Thoughts on Antiquity

I probably should have mentioned in the introduction to this series that the canonical lists I intend to post are New Testament only. That said, let us dive right in with the canon of scripture as Marcion would have it.The limitation of my discussion to New Testament scripture would not have displeased Marcion, who rejected the Old Testament in its entirety. But he did have a short list of New Testament books of which he approved in a particular recension which left out positive references to the Hebrew scriptures or to the Jewish commonwealth. We can reconstruct his list from Irenaeus, Against Heresies, and from books 4 and 5 of Tertullian, Against Marcion.

Irenaeus notes in Against Heresies 1.27.2b:

Et super haec id quod est secundum Lucam evangelium circumcidens, et omnia quae sunt de generatione domini conscripta auferens, et de doctrina sermonum domini multa auferens, in quibus manifestissime conditorem huius universitatis suum patrem confitens dominus conscriptus est. semetipsum esse veraciorem quam sunt hi qui evangelium tradiderunt apostoli, suasit discipulis suis, non evangelium sed particulam evangelii tradens eis. similiter autem et apostoli Pauli epistolas abscidit, auferans quaecunque manifeste dicta sunt ab apostolo de eo deo qui mundum fecit, quoniam hic pater domini nostri Iesu Christi, et quaecunque ex propheticis memorans apostolus docuit praenunciantibus adventum domini.

And, beyond these things, mutilating that gospel which is according to Luke, removing all things that are written concerning the generation of the Lord, and removing many things from the doctrine of the words of the Lord, in which the Lord is written down as most manifestly confessing that the maker of this universe is his own father. He likewise persuaded his disciples that he himself was more truthful than are those apostles who delivered the gospel, delivering to them not the gospel but only a fragment of the gospel. Similarly, moreover, he also cut away from the epistles of the apostle Paul, removing anything that is manifestly said by the apostle concerning that God who made the world, that he is the father of our Lord Jesus Christ, as well as anything from the prophetical books which the apostle mentioned and taught as having announced beforehand the advent of the Lord.

From Irenaeus, then, we learn that Marcion used a mutilated version of the gospel of Luke alongside mutilated versions of the epistles of Paul. These are, respectively, the gospel (Evangelion) and apostle (Apostolikon) of Marcion.

In book 4 of Against Marcion Tertullian discusses the Evangelion. In 4.2.3 he affirms that Marcion failed to attribute it to any named author (all texts of Tertullian I have drawn from the ever useful Tertullian Project by fellow blogger Roger Pearse):

Contra Marcion evangelio, scilicet suo, nullum adscribit auctorem, quasi non licuerit illi titulum quoque affingere cui nefas non fuit ipsum corpus evertere.

Marcion, however, as you may know, ascribes no author to his gospel, as if it were not allowed for him to affix a title to that of which it was not a crime to overturn the body itself.

Tertullian may have missed one possible rationale for omitting an authorial ascription: A movement that uses only one gospel would not need to distinguish it from any other gospels. Tertullian goes on to agree with Irenaeus in 4.2.4 as to which gospel Marcion redacted:

Nam ex iis commentatoribus quos habemus Lucam videtur Marcion elegisse quem caederet.

For, out of those commentators whom we have, Marcion seems to have chosen Luke [as the one] whom he would cut apart.

Tertullian also agrees with Irenaeus in book 5 that Marcion edited the epistles of Paul, but he adds in 5.21.1 a crucial note on the very number of Pauline epistles in the Marcionite collection. Here he is discussing the epistle to Philemon:

Soli huic epistulae brevitas sua profuit ut falsarias manus Marcionis evaderet. miror tamen, cum ad unum hominem litteras factas receperit, quod ad Timotheum duas et unam ad Titum de ecclesiastico statu compositas recusaverit. affectavit, opinor, etiam numerum epistularum interpolare.

To this epistle alone has its brevity profited it so as to evade the falsifying hands of Marcion. I wonder, however, since he accepted this letter made out to one man, why he rejected two composed to Timothy and one to Titus concerning the ecclesiastical system. I suppose it pleased him to tamper even with the number of the epistles.

