Tertullian, Against Marcion 5.4.1-6:
 Sub eadem Abrahae mentione, dum ipso sensu revincatur, Adhuc, inquit, secundum hominem dico: dum essemus parvuli, sub elementis mundi eramus positi, ad deserviendum eis. Atquin non est hoc humanitus dictum. Non enim exemplum est, sed veritas. Quis enim parvulus, utique sensu, quod sunt nationes, non elementis subiectus est mundi, quae pro deo suspicit? Illud autem fuit, quod cum Secundum hominem dixisset, tamen testamentum hominis nemo spernit aut superordinat.
 Exemplo enim humani testamenti permanentis divinum tuebatur. Abrahae dictae sunt promissiones et semini eius: non dixit seminibus, quasi pluribus, sed semini, tanquam uni, quod Christus est. Erubescat spongia Marcionis! Nisi quod ex abundanti retracto quae abstulit, cum validius sit illum ex his revinci quae servavit. Cum autem evenit impleri tempus, misit deus filium suum, utique is qui etiam ipsorum temporum deus est quibus saeculum constat, qui signa quoque temporum ordinavit, soles et lunas et sidera et stellas, qui filii denique sui revelationem in extremitatem temporum et disposuit et praedicavit: In novissimis diebus erit manifestus mons domini, et, In novissimis diebus effundam de spiritu meo in omnem carnem, secundum Ioelem. Ipsius erat sustinuisse tempus impleri cuius erat etiam finis temporis, sicut initium.
 Ceterum deus ille otiosus, nec operationis nec praedicationis ullius, atque ita nec temporis alicuius, quid omnino egit quod efficeret tempus impleri et iam implendum sustineri? Si nihil, satis vanum est ut creatoris tempora sustinuerit serviens creatori. Cui autem rei misit filium suum? Ut eos qui sub lege erant redimeret, hoc est ut efficeret tortuosa in viam rectam et aspera in vias lenes, secundum Esaiam, ut vetera transirent et nova orirentur, lex nova ex Sion et sermo domini ex Hierusalem, et ut adoptionem filiorum acciperemus, utique nationes, quae filii non eramus.
 Et ipse enim lux erit nationum, et in nomine eius nationes sperabunt. Itaque ut certum esset nos filios dei esse, misit spiritum suum in corda nostra, clamantem: Abba, pater. In novissimis enim, inquit, diebus effundam de meo spiritu in omnem carnem. Cuius gratia, nisi cuius et promissio gratiae?
 Quis pater, nisi qui et factor? Post has itaque divitias non erat revertendum ad infirma et mendica elementa. Elementa autem apud Romanos quoque etiam primae litterae solent dici. Non ergo per mundialium elementorum derogationem a deo eoram avertere cupiebat, etsi dicendo supra, Si ergo his qui non natura sunt dei servitis, physicae, id est naturalis, superstitionis elementa pro deo habentis suggillabat errorem, nec sic tamen elementorum deum taxans. Sed quae velit intellegi elementa, primas scilicet litteras legis, ipse declarat.
 Dies observatis et menses et tempora et annos, et sabbata ut opinor et coenas puras et ieiunia et dies magnos. Cessare enim ab his quoque, sicut et circumcisione, oportebat ex decretis creatoris, qui et per Esaiam, Neomenias vestras et sabbata et diem magnum non sustinebo, ieiunium et ferias et cerimonias vestras odit anima mea; et per Amos, Odi, reieci cerimonias vestras, et non odorabor in frequentiis vestris; item per Osee, Avertam universas iocunditates eius et cerimonias eius et sabbata et neomenias eius et omnes frequentias eius.
