My blog concerning the development of Christianity in the post Kitos and Bar Kochba era. An examination of the texts of the NT and Heresiarchs to understand its development and origins.
It is also a place where I am pushing out unpublished papers and book chapters for public vetting. Comments and questions are always welcome.
Grace to you and peace from God our father
and Lord Jesus Christ
 The evidence of Ephesians (see John Clabeaux, A lost
Edition of the letters of Paul, pages 94-98, on Ephesians 1:1) tilts my opinion
to favor Romans having a generic start, one as found in 2 Timothy, 1&2
Corinthians, Ephesians, and ColossiansПαῦλοςἀπόστολοςΧριστοῦἸησοῦ. The terms δοῦλος 'slave' and κλητὸς 'called' are part of theOrthodox formula of obedience to the faith
and hearing the word and being called to apostleship, and were added by the
redactor here, and in 1:7 (κλητοῖς), 1 Corinthians 1:1 (κλητὸς except A D 1506txt), Philippians 1:1 (δοῦλοι), and Galatians 1:10 (δοῦλος). Compare Galatians 2:4 Paul’s
defense of 'our freedom (ἐλευθερίαν) which we have in Christ' against they 'that might
enslave (καταδουλώσoυσιν) us'. More significantly in 4:26a ἡδὲἅνω…ἐλευθέραἐστιν 'but the one [covenant] from above … brings freedom' and finally
Galatians 5:1 is decisive evidence against slave to Christ theology in Marcion.
The Catholic redactor of Romans likely further adjusted διὰθελήματοςθεοῦfound elsewhere
to εἰςεὐαγγέλιονθεοῦfor a new
beginning to the entire Pauline Corpus.
Western Non-Interpolation where G g 1739margin delete ἐνῬωμῃ'in Rome' (D F have lacunae, but in DC)
and Ephesians 1:1 also testify to the possible absence of these words, here and
in verse 1:15. They are bracketed as some Marcionite texts likely had this variant
Tertullian AM 5.5.1-2 mentions this phrase was common to all Marcion’s collection
epistulae ita duxit, ut de titulo eius non retractaverim, certus et alibi
retractari eum posse, communem scilicet et eundem in epistulis omnibus. Quod
non utique salutem praescribit eis quibus scribit, sed gratiam et pacem'
… 'Haec cum a deo patre
nostro et domino Iesu annuntians '
** below is my letter last year to Dr. Detering, his replies in German. Do not read that he endorses my opinion, rather he thinks its a plausible reconstruction.
Dear Dr. Deterring,
I was going through your
work on Romans and Galatians on your website, and I find most of the work
solid. But I think you fell uncharacteristically short of your standards when
reconstructing the opening verses of Marcion's version of Romans. I think
basically you fell short in your analysis of what the Catholic editor was
doing, and in particular what changes he brought in order to move Romans
to the head of the collection. Before the Catholic editor, Romans was not a
premier letter at the head of the collection, and there was no need to declare
any special authority for Paul, as was required by Galatians. Rather, prior to
its promotion Romans was just one amongst many
placed in the middle of the collection, and half the size of the
version we have today.
Dass ich annehme, die
Sammlung von Paulusbriefen sei mit dem Römerbrief eingeleitet worden, ist ein
Missverständnis. Die älteste Sammlung von Paulusbriefen war die marcionitische –
und die begann mit dem Galaterbrief. Fraglich
ist nach meiner Ansicht nur, ob der „Römerbrief“ in seiner usprünglichen Form
überhaupt einen speziellen Bezug auf die römische Gemeinde hatte: siehe.
Röm 1:7 ¶ πᾶσιντοῖςοὖσιν[ἐνῬώμῃ]ἀγαπητοῖςθεοῦ,
siehe G1739mgund van Manen.
Dass der Römerbrief
ursprünglichwesentlich kürzer war, ist
The Catholic editor, or
indeed it could have been an organized committee for all we know, after
reworking Galatians decided that it simply could not lead the
collection. Another letter had to be selected for this role. No doubt a
search for a more suitable first letter ensued. A quick look at the
collection makes it apparent why most of the other letters were
rejected. The Corinthians were large collections, muddled and
unfocused; the Thessalonians did not delve deep into any matters of key
prominence to the Catholic editor; Colossians and Ephesians
were too dependent on each other and other letters, while Philemon
was an appendage even in the Marcionite collection. The Roman letter was the
logical choice to start the collection and turn the Marcionite theology on its
ear, with Paul now championing a theology like that of the Catholics. It was truly
a complete transformation.
