Laodiceans [= Ephesians]

Notes and Apparatus

Tertullian (V, 17): “‘We indeed have this epistle inscribed, according to the truth of the church, to the Ephesians, not to the Laodiceans; but Marcion has sometimes taken it upon himself to falsify even the title, as though he were, in this too, a most careful investigator. But it makes no difference about titles, since the apostle wrote to all, even while [addressing] certain [particular churches].’”

V, 11: “‘I pass over here another epistle, which we have inscribed to the Ephesians, but the heretics to the Laodiceans.’” Epiphanius ch. 9, p. 105 (in the list of letters): “‘the seventh, to the Ephesians … and it also has portions of the so-called [letter] to the Laodicea[ns] (!).’” p. 182: “‘and he further added, in his own so-called Apostolikon, [a portion] of the so-called [letter] to the Laodiceans.’” But what follows is Ephesians 4:4, quoted as a verse from the Laodicean letter; that it reads exactly as it does there, Epiphanius himself notes. In addition, p. 183: “‘but also, beyond this, ‹he is refuted› on the grounds of yet another piece of evidence, from outside the gospel and the apostle; for it did not seem good to the most pitiable Marcion to call this testimony from [the letter] to the Ephesians, but from [the letter] to the Laodiceans, which is not in the Apostolikon.’” In Dial. II, 18. 19, the letter is cited under the name “to the Ephesians.” In a Cod. Cassin. (Bibl. Casinensis I, 2, p. 290) one reads:

[p. 113*] “‘It should indeed be known that this epistle, which we have as written to the Ephesians, the heretics — and especially the Marcionites — entitle to the Laodiceans.’”

I, 6. 7 Dial. V, 12 — “his Son” with D*, G, d, g, vulg., the Latin Fathers, against [omission]; Origen: “the Savior is simply called ‘beloved’”; Jerome: “‘It should not be thought that in the Latin codices it is written “in his beloved Son,” but simply “in the Beloved.”’” Whether this citation is from M.’s Bible is not entirely certain.

9. 10 Tertullian (V, 17): “‘To whom, then, will it belong, according to the good estimation which he proposed in the sacrament of his will, unto the dispensation of the fulfillment of the times’ — as I might put it, just as the word sounds in Greek — ‘“recapitulate” (that is, to bring back to the beginning, or to review from the beginning) all things in Christ, both the things in the heavens and the things on earth.’” (Further on: “‘all things are reviewed unto the beginning in Christ,’” then “‘for reviewing all things in Christ,’” then “‘to be reviewed into another Christ,’” then “‘let them be reviewed into him, by whom, finally, they are destroyed’”; at V, 19: “… him, in whom all things are reviewed, called back to the beginning.”) — 9 the insertion of the words “in the mystery of his will” from 9a into 9b in place of “in him” may be traceable to Tertullian himself — “good pleasure” with D, G, d, g, Victorinus, Hilary, against “his good pleasure” — “unto Christ” is otherwise unattested, against “in Christ” (a difference without meaning).

12 Tertullian (V, 17): “‘When he says: that we should be unto the praise of glory, we who have before hoped in Christ’” — “glory” with D, G, d, g, the Fleury palimpsest (Floriacensis), against “his glory” — “unto Christ,” against “in Christ” (a difference without meaning).

13 Tertullian (V, 17): “‘In whom you also, when you had heard the word of truth, the gospel, in which you believed and were sealed with the Holy Spirit of his promise’” — “gospel” alone, against the fuller “the gospel of your salvation” — the second “in whom” [of the verse’s two occurrences], with D, G, d, g, am (Amiatinus), Irenaeus, Victorinus, against “in whom also.”

17–20. 22: … “‘the Father of glory’” … from him “‘the spirit of wisdom’” is desired … “‘he will give’” the “‘enlightened eyes of the heart’” … “‘with him are also the “riches of the inheritance among the saints”’” … “‘he “was operative” toward Christ [with] his power, raising him from the dead and seating him at his right hand and subjecting all things to him.’” It is possible that M. abridged something here, but this cannot be proven. Was “of glory” missing after “the riches”, was “in the [p. 114*] heavenly places” missing after “at his right hand”? On Ephesians 1:21, see above at Gal. 4:24. The passing-over of this verse here, after it had already been included in the letter to the Galatians, makes it likely that it did not stand twice in M.’s [text].

