Marcion's Shorter Readings of Paul

[Peter Kirby]

I've been working on this one for a few days. Hope you like it.

(My deepest thanks and regards to BeDuhn, who made an amazing book, worth every penny!)

The link:

http://peterkirby.com/marcions-shorter- ... -paul.html

This post will explore some of the plausible “shorter readings” in the Apostolikon used by the Marcionites. There may be more shorter readings in the Apostolikon that are possible that are not found in this list, but this list is intended to include those that meet a minimum standard of evidence, referencing this list of criteria.

(1) Shorter readings attested as such by the patristic writers.

(2) Unattested readings that have manuscript support for their absence.

(3) Unattested readings that were likely to be quoted by Tertullian if they were in the Apostolikon.

(4) Unattested readings that correspond to a scholarly conjecture for interpolation on grounds other than the alleged absence in Marcion’s Apostolikon.

However, this is not a list of interpolations in the letters of Paul, as such a list may be shorter or longer and would have somewhat different contents. It is a list of likely or suspected shorter readings in Marcion’s Apostolikon, compared to most extant manuscripts of Paul. The existence of such shorter readings in the Apostolikon is something mentioned (in a general way and with specific instances) by several of those who comment on Marcion’s text.


Criteria 2 and 4 (manuscripts and conjectural emendations) are more indirect than criteria 1 and 3 (explicit readings and notable silences). They reflect the basic idea that portions of the text that could have been absent otherwise could also have been absent in Marcion’s text, which is quite early in the history of the transmission of Paul’s letters. In some cases criterion 2 is stronger than criterion 4, since it can offer an objective indication of the passage’s absence in some manuscripts, but in other cases it is the weakest criterion, since omissions in the manuscripts (all of them later than Marcion’s publication) can be due to well-understood habits of occasional scribal error. Criterion 2, then, more than any other, is liable to registering some instances of pure happenstance.

Some of the more-idiosyncratic suggestions from those who have offered many suggestions in their books (Weisse, Loisy, Hawkins, Schmithals, and O’Neill) are not represented under the fourth criterion (partly because I have not made an exhaustive review of their suggestions and the reasoning). To the extent that the reasoning for interpolation is not sound or that there could be little chance of attestation in any case, criterion 4 may be weaker in some cases (and stronger in others).

Because of the extensive evidence that Marcion did not make any systematic attempt to root out passages that are potentially difficult for his theology (with such examples frequently quoted by Tertullian and other commentators), perceived contradiction with Marcion’s reconstructed theology is not accepted as a confirmatory criterion of omission in the texts of Paul used by Marcionites.

Relatively small phrases (three to four words or less) are not treated here, being considered as more like variations than omissions or shorter readings in character.

This blog post primarily follows the notes on the text of the Apostolikon in Jason D. DeBuhn’s The New Testament: Marcion’s Scriptural Canon, pp. 260-319.

One, Two, Skip a Few...

Summary of Results

Here I will classify the results in a descending order of the power of the criteria that apply.

(1) Shorter Readings in accordance with Criterion 1 (explicit mention or quotation)

Gal 3:6-9 (criterion 1)
Gal 3:15a (1, 2)
Gal 3:15b-16 or 15b-18 or 15b-25 (1)
Gal 3:29 (1)
Gal 4:1-2 (1)
1 Cor 1:29b-30 (1)
1 Cor 2:6b (1)
1 Cor 15:3a (1, 2, 3, 4)
1 Cor 15:4a (1)
2 Cor 4:13b (1, 2)
Rom 1:19-2:1 (1, 4)
Rom 2:3-11 (1, 4)
Rom 9:4-10:1 (1, 4)
Rom 10:5-11:32 (1, 4)
Rom 15:1-16:27 (1, 2, 4)
Eph 1:21 (1, 2)
Eph 6:2b (1)
Col 1:15b-16 (1)

(2) Shorter Readings in accordance with Criterion 3 (use against Marcion expected)