Völlig d’accord! Auch die
Sache mit dem “committee”!
In your own
reconstruction you rightly viewed verses 1:2-6 as Catholic (IMO Ebionite)
insertion. But the changes were more significant than that. It was necessary
that the first verse also be changed, since Paul was to be made to announce a
different theology, and to give his role as that of one of many servants rather
than the standalone preeminent apostle; there was authority greater than Paul
in the Catholic editor’s version.
Three words in the first verse of Romans could
not possibly have been in the original Marcionite version. The words δοῦλος, κλητὸς, ἀφωρισμένος as well as the phrase εἰςεὐαγγέλιονθεοῦ each show the marks of the Catholic editor.
Further there is very strong indirect evidence in the analysis of
Ephesians/Laodiceans 1:1 by John Clabeuaxwhich demonstrated the
dependence of this verse on a western version of Romans, and I would argue this
version must surely have been a Marcionite version - almost by definition the
Catholic version could not yet have existed.
The word δοῦλος
only finds parallel in Philippians 1:1 amongst the opening verses Pauline
Epistles, but I will argue that δοῦλοι is also an
interpolation, quite likely the original read ΠαῦλοςἀπόστολοςΧριστοῦἸησοῦ
rather than ΠαῦλοςκαὶΤιμόθεοςδοῦλοιΧριστοῦ
as Timothy is nowhere else mentioned in this letter, but he serves a dual
Catholic role here; showing Paul as not alone, and also as a servant/slave
of Christ, reminding one of verses like Acts 16:17. The concept of being a slave
to Christ is nowhere else in the MR.
Sie könnten recht haben,
das δοῦλος hat einen ebionitischen “Sound”, vgl. PsCl
Hom 7:11, wo Petrus sagt: εἰμὶδοῦλοςτοῦδεξιοῦαὐτοῦπροφήτουμαθητής-hier müsste noch näher
A brief digression into
the Marcionite openings might be in order here. Without deeply going into
detail about how, where, and why, I would simply bring attention to the idea
that Marcion was the organizer of the collection which Tertullian presents as
his Apostolikon of ten Pauline letters. It is clear from the content of the
attested material that a number of writers’ hands are in the letters long
before the Marcionite collection was put together. Laodiceans appears to be
derivative of Romans and Colossians and has contact with 2 Corinthians. The
Thessalonians and Corinthians letters have some dependence on their partners,
and so on. There are elements of theology within the attested Marcionite
collection which conflict with each other. So it is clear that when the
collection was put together, I suggest by Marcion himself, there were already
independently standing tracts, which may have had other titles or no titles at
all. As with the later Catholic editor, the Marcionite editor placed his layer
on top of the material which already existed, quite possibly added a letter or
two of his own (strongest candidates are Laodiceans and Galatians), with intros
and storyline to provide cohesion throughout, calling attention to Paul myths
as the Marcionite circles understood him.
We can now sum up the Romans 1:1-7
Problem in a nutshell:
The Marcionite Pauline letters follow a simple formula in their
* 1 and 2 Cor., Col,
Eph add "through the will of God" -Excepting 1 and 2
Thessalonians, that start "Παῦλος
καὶ Σιλουανὸς καὶ Τιμόθεος"
How can the deviations from the above formula be explained?
In the case of 1 Corinthians, κλητὸς is related to Romans, and was merely
added to 1 Corinthians after the collection was formed in Catholic order (κλητὸς is missing from A D
1506txt). This will become apparent later.
1 and 2 Thessalonians probably retain their pre-Marcionite
greeting, when they were not part of any collection. For whatever reason (maybe
too much effort, or not enough parchment space) the Marcionite collector left
them alone, tucked away innocuously in the middle of the collection.
For Philemon, at the end of the collection, δέσμοις replaced ἀπόστολος as the Marcionite editor had two
concerns to answer; first this was made to be a personal letter, and second the
Marcionite editor was also concerned with his own Paul legend, so a reference
to imprisonment answered the reason for the letter and gave it a personal
touch, as opposed to the more bombastic ἀπόστολος
The Catholic addition of the Pastoral letters addressed to Timothy
led to a formula driven addition of καὶΤιμόθεοςὁἀδελφὸς
appending to the opening in some letters, notably 2 Corinthians, Colossians, as
well as Philippians where it morphed with another Catholic theme of servitude.
