Romans
The Works of Nathaniel Lardner, section XLVI, contains the following comments on Marcion's version of Romans (McRom):
In the Epistle to the Romans, which is placed the fourth in the Apostolicon, Tertullian informs us, Marcion had made great erasures; but the particular passages mutilated by him, he says he shall not point out, intending only to mention others, which upon the same principle he might have expunged, because they made against him; and which he therefore produces as instances of his negligence and blindness.
Epiphanius has given us no instance of any corruptions or mutilations made by Marcion in this epistle; the passages produced by him from thence are only intended to confute Marcion from those texts which he allowed to be genuine. He finds fault indeed with his ranking it the fourth in his Apostolicon, and says it was because he would have nothing right.
However we are informed by Origen, or rather by Rufinus, in his edition of Origen's Commentary on this epistle, that Marcion omitted the two last chapters as spurious, ending the epistle in his Apostolicon with the 23rd verse of the 14th chapter.
It is also observable, that Tertullian quotes no passage from the 15th or 16th chapters in his confutation of Marcion, from passages contained in this epistle.
From the above it is clear that Tertullian and Epiphanius differ greatly in their respective evaluations of Marcion's version of Romans. While Epiphanius appears to see no difference between Rom and McRom, not only does Tertullian report that Marcion had removed large portions of the text, but he also comments on text that Marcion should have removed, but somehow forgot to, beginning with this overall statement:
Since my little work is approaching its termination, I must treat but briefly the points which still occur, while those which have so often turned up must be put aside. I regret still to have to contend about the law — after I have so often proved that its replacement (by the gospel) affords no argument for another god, predicted as it was indeed in Christ, and in the Creator's own plans ordained for His Christ. (But I must revert to that discussion) so far as (the apostle leads me, for) this very epistle looks very much as if it abrogated the law.
It is clear from this statement that Tertullian is not going to repeat points that he has already made (having already commented on Galatians, First Corinthians, and Second Corinthians), but is instead going to deal (briefly) with issues that have not previously arisen.
Romans 1:1-15
Athough he does not here comment on vv. 1:1-15, we know from his comments at the beginning of 1 Cor that Tertullian saw Paul's standard blessings, so we can take it that he at least saw:
Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ. [1:7b]
We may reasonably assume that the version of Romans in the Apostolicon would have also contained v. 1:7a (as this is where Rome is mentioned), and also most likely v. 1:1. Then, on the assumption that Marcion edited Romans to create McRom we would fully expect that he would have removed the mention of the scriptures and Jesus' flesh from vv. 1:2-3:
(Which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures,) [1:2] Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh; [1:3]
However, as neither Tertullian nor Epiphanius refer to these (important to Marcion) verses, this suggests that the verses were present in McRom. Nevertheless, as ms G omits vv. 1b-5a, it is possible that both saw something approximating this in Romans and McRom:
Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle [1:1a] among all nations, for his name: [1:5b]
In support of this view Peter Kirby notes:
Following Detering, Godfrey writes, “Tertullian (Contra Marcion 4.36) relishes the use of Bartimaeus addressing Jesus as ‘Son of David’ to counter Marcion’s assertion that Jesus had no human lineage or social recognition at his coming. Since Tertullian knew Paul was Marcion’s sole apostle it is perplexing that he did not conclusively push his argument against Marcion by citing this passage in Romans if it were known to him. He had opportunity to do so in CM 4.36 when discussing the Bartimaeus passage and again in CM 5.13 when discussing Romans.” (Romans 1:2-6)
There is no clear conclusion here, other than that neither Tertullian nor Epiphanius report any differences here between Romans and McRom.
Romans 1:16-18
For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. [1:16] For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith. [1:17] For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; [1:18]
Tertullian begins his comments specific to Romans part way through Chapter 1, quoting almost all of vv. 1:16-18, but not v. 1:17b. He also does not mention "of God" in v. 18a, but later asks 'the wrath of what God?', suggesting that he did actually see "of God."
... in the passage where he says: "I am not ashamed of the gospel (of Christ): for it is the power of god unto salvation to every one that believes; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek; for therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith," he undoubtedly ascribes both the gospel and salvation to Him whom (in accordance with our heretic's own distinction) I have called the just God, not the good one... When, again, he declares that "the wrath (of God) is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness," (I ask) the wrath of what God? Of the Creator certainly. The truth, therefore, will be His, whose is also the wrath, which has to be revealed to avenge the truth.
Romans 1:19-2:2
Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things. [2:1] But we are sure that the judgment of God is according to truth against them which commit such things. [2:2]
Tertullian has no mention of vv. 1:19-2:1, but quotes most of v. 2:2, with no suggestion that he saw anything different in McRom in any of these verses:
Likewise, when adding, "We are sure that the judgment of God is according to truth," he both vindicated that wrath from which comes this judgment for the truth, and at the same time afforded another proof that the truth emanates from the same God whose wrath he attested, by witnessing to His judgment.