Gal 1:18-24 (criteria 2, 3, 4)
Gal 2:7-8 (3, 4)
Gal 4:4b (3)
Rom 1:1b-5a (2, 3, 4)

(3) Shorter Readings in accordance with Criterion 4 Alone (interpolation hypothesis)

1 Cor 15:5-10 (Price)
1 Cor 15:56 (Horn)
2 Cor 6:14-7a (Betz, Fitzmyer, et al.)
2 Cor 8:1-9:15 (Betz, et al.)
Rom 3:25-26 (Talbert)
Rom 4:6-9a (Weisse, O’Neill)
Rom 4:14-15 (Weisse, O’Neill)
Rom 4:17 (O’Neill)
Rom 6:13, 19 (Hagen)
Rom 6:17b (Bultmann)
Rom 8:29-30 (Walker)
Rom 13:1-7 (Barnikol, Kallas, et al.)
1 Thess 2:15b-16 (Pearson, Schmidt, Walker, Okeke, et al.)
1 Thess 5:1-11 (Friedrich)

(4) Shorter Readings in accordance with Criterion 2 Alone (manuscript evidence)

1 Cor 6:3-6 (Alexandrinus)
1 Cor 7:38 (F, G, 323, 614, 630, 1319, 1352, 1837, 2147, and 2412)
1 Cor 9:20a (p46)
1 Cor 10:27-28 (323, 618, 1242, and 1738)
2 Cor 1:6-7 (618 and 1738)

Comparing the lists, there are a few suggestions that are longer than four verses. (All of them are more than four words, but that’s only because this survey has omitted anything less.) These are:

(a) Gal 1:18-24 (so Harnack, Schmid, and BeDuhn)
(b) Gal 3:15b-25 (so Harnack, only Gal 3:15b-16 for BeDuhn and Gal 3:15b-18 for Schmid)
(c) Rom 1:19-2:1 or Rom 2:3-11 (the latter for Schmid, the former for Harnack)
(d) Rom 9:4-10:1 (Tertullian remarks on this)
(e) Rom 10:5-11:32 (Tertullian remarks on this)
(f) Rom 15:1-16:27 (Origen remarks on this, but Tertullian doesn’t say it’s a falsification)
(g) 1 Cor 15:5-10 (Price’s interpolation hypothesis)
(h) 2 Cor 6:14-7a (a common interpolation hypothesis)
(i) 2 Cor 8:1-9:15 (a common interpolation hypothesis)
(j) Rom 13:1-7 (a common interpolation hypothesis)
(k) 1 Thess 5:1-11 (Friedrich’s interpolation hypothesis)

Although (a) isn’t explicitly noted as absent by Tertullian, there is general agreement about its absence in Marcion’s text. Only (b) through (e) are explicitly remarked on by Tertullian as being blatant omissions in the text of Marcion’s Apostolikon. Notably, (f) is not, suggesting that Tertullian’s text of Paul shared the omission of the last two chapters of Romans with Marcion’s. The same explanation is offered by BeDuhn for (i), where Tertullian quotes nothing from them in any of his own works, let alone in refutation of Marcion.

The rest of the suggestions may not represent true absences in Marcion’s Paul, as they are basically hypothetical absences in the text of Paul himself. But even if all of them did, they — (g), (h), (j), and (k) — amount to only 30 verses altogether. It’s plausible that Tertullian might pass over in silence this small collection of omissions, together with a larger collection of smaller omissions. On the other hand, some might take Tertullian’s harsh remarks elsewhere over much smaller matters as an indication that their texts substantially agreed regarding (g), (h), (j), (k) and any other stretch of verses so large (whatever merit may remain in the interpolation hypotheses regarding the original text).

