First Corinthians
Despite apparently seeing very little difference between the Pauline version of First Corinthians (1 Cor) and that in Marcion's Apostolicon (Mc1 Cor), both Tertullian and Epiphanius comment more on this epistle than on any other.
First Corinthians 1:1-9
At the beginning of Tertullian's comments on 1 Cor he discusses the blessings that Paul gives at the beginning of all his epistles (as covered under the heading 'Common Items' here: Marcion's Apostolicon: The Pauline Epistles), and quotes therm as "from God the Father and the Lord Jesus."
First Corinthians 1:17-19
For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect. [1:17] For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God. [1:18] For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent. [1:19]
Tertullian quotes portions of v. 1:17b, a longer version of v. 1:18 (adding: "and the wisdom of God" at the end), and v. 1:19 as we se it:
What peace from one who has never experienced rebellion? "The cross of Christ," he says, "is to them that perish foolishness; but unto such as shall obtain salvation, it is the power of God and the wisdom of God." And then, that we may know from whence this comes, he adds: "For it is written, 'I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.'"
In his 'Scholion 1 and 9' (Indicating that this is the 1st Scholion regarding 1 Cor, but the 9th overall in his discussion of the epistles) Epiphanius quotes v. 1:19:
For it is written, 'I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to naught the understanding of the prudent.'
Both Tertullian and Epiphanius indicate that the quote from Isa 29:14 in v. 1:19 was present in Mc1 Cor.
First Corinthians 1:20-23
Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? [1:20] For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. [1:21] For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: [1:22] But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness; [1:23]
Tertullian quotes v. 1:20b-22 almost exactly, and then refers to v. 1:23a, which he points out that Marcion did not remove:
What follows will confirm this suggestion, when he asks, "Hath not God infatuated the wisdom of this world?" and when he adds the reason why: "For after that, in the wisdom of God, the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe." ... "Because the Jews require signs," who ought to have already made up their minds about God, "and the Greeks seek after wisdom," ... The very "stumbling-block" which he declares Christ to be "to the Jews," points unmistakeably to the Creator's prophecy respecting Him ... This stumbling-stone Marcion retains still.
First Corinthians 1:25-31
Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men. [1:25] For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called: [1:26] But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; [1:27] And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are: [1:28] That no flesh should glory in his presence. [1:29] But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption: [1:30] That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord. [1:31]
Tertullian quotes amost all of v. 1:25, 27-28, while having nothing from v. 1:26:
Now, what is that "foolishness of God which is wiser than men," but the cross and death of Christ? What is that "weakness of God which is stronger than men," but the nativity and incarnation of God? ... nor is it any longer true, that "God has chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise;" nor, again, has "God chosen the weak things of the world to confound the mighty;" nor "the base things" and the least things "in the world, and things which are despised, which are even as nothing" (that is, things which really are not), "to bring to nothing things which are."
Tertullian then refers to Lev 13:2-6, following which he comments on Marcion's opinion of the OT, and then quotes v. 1:29a and 31 as if the two were joined:
so "that no flesh shall glory; but, as it is written, He that glories, let him glory in the Lord."
Epiphanius quotes just v. 1:31: “That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord.” (Scholion 2 and 10)
Jason D. BeDuhn writes:
Tertullian, Marc. 5.5.10 (vv. 29a, 31); Adam 1.22; Epiphanius, Scholion 10 (v. 31; neither Harnack nor Schmid credit the evidence of Adamantius, and indeed the Apostolikon may not be used here). Tertullian omits v. 30, reading directly from v. 29 to v. 31, and both Harnack and Schmid follow this reading (Adamantius quotes the whole passage). In v. 29, Tertullian ends with "that no one may boast" (=Harnack and Schmid), while Adamantius continues with "in his presence," a reading found in a number of Greek manuscripts, while most witnesses to the catholic text read "in God’s presence." The quotation in v. 31 is from Jer 9.23; note again the presence of an unmistakable quote from Jewish scripture.
First Corinthians 2:6-9
Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to nought: [2:6] But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory: [2:7] Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. [2:8] But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him. [2:9]
Tertullian and Epiphanius both expend a considerable amount of text in discussing these verses, in particular how they believed Marcion interpreted the text, but without suggesting that Marcion's version of 1 Cor was any different. Tertullian refers to parts of vv. 2:6-7 and the beginning of v. 2:9a, and quotes the whole of v. 2:8:
.... "We speak the wisdom of God among them that are perfect." [2:6a/7a] ... He would discover "the hidden treasures, [2:7] which eye had not seen."[2:9a] ... to be brought to light by and by "among the perfect," [2:6a] when the time should come, but "pre-ordained in the counsels of God before the ages." [2:7b] ... that "none of the princes of this world knew it, for had they known it they would not have crucified the Lord of glory," [2:8] ... he [Marcion] will have it that these are not meant by "the princes of this world." [2:6b/2:8a]
In addition Epiphanius quotes v. 2:6b as “of the first beings of this world, that come to naught,” (Scholion 3 and 11, and repeated in his Elenchus). BeDuhn writes:
Tertullian, Marc. 5.6.1-4 (vv. 6a, 7); Epiphanius, Scholion 11 (v. 6c). Our sources are complementary, with Epiphanius supplying one of two clauses that Tertullian skips over. The other ("but not the wisdom of this aeon, nor"’) is unattested. Without it, the sense of the passage would be: "We speak wisdom among those who are perfect about the rulers of this aeon who are being nullified."
First Corinthians 2:16
For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? but we have the mind of Christ. [2:16]
Tertullian asks Marcion questions that show that his version of 1 Cor contained this verse, by quoting from the equivalent text in Isa 40:13:
What has your god to do at all with the sayings of the prophets? "Who has discovered the mind of the Lord, or who has been His counsellor?"
First Corinthians 3:10-11
According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon. [3:10] For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ. [3:11]
Tertullian refers to portions of both verses:
... when (the apostle) calls himself "a wise master-builder," ... in order "to lay that only foundation, which is Christ?"
First Corinthians 3:16-17
Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? [3:16] If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are. [3:17]
Tertullian quotes vv. 3:16-17a, except that he changes "him shall destroy" to "he shall be himself destroyed." There is no evidence that this represents a difference between 1 Cor and Mc1 Cor.
"Do you not know that you are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwells in you?" ... But "if any man defile the temple of God, he shall be himself destroyed" — of course, by the God of the temple.
First Corinthians 3:18-20
Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise. [3:18] For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness. [3:19] And again, The Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise, that they are vain. [3:20]
Tertullian paraphrases v. 3:18b and quotes v. 3:19a-20.