II, 1–3 Tertullian (V, 17): “‘He says that they were “dead in trespasses” [not] in which they had walked according to the age of this world, according to the ruler of the power of the air, who works in the sons of unbelief … in which we too all conducted ourselves … and were children of wrath,’ he says, ‘but by nature’” (shortly after, once more: “‘we were by nature children of wrath … like the rest also’”). Probably unchanged, since Tertullian patches the text in piecemeal. Neither “and in your sins” (v. 1), nor “once” (v. 2), nor “in the desires” through “of the mind” (v. 3) needs to have been missing; perhaps, however, “of the spirit” and “now” (v. 2), and “once” (v. 3), [were missing]. With “unbelief,” the text stands alone against “disobedience” (one of the most frequent confusions). The first “once” is missing in L.

10 Tertullian (V, 17): “‘“His,” he says, “we are, a creation, made in Christ”’” — “Christ” with the Codex Tolet. and others, Victorinus, against “Christ Jesus.” The same sentence once more: “‘For his we are, a creation, made in Christ.’”

11–15 Epiphanius p. 119, 178f; vv. 11–14a as above, in one continuous run. In Dial. II, 18, vv. 11–13 are also quoted in one run (11 “that you once,” Rufinus: “that you formerly”; 12 “in the”; 13 “in Christ Jesus” is missing, and “of Christ” stands in place of “of him”). In Tertullian (V, 17), vv. 11–15 are interrupted repeatedly: “‘Remember that you, once the Gentiles in the flesh, who are called the uncircumcision by that which is called the circumcision made in the flesh by hand, 12 that you were at that time without Christ, alienated from the fellowship of Israel and strangers to the covenants and to their promise, having no hope, and without God in the world. 13 but now,’ he says, ‘in Christ you, who were far off, have been made

[p. 115*] (“‘…in Christ you, who were far off, have been made near in his blood. 14 “therefore he himself,” he says, “is our peace, who made two one, breaking down the middle wall of enmity in the flesh, 15 he emptied the law of commandments of its decrees, that he might found two in himself into one new man, making peace.”’”) Tertullian expressly says that M. struck out “his” after “flesh” in v. 14 (“Marcion took away ‘his’”), but he has also deleted “in” before “decrees” (15) and thereby given “decrees” an instrumental sense; the “decrees” are now the Christian articles of faith. Already at V, 11 Tertullian had quoted Ephesians 2:12: “‘For he says that the nations should remember that at that time, when they were without Christ, aliens from Israel, without the commonwealth and the covenants and the hope of the promise, he said they were also without God.’” — 11 “remember” with G, d, against “therefore remember” — the absence of “that” before “you” is otherwise unattested (unimportant) — “you once” with ℵc, Db, G, K, L, P, g, Origen, against “once you” — the absence of “in the flesh” (Epiphanius, Dial.) is a later Marcionite correction — 13 “in Christ” with L, Irenaeus, Origen, Victorinus, against “in Christ Jesus” (the complete absence, as in the Dial., is otherwise unattested) — the absence of “once” is otherwise unattested — “his” is otherwise unattested, against “of Christ” — 14f “of enmity” is otherwise unattested (against “of the partition-wall”); the ordinary text reads: “having broken down the partition-wall, [and] the enmity, in his flesh, having abolished the law of commandments in decrees” — 15 “in himself” with ℵc, D, G, K, L, d, g, and the Latin witnesses, against “in him.”

16 Tertullian (V, 17): “‘that he might reconcile them both, two, in one body,’ he says, ‘having slain the enmity in it through the cross.’” — The word order “to God in one body” is otherwise unattested, likewise the placement of “through the cross” after [that clause] (it otherwise follows “to God”). — I pass over the mixed citation (Eph. 2:12, 16; Col. 1:21) at Dial. V, 3.

17–20 Tertullian (V, 17): “‘this then, announcing peace to those who are near and those who are far off, 18 having obtained access together to the Father, 19 we are no longer strangers and sojourners, but fellow citizens of the saints, but members of the household of God, … 20 built upon the foundation of the apostles’” — the heretic removed [p. 116*] “‘and of the prophets’” … he feared lest our edifice should also be built upon the foundation of the old prophets, in Christ ….. “Whence did he derive [the idea of] calling Christ ‘the chief cornerstone,’ except from the sense of the psalm?” Verses 17–18 are cited word for word as above at Dial. II, 19 (here, as in Tertullian, “peace” is not repeated, with K, L, and the Fathers); also at Dial. V, 28, where v. 17 is cited once more, it is missing there too, and likewise, as in Tertullian, “to you” is missing (this absence is otherwise unattested) — 19 “but” with Dc, K, L, etc., against “but you are” — “but” is otherwise unattested, against “and” — 20 “of Christ” with ℵ*, 37, against “of Jesus Christ.”