/  "But," says he, "I speak after the manner of men: when we were children, we were placed in bondage under the elements of the world." This, however, was not said "after the manner of men." For there is no figure here, but literal truth. For (with respect to the latter clause of this passage), what child (in the sense, that is, in which the Gentiles are children) is not in bondage to the elements of the world, which he looks up to in the light of a god? With regard, however, to the former clause, there was a figure (as the apostle wrote it); because after he had said, "I speak after the manner of men," he adds), "Though it be but a man's covenant, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto."  For by the figure of the permanency of a human covenant he was defending the divine testament. "To Abraham were the promises made, and to his seed. He said not 'to seeds, 'as of many; but as of one, 'to thy seed, 'which is Christ." Fie on Marcion's sponge! But indeed it is superfluous to dwell on what he has erased, when he may be more effectually confuted from that which he has retained. "But when the fulness of time was come, God sent forth His Son" ----the God, of course, who is the Lord of that very succession of times which constitutes an age; who also ordained, as "signs" of time, suns and moons and constellations and stars; who furthermore both predetermined and predicted that the revelation of His Son should be postponed to the end of the times. "It shall come to pass in the last days, that the mountain (of the house) of the Lord shall be manifested"; "and in the last days I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh" as Joel says. It was characteristic of Him (only) to wait patiently for the fulness of time, to whom belonged the end of time no less than the beginning.  But as for that idle god, who has neither any work nor any prophecy, nor accordingly any time, to show for himself, what has he ever done to bring about the fulness of time, or to wait patiently its completion? If nothing, what an impotent state to have to wait for the Creator's time, in servility to the Creator! But for what end did He send His Son? "To redeem them that were under the law," in other words, to "make the crooked ways straight, and the rough places smooth," as Isaiah says ----in order that old things might pass away, and a new course begin, even "the new law out of Zion, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem," and "that we might receive the adoption of sons," that is, the Gentiles, who once were not sons.  For He is to be "the light of the Gentiles," and "in His name shall the Gentiles trust." That we may have, therefore the assurance that we are the children of God, "He hath sent forth His Spirit into our hearts, crying, Abba, Father." For "in the last days," saith He," I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh." Now, from whom comes this grace, but from Him who proclaimed the promise thereof?  Who is (our) Father, but He who is also our Maker? Therefore, after such affluence (of grace), they should not have returned "to weak and beggarly elements." By the Romans, however, the rudiments of learning are wont to be called elements. He did not therefore seek, by any depreciation of the mundane elements, to turn them away from their god, although, when he said just before, "Howbeit, then, ye serve them which by nature are no gods," he censured the error of that physical or natural superstition which holds the elements to be god; but at the God of those elements he aimed not in this censure. He tells us himself clearly enough what he means by "elements," even the rudiments of the law:  "Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years" ----the sabbaths, I suppose, and "the preparations," and the fasts, and the "high days." For the cessation of even these, no less than of circumcision, was appointed by the Creator's decrees, who had said by Isaiah, "Your new moons, and your sabbaths, and your high days I cannot bear; your fasting, and feasts, and ceremonies my soul hateth; " also by Amos, "I hate, I despise your feast-days, and I will not smell in your solemn assemblies; " and again by Hosea, "I will cause to cease all her mirth, and her feast-days, and her sabbaths, and her new moons, and all her solemn assemblies."Tertullian, Against Marcion 5.4.8:
 Sed ut furibus solet aliquid excidere de praeda in indicium, ita credo et Marcionem novissimam Abrahae mentionem dereliquisse, nulla magis auferenda, etsi ex parte convertit. Si enim Abraham duos liberos habuit, unum ex ancilla et alium ex libera, sed qui ex ancilla carnaliter natus est, qui vero ex libera per repromissionem: quae sunt allegorica, id est aliud portendentia: haec sunt enim duo testamenta, sive duae ostensiones, sicut invenimus interpretatum, unum a monte Sina in synagogam Iudaeorum secundum legem generans in servitutem, aliud super omnem principatum generans, vim, dominationem, et omne nomen quod nominatur, non tantum in hoc aevo sed et in futuro, quae est mater nostra, in quam repromisimus sanctam ecclesiam; ideoque adicit, Propter quod, fratres, non sumus ancillae filii sed liberae, utique manifestavit et Christianismi generositatem in filio Abrahae ex libera nato allegoriae habere sacramentum, sicut et Iudaismi servitutem legalem in filio ancillae, atque ita eius dei esse utramque dispositionem apud quem invenimus utriusque dispositionis delineationem.
/  But as, in the case of thieves, something of the stolen goods is apt to drop by the way, as a clue to their detection; so, as it seems to me, it has happened to Marcion: the last mention of Abraham's name he has left untouched (in the epistle), although no passage required his erasure more than this, even his partial alteration of the text. "For (it is written) that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bond maid, the other by a free woman; but he who was of the bond maid was born after the flesh, but he of the free woman was by promise: which things are allegorized" (that is to say, they presaged something besides the literal history); "for these are the two covenants," or the two exhibitions (of the divine plans), as we have found the word interpreted," the one from the Mount Sinai," in relation to the synagogue of the Jews, according to the law, "which gendereth to bondage"----"the other gendereth" (to liberty, being raised) above all principality, and power, and dominion, and every name that is l named, not only in this world, but in that which is to come, "which is the mother of us all," in which we have the promise of (Christ's) holy church; by reason of which he adds in conclusion: "So then, brethren, we are not children of the bond woman, but of the free." In this passage he has undoubtedly shown that Christianity had a noble birth, being sprung, as the mystery of the allegory indicates, from that son of Abraham who was born of the free woman; whereas from the son of the bond maid came the legal bondage of Judaism. Both dispensations, therefore, emanate from that same God by whom, as we have found, they were both sketched out beforehand.Tertullian, Against Marcion 5.8.6-7:
 In evangelio, enim inquit, ego vos generavi, et, Filii mei quos parturio rursus. Iam nunc et illa promissio spiritus absolute facta per loelem: In novissimis diebus effundam de meo spiritu in omnem carnem, et prophetabunt filii filiaeque eorum, et super servos et ancillas meas de meo spiritu effundam.
