Romans

Notes and Apparatus

I That M. struck out the mention of David from Rom. 1:3, Origen says, in his Commentary on John, Book X §24. — vv. 16, 17 Tertullian (V, 13): “‘“for I am not ashamed of the gospel; for it is the power of God unto salvation to everyone who believes, Jew and Greek, since the righteousness of God is revealed in it from faith unto faith.”’” — “to the Jew” with B, Gg, against “to the Jew first.” Since Tertullian’s citation of 18a follows immediately upon 17a and quotes it word for word, “as it is written, the righteous shall live by faith” must have been missing [between them].

18 “‘“since,” he says, “wrath” is declared “to be revealed from heaven upon the impiety and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness.”’” — “wrath” with minuscule 47, against “the wrath of God” — “upon the impiety” is unattested, against “upon all impiety.” Since Tertullian continues (ch. II, 2), “also adding: ‘we know, moreover, that the judgment of God is according to truth,’” and immediately afterward remarks: “‘but how many gaps Marcion has made in this epistle especially, by taking away what he wished, will be clear from the integrity of our text; it is enough for me to treat as his oversights and blindnesses the very things which he accordingly [p. 101*] did not see needed to be erased.’” With him, then, 2:2 was directly connected to 1:18 [1:19–2:1 having been struck out — see p. 101*]. Origen, however, complains that the Marcionites “have not touched with so much as the tip of a finger” the difficulties that weigh doubly on their own teaching in Rom. 1:24ff, since it is precisely on account of such passages (the punishing God) that they reject the Old Testament (Comm. I, 8 on Romans, vol. VI p. 55f). But one cannot conclude from this, even with any probability, that M. preserved the passage. Origen may simply be assuming this, or later Marcionites may have re-admitted it. “Upon those who do such things” (2:2b) need not have been missing (against Zahn), since it fits well with 1:18.

II, 12. 13 Epiphanius p. 118.175. — 13 “of the law” with K, L, P, respectively Dc, K, L, against “law” [without the article].

14 Tertullian (V, 13): see on v. 16.

16 Tertullian (V, 13): “‘“God,” he says, “will judge the hidden things of men,” both of those who sinned in the law and of those without the law, since “these too are ignorant of the law and by nature do the things of the law” … “but how will he judge? According to the gospel,” he says, “through Christ.”’” Dial. II, 5: “God will judge the hidden things of men, through Jesus Christ, according to my gospel.” On “according to my gospel” [κατὰ τὸ εὐαγγέλιόν μου] see also Dial. I, 6. Tertullian must have overlooked the “my” offered by the Dialogue at both places; for M. cannot have struck it out; by contrast, “Christ” (without “Jesus”) will be correct (so M. alone). In Origen too (Comm. in Joh. V, p. 104; the passage is printed above at Gal. 1:7) “my” stands (and “in Christ Jesus”).

20b Epiphanius p. 118.176.

21ff Tertullian (V, 13): “‘He inveighs against transgressors of the law, who teach “do not steal” and [yet] steal.’”

24 Tertullian (V, 13): “‘so that he brought in the prophetic rebuke: “because of you the name of God is blasphemed.”’”

25 Epiphanius p. 118.176, word for word; the first seven words likewise in Dial. II, 20. Origen, Commentary on Romans, ad loc.: “‘Marcion indeed, for whom nothing pleases to be understood by allegory — how he is to explain the apostle’s statement that circumcision profits, he will not find at all.’”

[p. 102*] 26–29 Tertullian (V, 13): “‘He prefers also “circumcision of the heart” to the foreskin … “circumcision of the heart,” not of the flesh, “in spirit, not letter” … his shall be the spirit circumcising the heart, whose also is the letter cutting the flesh; his also “the Jew who [is one] in secret,” whose also “the Jew in the open.”’”

