[Nachträge und Berichtigungen. Corrections and supplements to Harnack’s monograph Marcion: Das Evangelium vom fremden Gott. Unstarred page numbers refer to the first, continuously paginated part of that work; starred numbers (35*, 229*, and so forth) to the separately paginated appendices. “Line 2 from the bottom” renders “Z. 2 v. u.”]
[p. 29] [Translator’s note: How to use this list: the entries run in the page order of Harnack’s book — first the continuously paginated monograph (pp. XII–264), then the separately paginated appendices (pp. 7*–318*), then a closing note on the earlier literature. Each entry carries a short lemma, added by the translator, naming its subject, so the list can be scanned without reading it through. The section headings are likewise the translator’s.]
[Corrections to the monograph (pp. XII–264)]
Index entry. Index, p. XII, line 10, add: p. 35* Basis Capitolina.
Pliny’s letter and Amisus. P. 21, line 10: Pliny’s letter about the Christians was written in or near Amisus; see Wilcken in Hermes vol. 49 (1914) pp. 120 ff.
“Gospel” as a book title. On pp. 27 ff.: It is to be emphasized here that, so far as we know, Marcion was the first to call a book “the Gospel”.
The rival apostles as hucksters. On p. 36, line 4: According to 2 Cor. 2:17 (he read οἱ λοιποί), Marcion also reproached the original apostles with τὸ καπηλεύειν τὸν λόγον τοῦ θεοῦ [“hawking the word of God”]; see on p. 130 and p. 94*.
Peter before James. On p. 42, note 1, add: and the placing of Peter before James (Gal. 2:9).
Cross-reference. On p. 48, text, line 2 from the bottom, compare below the note on p. 167*.
Luke 12:4 f. altered. On p. 51, after line 12: Luke 12:4 f. deliberately altered.
Justin on “every kind of men”. On p. 71, line 19: The expression of Justin (Apol., address) is to be compared here; Justin says that he intervenes on behalf of those ἐκ παντὸς γένους ἀνθρώπων ἀδίκως μισούμενοι καὶ ἐπηρεαζόμενοι [“of every kind of men who are unjustly hated and abused”].
The Antitheses against Acts and the Apocalypse. On pp. 81 ff.: In the Antitheses Marcion also declared himself against Acts and the Apocalypse of John; see pp. 152* ff.
Harris on the opening of the Antitheses. On p. 81: Harris holds it to be inconceivable that the jubilant utterance about the Gospel stood at the beginning of the “Antitheses”. He does, on the other hand, hold it very probable (following Tertull. I, 2) that considerations about the origin of evil stood there.
Salvation and the unbaptized Twelve. On p. 82: According to Tertull., de bapt. 12, M. denied salvation to the Twelve, because they were not baptized (Walter Bauer).
Reading: γενέσεως. On p. 89, line 2 from the bottom: read γενέσεως.
Reading: inenarrabilis. On p. 90, line 9 from the bottom: read inenarrabilis.
Christ as phantasm: an Arian witness. On p. 109, no. 23: Christ a phantasm in Marcion according to the testimony of an Arian preacher as well; see on p. 120 and p. 170*.
Deletion: lines belonging to Tertullian. P. 112: lines 23 and 24 are to be deleted, since they belong not to M. but to Tertullian (von Soden).
“in sabbato”. P. 115, line 2 from the bottom, and p. 271*, line 15 from the bottom: the “in sabbato” derives perhaps from John 5:8 ff. (von Soden), and therefore does not belong to Marcion.
Luke 5:13 in an Arian sermon. P. 120, on Luke 5:13: Zahn, Neue Kirchl. Zeitschr. 1910 pp. 512 f., discovered the following passage in the Latin sermons of an Arian on the Gospel of Luke [p. 30] (the Bobbio palimpsest, now Ambros. C 73 inf., in Mai, Script. Vet. Nova Coll. III, 2 p. 204): “Erubescat Marcio, qui de hoc loco fantasmatis et putativi corporis adsumit defensionem: Quia fantasmatis habuit corpus, ideo inquinari non potuit. Sed felix qui nos mundat et ipse non inquinatur.”