If you threaten an avenger, you threaten us with the Creator. "You must become fools, that you may be wise." Wherefore? "Because the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God." With what God? Even if the ancient Scriptures have contributed nothing in support of our view thus far, an excellent testimony turns up in what (the apostle) here adjoins: "For it is written, He takes the wise in their own craftiness; and again, The Lord knows the thoughts of the wise, that they are vain."
Epiphanius quotes vv. 3:19b-20, but in v. 3:20b has "the thoughts of men" from Ps 94:11 in place of "the thoughts of the wise."
“For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness. And again, The Lord knoweth the thoughts of men, that they are vain.” (Scholion 4 and 12)
Neither Tertullian nor Epiphanius suggests any differences here between 1 Cor and Mc1 Cor.
First Corinthians 3:21-23
Therefore let no man glory in men. For all things are your's; [3:21] Whether Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas, or the world, or life, or death, or things present, or things to come; all are your's; [3:22] And ye are Christ's; and Christ is God's. [3:23]
At this point in his narrative Tertullian quotes v. 3:21a:
For in general we may conclude for certain that he could not possibly have cited the authority of that God whom he was bound to destroy, since he would not teach for Him. "Therefore," says he, "let no man glory in man;" an injunction which is in accordance with the teaching of the Creator.
Later, following his comments on 1 Cor 8:6, Tertullian quotes vv. 3:21b-22 and refers to v. 3:23b, but it is clear that he sees these verses in their normal position:
... And pray, what things are these? You have them in a preceding part of the epistle: "All things are yours; whether Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas, or the world, or life, or death, or things present, or things to come." ... From Him, therefore, among the "all things" comes also Christ.
First Corinthians 4:5, 9, 15
Therefore judge nothing before the time, until the Lord come, who both will bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and will make manifest the counsels of the hearts: and then shall every man have praise of God. [4:5] For I think that God hath set forth us the apostles last, as it were appointed to death: for we are made a spectacle unto the world, and to angels, and to men. [4:9] For though ye have ten thousand instructers in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel. [4:15]
From the whole of Chapter 4 Tertullian refers only to three verses: vv. 4:5b, 4:9b, and 4:15b:
"And the hidden things of darkness He will Himself bring to light," ... From Him also shall "praise be had by every man," from whom proceeds, as from a judge, the opposite also of praise... he says: "We are made a spectacle unto the world, and to angels, and to men." ... when writing to the children whom he had begotten in the gospel.
Later, in his commentary on Chapter 12 he also quotes 1 Cor 4:15b:
"For," says he, "I have begotten you through the gospel;"
First Corinthians 5:1-7, 13
It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one should have his father's wife. [5:1] And ye are puffed up, and have not rather mourned, that he that hath done this deed might be taken away from among you. [5:2] For I verily, as absent in body, but present in spirit, have judged already, as though I were present, concerning him that hath so done this deed, [5:3] In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, [5:4] To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus. [5:5] Your glorying is not good. Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump? [5:6] Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us: [5:7]
But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person. [5:13]
Tertullian paraphrases the whole of this short chapter, referring to vv. 5:1 and 13, and quoting vv. 5:5 and 7. It is also possible that when Tertullian refers to "judicial process" that this is a reference to v. 5:3. He does not mention Marcion's version of this chapter, and from the way he comments it is reasonable to believe that he saw all 13 verses in both 1 Cor and Mc1 Cor.
... the man was an offender "who had his father's wife." ... When, however, he condemns the man "to be delivered unto Satan," he becomes the herald of an avenging God. It does not matter that he also said, "For the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord," ... there is, on His part, judicial process; and when he bade "the wicked person be put away from the midst of them," he only mentioned what is a very frequently recurring sentence of the Creator. "Purge out the old leaven, that you may be a new lump, as you are unleavened." ... "For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us."
Tertullian quotes "the day of our Lord" at the end of v. 5:5 rather than "the day of the Lord Jesus." in this he follows mss P46 and B. Epiphanius just quotes the end of v. 5:7: "For even Christ our Passover is sacrificed.” (Scholion 5 and 13)
First Corinthians 6:1-12
Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life? [6:3] If then ye have judgments of things pertaining to this life, set them to judge who are least esteemed in the church. [6:4] I speak to your shame. Is it so, that there is not a wise man among you? no, not one that shall be able to judge between his brethren? [6:5] But brother goeth to law with brother, and that before the unbelievers. [6:6]
None of these verses (involving lawsuits) are referred to by Tertullian or Epiphanius. BeDuhn writes that: "Gk ms A omits vv. 3-6; F and G omit vv. 7-14; 2344 omits vv. 9-10," so at least some of these verses may have been missing from 1 Cor and/or Mc1 Cor. So far as vv. 6:3-6 is concerned, Peter Kirby notes:
Alexandrinus omits this passage, and it is not explicitly attested. On the other hand, I do not really believe it was absent in Marcion’s Apostolikon.
First Corinthians 6:13-16
Meats for the belly, and the belly for meats: but God shall destroy both it and them. Now the body is not for fornication, but for the Lord; and the Lord for the body. [6:13] And God hath both raised up the Lord, and will also raise up us by his own power. [6:14] Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ? shall I then take the members of Christ, and make them the members of an harlot? God forbid. [6:15] What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh. [6:16]
Tertullian quotes v. 6:13b, the middle portion of v. 6:14, and v. 6:15a:
"The body," says he, "is not for fornication, but for the Lord; and the Lord for the body," ... You see, then, how that he who "raised up the Lord will also raise us up." ... In the body will He raise us, because "the body is for the Lord, and the Lord for the body." And suitably does he add the question: "Do you not know that your bodies are the members of Christ?"
However, In Adv. Marcion IV, in a passage in which Tertullian engages Marcion in a discussion of Lk 16:18-19, he refers to Marcion's version of v. 6:15b:
But your [addressing Marcion] own apostle, you know, does not permit "the members of Christ to be joined to a harlot."
Epiphanius quotes v. 6:16: “Know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? For two, saith he, shall be one flesh.” (Scholion 6 and 14)
First Corinthians 6:18-20
Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body. [6:18] What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own? [6:19] For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's. [6:20]
Tertullian refers to most of vv. 6:18 and 20, and alludes to v. 6:19b. He raises a question regarding Marcion, but does not suggest that the Apostolicon was any different here:
What has the heretic to say? That these members of Christ will not rise again, for they are no longer our own? "For," he says, "you are bought with a price." ... and since He has redeemed, at a great price, "these bodies of ours, against which fornication must not be committed" (because they are now members of Christ, and not our own), ... Now, how shall we glorify, how shall we exalt, God in our body, which is doomed to perish?
