Galatians

Notes and Apparatus

[p. 65*] The title Apostolikon follows Epiphanius and Adamantius (both at several points), and Jerome on Gal. 1:1, “Apostolicum.” Epiphanius p. 155: “the letter to the Galatians stands first in Marcion” — so too Tertullian.

I, 1: “he professed himself to be an apostle, not from men nor through man, but through Jesus Christ” (Tert. V, 1); “not from men nor” [continues on p. 66*].

[p. 66*] (continuing from p. 65*) “...through man” (loc. cit.). Origen notes — reported by Jerome in his Commentary on Galatians — the omission of the words “and God the Father” after “Jesus Christ”: “It should also be known that in Marcion’s Apostolicon it is not written, ‘and God the Father,’ since he wishes to establish that Christ was raised not by God the Father, but by himself.” Characteristic of Marcion’s doctrine of God and of Christ.

3 On 1 Cor. 1:3 Tertullian remarks (V, 5) that “grace and peace” stood in Marcion at both 1 Corinthians and Galatians.

6 “I marvel that you are so quickly transferred from him who called you into grace, to another gospel” (Tert. V, 2). In De praescriptione 27 Tertullian writes: “I marvel that you are so quickly transferred from him who called you (var. ‘his own’) in grace, to another gospel” (“tam” otherwise only in g; “sic tam” in the Itala and Vulgate). Megethius, in the Adamantius dialogue (I, 6), cites this only after Rufinus’s Latin, not after the Greek text: “I marvel that you are so quickly transferred to another gospel.” Rufinus added this because the following citation of Gal. 1:7 would otherwise begin too abruptly. “of Christ” after “grace” is also missing in Cyprian, Lucifer, Victorinus, codices G g and Fgr*, and in Tertullian himself.

7 Tertullian (V, 2) cites only the beginning, and indirectly: “for by adding ‘that it was not another gospel at all,’ he confirms that of the Creator, which he is defending as existing” — and again shortly after, having cited Old Testament passages that promise a gospel: “but there is also a gospel of the new god, which you then wished to have defended by the apostle; there are now therefore two gospels belonging to two gods, and the apostle will have lied in saying ‘that there is no other,’ when there is another too — when he might have defended his own gospel in such a way as rather to demonstrate it, not to declare it the only one.” From this it follows that Tertullian must have read “omnino” [“at all”]; at which point in the sentence ἄλλο (or ἕτερον?) stood cannot be determined. Megethius (Dial. I, 6) cites: “there is no other according to my gospel, except that there are some who trouble you and wish to turn you to a different gospel of Christ.” (Rufinus does not offer the inserted “according to my gospel” — in the Greek text it is mentioned again a few lines later; here Rufinus writes “which we have preached to you”; but from the context he had “according to my gospel” before him, as Caspari also assumes — and further on he substitutes the ordinary text: “they wish to pervert the gospel of Christ.”) This text is harsh, but too original to be dismissed as a later corruption, although “at all” has dropped out; yet it need not have stood in the Greek at all, only in the Latin. Marcion inserted “according to my gospel” here in order to set the Pauline gospel forward as the authentic form of the gospel of Christ, and he referred “turn” to those who had been led astray, perhaps because “those who trouble” [p. 67*] was not felt to be strong enough by itself. But then “the gospel of Christ” was left hanging in the air and had to be reshaped into “to a different gospel of Christ.” That “to a different gospel” was carried over into v. 7 by Megethius from v. 6, is possible, though not likely. Tertullian’s silence cannot be used against “according to my gospel,” since he cites the verse only as far as “at all is not.” Incidentally, the four words [κατὰ τὸ εὐαγγέλιόν μου] are probably contained in the sentence “cum sic suum evangelium defendere potuisset, ut potius demonstraret, non ut unum determinaret”. Even in Chrysostom’s day (vol. X, p. 667) the Marcionites appealed to this passage as their foundation text for their gospel. Origen writes in his Commentary on John (V, p. 104 Preuschen) — and thereby supplies the source of Adamantius, Dial. I, 6 —: “an apostolic saying not understood by Marcion’s followers, who for that reason reject the gospels [in the plural]; for because the apostle says ‘according to my gospel in Christ Jesus’ and does not say ‘gospels,’ they fasten on this and say that, if there were several gospels, the apostle would not have spoken of ‘the gospel’ in the singular.”

