1 Corinthians

Notes and Apparatus

I, 3 So Tertullian (V, 5), and “Jesus” with (A) [against] “Jesus Christ.”

[p. 78*] 11–13 Dial. I, 8 (Adamantius) sets these against Megethius, who acknowledges them; but they certainly may not be claimed for M[arcion]. — “it has been heard by me” (singular reading) against “for it was made known to me concerning you” (Rufinus: “Perlatum est enim mihi de vobis,” as in the ordinary text) — “there are quarrels among you” (so too Rufinus) with the Vulgate, both Syriac versions, the Coptic, and Augustine, against the same words in reverse order — “for one of you says” (Rufinus: et alius dicit, “and another says”) against “but I say this, that each of you says” — the words “but I am of Christ” are missing (so too Rufinus), as in 1 Clement 47. Adamantius further offers the continuation: “Was Paul crucified for us, or were you baptized into the name of Paul?” — but since Rufinus lacks it, and it is superfluous here, it is probably an addition. The whole passage is also charged to M. by Ephraem (Opp. syr. II, p. 493), but even this offers no certainty.

18f Tertullian (V, 5): “‘He says the cross of Christ is folly to those who are perishing, but to those attaining salvation it is power and wisdom of God; and to show whence this comes, he adds: “For it is written: I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and bring to nothing the understanding of the understanding.”’” “Power and wisdom” is repeated once more just after; so Tertullian here read “power and wisdom” > “power” (all other witnesses). — “to those being saved” with G, d, g, and many Latin witnesses, against “to us who are being saved” — 19 likewise word for word in Epiphanius p. 121.159.

20b Tertullian (V, 5): “‘Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?’”

21 Tertullian (V, 5): “‘Since in God’s wisdom the world did not understand the Lord through wisdom (Kroymann wrongly [reads] “God”) — God resolved to save those who believe through the folly of the preaching.’” Marcion, with G, will not have read the γάρ after ἐπειδή (quoniam). — “Lord” alone, against “God” (so too Tertullian himself, adv. Marc. II, 2).

22 Tertullian (V, 5): “‘Since Jews desire signs and Greeks seek wisdom.’” — “Jews” with G, g, and many Latin witnesses, against “and the Jews.”

23 Tertullian (V, 5): “‘The foolish preaching of the cross,’ ‘the apostle preaches Christ [as] a stumbling-block to the Jews.’”

24 It is probably only by mistake that Zahn brackets v. 24 as excised by M.; it is indeed unattested, but cannot be missing as a completion to v. 23. [p. 79*] Dial. IV, 15 cites 24b, but it is uncertain whether it is drawn from M.’s Bible.

25 Tertullian (V, 5): “‘The foolish thing of God [is] wiser than men, the weak thing of God stronger than men.’” Tertullian himself, in adv. Marc. II, 2, cites: “‘and the powerless thing of God [is] more powerful than men.’”

27f Tertullian (V, 5): “‘God chose the foolish things of the world, that he might confound wisdom’ (the manuscripts read ‘sapientiam’, and likewise at the second place where the words are cited), ‘God chose the weak things of the world, that he might confound the strong; the dishonorable and the least and the contemptible things, which are not, that he might confound the things which are.’” Compare, further on, “the modest and the ignoble and the contemptible” [and] “to folly and weakness and dishonor and littleness and contempt,” and de carne 4: “‘But look about you, Marcion — if indeed you have not erased it: “God has chosen the foolish things of the world, that he might confound wisdom.”’”

28 “the base and the least and the things counted as nothing” alone, against “the base things of the world and the things counted as nothing.” The insertion of “the least” is well explained from 1 Cor. 15:9, where Paul calls himself “the least of the apostles.” The dropping of “of the world” in v. 28 may perhaps be laid to Tertullian’s own account, as likewise the missing “and” before “the things that are not.”

29.31 Tertullian (V, 5): “‘Let no flesh boast, so that, as it is written: He who boasts, let him boast in God.’” Epiphanius p. 121.159 has v. 31 word for word as above. — Dial. I, 22 has vv. 29–31 (“before him” with C* vulg., Origen, and a few other witnesses, against “before God.” Rufinus offers “wisdom to us” with L, Origen, and many Fathers, against “wisdom to us” in reverse word order); but it is not certain that these words derive from M.’s Bible.

II, 6a Tertullian (V, 6): “‘Let him speak God’s wisdom among the mature.’” 6b Word for word thus in Epiphanius p. 121.160.

7f Tertullian (V, 6): “‘He says this wisdom was in secret, that it lay hidden even under figures, allegories, and enigmas’ … ‘the mysteries of his God, who does nothing, lie hidden’ … ‘the wisdom of God set forth in the purpose of God before the ages’ … ‘before the ages he set forth our glory.’” (Did M. delete “into” [εἰς]?)