However, as v. 2:2 would not make sense without something to precede it, it seems likely that Tertullian did also see v. 2:1 in McRom. In addition, v. 2:2b refers back to v. 1:32:
Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them. [1:32]
This verse in turn requires an anticedent, which takes us back at least as far as to v. 1:27, in which the men who know "the judgement of God" are introduced. However, as this verse in turn begins "and likewise the men" we must go back further still, all the way to v. 1:20, to make any real sense of vv. 1:32-2:2. So the fact that Tertullian quotes v. 2:2 (without any comments regarding Marcion) is a strong indication that vv. 1:19-2:2 were all present in the Apostolicon.
Romans 2:3-11
Tertullian has no specific comments on any of these verses, and instead between his comments on vv. 2:2 and 2:12 we find the following statement:
But what serious gaps Marcion has made in this epistle especially, by withdrawing whole passages at his will, will be clear from the unmutilated text of our own copy. It is enough for my purpose to accept in evidence of its truth what he has seen fit to leave unerased, strange instances as they are also of his negligence and blindness.
Tertullian is stating plainly that he regards any passage in his copy of Rom that was not in McRom as being an omission by Marcion. However, he also comments on Marcion's: "negligence and blindness" regarding material in McRom that he expected to have been removed by Marcion, anomalies which suggest that Marcion may not have been responsible for the differences between Romans and McRom. Jason D. BeDuhn also quotes the above statement from Tertullian, and then writes:
But did the omission to which he refers occur before or after 2.2? Harnack (Marcion, 103*) interprets it as referring to an omission of 1.19-2.1, and hence as a comment on how in Marcion’s text the two separate passages of 1.18 and 2.2 were read together. Schmid (Marcion und sein Apostolos, 85-87, 110) thinks that Tertullian means to refer to an omission following the verse he has just quoted, 2.2, and before the verse he next quotes, 2.14. Unfortunately, Tertullian says nothing specific enough to settle the question. Both 1.19-2.1 and 2.3-11 contain comments that Tertullian would be likely to cite against Marcion. Yet Tertullian has just said (5.13.1) that he will not repeat points already sufficiently raised before, including the theme of God as judge, which features prominently in 2.3-11.
Both the location of Tertullian's comment, and the discussion of vv. 1:19-2:2 above, suggest that at least some verses from vv. 2:2-11 were not present in the Apostolicon, but as Tertullian refers to "whole passages" there must also be other (later) passages that were not present. However, we may only be able to infer their absence by the lack of any comment from Tertullian, Epiphanius, Adamantius, et al. Even so, any absence cannot automatically be attributed to Marcion. For example, the NET has this extensive note (re-formatted for readability) regarding the majority of Romans 2:
Rom 2:1-29 presents unusual difficulties for the interpreter. There have been several major approaches to the chapter and the group(s) it refers to:
Rom 2:14 refers to Gentile Christians, not Gentiles who obey the Jewish law.
Paul in Rom 2 is presenting a hypothetical viewpoint: If anyone could obey the law, that person would be justified, but no one can.
The reference to “the ones who do the law” in 2:13 are those who “do” the law in the right way, on the basis of faith, not according to Jewish legalism.
Rom 2:13 only speaks about Christians being judged in the future, along with such texts as Rom 14:10 and 2 Cor 5:10.
Paul’s material in Rom 2 is drawn heavily from Diaspora Judaism, so that the treatment of the law presented here cannot be harmonized with other things Paul says about the law elsewhere (E. P. Sanders,Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People, 123); another who sees Rom 2 as an example of Paul’s inconsistency in his treatment of the law is H. Räisänen, Paul and the Law[WUNT], 101-9.
The list of blessings and curses in Deut 27–30 provide the background for Rom 2; the Gentiles of 2:14 are Gentile Christians, but the condemnation of Jews in 2:17-24 addresses the failure of Jews as a nation to keep the law as a whole (A. Ito, “Romans 2: A Deuteronomistic Reading,” JSNT 59 [1995]: 21-37).
Romans 2 appears to be split into some fairly easily identifiable sections, which bible.org summarizes as:
Jews who judge Gentiles hypocritically, thus despising God’s mercy, will themselves be judged by God impartially according to truth and their works (2:1-11).
God’s impartiality in judgment is seen in that both Jew and Gentile alike are to be judged equally and fairly (2:12-16).
The Jew thinks that through his relationship to the Law he has the essential features of knowledge and truth and can guide and teach the Gentile (2:17-20).
But the Jew does not obey the teachings of the Law and as a result the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles (2:21-24).
The Jew cannot arrogantly appeal to the outward rite of circumcision since (1) the uncircumcised man who obeys the Law will be regarded as circumcised and he in turn will judge the disobedience of the circumcised Jew as uncircumcision, and (2) the true Jew who gets praise from God, not people, is the one who is circumcised by the Spirit inwardly, in the heart, and not by the letter (2:25-29).
This breakdown of Romans 2 and Tertullian's comment suggest that he may not have seen vv. 2:3-11 in McRom, although he probably did see vv. 2:1-2, which appear to be an introduction into what follows.