Our survey has found that there is indeed some reason to find shorter readings in Marcion’s text of Paul. However, we cannot prove anything regarding an extensively reduced form of Paul’s letters in Marcion. Tertullian’s text actually agrees with Marcion’s regarding some lengthy shorter readings, such as Romans 15-16 and possibly 2 Corinthians 8-9. Apart from the possibility of Gal 3:15-25 suggested by Harnack (but controverted by Schmid and BeDuhn), the lengthiest confirmed differences seem mostly confined to a few passages of Romans (1:19-2:1 or 2:3-11, 9:4-10:1, and 10:5-11:32). Tertullian indeed remarks that Marcion’s omissions were evident “especially in this epistle.” Yet the largest differences that receive comment from Tertullian are all within the same two sections of Romans (1:18-2:29 and chapters 9-11) that have been suspected of interpolations in any case. The same is true for several other, shorter potential omissions.

Confirming the investigations of other research (regarding the particular textual variants noted as present in Marcion’s text and regarding the various passages retained by Marcion), this study particularly in the shorter readings of Marcion’s text finds some confirmation of the hypothesis that Marcion’s text of Paul can be regarded as a valuable witness to the early stage of transmission with little to no detectable redaction taking place at Marcion’s hands.

I don't consider myself to be an expert in the study of Marcion, but BeDuhn's book has made this 100x easier. I haven't read Clabeaux (at least he's in English, if I pick it up) or Schmid directly (apart from some bits), and I have only read Harnack on Galatians directly (by translating it). BeDuhn interacts with them all, though, and does a good job of representing the various arguments. (I suppose Huller considers them all worthless, though...)

[toejam]

Excellent post. Thanks for your work. BeDuhn's book really opened my eyes to this problem of determining the "original" Pauline texts. I'm halfway through Price's "Amazing Colossal Apostle" at the moment (just about to start his commentary section). Thomas Whittaker's 1904 book "The Origins of Christianity with an Outline of Van Manen’s Analysis of The Pauline Literature" is also available online as an audiobook for anyone interested https://librivox.org/the-origins-of-chr ... whittaker/

[robert j]

As a conclusion following BeDuhn, I asume ---

Our survey has found that there is indeed some reason to find shorter readings in Marcion’s text of Paul. However, we cannot prove anything regarding an extensively reduced form of Paul’s letters in Marcion.

I agree with this. For my working premise, I don’t think Marcion significantly altered the letters of Paul that he collected. Here’s what tips the scales for me ---

1) The over-the-top polemics of Tertullian (ca. 160-225 CE) and most of his patristic compadres. Tertullian, in the very opening passages of the first book of his Five Books Against Marcion, wrote that Marcion’s people in Pontus chopped-up the dead bodies of their parents along with sheep to devour at their feasts (Adv Marc 1.1). It is entirely possible that accusations about Marcion butchering the letters of Paul were just a rhetorical device, a polemic device. After all, Tertullian implied, Marcion certainly wouldn't hesitate to chop-up the scriptures --- like his people chopped-up the dead bodies of their parents.


2) I am persuaded --- primarily based on the testimony of Clement of Alexandria (ca. 150-215 CE) --- that Marcion took the letters of Paul essentially as he found them, and found in Paul's antinomian arguments what he considered to be a kindred soul.

Clement refuted the doctrines of Marcion, with primarily philosophical arguments in several sections of his lengthy Stromata. Clement accused the heretics of selective use of the scriptures (Stromata, Book 7, chapter 16), but surprisingly, Clement did not accuse Marcion of chopping-up or altering in any way Paul’s letters. And Paul was Clement’s main-man in Christ. Clement cited Paul’s letters extensively and referring to Paul as “THE apostle”, “blessed", “noble”, even “divine”. If Marcion had mutilated them, why didn’t the prolific writer Clement defend the letters of his hero Paul?

IMO, Marcion only put his own spin on Paul’s letters and applied his own interpretations to support and promote his own further doctrines. And it was just Marcion's selective interpretations that the patristic heretic hunters attacked and refuted using their accusations of butchery.

[Peter Kirby]

Nope it is not a representation of BeDuhn. He does not make this argument.

But thanks for these comments. Very interesting about Clement. He always seems like the one semi objective voice to survive the flames.

