The Letter to the Galatians Was NOT the First Epistle in the Marcionite Canon - Scholars Just Never Read Tertullian Thoroughly Enough

Most scholars take for granted that the Letter to the Galatians was the first letter in the Marcionite canon appearing immediately after the gospel of Marcion. Yet how certain is this? Our principle work on the Marcionites is Tertullian's Against Marcion. The opening paragraph of that work confesses that the existing text has went through multiple rewrites by multiple authors of varying orthodoxy.

I have done a detailed study of EVERY REFERENCE to the Marcionite epistles in Tertullian and guess what? He never says that the letter to the Galatians appeared first in the Marcionite canon. If anything his portrait of the Marcionite canon bears an uncanny resemblance to the order of Pauline epistles in the Muratorian canon - one of the earliest texts about the shape of the orthodox canon anywhere.

So here's what got me thinking.

Isn't it at least possible that 'orthodoxy' and 'heresy' were a lot closer BEFORE the reforms of Irenaeus in the late second century? Isn't it likely that Irenaeus had a specific agenda to advance Roman authority over the Church and that ultimately as a result of that sustained effort, the Epistle to the Romans ended up in first place among the Pauline letters?

Let's start from the beginning again.

I have been trying to explain the origin of the order of apostolic letters in the Muratorian canon where the letter to the Corinthians appears first and that to the Romans last. Why did the one of the earliest documents of the Roman Church go against our inherited idea that 'Romans' came first?

I can't help but think that this is a reflection of the underlying idea that the Church was not founded in Rome. Otherwise the second century Romans would have promoted a canon with Roman primacy. Given that another city stands at the head of the order one would think that the Romans adopted the order of that city's canon.

But Corinth? Nothing important came out of Corinth.

So I have resurrected my original idea that the Letter to the Corinthians might have been renamed by the Marcionites as 'the Epistle to the Alexandrians.' The Muratorian Canon references this Marcionite epistle. And most scholars think that it is the only very early text to do so.

Could it be that 'to the Alexandrians' has to be dismissed in order to reinforce 'to the Corinthians' as the name of the most important epistle in the canon?

I don't know for sure but I am quite aware that there a number of references to the primacy of Corinthians that other scholars haven't quite seen. They all come from Tertullian's Against Marcion.

The first appears in Book Three of the series where Tertullian cites the contents of the apostolic canon against the Marcionites:

Even the heretics' own apostle interprets as concerning not oxen but ourselves that law which grants an unmuzzled mouth to the oxen that tread out the corn, [1 Cor. ix. 9] and affirms that the rock that followed them to provide drink was Christ, [1 Cor. x. 4] in the same way as he instructs the Galatians that the two narratives of the sons of Abraham took their course as an allegory,[Gal. iv. 22, 24] and advises the Ephesians that that which was foretold in the beginning, that a man would leave his father and mother, and that he and his wife would become one flesh, is seen by him to refer to Christ and the Church. [Eph. v. 31, 32] [Tert. AM iii.5]

The clear implication of this passage is that THIS IS THE ORDER of the texts in the Marcionite canon despite what we have come to believe from Patristic sources.

The same order of epistles is demonstrated in Against Marcion Book iv Chapter 5 where Tertullian looks at the canon and says:

Let us consider what milk it was that Paul gave the Corinthians to drink, by the line of what rule the Galatians were again made to walk straight, what the Philippians, the Thessalonians, and the Ephesians are given to read, what words are spoken also by our near neighbours the Romans, to whom Peter and Paul left as legacy the gospel, sealed moreover with their own blood. We have also churches which are nurselings of John's: for although Marcion disallows his Apocalypse, yet the succession of their bishops, when traced back to its origin, will be found to rest in John as originator.

The reason I cite more than just the reference to the Pauline epistles is that the bit about John is that it is eerily reminiscent of what appears in the Muratorian Canon regarding Paul's dependence on John:

The Epistles of Paul themselves, however, show to those, who wish to know, which [they are], from what place, and for what cause they were sent. First of all he wrote to the Corinthians, admonishing against schism of heresy; thereupon to the Galatians [admonishing against] circumcision; to the Romans, however, [he wrote] rather lengthily pointing out with a series of Scripture quotations that Christ is their main theme also.