Tertullian appears to see extra text in v. 6:20, as noted by Ernest Evans: "At 6:20 he read glorificate et portate" (glorify and exalt).
First Corinthians 7:1-40
Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman. [7:1] Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband. [7:2] Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband. [7:3] The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife. [7:4] Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency. [7:5] But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment. [7:6] For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that. [7:7] I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, it is good for them if they abide even as I. [7:8] But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn. [7:9] And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband: [7:10] But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife. [7:11]
But this I say, brethren, the time is short: it remaineth, that both they that have wives be as though they had none; [7:29]
The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord. [7:39]
As far as we can tell the whole of this chapter (regarding marriage) was present in the Apostolicon, even though supposedly Marcion was against it, as Tertullian notes:
We must now encounter the subject of marriage, which Marcion, more continent than the apostle, prohibits." And also: "Now, when Marcion wholly prohibits all carnal intercourse to the faithful (for we will say nothing about his catechumens), and when he prescribes repudiation of all engagements before marriage, whose teaching does he follow, that of Moses or of Christ?
Tertullian quotes from or refers to short sections of several verses, and also appears to paraphrase several verses in one short phrase (vv. 7:1-2, 7-8, 10-11a, 12, 29, 39):
For the apostle, although preferring the grace of continence, yet permits the contraction of marriage and the enjoyment of it, and advises the continuance therein rather than the dissolution thereof. ... Even Christ, however, when He here commands "the wife not to depart from her husband, or if she depart, to remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband," both permitted divorce... and, if separation had taken place, by wishing the nuptial bond to be resumed by reconciliation... Because "the time is short." ...(the apostle) rules that marriage should be "only in the Lord," that no Christian should intermarry with a heathen.
Tertullian gives no indication that he knows v. 7:38, and Kirby states:
F, G, 323, 614, 630, 1319, 1352, 1837, 2147, and 2412 omit this verse, and it is not explicitly attested.
In contrast, based on no evidence, Evans suggests: "He probably curtailed chapter seven, leaving out such references to marriage as he disapproved of."
First Corinthians 8:4-6
As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one. [8:4] 5 For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,) [8:5] 6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him. [8:6]
Tertullian refers to just three of the 13 verses in this chapter, followed by vv. 3:21-23, as discussed above:
But when he says, "although there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth," the meaning of his words is clear ... He introduces his discussion about meats offered to idols with a statement concerning idols (themselves): "We know that an idol is nothing in the world." ... even if they had been gods, "to us there is but one God, the Father."
First Corinthians 9:7-15
Who goeth a warfare any time at his own charges? who planteth a vineyard, and eateth not of the fruit thereof? or who feedeth a flock, and eateth not of the milk of the flock? [9:7] Say I these things as a man? or saith not the law the same also? [9:8] For it is written in the law of Moses, thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen? [9:9] Or saith he it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written: that he that ploweth should plow in hope; and that he that thresheth in hope should be partaker of his hope. [9:10] If we have sown unto you spiritual things, is it a great thing if we shall reap your carnal things? [9:11] If others be partakers of this power over you, are not we rather? Nevertheless we have not used this power; but suffer all things, lest we should hinder the gospel of Christ. [9:12] Do ye not know that they which minister about holy things live of the things of the temple? and they which wait at the altar are partakers with the altar? [9:13] Even so hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel. [9:14] But I have used none of these things: neither have I written these things, that it should be so done unto me: for it were better for me to die, than that any man should make my glorying void. [9:15]
Tertulian refers to vv. 9:7, 9-10a, 13 (possibly), 14-15, although he quotes only short phrases.
When he teaches that every man ought to live of his own industry, he begins with a copious induction of examples— of soldiers, and shepherds, and husbandmen. ... (The apostle) says: "You shall not muzzle the ox that treads out the grain," and adds: "Does God take care of oxen?" ... For, says he, "it is written for our sakes." ... (He showed) also, that those who preach the gospel are on this account sent by no other god but Him to whom belongs the law ... when he says: "For our sakes was this written." Still he declined to use this power which the law gave him ... Of this he boasted, and suffered no man to rob him of such glory.
Tertullian appears to see a diferent order v. 9:7, referring to "soldiers, and shepherds, and husbandmen," rather than soldiers, and husbandmen, and shepherds. He does not mention v. 9:8-0a, while Epiphanius notes a difference at the beginning of v. 9:9:
Given in an altered form. In place of, “in the Law,” he says, “in the Law of Moses.” But before this he says, “Or saith not the Law the same also?” (Scholion 7 and 15)
Lardner suggests the same change by Marcion:
In the First Epistle to the Corinthians, the 9th chapter, 8th verse, where we read, “or saith not the law the same also?” he changed it into, ‘or doth not the law of Moses say the same?’ inserting the word Moses, as if he would thereby make the apostle insinuate, that it was not the law of the God of the Christians.
Epiphanius uses his 'Elenchus 7 and 15' to expand on what he believed Marcion was trying to do, and also quotes vv. 9:9b-10a:
(a) Even if you change the form in the second expression, Marcion, and think that by your having written, “in the Law of Moses,” you have separated the Law from God by means of that “Moses,” the union (of the two texts) just before this refutes your foolishness — (that is, the union of ) “Or saith not the Law the same also?” (with) “For it is written in the Law, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn.” [1 Cor 9:8-9, ἢ καὶ ὁ νόμος ταῦτα οὐ λέγει; ἐν γὰρ τῷ Μωϋσέως νόμῳ γέγραπται· οὐ κημώσεις βοῦν ἀλοώντα] (b) No matter if you added Moses’ name you have done us no harm, but have helped us by tying the evidence against yourself together at every point and unwittingly admitting, through the phrases, “in the Law of Moses,” and, “the Law saith,” that the Law of Moses is God’s Law. (c) For the apostle goes on in agreement with this by saying in the next sentence, “Doth God take care for oxen? Or saith he it altogether for our sakes?”
Despite Tertullian, Epiphanius, and Lardner all suggesting that Marcion added "of Moses," this phrase (which is a reference to the text of Deut 25:4) is very unlikely to be a Marcionite addition, as a footnote to Scholion 7 reads:
1 Cor 9:9; 8. "Of Moses” is also in the “ecclesiastical text.” Adam. 1.22 witnesses to its presence in Marcion’s canon.
First Corinthians 9:20-22
And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law; [9:20] To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law. [9:21] To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some. [9:22]
In his commentary on Galatians, between references to Gal 2:4 and 2:9, Tertullian discusses Paul's decisions to act differently depending on who he was with, and quotes Acts, and vv. 9:20 and 22b:
... Their truth may be inferred from their agreement with the apostle's own profession, how "to the Jews he became as a Jew, that he might gain the Jews, and to them that were under the law, as under the law," — and so here with respect to those who come in secretly — "and lastly, how he became all things to all men, that he might gain all."