Didymus on 2 Cor. 2:17. P. 130, on 2 Cor. 2:17, M. remarked, according to Didymus (in Mai, Nova Patr. Bibl. IV, 2, 122): οἱ λοιποὶ (ἀποστόλοι) διδάσκουσι κατέναντι (= κατενώπιον) τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ ἑτέρου παρὰ τὸν πατέρα τοῦ σωτῆρος, τουτέστιν φθέγγονται ἐναντία αὐτῷ (that is, τῷ πατρὶ τοῦ σωτῆρος) [“the remaining (apostles) teach in the presence of the other God, distinct from the Father of the Saviour — that is, they utter things contrary to him (namely to the Father of the Saviour)”].
Deletion: Esnik’s inference. P. 131, lines 21–23 to be deleted, since these words are a spinning-out of consequences by Esnik.
Insertion: “the powers”. P. 134, line 4: before “of the world-creator” insert “the powers”.
Correction: “an” for “von”. P. 161, note 2, line 2 from the bottom: read “an” instead of “von”.
Correction: OT for NT. P. 243, note 1, line 4: read “OT” instead of “NT”.
Deletion: question marks. P. 264, line 8: the question marks are to be deleted.
Marcionitism and the two Mills. P. 264: A comparison with one of the principal features of Marcionitism can also be drawn with the teaching of the two Mills; see Jodl, Gesch. d. Ethik2 II, 1912, pp. 474 f., 713 f. (K. Thieme).
[Corrections to the appendices (pp. 7*–318*)]
The name “Marcion”. P. 7*, note 2, line 6 from the bottom, add: a Christian-Catholic brother “Marcion” in Smyrna, see Mart. Polyc. 20; a Marcion also on the Basis Capitolina, see p. 35*.
Reading: ἄθεοι. P. 7*, note 2, line 5 from the bottom: read ἄθεοι.
The prologue to John. P. 9*: It now seems to me very probable that in the prologue to the Gospel of John (on which see de Bruyne, Rev. Bénéd. 1921 Oct. pp. 14 f.; the prologue derives from the same very old author who composed the prologues to Mark, “Marcus adseruit qui colobodactylus”, and to Luke, “Est quidem Lucas Antiochensis”) the “a Johanne” at the end is to be deleted as an interpolation (compare Hieron., de vir. ill. 7 with Tert., de bapt. 17). Then it is Papias who rejected Marcion as heretical, after the latter had brought him letters (of recommendation) from Pontic brethren. This report is not incredible.
Ἄλλως in Cyprian. P. 60*, line 10 from the bottom: Ἄλλως is attested by Cyprian as well (twice) (von Soden). Influence of Marcion’s text?
Gal. 1:7: “omnino”. P. 66*, note on Gal. 1:7, line 9: von Soden thinks Tertullian could have added “omnino” on his own account (?).
Gal. 2:4 f.: “superinducticius”. P. 68*, note on Gal. 2:4 f., line 6 f.: von Soden judges “superinducticius” differently, probably rightly. (There is of course no reading “superinducticus”; I do not know how I came to the false statement.)
Gal. 3:26: the Hilary reference. P. 71*, note on Gal. 3:26, line 5: Hilarius, Hom. in Psalm. 91 p. 345 of the Vienna edition of the year 1891.
Reading: ἀνεπηγγειλάμεθα. P. 74*, line 11: perhaps ἀνεπηγγειλάμεθα is to be read.
1 Cor. 15:1–4: Rufinus. P. 89*, note on 1 Cor. 15:1–4, line 2: at the first occurrence Rufinus offers κατὰ τὰς γραφάς.
[p. 31] 1 Cor. 15:3: ὃ καὶ παρέλαβον. P. 89*, note on 1 Cor. 15:3, line 3: ὃ καὶ παρέλαβον is also lacking in Iren., Tertull., Hilar., Ambros., Ambrosiast., Vigil.; probably influence of M.’s text.