[p. 80*] [continuing the note on 7f] … “‘but he adds concerning our glory, that none of the rulers of this age knew it; for if they had known, they would never have crucified the Lord of glory.’” (Did M. write “never” for “not”?)

16 Tertullian (V, 6): “‘What has it to do with the sayings of the prophets everywhere? For who has known the mind of the Lord, and who has been his counselor? This is Isaiah’s — what has it further to do with the examples of our God?’” But Paul writes “who shall instruct him” (Isaiah 40:13: “and who has become his counselor, who shall instruct him”). Either M. inserted the Isaiah wording here in place of the Pauline reading, or Tertullian did.

III, 2–4 thus Dial. V, 22, not certainly for M. (I, 9: “I gave you milk to drink, not food, for you were not yet able, but neither are you even now able, for you are still fleshly”; Rufinus “neither” [οὔτε] with L, Origen) — 2 “for” (the first one; missing in Rufinus) is a unique reading — “were able” with D, L, Irenaeus, Origen, against a variant of the same sense — in Dial. V, 22, “but neither… etc.” has fallen out through a copying error [homoeoteleuton]. — 3 Rufinus: contentiones et dissensiones [“strife and dissension”] (the Greek “strife and division” is faulty here): the absence of “envy” is unique; “and divisions” (with D, G, L, d, g, Irenaeus [Greek and Latin], Novatian [dissensiones]) — “and walk according to man” is missing. 4 Rufinus does not offer this verse, but it has fallen out through the same kind of copying error, for it is presupposed in what follows — “are you not” with D, G, L, P, against a negative-only variant — “men” with the great majority of witnesses, including the Latin manuscripts; admittedly the manuscript reads “fleshly,” but “men” is presupposed in the explanation.

6 The Syrian anti-Marcionite writer preserved in Armenian cites this verse as standing in M.’s Apostolos, but as regards the exact wording of the text (“I have planted, Apollos watered, but God caused it to grow”) there is no certainty, even though a correction by M. here is unlikely. M. certainly offered “I planted,” as at Rom. 6:5 he offered “grown together with.”

10 Tertullian (V, 6): “‘He affirms himself a prudent architect.’”

11 Tertullian (V, 6): “‘About to lay the one foundation, which is Christ’” — “Christ” with C* and a few Fathers, against “Jesus Christ.”

12–15 Tertullian (V, 6): “‘Upon which [i.e. the foundation, Christ] according as each one builds further, [whether it be] worthy or unworthy teaching, if his work will be tested by fire, if his reward will be repaid him by fire — for by fire is our superstructure judged, [it being that of] the creator.’”

[p. 81*] 16 Tertullian (V, 6): “‘Do you not know that you are a temple of God and that the Spirit of God dwells in you?’” — “dwells in you” with B, P, against the same words in reverse order (the reversed word order of “the Spirit of God” occurs only in M.).

17 Tertullian (V, 6): “‘But if anyone shall have marred the temple of God, he shall be marred.’” — “that if anyone [destroys] the temple of God” is a reading unique to M., against “if anyone [destroys] the temple of God” [in slightly different word order]. — “he will be destroyed” is a reading unique to M., against “God will destroy this one.”

18 Tertullian (V, 6): “‘Be fools, that you may be wise’” (singular in the base text).

19.20 Tertullian (V, 6): “‘For the wisdom of this world is folly before God; for it is written: Catching the wise in their wickedness, and again: The Lord knows the thoughts of the wise, that they are superfluous.’” (The position of “is” is otherwise unattested, against “is before God.”) Epiphanius p. 121.161 gives v. 19b and 20 as above, but “of men” (LXX) with a few witnesses, against “of the wise.”

21–23 Dial. II, 19 as above, though it reads v. 21 as “among men,” and “or Apollos” has dropped out (already in Adamantius’s copy, since it is also missing at the repetition); but that M. deliberately excised it (against Zahn) is not to be assumed, since Tertullian V, 7 has: “‘All things are yours, whether Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas, or the world, or life or death, or things present or things to come’”; and just before: “‘therefore let no one boast in man’” (“in man” with G, g, Augustine, Ambrosiaster, against “among men”).

IV, 5 Tertullian (V, 7): “‘And he himself will illuminate the hidden things of darkness,’ surely through Christ”; M. probably read only “and” (not “who also”) with D*, G, d, g, Augustine. Tertullian (V, 7): “‘from him will come praise, too, to each — from whom also the opposite of praise, as from a judge.’”

[p. 82*] 9b Tertullian (V, 7): “‘We have become a spectacle to the world, and to angels and to men.’”

15b Tertullian (V, 7): “‘Writing to sons whom he had begotten in the gospel.’” (V, 8): “‘“In the gospel,” he says, “I have begotten you.”’” (against “through the gospel” — otherwise unattested. Did M. omit “in Christ Jesus”?)

V, 1 Tertullian (V, 7): “‘Him who had his father’s wife.’”