III, 8. 9 Dial. II, 20 as above, however (9), like the catholic text, with “in” before “God” (in the base text, and in Rufinus). Tertullian (V, 18): “‘I do not wonder at the hands of the heretic who cuts away (praecidendis Mss.), if he subtracts syllables, when he generally removes whole pages. “There was given,” he says, “to the apostle, the last of all, this grace, to enlighten all men as to what is the dispensation of the hidden mystery, from the ages, in God, who created all things”’” — the heretic snatched away the preposition “in” and made it read thus: “hidden from the ages from God, who created all things.” — 8 “in” with D, G, K, L, the Itala (Old Latin), vulg., and many Fathers, against [omission] — “the riches” [masculine τὸν πλοῦτον] with ℵc, D, K, L, P, against “the riches” [neuter τὸ πλοῦτος] — 9 “all” with ℵc, B, D, G, the Itala (Old Latin), vulg., against [omission] — the important “in” is also missing in ℵ*.

10 Tertullian (V, 18): “‘For the apostle adds: that it might be made known to the principalities and powers in the heavenly places, through the church, the manifold wisdom of God.’” — “might be made known” with G, d*, g, vulg., Origen, Victorinus, Ambrosiaster, against “might now be made known.”

IV, 5f Epiphanius p. 120, 182 (allegedly from the “Laodicean letter”) word for word (but without “to us”); in the first citation, “one Christ” is not present, which however I do not wish to strike out (otherwise unattested). Verse 6 also at Dial. II, 19 (cited twice, the first time incomplete in Greek) as above, but “in us all” with D, G, K, L, d, g, vulg., Firmilian, etc., against “in all,” with or without “to you,” and previously “and” before “Father” is missing, with a few minuscules, Irenaeus, and a few witnesses (Rufinus offers it once).

8 Tertullian (V, 18): “‘He led,’ he says, ‘captivity captive.’”

10 Dial. V, 7, uncertain whether from Marcion.

25f Tertullian (V, 18): “‘Laying aside falsehood, speak the truth, each with his neighbor,’ and ‘Be angry and do not sin’” (‹so that› in the very words [p. 117*] which the psalm [uses], he might expound its meaning); “let not the sun go down upon your wrath.”’” (Kroymann rightly put “ut” before “ipsis” instead of “sol ut”) — “to” with ℵ*, against “with” — 26b is also found at Dial. I, 13, twice, the first time as one of M.’s antitheses — “the” with ℵc, D, G, K, L, P, against [omission].

Chapter V, 11. Tertullian, in his citation, attaches immediately onto IV, 26, so that one would have to believe everything in between is missing; but v. 2 is attested by Ephraem (Hymn 36, 3, against the heretics): “It stands written, for them [the Marcionites] and for us, concerning the Son of God, that he became an offering and a fragrance to God.” “Do not have fellowship with the works of darkness,” writes Tertullian; “the unfruitful [works]” need not have been missing.

14 Epiphanius p. 119, 179.

18 Tertullian (V, 18): “‘thus also, “to be drunk with wine” [is] “a disgrace”’” — so probably “shameful.”

19 Tertullian (V, 18): “‘and “to sing to God” “in psalms and hymns”’” — “to God” is otherwise unattested, against “to the Lord.”

22–23 Tertullian (V, 18): “‘Moreover, that “wives ought to be subject to their husbands” — on what does he base this? “Because the husband,” he says, “is the head of the wife, just as Christ also is the head of the church.”’” — “their own” (before “husbands”) was probably missing, and likewise probably “as to the Lord” and “he himself, the savior of the body” — 23 “is head” [in this word order] with B, minuscules, vulg., Origen, against “head is” — “is” a second time, otherwise unattested.