While the Muratorian Canon echoes at least part of the order witnessed by Tertullian (i.e. Corinthians THEN Galatians) it goes on to give a separate list of how these same letters are to appear in the canon in the next paragraph:

But it is necessary that we have a discussion singly concerning these, since the blessed Apostle Paul himself, imitating the example of his predecessor, John, wrote to seven churches only by name [and] in this order: The first [Epistle] to the Corinthians, the second to the Ephesians, the third to the Philippians, the fourth to the Colossians, the fifth to the Galatians, the sixth to the Thessalonians, and the seventh to the Romans.

Indeed it is not difficult to see that the Muratorian Canon is actually mediating between two lists - i.e. the order that the apostle wrote his letters and the order of importance of those same epistles.

We have answered the question of where Tertullian got the idea for the strange ordering of:

Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, Thessalonians, Ephesians and then Romans.

Colossians is missing from the list which is difficult to explain. Yet notice what happens when we look to the order Tertullian brings forward the epistles (which is not the same thing as the order they appeared in the Marcionite canon) later in Book Five:

Galatians, Corinthians, Romans, Thessalonians, Ephesians, Colossians and Philippians.

I can't help but noticing though that - at least in terms of the first four epistles - if you just transpose Galatians and Corinthians - you can start to reconcile the two orders of epistles in Tertullian.

So all of this brings up the ultimate question - was Galatians actually the first epistle in the Marcionite canon or was there some misunderstanding that developed over time (and the subsequent rewrites of the original material)?

Let me explain what I mean.

Epiphanius testimony is always unreliable. He treats 'Ephesians' and 'Laodiceans' as two separate texts. This makes absolutely certain that he is relying on a second hand report he doesn't understand. We have already seen that Tertullian DOES INDEED witness the 'Corinthians first' order of epistles in Against Marcion.

I think this is the older layer of the text and - for whatever reason - a secondary (or tertiary) understanding eventually developed that Galatians was 'really first.'

How was this done?

Just look at the language of Tertullian's original argument. His words seem to imply that Galatians was placed first on doctrinal rather than chronological grounds:

Principalem adversus Judaismum Epistolam nos quoque confitemur quae Galatas docet.

Could it be that an original argument identifying Galatians as the 'first against Judaism' became misunderstood (or misrepresented) in terms of the actual order of the Marcionite canon?

Of course the natural question would be why would anyone do this? The answer might be that before Romans was placed first in the orthodox canons (for political reasons) perhaps as early as the end of the second century, the Marcionite canon might well have been recognized as agreeing with the original order of epistles in Catholic documents like the Muratorian canon.

Let's look at ALL the earliest references to Galatians and Corinthians in Tertullian's Against Marcion. We'll begin with the first reference to whether the epistles support Marcionite teachings at the start of Book One. Notice the order of arguments follows the order of a 'Corinthians first' canon:

So then if, as still a neophyte, in his zeal against Judaism he thought something in their conduct called for reproof, their indiscriminate associations [cf. 1 Cor v] in fact, though he himself was afterwards to become in practice all things to all men [1 Cor 9:19 - 23] —to the Jews as a Jew, to those under the law as himself under the law — do you allege that that reproof, concerning conduct and nothing more, conduct which its critic was afterwards to approve of, must be supposed to refer to some deviation in their preaching concerning God? On the contrary, in respect of the unity of their preaching, as we have read earlier in this epistle, they had joined their right hands,c and by the very act of having divided their spheres of work had signified their agreement in the fellowship of the gospel: as he says in another place, Whether it were I or they, so we preach. [1 Cor xv. 11] Also, although he writes of how certain false brethren had crept in unawares, desiring to remove the Galatians to another gospel,e he himself shows clearly that that adulteration of the gospel was not concerned with diversion of the faith towards another god and another Christ, but with adherence to the regulations of the law. In fact he found them insisting on circumcision, and observing the seasons and days and months and years of those Jewish solemnities which they ought to have known were now revoked in accordance with the reforming ordinance of that Creator who had of old taught of this very thing by his prophets [AH i.20]

There can be no doubt that this argument clearly follows a pattern for the epistles where to the Corinthians preceded Galatians. But does this prove that one followed the other in the Marcionite gospel? It is difficult to say. But most commentators miss the fact that Corinthians precedes Galatians in the manner in which the argument is formulated.

