2 Corinthians

Notes and Apparatus

I, 3 Tertullian (V, 11): “‘Blessed be the God of our Lord Jesus Christ’” (“and Father” is missing after “God”) … “‘Father of mercies’” (several times).

20 Epiphanius p. 123.173 (here reading “for all the [promises]”); Dial. II, 18: “for as many as” through “yes.”

II, 14–16 Dial. II, 20. In v. 15, “to God” is deliberately missing after “we are” — 16 “to the ones/to the others” [τοῖς, a singular reading in each case] against “to whom” [οἷς] (both times) — “of life” with Rufinus, D, G, K, L, Itala, vulg., Irenaeus, Augustine, Ambrosiaster, against “from life” [in the Greek of the Dialogue].

17 Didymus alludes to this as a proof-text of the Marcionites (discovered by Zahn); see Mai, Nova Patrum Bibliotheca IV, 2, 122: “One must not heed those who say, on the authority of the heterodox, that the apostles, teaching in Christ ‘before God’ [as one] other than the Father of the Savior — that is, opposed to him — utter [these words].”

III, 3 Dial. V, 27 (at the start, “more manifestly,” but that was required by the manner of the introduction; “but” [in] Rufinus, “but in” [in] the Greek text). Tertullian (V, 11): “‘he who had engraved the letter on tablets of stone had likewise proclaimed [it] concerning the spirit.’”

[p. 95*] 6 Tertullian (V, 11): “‘So too “the new covenant” will not belong to another [god] … if not of “the letter”, yet of his [the creator’s] “spirit” … if “the letter kills, but the spirit gives life.”’”

11 Dial. II, 27 (Rufinus, both times, “in glory”; “much” [πολύ] a singular reading; and “and does not pass away” a singular reading [missing in Rufinus]). Chapter 3:6–11 is also cited in the Acta Archelai 45, in a passage that probably derives from M.’s Antitheses.

13 Tertullian (V, 11): “‘He also recalls the veil of Moses, with which he covered a face that could not be looked upon by the children of Israel — if this was so, in order that he might uphold the greater brightness of the new covenant, which remains in glory, over that of the old, which was destined to be done away with.’”

14. 15 Tertullian (V, 11): “‘“But the senses of the world (not, of course, of the creator, but of the people who are in the world)” are dulled; for he is speaking of Israel —; “even to the present day the veil itself remains upon their heart”’” — “world” [mundi] (according to M., mundus is the designation of the world-creator) tendentiously, against “their” [αὐτῶν]. In the second half of the citation v. 14a is continued by v. 15c; one could think of a great homoeoteleuton in a manuscript (“day the same veil upon < the reading of the old covenant remains, not being uncovered, because in Christ it is done away with; but until today, whenever Moses is read, a veil upon > their heart lies”), and that is probable, since Tertullian continues: “he shows that the veil on the face of Moses was then a figure of the veil of the heart in the people, because even now Moses is not perceived by them with the heart, just as then not by the face.” But the actual content of 14b and 15ab is thereby scarcely touched, so that one must assume that a homoeoteleuton is indeed present here, but that the text [before Tertullian] read differently [in its wording].

16 Tertullian (V, 16): “‘But when he shall have turned to God, the veil will be taken away’” — “God” standing alone, against “the Lord” — or “it will be taken away” [passive, impersonal] (all witnesses [read] “it is taken away”).

18 Tertullian (V, 16): “‘He says, then, “we,” now “with unveiled face,” beholding Christ, are being transformed into the same image, from the glory of the Lord into glory, just as by the Lord of spirits’” — “omnes” [“all”] is missing after “we” — “now” [iam] otherwise unattested, against “but” [δέ] — “Christ” standing alone, against “the glory of the Lord” — “of [the] glory of the Lord” standing alone, against “from glory” — “of spirits” [spirituum, plural] standing alone, against “of [the] Spirit” [πνεύματος] — or, with G, ἀποπτριζόμενοι [a variant form of κατοπτριζόμενοι, “beholding as in a mirror”]?