Romans 2:12-16
For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law; [2:12] (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified. [2:13] For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: [2:14] Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;) [2:15] In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel. [2:16]
Tertullian refers to vv. 2:12, 14, and 16, although he quotes very little from these verses:
If, then, God will judge the secrets of men — both of those "who have sinned in the law," and of those "who have sinned without law" (inasmuch as they who "know not the law" yet do 'by nature the things contained in the law") — surely the God who shall judge is He to whom belong both the law, and that nature which is the rule to them who know not the law. But how will He conduct this judgment? "According to my gospel," says (the apostle), "by (Jesus) Christ."
Epiphanius quotes the whole of vv. 2:12-13:
“As many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law; and as many as have sinned in the Law shall be judged by the Law. For not the hearers of the Law are just before God, but the doers of the Law shall be justified.” (Scholion 1 and 28)
In the corresponding Elenchus he quotes a version of v. 10:4, using it to tell Marcion: 'nor will you be justified,' 'since you deny the Law,' but he does not suggest that Marcion had changed any text here.
Romans 2:20-21
An instructor of the foolish, a teacher of babes, which hast the form of knowledge and of the truth in the law. [2:20] Thou therefore which teachest another, teachest thou not thyself? thou that preachest a man should not steal, dost thou steal? [2:21] Thou that sayest a man should not commit adultery, dost thou commit adultery? thou that abhorrest idols, dost thou commit sacrilege? [2:22] Thou that makest thy boast of the law, through breaking the law dishonourest thou God? [2:23]
Tertullian refers to v. 2:21, while Epiphanius quotes v. 2:20b. Neither suggest that Marcion had any difference here.
Hence his invective against the transgressors of the law, who teach that men should not steal, and yet practise theft themselves. (This invective he utters) in perfect homage to the law of God...
“Which hast the form of knowledge and of the truth in the Law.” (Scholion 3 and 30)
Romans 2:24-25
For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you, as it is written. [2:24] For circumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep the law: but if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision. [2:25]
Tertullian quotes a version of v. 2:24, while Epiphanius quotes v. 2:25. Oddly, his quotes of vv. 2:20b and 2:25 are reversed.
Well, but he had gone so far in his censure of the Jews, as to point against them the denunciation of the prophet, "Through you the name of God is blasphemed (among the Gentiles)."
“Circumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep the Law; but if thou be a breaker of the Law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision.” (Scholion 2 and 29)
Romans 2:28-29
For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: [2:28] But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God. [2:29]
Tertullian quotes portions of both vv. 2:28-29, although he does so in reverses order.
Now it is quite within the purpose of the God of the law that circumcision should be that of the heart, not in the flesh; in the spirit, and not in the letter... the Spirit which circumcises the heart will proceed from Him who prescribed the letter also which clips the flesh; and "the Jew which is one inwardly" will be a subject of the self-same God as he also is who is "a Jew outwardly;"
Romans 3:1-20
Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. [3:19]
Neither Tertullian nor Epiphanius refer to vv. 3:1-18, but as vv. 3:10-18 are a long sequence of quotes from the Old Testament it seems likely that they would have commented if Marcion had omitted some or all of these verses. Then, after referring to vv. 5:20-21, Tertullian quotes from v. 3:19, Galatians 3:22, and Ephesians 2:9:
For this (I suppose it was, that) the law of the Creator had "concluded all under sin," and had brought in "all the world as guilty (before God)," and had "stopped every mouth," so that none could glory through it, in order that grace might be maintained to the glory of the Christ, not of the Creator, but of Marcion!
BeDuhn refers to this quote as a "summarizing string of citations from several of Paul's letters on the outcome of the law," and then says: "This would appear to be a paraphrase, with the two clauses inverted, of this verse. The context of argument makes it clear that he is quoting from the Apostolikon," again suggesting that at least vv. 3:10-18 were present in McRom.
Romans 3:21-22
But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; [3:21] Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference: [3:22]
Tertullian refers to the law several times, and "the righteousness of God" twice. This is clearly a reference to v. 3:22, and most likely v. 3:21 as well.
It was once the law; now it is "the righteousness of God which is by the faith of (Jesus) Christ." What means this distinction? Has your god been subserving the interests of the Creator's dispensation, by affording time to Him and to His law? Is the "Now" in the hands of Him to whom belonged the "Then"? Surely, then, the law was His, whose is now the righteousness of God. It is a distinction of dispensations, not of gods.
Romans 3:24-31
Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: [3:24] Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; [3:25] To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus. [3:26] Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith. [3:27] Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law. [3:28] Is he the God of the Jews only? is he not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also: [3:29] Seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith. [3:30] Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law. [3:31]
Tertullian refers both to being "justified by faith" and "justified by him." The former is a clear reference to v. 3:28, while the latter may reasonably be taken to refer to v. 3:24, and the references to the law to v. 3:27. As "faith" is also mentioned in vv. 3:30-31 and "the law" in v. 3:28, 31, this may also be taken to cover the whole of vv. 3:24-31.