Kirby point out that P46 omits that part of v. 9:20 that Tertullian refers to:
The Greek manuscript p46 omits “and unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that,” and it is not explicitly attested as belonging to Marcion’s Apostolikon. However, this seems to be a clear case of homoioteleuton, since the remaining text of p46 appears to lack grammatical sense and also does not have the verb ἐγενόμην (became). I do not really believe it was absent in Marcion’s Apostolikon.
First Corinthians 10:1-11
Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; [10:1] And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea; [10:2] And did all eat the same spiritual meat; [10:3] And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ. [10:4] But with many of them God was not well pleased: for they were overthrown in the wilderness. [10:5] Now these things were our examples, to the intent we should not lust after evil things, as they also lusted. [10:6] Neither be ye idolaters, as were some of them; as it is written, The people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to play. [10:7] Neither let us commit fornication, as some of them committed, and fell in one day three and twenty thousand. [10:8] Neither let us tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted, and were destroyed of serpents. [10:9] Neither murmur ye, as some of them also murmured, and were destroyed of the destroyer. [10:10] Now all these things happened unto them for examples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come. [10:11]
Tertullian does not refer to vv. 10:1-3, quotes the end of v. 10:4 and the beginning of v. 10:6, takes a "cursory view" of vv. 10:7-10, and then quotes v. 10:11:
For since "that rock was Christ," it was, of course, the Creator's ... For, being about to take a cursory view of what befell the people (of Israel) he begins with saying: "Now these things happened as examples for us." ... Should I now commit the same sins as the people, shall I have to suffer the same penalties, or not? ... But the fact is, the apostle's conclusion corresponds to the beginning: "Now all these things happened unto them for examples; and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world have come."
In 'Scholion 9 and 17' Epiphanius also refers to this passage, quoting vv. 10:1, 3-5a, 6-7, 10a, and 11a:
“Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant how that all our fathers were under the cloud and all passed through the sea, [10:1] and did all eat the same spiritual meat, [10:3] and did all drink the same spiritual drink. For they drank of a spiritual rock that followed them, and that rock was Christ. [10:4] But with many of them God was not well pleased. [10:5a] Now these things were our examples, to the intent we should not lust after evil things, as they also lusted. [10:6] Neither be ye idolaters as were some of them; as it is written, The people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to play. [10:7] Neither let us tempt Christ,” until the words, 10:9-10] "These things happened unto them for examples, and they were written for us,” and so on. [10:11]
In the corresponding Elenchus he then again refers to vv. 10:6-7, and then comments on a difference in v. 10:9:
Then again, “Neither let us tempt the Lord.’’ But Marcion put “Christ” in place of “Lord.” “Lord” and “Christ” are the same even if Marcion doesn’t think so.
He ends by quoting most of v. 10:11:
Again, when he is expounding the whole purpose of the passage the holy apostle says, “These things happened unto them for examples, and were written for our admonition.”
Lardner also comments on the difference in v. 10:9:
In chapter x.9, Epiphanius accuses Marcion of having changed ‘Lord,’ which according to him, was the true reading, into ‘Christ,’ which is the reading our present copies. But whatever Epiphanius thought it is probable ‘Christ’ was the true reading; for some person who thought the sense harsh with ‘Christ’ might change it into ‘Lord:’ but no good reason can be assigned for the contrary change.
Tertullian summarizes vv. 10:7-10 but does not comment specifically on v. 10:9 specifically, so does not note any difference here, while BeDuhn suggests that "Christ" was the original reading:
Marcion's text is found also in Gk mss P46, D, F, G, and a great many others, plus several versions and early witnesses such as Irenaeus, Clement, Origen, and Ephrem Syrus (Hence Clabeaux, A Lost Edition of the Letters of Paul, 90-91, following Zuntz, The Text of the Epistles, 126, 232, 237, considers it the original reading of the verse).
First Corinthians 10:19
What say I then? that the idol is any thing, or that which is offered in sacrifice to idols is any thing? [10:19] But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils. [10:20]
Tertullian has no mention of v. 10:19-20a, but Epiphanius quotes the whole verse, and notes a variant:
“What say I, then? That sacred meat is anything, or that meat offered in sacrifice to idols is anything? But the things which they sacrifice, they sacrifice to demons and not to God.” But Marcion added, “sacred meat.” (Scholion 10 and 18)
(c) But you added “sacred meat” (ἱερόθυτον), Marcion, thinking that, by confusing the two terms, “sacred” (ἱερός) and “idol”, you could make the nature of the two (types of sacrifice) into one. ... (e) But even if the language about “sacred meat” and “meat offered to idols” actually stood in the Apostle, they would be taken as one and the same by persons of sound reason. (Elenchus 10 and 18)
Epiphanius suggests that this variant is the result of Marcion confusing two Greek words, but BeDuhn adds:
Indeed, P46, א*, A, C, and several others read simply "that an idol offering is anything"; most other witnesses to the catholic text read: "that an idol offering is anything, or that an idol is anything" (or the same two clauses in reverse order).
From the above it appears that a one word change (possibly due to misreading) resulted in two similar clauses in different mss that became confused in later mss, and it appears very unlikely that this was due to any deliberate act by Marcion.
First Corinthians 10:25-28
Whatsoever is sold in the shambles, that eat, asking no question for conscience sake: [10:25] For the earth is the Lord's, and the fulness thereof. [10:26] If any of them that believe not bid you to a feast, and ye be disposed to go; whatsoever is set before you, eat, asking no question for conscience sake. [10:27] But if any man say unto you, this is offered in sacrifice unto idols, eat not for his sake that shewed it, and for conscience sake: for the earth is the Lord's, and the fulness thereof: [10:28]
Tertullian makes a comment regarding points he has already dealt with, before alluding to v. 10:25 (and possibly also 27):
Whenever cavils occur the like to those which have been already dealt with, I pass them by; certain others I dispatch briefly. A great argument for another god is the permission to eat of all kinds of meats, contrary to the law.
Tertullian's comment would suggest that this text might have been added by Marcion, except that Marcion was a vegetarian, and would presumably have wanted to alter or remove these words. Kirby notes that some mss do not contain vv. 10:27-28, but it would not make any sense for Marcion to remove these verses without also removing vv. 10:25-26:
The Greek manuscripts 323, 618, 1242, and 1738 omit these verses, and it is [sic] not explicitly attested. On the other hand, I do not really believe it was [sic] absent in Marcion’s Apostolikon.
