Pre-canonical Paul. His Views Towards Sexual Immorality

This pdf is a digital offprint of your contribution in M. Vinzent (ed.), Studia Patristica. Vol. XCIX – Marcion of Sinope as Religious Entrepreneur, ISBN 978-90-429-3656-0. The copyright on this publication belongs to Peeters Publishers. As author you are licensed to make printed copies of the pdf or to send the unaltered pdf file to up to 50 relations. You may not publish this pdf on the World Wide Web – including websites such as academia.edu and open-access repositories – until three years after publication. Please ensure that anyone receiving an offprint from you observes these rules as well. If you wish to publish your article immediately on openaccess sites, please contact the publisher with regard to the payment of the article processing fee. For queries about offprints, copyright and republication of your article, please contact the publisher via peeters@peeters-leuven.be STUDIA PATRISTICA VOL. XCIX Marcion of Sinope as Religious Entrepreneur Edited by MARKUS VINZENT PEETERS LEUVEN – PARIS – BRISTOL, CT 2018 Table of Contents Markus VINZENT Introduction ......................................................................................... 1 Eve-Marie BECKER in conversation with Markus VINZENT Marcion and the Dating of Mark and the Synoptic Gospels.............. 5 Jörg RÜPKE Narratives as Factor and Indicator of Religious Change in the Roman Empire (1st and 2nd Centuries)............................................................. 35 Heidi WENDT Marcion the Shipmaster: Unlikely Religious Experts of the Roman World? ................................................................................................. 55 Jan N. BREMMER Peregrinus and Marcion ...................................................................... 75 Andrew HAYES Who are the ‘Christians’? ................................................................... 87 Harry MAIER Marcion the Circumcizer..................................................................... 97 Sebastian MOLL Which Paul did Marcion Know? ........................................................ 109 Mina MONIER Reading Luke in Rome: The Temple and Pietas ............................... 115 Timothy W. DOOLEY Marcionite Influences in the Primum Quaeritur Preface to Vulgate Paul ...................................................................................................... 139 Janelle Priya MATHUR and Markus VINZENT Pre-canonical Paul: His Views towards Sexual Immorality .............. 157 Pre-canonical Paul: His Views towards Sexual Immorality Janelle Priya MATHUR and Markus VINZENT, King’s College London, UK ABSTRACT Today the question is no longer simply, how quickly the letters of Paul acquired normative status, since the work of David Trobisch, Jan Heilmann and Matthias Klinghardt, we also have to ask, in which textual form Paul was read first. As this article will show, it is most likely that the text which our sources know as the Marcionite version of Paul (PaulMcn) give us a pre-canonical text which later seems to have been reworked and broadened by the same or similar redactors who were responsible for creating of the fictive Pauline Pastoral Letters. The following discussion examines how the precanonical letters of Paul underwent considerable alterations, each time for the purpose of more comfortably fitting the culture of the day. Taking one case in point, namely canonical Paul and his alleged views on homosexuality (and more broadly speaking, sexual immorality as it is discussed in the context of homosexuality), this essay focuses primarily on 1Corinthians 4-6, and argues that the pre-canonical Pauline writings were much shorter than the textus receptus, and presents the surprising conclusion that the pre-canonical Paul is not concerned with homosexuality at all. Finally, it is submitted that redactors of the second century expanded these passages to criticize homosexual behavior, due to historical situations. The article is based on the findings of Ulrich Schmid and Jason BeDuhn, but refines their results and suggests – compared to their reconstructive efforts of PaulMcn – a slightly revised reconstruction of 1CorMcn. 4-6, particularly based on Tertullian’s commentaries, as they are the earliest available on these writings, presenting us with a different version than that of the textus receptus. Introduction Homosexuality is traditionally taught by the church to be among the most abhorrent sins one can commit, and Jennifer Wright Knust concludes that ‘Paul and later followers of Christ frequently defined the boundaries of their movement in sexual terms’.1 In the first official document regarding this topic, Homosexualitas problema, the Catholic Church reacts against ‘a new exegesis of Sacred Scripture which claims variously that Scripture has nothing to say on the subject of homosexuality, or that it tacitly approves of it.’ Interestingly, 1 Jennifer Wright Knust, Abandoned Lust. Sexual Slander and Ancient Christianity, Gender, Theory and Religion (New York, 2006), 51-87, 51. Studia Patristica XCIX, 157-175. © Peeters Publishers, 2018. 