 Et utique si in novissimos dies gratiam spiritus creator repromisit, Christus autem spiritalium dispensator in novissimis diebus apparuit, dicente apostolo, At ubi tempus expletum est misit deus filium suum, et rursus, Quia tempus iam in collecto est, apparet et de temporum ultimorum praedicatione hanc gratiam spiritus ad Christum praedicatoris pertinere. Compara denique species apostoli et Esaiae.
/  "For," says he, "I have begotten you through the gospel; " and "Ye are my children, of whom I travail again in birth." Now was absolutely fulfilled that promise of the Spirit which was given by the word of Joel: "In the last days will I pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh, and their sons and their daughters shall prophesy; and upon my servants and upon my handmaids will I pour out of my Spirit."  Since, then, the Creator promised the gift of His Spirit in the latter days; and since Christ has in these last days appeared as the dispenser of spiritual gifts (as the apostle says, "When the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth His Son; " and again, "This I say, brethren, that the time is short" ), it evidently follows in connection with this prediction of the last days, that this gift of the Spirit belongs to Him who is the Christ of the predicters. Now compare the Spirit's specific graces, as they are described by the apostle, and promised by the prophet Isaiah.Epiphanius, Panarion 42.11.8:
<β>. «Ἐπικατάρατος πᾶς ὁ κρεμάμενος ἐπὶ ξύλου». «ὁ δὲ ἐκ τῆς ἐπαγγελίας, διὰ τῆς ἐλευθέρας». / 2. 'Cursed is everyone that hangeth upon a tree; but he that is of promise is by the freewoman.'Epiphanius, Panarion 42.12.3:
<Σχόλιον> <β>. «Ἐπικατάρατος πᾶς ὁ κρεμάμενος ἐπὶ ξύλου». «ὁ δὲ ἐκ τῆς ἐπαγγελίας, διὰ τῆς ἐλευθέρας». <Ἔλεγχος> <β>. Δεικνὺς πάλιν ὁ ἅγιος ἀπόστολος τὴν οἰκονομίαν τῆς ἐνσάρκου παρουσίας καὶ τοῦ σταυροῦ ἐπὶ τῇ λύσει τῆς κατάρας γινομένην, ταύτην δὲ προγεγράφθαι ἐν τῷ νόμῳ καὶ πεπροφητεῦσθαι <ὡς> ἐσομένην, εἶτα τελεσθεῖσαν ἐπὶ τῷ σωτῆρι, ἐπέδειξε σαφῶς ὅτι οὐκ ἀλλότριος ὁ νόμος τοῦ σωτῆρος. ἐπροφήτευσε γὰρ καὶ ἐμαρτύρησε τοῖς ὑπ' αὐτοῦ μέλλουσι γίνεσθαι. / Scholion 2. 'Cursed is everyone that hangeth upon a tree; but he that is of the promise is by the freewoman.' Elenchus 2. Again, by showing that the provision of the incarnation and cross was made for the purpose of lifting the curse, and that it had been written in the Law first, and prophesied, and then fulfilled in the Saviour, the holy apostle gave plain indication that the Law is not alien to the Saviour. For it prophesied and witnessed to the things that were to be done by him.From Jerome, Commentary on Galatians 4.4-5: At ubi venit plenitudo temporis, misit Deus Filium suum factum ex muliere, factum sub Lege: ut eos qui sub Lege erant redimeret, ut adoptionem filiorum reciperemus. Diligenter attendite quod non dixerit, factum per mulierem: quod Marcion et caeterae haereses volunt, quae putativam Christi carnem simulant: sed ex muliere, ut non per illam, sed ex illa natus esse credatur.