First Corinthians 11:3-10
Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head. [11:4] But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven. [11:5] For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered. [11:6] For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. [11:7] For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man. [11:8] Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man. [11:9] For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels. [11:10]
Tertullian quotes or refers to portions of vv. 11:3, 7-10:
"The head of every man is Christ." ... "The man ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image of God." ... But wherefore "ought the woman to have power over her head, because of the angels?" If it is because "she was created for the man," and taken out of the man, according to the Creator's purpose ... He adds: "Because of the angels."
Later in his commentary, when Tertullian is discussing vv. 14:34-35, he refers to vv. 14:5-6:
(although that even they have the right of prophesying, he has already shown when he covers the woman that prophesies with a veil)
Epiphanius quotes v. 11:7 as below, without any suggestion that he saw any difference in this verse, but confirms in his Elenchus that he saw "long hair:"
“A man ought not to have long hair, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God.” (Scholion 11 and 19)
A footnote in the NIV gives this as a possible translation:
Or 4 Every man who prays or prophesies with long hair dishonors his head. 5 But every woman who prays or prophesies with no covering of hair dishonors her head—she is just like one of the “shorn women.” 6 If a woman has no covering, let her be for now with short hair; but since it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair shorn or shaved, she should grow it again. 7 A man ought not to have long hair
However, Biblical Research Reports makes the following points:
This sounds logical enough. However, let's look at it a bit. First of all, the "with long hair" in verse 4 could possibly be translated that way. The Greek word means "hanging down". But verse 7 cannot say "long hair". The Greek word is katakalupto, "to cover up." It is a different Greek word than in verse 4.
First Corinthians 11:18-19
For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it. [11:18] For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you. [11:19]
Tertullian appears to be referring to v. 11:19 when he writes:
We have often shown before now, that the apostle classes heresies as evil among "works of the flesh," [Gal 5:19-20] and that he would have those persons accounted estimable who shun heresies as an evil thing.
First Corinthians 11:23-26
For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: [11:23] And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. [11:24] After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, this cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. [11:25] For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come. [11:26]
Tertullian mentions Lk's gospel, and associates it with vv. 11:23-26 as both being opposed to Marcion's teachings.
In like manner, when treating of the gospel, we have proved from the sacrament of the bread and the cup the verity of the Lord's body and blood in opposition to Marcion's phantom; ...
Tertullian does not suggest that any of this text was omitted by Marcion, although he does not refer to either vv. 11:24c or 11:25c: "this do in remembrance of me." and "this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me," as is also the case in Lk. The significance of the possible omission of this text is discussed in Luke 22:17-20 - The Last Supper.
First Corinthians 11:29-32
For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. [11:29] For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep. [11:30] For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged. [11:31] But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world. [11:32]
Immediately following the mention of Marcion (above), Tertullian writes:
while throughout almost the whole of my work it has been contended that all mention of judicial attributes points conclusively to the Creator as to a God who judges.
The mention of "judicial attributes" and "judges" at this particular point may reasonably be taken as references to vv. 11:29, 31-32.
First Corinthians 12:1-10
Now concerning spiritual gifts, brethren, I would not have you ignorant. [12:1] Ye know that ye were Gentiles, carried away unto these dumb idols, even as ye were led. [12:2] Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost. [12:3] Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit. [12:4] And there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord. [12:5] And there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all. [12:6] But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal. [12:7] For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit; [12:8] To another faith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the same Spirit; [12:9] To another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues: [12:10]
Tertullian mentions "spiritual gifts," before quoting from Isa 11:1-3, Lk 16:16, Ps 68:18, 1 Cor 4:15, Eph 4:8, Gal 4:19, Joel 2:28, Gal 4:4, and 1 Cor 7:29, in order (apparently) to then be able to compare Isaiah's spiritual gifts with those of Paul in vv. 12:8-10:
Now, on the subject of "spiritual gifts," I have to remark that these also were promised by the Creator through Christ; and I think that we may derive from this a very just conclusion that the bestowal of a gift is not the work of a god other than Him who is proved to have given the promise.
"To one is given," says he, "by the Spirit the word of wisdom;" this we see at once is what Isaiah declared to be "the spirit of wisdom.” "To another, the word of knowledge;" this will be "the (prophet's) spirit of understanding and counsel."
"To another, faith by the same Spirit;" this will be "the spirit of religion and the fear of the Lord." "To another, the gifts of healing, and to another the working of miracles;" this will be "the spirit of might.""To another prophecy, to another discerning of spirits, to another various kinds of tongues, to another the interpretation of tongues;" this will be "the spirit of knowledge."
Although Tertullian makes no specific reference to any of vv. 12:1-7, the reference to "spiritual gifts" at least covers v. 12:1.
First Corinthians 12:11-21
But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will. [12:11] For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ. [12:12]
Tertullian alludes to vv. 12:11-12:
See how the apostle agrees with the prophet both in making the distribution of the one Spirit, and in interpreting His special graces. This, too, I may confidently say: he who has likened the unity of our body throughout its manifold and various members to the compacting together of the various gifts of the Spirit, shows also that there is but one Lord of the human body and of the Holy Spirit.
As the various different 'members' of the body are named in later verses, this may also reasonably be taken to include at least vv. 12:13-21.
First Corinthians 12:22-24
Nay, much more those members of the body, which seem to be more feeble, are necessary: [12:22] And those members of the body, which we think to be less honourable, upon these we bestow more abundant honour; and our uncomely parts have more abundant comeliness. [12:23] For our comely parts have no need: but God hath tempered the body together, having given more abundant honour to that part which lacked. [12:24]
Epiphanius confirms the presence of v. 12:24: “But God hath compounded the body.” (Scholion 12 and 20) As Epiphanius then refers to the "members" of the body in Elenchus 12, this seems to require the presence of vv. 12:22-23 as well, so it is likely that these verses were also in Mc1 Cor.
First Corinthians 12:28
And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues. [12:28]
In his commentary on Ephesians (which he notes Marcion calls Laodiceans), Tertullian refers to Eph 2:20 when he notes that Marcion had removed: "and the prophets;" from this verse, apparently forgetting what was in v. 12:28. He writes:
these words, however, the heretic erased, forgetting that the Lord had set in His Church not only apostles, but prophets also.
This example of one of Marcion's supposed 'mistakes' can, of course, also be interpreted simply as Marcion's version of Ephesians being (or being based on) a document that did not contain "and the prophets."