Romans 4:1-25
Neither Tertullian nor Epiphanius refers to any of these verses, and therefore it is difficult to decide which, if any, may not have been in Marcion's Apostolicon. However, BeDuhn refers to a quotation by Hegemonius of a version of v. 4:2 possibly taken from McRom, and then writes:
Rom 4.3-4.25 is unattested. Harnack considers these verses to have been omitted. Neither Tertullian nor Epiphanius say anything about an omission in Marcion’s text here, but we would expect them to cite some of the content against Marcion. Various proposals for small interpolations in this section of the letter have been made.
Kirby comments on a possible interpolation in vv. 4:6-9a:
On this passage, see Weisse and O’Neill (Paul’s Letter to the Romans, pp. 86-87): “The difficulty arises from the interpretation of the last clause of the citation that is put forward in v. 6. The positive of ‘not reckon sin’ in v. 8 is not ‘reckon righteousness’ but ‘reckon as righteousness’, ‘acquit.’ The writer of v. 6 is either playing with words, or he thinks sin is like a black ball which can be cast into the urn against a man, and righteousness like a white ball which the happy man has cast in his favour. His words give rise to the theory that righteousness is imputed; a large sum is credited to the account of the man who really is in debt. The Psalmist did not mean this, nor did Paul mean this. Righteousness in Romans always elsewhere means the goodness which Israel was seeking, that is, a goodness men should try to show in their lives. This meaning is already assumed in v. 5, but will scarcely fit in v. 6. Accordingly, I conclude that vv. 6-8 were written by a later commentator who anticipated and prompted Luther’s doctrine of imputation.” Also, “The first sentence in this verse [9a] comes from the hand of the same commentator. It assumes the question yet to be posed about Abraham in v. 10.”
Kirby again, on vv. 4:14-15:
On this passage, see Weisse and O’Neill (Paul’s Letter to the Romans, p. 88): “These verses clearly exclude Jews from the possibility of being heirs with Abraham. The Law brings God’s wrath, and only those Jews who give up the Law will not be able to transgress God’s will. If this is the meaning of the verses – and I have tried in vain to discover a meaning that will be less antisemitic – Paul cannot possibly have written them, for he consistently argues that practising Jews may also be heirs of the promises. Weisse omits these two verses, and I agree. The author belonged to the same school as the writer of the ‘Epistle of Barnabas’ (cf. Chapter 13), and those Christians at the time of Justin Martyr who would not have any social contact with Jewish Christians (cf. Dialogue with Trypho, Chapter 47).” Also, “these words [v. 16, ‘that is why’] refer back to v. 13, another indication that vv. 14 f. were an interpolation into the original text.”
Finally, on v. 4:17:
On this verse, O’Neill (Paul’s Letter to the Romans, p. 89): “it is very difficult to see how this statement fits with anything that goes before. … The solution to this difficulty seems to be that the statement [was] originally a gloss against the statement that now follows in v. 18, in hope he believed against hope. The glossator noted in the margin that it was entirely reasonable to believe hopefully, even against what a man could naturally hope, because this belief was belief in the presence of God who gives life to the dead and calls into existence the things that do not exist.”
There is nothing definite here, but there is at least a possibility of some of the verses in Chapter 4 being interpolations. However, there does not seem to be any suggestion that the omission of any of these verses in any source may have been the work of Marcion.
Romans 5:1
Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ: [5:1]
Tertullian follows his (above) references to vv. 3:24-31 with a clear reference to v. 5:1:
He enjoins those who are justified by faith in Christ and not by the law to have peace with God. With what God? Him whose enemies we have never, in any dispensation, been? Or Him against whom we have rebelled, both in relation to His written law and His law of nature? Now, as peace is only possible towards Him with whom there once was war, we shall be both justified by Him, and to Him also will belong the Christ, in whom we are justified by faith, and through whom alone God's enemies can ever be reduced to peace.
The fact that Tertullian immediately follows his references to the end of Chapter 3 with a reference to the beginning of Chapter 5 may be another indication that some or all of Chapter 4 was not present in Marcion's version of Romans, but it has no more force than this.
Romans 5:6
For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. [5:6]
Tertullian has no comment on v. 5:6, but Epiphanius quotes the whole verse:
For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. (Scholion 4 and 31)
Romans 5:20-21
Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound: [5:20] That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord. [5:21]
Tertullian quotes v. 5:20a and connects it with a slightly different version of v. 5:20b, then quotes v. 5:21 except that he omits 'eternal.' This may be similar to the situation in Lk 10:25 (See Luke 10), about which Epiphanius notes: "In the heretical gospel life only is mentioned, without the attribute eternal."
"Moreover," says he, "the law entered, that the offense might abound." And wherefore this? "In order," he says, "that (where sin abounded), grace might much more abound." ... "that as sin had" in His own dispensation "reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto (eternal) life by Jesus Christ,"
As mentioned above, immediately following this Tertullian refers to what we see as v. 3:19.
