« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »
which shows, I think, that Marcion acted arbitrarily in such things as these. Indeed Tertullian, speaking of Marcion's attempting, or designing to alter the inscription of the epistle to the Ephesians, useth this expression : “as if he had made more ‘ than common inquiries about it.” But I suppose Tertullian, to speak by way of irony, and sarcastically: not allowing Marcion uncommon diligence and exactness, but intimating, that a man who acted thus, should be very careful to be rightly informed. All this I have said in the way of a general answer to the argument taken from the supposed opinion of Marcion. I will now more particularly inquire what Marcion said and did, and what might be the ground and reason of his opinion and conduct. And I think there are but two writers. from whom we can receive any information, Tertullian and Epiphanius. The first is Tertullian. “I* pass by another epistle,’ says he, “which we have inscribed to the Ephesians, but heretics * to the Laodiceans.” Afterwards: “According t to the true testimony of the ‘church, we suppose that epistle to have been sent to the * Ephesians. But Marcion once had a mind to alter the ‘ title, as if he had made a very diligent inquiry into that ‘matter. But the title is of no importance, since the apostle ‘ wrote to all, when he wrote to some.’ I hope I have rightly translated the word ‘gestiit.' I think it meaneth, “ had a mind to,” or “ was inclined,” or showed an inclination so to do. By these passages of Tertullian we are assured, first, that this epistle, which was in the hands of catholic christians, was, in all its copies, inscribed to the Ephesians. And Tertullian was persuaded, that it was the true testimony, or tradition of the church from the beginning. Secondly, in the first of these passages Tertullian says, that heretics called this the epistle to the Laodiceans: by heretics meaning, as I suppose, Marcion and his followers. Thirdly, Tertullian says, that once, or upon some occasion, Marcion had a mind to alter the title of this epistle. * See below, note". * Praetereo hic et de alià epistolà, quam nos ad Ephesios praescriptam habemus, haeretici vero ad Laodicenos. Tertull. adv. Marcion. l. 5. cap. xi. * Ecclesiae quidem veritate epistolamistam ad Ephesios habemus emissam, non ad Laodicenos. Sed Marcion ei titulum aliquando interpolare gestiit,
quasi et in illo diligentissimus explorator. Nihil autem de titulo interest, cum ad omnes apostolus scripserit, dum ad singulos. Ib. cap. xvii. p. 607.
VOL. VI. L
Here it may be questioned, whether by title be meant what we call a running title, affixed to the epistle, or the inscription, which makes a part of the epistle, and is inserted at the beginning of it. I rather think this last to be intended. But take it either way, Tertullian supposed, that Marcion had in his copies the same title, or inscription, with the catholics, that is, to the Ephesians, or at Ephesus. Nor does Tertullian say, that Marcion ever inserted the inscription to the Laodiceans, in any of his copies. It seems to me that he did not. , Consequently, what Tertullian says is, that Marcion, and his followers, sometimes at least, called this the epistle to the Laodiceans, and perhaps quoted it by that title. But he had not in his copies any title, or inscription, different from that of the catholics. Marcion gave out, that the epistle, called by the catholics, to the Ephesians, was written to the Laodiceans. He affirmed this to be right, and that the catholics were in the wrong in calling it an epistle to the Ephesians. For he was persuaded it was written to the Laodiceans. I think this is the most that is said by Tertullian, or that can be collected from him. Yea, it seems to me, that I have in a strong manner represented the whole of what is said by him. I now proceed to Epiphanius, who says, “that " Marcion ‘received only ten epistles of Paul. They are these. The ‘ first is that to the Galatians, the second is the first to the * Corinthians, the third is the second to the Corinthians, the ‘ fourth that to the Romans, the fifth is the first to the Thes‘salonians, the sixth the second to the Thessalonians, the ‘seventh is that to the Ephesians, the eighth to the Colos“sians, the ninth to Philemon, the tenth to the Philippians. “He has also some parts of an epistle to the Laodiceans.” So Epiphanius. It is well known, that Marcion had an evangelicon, and an apostolicon, or a gospel and an apostle. In the former, as is generally said, he had St. Luke's gospel only. But concerning the truth of that account I make no inquiries now. Our concern at present is with St. Paul's epistles only. And Epiphanius here expressly says, that Marcion received ten, and placed them in the order in which they are rehearsed above. He likewise says, that Marcion had