[p. 96*] IV, 4 So Dial. II, 21 (Rufinus: “‘that the illumination of the gospel not shine forth’” [emphatic double negative]) — “unto” [εἰς], a singular/unique reading, against “toward” [πρός] — “shine through” [διαυγάσαι] with A, against “shine forth” [αὐγάσαι] — “to them” [αὐτοῖς] (some manuscripts faultily read “their” [αὐτῶν]) with Dbc, K, L, P, vulg., Origen, against a reading that omits it. Tertullian (V, 11): “‘In whom the god of this age has blinded the minds of the unbelieving’” — compare Irenaeus III, 7, 1, etc. The last four words only in Tertullian (V, 11): “‘who is the image of God’” [qui est imago dei].

5.6a through “shall shine,” Epiphanius p. 123.174 (“through Jesus” [genitive] with ℵ*, A**, C, d, g, vulg. and the Latin witnesses, against “through Jesus” [accusative] — “shall shine,” see below). 6 Dial. II, 19, and Tertullian (V, 11) in full: “‘since God, who said that light should shine out of darkness, has shone again in our hearts, unto the illumination of the knowledge of him in the person of Christ’” — “shall shine” in Epiphanius with many witnesses, against “to shine” in Tertullian and the Dialogue with ℵc, Dc, G, C, H, K, L, P, d, g, vulg., etc. — “has shone” in Tertullian and Rufinus with D*, G, d, g, against “who has shone” in the Greek of the Dialogue (but Tertullian read “has illuminated,” and probably Rufinus too, alongside “shone forth”) — “of us” in Tertullian, with almost all witnesses, against “of you” in the Dialogue with C — “toward” is missing in Rufinus — “of glory” is missing in Tertullian (the copyist’s fault, as a passage shortly afterward proves) — “of him” in Tertullian and the Dialogue with C*, D*, G, d, g, against “of God.”

7 Dial. II, 27 (Rufinus: “therefore” is missing — “is” [placed] after “of the power” — “from us” [instead of “of us”]). The singular readings unattested by Rufinus (including “not” for “not,” in a different word) must nonetheless be acknowledged [as Marcion’s]. Allusions in Tertullian (V, 11): “‘a treasure in earthen vessels’” … “‘the glory of God in earthen vessels’” … “‘the excellence of the power of God’” … “‘so that its excellence might be tested.’”

8–10 Tertullian (V, 11): “‘“earthen vessels,” in which he says we suffer such great things; in which also “we carry about the mortification” of “god” … but indeed he proposes “that the life of Christ, too, may be manifest in our body” … of what life of Christ does he then speak?’” Tertullian thus read, against “Jesus,” “god” at the first place and “Christ” at the second (“Christus” [is read by] D*, Gdg, Origen at the first place; D*, Gdg, Irenaeus, Origen, Ambrose at the second); Marcion’s relative modalism becomes evident here — “may be manifest” placed first, with A, vulg., Coptic — “in the body” [singular], with the majority, against “in the bodies” [plural].

[p. 97*] 11 Dial. V, 27 (Rufinus: “for” is missing — “Jesus” for “of Christ” — “in carne nostra mortali” [“in our mortal flesh”]). “Always” is missing (but that is not significant, on account of how the sentence begins) — “through Jesus” is missing after “we are handed over” (deliberately?) — “of Christ” with C, “of Jesus Christ” with D*, Gdg (Dc deletes “Christ”), “Jesus” [is] the great majority’s reading — the reading attested elsewhere: ἐν τῇ θνητῇ σαρκὶ ἡμῶν [“in our mortal flesh,” with ἡμῶν after σαρκί]. Tertullian (V, 11): “‘He says the future life of Christ will be manifest in the body.’” (So he too did not read “Jesus.”)

13 Epiphanius p. 123.175. Epiphanius remarks: [Marcion] cut out “according to what is written” [τὸ κατὰ τὸ γεγραμμένον] — together with the saying itself, “I believed, therefore I also spoke” — which has thereby become unintelligible, and which Epiphanius, too, accordingly omits.