If you haven't already taken notice of Danny Mahar's observation that the arguments of the Letter to the Corinthians develop 'antithetically' it is worth noting that the chapter in Against Marcion which deals with 'the antitheses' (which are wrongly thought to be a separate work) inevitable invoke 1 Corinthians in their discussions.

So we read at the very beginning of Book Two the clear intimation that the so-called 'antitheses' of Marcion developed out of arguments from the Letter to the Corinthians:

Now, you whose sight is defective in respect of the inferior god, what is your view of the sublimer One? Really you are too lenient to your weakness; and set not yourself to the proof of things, holding God to be certainly, undoubtedly, and therefore sufficiently known, the very moment you have discovered Him to exist, though you know Him not except on the side where He has willed His proofs to lie. But you do not even deny God intelligently, you treat of Him ignorantly; nay, you accuse Him with a semblance of intelligence, whom if you did but know Him, you would never accuse, nay, never treat of. You give Him His name indeed, but you deny the essential truth of that name, that is, the greatness which is called God; not acknowledging it to be such as, were it possible for it to have been known to man in every respect, would not be greatness. Isaiah even so early, with the clearness of an apostle, foreseeing the thoughts of heretical hearts, asked, “Who hath known the mind of the Lord? For who hath been His counsellor? With whom took He counsel?…or who taught Him knowledge, and showed to Him the way of understanding?” [Comp. Isa. xl. 13, 14, with 1 Cor 2:16].

Yes to be sure Tertullian finds a passage which SUPPORTS his contention that the Apostle takes this passage from Isaiah as we see in what immediately follows:

With whom the apostle agreeing exclaims, “Oh the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are His judgments, and His ways past finding out!”[Rom. xi. 33]. “His judgments unsearchable,” as being those of God the Judge; and “His ways past finding out,” as comprising an understanding and knowledge which no man has ever shown to Him

Yet this is only Tertullians interpretation of the passage. The Marcionites clearly develop their 'antitheses' from 1 Corinthians as Tertullian demonstrates in what immediately folows:

except it may be those critics of the Divine Being, who say, God ought not to done this and He ought rather to have been that; as if any one knew what is in God, except the Spirit of God [1 Cor. ii. 11] Moreover, having the spirit of the world, and “in the wisdom of God by wisdom knowing not God,” [1 Cor. i. 21] they seem to themselves to be wiser than God; because, as the wisdom of the world is foolishness with God, so also the wisdom of God is folly in the world’s esteem.

We, however, know that “the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.” [1 Cor. i. 25] Accordingly, God is then especially great, when He is small to man; then especially good, when not good in man’s judgment; then especially unique, when He seems to man to be two or more. Now, if from the very first “the natural man, not receiving the things of the Spirit of God,” [1 Cor. ii. 14] has deemed God’s law to be foolishness, and has therefore neglected to observe it; and as a further consequence, by his not having faith, “even that which he seemeth to have hath been taken from him” [Luke viii. 18; comp. Matt. xiii. 12] [AM ii.2]

The point again is that there is good reason to believe that the Marcionite 'antitheses' developed from the Marcionite interpretation of the Letter to the Corinthians.

Indeed where most commentators have went wrong is that by chapter five of Book Two Tertullian segues to answer a series of rhetorical 'questions' which Marcionites apparently used to challenge the Catholic understanding of the godhead. These 'questions' have subsequently been interpreted as being 'the antitheses' of Marcion even though the specific term is never used anywhere in the subsequent twenty chapters. The term that is used by contrast is 'questions':

Now then, ye dogs, whom the apostle puts outside, and who yelp at the God of truth, let us come to your various questions. These are the bones of contention, which you are perpetually gnawing! If God is good, and prescient of the future, and able to avert evil, why did He permit man, the very image and likeness of Himself, and, by the origin of his soul, His own substance too, to be deceived by the devil, and fall from obedience of the law into death?