some parts of an epistle to the Laodiceans. And he quotes, as from him, those words which are in Eph. iv. 5, 6, after this manner: “One Lord, one faith, one baptism, one Christ, one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.” Having so done, he says: “Norv did ‘the unhappy Marcion think fit to take that passage from ‘the epistle to the Ephesians, but from the epistle to the * Laodiceans, which is not the apostle’s.’ This account of Epiphanius led H. Hody to say, that Marcion received eleven epistles of St. Paul. James Basmage was of the same opinion. He says: ‘It " has been * conjectured by some, that Marcion confounded the epistle ‘to the Laodiceans with that to the Ephesians. But ‘ that conjecture cannot be maintained. For he distinguished * two epistles of St. Paul, one to the Ephesians, and another ‘to the Laodiceans. And Epiphanius reproacheth him, ‘ because he rather chose to take his passage from the ‘epistle to the Laodiceans, which was not Paul’s, than ‘ from the epistle to the Ephesians, where are the same ‘ words.” And indeed, I apprehend, that if we had Epiphanius only, many might be of the same opinion. But comparing him and Tertullian, and examining carefully the whole article of Epiphanius, I think it must appear more probable, that Marcion did sometimes quote the epistle to the Ephesians, as if it had been sent to the Laodiceans. Nor can I perceive any good reason to think, that any letter to the Laodiceans was forged so early as the time of Marcion. And now I would observe, that Epiphanius seems to have been well acquainted with Marcion's apostolicon. For he * had his writings, and composed a treatise against him, called Scholion, or Scholia, which he inserted, somewhat altered, in his article of the Marcionites, in his large work, called the Panarium, which we have. Having observed this, I say, that from Epiphanius it
42. p. 375. in. " Marcion l’a citée, Il entiroit même quelque preuve pour son hérésie. On a conjecturé, qu'il la confondoit avec celle des Ephésiens.——Mais cette con
jecture ne peut Se Soutenir, parceque Marcion distinguoit deux lettres de S. Paul, l'une aux Ephésiens, l'autre aux Laodicéens. Et S. Epiphane lui fait une espéce de reproche, de ce qu'il a mieux aimé tirer son passage de l'épistre aux Laodicéens, qui n'étoit point de S. Paul, que de celle aux Ephésiens, dans laquelle on trouvoit les mémes paroles. J. Basn. Hist. de l'Egl. 1.8. ch. 3. num. iii * EAévoopal 6s sic ra it' avre yeypappewa, K. A. H. 42.
cap. ix. p. 309. C.
appears, that in Marcion’s apostolicon the epistle to the Ephesians was entitled, and inscribed to them as it was in the copies of the catholics. And all the difference between the catholics and him, upon this head, was, that he sometimes quoted this epistle, as written to the Laodiceans. Epiphanius, who had seen Marcion's apostolicon, found therein ten epistles, all inscribed, as in the catholic copies. One of which, and the seventh in order, was that to the Ephesians. However, in one place of Marcion's works, and y but one, he had seen a passage of the epistle to the Ephesians quoted, as from an epistle to the Laodiceans. Some such thing as this induced Tertullian, a man of a violent temper, to say: “I pass by another epistle, which “we have inscribed to the Ephesians, but heretics to the * Laodiceans.” However, from Tertullian, as before shown, it appears, that in Marcion's copies of this epistle it had the same title as in the catholic copies, and that he never altered the inscription. And thus Tertullian and Epiphanius agree. For from this last likewise we plainly perceive that in Marcion's Apostolicon was the epistle to the Ephesians: but not exactly in the same order, as with the catholics. And thus, if I mistake not, Marcion himself confirms the common reading at the beginning of this epistle. And this recompense we have of our diligent inquisition into this affair. So it often happens. Opposition made to truth is the means of establishing it. This opinion of the case may be farther justified by two considerations, which perhaps deserve to be mentioned. One is, that there is no notice taken of this affair by any other writers, beside Tertullian and Epiphanius. Jerom, and many others, who often speak of Marcion and his principles, say nothing of it. It is therefore very probable, that his inscription of the epistle to the Ephesians was the same as in the catholic copies. If not, his alteration here, as well as in other places, would have been observed. The other is, that all those, called heretics, so far as we know, had this epistle inscribed to the Ephesians. The Manichees agreed with Marcion in divers of his peculiarities. Nevertheless, in their copies this epistle was inscribed to the Ephesians. This has appeared from the quotations of it in the writ
* Praeter hanc tamen ad Ephesios epistolam, putat Epiphanius, recepta etiam esse a Marcione epistolae ad Laodicenses fragmenta. Exet Ös kal rug trooc Aaoğucsac pepm, inquit. Equibus tamen unicum illud a se productum reperit. Jac. Usser. Diss. de Ep. ad Laod.