First Corinthians 13:1-13
Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. [13:1] And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing. [13:2] And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing. [13:3] Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up, [13:4] Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil; [13:5] Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth; [13:6] Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things. [13:7] Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away. [13:8] For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. [13:9] But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away. [13:10] When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things. [13:11] For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known. [13:12] And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity. [13:13]
The KJV refers to 'charity' in these verses, but the words used here are agapē and agapēn, usually translated as 'love.' Tertullian can therefore be seen as referring to this passage when he writes, in particular v. 13:8 and 13, but also possibly 13:1:
This Spirit, (according to the apostle's showing,) meant not that the service of these gifts should be in the body, nor did He place them in the human body; and on the subject of the superiority of love above all these gifts, He even taught the apostle that it was the chief commandment.
First Corinthians 14:1-14
Follow after charity, and desire spiritual gifts, but rather that ye may prophesy. [14:1] For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries. [14:2] But he that prophesieth speaketh unto men to edification, and exhortation, and comfort. [14:3] He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth edifieth the church. [14:4] I would that ye all spake with tongues but rather that ye prophesied: for greater is he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues, except he interpret, that the church may receive edifying. [14:5]
After Tertullian refers to vv. 14:25-26 (below), he then appears to refer to some of vv. 14:1-5:
... only let it be by the Spirit, in an ecstasy, that is, in a rapture, whenever an interpretation of tongues has occurred to him; let him show to me also, that any woman of boastful tongue in his community has ever prophesied from among those specially holy sisters of his.
First Corinthians 14:18-21
I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than ye all: [14:18] Yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that by my voice I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue. [14:19] Brethren, be not children in understanding: howbeit in malice be ye children, but in understanding be men. [14:20] In the law it is written, With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord. [14:21]
Epiphanius quotes v. 14:19a, and states that Marcion has added some words:
Marcion has erroneously added the words, “on the Law’s account,’’ <after> “Yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding.” (Scholion 13 and 21)
In his Elenchus he quotes from 2 Tim 3:5, Acts 17:23, and Tit 1:12, but also quotes v. 14:18:
And further, he said the same sort of thing <to> the people who had been trained by the Greek poets and orators, and added in the same way, “I speak with tongues more than ye all,” to show that he was more fully versed in the Greek education as well.
Epiphanius then suggests why Marcion added the words in v. 14:19:
(g) But you have added, “on the Law’s account,” Marcion, as though the apostle meant, “I want <to speak> (no more than) five words in church on the Law’s account.” ... (i) “On the Law’s account” is not in the apostle, and you have made it up yourself.
BeDuhn supplies evidence that this variant is unlikely to have originated with Marcion:
According to Zuntz, this reading (pente logous tōi noi mou lalēsai dia ton nomon) is found in some texts of the Vulgate (D, Z: quinque verbis logui in ecclesiis in sensu meo per legem) and appears to be a conflation of two variants of an original dia tou noos mou: (1) dia ton nomon (cf. Ambrosiaster, Paulinus of Nola), (2) tōi noi mou (cf. Zuntz, The Text of the Epistles, 230; Harnack, Marcion, 90*). In any case, it is clear that the reading was found outside of the Marcionite Church, and therefore cannot be attributed to Marcion.
Tertullian also refers to some of v. 14:21a, while Epiphanius quotes v. 14:21a in full:
When he mentions the fact that "it is written in the law," how that the Creator would speak with other tongues and other lips, while confirming indeed the gift of tongues by such a mention...,
“In the Law it is written, With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people.” (Scholion 14 and 22)
First Corinthians 14:34-35
Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. [14:34] And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church. [14:35]
Following his quotes from vv. 14:21a, Tertullian next refers to what we know as vv. 14:34-35, but also refers back to v. 11:5:
In precisely the same manner, when enjoining on women silence in the church, that they speak not for the mere sake of learning (although that even they have the right of prophesying, he has already shown when he covers the woman that prophesies with a veil), he goes to the law for his sanction that woman should be under obedience.
Epiphanius quotes v. 14:34:
“Let your women keep silence in the church; For it is not permitted unto them to speak, but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the Law.” (Scholion 15 and 23)
The NET has a long note on these verses:
Some scholars have argued that vv. 34-35 should be excised from the text (principally G. D. Fee, First Corinthians [NICNT], 697-710; P. B. Payne, “Fuldensis, Sigla for Variants in Vaticanus, and 1 Cor 14.34-5,” NTS 41 [1995]: 240-262). This is because the Western witnesses (D F G ar b vgms Ambst) have these verses after v. 40, while the rest of the tradition retains them here. There are no mss that omit the verses. Why, then, would some scholars wish to excise the verses? Because they believe that this best explains how they could end up in two different locations, that is to say, that the verses got into the text by way of a very early gloss added in the margin. Most scribes put the gloss after v. 33; others, not knowing where they should go, put them at the end of the chapter. Fee points out that “Those who wish to maintain the authenticity of these verses must at least offer an adequate answer as to how this arrangement came into existence if Paul wrote them originally as our vv. 34-35” (First Corinthians [NICNT], 700). In a footnote he adds, “The point is that if it were already in the text after v. 33, there is no reason for a copyist to make such a radical transposition.” Although it is not our intention to interact with proponents of the shorter text in any detail here, a couple of points ought to be made.
(1) Since these verses occur in all witnesses to 1 Corinthians, to argue that they are not original means that they must have crept into the text at the earliest stage of transmission. How early? Earlier than when the pericope adulterae (John 7:53-8:11) made its way into the text (late 2nd, early 3rd century?), earlier than the longer ending of Mark (16:9-20) was produced (early 2nd century?), and earlier than even “in Ephesus” was added to Eph 1:1 (upon reception of the letter by the first church to which it came, the church at Ephesus) – because in these other, similar places, the earliest witnesses do not add the words. This text thus stands as remarkable, unique. Indeed, since all the witnesses have the words, the evidence points to them as having been inserted into the original document. Who would have done such a thing? And, further, why would scribes have regarded it as original since it was obviously added in the margin? This leads to our second point.
(2) Following a suggestion made by E. E. Ellis (“The Silenced Wives of Corinth (I Cor. 14:34-5),” New Testament Textual Criticism: Its Significance for Exegesis, 213-20 [the suggestion comes at the end of the article, almost as an afterthought]), it is likely that Paul himself added the words in the margin. Since it was so much material to add, Paul could have squelched any suspicions by indicating that the words were his (e.g., by adding his name or some other means [cf. 2 Thess 3:17]). This way no scribe would think that the material was inauthentic. (Incidentally, this is unlike the textual problem at Rom 5:1, for there only one letter was at stake; hence, scribes would easily have thought that the “text” reading was original. And Paul would hardly be expected to add his signature for one letter.)
