The Marcionite Openings: Romans

Last year I challenged Herman Detering on his reconstruction of Marcion's Romans, specifically his leaving in tact verses 1:1 and 1:7. My belief is the original simply read:

_1:1 Παῦλος ἀπόστολος Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ, [1]      _1:7 πᾶσιν τοῖς οὖσιν [ἐν Ῥώμῃ] τοῖς ἁγίοις, [2] 

     Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus                       to all   those saints ~ [in Rome]

     χάρις ὑμῖν καὶ εἰρήνη ἀπὸ θεοῦ πατρὸς ἡμῶν καὶ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ. [3]

     Grace to you and peace from God our father and Lord Jesus Christ

---

[1] 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 Colossians Пαῦλος ἀπόστολος Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ. The terms δοῦλος 'slave' and κλητὸς 'called' are part of the  Orthodox 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 1506^txt), 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 ἡ δὲ ἅνω … ἐλευθέρα ἐστιν '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 διὰ θελήματος θεοῦ found elsewhere to εἰς εὐαγγέλιον θεοῦ for a new beginning to the entire Pauline Corpus.

[2] Possible Western Non-Interpolation where G g 1739margin delete ἐν Ῥωμῃ 'in Rome' (D F have lacunae, but in D^C) 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

[3] Tertullian AM 5.5.1-2 mentions this phrase was common to all Marcion’s collection 'Praestructio superioris 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 ¶ πᾶσιν τοῖς οὖσιν [ἐν Ῥώμῃ] ἀγαπητοῖς θεοῦ,

siehe G1739^mg  und van Manen.

Dass der Römerbrief ursprünglich  wesentlich kürzer war, ist richtig.

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 εἰς εὐαγγέλιον θεοῦ 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 Clabeuax which 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 Παῦλος ἀπόστολος Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ rather than Παῦλος καὶ Τιμόθεος δοῦλοι Χριστοῦ 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:   εἰμὶ δοῦλος τοῦ δεξιοῦ αὐτοῦ προφήτου μαθητής    -  hier müsste noch näher recherchiert werden.

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.

     OK!

We can now sum up the Romans 1:1-7 Problem in a nutshell:

The Marcionite Pauline letters follow a simple formula in their opening verse:

Παῦλος ἀπόστολος Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ  [διὰ θελμήτος θεοῦ]*

                         * 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 formula.

The Catholic addition of the Pastoral letters addressed to Timothy led to a formula driven addition of καὶ Τιμόθεος ὁ ἀδελφὸς 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 καὶ Τιμόθεος ὁ ἀδελφὸς in 2 Corinthians 1:1.

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 κλητὸς ἀπόστολος ἀφωρισμένος εἰς εὐαγγέλιον θεοῦ is meant to parallel the Marcionite in Galatians 1:15 (ὁ ἀφορίσας με ἐκ κοιλίας μητρός μου καὶ καλέσας διὰ τῆς χάριτος) 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 δοῦλος Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ separate and before being called to apostleship κλητὸς ἀπόστολος 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 1739^margin) knows nothing of that – the origin of the Laodiceans or Ephesians controversy - , nor of ἀγαπητοῖς θεοῦ. 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 Παῦλος ἀπόστολος Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ, πᾶσιν τοῖς οὖσιν [ἐν Ῥώμῃ] τοῖς ἁγίοις, 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 τε καὶ that simply doesn’t occur in Marcion – makes you wonder if τε καὶ βαρβάροις 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 Marcion).

Anyway I hope this is helpful.

Ja, sehr. Vielen Dank!

- Stuart Waugh