The facts are that the only time the specific term 'antitheses' is ever used in Book Two is at the very conclusion - where - the topic gets away from the 'questions' of the contemporary Marcionites and goes back instead to a text associated with Marcion himself which - as Tertullian notes - 'if you take away its title' then 'his book will provide neither more nor less than a description of one and the same God, in his supreme goodness and in his judgement—for these two conceptions are conjoined in God and in him alone.'

I can't believe that people haven't thought about this before. Tertullian is not saying 'take away the title Antitheses' and all the arguments that Marcion is proposing fall apart but TAKE AWAY THE SPECIFIC TITLE OF THE TEXT FROM WHICH HIS ANTITHETICAL ARGUMENTS DEVELOP - i.e. the Letter to the Corinthians - and there is no longer any reason for accepting what he is saying. What was the title of this 'book' of Marcion? Tertullian never says its name. But it is clear from the opening lines of Against Marcion Book Two that the antithetical arguments were developed from the 'book' the Catholics call 'to the Corinthians.'

Now my readers already know that I think that 'to the Corinthians' was called 'to the Alexandrians' by the Marcionites. I spoke about this yesterday. Now someone may ask, why would the name change from 'to the Alexandrians' to 'to the Corinthians' completely demolish the Marcionite argument? Well, in order to understand that you have to read what Tertullian SAYS is the contentious Marcionite doctrine. So let's cite the entire closing chapter to Book Two:

Now if my plea that the Creator combines goodness with judgement had called for a more elaborate demolition of Marcion's antitheses, I should have gone on to overthrow them one by one, on the principle that the instances cited of both aspects (goodness and judgement) are, as I have already proved, jointly in keeping with God. Both aspects, the goodness and the judgement, combine to produce a complete and worthy conception of a divinity to which nothing is impossible: and so I am for the time being content to have rebutted in summary fashion those antitheses which, by criticism of the moral value of the Creator's works, his laws, and his miracles, indicate anxiety to establish a division, making Christ a stranger to the Creator—as it were the supremely good a stranger to the judge, the kind to the cruel, the bringer of salvation a stranger to the author of destruction. Instead of dividing, those antitheses do rather combine into unity the two whom they place in such oppositions as, when combined together, give a complete conception of God. Take away the title of Marcion's (text), and take away the intention and purpose of his labor, and this book will provide neither more nor less than a description of one and the same God, in his supreme goodness and in his judgement—for these two conceptions are conjoined in God and in him alone. [Latin Aufer titulum Marcionis et intentionem atque propositum operis ipsius, et nihil aliud praestaret1 quam demonstrationem eiusdem dei optimi et iudicis, quia haec duo in solum deum competunt. Nam et ipsum studium in eis exemplis opponendi Christum creatori ad unitatem magis spectat.]

Oh my God, am I the only person that sees it? The book isn't called the 'antitheses.' This argument is not to be found anywhere in Tertullian's writing. The antitheses are to be identified as 'the intention and purpose of his labor' which appear in the next line. Everywhere in the text Tertullian says that Marcion is trying to prove an 'antithesis' exists between what Marcion sees as two powers in heaven - 'goodness' and 'judgement.'

Tertullian is not alone in attributing an antithesis between these two powers in heaven. Irenaeus similarly writes of the Marcionites a generation earlier that:

Again, that they might remove the rebuking and judicial power from the Father, reckoning that as unworthy of God, and thinking that they had found out a God both without anger and [merely] good, they have alleged that one [God] judges, but that another saves, unconsciously taking away the intelligence and justice of both deities. For if the judicial one is not also good, to bestow favours upon the deserving, and to direct reproofs against those requiring them, he will appear neither a just nor a wise judge. On the other hand, the good God, if he is merely good, and not one who tests those upon whom he shall send his goodness, will be out of the range of justice and goodness; and his goodness will seem imperfect, as not saving all; [for it should do so,] if it be not accompanied with judgment.