3–5 word for word through v. 5, “destruction,” following Dial. II, 5 (v. 5 lacks “of the flesh”; Rufinus does not offer “for,” v. 4b “of Jesus Christ,” v. 5 “destruction of the flesh”), compare Dial. II, 8 (“I have delivered such a one to the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved”), II, 21 (“I have delivered”) such a one to Satan for destruction.” Tertullian (V, 7): “‘He condemns him to be delivered to Satan,’ ‘and see also how he said: “unto the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be safe in the day of the Lord.”’” 3 “as” first, with D, G, L, d, g, and some Latin and Greek witnesses — 4 “our” with B, D, G, L, P, d, g, vulg. — “Christ” with Dᶜ, G, L, P, g, vulg. and the majority, against a reading that lacks it — “Jesus” without “Christ” with ℵ, A, B, D*, d, vulg., against Dᶜ, G, L, g — 5 “of the Lord” without “Jesus” with B, Origen, and numerous Fathers.

7 Tertullian (V, 7): “‘Purge out the old leaven, that you may be a new mixture, as you are unleavened … and our Passover, Christ, has been sacrificed.’” Epiphanius p. 121.161: “For indeed our Passover has been sacrificed, Christ.” Dial. II, 18 likewise (but only Rufinus offers “for indeed”).

11 Tertullian (IV, 9) presupposes that this also stands in M.

13 Tertullian (V, 7): “‘Bidding that the evil one be “taken away” from your midst.’”

VI, 11 Dial. V, 22 word for word; “but” is a unique reading, against “and” (so too Rufinus). It is, incidentally, not certain that Adamantius here drew on M.’s Bible. — In adv. Marc. II, 9 Tertullian presupposes that v. 3 too stood in M.’s Bible.

13ff Tertullian (V, 7): “‘But turning us away from fornication, he makes plain the resurrection of the flesh’” (Tertullian thus passes at once from 5:1–7 to 6:13); “‘the body,

[p. 83*] [continuing the note on 13ff] … he says, “not for fornication, but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body, as a temple for God and God for the temple.” Therefore [does] the temple of God perish [and God for the temple, add some manuscripts]? But you see: “he who raised up the Lord [the manuscripts: whom the Lord raised up] will raise us up too” — in the body too he will raise us up, because “the body [is] for the Lord and the Lord for the body”; and it is fitting that he adds: “Do you not know your bodies are members of Christ?”’” (v. 15b is also alluded to at adv. Marc. IV, 34). The addition “as a temple,” etc., must have stood here, since Tertullian comments on it as part of the text. — 15 Dial. II, 22 word for word. — 16 Dial. II, 23 and Epiphanius p. 121.161 word for word (“or” [ἤ] is missing at the start in both witnesses, with D, K, L, and the Greek Fathers; Rufinus offers it in the translation; “for” is only in the Dialogue, Rufinus does not offer it).

20 Tertullian (V, 7): “‘For we were bought at a great price.’” A catchword of M.’s; see Origen, Hom. 7.1 on Numbers, and Esnik (Schmid, p. 178): “Jesus sent Paul to preach that we had been bought at the price, and everyone who believes in Jesus was sold by the righteous one, the good one”; right after: “‘Now, then, how shall we honor, how shall we lift up God in a body destined to perish?’” The reading “take up” that follows here (“bear,” alongside “honor,” “glorify”) is Latin; so [read] g, vulg., Tertullian, de resurr. 10.16, Cyprian, Lucifer, Ambrosiaster, etc.; yet by transmission from the West it also reached Chrysostom; it arose out of “then.” The Greek tradition offers “glorify, then (therefore)”; but Methodius [reads] “then glorify” (Bonwetsch, p. 325). Did M. really offer “mortal” alongside “body” here (compare Rom. 6:12), or did Tertullian conflate both passages in his summary? “Mortal” is otherwise wholly unattested here.

VII, 1ff Tertullian (V, 7): “‘There follows [teaching] on coming together in marriage … the apostle, even though he prefers the good of continence, nevertheless permits marriage to be contracted (and) to be made use of, and urges that it be kept rather than dissolved … and yet the apostle too, when he directs that a wife not depart from her husband, or, if she has departed, that she remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband, has also permitted divorce, which he did not wholly forbid, and confirmed marriage, which he first forbade to be dissolved and, should it happen to be dissolved, wished to see restored. But what causes does he also give for continence? “because the time has been drawn together [is short]” … prescribing that it be “only in the Lord,”’” and [that no believer]

[p. 84*] VIII, 1ff Tertullian (V, 7): “‘But even if there are those who are called gods, whether in the heavens or on earth’ … for he begins with idols, about to discuss food offered to idols: ‘We know that an idol is nothing’ … ‘yet for us there is one God the Father, from whom are all things.’” 1 Zahn thinks vv. 1–3 were wholly absent; but v. 1 is touched on. — 4 “is” with G, g, Irenaeus, Ambrosiaster, etc. — 5 “in the heavens” [οὐρανοῖς] alone, against “in heaven” [οὐρανῷ]. Zahn’s justified question, whether v. 6b was not altered, resolves itself if one reads with Kroymann: “God the Father, from whom are all things: (from whom are all things) to us, except him whose all things are?” It then follows that Tertullian is putting forward a thought of his own. Also in adv. Marc. III, 15 v. 5 is cited (“in heaven”). Esnik (Schmid, p. 197): “They say that the apostle says: I will never eat meat, by which my brother would be offended.” No text other than the above is to be assumed.