III, 19 Tertullian (V, 13): “‘The law had brought the whole world into guilt and had stopped every mouth.’” It is not permissible (against Zahn) to exclude this allusion. For III, 20 one may appeal to Origen, Commentary III, 6 on Romans, vol. VI p. 195, who remarks against M. that Rom. 3:20 does not read “from the law is the knowledge of sin,” but “through the law.”

III, 21. 22, and V, 1 — the true state of affairs in Tertullian (V, 13) has not until now been properly seen through. He writes: “‘“then law, now the righteousness of God through the faith of Christ.”’” That “then law” also belongs to the text is shown by Tertullian’s continuing: “‘What is this distinction? Did your god serve the disposition of the creator, giving him his time and his law? Or does “then” belong to him whose also is “now”? Does “law” belong to him whose also is “the faith of Christ”? It is a distinction of dispositions, not of gods; he admonishes those justified from faith in Christ, not from the law’” (one sees how close the connection is, and from III, 21 (“apart from the law”) “not from the law” has been taken up into V, 1 and “of Christ” attached to “faith”) “‘to have peace toward God.’” — III, 21 “then, law” is M.’s own insertion, and likewise the fusing together of III, 21 and 22 belongs to him — “faith of Christ” with B, against “faith of Jesus Christ” — V, 1 “of Christ” [genitive], standing alone — “let us have” with the majority and the Latin witnesses, against “we have” — so M. himself already offered that senseless reading.

V, 6 Epiphanius p. 118.177, word for word.

8. 9 Dial. V, 12 (Rufinus: “God … love” [deus caritatem, i.e. this word order], “from wrath through him”) — “God toward us” with D, G, L, d, g, Origen, Augustine, against “toward us, God” [word order] — 9 “much more” with D*, d, g, Irenaeus, Origen, Ambrosiaster, against “much more, then” — “through him” is missing in the [p. 103*] Greek of the Dialogue; the word order after “from the wrath” is not otherwise attested.

20 Tertullian (V, 13): “‘“But the law,” he says, “came in besides, that the trespass might abound.” Why? “That grace,” he says, “might the more abound.”’” On this basis I do not venture, with Zahn, to take it as certain that M. wrote “that grace might super-abound.” Tertullian passes over the words “but where sin abounded,” and so had to alter the construction. That this passage stood in M.’s text is also attested by Origen (Commentary V, 6 on Romans, vol. VI p. 368f). He writes: “‘If indeed, before the law was given through Moses, no one had sinned, then Marcion and the other heretics, wishing to accuse the law from these words of the apostle, would seem to take the occasion [to argue] as though this were the reason the law was given: that sin, which had not existed before the law, might abound.’”

21 Tertullian (V, 13): “‘“So that just as sin had reigned unto death, so also grace might reign in righteousness unto life through Jesus Christ.”’” — “unto death” (against the generally attested “in death”) is not certain — “in righteousness” is otherwise unattested, against “through righteousness” (also not certain) — “eternal,” missing here after “life,” is otherwise attested throughout.