Marcion, therefore, himself, by dividing God into two, maintaining one to be good and the other judicial, does in fact, on both sides, put an end to deity. For he that is the judicial one, if he be not good, is not God, because he from whom goodness is absent is no God at all; and again, he who is good, if he has no judicial power, suffers the same [loss] as the former, by being deprived of his character of deity. And how can they call the Father of all wise, if they do not assign to Him a judicial faculty? For if He is wise, He is also one who tests [others]; but the judicial power belongs to him who tests, and justice follows the judicial faculty, that it may reach a just conclusion; justice calls forth judgment, and judgment, when it is executed with justice, will pass on to wisdom. Therefore the Father will excel in wisdom all human and angelic wisdom, because He is Lord, and Judge, and the Just One, and Ruler over all. For He is good, and merciful, and patient, and saves whom He ought: nor does goodness desert Him in the exercise of justice, nor is His wisdom lessened; for He saves those whom He should save, and judges those worthy of judgment. Neither does He show Himself unmercifully just; for His goodness, no doubt, goes on before, and takes precedency. [Irenaeus AH iii.25.2,3]

Is my audience still in the dark about why the name change for the principle epistle in the Marcionite canon from 'to the Alexandrians' to 'to the Corinthians' might help "take away" what Marcion claims to be "the intention and purpose of his work"? Or why as a result of this removal of its title, Tertullian claims "this book" - i.e. the text originally called 'to the Alexandrians' but now 'to the Corinthians' - "will provide neither more nor less than a description of one and the same God, in his supreme goodness and in his judgement—for these two conceptions are conjoined in God and in him alone?"

The Letter to the Corinthians must have been the Catholic text which was 'renamed' 'to the Alexandrians in the Marcionite canon. The Muratorian canon mentions both a Marcionite 'to the Laodiceans' and a Marcionite 'to the Alexandrians.' Tertullian makes clear for us that 'to the Laodiceans' was the Marcionite title of our 'to the Ephesians.' However the question for scholars of Marcion was which one of the remaining six places that the Apostle sent letters had its name changed to 'to the Alexandrians' in the Marcionite canon.

I have always suspected it was 'to the Corinthians.' Now I think I have found a clue to help support my hunch. The reference to 'removing a title' from a Marcionite text to weaken their case that the Apostle understood the divinity to be manifest in terms of a power of 'goodness' and 'judgment' clinched it for me.

I can't believe everyone out there doesn't see it.

The division of God into two powers of 'goodness' and 'judgment' IS THE HALLMARK of Alexandrian Judaism. On every page of Philo of Alexandria's exegesis of the Bible, God is understood to be divided into these two principles.

If Marcion had this text in first place in his canon and it was called 'to the Alexandrians' and a Marcionite got into a debate with a Catholic about the meaning of the antitheses that appear throughout the work, how could a Catholic win the debate that the text wasn't about a distinction between two powers in heaven - i.e. one of 'mercy' and another of 'judgment'? That's what prompted the name change and it was done - as we have noted - in stages, where the early Roman tradition called the principle text of the Marcionite 'to the Corinthians' but allowed it to stay in 'first place' for at least a generation.

Now for those who know absolutely nothing about Philo, I guess its about time I close my eyes and take a random passage which demonstrates that the 'heresy' of Marcion identified in Irenaeus and Tertullian IS IDENTICAL to the doctrine associated with Alexandria. We read in Broadie's analysis of Philo that:

Philo speaks of God's mercy as older than his justice. By this he appears to mean that judgment is passed on by God, the Judge, on man in light of the requirements of mercy. The picture Philo presents here is of a God who sees what justice demands, then sees how the demands of justice can be tempered by mercy, and only then on the basis of the consideration of mercy passes judgment. Philo's God was not, at least to Philo, a fearful terrifying Being. [p. 101]

The point now that Irenaeus and Tertullian reject the Alexandrian idea promoted by Marcion that there are two aspects of God - i.e. mercy and justice. For them God can only be envisioned as one being both merciful and just.

Nevertheless as I noted before, if the Marcionite canon began with a 'letter to the Alexandrians' where this antithesis was repeated throughout, Irenaeus and Tertulian would certainly have lost that argument. That's why the letter to the Alexandrians became the letter to the Corinthians.