IX, 4–14 Tertullian (V, 7): “‘Teaching that it is enough for each to live by his own labor, he had set out beforehand examples of soldiers, shepherds, farmers; but that divine authority was lacking to them; he therefore sets against the ungrateful the law of the creator, which he [elsewhere] was destroying — for his own god had no such law — “you shall not,” he says, “muzzle the ox that treads out the grain,” and he added: “does it in any way pertain to the Lord, concerning oxen? [Is he] kind even concerning oxen, for the sake of men? For it was written for our sake,” he says. So he has approved the law, understood allegorically according to us, as also lending support to those who live from the gospel’” … but he was unwilling to make use of the law’s power, because he preferred to labor free of charge. This he counted to his own glory, which he denied that anyone would nullify — not [counting it as] a destruction of the law, of which he proved that another might make use (compare III, 5).

7c–10 Dial. I, 22 word for word (“its” is missing in v. 7; but [present] in Rufinus with D and a few Fathers, against “of the flock”). 8 “or does not” with K, L, P, etc., against a negative-only reading; likewise in Epiphanius p. 121.162; he charges M. with having inserted “of Moses” in v. 8; here it will really have stood with M. and have been missing in v. 9

[p. 85*] [continuing the note on 7c–10] (in the Dialogue it stands as in the catholic text). Epiphanius p. 122.163 also gives “is it for oxen that God is concerned?” Tertullian’s “the Lord” in v. 9 is perhaps correct. 14 Dial. I, 6 (only in Rufinus, and hence perhaps an addition in the Dialogue): “so too the Lord has ordained for those who proclaim the gospel, that they should live from the gospel”; but see above under Tertullian.

X, 1–9.11 Epiphanius p. 122.163f. (After v. 9 he himself notes that he passes over what lies between; after v. 11 he writes “and so forth”). 1–4 Dial. II, 18 (but without the first six words; in II, 20, “and the rock was Christ”).

1.4 Tertullian (V, 7): “‘Marcion stumbles on the rock, blind [to it], from which our fathers drank in the wilderness; for if that rock was Christ …’” Tertullian (V, 7): “‘[Paul,] about to relate the rest of the people’s outcome, prefaces it: “These things happened to us as examples” … “he terrifies me concerning him” … “if indeed they have failed in the same things as the people did”’” (on vv. 4–9). v. 11 Tertullian (V, 7): “‘Finally, in the closing words too he answers to his preface: “Now these things happened to them as they are written, to warn us, upon whom the ends of the ages have come.”’” Tertullian already at V, 5: “‘And the rock was Christ.’”

1 “all” (first occurrence) missing in Epiphanius. — 2 missing in Epiphanius. — 3 “ate spiritual food” [in this word order], Epiphanius (with A); the word order in the Dialogue, with ℵᶜ, D, G, Itala, vulg., Irenaeus, is reversed — 4 “drank spiritual drink” [in this word order], Epiphanius (with the majority); the word order in the Dialogue with D, G, K, L, Itala, vulg. — “and the rock” [in this word order] with A, C, Dᵇ, K, L, against the same words reversed. — 5 The “God” not offered by Epiphanius may have been excised by M., which would indeed be understandable. — 6 “for us,” unique to Tertullian, Epiphanius [has] “of us” — 6 “toward,” a unique reading, against “into” — 7 “as” with C, D, K, P, against “just as” — 9 “Christ”: Epiphanius: “Marcion made ‘Christ’ out of ‘Lord’” (“Christ” with D, G, K, L, Itala, Irenaeus, Ambrosiaster, and many Latin witnesses) — 11 Dial. II, 18: “these things happened to them without a type [i.e. not prefiguratively]” (so rightly van de Sande; Rufinus: “without a type”). This text Marcus sets

[p. 86*] [continuing the note on X, 11] against the catholic [reading], which Adamantius had cited and which contained “type” for “without type”; Epiphanius offers “typically,” Tertullian “just as” (καθώς — an old Marcionite alternative reading, or corrupted from “without type”?). Incidentally, Marcus’s speech in the Dialogue runs: “It is not written thus” (Rufinus adds, probably correctly, “in our copy”): “for he does not say this, ‘it happened to them as a type,’ but says it thus: ‘these things happened to them without a type,’” etc.; the catholic text offers “typically” (so too d, g, vulg., Irenaeus) or “types” (D, G, L) — “for our admonition”: Epiphanius abridges to “to us” — the citation of v. 11 in Dial. V, 5 gives the catholic text — 11c is attested by Tertullian alone.