[Stephan Huller]

The proper comparison here is/are the letters of Ignatius which have been expanded three times (short Syriac, long Greek and even longer Greek). When are scholars ever going to recognize this?

[Peter Kirby]

Analogy is not evidence. There is an analogy for anything. (Even if you are completely right about the development of the Ignatian letters.)

[robert j]

... it is not a representation of BeDuhn. He does not make this argument.

Thanks for the clarification. I haven’t read BeDuhn, but my assumption was based, at least in part, on what others have written about his book --- in the thread --- "Jason BeDuhn's reconstruction/translation of Marcion..." viewtopic.php?f=3&t=686&start=30

DC Hindley wrote,

He [BeDuhn] gives up on reconstructing exactly how Marcion's Evangelion (Gospel) and Apostolikon (10 letters of Paul the Apostle) were worded, although he seems confident that some of the exact wording can be recovered from the citations of his proto-orthodox opponents … and concludes that Marcion's text of the Evangelion and the the 10 letters of Paul in his Apostolikon are kissing cousins to the text of the canonical Gospel of Luke and the corresponding 10 letters of Paul.

So, he believes that the Marcionite NT was very similar to the proto-orthodox NT In effect, meaning he did not "edit down" the ptoto-orthodox text. He also rejects the idea that the proto-orthodox NT was a redaction by expansion of a much shorter Marcionite version.

toejam wrote,

Just finished BeDuhn's book. Fascinating. I was unaware just how similar Marcion's NT text was to the versions we're familiar with today. I was expecting a lot more differences and obvious tampering. Seems a lot of the differences are of little more value than other textual variants and the odd missing/added verse in the manuscript evidence…

[Stephan Huller]

Analogy is not evidence.

Whatever. Call it what you want. Works in a court of law

[Peter Kirby]

Analogy is not evidence.

Whatever. Call it what you want. Works in a court of law

It's evidence of context-free possibility. But lots of things are possible. The collected letters of anyone else are evidence of the possibility of something else possibly happening to letters, generally speaking. I fully recognize the context-free possibility of almost anything happening to the text of Paul's letters. And for that matter, I recognize interpolations and forgeries (or secondary layers and secondary recensions of the corpus, if you will not posit anything authentic) in those same letters of Paul. I don't claim to know how far exactly they go, but if you got any clues share them.

I'm also willing to consider the possibility that the original collection only had 2-3 letters. I've toyed with it myself: Gal, Cor, Rom?????? But I'd really like to have more to go on.

[Peter Kirby]

... it is not a representation of BeDuhn. He does not make this argument.

Thanks for the clarification. I haven’t read BeDuhn, but my assumption was based, at least in part, on what others have written about his book --- in the thread --- "Jason BeDuhn's reconstruction/translation of Marcion..." viewtopic.php?f=3&t=686&start=30

DC Hindley wrote,

He [BeDuhn] gives up on reconstructing exactly how Marcion's Evangelion (Gospel) and Apostolikon (10 letters of Paul the Apostle) were worded, although he seems confident that some of the exact wording can be recovered from the citations of his proto-orthodox opponents … and concludes that Marcion's text of the Evangelion and the the 10 letters of Paul in his Apostolikon are kissing cousins to the text of the canonical Gospel of Luke and the corresponding 10 letters of Paul.

So, he believes that the Marcionite NT was very similar to the proto-orthodox NT In effect, meaning he did not "edit down" the ptoto-orthodox text. He also rejects the idea that the proto-orthodox NT was a redaction by expansion of a much shorter Marcionite version.

toejam wrote,

Just finished BeDuhn's book. Fascinating. I was unaware just how similar Marcion's NT text was to the versions we're familiar with today. I was expecting a lot more differences and obvious tampering. Seems a lot of the differences are of little more value than other textual variants and the odd missing/added verse in the manuscript evidence…

He uses different arguments to reach a similar conclusion. AFAIK, not the argument used in the final "summary" of this blog post.