Modern commentators, of course, ponder the possibility that Marcion rejected the pastoral epistles to Timothy and Titus, not because he liked to fiddle with numbers, but rather because he either did not know of their existence or knew that they were pseudonymous.

Since Tertullian discusses in detail the modifications made to the gospel of Luke in book 4 and to the epistles of Paul in book 5, we are in a position based on those books to list the texts that Marcion accepted as canonical, as it were. It is a short list:

• One gospel, the Evangelion.
• Ten Pauline epistles, the Apostolikon.
  • One to the Galatians.
  • Two to the Corinthians.
  • One to the Romans.
  • Two to the Thessalonians.
  • One to the Laodiceans.
  • One to the Colossians.
  • One to the Philippians.
  • One to Philemon.

The order of the Pauline epistles requires comment. This is the order in which Tertullian discusses them, and it presumably reflects the Marcionite order. Tertullian discusses Galatians in 5.2-4, 1 Corinthians in 5.5-10, 2 Corinthians in 5.11-12, Romans in 5.13-14, 1 Thessalonians in 5.15, 2 Thessalonians in 5.16, Laodiceans in 5.17-18, Colossians in 5.19, Philippians in 5.20, and Philemon in 5.21.

There is also the matter of the epistle to the Laodiceans, which takes the place of that to the Ephesians. Tertullian explains in Against Marcion 5.17.1a:

Ecclesiae quidem veritate epistulam istam ad Ephesios habemus emissam, non ad Laodicenos; sed Marcion ei titulum aliquando interpolare gestiit quasi et in isto diligentissimus explorator. nihil autem de titulis interest. cum ad omnes apostolus scripserit dum ad quosdam.

We have it by the truth of the church that this epistle was sent to the Ephesians, not to the Laodiceans. But Marcion indeed wished to interpolate the title into it as if he were a most diligent investigator even in this matter. Nevertheless, concerning the titles there is nothing of interest, since when the apostle wrote to some he wrote to all.

It is of course interesting to note in this connection that several manuscripts, including P⁴⁶ and the original hands of א and B, omit the words εν Εφεσω in Ephesians 1.1.

Finally, we should note that the epistle to the Hebrews is absent. Tertullian, who according to On Modesty 20.1-5 regarded this epistle as written not by Paul but by Barnabas, cannot rightly comment on this issue, but we do have the following from Jerome, preface to the Pauline epistle to Titus (Latin text from B. F. Westcott, The Epistle to the Hebrews, page lxiii, lacuna his):

Licet non sint digni fide qui fidem primam irritam fecerunt, Marcionem loquor et Basilidem et omnes haereticos qui vetus laniant testamentum, tamen eos aliqua ex parte ferremus si saltem in novo continerant manus suas. ….

Though they should be unworthy of faith who have made their first faith void, I speak of Marcion and Basilides and all the heretics who mangle the Old Testament, nevertheless let us bear with them to some extent if they at least continue [to play] their hands in the New Testament. ….

Ut enim de ceteris epistolis taceam, de quibus quidquid contrarium suo dogmati viderant eraserunt, nonnullas integras repudiandas crediderunt, ad Timotheum videlicet utramque, ad Hebraeos, et ad Titum.

To pass over the rest of the epistles in silence, from which they erased whatever they saw that was contrary to their own dogma, they indeed believed that some were to be repudiated in the whole, clearly both of the two to Timothy, [the one] to the Hebrews, and [the one] to Titus.

Whereas Tertullian with his usual sarcasm accuses Marcion of mutilating even the number of the epistles, Jerome regards the exclusion of the pastoral epistles and the epistle to the Hebrews as a dogmatic decision. I suspect, however, that Marcion, if he did know the epistle to the Hebrews, simply did not regard it as Pauline. Marcion belonged to the Roman church before his excommunication, and Roman Christians before century IV or V almost universally thought the epistle did not belong to Paul. I admit, on the other hand, that even if Marcion thought it was Pauline it would have been quite a task to cut all the Jewish elements out of it! What would remain? That seems to be the direction in which Jerome is leading us, though it is not clear to me that the same considerations would hit the pastoral epistles nearly as hard.