16 Dial. II, 20 (Rufinus abridging: “in which Christ performed the sacraments, and marks out the signs of his body and blood”); the Dialogue gives only a summary; M. most probably reproduced the text unchanged (“of the Lord” with D, G, d, g, vulg., Augustine, Ambrosiaster, against “of Christ” [read by] the majority and Rufinus); Zahn’s rejection of this citation is unwarranted, since the Greek text is in the right against Rufinus, as the well-known array of witnesses proves.

19f Epiphanius p. 122.165f; he adds that Marcion further inserted “that which is sacrificed in a temple” [τὸ ἱερόθυτον]. This tendentious addition is otherwise unattested. — The words “or that an idol is anything?” M. left out.

25 Tertullian (V, 7): “‘A great argument for another god — [his] permission of all foods, against the law!’”

XI, 3 Tertullian (V, 8): “‘The head of a man is Christ.’”

5 Tertullian (V, 8): “‘Moreover he has already shown that women too have the right to prophesy’” (Tertullian takes up the point only afterward), “‘since he even imposes a veil on a woman who is prophesying.’”

7 Tertullian (V, 8): “‘For a man ought not to have his head veiled, since he is the image of God’” (nothing can be built on the differing word order). Dial. V, 23 (missing in Rufinus) is exactly as above; so Tertullian has left out “and glory.” Epiphanius p. 122.167 (mixing in v. 14): “A man ought not to wear long hair, since he is the glory and image of God.”

[p. 87*] 8–10 Tertullian (V, 8): “‘But why also should “a woman have to have power over her head”? Because “she is from man” and “was made for the sake of man” according to the ordinance of the creator … he also adds “because of the angels.”’”

19 Tertullian (V, 8): “‘We have already often shown that heresies are placed by the apostle among evils as an evil, and that those are to be understood as the approved who flee heresies as an evil.’”

20–34 Tertullian (V, 8): “‘Likewise, from the sacrament of the bread and the cup, we have proved the truth of the Lord’s body and blood, against Marcion’s phantom; and moreover [we show] that every mention of judgment belongs to the creator.’”

XII, 1 Tertullian (V, 8): “‘Now I speak “of spiritual things.”’”

8–10 Tertullian (V, 8): “‘“To one,” he says, “is given through the spirit a word of wisdom … to another a word of knowledge … to another faith in the same spirit … to another a gift of healings, to another of miracles … to another prophecy, to another the distinguishing of spirits, to another kinds of tongues, to another interpretation of tongues.”’” v. 9 “gift” [singular] with d, g, vulg., Latin Fathers, against “gifts” [plural]. What is missing here in Tertullian, or differently arranged, cannot be reckoned with certainty for M.

12ff Tertullian (V, 8): “‘This very thing — that he has likened the unity of our body through its many and diverse members to the structure of the various gifts.’”

24b Dial. II, 19 word for word (“but” only in Rufinus); the first six words likewise word for word in Epiphanius p. 122.168.

28 Tertullian (V, 17): “‘The heretic (having struck “and of prophets” at Ephesians 2:20) forgot that the Lord had placed “apostles” in the church, and likewise “prophets.”’” — “Lord” alone, against “God.” This citation — overlooked until now — would not be certain, since Tertullian brings it forward only afterward, were it not that this very variant guarantees its origin.

31 and ch. 13 Tertullian (V, 8): “‘On love, to be set before all gifts.’”

[p. 88*] XIV, 2ff Tertullian (V, 8): “‘He confirms “the gift of tongues”’”; (V, 15): “‘and expounds “the sacraments.”’”

19b So Epiphanius p. 122.168, with the introduction that M. had placed “erroneously” “on account of the law” after “speak.” What is at issue here is not a tendentious correction but a very old error — attested similarly by Paulinus of Nola and Ambrosiaster (“in the law” or “through the law”) — which arose because “with my mind” became [confused with] “with the law,” then out of confusion into “in the law” [ἐν τῷ νόμῳ], “through the law” [διὰ τοῦ νόμου], and “on account of the law” [διὰ τὸν νόμον]. In the Bible of the Marcionites that Epiphanius read, the addition had come into the text alongside “with my mind,” or the reverse. What they meant by this is obscure: “on account of the law” cannot really mean “in order to combat the law.” Probably “on account of” with the accusative here stands for “on account of” with the genitive, as so often in the later period. Incidentally, Holl rightly offers there: “erroneously Marcion ‹after the [words]› ‘but in the church’ etc.” [‹μετὰ τό› is Holl’s supplement]. The removal of “with my mind” from M.’s text is not permissible (against Zahn); for Epiphanius writes, after the words “to speak with my mind,” that [M.] added “on account of the law.”

