And I Think I Can Answer the Objection that the So-Called 'Old Syriac Canon' and Ephrem Had Galatains at the Head of Their List of Pauline Epistles

Danny Mahar read my article on the fact that Corinthians likely appeared as the first epistle in the Marcionite canon. I showed that the actual testimony of Tertullian never once says that Marcion's canon had this order. Mahar noted that the Old Syriac canon and Ephrem the Syrian (information on those obscure topics here) had a canon which began with Galatians, and most scholars (most scholars who bother to examine these matters that is) have thought that the Old Syriac canon might reflect a common tradition with the Marcionite canon. Yet I think a better explanation can be found.

Book Four and Five of Tertullian's Against Marcion have been borrowed and developed from a second century anti-Marcionite work WHICH TAKES FOR GRANTED THE OLD SYRIAC CANON. In other words, Tertullian's source used a Diatessaron in Book Four and a canon which went Galatians, Corinthians, Romans etc. and then Epiphanius WRONGLY assumed that the unique canonical ordering of the epistles in Tertullian's treatise (or his even his source) reflected the Marcionite canon rather than that of the original source (who he assumed to be 'orthodox' and thus had a canon that went Romans, Corinthians etc.).

There can be no doubt that Tertullian's source used a Diatessaron. There are just too many times where he says that something is missing from 'his gospel' that is not in Luke. If someone used a Diatessaron isn't it probable that they used the Old Syriac canon too (the Diatessaron was used as the only gospel text in Syria until the fifth century).

Scholars over look the fact that the Marcionite canon WAS NOT the same as that of Ephrem and the Old Syriac. Ephrem accepted 3 Corinthians. The Marcionites had 'to the Laodiceans' and 'to the Alexandrians.' You can't simply transpose one tradition onto the other.

The Marcionite tradition began with the text called 'to the Corinthians' in our canon BUT WAS NAMED 'to the Alexandrians' in the Marcionite tradition. As such the reason why 'to the Corinthians' is first in the canons WEST of Syria in the early period was all western traditions were developments from the Marcionite tradition was based out of Alexandria.

I think it makes intuitive sense that an Alexandrian tradition would place 'to the Alexandrians' first in their canon for the same reasons that the later Roman tradition eventually placed 'to the Romans' first in their canon. Self-interest and self-promotion is to be expected (and encouraged) in the world.

The fact the Muratorian canon testifies that the Romans once had 'to the Corinthians' first makes explicit they 'borrowed' or 'appropriated' (I would say 'stole') their canon from the Alexandrians but that is another story ...