I have one more item to present on the Marcionite canon. There is extant in some Latin manuscripts a set of prologues to the Pauline epistles, a close inspection of which leads one to judge that they are Marcionite in origin (text from Daniel J. Theron, Evidence of Tradition, pages 79-83; refer to comments to this post for a probable typological error in the first Corinthian prologue):

Romani sunt in partibus Italiae. hi praeventi sunt a falsis apostolis et sub nomine domini nostri Iesu Christi in legem et prophetas erant inducti. hos revocat apostolus ad veram evangelicam fidem scribens eis a Corintho.

The Romans are in the regions of Italy. They had been reached by false apostles and under the name of our Lord Jesus Christ they were led away into the law and the prophets. The apostle calls them back to the true evangelical faith, writing to them from Corinth.

Corinthii sunt Achaei. et hi similiter ab apostolis audierunt verbum veritatis et subversi multifarie a falsis apostolis, quidam a philosophiae verbosa eloquentia, alii a secta legis Iudiciae inducti. hos revocat ad veram et evangelicam sapientiam scribens eis ab Epheso per Timotheum.

The Corinthians are Achaeans. And they similarly heard from the apostles the word of truth and then were subverted in many ways by false apostles, some led away by the verbose eloquence of philosophy, others by a sect of the Jewish law. He calls them back to the true and evangelical wisdom, writing to them from Ephesus through Timothy.

Post actam paenitentiam consolatorias scribit eis a Troade et conlaudans eos hortatur ad meliora.

After penitence was made, he writes a consolatory letter to them from Troas, and in praising them he exhorts them on to better things.

Galatae sunt Graeci. hi verbum veritatis primum ab apostolo acceperunt, sed post discessum eius temptati sunt a falsis apostolis, ut in legem et circumcisionem verterentur. hos apostolus revocat ad fidem veritatis scribens eis ab Epheso.

The Galatians are Greeks. They at first accepted the word of truth from the apostle, but after his departure they were tempted by false apostles to be converted to the law and circumcision. The apostle calls them back to the faith of truth, writing to them from Ephesus.

Ephesii sunt Asiani. hi accepto verbo veritatis persteterunt in fide. hos conlaudat apostolus scribens eis ab urbe Roma de carcere per Tychicum diaconum.

The Ephesians are Asians. They persisted in the faith after the word of truth was accepted. The apostle praises them, writing to them from the city of Rome, from prison, through Tychicus the deacon.

Philippenses sunt Machedones. hi accepto verbo veritatis persteterunt in fide, nec receperunt falsos apostolos. hos apostolus conlaudat scribens eis a Roma de carcere per Epaphroditum.

The Philippians are Macedonians. They persisted in the faith after the word of truth was accepted, nor did they receive false apostles. The apostle praises them, writing to them from Rome, from prison, through Epaphroditus.

Colossenses et hi sicut Laudicenses sunt Asiani. et ipsi praeventi erat a pseudoapostolis, nec ad hos accessit ipse apostolus, sed et hos per epistulam recorrigit. audierant enim verbum ab Archippo qui et ministerium in eos accepit. ergo apostolus iam ligatus scribit eis ab Epheso.

The Colossians, they too are Asians, just as the Laodiceans. And they themselves¹ had been reached by pseudo-apostles, nor did the apostle himself approach them, but even them² he corrects through an epistle. For they had heard the word from Archippus, who also accepted the ministry to them. The apostle therefore, already arrested, writes to them from Ephesus.

¹ Or they themselves also.
² Or them too.

Thessalonicenses sunt Machedones in Christo Iesu qui accepto verbo veritatis persteterunt in fide etiam in persecutione civium suorum; praeterea nec receperunt ea quae a falsis apostolis dicebantur. hos conlaudat apostolus scribens eis ab Athenis.

The Thessalonians are Macedonians in Christ Jesus who, after the word was accepted, still persisted in the faith in the persecution by their fellow citizens; furthermore, they did not receive those things which were said by the false apostles. The apostle praises them, writing to them from Athens.

