previously written against Marcion is any longer my concern.
That alone speaks volumes
The metric to judge if one is a good exegete: the way he/she deals with Barabbas.

Who disagrees with me on this precise point is by definition an idiot.
-Giuseppe
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Did Against Marcion Originally Begin with Romans Rather than Galatians?

Post by Secret Alias »

Agreed. To recap. The author writes of the following progression:

1. original text
2. 'apostate' corruption text
3. author's claimed 'restored' opusculum to original integrity
4. that author's restored opusculum further modified as Galatians-first rather than his Romans-first text. There are other signs we will get into. But that's the most glaring. So 4 rewrites.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Did Against Marcion Originally Begin with Romans Rather than Galatians?

Post by Secret Alias »

Some more confirmation that opusculus means 'Against Marcion in toto' at the end of Book One:
The continuation of my treatise series (opusculi) as a whole follows closely upon this fact. So then if anyone thinks I have accomplished too little, let him wait for what is kept in reserve until its proper time, as well as for my discussion of those scriptures which Marcion makes uses.
and then again at the start of the next book:
The fortunes of this work have been described in the preface to Book I (Occasio reformandi opusculi huius, cui quid acciderit primo libellulo praefati sumus)
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Did Against Marcion Originally Begin with Romans Rather than Galatians?

Post by Secret Alias »

It might be worth noting the existence of a Galatians-first canon in orthodox communities (i.e. that it wasn't necessarily 'Marcionite'). Indeed it is connected with Irenaeus whom we suspect introduced Luke into Book Four:
No actual Old Syriac manuscripts survive of the Pauline letters and therefore the argument cannot be anything but indirect. The commentary of Ephrem on Paul is preserved only in a late Armenian manuscript.37 As far as can be gauged from Molitor's introduction, the text of the commentary follows the normal order Rom, Cor, Gal, Eph, Phil, Col, Thess, Heb, followed by the pastorals. However, in the actual commentary, as J. Rendel Harris points out in his discussion of the commentary, it may be that a different order of the letters is assumed.38 Harris translates from Ephrem's commentary on Rom 1:1, “... imparting to you some spiritual grace, as I have done to your companions the Galatians and Corinthians." Also, Harris points to a comment from the opening passages of Hebrews, where Ephrem “discusses the question why, if the Epistle were St. Paul's, he had concealed his name, seeing that he made no such concealment in writing to the Galatians, or the Corinthians, . . . or to the Romans." Both passages mention the letters in the order Gal, Cor, Rom. But is this evidence that Ephrem used a Pauline corpus which contained these letters in this particular order? Did Ephrem have a manuscript in front of him with the letters in that order, or was he recounting the letters in their chronological order? It seems hazardous to infer too much from Ephrem, but the case may be strengthened if additional support is found. Such additional support might come from a 9th century Syriac manuscript preserved in St. Catherine's on Mt. Sinai.40 This manuscript contains homilies and extracts from various church fathers, followed by a list of the books of both Testaments listing their length.41 The list is attributed to Irenaeus. It should be noted that this manu- script does not contain the actual text of Paul's letters. In the list, the first three letters of Paul are indeed listed in the Marcionite order: Gal, Cor, Rom, but then follows Heb, Col, Eph, Phil, Phil (sic!), Thess, Titus, Phlm.42 Zahn noted43 that as by the 9th century the Peshitta was already the standard text for a long time, the deviating order in this manuscript must reach back to a time in which the Peshitta had not yet become the dominant version. This means that it might well reflect the Old Syriac order of the Pauline collection. Therefore, there are indications from both Ephrem and the Syriac canon list that the Old Syriac had the letters of Paul in the order Galatians, Corinthians, Romans. However, both the Sinaitic canon and Ephrem also agree on placing Hebrews after Romans, which reinforces the suggestion of a shared order that underlies Ephrem's commentary and the canon list. But what could be the reason why the Old Syriac order only reflects the order of the Prologues for the first three letters?
Dahl's theory of an amalgamation of two orders follows for which the author concludes:
Though possible, the actual evidence for such hypothesis is still very slim, there is not enough known about the Old Syriac order or its organising principle besides what we have discussed here. Therefore, the conclusion that Dahl draws from the Old Syriac, sounds rather optimistic (my emphasis), “The Syriac evidence, therefore, proves that it was not Marcion's preference for Galatians which gave this letter the first place in the collection. At best it suggests that Marcion's preference may not have been unique. However, from this discussion it is difficult to argue that the Old Syriac depended on either Marcion's collection of Paul or on a parallel collection of similar shape.
The connection with Irenaeus for the Galatians-first list is very, very interesting. It helps account for the Galatians-first ordering in the later rewrites of the material.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Did Against Marcion Originally Begin with Romans Rather than Galatians?