1 Cor. 15:11 and verses 5–8. P. 89*, note on 1 Cor. 15:11, line 2: verses 5–8 cannot therefore, at the least, have been entirely absent.
2 Cor. 2:17: ὡς οἱ λοιποί. P. 94*, line 17 and note on 2 Cor. 2:17: Marcion read, as the citation in Didymus indirectly shows, ὡς οἱ λοιποί with DEFGL al plur35 g syrutr arm Chrysost., Theodoret > οἱ πολλοί, and referred it to the original apostles (see on p. 36, line 4, and p. 130).
2 Cor. 3:13 restored to the text. P. 95*, line 4, insert (2 Cor. 3:13) into the text: Μωσῆς ἐτίθει κάλυμμα ἐπὶ τὸ πρόσωπον ἑαυτοῦ πρὸς τὸ μὴ ἀτενίσαι τοὺς υἱοὺς τοῦ Ἰσραήλ … τοῦ καταργουμένου [“Moses used to put a veil over his own face, so that the sons of Israel should not gaze … of that which was being abolished”] (after Tert. V, 11, where a few words from 2 Cor. 3:11 are also to be found).
Rom. 6:1–2 in Marcion. P. 103*: Rom. 6:1–2 must have stood in M.; for the “absit, absit” (Tert. I, 27) is to be explained from this passage.
The end of Romans: de Bruyne. P. 108*, on the conclusion of the Epistle to the Romans: To my regret I overlooked de Bruyne’s valuable study in the Rev. Bénédict. 1911 pp. 133–142. There it is shown that the closing verse in Marcion probably read: Ἡ χάρις μετὰ πάντων ἁγίων [“Grace be with all the saints”] (“Gratia cum omnibus sanctis”, reconstructed from the Monza manuscript, in which the letters “bus” are preserved). Since this greeting goes out to all Christians, one may rightly ask with de Bruyne whether the suppression of the reference to Rome in 1:7, 15 in some manuscripts does not ultimately go back to Marcion (or already to a pre-Marcionite recension?).
Cross-reference: Rom. 16:25–27. P. 108*, line 12 from the bottom: to “c. 16:25–27” add “see p. 145*”.
Closing bracket. P. 112*, line 9: place a closing bracket after θέλει.*
Correction: 29b. P. 117*, note, line 5 from the bottom: write 29b.
Insertion: “(et)”. P. 136*, line 16: after “veram” set the word “(et)”.
“Per Timotheum” uncertain. P. 136*, line 17: “Per Timotheum” is uncertain, since six manuscripts do not offer it.
Literature on the Marcionite prologues. P. 136*, note 1: add to the literature on the Marcionite prologues: Burkitt, Gospel Hist. and its transmission, 2nd ed. p. 353. Souter, Text and Canon of the N. T. pp. 205 ff. Souter, Character and Hist. of Pelagius’ Comment. on the epp. of St. Paul (Proceed. of the Brit. Acad., vol. VII, 1916, p. 24). To line 1 of this note add, after “1–16”, the figure “p. 257 ff.”.
The prologues and the Muratorian Fragment. P. 137*, text, line 7 from the bottom: with the expression “de ordinatione … ecclesiasticae disciplinae” the Muratorian Fragment is to be compared. Our prologue is probably the model. — On the prologues to the Pastoral Epistles see de Bruyne, Rev. Bened. 1921 Oct. pp. 13 f. He disputes their Marcionite origin; but his arguments prove only that they do not come from the author of the prologues to the ten Pauline letters. The expression that the heretics believe in the “scripturae Iudaicae”, however, proves the pen of a Marcionite; for it is established (see p. 150*) that
* Translator’s note: the printed text reads “Schlußkammer”; this is a misprint for “Schlußklammer”, closing bracket.
[p. 32] later Marcionites received the Pastoral Epistles. — The Marcionite origin of the prologue to Ephesians is also probable, if one places it a considerable time later than the prologue to Laodiceans and assumes an accommodation by later Marcionites to the Catholic title of the letter; in any case the prologue is modelled on the Marcionite ones. — That the prologues do not come from Rome or Italy follows from the sentence “Romani sunt in partibus Italiae”.