Ad Thessalonicenses scribit et notum facit eis de temporibus novissimis et de adversarii detectione. scribit ab Athenis.

To the Thessalonians he writes and makes note to them concerning the last times and of the detection of the adversary. He writes from Athens.

Timotheum instruit et docet de ordinatione episcopatus et diaconii et omnis ecclesiasticae disciplinae.

He instructs Timothy and teaches him concerning the ordination to the episcopate and to the diaconate and concerning all aspects of ecclesiastical discipline.

Item Timotheo scribit de exhortatione martyrii et omnis regulae veritatis et quid futurum sit temporibus novissimis et de sua passione.

Likewise he writes to Timothy concerning the exhortation of martyrdom and all aspects of the rule of truth, and what will be in the last times, and concerning his own passion.

Titum commonefacit et instruit de constitutione presbyterii et de spiritali conversatione et hereticis vitandis qui in scripturis Iudaicis credunt.

He warns and intructs Titus concerning the constitution of the presbytery and concerning spiritual conversation and heretics to be avoided who believe in the Jewish scriptures.

Philemoni familiares litteras facit pro Onesimo servo eius. scribit autem ei a Roma de carcere.

He composes a familiar letter to Philemon on behalf of Onesimus his servant. He writes to him, however, from Rome, from prison.

(I have had these posted on my website for a few weeks now.)

It will be noticed that these prologues include the pastoral epistles; however, as Harnack notes, writing of De Bruyne:

He has absolutely proved that these Prologues belong together (those to the Pastoral Epistles are of a different character); that they are to be ascribed to the Marcionites; and from them came into the Church.

Among the nonpastoral prologues, the epistle to Philemon is set apart as a personal letter (familiares litteras); all the churches (except that in Ephesus, discussed below) are noted for their relationship to false apostles. The pastoral epistles, however, are neither singled out as personal letters nor filled with the usual ruminations on false apostles.

Granted, the Ephesian prologue lacks any mention of false apostles, but there is an explanation at hand for this oversight. An inspection of the Colossian prologue reveals that there was almost certainly a Laodicean prologue at one point in this collection:

Colossenses et hi sicut Laudicenses sunt Asiani. et ipsi praeventi erat a pseudoapostolis, nec ad hos accessit ipse apostolus, sed et hos per epistulam recorrigit. audierant enim verbum ab Archippo qui et ministerium in eos accepit. ergo apostolus iam ligatus scribit eis ab Epheso.

The Colossians, they too are Asians, just as the Laodiceans. They themselves also had been reached by pseudo-apostles, nor did the apostle himself approach them, but them too he corrects through an epistle. For they had heard the word from Archippus, who also accepted the ministry to them. The apostle therefore, already arrested, writes to them from Ephesus.

Why are the Laodiceans, otherwise unmentioned in these prologues, mentioned here?

Note that the words et hi (they too) imply the previous discussion of another church of Asians, and that et ipsi may well mean they themselves also, implying another church that was reached by pseudo-apostles, and that the word nec (nor) may well imply another church that the apostle did not approach, and that the words et hos may well mean them too, implying another church corrected by letter. Since there seems to be no other reason for mentioning the Laodiceans in this prologue, this other church virtually has to be that of the Laodiceans. It appears that the Ephesian prologue was designed to replace an original Laodicean prologue, and that the pastoral prologues were added by orthodox scribes so that all of the Pauline epistles would have prologues.

Note also, of course, that there is no prologue for the epistle to the Hebrews.

Implications for attestation.

How does the Marcionite canon affect modern investigations of attestation?

First, and most obviously, Marcion is an early witness, not only to ten individual Pauline letters, but indeed to a collection of Pauline letters. He is proof that some rudimentary grouping of authoritative texts was going on early in century II.

Second, Marcion is an early witness to the gospel of Luke. He may even be, in a roundabout fashion, a witness to the penning of that gospel by a companion of Paul; though he does not name the author, the traditional link between Luke and Paul would nicely explain why Marcion chose Luke as his base text. (The gospel of Matthew, with its many Jewish emphases, may have posed its own set of editing problems, but that of Mark, it seems, would have made a fine choice.)