Now with these discoveries I think we are on pretty firm ground that the Marcionites - and indeed all of early Christianity had the epistle to the Alexandrians (aka to the Corinthians) first in their canon. So how do we explain the fact that the testimonies of Tertullian and Epiphanius are eventually made to support the idea that Galatians held first place in the Marcionite canon.

Let's trace the idea through Book Four of the series.

We have already cited the reference where Tertullian lists an order of epistles that begins with Corinthians. It is introduced as follows:

To sum up: if it is agreed that that has the greater claim to truth which has the earlier priority, and that has the priority which has been so since the beginning, and that has been since the beginning which was from the apostles, there will be no less agreement that that was handed down by the apostles which is held sacred and inviolate in the churches the apostles founded. Let us consider what milk it was that Paul gave the Corinthians to drink,a by the line of what rule the Galatians were again made to walk straight,b what the Philippians, the Thessalonians, and the Ephesians are given to read, what words are spoken also by our near neighbours the Romans, to whom Peter and Paul left as legacy the gospel, sealed moreover with their own blood.

I defy anyone looking at the CONTEXT of this statement as to the order of the epistles to argue that Tertullian himself does not think that Corinthians should be first and Romans last.

Now the only other reference to Galatians comes just a little earlier, in the course of Tertullian's introducing the person of Paul.

As I and others have noted, the argument that Marcion falsified Luke only became added to the contents of Book Four owing to the influence of Irenaeus. The oldest strata of Book Four has Tertullian inexplicably accusing Marcion of removing things from Luke which were never in Luke; passages that only appear in Matthew.

The only solution to the difficulty is that the original source which Tertullian employed developed an argument against Marcion from a Diatessaron that held material in common to Matthew, Mark and Luke and accused Marcion of removing passages which now only appear in Matthew.

As such it is noteworthy that the first reference to Galatians in Book Four in a section which represents a later addition - i.e. during the course of an argument that Marcion falsified Luke. We read:

It is another matter if in Marcion's opinion the Christian religion, with its sacred content, begins with the discipleship of Luke. However, as it was on its course even before that, it certainly possessed an authoritative structure by means of which it reached even to Luke: and so with the support of its evidence Luke also can find acceptance. But Marcion has got hold of Paul's epistle to the Galatians, in which he rebukes even the apostles themselves for not walking uprightly according to the truth of the gospel,a and accuses also certain false apostles of perverting the gospel of Christ: and on this ground Marcion strives hard to overthrow the credit of those gospels which are the apostles' own and are published under their names, or even the names of apostolic men, with the intention no doubt of conferring on his own gospel the repute which he takes away from those others.

The point then immediately becomes obvious from Book Four that it is Tertullian who gives his principle attention to the letter to the Galatians because it was used by the Marcionites to demolish the claim that Paul used the gospel of Luke - a central claim in the later Catholic Church.

It should be noted that ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in the first four books of Tertullian's Against Marcion suggest that the Marcionite canon began with to the Galatians. By contrast, everything points to a shared understanding with the Muratorian Canon that to the Corinthians held the primary spot.

So on we go to Book Five where indeed the letter to the Galatians is treated first and Corinthians second. Yet haven't we already explained why this is? Tertullian sees more of a threat from the Marcionite interpretation of Galatians at least with regards to the Catholic adoption of a fourfold canon including Luke.

In Book Five Tertullian begins with the words:

Nothing is without an origin except God alone. In as much as of all things as they exist the origin comes first, so must it of necessity come first in the discussion of them. Only so can there be agreement about what they are: for it is impossible for you to discern what the quality of a thing is unless you are first assured whether itself exists: and you can only know that by
knowing where it comes from.

Of course anyone who has ever read the Dialogues of Adamantius knows that the Marcionite there explicitly argues on behalf of the idea that the gospel had no human author. It was without origin coming directly from a realm beyond this world.