8. 9 Adamantius (Dial. I, 6): “but even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you contrary to what we have preached” vobis [Latin: “to you”] (‘let him be accursed’ + Rufinus), before that Megethius: εἴ τις ὑμᾶς εὐαγγελίσεται παρ᾽ ὃ εὐηγγελισάμεθα ὑμῖν, ἀνάθεμα ἔστω [‘if anyone preaches to you contrary to what we preached to you, let him be accursed’] (Rufinus: ‘Si vobis quis aliter evangelizaverit, anathema sit’ [‘if anyone preaches otherwise to you, let him be accursed’]) — thus a mixture of vv. 8 and 9. Tert. V, 2: “but even if we or an angel from heaven should preach otherwise”; and shortly before, in short: “if an angel from heaven should preach otherwise, let him be accursed.” This proves that both v. 8 and v. 9 stood in Marcion, and that in v. 8 he read “otherwise” [ἄλλως], for both Tertullian and Rufinus give it. “Contrary to what we have preached” [παρ᾽ ὃ εὐηγγελισάμεθα] is likewise certain; the following “to you” [ὑμῖν] is uncertain (it is missing in Tertullian too, de carne 6), since only the Dialogue offers it. Of v. 9 only what stands above is preserved. The “to you” [ὑμῖν] after “should preach” [εὐαγγελίσηται] will, despite the Dialogue, have been absent (so too ℵ* G g, Tert. at two places, Cyprian, Lucifer).

15 Dial. IV, 15: “but when it pleased God” (ὁ θεός with half the witnesses), “who separated me from my mother’s womb.” But one has no guarantee that this citation is drawn from Marcion’s Bible.

[p. 68*] II, 1: Tertullian (V, 3): “Finally he writes that he went up to Jerusalem after fourteen years to the patronage of Peter and the rest of the apostles, to confer with them about the rule of his gospel, lest he might have run or be running in vain for so many years.” The words “ad patrocinium Petri cet. app.” naturally come from Tertullian; what M. himself wrote can no longer be recovered. That Tertullian renders ἀνεθέμην by “ut conferret” is perhaps not accidental. The word order “cucurrisset aut curreret” is probably to be retained against all the other witnesses of the text, since Tertullian repeats it a page later (he follows it also adv. Marc. I, 20); yet it may belong only to the Latin version. Likewise the phrase “de evangelii sui regula” may be Marcionite. Barnabas is probably not missing by accident; compare 2:9.

3: Tertullian (V, 3): “but when he says that not even Titus was circumcised” and directly after: “but not even Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised.”

4f.: Tertullian (V, 3): “‘because of false brethren,’ he says, ‘secretly brought in to spy on the liberty which we have in Christ, that they might reduce us to servitude, nor did we yield to them for an hour.’” A δέ [“but”] after διά Tertullian does not read at the second place either, where he cites the beginning of the verse (“propter superinducticios falsos fratres”); against this δέ Jerome and the Antiochenes have also declared themselves. The peculiar word “superinducticus” (so twice, once also “superinducticius”) does not occur in adv. Marc. I, 20; it belongs to the Marcionite translation. From here on it is taken over into de monog. 14. The assumption of a large lacuna after “servituti” (Kroymann) and its filling out by “ad horam cessimus subiectioni, non, ut mavult Marcion” is superfluous. The Ἰησοῦ after Χριστῷ, which all other witnesses offer, is missing here. — οὐδέ with the great majority of the witnesses (Tertullian charges Marcion here with [p. 69*] falsification: “apparebit vitiatio scripturae”); it is missing in D* d., in Irenaeus, Victorinus, Ambrosiaster and Pelagius; οἷς before οὐδέ Marcion does not know. Zahn points out that Marcion may have written οὔτε for οὐδέ in vv. 3 and 5 (see Victorinus). The words “so that the truth of the gospel etc.” are not attested by Tertullian himself, but stand firm for Marcion nonetheless; for from the Marcionite prologues we know that “the truth of the gospel” was the central concept for him (see also 2:14); perhaps he wrote διαμένῃ, like G.