ings of Faustus, and Secundinus, formerly taken notice of. But though the inscription of this epistle was the same in Marcion's, as in the catholic copies, he sometimes quoted it as an epistle to the Laodiceans, and was of opinion that it was written to them. We are therefore now to inquire into the ground and reason of this opinion. Pamelius * in his notes upon Tertullian, as cited by archbishop Usher, (for I have not his edition at hand,) conjectured, that the words of Col. iv. 16, were the occasion of this opinion of Marcion. So likewise says." Estius. It is very probable, that those words" gave occasion to the forging an epistle to the Laodiceans. Theodoret, not far from the beginning of the fifth century, as formerly" cited by us, says in his commentary upon that text: “Some ‘ have hence imagined, that the apostle had also written to ‘the Laodiceans, and they have forged such an epistle. “Nevertheless, the apostle does not say “the epistle to the * Laodiceans, but from Laodicea.” ” That is the unvaried reading of this text in all the copies of the New Testament, and in all ancient Greek “ writers. And I have suspected, that the epistle to the Laodiceans was forged by a Latin, and that the Latin version of that text gave occasion to it. Fabricius' in the introduction to
* See Vol. iii. ch. lxiii. num. iv. 4. num. v. ib. sect. vii.
* Jacobus Pamelius, Annot. 259. in lib. 5. Tertulliani adv. Marcionem, “Fortassis,' inquit, occasionem dedit Marcioni hujus tituli huic epistolae imponendi, quod legisset, Col. iv. ‘Salutate fratres,’ &c. Usser. T)iss. de Ep. ad Laod. * Sciendum praeterea est, Marcionem, antiquum haereticum, occasione praesentis loci, epistolae ad Ephesios scriptae titulum mutasse, inscribendo eam ad Laodicenos, tamguam ea non ad illos, sedad hos scripta esset, &c. Est. ad Col. iv. 16. * “Eteam, quae Laodicensium est, vos legatis.'] Horum verborum occasione abususquispiam concinnavit, atque evulgavit epistolam quamdam, veluta Paulo scriptam ad Laodicenses. Est. in Col. iv. 16. “See Vol. v. p. 17, 18. * As some proof of this, Iallege the note of Theophylact upon this verse. “Which is the epistle from Laodicea 3 “It is the first to Timothy. For that was written from Laodicea. However “some say, it is an epistle, which the Laodiceans had sent to Paul. But what ‘good the reading such an epistle could do them, I do not know. Tic &s my # 8k Aaoëukstag; troog Tipo 0sov Tptorm. Airm Yap ek Aaočukewag sypapm. Tuvac 68 pagw, Ört jv oi Aaoduksug IIavXp stressioav. AAA' ex otòa ri av sketvm söst avroug trpoc (38)|Two w. Theoph. in loc. tom. II. p. 676.
* Quamguam hunc Pauli locum neutiquam puto testimonium perhibere commentitiae ad Laodicenses epistolae, tamen quia exillo, sive Latinâ potius ejus versione ambiguà ansam cepit quisquis illam supposuit, non fuit a me omittendus. Lectionis nulla est in codicibus Græcis differentia. Omnes enim, quantum Scio, habent timu er Aaočukstag. Ita et Syrus, et Arabs, et interpretes Graeci, Chrysostomus, Theodoritus, Theophylactus, OEcumenius. Neque Latinus aliter legisse videtur,etsi vertit: ‘Eam, quae Laodicensium est.’ Fabr. Cod. Apocr. N. T. tom. II. p. 853.