Third, I think Marcion has to be considered a strike against the authenticity of the pastorals. Jerome may hint that Marcion removed them because of their reliance on the Jewish scriptures, but their removal mystifies Tertullian, and frankly, on the presumption that Marcion knew them and knew they were Pauline, it would mystify me, too; it seems to me that for every statement such as the law is good in 1 Timothy 1.8 there is another such as not paying attention to Jewish myths and commands in Titus 1.14. I guess I do not see why, if Marcion knew the pastorals and knew they were Pauline, he could not have taken the scissors to them as he had to do to the other Pauline epistles. (I hasten to add that this single datum, the absence of the pastorals from the Marcionite list, does not by itself prove them spurious; there are many other data to consider.)

Fourth, Marcion offers no support for the Paulinicity of the epistle to the Hebrews. I might go one step further than this neutral statement and claim that he is actually a strike against its Paulinicity, just as he is a strike against that of the pastorals, except that I imagine taking the scissors to this very scriptural epistle would have been an operation unlike no other. However, given the prevalent Roman belief that the epistle was not of Paul, I think it even more likely that Marcion simply followed suit; hence its absence from his list.

Fifth, and finally, I would be remiss to neglect the possible Marcionite impact on the canon of scripture. However, I think it is very important to specify exactly what his impact may have been; it is easy in my judgment to exaggerate the effects of his decisions. Did Marcion affect which Old or New Testament books were canonized? Without Marcion, would the church have accepted, say, the gospel of Peter but rejected, say, that of Matthew? Was it the Marcionite canon that legitimized the Pauline epistles?

My own answer to each of those questions is probably not. I do not think the actual canonicity or noncanonicity of certain books is where the Marcionite influence lies. I do not even think that the very notion of compiling a list necessarily owes itself to Marcion. Lists are natural wherever there are questions of authenticity and inauthenticity. Even modern scholars with no interest whatsoever in the canon of scripture compile lists. Take, for instance, the quite common modern listing of authentic versus inauthentic Pauline epistles. I suspect that lists of approved texts would have arisen one way or another, with or without Marcion, especially as the living memory of the age of the apostles faded.

Rather, if anything, the lasting impact of Marcion may lie with how the proto-orthodox ended up describing their authoritative texts after his demurral from proto-orthodoxy. Bernard Orchard writes on pages 126-127 of The Order of the Synoptics:

The swing-over during the second half of the second century to the individual naming of the Gospels as specifically the work of the Evangelists is to be seen as the public spelling out of the content of the ancient tradition in response to the attack of Marcion; that is to say, the public affirmation that they really were the memoirs of the Apostles themselves and their immediate disciples….

The period of the global reference to the Gospels as the “Memoirs of the Apostles” was over, and the church entered upon the age when she set about recalling and specifying the traditions that she had received about them.

Papias, of course, is a notable and early exception to this principle; it is Justin Martyr, a contemporary of Marcion, who refers to the gospels as the memoirs of the apostles (numerous times), or as the memoirs written by the apostles and their followers (Dialogue with Trypho 103.8). When he lets slip that one of the gospels (certainly that of Mark) was written up as the memoirs of Peter (Dialogue 106.3), he does so innocently, not as trying to prove a point about authorship. Other writers either contemporary with or earlier than Marcion, when they quote the gospel materials, are just as vague as Justin, referring to the gospel (Didache 8.2; 11.3; 15.3) or gospel of the Lord (Didache 15.4), using the generic scriptural formulation as it is written (Barnabas 4.14), or talking of remembering what the Lord said (Acts 11.16; 20.35; 1 Clement 13.2; Polycarp to the Philippians 2.3).

Marcion, then, may well have pressed the issue of how best to refer to the authoritative writings of the church. For after his time we find nearly all ecclesiastical writers referring to these texts by the name of their author.

In my next installment of this series I will discuss the Muratorian canon.