9b: “that the predecessors gave him the right hand ... by their agreement he undertook the office of preaching to the nations.” — “Well, then, that Peter and James and John gave Paul the right hand and made an agreement about the distribution of office, that Paul should go to the nations, they to the circumcision — only that they should remember the poor.” In this order of names Tertullian gives it with D G d g, Jerome, Ambrosiaster, Victorinus. “Who were reputed to be pillars” [οἱ δοκοῦντες στύλοι εἶναι] after the names is not attested, but will not have been absent. Since Tertullian twice omits “fellowship” [κοινωνίας], it was missing, and this is in itself probable too. The text as it reads, without Barnabas, with the repeated “I” (original text ἡμεῖς, namely Paul and Barnabas) and with the plural “meminissent” [“they should remember”], can only be understood to mean that Barnabas (as at 2:1) was absent, and that the duty of caring for the poor was to apply to the original apostles just as to Paul. By this, Marcion completely removed the appearance that a one-sided obligation had been imposed on Paul. The words “which very thing I was eager to do” are not attested but will not have been absent.

11–21 Tertullian (V, 3): “He reproves Peter for not walking uprightly according to the truth of the gospel.” “Fearing those who were of the circumcision.” “And had withstood others to the face.” “Denying that a man is justified by works of the law, [p. 70*] but by faith.” “Rightly he did not build up again what he destroyed.” Compare on this Acta Archelai 45. — V. 20 verbatim from Dial. V, 22 (Rufinus offers the otherwise unattested reading “qui redemit me” [“who redeemed me”]; the Greek has the ordinary ἀγαπήσαντός με [“who loved me”]).

III, 1: From Jerome (i.e. Origen) on this passage: “we should question Marcion here, who rejects the prophets, as to how he interprets what follows” (namely “was written before”), one cannot conclude with certainty that Jerome knew this verse to stand in Marcion.

6ff. Origen in Jerome ad loc.: “from this passage as far as the point at which it is written: ‘those who are of faith shall be blessed with faithful Abraham’ (v. 9), Marcion erased it from his apostle.” Tertullian too passes over these verses, but keeps a catchword of the original text in mind when he writes: “accordingly, if in the law there is a curse, but in faith blessing” (that hardly comes from v. 14b).

10–12 So Epiphanius p. 120.156. Verses 10b, 11a and 12a were therefore, according to him, absent; the reference to the Old Testament (“it is written”) is removed; the transposition, too, is credible. From Tertullian’s freer exposition (V, 3): “that now man is justified from the liberty of faith, not from the servitude of the law, ‘because the righteous lives from faith’ (vivet, ‘shall live’?). But if the prophet Habakkuk pronounced this, you have the apostle too confirming the prophets, as Christ also [does],” one can conclude — though with lesser probability — that v. 11a (even if in altered form) will not have been absent; on the other hand it is clear that the words “what if the prophet” etc. are Tertullian’s own property. “Learn” is freely inserted by Marcion. — “under the law” is otherwise unattested (> “are of works of the law”, but immediately after “under a curse”), likewise “he who” (> “but he who”).

13 Tertullian (V, 3): “For not because the Creator pronounced ‘cursed is everyone hanged on a tree’ will Christ therefore be seen to belong to another god.” Megethius [p. 71*] (Dial. I, 27): “Paul says, ‘that Christ redeemed us,’” Epiphanius p. 120.156: “cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree” — see also on this, haer. 42, 8, the exposition on ἐξαγοράζειν and ἀγοράζειν, which likely goes back to Origen. Jerome ad loc. draws on this as well: “Marcion creeps in at this point, defaming the Creator’s power as a bloody and cruel one” (Marcion had built an antithesis on this especially important passage for him) — “and a judge, asserting that we have been redeemed through Christ, who is the son of the other, good God”; there follows an exposition of the distinction between “buying” and “redeeming,” as in Megethius and Epiphanius. The words not directly attested — from “of the curse” to “curse” — cannot have been absent.

14 The first half (so that upon the nations the blessing of Abraham might come in Christ Jesus) Tertullian passes over, and both its content and its rewording of v. 14b confirm that it was absent. Tertullian (V, 3): “‘We have received (or ‘we receive’) therefore the spiritual blessing through faith,’ he says.” — for “blessing” with D*G d g Ambrosiaster, Vigilant.: > “promise.”