16–18 Tertullian (V, 11): “‘And how, in what follows, does he not exhort to “visible things” nor to “temporal things,” but to “invisible” and “eternal” [things] — that is, not to things present, but to things future? Saying that “our outer man” indeed “is being corrupted” … concerning which he had said beforehand, adding, “and we do not lose heart”; for he also says that “our inner man is being renewed from day to day.”’” — 16 “and we shall not lose heart” [in this form] is a singular, unique reading — “man” [is supplied] after “the inner” [ἔσω] with the Armenian witness (but Tertullian had to add the word himself).

V, 1–3 Tertullian (V, 12) [translator’s note: a difficult, polemically compressed passage; the rendering below should be treated as provisional]: “‘He does not say, “‹in place of› our earthly dwelling,” “we have an eternal house, not made with hands, in heaven” — since whatever is made by hand belongs to the creator, let it perish entirely, being “dissolved” after death … he continues: “we groan,” from this “earthly tabernacle of the body, longing to put on over it [our house] that is from heaven: if indeed, being unclothed, we shall not be found naked.”’” — 1 elsewhere “not made with hands, eternal” [in this word order] — elsewhere “in the heavens” [plural] — 3 “having been unclothed” [ἐκδυσάμενοι] with D*, Gdg, and the Latin witnesses, against “having been clothed” [ἐνδυσάμενοι] — elsewhere “naked, we shall be found” [in this word order].

4 Tertullian (V, 12): “‘“for indeed we who are” in this “tabernacle of the body groan,” being weighed down, “not wishing to be unclothed but to be further clothed,” so that “what is mortal may be swallowed up” by “life”’” — “this” [τούτῳ], with D, Gdg, vulg., Ambrosiaster, Origen, etc., against a reading that omits it — “of the body” is unattested elsewhere [i.e., attested only here] — “wishing” [θέλοντες, the participle] is unattested elsewhere and uncertain; the underlying text may also have read, as all the witnesses give it, “wherein we do not wish” [ἐφ’ ᾧ οὐ θέλομεν]; “this” [τοῦτο], with Gg, Ambrosiaster, against a reading that omits it. In Dial. V, 27, v. 4c is coupled with 1 Cor. 15:54.

[p. 98*] 5.6.8 Tertullian (V, 12): “‘“the earnest,” he says, we have “of the spirit” from “God” … and [we know we are] “away from the Lord” so long as we are in the flesh, and that on this account we ought to think it good to be away from the body rather, and to be with the Lord.’”

10 Tertullian (V, 12): “‘And indeed he says that we must all be made manifest before the judgment-seat of Christ, so that each may receive what he did through the body, whether good or bad.’” Dial. I, 16: “each receives from Christ, whether good or bad” (Rufinus: “each shall receive from the Lord what he has done, whether good or bad”). Evidently the later Marcionites felt the “tribunal” of Christ to be unfitting — “the things [done] through the body” is also missing in L — “which” [ἅ], with D*, G, and the Latin manuscripts (though where they have “which through …” they read it as “their own” [ἴδια]), against “the things” [τά] — “he did,” with D*, G, against “in accordance with what he did.”

17 Tertullian (V, 12): “‘“If then there is any new state of being in Christ,” the old things have passed away — behold, all things have become new.’” In Dial. II, 16: “if anyone [is] in Christ” (“if any [state of being is] in Christ,” Rufinus), “[it is a] new creation, the old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new.” The Latin version in Tertullian is original — “all things” [τὰ πάντα] with Dbc, K, L, P, and a few Fathers (and at this place too), against a reading that omits it (“all things” is found before “new” in the minuscules and by several Fathers).

[VI, 14f, Dial. III, 4: a saying of the Bardesanite Marinus]. adv. Marc. III, 8: “‘the apostle denies fellowship between light — that is, truth — and deceit — that is, darkness.’”

VII, 1 Tertullian (V, 12): “‘if he even bids that “we cleanse ourselves from the defilement of flesh and blood” substance † to obtain the kingdom of God.’” The text has evidently a gap here; Zahn’s filling-out with 1 Cor. 15:50 as part of Marcion’s text here is not convincing, nor is Kroymann’s [proposal]; see on 11:2 — “blood” standing alone and tendentiously, against “of the spirit.”