Romans 6:1-7:3
Neither Tertullian nor Epiphanius refer to any of these verses, however, other commentators do mention some of them. BeDuhn notes that:
Rom 6.1-13 is unattested. Harnack (Marcion, 105*) argues for inclusion of vv. 1-2 based on Tertullian’s reference at 1.27.5 to a Pauline absit, which Harnack thinks can only come from this passage, apparently overlooking the absit of Rom 7.7. Harnack also includes vv. 3, 9-10 on the basis of parts of Adamantius where it cannot be shown that Marcion’s text is being quoted (3.7, 5.11-12). None of the content of book 6 offered anything for Tertullian or Epiphanius to use against Marcion; their failure to mention it is therefore neither surprising nor significant.
BeDuhn presents evidence suggesting that Adamantius may have quoted v. 6:14 from the Apolosticon, and then refers to Adamantius 3.7:
It is uncertain if Adamantius is reading from the Apostolikon here. In this section of the work, he has been debating a Bardaisanite, but suddenly the Marcionite megethius interrupts, and quotes from the Evangelion, to which Adamantius replies in part with this quote. Possibly, then, the author has dropped in a passage from an anti-Marcionite source; but that does not mean that the source has been careful to quote only from the Apostolikon. In place of "to impurity and lawlessness" (te arkatharsia kai te anomia), he has "to injustice and impurity" (te adikio kai te akatharsia), perhaps under the influence of 6.13. In the second clause, he omits "now" (with Gk ms 69), the explicit "your" with ‘limbs’ (implied in the article), and "for holiness" at the end, and adds "God" as the indirect object of the verb "supply" alongside of "rectitude." Hagen, "Two Deutero-Pauline Glosses in Romans 6," 364-67, argues that 6.13 and 6.19 are interpolations.
Whether Tertullian and Epiphanius saw any of Romans 6 in McRom is impossible to tell. We do know that neither chose to comment on any of these verses, and it is feasible for both to have simply chosen to avoid any mention of missing verses at this point. However, the evidence presented above suggests that at least vv. 6:1-3, 9-10, 14 may have been present, and that Romans 6 simply did not contain any content on which they might have wished to comment.
Romans 7:4-8
Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God. [7:4] For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death. [7:5] But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter. [7:6] What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet. [7:7] But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead. [7:8] For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died. [7:9] And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death. [7:10] For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me. [7:11]
Tertullian refers to vv. 7:4-5 and 7-8, although only quoting small portions of each verse. As he does quote: "sin, taking occasion by the commandment" this may refer to either v. 7:8 or 11.
For he says that "we are dead to the law." ... Now, whatever may be the substance, since he mentions "the body of Christ," whom he immediately after states to have been "raised from the dead," none other body can be understood than that of the flesh, in respect of which the law was called (the law) of death. But, behold, he bears testimony to the law, and excuses it on the ground of sin: "What shall we say, therefore? Is the law sin? God forbid." Fie on you, Marcion. "God forbid!" ... I, however, have no acquaintance with sin except through the law... It was not the law, therefore, which led me astray, but "sin, taking occasion by the commandment."
Romans 7:12-14
Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good. [7:12] Was then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful. [7:13] For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin. [7:14]
Epiphanius quotes v. 7:12, and in his Elenchus states that it refutes Marcion:
“Wherefore the Law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.” (Scholion 5 and 32)
Tertullian also quotes v. 7:12, comments that he is at a loss to understand how Marcion can claim that there are two gods, and then refers to v. 7:14. Neither Epiphanius nor Tertullian refer to v. 7:13.
Why then do you, (O Marcion,) impute to the God of the law what His apostle dares not impute even to the law itself? Nay, he adds a climax: "The law is holy, and its commandment just and good." ...Then, again, when affirming "the law" to be "spiritual" he thereby implies that it is prophetic, and that it is figurative.
Romans 7:23-25
But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. [7:23] O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death? [7:24] I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin. [7:25]
Tertullian refers to v. 8:3 (see below), and then says:
For he in a previous verse ascribed sin to the flesh, and made it out to be "the law of sin dwelling in his members," and "warring against the law of the mind."
This is a clear reference to v. 7:23a, but may also begin with a reference to the end of v. 7:25.
Romans 8:1-3
There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. [8:1] For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death. [8:2] For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: [8:3]
Over several sentences, Tertullian makes many reference to flesh, or sinful flesh, and quotes from v. 8:3b. He makes no comments regarding any differences between Rom and McRom.
If the Father "sent His Son in the likeness of sinful flesh," it must not therefore be said that the flesh which He seemed to have was but a phantom... (Reference to v. 7:23, as above) On this account, therefore, (does he mean to say that) the Son was sent in the likeness of sinful flesh, that He might redeem this sinful flesh by a like substance, even a fleshly one, which bare a resemblance to sinful flesh, although it was itself free from sin... Because he would not have added the attribute "sinful," if he meant the "likeness" to be so predicated of the substance as to deny the verity thereof; in that case he would only have used the word "flesh," and omitted the "sinful." But inasmuch as he has put the two together, and said "sinful flesh," (or "flesh of sin,") he has both affirmed the substance, that is, the flesh and referred the likeness to the fault of the substance, that is, to its sin.