15–25 Tertullian goes at once from 3:14 to 3:26 (V, 3): “but when he adds, ‘for you are all sons of faith,’ it is shown what the heretical industry erased above, namely the mention of Abraham” etc., and remarks then (V, 4): “let Marcion’s sponge blush! — except that, as a matter of superfluity, I go over again what it took away” (he had himself cited vv. 3:15.16 from the unfalsified Galatians, as also at V, 13 he cites from the unfalsified 3:22).

26 Tertullian (V, 3): “but when he adds, ‘for all are sons of faith’”: Tertullian comments on this text; but it cannot be correct, and is easily explained as a dittography, which caused the dropping of the words “through faith.” Why should Marcion have altered the base text (see the Prolegomena)? Incidentally, the citation in Hilary has the same fault; so it [the fault] is older than the Marcionite translation — or does it in Hilary derive from that translation?

[p. 72*] IV, 1. 2 cannot have been absent, because the Marcionite wording of v. 3 requires them.

3 Tertullian (V, 4): “‘Still,’ he says, ‘according to man I speak: when we were children, we were placed under the elements of the world for servitude to them.’” Tertullian objects to “according to man,” which derives from 3:15, as out of place here; it is otherwise unattested at this point (> “so also we”); Marcion’s peculiar “adhuc” (“still”) demands an exposition like that in vv. 1f. Zahn believes the Latin text must be strictly held to and writes: “we were placed for servitude to them” as Marcion’s own; but this is likely only a paraphrase by the translator, who was unable to render “we were held enslaved” briefly.

4 Tertullian (V, 4): “‘but when the time of fulfilment came, God sent forth his own son.’” Zahn renders this by ὅτε δὲ ἐγένετο πληροῦσθαι τὸν χρόνον [“but when it came about that the time was fulfilled”], but what we have is merely an exact translation, which however was unable to render τὸ πλήρωμα by a noun; Tertullian himself writes shortly after: “when the time was fulfilled.” — The words “born of a woman, born under the law” are excised. Jerome, confusing Marcion and Valentinus, when excerpting Origen, remarks ad loc.: “Note carefully that (the apostle) did not say ‘made through a woman,’ as Marcion and the other heresies want, who feign a putative flesh of Christ, but ‘of a woman,’ so that he is believed to have been born not through her but of her.” — Zahn writes doubtfully, “he sent forth.”

5 Tertullian (V, 4): “‘that he might redeem those who were under the law, and that we might receive the adoption of sons.’” Marcus (Dial. II, 19) twice: “we were taken unto adoption” (Rufinus writes at the first place “we are called in adoption,” at the second “that he might receive us in adoption”). It is possible that Tertullian, who had cited just before (3:15.16) from the unfalsified letter, still had its wording in his head here, and that Marcion wrote as the passage reads in the Dialogue.

6 Tertullian (V, 4), apparently freely reproducing at the outset: “so that it might be established” (MSS. “est et”), “us to be sons of God, he sent his own spirit into our hearts, calling out: Abba, Father.” It is therefore risky to depart from the original [p. 73*] text and to write with Zahn (who moreover himself has doubts): “since then (we also?) we are sons of God, he sent forth his spirit etc.”

8. 9 Tertullian (V, 4), freely: “After these riches, then, there was to be no returning to the weak and beggarly elements ... so he did not wish to turn them away from their god by disparaging the worldly elements, even though, by saying above ‘If then you serve those who are by nature gods,’ he censures the error of physical, i.e. natural, superstition, which holds the elements for god — yet not thereby censuring the god of the elements.” It seems that Tertullian here too knew a Marcionite exposition; for however the text, which can no longer be restored with certainty, is to be shaped — without an interpretation it does not say what Marcion makes it say. The most important thing is the concept introduced by Marcion, “who are by nature gods” (> “to those who by nature are not gods,” resp. “who are not by nature,” resp. “who are not”). The difficulty makes the placing of the conditional clause; it is not likely that Marcion suppressed a sentence so welcome to him as 9a (νῦν δὲ γνόντες θεόν, μᾶλλον δὲ γνωσθέντες ὑπὸ θεοῦ [“but now knowing God, or rather being known by God”]) (against Zahn).

10 Tertullian (V, 4): “‘you observe days and months and seasons and years.’”

19 In the midst of the expositions on 1 Cor. Tertullian cites this verse in passing (V, 8): “‘my children, whom I again bear’” (all manuscripts: πάλιν ὠδίνω).