Harris on the prologue. P. 165*: Harris holds that the jubilant utterance about the Gospel does not belong to the Antitheses, but here, as a prologue.
Luke 4:16 ff. in D. P. 167*, on ch. 4:16 ff.: In D a part of the Marcionite text of this pericope is preserved, which through the omission of τεθραμμένος and αὐτῷ in v. 16 contains at the opening an entirely different sense: Ἐλθὼν δὲ εἰς Ναζαρὲδ ὅπου ἦν κατὰ τὸ εἰωθὸς ⟨εἰσῆλθεν⟩ (αὐτῷ is also lacking in e a c d, and e also omits κατὰ τὸ εἰωθός and reads, like D, ἐλθὼν δέ for καὶ ἦλθεν) ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τῶν σαββάτων εἰς τὴν συναγωγήν [“And having come to Nazareth, where he was, he entered, according to custom, on the day of the sabbath into the synagogue”]. A cabinet-piece of Marcion’s textual criticism; see R. Harris, Study of Codex Bezae in Texts and Studies II, 1 p. 232; Plummer, Comment. on the Gospel acc. to S. Luke, 1896, p. 119. According to M., after all, Jesus was not permitted to have been brought up in Nazareth, and was also not permitted to attend the synagogue according to his custom.
Cross-reference. P. 170*, line 3: compare here what is remarked on p. 120.
Luke 6:46 reconstructed. P. 177*, lines 2 f.: Perhaps M.’s text read: Τί καλεῖς· κύριε, κύριε, καὶ οὐ ποιεῖς ἃ λέγω; [“Why do you call: Lord, Lord, and do not do what I say?”]
Witness list: delete “e”. P. 185*, note, line 14 from the bottom: in the list of witnesses “e” is to be deleted.
“Your kingdom come”. P. 189*, line 2: Ἐλθάτω ἡ βασιλεία σου is probably to be traced to the influence of the text of Matthew (pre-Marcionite).
The Lord’s Supper: Bauer. P. 215* (Lord’s Supper): see on this W. Bauer in the Gött. Gel.-Anz. 1923, p. 13.
Manuscripts c and e. P. 216*, note, line 1 from the bottom: the manuscripts “c” and “e” offer the words in expanded form and at ch. 23:5.
“He is not here”. P. 219*, note, line 5 from the bottom: the words οὐκ ἔστιν ὧδε [“he is not here”] are not attested for M. and are lacking in D a b e; they may have been deleted by M.: Christ is everywhere. This deletion, like that in 1 Cor. 15:3 (see above on p. 89*), belongs among M.’s textual alterations which have penetrated into Catholic manuscripts.
Luke 24:12 deleted. P. 220*, line 12: Luke 24:12 was probably deleted by M.; see the next note.
Seven contested passages. P. 229*: The passages Luke 5:39; 9:54 ff.; 22:43 f.; 23:2a b; 23:34; 24:12; 24:40 belong together, and one may judge with probability, in some of them with certainty, that the readings (LL AA) here represented by D and the Old Latin witnesses together with Marcion (or the omissions) are not original, but are rather the Marcionite ones:
1. Ch. 5:39 (Οὐδεὶς πιὼν παλαιὸν θέλει νέον· λέγει γάρ· Ὁ παλαιὸς χρηστός ἐστιν) [“No one who has drunk old wine wants new; for he says: the old is good”]. This sentence is lacking in M., and it is lacking in [p. 33] D a b c ff2· l Euseb > all the remaining witnesses. It is therefore genuine and was deleted by M. for very understandable reasons.
2. Ch. 24:12 (Ὁ δὲ Πέτρος ἀναστὰς ἔδραμεν ἐπὶ τὸ μνημεῖον· καὶ παρακύψας βλέπει τὰ ὀθόνια μόνα· καὶ ἀπῆλθεν πρὸς αὐτὸν θαυμάζων τὸ γεγονός) [“But Peter arose and ran to the tomb; and stooping down he sees only the linen cloths; and he went away to himself, marvelling at what had happened”]. This sentence, well composed in Luke’s manner, cannot be attested in M.; otherwise it is lacking only in D a b e l fu, one Syriac witness, Eusebcan. It is therefore genuine and was deleted by M., who did not want Peter here.