That this phrase was added afterwards is most apparent in Colossians, where
Timothy is simply a name never referred to again in the letter. Also Ephesians
(Laodiceans), which Clabeaux demonstrated was dependent upon Romans and
Colossians, has no mention of Timothy. Which leaves us to ask was the phrase
ever in the Marcionite version? The answer is probably no to all, excepting the
Thessalonians, which 2 Corinthians 1:19 is derivative (there these two
characters disappear having only existed it seems to moderate Paul's authority)
- note, this may explain καὶΤιμόθεοςὁἀδελφὸς in 2
With Philemon being something of an appendage, assuming the
Catholic editor was appending the Pastorals, he may well have worked backwards,
having not yet shuffled the Marcionite order, to introduce Timothy before he
appears as the recipient of Paul's letter, so familiarizing the audience. Colossians
and Philippians would be those letters. In Colossians Timothy is merely added
to the greeting, while in Philippians his status is raised to near equal with
Paul, mixing with another Catholic theme of (co-)servitude to Christ, Παῦλος καὶ Τιμόθεος δοῦλοι Χριστοῦ.
That this is meant to be an introduction for the Pastorals become unmistakably
clear with the addressed parties extended beyond the assembly in Philippi "with the bishops (plural!) and
deacons" σὺν ἐπισκόpοις καὶ διακόνοις.
In the Marcionite collection we see, having dealt with the Timothy
intrusion, no special introduction beyond Galatians, which is well attested for
Marcion, and Romans. For Galatians the purpose of deviation is clear, this
letter heads the collection, so when you open the volume the very first words
are a full unambiguous declaration of Paul's authority. The entire letter is a
Marcionite declaration of Paul's apostolic origins and authority. It is no
wonder it headed the collection. So convenient was Galatians that Tertullian
even suggests that Marcion "found" the letter.
But what of the Roman letter declaration and deviation? You have
already declared verses 1:2-6 as Catholic additions for well documented reasons
that I fully agree with. But there remain problems with Roman 1:1, 1:7, words
and phrases δοῦλος, κλητὸς, and ἀφωρισμένος εἰς εὐαγγέλιον θεοῦ that
simply do not fit. The phrase κλητὸςἀπόστολοςἀφωρισμένοςεἰςεὐαγγέλιονθεοῦ is meant to parallel the Marcionite in Galatians
1:15 (ὁἀφορίσαςμεἐκκοιλίαςμητρόςμουκαὶκαλέσαςδιὰτῆςχάριτος) but derived with Acts 13:2
in mind - this verse is from chapter 13 of Acts that influenced adding Barnabas
to Galatians 2:1, 9, 13 as well. The concept of service, that is δοῦλοςΧριστοῦἸησοῦ separate and before being called to
apostleship κλητὸςἀπόστολος is also present in Acts 13:2 for Paul.
Clearly this concept could not come from the Marcionite editor. What we have
instead is a Catholic declaration of Paul's authority, where like the
Marcionite Galatians Paul is separated, this time not from his mother's womb
for revelation, but from other Apostles for the Gospel of God - a subtle but
important distinction from the Marcionite Gospel of Christ (Mark 1:1, Galatians
1:7, 2 Cor. 2:12, 10:14, 1 Cor. 9:12, Rom 2:16, Phil 1:27, 1 Thess. 3:2) - I
suspect the distinction refers to the Creator God's Gospel as opposed to the
revealed Gospel of the Cosmic Christ.
Similarly verse 1:7 has the concept of being called now applied to
the saints, and yet the slavish author of Laodiceans/Ephesians, using a Western
version of Romans that lacked "from Rome"
(G g 1739margin)
knows nothing of that – the origin of the Laodiceans or Ephesians
controversy - , nor of ἀγαπητοῖςθεοῦ. It is not usual for copiers
to use a simpler form, as accolades tend to pile up.
Thus I conclude the original (at the time the collection was bound
together in Marcionite form that is) Romans 1:1-7a read simply ΠαῦλοςἀπόστολοςΧριστοῦἸησοῦ, πᾶσιντοῖςοὖσιν [ἐνῬώμῃ] τοῖςἁγίοις, no different than the other epistles in
the middle of the collection.
Ihre Argumente sind überzeugend. Sie könnten auch hier recht haben.
The primary thing I want to bring to your attention is that the
same detail you looked at the rest of the letter in reproducing Marcion’s
version should also be applied to the opening verses. There are other elements
in verses 1:12 (e.g., συμπαρακληθῆναι is a compound word that fits the pastoral
layer, and the Lukan form τεκαὶ that
simply doesn’t occur in Marcion – makes you wonder if τεκαὶβαρβάροις wasn’t added by suggestion of idol worship in 1:23 and
to deflect the Greek versus Jew theme as the indebtedness makes no sense for