28b–32 Tertullian (V, 18): “‘He says, “he who loves his wife loves his own flesh, just as Christ also [loves]” the church’ … 29a “no one,” he says, “hates his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ [does] the church” … 31 “for this cause a man shall leave father and mother, and the two shall become one flesh.” 32 “this is a great mystery” ….. “but I speak,” he says, “concerning Christ and the church.”’” Epiphanius p. 119, 180f (v. 31): “instead of this a man shall leave [p. 118*] his father and mother, and the two shall become one flesh” (Epiphanius notes that “to his wife” was missing there — that is, the words “and shall be joined to his wife” — for “and shall be joined” alone is meaningless) — 28b has been reshaped by M. in the interest of his teaching; connecting this change with the readings in Ambrosiaster, d, D, etc. (as Zahn does) does not seem to me warranted; nor may one strike out the words “just as Christ also [loves] the church,” which are drawn from v. 29 and nonetheless kept there. Sense: “He who so loves his wife loves his own flesh, as (also) Christ [loves] the church” (that is, in a non-sexual sense) — 29 “hates” is otherwise unattested, against “hated” (the preceding “for once” probably was also missing) — 31 “for her sake” [ἀντὶ ταύτης] is otherwise unattested and a tendentious correction, against “for this cause” [ἀντὶ τούτου], so that it might be referred to “the church” (so v. 30, which Tertullian omits, really was missing; “the two” looks back to Christ and the church); Epiphanius has the standard form — Epiphanius’s “his” [is] against Tertullian[‘s reading] — “and shall be joined to his wife” is left out (so, according to both Tertullian and Epiphanius); on the testimony of Origen (and Jerome), it is also missing in catholic manuscripts — indeed Origen seems to know no manuscripts with this clause. (The excision, however, is presumably still Marcionite-tendentious.) — 32 “the church” with B, K, minuscules, Irenaeus, Origen, against “unto the church.” On v. 31, Jerome (i.e. Origen) remarks: “‘Let us ask Marcion by what logical connection this passage, taken from the old instrument, could be interpreted of Christ and the church, when according to him the old scripture has nothing at all to do with Christ.’” — From the antimarcionite Syriac writer preserved in Armenian, nothing can be learned about the Marcionite text of Eph. 5:25.

VI, 1. Tertullian (V, 18): “‘“Let children obey” also “their parents”; for — even though Marcion took away, “For this is the first commandment with a promise” — the law itself speaks: 2 “Honor your father and mother,” and “Parents, bring up children in the discipline and admonition of the Lord.”’” — 2 without “your” after “father” (otherwise unattested); tendentious — 3 most probably omitted by M., along with 2b — 4b “your” is removed just as tendentiously as v. 2’s “your.”

11f Tertullian (V, 18): “‘But our wrestling is against those who hold the world … moreover, since above he bids us put on the armor, in which we may stand against the wiles of the devil, he already shows that they belong to the devil, which he then subjoins to the devil, namely the powers and the world-holders of this darkness ….. “the spiritual [forces] of wickedness in the heavenly places.”’” Dial. I, 19 combines Eph. 6:11 and 16 (un- [p. 119*] —sure whether from M.’s Bible): “put on the whole armor of God so as to be able to quench the fiery darts of the wicked one” [ἐνδύσασθε τὴν πανοπλίαν τοῦ θεοῦ πρὸς τὸ δύνασθαι τὰ βέλη τοῦ πονηροῦ τὰ πεπυρωμένα σβέσαι] — 11b a peculiar form [of the clause], against πρὸς τὸ δύνασθαι ὑμᾶς στῆναι [“that you may be able to stand”] — “wile” [μεθοδίαν, singular] with d, against “wiles” [μεθοδίας]. Tertullian (III, 14): “‘arming us against enemies, “spiritual [forces] of wickedness”’” (v. 12).

14–17 Tertullian (III, 14): “‘… Paul, girding our loins with truth and with the breastplate of righteousness 15 and shoeing us with the preparation of the gospel of peace, not of war, 16 bidding us take up the shield of faith, with which we may be able to quench all the fiery darts of the devil, 17 and the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, “which is,” he says, “the word of God.”’” Did M. really add “not of war” at v. 15? Very unlikely!

19f Tertullian (V, 18): “‘Already placed in chains for the sake of freedom of preaching, he was certainly rendering to the church the steadfastness of manifesting the mystery in the opening of his mouth, which he bade [them] demand of God for him.’” Was “of the gospel” missing after “mystery”?