3. Ch. 24:40 (καὶ τοῦτο εἰπὼν ἔδειξεν αὐτοῖς τὰς χεῖρας καὶ τοὺς πόδας) [“and having said this he showed them his hands and his feet”]. Cannot be attested in M.; otherwise lacking only in D a b e ff2 l syrcu. It is therefore genuine and was deleted by M. on dogmatic grounds.
4. Ch. 22:43 f. (the angel and the agony in Gethsemane). Lacking in M., but so strongly attested that the narrative, apart from the Alexandrian tradition (ℵBA etc.), was only very rarely absent, and virtually the whole West confirms it as well. It is certainly genuine, and M. deleted it on dogmatic grounds. Whether the Alexandrian text was influenced by him, or whether the Alexandrians took offence spontaneously, cannot be decided; the former seems to me probable.
5. Ch. 9:54 (ὡς καὶ Ἠλίας ἐποίησεν) [“as Elijah also did”] and 9:55 (καὶ εἶπεν· οὐκ οἴδατε [compare the οὐκ οἴδασιν at ch. 23:34] οἵου πνεύματός ἐστε ὑμεῖς) [“and he said: you do not know of what spirit you are”] are found — 54 in D a b c f g AC and most of the majuscules, cop syr (but not syrcu) aeth. go Basil., Chrys.; 55 in D, numerous majuscules, a b c e f g2 q vulg go cop syr arm aeth. and many Church Fathers. Since the pieces most probably stood in M. and fit his teaching excellently, they were added by him and have now penetrated into the Catholic manuscripts. Probably this holds also of the sentence 9:56 (ὁ γὰρ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου οὐκ ἦλθε ψυχὰς ἀνθρώπων ἀπολέσαι ἀλλὰ σῶσαι) [“for the Son of Man did not come to destroy men’s souls but to save them”], which several majuscules and a b c e f q vulg cop etc. offer; unfortunately the Marcion text fails us here; but in view of the overwhelming number of witnesses against the verse, it cannot be original. But who should have added it, if not M.?
6. Ch. 23:2 (καὶ καταλύοντα τὸν νόμον καὶ τοὺς προφήτας [“and destroying the law and the prophets”] and καὶ ἀποστρέφοντα τὰς γυναῖκας καὶ τὰ τέκνα [“and turning away the wives and the children”]). Two additions of M.’s, which b c e ff2 i l q gat mm, and (in the case of the second) c and e, have taken over from him.
7. Ch. 23:34 (ὁ δὲ Ἰησοῦς ἔλεγεν· Πάτερ, ἄφες αὐτοῖς, οὐ γὰρ οἴδασιν [this now acquires a pregnant sense: the henchmen of the world-creator can know nothing of the good God] τί ποιοῦσιν) [“But Jesus said: Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do”]. Added by M. and penetrating into ℵ*u. c ACDgr 2, many majuscules, c e f ff2 l vulg cop1 syr arm aeth Iren. > ℵa (uncis includit) BD* a b d sah cop2. That it, [p. 34] although original, should have been deleted, is quite inconceivable. To these passages Luke 4:16 also belongs (see above).
The good money-changers. On p. 235*, line 16: Perhaps the apocryphal saying about the good money-changers stood in M.’s Gospel, since Apelles quotes it.
Melito on the bath. On p. 241*, text, line 2 from the bottom: The fragment of Melito from the writing περὶ λουτροῦ [“On the Bath”] polemicizes covertly, without naming the name, against Marcion.
Arnobius and Marcion. On p. 259*: It is not improbable that Arnobius knew M. and took over from him the statements about vermin (that God cannot have created it) and about the loathsome body and procreation; see Arnob. II, 47, 55 (the highest God creates only quod omnibus sit salutare), IV, 19, 23; compare Koch in the ThLZ. 1922 col. 102 (to be added to the table of contents, p. XIII).
