1–2 Thessalonians

Notes and Apparatus

Epiphanius p. 178: “‘Of the [first] epistle to the Thessalonians, the fifth epistle — for so it stands in Marcion — but being eighth in the apostle’s [collection], with Marcion having everything from it distorted, we have set forth nothing from it,’” and “‘Of the second [epistle] to the Thessalonians, standing sixth in Marcion but being ninth in the apostle’s [collection], likewise distorted by him, we again have not set forth [anything from it].’” When Epiphanius, years before, made his excerpts from the Pauline letters, he had noted nothing from these two letters; and now, the actual state of affairs having been forgotten, he interpreted this as though the letters were hopelessly falsified and perverted.

II, 14. 15 Dial. V, 12 (but Rufinus offers the text only up to “having killed”; also, only he has “and you”). Tertullian (V, 15): “‘The Jews had killed their own prophets’”; then, “‘who also killed the Lord,’” saying “‘and their own prophets,’” although “their own” is the heretic’s addition. According to Tertullian, the text read “and their own prophets” (with Dbc, K, L, and a few Fathers), against [merely] “the prophets” — 15 “the Lord” with minuscules, Origen, Chrysostom, against “the Lord Jesus.” It is not certain that Dial. V, 12 took its citation from M.’s Bible.

IV, 3–5 Tertullian (V, 15): “‘But that he calls “our sanctity the will of God” is to be recognized from the contrary things he forbids: for he says, “to abstain from fornication,” “that each one know how to treat his own vessel in honor” … “not in lust, as the Gentiles [do].”’” 4 “each one” with B³, Db, Chrysostom, against “each” [alone] — throughout, “in sanctification and honor” is otherwise attested (but Tertullian, a few lines later, also leaves out “in sanctification”: “‘that he treat our vessel in the honor of marriage’”). The word “sanctification” was apparently too costly a word for him in this instance.

IV, 15–17 Tertullian (V, 15): “‘He says that those “who remain unto the coming of Christ,” together with those who, having died in Christ, “will rise first”’” (compare V, 20: “‘at the coming of the Lord … who rise first’”), “‘that they will be caught up in the clouds into the air

[p. 110*] [continuing the note on IV, 15–17] to meet the Lord’” (V, 20: “‘“with them,” he says, “we shall together be caught up in the clouds to meet the Lord”’”) — “unto the coming of Christ” (or “of the Lord”) has been carried over from v. 15 — “first” with D*, G, Itala, vulg., against “firstly” [adverbial form] — from the dramatic verse 16a, Tertullian brings nothing. Dial. I, 25, by contrast, offers vv. 16–17 in full: “at the command of God, at the voice of the archangel, at the last trumpet the Lord will descend from heaven, and the dead will be raised first, 17 then we also who are left, unto his coming, shall together with them be caught up in the clouds to meet him” (Rufinus: “‘At the command of God, at the voice of the archangel, at the last trumpet he will descend from the heavens, and the dead rise (will rise) first, 17 then we who live, who are left, at his coming, shall together with them be caught up in the clouds to meet Christ in the air’”). In the Greek text, “Lord” has been added and “the living” has dropped out by mistake; “of the heavens” [plural] is to be retained against the otherwise consistently attested “of heaven” [singular]; likewise the otherwise unattested “and” before “we”; and at the end “of Christ” against “of him.” It is not absolutely certain that this citation derives from M.’s Bible; but since it shares with Tertullian’s text both “first” and the carrying-over of “unto the coming” from v. 15 into v. 17, the Marcionite origin is very probable. In addition there are peculiar readings: “of God” has been shifted from “trumpet” to “command” (this does not seem unintentional); “last” has been added; “in Christ” after “the dead” is missing (this too will not be unintentional — M. was thinking of the general resurrection); further, “will be raised” with a few Fathers, against “will rise”; then “and we”; and finally “of Christ” (“to Christ”) at the end, with D, G, d, g, vulg., Origen, against “of the Lord” (“to the Lord”).

V, 19. 20 Tertullian (V, 15): “‘What “spirit” does he forbid to be “quenched,” and what “prophecies” does he forbid to be “held as nothing”?’”

23 Tertullian (V, 15): “‘How has the apostle distinguished all the substances in us by definite names, and set them all together under one wish for salvation, praying that “our spirit and body and soul may be kept without reproach at the coming of our Lord and Savior Christ”?’” — “whole/entire” is tendentiously struck out — “and Savior” is an otherwise-unattested addition — “of Christ” alone, against “of Jesus Christ.”

[p. 111*] I, 6–9 Tertullian (V, 16): “‘We too say that the Lord is the repayer of either merit, as the apostle circulates it … with whom it is just that affliction be requited to our afflicters, and rest to us who are afflicted, at the revelation of the Lord Jesus, coming from heaven with the angels of his power and in flaming fire’” — but the heretic, by deleting flame and fire, has extinguished them. Yet the vanity of the erasure shines through, for when the apostle writes that the Lord is coming “‘for vengeance, to be exacted from those who do not know God and who do not obey the gospel,’” “‘whom,’” he says, “‘shall pay the penalty of eternal destruction from the face of the Lord and from the glory of his power’” (the last eight words repeated again shortly after). On 6, 7: Dial. II, 5: “since indeed,” he says, “it is righteous with the Lord to repay affliction to those who afflict you, and to you who are afflicted, rest” (Rufinus: “with God,” and so it is to be read). In the repetition at II, 6, the same sentence, but “with God, it is righteous to repay in turn.” Although the first version [with “Lord”/“repay”] is put in the mouth of the Adamantian disputant and the second [with “God”/“repay in turn,” matching the usual text] in the mouth of the Marcionite disputant, it is that first version that actually departs from the usual text, via “with the Lord” and “to repay.” It seems a mistake has occurred here on the redactor’s part; Tertullian also read “Lord,” not “God.” The reading is otherwise unattested, likewise “to repay” — 7 “with us” is missing in all three witnesses, but could not well have been taken up by them — 8 “coming, unto” is a singular, unique reading, against “giving.” The omission of the fiery flame and the replacement of “giving” with “coming” are tendentious. — “the gospel”: did “of our Lord Jesus” really go missing here? — 9 “destructive” [adjective] with A, a couple of minuscules, and a few Fathers, probably also d, e, Irenaeus, and other Latin witnesses, against “destruction” [noun].

II, 3. 4 Tertullian (V, 16): “‘But who is “the man of sin, the son of perdition,” who must first “be revealed” before the coming of the Lord, “exalting himself above everything that is called god and every object of worship, going to sit in the temple of God and to proclaim himself god”?’” — 4 “and every” is uncertain (otherwise unattested) — The last words are hardly a translation of “proving himself that he is god,” which could also have been misunderstood; perhaps it was “proclaiming himself to be god.” Is it possible that “the adversary” dropped out by accident?

[p. 112*] 9 Tertullian (V, 16): “‘I ask why he is coming “in all power and signs and lying wonders.”’” That Satan was not excised by M. follows from the words, shortly after: “‘what is it like, that “Satan” should be necessary to him?’”

10–12 Tertullian (V, 16): “‘“Because,” he says, “they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved, and for this reason there will be for them an incitement to deceit, that all may be judged who did not believe the truth but agreed with iniquity.”’” 11 M. did not want to write “God sends them a working of error, that they might believe the lie,” and therefore altered the text (“in instinctum” — Kroymann rightly [reads]; though the vulgar form “instinctum” = “instinctus” would also be possible).

III, 10 Tertullian (V, 16): “‘He commands that he who wishes to eat should work.’”