I think this is a clarifying way to study these texts. I hope it makes sense and provokes thought. Please note any errors, thanks.
plain text: material common to both Marcionite and canonical Galatians
italics: voice of Tertullian
underline: text that could be either Tertullian or the Marcionite scripture
highlight yellow: text of Marcionite version that is absent from canonical NT
highlight orange: text of canonical Ephesians 1: 21
strikeout: text of canonical Galatians that is not attested for Marcion's edition
. . . . . 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... |
Tell me, you who desire to be under law, do you not hear/read the law? For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by a slave girl and the other by a free woman; but he that was by the slave girl was begotten in the manner of flesh, while he that was by the free woman was by promise: which things are allegorical, which means, portending something else: for these are two testaments —or two revelations, as I see they have translated it— the one giving birth unto slavery from Mount Sinai, she is Hagar. Now Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia; she corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children. But the Jerusalem above is free in the synagogue of the Jews, according to the law, giving birth unto slavery; the other giving birth above all principality, power, and domination, and every name that is named, not only in this aeon, but in the next also; who is our mother, For it is written, “Rejoice, O barren one who does not bear; break forth and shout, you who are not in travail; for the children of the desolate one are many more than the children of her that is married.” towards whom, returning [?], we have promised [?] the holy church### (see footnote); and then he adds: Now you, brethren, like Isaac, are children of promise. But as at that time he who was born according to flesh persecuted him who was born according to spirit, so it is now. But what does the scripture say? “Cast out the slave and her son; for the son of the slave shall not inherit with the son of the free woman.” So then, brethren, we are not sons of the slave girl, but of the free woman. |
NA28 and Latin Vulgate of Ephesians 1:21
supra omnem principatum et potestatem et virtutem et dominationem et omne nomen quod nominatur non solum in hoc saeculo sed et in futuro
Canonical Galatians 4:21-31 (NA28, RSV modified)
21 Λέγετέ μοι, οἱ ὑπὸ νόμον θέλοντες εἶναι, τὸν νόμον οὐκ ἀκούετε; 22 γέγραπται γὰρ ὅτι Ἀβραὰμ δύο υἱοὺς ἔσχεν, ἕνα ἐκ τῆς παιδίσκης καὶ ἕνα ἐκ τῆς ἐλευθέρας. 23 ἀλλ’ ὁ μὲν ἐκ τῆς παιδίσκης κατὰ σάρκα γεγέννηται, ὁ δὲ ἐκ τῆς ἐλευθέρας δι’ ἐπαγγελίας. 24 ἅτινά ἐστιν ἀλληγορούμενα· αὗται γάρ εἰσιν δύο διαθῆκαι, μία μὲν ἀπὸ ὄρους Σινᾶ εἰς δουλείαν γεννῶσα, ἥτις ἐστὶν Ἁγάρ. 25 τὸ δὲ Ἁγὰρ Σινᾶ ὄρος ἐστὶν ἐν τῇ Ἀραβίᾳ· συστοιχεῖ δὲ τῇ νῦν Ἰερουσαλήμ, δουλεύει γὰρ μετὰ τῶν τέκνων αὐτῆς. 26 ἡ δὲ ἄνω Ἰερουσαλὴμ ἐλευθέρα ἐστίν, ἥτις ἐστὶν μήτηρ ἡμῶν· 27 γέγραπται γάρ· εὐφράνθητι, στεῖρα ἡ οὐ τίκτουσα, ῥῆξον καὶ βόησον, ἡ οὐκ ὠδίνουσα· ὅτι πολλὰ τὰ τέκνα τῆς ἐρήμου μᾶλλον ἢ τῆς ἐχούσης τὸν ἄνδρα. 28 Ὑμεῖς δέ, ἀδελφοί, κατὰ Ἰσαὰκ ἐπαγγελίας τέκνα ἐστέ. 29 ἀλλ’ ὥσπερ τότε ὁ κατὰ σάρκα γεννηθεὶς ἐδίωκεν τὸν κατὰ πνεῦμα, οὕτως καὶ νῦν. 30 ἀλλὰ τί λέγει ἡ γραφή; ἔκβαλε τὴν παιδίσκην καὶ τὸν υἱὸν αὐτῆς· οὐ γὰρ μὴ κληρονομήσει ὁ υἱὸς τῆς παιδίσκης μετὰ τοῦ υἱοῦ τῆς ἐλευθέρας. 31 διό, ἀδελφοί, οὐκ ἐσμὲν παιδίσκης τέκνα ἀλλὰ τῆς ἐλευθέρας. |
21 Tell me, you who desire to be under law, do you not hear the law? 22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by a slave girl and one by a free woman. 23 But the son of the slave was born according to flesh; the son of the free woman through promise. 24 Which things are allegorical: these women are two covenants. One is from Mount Sinai, bearing children for slavery; she is Hagar. 25 Now Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia; she corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children. 26 But the Jerusalem above is free, who is our mother. 27 For it is written, “Rejoice, O barren one who does not bear; break forth and shout, you who are not in travail; for the children of the desolate one are many more than the children of her that is married.” 28 Now you, brethren, like Isaac, are children of promise. 29 But as at that time he who was born according to flesh persecuted him who was born according to spirit, so it is now. 30 But what does the scripture say? “Cast out the slave and her son; for the son of the slave shall not inherit with the son of the free woman.” 31 So, brethren, we are not children of the slave but of the free woman. |
AM 9.4.8 w/ full context 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. |
Evans translation (1972) Now it does happen to thieves that something let fall from their booty turns to evidence against them: and so I think Marcion has left behind him this final reference to Abraham—though none had more need of removal—even if he has changed it a little. For if Abraham had two sons, one by a bondmaid and the other by a free woman, but he that was by the bondmaid was bom after the flesh, while he that was by the free woman was by promise: which things are allegorical, which means, indicative of something else : for these are two testaments—or two revelations, as I see they have translated it—the one from Mount Sinai referring to the synagogue of the Jews, which according to the law gendereth to bondage: the other gendering above all principality, power, and domination, and every name that is named not only in this world but also in that which is to come: for she is our mother, that holy church, in whom we have expressed our faith: and consequently he adds, So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free. In all this the apostle has clearly shown that the noble dignity of Christianity has its allegorical type and figure in the son of Abraham born of a free woman, while the legal bondage of Judaism has its type in the son of the bondmaid: and consequently, that both the dispensations derive from that God with whom we have found the outline sketch of both the dispensations. |
Holmes translation (1870) 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. |
### Footnote
I cannot make any sense of the clause in quam repromisimus sanctam ecclesiam, which is probably garbled beyond repair. The translations of Evans and Holmes are not acceptable.
The verb repromitto appears in the first person plural, perfect active indicative, which means something like "we have promised __, or have guaranteed__." The blank line denotes the direct object of the verb, which in this case can only be "the holy church." But how can the writer himself, or the community of believers, be the ones promising a holy church? As for "in quam," this could be the single word "inquam," which means "I say" (with a throat-clearing sense). But this too doesn't provide a meaningful statement. If "in quam" is correct, then the accusative rather than ablative case of quam (thus, not "in qua") carries the sense of movement towards. Thus, there would be an idea of yearning in the direction of the mother above. But it is hard to make out repromitto as a verb of tending towards.