Post by Secret Alias »

I think this is decisive. No one noticed it before - not even me - evidence of a Galatians-first canon elsewhere in Tertullian/Irenaeus:
They hold up instances of Churches reproved by the Apostle. "O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you ?" 2 and "Ye were running so well : who hath hindered you ?" and at the very beginning of his letter, "I wonder that ye have been thus so soon removed from Him Who called you in grace to another Gospel." [Gal. 3. 1, 5. 7, 1. 6] Likewise the words written to the Corinthians because they were still "carnal," and had to be fed on milk, not yet being able to take meat; who thought they knew something when not yet did they know anything as they ought to know it. Now when they instance these reproved Churches let them be sure that they were corrected. [1 Cor. 3. 1f, 8. 2, 14. 19] Moreover, let them recognize those Churches for whose "faith and knowledge and manner of life" the Apostle "rejoices and gives thanks to GOD. [Rom. 1. 8, 15. 14; 16. 19; Eph. 1. 15; Phil. 1. 3 f ; Col. 1.4f. ; 1 Thess. 1. 3 ff. ; 2 Thess. 1. 3 f.] : Churches which to-day unite with those reproved ones in the privileges of the selfsame instruction.

BUT come now, suppose that all have erred: grant that the Apostle was deceived in bearing his testimony, and that the Holy Spirit regarded no Church so as to lead it into the Truth, although sent for this purpose by Christ, asked from the Father that He might be the Teacher of truth; 2 grant that the Steward of GOD) and Vicar of Christ neglected His office and permitted Churches for a time to understand differently what He Himself was preaching through the Apostles; yet is it at all likely that so many and such important Churches should all have "erred" into one and the same faith? No uniform issue results from many chances. Error of doctrine on the part of the Churches was bound to have assumed various forms. But when one and the same tenet is found amongst many, that is not error, but tradition. Will any one then dare to affirm that the authors of the tradition were in error?
The formality of the situation here - that the Church is on trial - makes the citation of its apostolic canon in order unquestionable. There can be no doubt that Tertullian/Irenaeus is invoking the TOTALITY of the canon and so is citing a Galatians-first order as part of the formality.

I think the Galatians-first canon of Tertullian is now established beyond Against Marcion.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Did Against Marcion Originally Begin with Romans Rather than Galatians?

Post by Secret Alias »

Not sure if it means anything but Clement cites a Galatians first, 1 Corinthians argument in Stromata 3
That is why Paul says in his letter to Galatians, “My little children, I am going through the pains of childbirth with you a second time until Christ is formed in you” Yet again in writing to the Corinthians he says, “You may have thousands of tutors in Christ but only one father. I am your father in Christ through the gospel.”
Again:
We say that we ought to share in suffering and “bear one another’s burdens,” [Galatians] for fear that anyone who thinks he is standing firmly should in fact fall. [1 Corinthians] It is about second marriages that the Apostle says, “If you are on fire, get married.” [1 Corinthians]
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Did Against Marcion Originally Begin with Romans Rather than Galatians?

Post by Secret Alias »

More arguments in favor of Tertullian himself having an anomalous canon - this time with respect to Romans. Gamble notes the reported situation with Marcion and the idea that Galatians first is likely based on a chronological ordering of letters without chapter 15 and 16 of Romans. And then notes:
With these considerations in view, we observe first that three fathers, Irenaeus, Cyprian and Tertullian, do not quote at all from Rom 15-16. Regarding Irenaeus we can do little more than state his neglect of these chapters,22 but more may be said of Cyprian and Tertullian. In his Testimonia adversus Judaeos Cyprian provides a collection of widely scattered texts arranged according to their dogmatic import. In Testimonia iii.68, 78 and 95 he brings together texts which encourage the avoidance of heretics.23 The exhortation of Rom 16:17-19, despite its pertinence, is not cited in any instance. This can only mean that Cyprian employed a fourteen-chapter text of the letter.24 That TertuHian never makes citations from Rom 15-16 does not in itself mean much, but TertuHian seems to confirm for us his knowledge of a form of Romans ending with ch. 14. In Adversus Marcionem v. 14 he writes: Bene autem quod et in clausula epistolae tribunal Christi comminatur. . . .25 ("It is well, however, that in the conclusion of the letter he threatens us with 'the judgment seat of Christ'. . . .") The allusion here is to Rom 14:10 .... said to occur in clausula, that is, in the closing section of the letter; and immediately after this statement Tertullian turns to a consideration of the Thessalonian letters. The phrase in clausula is somewhat imprecise, certainly, and need not mean "at the very end," but that these words would have been used with two and a half chapters remaining beyond Rom 14:10 is extremely improbable.26 Yet they would have been appropriate if Tertullian's text of Romans ended with ch. 14. We cannot be absolutely certain whether at this point Tertullian is referring to his own text or to Marcion's text or indeed to both.27 Although his custom was to refute Marcion on the basis of the heretic's own text, he also took it upon himself to point out the excisions and other alterations which Marcion had made.28 Since no mutations are here imputed to Marcion, and since Tertullian himself never cites from chs. 15 and 16, it is virtually assured that Tertullian himself employed a fourteen-chapter text of Romans.29
These last arguments are also important when considering Tertullian's methodology. I've been saying for years that Tertullian isn't even using Marcion's text for his commentary. He is basing his argumentation on the 'true text' - i.e. Tertullian's own texts from the orthodox canon - and citing Marcion's variants only where they are well known, likely from Marcionite treatises or things said by Marcionites in debates or in literature. The point is that we have a clear example where the citation of Romans conforms to Tertullian's own text not necessarily Marcion's.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Did Against Marcion Originally Begin with Romans Rather than Galatians?