158 J.P. MATHUR – M. VINZENT however, when examining Biblical text, we are referred to very few passages only. The first is Lev. 20:13: If a man lies with a man [arsenos koiten] as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads. Three passages are noted from the New Testament, all from Paul (Rom. 1:26-7; 1Cor. 6:9-10), or Pauline letters (1Tim. 1:9-10), but not from the gospels.2 Indeed, not only Jewish-Christian Scriptures very rarely write against homosexuality, except for the passages mentioned, ancient commentaries on these verses, too, prove to also be rare, even rarer than the frequency with which the topic is discussed in the New Testament. There is, however, a specific historic setting when criticism of homosexuality occurs. Justin Martyr is one of the few witnesses who writes in his First Apology: ‘We who not long ago delighted in porneia now embrace sophrosyne alone’ (1Apol. 14). With his Apology, he addresses the Emperor Antoninus Pius (and Senate), assuming a critical stand on homosexuality that contrasts with his predecessor Hadrian who had fallen in love with a young boy Antinous whom he must have met at his journey to Bithynia in the year 124 CE before moving further to Athens. The unlucky boy later drowned in the Nilus in the year 130 CE on Hadrian’s second journey to Egypt.3 A further harsh reaction against homosexuality is found in the Syriac version of Aristides’ Apology4 which scholars have referred to Hadrian and, similar to Justin, seems to have been voiced after the death of Hadrian in the text that was handed to his successor.5 Looking into the mentioned Pauline passages against homosexuality, this article takes into consideration the earliest commentary on the writings available, provided by Tertullian (known as the ‘father of Latin Christianity’6 and ‘father of Western theology’).7 Aside from being the closest commentator on Paul’s works chronologically, Tertullian was also a passionate arguer, zealous in his Christian faith, and adamant in his position that modesty and sexual purity were of extreme priority.8 2 On this topic, some refer to Matth. 19:4-6 and Mark 10:5-9, where Jesus discusses marriage as being between man and woman. However, this paper is focused primarily on evaluating the authenticity of that which directly references homosexuality, rather than looking at all which may be used to argue or defend its acceptability. 3 S. Perowne, Hadrian (London, 1960), 100. 4 Arist., Apol. 8,1; 9,3; 13,5; 17,2. 5 See R.M. Grant, Greek Apologists of the Second Century (London, 1988), 38-9. 6 Andrew J. Ekonomou, Byzantine Rome and the Greek Popes: Eastern Influences on Rome and the Papacy from Gregory the Great to Zacharias, A.D. 590-752 (New York, 2007), 22; recent literature in Markus Vinzent, Tertullian’s Preface to Marcion’s Gospel, Studia Patristica Supplement 5 (Leuven, 2017). 7 Justo L. Gonzales, The Story of Christianity, Volume 1: The Early Church to the Dawn of the Reformation (New York, 2010), 91-3. 8 See particularly Tertullian, De pudicitia; De virginibus velandis. Pre-canonical Paul: His Views towards Sexual Immorality 159 Paul’s textus receptus on homosexuality In examining the three scriptural references attributed to Paul, we find first Rom. 1:27: 1:27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.9 The main aspect worthy of attention here is the specificity with which this passage defines the sin of homosexuality – that is, instead of implementing the generic Greek term for man lying with man, ἀρσενοκοίτης, to convey a generalized sense of homosexual behaviour, the text distinctly defines both the lust and the behaviour. The importance of this choice becomes clear with the advancement of this discussion, but for now we simply note that this passage establishes one of a few characteristics within Paul’s writing. In a similar passage found in 1Cor. 6:9, the addressees are warned: 6:9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites…10 In this case, homosexuality is again outlined rather specifically (where both the passive and active engagers are referenced) but not with the same method used in Rom. 1:26. In fact, this is the first of only two occasions in the New Testament where ἀρσενοκοίτης is found,11 and the only occasion in which the Greek word μαλακός is used to describe not just a man, but a person in general.12 It is also of note that sexual immorality (translated here as fornication) is explicitly referenced outside of homosexuality, giving reason to think that the author believed that it is in some way or another different. The third passage regarding homosexuality is found in 1Tim. 1:9-10 (a chapter regarded by most scholars as a pseudo-Pauline writing), which reads: … that the law is not made for a righteous person, but for the … fornicators, for sodomites, for kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers…13 9 1:27 ὁμοίως τε καὶ οἱ ἄρσενες ἀφέντες τὴν φυσικὴν χρῆσιν τῆς θηλείας ἐξεκαύθησαν ἐν τῇ ὀρέξει αὐτῶν εἰς ἀλλήλους, ἄρσενες ἐν ἄρσεσιν τὴν ἀσχημοσύνην κατεργαζόμενοι καὶ τὴν ἀντιμισθίαν ἣν ἔδει τῆς πλάνης αὐτῶν ἐν ἑαυτοῖς ἀπολαμβάνοντες. 10 6:9 ἢ οὐκ οἴδατε ὅτι ἄδικοι θεοῦ βασιλείαν οὐ κληρονομήσουσιν; μὴ πλανᾶσθε: οὔτε πόρνοι οὔτε εἰδωλολάτραι οὔτε μοιχοὶ οὔτε μαλακοὶ οὔτε ἀρσενοκοῖται. 11 The second being in 1Tim. 1:10. 12 The other three occasions this word is used (twice within Matth. 11:18 and once in Luke 7:25) is in the context of describing tangible softness, such as that associated with cotton. 13 1:9 εἰδὼς τοῦτο, ὅτι δικαίῳ νόμος οὐ κεῖται, ἀνόμοις δὲ καὶ ἀνυποτάκτοις, ἀσεβέσι καὶ ἁμαρτωλοῖς, ἀνοσίοις καὶ βεβήλοις, πατρολῴαις καὶ μητρολῴαις, ἀνδροφόνοις, 1:10 πόρνοις, ἀρσενοκοίταις, ἀνδραποδισταῖς, ψεύσταις, ἐπιόρκοις, καὶ εἴ τι ἕτερον τῇ ὑγιαινούσῃ διδασκαλίᾳ ἀντίκειται. 