Romans 8:4-9
That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. [8:4] For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit. [8:5] For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. [8:6] Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. [8:7] So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God. [8:8] But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. [8:9]
Epiphanius quotes v. 8:4a: “That the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us,” (Scholion 6 and 33) and in the corresponding Elenchus uses these words to attack Marcion. Tertullian refers to both "flesh" and "spirit," without quoting from any verse, but seems to have vv. 8:4, 8, and 9 in mind:
Thus the likeness of flesh would not be called spirit, because flesh is not susceptible of any likeness to spirit... The apostle, however, himself here comes to our aid; for, while explaining in what sense he would not have us live in the flesh, although "in the flesh" -- even by not living in the works of the flesh...
Tertullian refers to v. 8:8 in his commentary on First Corinthians:
In other passages also he is accustomed to put the natural condition instead of the works that are done therein, as when he says, that "they who are in the flesh cannot please God."
Romans 8:10-11
And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness. [8:10] But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you. [8:11]
Tertullian quotes most of v. 8:10 and 11b, without any suggestion that the Apostolicon contained anything different. BeDuhn writes: "One notes the apparent affirmation of physical resurrection in this verse, contrary to Marcion's reported views."
Likewise, if "the body indeed is dead because of sin" ... "but the spirit is life because of righteousness," it follows that this life accrues to that which incurred death because of sin, that is, as we have just seen, the body... He accordingly subjoins: "He that raised up Christ from the dead, shall also quicken your mortal bodies."
Romans 8:12-39, 9:1-33
I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost, [9:1] That I have great heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart. [9:2] For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh: [9:3] Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved. [10:1]
Following the above quotation of v. 8:11, Tertullian writes: "I have here a very wide gulf of expunged Scripture to leap across;" after which he quotes from Romans 10. His comment suggests a single large gap, but he gives no clue as to the exact locations of the beginning and end of the omitted passage. It is likely to have encompassed at least the majority of Chapter 9, and there is a possibility that vv. 9:4-33 is an interpolation, as v. 10:1 seems to follow closely after v. 9:3.
Romans 10:1-4
Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved. [10:1] For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge. [10:2] For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God. [10:3] For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth. [10:4]
After referring to the "wide gulf of expunged Scripture," Tertullian continues by referring to Israel, and then quoting almost all of vv. 10:2-4:
... however, I alight on the place where the apostle bears record of Israel "that they have a zeal of God" -- their own God, of course -- "but not according to knowledge. For," says he, "being ignorant of (the righteousness of) God, and going about to establish their own righteousness, they have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God; for Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believes."
Tertullian omits "the righteousness of " from v. 10:3, while Epiphanius also quotes v. 10:4:
“For Christ is the fulfillment of the Law for righteousness to everyone that believeth.” (Scholion 7 and 34)
Neither Tertullian nor Epiphanius comment on any differences between Rom and McRom.
Romans 10:5-11
For Moses describeth the righteousness which is of the law, That the man which doeth those things shall live by them. [10:5] But the righteousness which is of faith speaketh on this wise, Say not in thine heart, Who shall ascend into heaven? (that is, to bring Christ down from above:) [10:6] Or, Who shall descend into the deep? (that is, to bring up Christ again from the dead.) [10:7] But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach; [10:8] That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. [10:9] For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. [10:10] For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed. [10:11]
It is unclear what portions of vv. 10:5 - 11 either Tertullian or Epiphanius saw in the Apostolicon. Tertullian refers to the righteousness of their law, which could be referring to v. 10:5, but as righteousness is also used in vv. 10:4, 6, and 10, this is not definitive. It is possible that Tertullian saw all of vv. 10:5-11:
Hereupon we shall be confronted with an argument of the heretic, that the Jews were ignorant of the superior God, since, in opposition to him, they set up their own righteousness — that is, the righteousness of their law — not receiving Christ, the end (or finisher) of the law. But how then is it that he bears testimony to their zeal for their own God, if it is not in respect of the same God that he upbraids them for their ignorance? They were affected indeed with zeal for God, but it was not an intelligent zeal: they were, in fact, ignorant of Him, because they were ignorant of His dispensations by Christ, who was to bring about the consummation of the law; and in this way did they maintain their own righteousness in opposition to Him.
Epiphanius has no comment on any of these verses, so the assumption is that he saw no differences here.
Romans 10:12-21, 11:1-32
Neither Tertullian nor Epiphanius refer directly to any of vv. 10:12 - 11:32, and it has been suggested that Tertullian's comment on v. 11:33 (see below) means that none of these verses were present in the Apostolicon. For example, after quoting Tertullian's response to seeing v. 11:33, BeDuhn writes:
Harnack (Marcion, 108*) maintains that this remark indicates that the entirety of 10.5-11.32 was lacking in Marcion’s text, and that 11.33 directly commented on 10.4. Schmid (Marcion und sein Apostolos, 111) expresses some doubt that the gap was so extensive. He points to a passage in Irenaeus, Haer. 1.27.3, which referes to a Marcionite belief in Christ’s descent into Hades, and suggests that this belief is based on Rom 10.6-10. It is quite uncharacteristic of Schmid to credit anything outside of the more systematic sources, and to rely, as he does here, on reports about Marcionite interpretation and application of biblical passages should be given tentative credit; but Irenaeus’ remark scarcely rises to that standard, and Schmid’s suggestion cannot be accepted.
