Galatians 1:18-24 are not present in any good reconstruction of the Marcionite text. I completely concur, and would actually extend the missing text to include the mention of Damascus in verse 1:17.neilgodfrey wrote: ↑Wed Jun 02, 2021 12:30 amI need to catch up with Clabeaux. Meanwhile, does Gal.1:18-20 appear in the purported Marcionite addition?Stuart wrote: ↑Tue Jun 01, 2021 9:41 am
Neil,
There is an interesting theory John Knox put out (Marcion and the New Testament: An Essay in the Early History of the Canon, 1942, University of Chicago Press), which Dr. Robert Price supports (e.g., The Colossal Apostle, chapter 12), that the first two chapters (Marcionite form) were written by Marcion or a Marcionite author, and that the original Galatians began at chapter 3.
This is similar to John Clabeaux's opinion that the Marcionite collection is not the earliest form of the Pauline letters but rather the collection at the stage of the ten letter collection; that there is a pre-Marcionite Pauline text. . . .
. . . .
Personally I have doubts about verse 1:17, especially the phrase πρὸς τοὺς πρὸ ἐμοῦ ἀποστόλους, as Paul nowhere in the attested passages of Marcionite Apostolikon acknowledges any other apostles being prior to him. The Marcionite view was this. Christ revealed himself to Paul. Christ wrote the Gospel (much like Moses was said by Jews to have written the Pentateuch), except the parts when he died, which were added by Paul (much like Joshua was said by the Jews to have written about Moses' death in Deuteronomy). There was no place for Apostles before Paul. I also have trouble with the last phrase "and again I returned to Damascus" as ὑποστρέφω occurs nowhere else in Paul but is a favorite Lukan word, occurring 23 times in Luke and 12 times in Acts and nowhere else except one verse each in Hebrews and 2 Peter. At a minimum I would delete καὶ πάλιν ὑπέστρεψα εἰς Δαμασκόν from verse 1:17 as part of the Lukan/Catholic revision of Galatians. The trip to Damascus is also a harmony to Acts, which is a telltale sign of a likely post-Marcionite addition. The harmony is to the blinding of Paul on the road to Damascus, which the Marcionites rejected. (note πάλιν might be considered a Lukan favorite word, or rather one that occurs with greater frequency -- not sure where you draw the line on such a designation.)
The Marcionite version of the first two chapters is more or less as follows (Detering's is a good starting point):
2:1-6 (- πάλιν and - μετὰ βαρναβᾶ in 2:1, - κατ᾿ ἰδίαν δὲ τοῖς δοκοῦσιν, μή πως εῖς κενὸν τρέχω ἣ ἔδραμον in 2:2; - οἷς in 2:5)
2:7a (read only ἀλλὰ τοὐναντίον ἰδόντες ὅτι πεπίστευμαι τὸ εὐαγγέλιον), 2:9a ( read up to ἵνα ἡμεῖς εἰς τὰ ἔθνη)
2:10-21 (- εἰς Ἀντιόχειαν in 2:11, [-τινας ἀπὸ Ἰακώβου in 2:12], -ὥστε καὶ βαρναβᾶς συναπήχθη αὐτῶν τῇ ὑποκρίσει in 2:15
My differences with most reconstructions explained:
* I'm of the opinion reproductions of Marcionite Galatians should bracket [πρὸς τοὺς πρὸ ἐμοῦ ἀποστόλους] in verse 1:17
* I'm uncertain on the presence of Ἰάκωβος καὶ Κηφᾶς καὶ Ἰωάνης in 2:9, as it's possible even probably the pillars were not named. However, the use of Cephas, and the naming of John as an opponent of Paul definitely fits Marcionite world view, so maybe added by a Marcionite scribe. IMO the words should be in brackets, if not removed, in any reproduction.
* I suggest reading - τινας ἀπὸ Ἰακώβου in 2:12, making the condemnation of Cephas more direct. Also not certain James is even named in the original Marcionite text, as again I'm uncertain the pillars were named, and the phrase is dependent upon them being named.
* I would at least bracket Ἡμεῖς φύσει Ἰουδαῖοι καὶ οὐκ ἐξ ἐθνῶν ἁμαρτωλοί· εἰδοτές [δὲ] ὅτι in 2:15-16, as the Marcionites did not accept Paul as Jewish, or at least made the distinction between those of Israel, such as tribe of Benjamin, and those of Judea.
The above should give you a good working version of Marcionite Galatians Chapters 1-2.