Dionysius of Rome on the Marcionites. On p. 259*, note 1: To the words of Dionysius about the teaching of the Marcionites add further: Εἰς τρεῖς ὑποστάσεις ξένας καὶ θεότητας τρεῖς ἀλλήλων παντάπασι κεχωρισμένας διαιροῦντες τὴν ἁγίαν μονάδα [“dividing the holy monad into three alien hypostases and three deities utterly separated from one another”].
Cross-reference. On p. 273*, line 16 from the bottom: Compare with this the statement of Dionysius of Rome in the preceding note.
Didymus among the opponents. On p. 274*, line 3: Didymus is to be inserted here as an opponent of M.; see p. 94* (to be added to the table of contents, p. XIV).
Amphilochius: Marcionites and Manichaeans. To be inserted on p. 275*, line 7 from the bottom: Marcionites alongside Manichaeans in a passage of Amphilochius (Against the Encratites; see Ficker, Amphilochiana pp. 62, 218); but the passage is of no importance. — Manichaeans, Cataphrygians and Marcionites in Nicetas of Remesiana, De symb. 10, likewise of no importance (to be added to the table of contents).
Marcion named. On p. 277*, line 10: On p. 31 M. is expressly named; on p. 35 there is unquestionably, on p. 10 probably, an allusion to him (von Soden).
Ephrem’s Prose Refutations. On p. 278*: See S. Ephrem’s Prose Refutations of Mani, Marcion and Bardaisan, transcribed from the Palimpsest B. M. Add. 14623 by the late C. W. Mitchell and A. A. Bevan and F. C. Burkitt, vol. II, The discourse called “of Domnus” and six other writings, 1921 (pp. XXIII–LXV: translation of the three books against Marcion).
The Good Samaritan. On p. 283*, line 7 from the bottom: See Zahn, Neue Kirchl. Ztschr. 1910 pp. 371 ff. From this one may perhaps conclude that M. had the parable of the Good Samaritan, which in itself is as good as certain in any case (Windisch).
Zenobius. On p. 284*, line 2: Zenobius is to be added to the table of contents, p. XIV.
Ahrens’s mistranslation. On p. 284*, note: Ahrens (Ahrens and Krüger, Die sog. Kirchengeschichte des Zacharias Rhetor, 1899, p. 245) has translated wrongly and misleadingly here: “They are not circumcised [p. 35] like the Marcionites”, instead of: “They do not hold themselves separate from us, as the Marcionites do.”
Isaac of Nineveh. On p. 285*, line 9: A late Syrian, Isaac of Nineveh (7th cent.), still mentions Marcion. Here the familiar triad Bardesanes, Marcion, Mani; see Duval, Littér. Syr. pp. 233 f. — Budge, The discourses of Philoxenus, bishop of Mabug, 1894, vol. II pp. XLV and CXXXVI, reports that Philoxenus (about the year 500) composed a tract against Mani, Marcion and Eutyches (unprinted). (To be added to the table of contents.)
Chrysostom and a Marcionite woman. On p. 290*, line 1: Photius (Biblioth. 96, p. 80a), who excerpts from the reports of Georgius about Chrysostom, relates that the latter converted a Marcionite woman in Antioch, and other Marcionites: Γυνή τις τῶν Μαρκιωνιστῶν (ἀρχὰς δέ τινας τῶν ἐν τῇ πόλει ὁ ταύτης ἐχείρισεν ἀνήρ) δυσεντερικῇ περιπεσοῦσα νόσῳ ἀπέγνωστο, τυχοῦσα δὲ τῆς ἰάσεως αὐτή τε καὶ ὁ ταύτης ἀνὴρ σὺν παντὶ τῷ οἴκῳ πρὸς τὴν ὀρθοδοξίαν ἐπέστρεψε [“A certain woman of the Marcionites — her husband held some of the magistracies in the city — having fallen into dysentery, was given up for lost; but on obtaining her cure, she herself and her husband, with the whole household, turned to orthodoxy”] (so this Marcionite had a wife and held a high position in the city) καὶ πολλοὶ ἄλλοι τῶν Μαρκιανιστῶν [“and many others of the Marcionites”]. Add to this p. 80b: Χρυσόστομος τὴν Μαρκίωνος αἵρεσιν κατὰ τὴν ἀνατολὴν φυομένην ἐξέτεμε [“Chrysostom cut out the heresy of Marcion which was growing up in the East”].