21 Word for word thus in Epiphanius p. 122.170. Tertullian (V, 8): “‘if [the apostle] recalls that in the law the creator would speak in other tongues and by other lips.’” — “other” [dative plural] with D, G, K, L, P, Itala, vulg., against “of others” — “to this people” is a unique reading, against “to this people” [in the dative].

25 Tertullian (V, 8): “‘who both foretell future things and disclose the hidden things of the heart,’” compare V, 15: “‘the form of spiritual and prophetic grace … so that it both foretells future things and “reveals the hidden things of the heart.”’”

26 Tertullian (V, 8): “‘Let him bring forth some psalm, some vision, some prayer — provided it be spiritual, in ecstasy, that is, in a kind of rapture — if some interpretation of tongues should be added.’”

32f It is not improbable that this citation in Tertullian (IV, 4) belongs to the Marcionite Apostolikon: “‘And the spirits of the prophets will be subject’” (the future tense, otherwise unattested, is explained by the context); “‘for they are not [spirits] of overturning’” (with Ambrosiaster, the otherwise unanimously attested false reading “God” is missing here), “‘but of peace.’”

34 Word for word thus in Dial. II, 18 and Epiphanius p. 123 (“in the churches”). Tertullian (V, 8): “‘Likewise prescribing silence for women in the church, that they not speak even for the sake of learning … he takes from the law the authority for a woman’s subjection.’” — “church” [singular] with fu**, tol, and the Egyptian versions

[p. 89*] [continuing the note on v. 34] — against “in the churches.” — In “is permitted” (two forms, differing in tense/voice — Rufinus, Epiphanius p. 170), the witnesses are divided — “to be in submission” [infinitive] Dial. with D, K, d, g, vulg., Latin witnesses, against “let them be in submission” [imperative] Epiphanius, ℵ, A, B, etc.

35 See Tertullian on v. 34. The insertion of 35a between 34b and 34c makes a change of text all the more likely, since the harsh “shameful” in 35c can hardly have matched M.’s view.

XV, 1–4 Dial. V, 6. Zahn passes over this citation; but the very omission of “according to the Scriptures” shows that M.’s text is present here; to this is added the excision of “which I also received” in v. 3, which is equally decisive — 1 “but”: Dial. “for” (but Rufinus “but”) — 4 “on the third day” [in this word order] with G, K, L, P, g, vulg., Irenaeus, and the Epiphanius citation, against the same words reversed — the first nine words of v. 1 are also in Epiphanius p. 123.171. — Dial. V, 11 also alludes to vv. 3.4, and in Epiphanius, loc. cit., they read: “that Christ died and was buried and was raised on the third day” (thus also without “according to the Scriptures”). Tertullian in adv. Marc. III, 8 likewise cites vv. 3.4 without “according to the Scriptures,” hence following M.’s text.

9 The insertion of “least” in 1 Cor. 1:28 probably derives from this verse.

11 Epiphanius p. 123.171. Tertullian, adv. Marc. IV, 4: “‘“Whether I,” he says, “or they, so we preach.”’”

12 Tertullian (V, 9): “‘How some at that time denied the resurrection of the dead.’” Tertullian in adv. Marc. III, 8 alludes to vv. 13f.

14 Dial. V, 6. Zahn passes over this citation — “then” after “empty” is missing, with d, Irenaeus — “our” [in] Rufinus (missing in the Greek) — “your” Rufinus, with the Latin witnesses and many other manuscripts, against “our” [in the] Dialogue (Greek).

17 Epiphanius p. 123.171. In Epiphanius’s refutation (16.17): “if the dead are not raised, neither has Christ been raised, and if Christ has not been raised, our proclamation is vain” (it is questionable whether this is drawn from M.).

20–23 Dial. V, 6f, compare Dial. V, 11, where vv. 22.23 are likewise cited (only here, however, [with] the last four words, and Dial. V, 7; “for” in v. 22 is missing) —

[p. 90*] [continuing the note on 20–23] — 20 “is proclaimed from the dead ‹to have risen›” [κηρύσσεται ἐκ νεκρῶν ‹ἀναστάναι›] (the last word only in Rufinus), against “has been raised” [ἐγήγερται] — entirely original — 20 “but if” [εἰ δέ] (so too Rufinus) with d, against “but now” [νυνὶ δέ] — 22 “through [Adam]” [διὰ τοῦ] Rufinus, original (and only in Dial. V, 6, not V, 11), against “in [Adam]” [ἐν τῷ] in the Greek of the Dialogue and all witnesses — 23 Rufinus, Dial. V, 6, “and the beginning.” The words “each in his own order” are missing in V, 6 and V, 11; M. has probably deleted them. Tertullian (V, 9) on v. 21: “‘Since through man [came] death, and through man [comes] the resurrection’” (missing “of the dead”); on v. 22 (V, 9): “‘But if we are all thus made alive in Christ, just as we are put to death in Adam’” (somewhat freely rendered).