/ "But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, made from a woman, made under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons." Diligently attend to what he did not say, "made through a woman," which Marcion and the other heresies who pretend that the flesh of Christ was imaginary wish it to be, but rather "from a woman," so that it might be believed that he was born, not through her, but rather from her.Jason BeDuhn remarks (page 267):
Harnack, who usually credits Jerome's testimony as based on Origen, rejects it here because he assumes Marcion's views about Jesus preclude him allowing the words to remain in the text. Such an ideologically-based argument is unacceptable. A more sound reason for questioning Jerome's testimony comes from a quotation of the original words of Origen on which Jerome probably based his remark. These are preserved by Pamphilus, Apology for Origen 113: "We need not give a hearing to those who say that Christ was born through Mary and not of Mary, because the Apostle, in his foresight, said in anticipation of this," quoting Gal 4.4, followed by, "You see why he did not say 'born through a woman,' but rather 'born of a woman.'" It appears, then, that Origen offers a hypothetical textual variant, rather than attributing it - or v. 4b in any form - to Marcion's text. It therefore remains unattested.From Jerome, Commentary on Galatians 4.24: Marcion et Manichaeus hunc locum in quo dixit Apostolus: Quae quidem sunt allegorica, et caetera quae sequuntur, de codice suo tollere noluerunt, putantes adversum nos relinqui.
/ Marcion and Mani did not wish to remove this passage in which the Apostle said, "Which things indeed are allegorical," and the rest which follows, from their codex, supposing it to be left behind against us.Adamantius Dialogue 2.19.Peter Kirby remarks concerning Galatians 4.1-2:
BeDuhn writes, “Harnack, Marcion
, 74*, suggests that these verses probably were present as the referent of 3.15a, which was transposed to the beginning of 4.3. But Tertullian complains that 3.15a makes no sense because what follows in 4.3ff. is not an analogy from human practice, but a statement of actual spiritual fact; this criticism would lose its cogency if 4.1-2, with its analogy from human practice, immediately preceded, in which case 3.15a would be taken to refer back to it, just as Harnack supposes.” (The First New Testament
, p. 267) Following Bruno Bauer, Detering draws attention to the differences between Gal 4:1-2 and what follows, i.e., “that in 4,1-2 the heirs are acknowledged to be children even while still minors, whereas in 4,3ff they only become children and receive the quality of being children through Christ” and “that the heir as a child only has the appearance of a slave in Gal 4,1- 2, while the νήπιοι
, of 4,3, are in fact slaves. ” (The Original Version of the Epistle to the Galatians
, p. 64) Detering concludes, “The entire passage 4,1-2 obviously seems not to have had any other function than to introduce 4,3ff, rather badly used by the editor to lead from his starting-point, the keyword κληρονόμοι
in 3,29, to 4,3. He overlooked the fact that his expositions, intended to lead to 4,3ff, were hardly compatible with the metaphor used there and in principle belonged to a completely different context. By the inserted οὕτως καὶ ἡμεῖς
, a context is but very forcibly established — and it misses the mark i.a. because after such an introduction, a reader generally expects not another allegory but its explanation or application.” (p. 65)Peter Kirby remarks concerning Galatians 4.4b: Harnack
describes how Tertullian’s citations in Against Marcion
stop short just before quoting these particular words (AM
5.4.2-3, 5.8.7): “Tertullian (V, 4): ‘Cum autem evenit impleri tempus misit deus filium suum
‘ [But when it came about that the time was fulfilled, God sent his Son]. … Tertullian himself wrote shortly afterwards [quoting the same verse in V, 8]: ‘At ubi tempus expletum est
‘ [But when the time was fulfilled]. – Erased the words γενόμενον ἐκ γυναικός γενομ νον ὑπὸ νόμον [born of a woman, born under the law].” Detering writes, “There is a consensus of all scholars that the words γενόμενον ἐκ γυναικός, γενόμενον ὑπὸ νόμον were missing in Marcion’s edition. The fact is unambiguously confirmed by Tertullian. He surely would not have omitted the words that showed Christ’s genuine human nature to be true and that therefore could be used as an excellent argument against Marcion’s docetism, if then he had found them in Marcion.” (The Original Version of the Epistle to the Galatians
, pp. 65-66)Peter Kirby remarks concerning the relocation of Ephesians 1.21 to just after Galatians 4.24:
BeDuhn writes, “Tertullian, Marc.
5.4.8. Tertullian seems to signal the inclusion here (in place of catholic v. 25?) of text paralleling catholic Eph 1.21 … (as in codex Montepessulanus; Adversus Marcionem
[1954 ed.], 673, prefers the reading that reverses the order of the last two clauses, but see the evidence of Ephrem Syrus below). Harnack (Marcion
, 76*) attributes this addition to Marcion’s editorial hand. But a portion of the same combined reading is found in Ephrem Syrus’ commentary on the letters of Paul (135), as first noted by Harris (Four Lectures
, 19; cf. Zahn, Der Brief des Paulus
, 298; Clabeaux, A Lost Edition of the Letters of Paul
, 3, 118-19).” (The First New Testament
, p. 269)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.