VI, 3. 9. 10. 14a. 19. 20 All these citations derive from the Dialogues (V, 12; V, 11 [for v. 9]; V, 12 [for v. 9, 10]; I, 27 [for v. 14a]; III, 7; I, 27). They are not, in themselves, certainly Marcionite; but some readings suggest this origin. — 3 “you [pl.] were baptized” is a singular/unique reading; but since Rufinus, with all witnesses, reads “we were baptized,” that reading is not certain — “Christ” with B, minuscules, Origen, against “Christ Jesus” — 9 cited twice, both times “but Christ, having risen” (so too Rufinus: “rising from the dead,” respectively “he rose from the dead”), against “knowing that Christ, having been raised from the dead” — [M.’s reading] standing on its own; that reading [ὁ δὲ Χριστὸς ἀναστάς] is Marcionite, see on Gal. 1:1 — 14a (Rufinus only) “in us” is without other witnesses, against “you” [plural] — “no longer” [p. 104*] with ℵ*, K, Origen, against “not” — 19 (“for” is attested by Rufinus — “to serve,” both times [in] Rufinus, against “slaves” of the Greek text — “so now” [Rufinus], against “thus” of the Greek text — the second “your” is missing in the Greek text — “in righteousness” [Rufinus], against “to righteousness,” the Greek text): “to serve” with G, d, g, vulg., Origen, Ambrosiaster, against “slaves” — “to unrighteousness and uncleanness” is otherwise unattested, against “to uncleanness and lawlessness” — “to serve God in righteousness” [τῷ θεῷ δουλεύειν ἐν τῇ δικαιοσύνῃ] is otherwise unattested, against “slaves to righteousness.” That reading is Marcionite; it is not to “righteousness” that one should place oneself in service, but to God — 20 “but” (missing in the Greek), otherwise unattested, against “for” — “you were slaves” with L, against “slaves you were” [word order]. The Armenian-preserved anti-Marcionite Syrian writer (see on him in Beilage V) cites v. 5 as standing in M.’s Apostolikon, but as regards the exact wording (“for if we have been planted together for the death of our Lord, so likewise also for his resurrection”), there is no certainty beyond “planted together.” From Jerome’s Against John of Jerusalem, ch. 36, it follows that v. 4 was preserved in M.

VII, 4 Tertullian (V, 13): “‘“Dead,” he says, “to the law” ‹through the body of Christ›; the body of Christ, then, is [what he means] … he calls “body” that one whom he goes on to say rose from the dead’” (Kroymann’s supplied phrase is necessary here).

5 Dial. V, 22. Since the citation is joined with a citation from Rom. 8:9, the Dial. here offers the 2nd person for the 1st; I have corrected this. Rufinus rightly [reads] “through the law”; the Greek text erroneously [reads] “through the flesh” — “in us” is otherwise unattested, against “in our members.”

7 Tertullian (V, 13): “‘“What then shall we say — that the law is sin? By no means” … “but I would not know sin except through the law.”’” — “but I” is otherwise unattested, against “but” [alone] — “that” [ὅτι] with a few minuscules, against its absence — “I would know” is otherwise unattested, against “I knew” [aorist].

8 (11) Tertullian (V, 13): “‘It was not the law, then, that deceived, but sin, through the occasion of the commandment.’”

12 Epiphanius p. 118.177. Dial. II, 20, word for word. Tertullian (V, 13): “‘The law [is] holy, and its commandment just and good’” (the translator has apparently confused the abbreviations for “holy” [ἅγιος] and “itself” [αὐτός]).

13 Dial. II, 20, word for word.

[p. 105*] 14 Tertullian (V, 13): “‘he confirms the “law” to be “spiritual.”’” — 18 That the Marcionites used this saying — that nothing good dwells in the flesh — for their teaching, is stated by Clement, Stromata III, 11, 76.

23 Tertullian (V, 14): “‘the law of sin dwelling in his members and opposing the law of the mind.’”

24 Dial. V, 21, word for word.

25b Dial. V, 27, word for word; “then indeed” is missing in Rufinus, otherwise unattested, against “then, therefore” — “with the mind indeed” [τῷ μὲν νοΐ] with the majority, against “with the mind” [without μέν] in ℵ*, G, d, e, f, g, Origen, Ambrosiaster — “of God” is otherwise unattested, against “God” [without the article].

VIII, 1. 2 Dial. V, 27 — “us” with the Coptic, Ethiopic, and Arabic (Erpenius) [witnesses], against “me”/“you.”

3 Tertullian (V, 14): “‘If the Father sent this one “in the likeness of sinful flesh”’” (again shortly afterward). “Father” is otherwise unattested, against “God” — but Tertullian is only paraphrasing here; I therefore do not venture to adopt “the Father” [into the reconstructed text].

4a Epiphanius p. 118.177. 4–6 Dial. V, 22 — 5 “walking” is otherwise unattested, against “being” — 6 The text offers, after “flesh,” the words “enmity toward God” in place of “death”; these derive from the next verse and have probably been anticipated here only by an oversight.