Post by Secret Alias »

Gamble of course is primarily dealing with the idea of a 14 chapter Romans. Our question is a little different - was the original Against Marcion Book Five ordered differently i.e. Romans-first rather than Galatians-first. One more point has to be made. As Gamble notes the ending of the section on Romans reads:
Very properly, then, did he sum up the entire teaching of the Creator in this precept of His: "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself."695 Now, if this is the recapitulation of the law from the very law itself, I am at a loss to know who is the God of the law. I fear He must be Marcion's god (after all).696 If also the gospel of Christ is fulfilled in this same precept, but not the Creator's Christ, what is the use of our contending any longer [14] whether Christ did or did not say, "I am not come to destroy the law, but to fulfil it? "697 In vain has (our man of) Pontus laboured to deny this statement.698 If the gospel has not fulfilled the law, then all I can say is,699 the law has fulfilled the gospel. But it is well that in a later verse he threatens us with "the judgment-seat of Christ,"----the Judge, of course, and the Avenger, and therefore the Creator's (Christ). This Creator, too, however much he may preach up another god, he certainly sets forth for us as a Being to be served,700 if he holds Him thus up as an object to be feared.
Let see how this ending fits with what is written at the beginning of the Corinthians section which reads:
My praestructio on the preceding epistle called me away from treating of its superscription (titulo) 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."197 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 other198 with the greeting of "peace," and formerly in their Scriptures they did the same. But I understand him by his practice199 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!"200 [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.201 Now, when he announces these blessings as "from God the Father and the Lord Jesus,"202 he uses titles that are common to both, and which are also adapted to the mystery of our faith;203 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.204 [3] First, then, I assert that none other than the Creator and Sustainer of both man and the universe can be acknowledged as Father and Lord; next, that to the Father also the title of Lord accrues by reason of His power, and that the Son too receives the same through the Father; then that "grace and peace" are not only His who had them published, but His likewise to whom offence had been given. For neither does grace exist, except after offence; nor peace, except after war. [4] Now, both the people (of Israel) by their transgression of His laws,205 and the whole race of mankind by their neglect of natural duty,206 had both sinned and rebelled against the Creator. Marcion's god, however, could not have been offended, both because he was unknown to everybody, and because he is incapable of being irritated. What grace, therefore, can be had of a god who has not been offended? What peace from one who has never experienced rebellion?
So Tertullian confesses that he hasn't made mention of the superscription of the previous epistle owing to the praestructio on the previous epistle. The first point has to be made that Tertullian does not mention the subscription of either Galatians or Romans so that's not much help. But what does he mean by praestructio?

The term comes up twice in On the Flesh of Christ and Evans writes:
Tertullian's treatise De Carne Christi was intended, as its author several times remarks, to serve as praestructio or scaffolding for the further work De Resurrectione Carnis.
It is worth noting that On the Flesh of Christ in its conclusion is described by the author as a praestructio of the work which follows On the Resurrection of the Flesh:
The resurrection, however, of our own flesh will have to be maintained in another little treatise, and so bring to a close this present one, which serves as a general preface, and which will pave the way for the approaching subject now that it is plain what kind of body that was which rose again in Christ.

ut autem clausula de praefatione commonefaciat, resurrectio nostrae carnis alio libello defendenda hic habebit praestructionem,
manifesto iam inde quale fuerit quod in Christo resurrexerit.
The sense is clearly that a praestructio is something set up to advance an argument. So we read in On the Resurrection of the Flesh itself several instances where praestructio means something like 'set up':
Thus far it has been my object by praestructio to lay a foundation for the defence of all the Scriptures which promise a resurrection of the flesh
Now, to upset all conceits of this sort, let me dispel at once the praestructio on which they rest-their assertion that the prophets make all their announcements in figures of speech.
But even if the apostle had abruptly thrown out the sentence that flesh and blood must be excluded from the kingdom of God (1 Cor 15:50), without any praestructio, of his meaning, would it not have been equally our duty to interpret these two substances as the old man abandoned to mere flesh and blood-in other words, to eating and drinking
So the question now becomes if On the Flesh of Christ acts as the praestructio of On the Resurrection of the Flesh which of the two epistles - Galatians and Romans - better serves as the preceding discussion to Tertullian's study of Corinthians given that the author says that he could not mention its superscription because he was distracted by its praestructio?
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Post Reply