24.25 Tertullian (V, 9): “‘It is fitting that he reign, until he puts his enemies under his feet.’” Tertullian does not read “all” [πάντας] (a unique reading) — “his enemies” [ἐχθροὺς αὐτοῦ] with A, G, g, Origen, and numerous Fathers, against “enemies” [ἐχθρούς, without “his”]. Esnik (Schmid, p. 190): “Further, the other word of the apostle, which is rightly spoken, they undermine: ‘When he shall have destroyed all lordships and powers, he must reign, until all his enemies are placed under his feet.’” This direct connection of v. 24b and v. 25a is not attested by Tertullian through the omission of “for” in 25a, nor is the passive voice in place of “he puts.” Later Marcionites have — as Esnik’s account shows — altered the text, putting “[they] be placed” [θῶνται] for “he puts” [θῇ], in order not to attribute warlike deeds to Jesus, and making the world-creator the subject of v. 24, while in v. 25 Jesus is the subject. This textual alteration agrees strikingly with the one M. himself made at Luke 12:46, where instead of “(and his portion among the unfaithful) he will place” [θήσει] he has written “[it] will be placed” [τεθήσεται]. — “every rule and authority” with Gregory of Nyssa, Didymus, against “every rule and every authority” — the “and power” [καὶ δύναμιν], otherwise consistently attested after “authority,” is missing here.

29 Tertullian (V, 10): “‘“What,” he says, “will they do who are baptized on behalf of the dead,” if (ὅλως overlooked?) “the dead do not rise”?’” Esnik (Schmid, p. 202): “If the dead do not rise, what shall those do who are baptized instead of the dead?”

29–44 Dial. V, 23, continuously: 29 “and” only in Rufinus — 31 “dying” is a unique reading, against “I die” (also Rufinus) — 34 “just” Rufinus — 36 “foolish”

[p. 91*] [continuing the note on 29–44] — with K, L, Origen, against “foolish” [ἄφρων, a different form] — “dies first” with G, d, e, f, g, vulg., Irenaeus, and most Latin Fathers, against the same reversed — 38 “vult” [present, for ἠθέλησεν] Rufinus — 38b is a unique reading, against “and to each of the seeds [he gives] its own body” [so too Rufinus] — 39 “another” [ἄλλη] with D, against “but another” [ἀλλὰ ἄλλη] [so too Rufinus] — “of man” with D, d, Tertullian, Ambrosiaster, against “of men” [so too Rufinus] — “beasts”: Rufinus [has] “birds” — 41 “of the moon” with am, harl. [manuscripts], Tertullian, Origen, Augustine, against “of the moon and” with d, etc. [also Rufinus]; 42b–44 only in Rufinus) — 36 also Dial. V, 24 [“for you,” and without “fool”] — 37 also Dial. V, 24 [somewhat freely] — 38 also Dial. V, 24 [38b “and to each of the seeds he gives its own body”]; in Rufinus “gives” is missing. In an interpolation the later Marcionite reading is then noted: “‘he does not say, “God gives it a body as he willed,” but “God gives it a spirit as he willed”’” — see Zahn, Ztschr. f. KGesch., vol. 9, pp. 198ff — 40a also Dial. V, 2 — 41.42a also Dial. V, 2 [“of the moon” without the following “and,” as above] — 42b also Dial. V, 25 — 44a also Dial. V, 25.

35 Tertullian (V, 10): “‘But some will say: How will the dead rise? And with what body will they come?’” — freely [rendered].

37ff Tertullian (V, 10): “‘Finally, if he sets forth examples of a grain of wheat or something else of this kind, to which God gives a body as he will, if he says that to each of the seeds belongs its own proper body, so that one flesh is of men, and another of cattle and birds’” (so Tertullian read both, as above; but not “fish”), “‘and there are heavenly and earthly bodies, and one glory of the sun, another of the moon, another of the stars.’”

[p. 92*] 42ff Tertullian (V, 10): “‘So too the resurrection’” … “‘just as a grain [is sown], so too a body: a body is sown, a body is raised. He called the dissolution of the body into the earth, finally, a “sowing,” since “it is sown in corruption ‹in dishonor, in weakness, but is raised in incorruption› in honor, in power”’” … 44 “‘if it is sown a soul, it is raised a spirit(ual body)’.” — Since in Tertullian, at v. 21 and v. 42, “of the dead” is missing, these words, which the Dialogue offers, are uncertain. Nothing can be concluded from the “if,” since 44a and 44b are conflated [in Tertullian’s citation]. In place of “soul” one should probably read “ensouled” [i.e. the adjective, not the noun]. Whether Tertullian found “body” in M.’s text at all is doubtful.