9 Dial. V, 22 (twice; the second time “now” for “you,” otherwise unattested, but to be retained — compare “then” at 3:21). Tertullian (V, 14): “‘... he does not wish us to be in the flesh, though we are in the flesh.’”

10 Tertullian (V, 14): “‘the body indeed dead because of sin, but the spirit life because of righteousness.’”

11 Tertullian (V, 14): “‘he who raised Christ from the dead will give life also to your mortal bodies.’” — “from the dead,” after “Christ,” with ℵc, B, D, G, K, vulg., [p. 106*] Origen, Irenaeus, against “from the dead” after “raised” [word order] — “(the) Christ” with ℵc, Dc, G, L, P, Valentinus, and the Fathers, against “Christ Jesus.”

19–22 struck out; for Origen writes, Homily I, 7 on Ezekiel, vol. XIV, p. 20f: “‘For “the expectation of the creature awaits the revelation of the sons of God,” and although those who have interpolated the apostolic scriptures do not wish there to be such sayings in their books — sayings by which the creator could be shown approved as Christ — yet “every creature” awaits [it],’” etc.

36 Dial. I, 21. It is not certain that these words are drawn from M.’s Bible.

No citation from ch. 9 in Tertullian, Epiphanius, or Adamantius; but Tertullian (V, 14) writes here: “‘I leap here too across a very wide breach in the mutilated scripture, but I take hold of (X, 1–4) the apostle “bearing witness” to Israel “that they have a zeal for God” — their own, to be sure — “but not according to knowledge”; for,” he says, “being ignorant of God and seeking to establish their own righteousness, they did not submit themselves to the righteousness of God; for the end of the law is Christ, unto righteousness, for everyone who believes.”’” — Not only is the word order at X, 3 different from the transmitted text, but “God” [θεόν, as the object of “being ignorant”] is also a singular, unique reading (so too in what follows, “ignorance of God,” “ignorance toward God”), against “the righteousness of God” — 4 also Epiphanius p. 118.178. Tertullian’s “Israel” shows that M. read v. 1 “on behalf of Israel,” with K, L, and the Antiochene Fathers, against “on behalf of them.”

No citations from X, 5–XI, 32 in Adamantius and Epiphanius. The saying XI, 33 fit excellently, in M.’s sense, with X, 4 — something Tertullian, admittedly, cannot see, and at which he marvels. M. had to strike out the omitted section for dogmatic reasons.

XI, 33 Tertullian (V, 14): “‘And yet he exclaims: “O the depth of the riches and wisdom of God, and how unsearchable” (not to be emended!) “are his ways! Whence this (Mss.: “irae” [of wrath]) outburst?” From the recollection, evidently, of the scriptures which he had unrolled before; from the contemplation of the mysteries which he had discussed above, concerning the faith of Christ that comes from the law. If Marcion deliberately erased these things, why does his apostle exclaim — looking upon no riches of a God so poor and needy?’”

[p. 107*] Immediately afterward, again: “‘O the depth of the riches and wisdom of God.’” Then, XI, 34f: “‘For who has known the mind of the Lord, or who has been his counselor? Who has first given to him, and it will be repaid to him?’” Thereupon: “‘You who have taken away so much from the scriptures — why have you kept these words (XI, 34. 35), as though they too were not the creator’s?’” (because they come from Isaiah) — 33 the words “and of knowledge” and “how unsearchable are his judgments” are deliberately struck out — 35 “or who” is the otherwise-attested reading. In adv. Marc. II, 2 Tertullian cites Rom. 11:33f according to the catholic text.