This idea is reflected elsewhere in the writings on the Marcionites. However Tertullian wants to use this Marcionite idea to challenge their understanding of the person of the apostle which - as we noted - the Marcionites developed principally from the Letter to the Galatians. So we read in what immediately follows:

As then I have now in the ordering of my treatise reached this part of the subject, I desire to hear from Marcion the origin of Paul the apostle. I am a sort of new disciple, having had instruction from no other teacher (i.e. so the Marcionites taught). For the moment my only belief is that nothing ought to be believed with out good reason, and that that is believed without good reason which is believed without knowledge of its origin: and I must with the best of reasons approach this inquiry with uneasiness when I find one affirmed to be an apostle, of whom in the list of the apostles in the gospel I find no trace.

It is under this framework and this framework alone - Tertullian's challenge to the understanding of the identity and the role of the apostle within Christianity that Book Five treats the Letter to the Galatians first.

Just look at how Tertullian introduces Galatians as a subject of discussion in what follows in Book Five:

will you please tell us [Marcion] under what bill of lading you accepted Paul as apostle, who had stamped him with that mark of distinction, who commended him to you, and who put him in your charge? Only so may you with confidence disembark him: only so can he avoid being proved to belong to him who has put in evidence all the documents that attest his apostleship. He himself, says Marcion, claims to be an apostle, and that not from men nor through any man, but through Jesus Christ. [Gal 1:1]

After a brief segue where Tertullian explains how Paul figures into an entire matrix of witnesses for the antiquity of the Catholic Church, he returns to the Letter to the Galatian because it is the one tradition that both he and Marcion agree on to help settle the identity of the apostle:

If these figurative mysteries do not please you, certainly the Acts of the Apostles have handed down to me this history of Paul, nor can you deny it. From them I prove that the persecutor became an apostle, not from men, nor by a man [Gal 1:1]: from them I am led even to believe him: by their means I dislodge you from your claim to him

The point of course is that all previous investigation have assumed that Tertullian actually says something, somewhere which testifies to the fact that Galatians is the first epistle of the Marcionite canon.

He does not.

The reason, as we have noted, that Galatians appears first is because Tertullian is trying to prove that the Marcionite understanding of the identity of Paul is inaccurate and from this accuracy all their subsequent 'heresy' develops. Or if you prefer the closing lines of the first chapter of Book Five:

So then accept the apostle on my evidence, as as you do Christ: he is my apostle, as also Christ is mine. Here too our contest shall take place on the same front ... and my evidence will be Paul's epistles. That these have suffered mutilation even in number, the precedent of that gospel, which is now the heretic's, must have prepared us to expect.

Of course when, in the next chapter which immediately follows these words, Tertullian cites from Galatians IT SHOULD NOT BE TAKEN IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM to suggest that the Marcionite canon started with Galatians. This was obviously misunderstood by Epiphanius too because he did not follow Tertullian's original argument.

Just look at the opening lines of the section. Tertullian does not say 'Galatians was the first epistle' but:

The epistle which we allow also to be the most decisive [principalem] against Judaism, is that wherein the apostle instructs the Galatians.

The 'also' clause has nothing to do with the Marcionites. It is an extension of the previous argument from the words we just saw, that Tertullian is saying that Galatians will prove that Paul was a Catholic apostle with Catholic beliefs. The idea then is that Galatians BOTH advances the Catholic identity of the apostle AND will help clarify the Catholic position on the manner Christians are supposed to abandon Judaism.

I have went through the WHOLE of Tertullian's work and PROVED BEYOND A SHADOW OF A DOUBT that there is absolutely no reason to believe that Galatians was ever first in the Marcionite canon. This was only developed out of scholarship traditional lack of interest in things related to the Marcionite sect.

I would in fact argue THAT THE ONLY EXPLICIT MENTION OF AN ORDER TO THE EPISTLES OF THE APOSTLE ARGUE FOR CORINTHIANS AS THE FIRST PAULINE LETTER FOLLOWED BY GALATIANS. It also takes us one step closer to identifying Alexandria as the Holy See of Marcionitism.

Indeed scholarship until now has not even bothered to think in terms of 'where Marcionitism' was headquartered because the image of Luther hung over all interpretation of Marcion.