21f. Tertullian (V, 4): “But as thieves usually let something fall from the booty as a clue, so I believe Marcion too left behind the last mention of Abraham [so all the preceding ones were absent, see above], though none was more to be removed [nulla-auferenda Kroymann, unnecessary], even though he partly altered it. ‘for if Abraham had two sons, one by a bondwoman and the other by the free woman, but the one by the bondwoman was carnally born, but he who was by the free woman was through the promise’ — which things are allegorical (i.e. of other significance); these are the two testaments (or ‘two shown things,’ as we find it interpreted), one from Mount Sinai in the synagogue of the Jews [p. 74*] (continuing from p. 73*) [i.e. one from Mount Sinai unto the synagogue of the Jews according to the law, generating unto servitude; the other, generating above every dominion, power and authority and every name that is named — not only in this age, but also in that to come — which is our mother, unto which (Codd. “quem”) we have promised the holy church] (Kroymann places the words “quae est mater nostra” here, which is to be approved) — hence he adds (31): “wherefore, brethren, we are not children of a bondwoman, but free,” he certainly showed that the nobility of Christianity, too, has the mystery of the allegory in the son of Abraham born of the free woman, just as the legal servitude of Judaism has it in the son of the bondwoman” etc. Epiphanius p. 120.156 to 4:23: “but he of the promise, through the free woman.” Origen in Jerome to 4:24: “Marcion (and Manichaeus) did not want to remove from their codex this passage, in which the apostle said ‘these things are allegorical,’ and the rest that follows, thinking it was left standing against us, namely that the law is to be understood otherwise than it is written.” The text in Tertullian is scarcely handed down free of error; it is certain that in Marcion’s Latin Bible “ostensio” stood (Zahn corrects it to “sponsio”). “Ostensio” cannot be a translation of διαθήκη, but goes back to ἐπίδειξις (ἔνδειξις) [“exhibition”] or a similar word (see the Prolegomena). Such a reshaping of the text through the grafting-in of a passage from one letter into another (Ephes. 1:21) is never elsewhere ventured by Marcion; therefore one cannot escape the suspicion that the text as given above by Tertullian is nonetheless not to be assigned to Marcion. One has wanted to strike the words “in quam repromisimus sanctam ecclesiam”; but they are protected by “in synagogam Iudaeorum”; if one strikes them, one must deny the whole text to Marcion, but is then unable to give any account of how it arose in Tertullian. Perhaps this belongs only to the Latin Marcionite Bible text; but this assumption does not essentially change the problem. Zahn, without a compelling reason, places the second γεννῶσα only before εἰς ἣν and construes v. 26 thus: “which is the mother of us, giving birth unto which we were promised the holy church.”

[p. 75*] The passage Eph. 1:21 is also cited in Dial. V, 13, with “lordship” and “power” and “all” and without designation of the letter.

31 Attested through Tertullian (see above). Did Marcion read διό here (a singular reading, > ἄρα)?

V, 1a Tertullian (V, 4): “by which liberty Christ has set us free”; “qua” (= ᾗ, “with which”) with G d g Vulgate and numerous Latin fathers > τῇ.

1b. 2 Tertullian (V, 4): “Rightly the freed should not again be bound to the yoke of servitude, i.e. of the law.” A free citation; the text will have remained unaltered.

3 So Epiphanius p. 120.156 (here περιτεμνόμενος) > “but I testify again to every man who is circumcised that he is a debtor” (perhaps Marcion also read it so). — “fulfil” with few witnesses > “do.”

6 Tertullian (V, 4): “Why does he deny that uncircumcision too avails anything in Christ, as also circumcision?” ... “Of that faith which, by saying that it is perfected through love, he thus also shows to be the Creator’s.” — “Christ” with B, Clement of Alexandria: > “Christ Jesus.”

9 Epiphanius p. 120.157; δολοῖ (“corrupts”) with D* g Vulgate and most of the Latins > ζυμοῖ (“leavens”).

10 Tertullian (V, 4): “‘but he who troubles you shall bear the judgment’ (only > “he shall bear the judgment”). Marcus (Dial. II, 5): “he who troubles you shall bear the judgment” (Rufinus adds: “whoever he may be”); Dial. II, 18, where the saying is cited again, the Greek too offers “whoever he is.” Not Marcionites are they who (see Jerome ad loc.) found here an evil allusion to Peter, but Porphyry (against Zahn).