Augustine on the “Marcionists”. On p. 310*: Augustine mentions the “Marcionists” fairly often, but brings forward only what is already known; see for example De perfect. iust. 14; De gestis Pelag. 15; De bapt. c. Donat. III, 20; VII, 31 (“In Marcione agnoscenda est baptismi integritas”); Ep. 237, 2 (alongside Priscillianists). The Donatists Parmenian, Petilian and Cresconius also cited them; see for example c. Crescon. II, 4; IV, 75; further Prosper, Chron. ad ann. 636, see Chron. min. I p. 426 (to be added to the table of contents).
The Arian preacher and Jovinian. On p. 311*, text below: Here the unknown Arian preacher is to be inserted, who has cited a further sentence from the Antitheses; see above on p. 120. Further Jovinian; see in Hieron., adv. Jovin. I, 3: “Neque vero nos Marcionis et Manichaei dogma sectantes nuptiis detrahimus” (to be added to the table of contents). Whether a Marcionite element is present in Priscillian (see Lezius in the Prot. REncykl.3 vol. XVI p. 60) is at the very least questionable.
Arnobius the Younger. On p. 318*, after line 10: Arnobius the Younger too (Conflictus Arnobii et Serapionis p. 309 C) cites Marcion, and in Praedest. 21 he writes: “Marcionitae, cum universalem orientis ecclesiam macularent, ab Origene superati, confutati et per singulas sunt civitates damnati.” (Probably derived from Pamphilus, Apol. pro Orig., which is cited in ch. 22.) Where the closing statement (loc. cit.) comes from — “Quos Tertullianus modis omnibus ita obtinuit, ut ipsos faceret contra sectam suam publice praedicare” — I do not know; Tertullian’s report is to be compared, that M. wished to return to the Church on his deathbed (to be added to the table of contents).
[p. 36] Gennadius: Marcus, not Marcion. On p. 318*, line 14: Not Marcion but the Gnostic Marcus is meant here by Gennadius (de Bruyne); see further Gennadius, de eccl. dogm. no. 21: “Duo principia sibi ignota introducunt ut Cerdo et Marcion.”
[The earlier literature]
Earlier literature on Marcion. On the earlier literature about Marcion see R. B. Tollinton, The two elements in M.’s Dualism, in the Journal of Theol. Stud. 1916 April pp. 263–269 (correct, but nothing new). — Vacher Burch, A commentary on the Syriac Hymn of the soul, same place 1918 Jan. and April pp. 145–161 (the author seeks, on wholly inadequate grounds, to prove that Cerdo was the poet of the hymn; in the same journal, July 1920 p. 315, he simply cites the hymn under Cerdo’s name). — E. Boßhardt, Essai sur l’originalité et la probité de Tertullien dans son traité contre Marcion [Freiburg dissertation], Florence, 1921 (121 pp.; diligent, but not penetrating into the depths).
The man working on the sabbath. It is possible that the narrative of the man working on the sabbath (between Luke 6:4 and 5, or 6), which is contained only in D, is originally Lucan, that M. deleted it, and that this deletion had an almost complete success in the ecclesiastical Bibles as well. For (1) the narrative is synoptic in style, and indeed most akin to Luke’s style; if one feels reminded of Paul by the conclusion, this impression is uncertain, and would in any case not be surprising in Luke; (2) the narrative was quite intolerable for M., since it sharply expresses the continuing validity of the law within its limits; (3) the great, indeed unexampled, success of the excision is paradoxical, but this word of Jesus was bound very soon to be offensive to Catholic Christians as well, since it allows the sabbath, and with it the ceremonial law (in the literal sense), a relative validity.