(3) What then is to account for the uniform Western tradition of having the verses at the end of the chapter? Our conjecture (and that is all it is) is that the scribe of the Western Vorlage could no longer read where the verses were to be added (any marginal arrows or other directional device could have been smudged), but, recognizing that this was part of the original text, felt compelled to put it somewhere. The least offensive place would have been at the end of the material on church conduct (end of chapter 14), before the instructions about the resurrection began. Although there were no chapter divisions in the earliest period of copying, scribes could still detect thought breaks (note the usage in the earliest papyri).
(4) The very location of the verses in the Western tradition argues strongly that Paul both authored vv. 34-35 and that they were originally part of the margin of the text. Otherwise, one has a difficulty explaining why no scribe seemed to have hinted that these verses might be inauthentic (the scribal sigla of codex B, as noticed by Payne, can be interpreted otherwise than as an indication of inauthenticity [cf. J. E. Miller, “Some Observations on the Text-Critical Function of the Umlauts in Vaticanus, with Special Attention to 1 Corinthians 14.34-35,” JSNT 26 [2003]: 217-36.). There are apparently no mss that have an asterisk or obelisk in the margin. Yet in other places in the NT where scribes doubted the authenticity of the clauses before them, they often noted their protest with an asterisk or obelisk. We are thus compelled to regard the words as original, and as belonging where they are in the text above.
Tertullian follows his reference to these verses by stating that Marcion should have removed this text:
Now this law, let me say once for all, he ought to have made no other acquaintance with, than to destroy it.
This shows that these verses were present in the Apostolicon, meaning that if they were an interpolation, then they were added prior to this. Also, from Tertullian's positionning of the reference to these verses it apppears he saw them between vv. 14:21 and 25, and not as either vv. 14 :35-36 or after v. 14:40, suggesting great uncertainty as to where they should be located.
First Corinthians 14:24-26
But if all prophesy, and there come in one that believeth not, or one unlearned, he is convinced of all, he is judged of all: [14:24] And thus are the secrets of his heart made manifest; and so falling down on his face he will worship God, and report that God is in you of a truth. [14:25] How is it then, brethren? when ye come together, every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying. [14:26]
Tertullian refers to prophets (which may be a reference to v. 14:24a), and then quotes from v. 14:25a and part of v. 14:26.
Let Marcion then exhibit, as gifts of his god, some prophets, such as have not spoken by human sense, but with the Spirit of God, such as have both predicted things to come, and have made manifest the secrets of the heart; let him produce a psalm, a vision, a prayer — only let it be by the Spirit, in an ecstasy, that is, in a rapture, whenever an interpretation of tongues has occurred to him; let him show to me also, that any woman of boastful tongue in his community has ever prophesied from among those specially holy sisters of his.
His reference here to "any woman of boastful tongue" and "holy sisters" may be another indication that vv. 14:34-35 preceded these verses.
First Corinthians 15:1-4
Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; [15:1] By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. [15:2] For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; [15:3] And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: [15:4]
In his final Scholion and Elenchus, Epiphanius refers to three different groups of verses. The first of these is vv. 15:1-4:
On resurrection of the dead: “Brethren, I make known unto you the Gospel ye believed . . . that Christ died, and was buried, and rose again on the third day" (Scholion 16 and 24)
He again refers to these verses (and also quotes from Gal 1:8) in the first four parts of the corresponding Elenchus:
(a) “Brethren, I make known unto you the Gospel which I preached unto you.”
(b) ... the same holy apostle secured it by saying, “Though we, or an angel, preach any other Gospel unto you than that which ye have received, let him be accursed.”
(c) This is why he no longer said, “I am preaching the Gospel to you,’’ but, “I am making the Gospel known to you” — "I preached it to you, if you hold fast to it, unless you have believed in vain. For unless you hold it fast as I preached it to you, you have believed in vain apart from it.”
(d) “For I preached to you that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures.”
It is not clear whether Epiphanius is referring to text he saw in 1 Cor or in the Apostolicon. However, Kirby makes the following points:
Epiphanius quotes, in his discussion of Marcion, as follows: «εὐηγγελισάμην γὰρ ὑμῖν ὅτι Χριστὸς ἀπέθανεν ὑπὲρ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ἡμῶν κατὰ τὰς γραφὰς καὶ ὅτι τῇ τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ ἐγήγερται, κατὰ τὰς γραφὰς» (“For I preached to you that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures.”)
Elsewhere Epiphanius quotes words from the received text of 1 Corinthians 15:3a (ὃ καὶ παρέλαβεν, “that which I received”), which makes it likely that he is quoting from Marcion’s text here. If this is a quote from Marcion’s text, it seems that Marcion’s Apostolikon may have also omitted 15:4a (καὶ ὅτι ἐτάφη, “and that he was buried”).
Despite these points, as neither Epiphanius nor Tertullian make any comments on differences between the two it is reasonable to assume that there were no significant differences.
First Corinthians 15:5-11a
Neither Tertullian nor Epiphanius refer to these verses, and BeDuhn comments: “1 Cor 15:5-10 is unattested. Harnack considers the verses to have been present, but his case specifically for v. 9 is insufficient.” According to Kirby:
Robert Price has argued that these verses are interpolated (“Apocryphal Apparitions“). Although Price argues for a larger interpolation (15:3-11), his specific arguments actually touch upon the contents of 15:3a and the narrative regarding the appearances in 15:5-10.
First Corinthians 15:11b-14
Therefore whether it were I or they, so we preach, and so ye believed. [15:11] Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead? [15:12] But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen: [15:13] And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain. [15:14]
In his final Scholion and Elenchus, Epiphanius refers to three different groups of verses. The second of these (in Elenchus 16 and 24) is vv. 15:11b-14, where he writes:
(e) For he adds immediately, “So we preached, and so ye believed" "that Christ died, and was buried, and rose the third day;” and in the same breath, “If the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised. And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain.”
Tertullian also refers to the "resurrection of the dead," but only to explain what it means, and to state that "the apostle refutes those who deny the resurrection of the flesh." Again, there is no indication that the Apostolicon differed from 1 Cor here.
First Corinthians 15:21-25
For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. [15:21] For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. [15:22] But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming. [15:23] Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power. [15:24] For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. [15:25]
Tertullian quotes v. 15:21, 25 and most of 15.22:
"Since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection." ... But if we are all so made alive in Christ, "as we die in Adam," it follows of necessity that "we are made alive in Christ" as a bodily substance... When he says, "For He must reign, till He has put all enemies under His feet," we can see at once from this statement that he speaks of a God of vengeance...