XII, 9. 10. 12. 14. 16. 17. 18. 19 Tertullian (V, 14): “‘“hating,” he says, “what is evil, and cleaving to what is good”’” 10 “‘“in brotherly love, being affectionate toward one another”’” 12 “‘“rejoicing in hope,” enduring affliction’” 14 “‘“bless, and do not curse”’” (this too appears in one of M.’s Antitheses, in Origen, Homily XV, 3 on Numbers 23:8, vol. X p. 174) 16 “‘“not minding high things, but going along with the lowly; do not be wise in your own estimation”’” 17 “‘“repay no one evil for evil”’” 19 “‘“nor avenging yourselves; for vengeance is mine, and I will repay, says the Lord”’” 18 “‘“keep peace with all” (perhaps also “men”?)’” M. has thus transposed v. 18 and v. 19, which is logical, and has certainly left out “it is written” (v. 19), and probably “but give place to wrath” (tendentiously). On the other omissions one cannot judge; the somewhat different word order and a few minor details may be put down to Tertullian, who interrupts his transcription of the text several times. — 19 “and I” with Cyprian, Ambrosiaster (Tertullian himself, adv. Marc. IV, 16), against “I” [alone].

XIII, 8b Epiphanius p. 118.178.

9. 10 Dial. II, 17 (Rufinus omits “in”). The word order “you shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery” is otherwise unattested and has been conformed to the Decalogue; “you shall not covet” is missing, with Clement of Alexandria and Origen — “in this word” with A, L, P, d, vulg., Clement of Alexandria, against “in this word” [reversed order]. Tertullian (V, 14): “‘Deservedly, then, the whole

[p. 108*] discipline of the creator he concluded with his chief commandment: “you shall love your neighbor as yourself. This is the supplement of the law.”’”

XIV, 10 Tertullian (V, 14): “‘And it is well that in the conclusion he threatens with “the judgment-seat of Christ”’” (“Christ” with ℵc, C, L, P, Polycarp, etc., against “of God” with the great majority and D, G, d, g). Thus, according to Tertullian, only a little more stood in the letter. But this is also expressly attested by Origen (Commentary on Romans, after quoting 16:25ff): “‘This chapter, Marcion — by whom the evangelic and apostolic scriptures have been interpolated — removed entirely from this epistle; and not only this, but from the place where it is written, “But whatever is not of faith is sin,” he cut away everything to the end. In other copies, however — that is, in those which have not been tampered with by Marcion — we find this very chapter (Rom. 16:25–27) placed differently,’” etc. So the letter closed at 14:23. Zahn’s attempt to interpret Origen’s words otherwise (he wants, among other things, to understand “dissecuit” as “cut to pieces,” as though it could not properly mean, in good Latin, “cut off”) has failed. Nor is such an ending in bad taste (“which one cannot credit to Marcion,” so Zahn, History of the New Testament Canon II, p. 521) if a short closing greeting-formula followed it. In my view, such a formula is not excluded by Origen’s words — that is, 16:24 could have stood right after 14:23 — and indeed de Bruyne (in Corssen, p. 101) has shown that this is exactly the case in a fragmentarily preserved manuscript from Monza. On the textual history of Romans 15–16, see Corssen (Zeitschrift für neutestamentliche Wissenschaft X, pp. 1ff, 97ff); he has made it probable, among other things, that these chapters were originally missing also from the Old Latin text as represented by D, G. Chapter 16:25–27 M. did not read (nor do Irenaeus, Tertullian, or Cyprian attest them). The verses are spurious, but look very Marcionite (see Corssen). In that case, later Marcionites must have added them (compare Lietzmann, Römerbrief², p. 124f) in order to give the letter a conclusion; with corrections, they subsequently made their way into the catholic Bibles. Zahn (loc. cit., p. 428ff) supposes that later Marcionites, too, appealed to these verses, and grounds this on Origen’s discussion (according to Jerome) of Eph. 3:5, which is directed against heretics who made use of this passage for their own purposes; but that these heretics were Marcionites is at the very least not certain. — Ch. 14:21 is attested by Esnik (Schmidt p. 197): “‘But they say that the apostle says: “It is better not to eat meat, and not to drink wine, and [p. 109*] not [to do] anything by which my brother takes offense.”’” A text other than the one transmitted [i.e., the canonical wording] is not to be assumed here.