Although doubts have been expressed, there is strong support for the view that at least vv. 11:1-32 were not present in McRom. Some people (e.g. Paul Louis Couchoud) have suggested that these verses are an interpolation.
Romans 11:33-36
O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out! [11:33] For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counsellor? [11:34] Or who hath first given to him, and it shall be recompensed unto him again? [11:35] For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever. Amen. [11:36]
Tertullian quotes from Isa, Mk/Mt, and Ps 2, and suggests that Paul was "just in reproaching the Jews with ignorance in respect of a god of whom they knew nothing." He then quotes v. 11:33a, and a slightly shorter variant of v. 11:33b, but questions why Paul had written this "outburst of feeling:"
But he exclaims: "O the depth of the riches and the wisdom of God; how unsearchable also are His ways!" Whence this outburst of feeling? Surely from the recollection of the Scriptures, which he had been previously turning over, as well as from his contemplation of the mysteries which he had been setting forth above, in relation to the faith of Christ coming from the law.
Tertullian follows this by asking why Marcion's version of Romans still contained v. 11:33. He then quotes Isa 45:3, Rom 11:33a again, and follows it with vv. 11:34-35, but does not mention v. 11:36:
If Marcion had an object in his erasures, why does his apostle utter such an exclamation, because his god has no riches for him to contemplate? ... For so had He promised: "I will give to them treasures which have been hidden, and which men have not seen will I open to them." Hence, then, came the exclamation , "O the depth of the riches and the wisdom of God!" For His treasures were now opening out. This is the purport of what Isaiah said, and of (the apostle's own) subsequent quotation of the self-same passage, of the prophet: "Who has known the mind of the Lord? Or who has been His counsellor? Who has first given to Him, and it shall be recompensed to him again?"
Romans 12:1-8
Tertullian again comments on Marcion having removed text from his version of Romans:
Now, (Marcion,) since you have expunged so much from the Scriptures, why did you retain these words, as if they too were not the Creator's words?
As Tertullian follows this by referring to vv. 12:9-12, this comment can be reasonably interpreted as indicating that Tertullian did not see vv. 12:1-8 in the Apostolicon.
Romans 12:9-14
Let love be without dissimulation. Abhor that which is evil; cleave to that which is good. [12:9] Be kindly affectioned one to another with brotherly love; in honour preferring one another; [12:10] Not slothful in business; fervent in spirit; serving the Lord; [12:11] Rejoicing in hope; patient in tribulation; continuing instant in prayer; [12:12] Distributing to the necessity of saints; given to hospitality. [12:13] Bless them which persecute you: bless, and curse not. [12:14]
Tertullian quotes from vv. 12:9b, 10a, 12a, and 14b.
But come now, let us see without mistake the precepts of your new god: "Abhor that which is evil, and cleave to that which is good." ... Then again: "Be kindly affectioned one to another with brotherly love." ... (Again, your apostle says:) "Rejoicing in hope;" that is, of God... "Patient in tribulation." ... "Bless, and curse not," (says your apostle.)
Even though tertullian does not quotes the whole of vv. 12:9-14, it is likely that he saw no differences here.
Romans 12:16-19
Be of the same mind one toward another. Mind not high things, but condescend to men of low estate. Be not wise in your own conceits. [12:16] Recompense to no man evil for evil. Provide things honest in the sight of all men. [12:17] If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men. [12:18] Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord. [12:19]
Tertullian quotes v. 12:16b, 17a, parts of v. 19, and 18b, in that order.
But what better teacher of this will you find than Him who created all things, and blessed them? "Mind not high things, but condescend to men of low estate. Be not wise in your own conceits." For against such a disposition Isaiah pronounces a woe. "Recompense to no man evil for evil." (Like unto which is the Creator's precept:) "You shall not remember your brother's evil against you." (Again:) "Avenge not yourselves;" for it is written, "Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord." "Live peaceably with all men." The retaliation of the law, therefore, permitted not retribution for an injury; it rather repressed any attempt thereat by the fear of a recompense.
Apart from quoting vv. 12:18 and 19 in reverse order, there is no indication that Tertullian saw any differences here.
Romans 13
Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law. [13:8] For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. [13:9]
Epiphanius quotes v. 13:8b, except that he has "his neighbor" instead of "another":
“He that loveth his neighbor hath fulfilled the Law.” (Scholion 8 and 35)
Tertullian sums up the Creator's teaching by quoting just the end of v. 13:9:
Very properly, then, did he sum up the entire teaching of the Creator in this precept of His: "You shall love your neighbour as yourself."
Even though Tertullian only quotes this small portion of text, the fact that Epiphanius quotes from v. 13:8 suggests that both version were present unchanged in McRom. There is no reference to vv. 13:10-14.
Romans 14
But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ. [14:10]
Tertullian's final comment on Romans includes a quote from v. 14:10b:
But it is well that in a later verse [lit 'in closing,' in clausula] he threatens us with "the judgment-seat of Christ," -- the Judge, of course, and the Avenger, and therefore the Creator's (Christ). This Creator, too, however much he may preach up another god, he certainly sets forth for us as a Being to be served, if he holds Him thus up as an object to be feared.