[p. 76*] 12 Origen in Jerome ad loc.: “by which reasoning does Marcion — and Valentinus — excuse this in the apostle of the good god?”

14 Tertullian (V, 4): “‘for,’ he says, ‘all the law is fulfilled in you: you shall love your neighbour as yourself.’” Epiphanius p. 120.157: “for all the law ‹in› you is fulfilled: you shall love your neighbour as yourself” — ἐν ὑμῖν with D* G d g and the Latins otherwise, which however all also offer, after these words, the generally attested ἐν ἑνὶ λόγῳ. Did ἐν ἑνὶ λόγῳ accidentally drop out after ἐν ὑμῖν in an old Marcionite copy and the error pass to Tertullian and Epiphanius? Or did Marcion write ἐν ὑμῖν (and strike ἐν ἑνὶ λόγῳ) and think of it as an antithesis: “not among the Jews”? That is much the more likely. — ἀγαπήσεις [without ἐν τῷ] with the above Latin witnesses > ἐν τῷ· ἀγαπήσεις (a tendentious correction).

19–21 Epiphanius p. 120.157 (in the second citation φαρμακεῖαι [“sorceries”] and φόνοι [“murders”] for φθόνοι [“envyings”]). — καὶ τὰ ὅμοια τούτοις [“and the like of these”] is missing probably only by accident in Epiphanius.

24 Epiphanius p. 121.158. — “of Christ” with D G K L d g vulg. > “of Christ Jesus.”

VI, 2 Tertullian (V, 4): “‘bear one another’s burdens, and so you will fulfil the law of Christ.’” Directly after: “carry one another’s burdens.”

6 Origen in Jerome ad loc.: “Marcion interpreted this passage so as to suppose that the faithful and the catechumens ought to pray together and the teacher to share in prayer with the disciples, carried away above all by what follows: ‘in all good things.’”

7 Tertullian (V, 4): “‘You err: God is not to be mocked; for whatever a man sows, this also he shall reap.’” Adamantius (Dial. II, 5): “for whatever a man sows, this he shall also reap” (but Rufinus: “whatsoever a man shall have sown, this also he shall reap”). The absence of μή before πλανᾶσθε is otherwise unattested; the plural ἃ — ταῦτα with D G d g vulg., Jerome > ὃ — τοῦτο (“what” — “this”). Tertullian’s readings may belong to the Latin translation.

[p. 77*] 8 Tertullian (V, 4): “If he preaches retribution, from the same [god] will be both the harvest of corruption and that of life.”

9 Tertullian (V, 4): “‘but doing good, let us not grow weary; but in due time we shall reap.’” — “autem” (= δέ) without witnesses > γάρ.

10 Tertullian (V, 4): “‘while we have opportunity, let us work at the good’” > “as we have opportunity etc.”

13a So Epiphanius p. 121.159.

14b Tertullian (V, 4): “‘to me the world has been crucified, and I to the world.’”

17 So Dial. V, 22 (but “Jesus” for “Christ”; Rufinus, following the usual text: “as for the rest, let no one be troublesome to me; for I bear the marks of our Lord Jesus Christ in my body”). Tertullian (V, 4): “He calls them persecutors of Christ, when indeed he adds that he bears the marks of Christ in his body” etc. Tertullian, like the Dialogue, read τῶν δ’ ἄλλων and understood these ἄλλοι as the enemies of Christ (“Of the others, namely the persecutors of Christ, let no one cause me trouble”). Zahn and Kroymann have not seen through this; the latter deletes “Persecutores vocat Christi,” the former believes Tertullian must have had before him a text in v. 17 that can no longer be recovered. — “of the others” without other witnesses > “of the rest”; that reading can only have arisen from a Latin translation of τοῦ λοιποῦ as “de ceteris”; so Adamantius read a Greek Marcion text that had already been influenced by the Latin translation; see the Prolegomena. — εἰκῇ (“vainly”) without other witnesses; the sense of this ambiguous word, which Paul likes to use, is not clear here. — παρεχέσθω (middle) without other witnesses > παρεχέτω. — “of Christ” with P, Coptic, Armenian, Aeth., Theodotus in Clement, Ignatius (the long recension), Gregory of Nyssa: > “of Jesus” resp. “of the Lord Jesus” etc.