[p. 99*] XI, 2 Tertullian (V, 12) — connected immediately with the preceding sentence: “‘if he also destines the church, a “holy virgin,” “to present to Christ,” surely as a bride to the bridegroom’” etc. Since VII, 1 and XI, 2 stand as parallel sentences and are also connected in substance, Zahn and others have concluded that Marcion had deleted everything lying between VII, 1 and XI, 2. But this assumption faces the gravest difficulties; for (1) Adamantius preserves c. X, 18 (see Dial. II, 2 [Rufinus: “… that one is approved”, against ἐστιν δόκιμος of the Greek Dialogue] — δόκιμός ἐστιν [in this order] D d r vulg. ℵ*. The absence of ἐκεῖνος is otherwise unattested), and if there is room for doubt about the Marcionite origin of this citation, it is also to be noted (2) that just here, in the text of Tertullian, a gap is found (see above), of which we do not know how large it was; a whole leaf could have fallen out. (3) The deletion of four entire chapters by M. is not credible (with Rom. 3:31–4:25; 9:1–33; 10:5–11:32; 15 and 16 the situation is different, see there), particularly since in these chapters there is much that must have especially suited him. (4) Tertullian himself treats the second, larger half of 2 Corinthians elsewhere quite briefly too; see on ch. 6, 11, 12, 13. (5) A gap of 73 verses Tertullian would certainly have noted as such. To be noted here too is that Ephraem (36th hymn against the heretics, ch. 7) against M. most probably cites 2 Cor. 8:9 (ἐπτώχευσε [he became poor]).

XI, 13 Tertullian (V, 12): “‘If he even calls “false apostles” “deceitful workers, transforming themselves.”’” 14 Tertullian (V, 12): “‘If “Satan transforms himself into an angel of light.”’”

XII, 2 Tertullian (V, 12): “‘Concerning “paradise” there is a separate treatise [of mine, i.e. Tertullian’s De paradiso] … “a man caught up to heaven” is an example from the creator’s [economy], in Elijah … [and he says that] the creator applied his angel of Satan to his own apostle, and, though thrice besought by him, did not grant [its removal] … “so that virtue might be proved in weakness.”’” adv. Marc. I, 14, 29 alludes to v. 9. Esnik (Schmid, p. 180): “But Paul, they say, was caught up into the third heaven, and he heard those unspeakable words (which we preach). But behold, Paul says: ‘What the tongues of men are not permitted to utter’”; see also p. 185, where the words are again found: “he was caught up into paradise”; p. 186: “and I heard unspeakable words, which no one is permitted to utter.”

[p. 100*] XIII, 1 Dial. II, 18 (Rufinus: “Behold, this is the third [time] … for in the mouth of two [witnesses]” …) — “behold” with ℵc, A, and many minuscules, vulg., Damasus, Augustine — “for” in Rufinus, without other witnesses — “or” [ἤ] with ℵ, vulg. — the above position of “witnesses” [μαρτύρων] only in the minuscule a^scr [Scrivener’s a]. Tertullian (V, 12): “‘laying down in advance that “every word shall stand” “on [the testimony of] three witnesses.”’”

XIII, 2 Tertullian (V, 12): “‘He also threatens that he will not spare “sinners.”’” That Tertullian writes “sinners” (against “those who have previously sinned”) is perhaps not to be pressed.

3 Dial. V, 6. “or” [ἤ] with vulg., Origen, and other Fathers, against “since” [ἐπεί].

4 Dial. V, 12 (Rufinus without the second “and”) — “if” with ℵc, A, Dbc, L, vulg., etc., against a reading that omits it — “and” [in its second occurrence] with Origen, Hippolytus, and a few Fathers, against a reading that omits it.

10 Tertullian (V, 12): “‘nay rather, he affirms this too for himself: that a power “to deal more harshly” was given by the Lord “for the present.”’”