After these references Tertullian states that: "It is necessary for me to lay claim to those Scriptures which the Jews endeavour to deprive us of, and to show that they sustain my view," and then spends the second half of his chapter 9 refering to those scriptures that he is 'claiming,' before then writing: "Let us now return to the resurrection, to the defence of which against heretics of all sorts we have given indeed sufficient attention in another work of ours."
First Corinthians 15:29
Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead? [15:29]
Tertullain quotes v. 15:29a:
"What," asks he, "shall they do who are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not?"
First Corinthians 15:35-41
But some man will say, How are the dead raised up? and with what body do they come? [15:35] Thou fool, that which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die: [15:36] And that which thou sowest, thou sowest not that body that shall be, but bare grain, it may chance of wheat, or of some other grain: [15:37] But God giveth it a body as it hath pleased him, and to every seed his own body. [15:38] All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds. [15:39] There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another. [15:40] There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory. [15:41]
Tertullian quotes v. 15:35: "But some man will say, 'How are the dead raised up? With what body do they come?'" He follows this by referring to Marcion's view of resurrection, and he "is most plainly refuted even from what the apostle advances respecting the quality of the body," for which he quotes from vv. 15:37b-38, and 39b-41:
Indeed, since he proposes as his examples "wheat grain, or some other grain, to which God gives a body, such as it has pleased Him;" since also he says, that "to every seed is its own body;" that, consequently, "there is one kind of flesh of men, while there is another of beasts, and (another) of birds; that there are also celestial bodies and bodies terrestrial; and that there is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars."
Tertullian does not refer to the fish in v. 15:39b, v. 15:40b, and v. 15:41b, but it is impossible to know whether he saw these parts of the text or not. Despite Marcion not believing in the resurrection Tertullian does not suggest that any of these verses were missing from Mc1 Cor, and instead appears to indicate that Marcion was refuted because the verses were present.
First Corinthians 15:42-47
So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption: [15:42] It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power: [15:43] It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. [15:44] And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit. [15:45] Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual. [15:46] The first man is of the earth, earthy; the second man is the Lord from heaven. [15:47]
Epiphanius quotes from most of v. 15:42, altough he uses the plural:
(e) But it will be ended entirely after "the resurrection of the dead," since “They are sown in corruption, they are raised in incorruption,” doing evil no longer, dying no longer. (Elenchus 3 and 11)
Tertullian also quotes from v. 15:42, followed by v. 15:43-46
"So also," says he, "is the resurrection of the dead." ... because "it is sown in corruption," (but "is raised) to honour and power." Likewise, "although it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body." ... as he says further down, "That was not first which is spiritual." For to this effect he just before remarked of Christ Himself: "The first man Adam was made a living soul, the last Adam was made a quickening spirit."
Tertullian then notes that Marcion had altered v. 15:45:
Our heretic, however, in the excess of his folly, being unwilling that the statement should remain in this shape, altered "last Adam" into "last Lord;" because he feared, of course, that if he allowed the Lord to be the last (or second) Adam, we should contend that Christ, being the second Adam, must needs belong to that God who owned also the first Adam.
He continues with references to v. 15:47:
In like manner (the heretic) will be refuted also with the word "man:" "The first man is of the earth, earthy; the second man is the Lord from heaven." ... It is, however, quite enough for me, that in his Gospel he admits the Son of man to be both Christ and Man; so that he will not be able to deny Him (in this passage), in the "Adam" and the "man" (of the apostle).
BeDuhn reports that in v. 15:45 Adamantius confirms the reading in the Apostolicon, and then states: "P46 likewise omits 'Adam' in this clause, but does not have 'Master' instead. Cf. 15.47 for a parallelism in phraseology"
First Corinthians 15:48-50
As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly. [15:48] And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly. [15:49] Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption. [15:50]
Tertullian quotes almost all of vv. 15:48-50 (omitting only the last clause of v. 50), then refers to Galatians 5:19-21 and Romans 8:8:
What follows will also be too much for him [Marcion]. For when the apostle says, "As is the earthy," that is, man, "such also are they that are earthy" — men again, of course; "therefore as is the heavenly," meaning the Man, from heaven, "such are the men also that are heavenly." ... Therefore, when exhorting them to cherish the hope of heaven, he says: "As we have borne the image of the earthy, so let us also bear the image of the heavenly," ... For what are this next words? "Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God."
First Corinthians 15:52-57
In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. [15:52] For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. [15:53] So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory. [15:54] O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory? [15:55] The sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin is the law. [15:56] But thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ. [15:57]
Tertullian quotes vv. 15:52a and b in reverse order, followed by v. 15:53:
"For the dead shall be raised incorruptible," even those who had been corruptible when their bodies fell into decay; "and we shall be changed,” ”In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye.” "For this corruptible" — and as he spoke, the apostle seemingly pointed to his own flesh — "must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality."
He then quotes from Mt 22:30 and v. 15:50 (again), before ending his comments on 1 Cor with quotes from v. 15:55 and alludes to v. 57:
"O death, where is your victory" — or your struggle? "O death, where is your sting?" ... And to none other "God" does he tell us that "thanks" are due, for having enabled us to achieve "the victory" even over death.
In his final Scholion and Elenchus (16 and 24), Epiphanius refers to three different groups of verses, the last of which is vv. 15:53-54:
... When this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.”
(f) And after all this, “For this mortal must put on immortality, and this corruptible must put on incorruption.”
(h) ... Paul, through his promise, indicates their coming fulfillment by saying, “Then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory,” meaning the resurrection of the dead which will take place at that time.
Kirby comments regarding v. 15:56:
This verse is not explicitly attested and is maintained to be an interpolation by F. W. Horn (“1 Korinther 15,56 – ein exegetischer Stachel,” ZNW 82, pp. 88-105). On the other hand, BeDuhn comments, “It is possible that our sources pass over this verse in silence, since it seems to support Marcion’s position” (The First New Testament, p. 289). On the verse itself, see Hollander and Holleman and Vlachos.
First Corinthians 15:58 - 16:24
Neither Tertullian nor Epiphanius refer to any of these verses. As they can be considered 'housekeeping,' it is possible that neither had any interest in them.
Summary
Both Tertullian and Epiphanius note a few small differences between the Pauline version of 1 Cor and that in the Apostolicon, but there is no indication that the variants that were in the Apostilicon were Marcionite changes. Instead, most of the differences can be found in extant mss of 1 Cor, and what is more notable is the text that Tertullian suggests that Marcion should have removed, but didn't. BeDuhn comments:
None of our sources point out any omissions or significant variants in the text of 1 Corinthians found in the Apostolicon. In fact, nearly every section of the letter finds mention, and the sequence of Tertullian's remarks prove that Marcion's text had the same order as the catholic one.
Next: Second Corinthians