45.47 Dial. II, 19. — On vv. 45, 46, 47, Tertullian (V, 10): “‘The first man, Adam, [was made] into a living soul; the last, “Adam,” into a life-giving spirit’” — and just before: “‘not first that which is spiritual.’” “‘“The first,” he says, “man, from the ground, earthly; the second, Lord, from heaven.”’” On v. 45 Tertullian remarks: “‘Although the most foolish heretic did not want it to be so (“the last Adam”) — for he set “Lord” as “last,” in place of the “last Adam.”’” [This clause of Tertullian’s is compressed to the point of ambiguity; the rendering here is provisional; see the translator’s notes to this letter.] — 46 “which” [ὃ] is a unique reading, against “the” [τό] (uncertain) — “Lord” (so both the Dialogue and Tertullian) with a great many witnesses, though almost all [read] “man, the Lord” [ἄνθρωπος ὁ κύριος], against “man” [ἄνθρωπος alone]; on which Tertullian: “‘For why [call him] “the second,” if not a man, as the first also [was]? Or is the first, too, “Lord,” if the second is? But it is enough: if in the gospel he [the heretic] admits Christ as “son of man,” he will not be able to deny him both as man and in the man Adam.’” Dial. II, 19: “The apostle said, ‘The second [is] from heaven’ — ‘Lord,’ according to you; and note, besides, this impious presumption, how they have falsified the scripture: for wishing to do away with Christ’s birth according to the flesh, they changed ‘the second man’ and made it ‘the second, [the] Lord’ — not seeing [that] …” etc. Since for “Lord” [as against “man”] ℵ‑corr, A, D‑corr, K, L, P, Origen, Basil, and the Antiochene Fathers stand (against ℵ*, B, C, D*, G, d, g, the Vulgate, and numerous [other] Fathers), it cannot be maintained at this point (unlike at v. 45) that “Lord” is a reading of Marcion’s own making.

48 Tertullian (V, 10): “‘As is he who is of the earth, such also are the earthly; and as is he who is of heaven, such also are the heavenly.’”

49 Tertullian (V, 10): “‘“Just as we have borne,” he says, “the image of the earthly, [p. 93*] let us also bear the image of the heavenly” … for he says “let us bear,” not “we shall bear” — in the imperative sense, not the promissory.’”

50 Tertullian (V, 10): “‘For this I say, brothers, that flesh and blood shall not possess the kingdom of God’” (and shortly after: “shall not attain to it” — other citations in Tertullian are not relevant here). Dial. II, 26 (preserved only in Rufinus): “‘shall not possess.’” Dial. II, 22, Rufinus likewise, but in the Greek: “flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor can corruption [inherit] incorruption” — “shall inherit” [future] with G, g, Irenaeus, Origen, against “cannot inherit” — before it, “for” with D, G, d, g, Irenaeus, against “but” — “nor,” as an independent reading, against “nor” [in different construction]. Esnik (Schmid, p. 201): “The Marcionites say: the apostle said, ‘The body and the blood do not inherit the kingdom of God, nor does corruptibility [inherit] incorruptibility.’” The reading “the body” (for “flesh”) may have been created by later Marcionites, to make the passage still more serviceable for their own purposes.

51f Dial. V, 26 (preserved only in Rufinus): “‘Behold, I tell you a mystery: we shall all indeed rise, but not all of us will be changed.’” This is the specifically Latin reading (D*, d, vulg., etc.). Dial. V, 23 as above, but “we shall not fall asleep” for “we shall rise” (Rufinus, as before, [gives the other reading]). Tertullian (V, 10): “‘The dead will rise incorrupt, and we shall be changed’” (word for word again at V, 12; v. 51 is missing in Tertullian): “‘in a moment, in the momentary motion of an eye.’” Tertullian, in his summary, thus places 52b before 52a, and omits “at the last trumpet” and “for the trumpet will sound.” Dial. V, 23 continues (v. 52) as above.

53 Dial. II, 23 word for word (repeated at Dial. II, 24, but with 53a and 53b transposed, and also “but” [singular reading] for “for”), and Tertullian (V, 10): “‘for this corruptible [thing] must put on incorruption, and this mortal [thing], immortality’” (repeated at V, 12: “‘this corruptible thing must … and this mortal thing,’” etc.). It also follows from Jerome, Against John of Jerusalem, that vv. 50 and 53 were not missing in M. 54 Epiphanius p. 123.171 as above; from “then” onward, also Dial. II, 18 (and with it v. 55a too, which drops out in Rufinus through a copying error [homoeoteleuton]). Tertullian (V, 10) on vv. 54, 55: “‘Then that word will come to pass which is written: “Where, O death, [is] your victory [where, your contention]? Where, O death, [is] your sting?”’” The bracketed words are scarcely an alternative reading offered by Tertullian himself (against Zahn, Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons I, p. 51), but rather a later gloss (Greek “strife”). In Dial. V, 27 our passage is run together with 2 Cor. 5:4: “but when this mortal [thing] is swallowed up by immortality.”

[p. 94*] 57 Tertullian (V, 10): “‘Nor does he give thanks to a different god for having granted us the victory — namely, over death.’”