Romans 15, 16
Neither Tertullian nor Epiphanius have any comment on these chapters, either what they saw in Romans or in the Apostolicon, and as there are many variants in these two chapters, it is hard to make a determination as to what was in McRom. This is not helped by the fact that there are multiple forms of the ending of Romans, as noted by Richard N. Longenecker in Part 1 of ‘Introducing Romans: Critical Issues in Paul's Most Famous Letter:’
Despite the unanimous testimony of the Greek MSS, there seems to have existed at an early time among many Christians (both orthodox and heretical), who were living in such areas as North Africa, Asia Minor, and France, a short form of Romans that did not have chapters 15-16 and that sometimes appended the doxology of 16:25-27 of the long form immediately after 14:23. Belief in the existence of such an early short form is based on a number of considerations:
He notes that Origen stated that Marcion had “cut away” everything after 14:23 and then, after noting the problematic nature of negative evidence, writes:
In addition it needs to be noted that Tertullian speaks of Paul as threatening his readers in the conclusion (in clausula) of Romans with “the judgment seat of Christ” – which evidently, is an allusion to the apostle’s statement Rom 14:10, “For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God.” It cannot be absolutely determined as to whether Tertullian was here referencing to the conclusion of Marcion’s text of Romans or the conclusion of his own text. Tertullian’s usual practice was to refute Marcion on the basis of the heretic’s text. Yet coupled with the facts (1) that Tertullian never rebukes Marcion for excising these chapters, though he does for other portions deleted, and (2) that Tertullian never quotes from Romans 15-16, it seems virtually certain that Tertullian himself also had in hand and used only a fourteen-chapter form of the letter. In all probability, therefore, the short form of Romans cannot be attributed simply to Marcion, but must have been accepted by Tertullian as well – and also, as may be argued from their lack of reference to anything in chapters 15 and 16, by Irenaeus and Cyprian.
BeDuhn comments:
There is clear evidence of a fourteen-chapter version of Romans in circulation in the Latin West (see Gamble, The Textual History of the Letter to the Romans), and the ninth-century Greek-Latin bilingual ms G separates 15-16 from the end of chapter 14 by six blank lines. This sort of separation typically represents uncertainty of about the unity of the preceding text with the following, as in cases where a copyist adds material found in another exemplar than the one primarily used as the basis for the copy; but the space is interpreted differently by Corssen (‘Zur Überlieferungsgeschichte des Römerbriefes’) and Dupont (‘Pour l’histoire de la doxologie finale d l’epitre aux Romains’), who consider it to be a sign of the copyist’s uncertainty about whether to place the doxology at this point, somewhere else, or, as the copyist ultimately decided, to omit it.
Summary
Kirby comments:
Our survey has found that there is indeed some reason to find shorter readings in Marcion’s text of Paul. However, we cannot prove anything regarding an extensively reduced form of Paul’s letters in Marcion. Tertullian’s text actually agrees with Marcion’s regarding some lengthy shorter readings, such as Romans 15-16 and possibly 2 Corinthians 8-9.
Apart from the possibility of Gal 3:15-25 suggested by Harnack (but controverted by Schmid and BeDuhn), the lengthiest confirmed differences seem mostly confined to a few passages of Romans (1:19-2:1 or 2:3-11, 9:4-10:1, and 10:5-11:32). Tertullian indeed remarks that Marcion’s omissions were evident “especially in this epistle.” Yet the largest differences that receive comment from Tertullian are all within the same two sections of Romans (1:18-2:29 and chapters 9-11) that have been suspected of interpolations in any case. The same is true for several other, shorter potential omissions.
Even though Tertullian and Epiphanius are silent regarding the ending of Romans in the Apostolicon, it seems almost certain that it did not contain Romans 15-16. The evidence for the inclusion of vv. 14:11-23 is less secure, but as there are no extant mss that omit these verses, it is likely that they were present. As the doxology (usually vv. 16:25-27) is placed after Romans 14 in a few mss it is conceivable that it was present at this location in McRom, but there is no evidence either way. However, whatever of Romans 14-16 was or was not present in the Apostolicon, given that there is mss evidence for several different forms of the ending of Romans it seems very unlikely that Marcion could have been responsible for their existence.
Tertullian comments on the omission of a number of passages from the version of Romans in the Apostolicon. However, Epiphanius has no comment on any differences, suggesting either that he completely ignored the differences that Tertullian saw, or that he saw no differences. This is the opposite of the situation we see in First Thessalonians, Second Thessalonians, Philemon, and Philippians, where Epiphanius states that he will not comment on these epistles because they were so different from the Pauline originals, while Tertullian sees only minor differences in them. The fact that Epiphanius specifically states that he will not comment on these epistles negates any suggestion that he is simply ignoring the differences in Romans. Instead, this strongly suggests that what Tertullian and Epiphanius saw were not the same, even though both believed that what they saw was Marcion's Apostolicon.
Next: First Thessalonians