160 J.P. MATHUR – M. VINZENT It is in this case that ‘Paul’s’ previously mentioned tendency towards detailed language becomes relevant; in comparison to Romans and 1Corinthians, he fails to be so specific in this line, only including ἀρσενοκοίτης (which is strangely enough interpreted by the translators of the New King James Version the same way μαλακός is in 1Cor. 6:9, though the words are decidedly different). This is the third variation in method of description of homosexuality, which is remarkable since we are to believe they were all written by the same author, and these are the only references to this topic in the entire New Testament. Minimally, it is intriguing that Paul does not remain consistent in his language or degree of specificity within his own messages, even though it is in the context of something so significant as losing the inheritance of ‘the Kingdom of God’14 or so common as worshiping idols or gods other than the Hebrew God.15 Tertullian’s role Bearing this in mind, we turn to Tertullian’s role in this argument to discover that he does not have to say anything in his commentary on any of the aforementioned verses attributed to Paul.16 Again, Tertullian is nothing if not verbose in his commentary on early Christian documents, and is recorded as taking most opportunities to promote his arguments, which include a fixation on the purity and blessing associated with a virgin marriage.17 So it is at least unusual that he has nothing to say with regards to Rom. 1:26 or 1Cor. 6:1-12. Of course, as he comments on Marcion’s collection of Paul’s letters,18 which the ‘Pastoral Letters’ are not part of, he does not give a commentary on the passage from 1Timothy. There exist a few possible reasons for this lacking reference: perhaps Tertullian recognized that he was addressing an audience who was already familiar with the traditional Jewish rules regarding sex, and felt it would be extraneous to address these passages. He was indeed quite occupied with emphasizing the finer points of purity,19 conceivably because his audience was unlikely to engage in the more obvious deviations from the traditional 14 1Cor. 6:9. Rom. 1:26. 16 Tert, Adv. Marc. V 7; ed. and trans. here and later Tertullian, Adversus Marcionem, Books I-III, and Books IV and V. Edited and translated by Ernest Evans (Oxford, 1972) (online accessible: <http://tertullian.org/articles/evans_marc/evans_marc_00index.htm>, accessed 9.11.2016). 17 Tert., De virginibus velandis; see also his Ad uxorem. 18 On Marcion of Sinope, the second century teacher and businessman who, after the Bar Kokhba war had moved from Asia Minor to Rome, see Markus Vinzent, Marcion and the Dating of the Synoptic Gospels, Studia Patristica Supplement 2 (Leuven, 2014). 19 Ibid. 15 Pre-canonical Paul: His Views towards Sexual Immorality 161 definition of heterosexual marital sex and would be more prone to the more frequently mentioned sins of adultery, immodesty, idolatry, etc. But that argument would assume that he was writing primarily to a religious audience, and besides, assumes a trait that conflicts with a character who is both thorough in his range of discussion, and well established in his inclination towards expounding on the topic of sexual morality. Furthermore, Tertullian does provide commentary on Paul’s discussions of sexual immorality elsewhere,20 which indicates that when the text provided him with such statements, he picked them up and made use of them. Finally, it could be that Tertullian’s silence on the passages concerning homosexuality is simply an indication that those verses did not exist in Marcion’s collection of Paul’s letters, which still leaves open the question of whether Marcion had deleted those or whether these were additions made by unknown redactors of Paul’s Letters in the second century. Of the possibilities, as we will see, the latter conclusion proves to be the most convincing, as it explains first the consistent line of argument in the text that Tertullian comments upon and second the variances in language choice between the three excerpts, which are similar, but not similar enough. Given how the passages list and denounce specific sins, it is striking that they are not a more perfect reflection of each other, especially when they are (in theory) written by the same author or within the same tradition; these difficulties vanish if they are not only written by someone other than Paul, but are the works of redactors. In this case, 1Timothy could be an unpolished mirror of a 2nd century’s addition to 1Corinthians. Paul and sexual immorality Moving from the three instances in which Paul is credited with condemning homosexuality, the focus shifts to discuss the views on sexual immorality that Paul may have originally expressed, based on Tertullian’s commentary of 1Corinthians. In 1Cor. 5:1 one reads: ‘It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and such sexual immorality as is not even named among the Gentiles – that a man has his father’s wife!’21 From this, we can assume that sexual immorality at least refers to the act of incest. To this one has to add 1Cor. 5:9-10 which seems to broaden the definition: ‘5:9 I wrote to you in the letter not to associate with the sexually immoral. Yet I certainly did not mean with the sexually immoral of this world.’ Who Paul means by the 20 Tert., Adv. Marc. V 7, V 14. 1Cor. 5:1: Ὅλως ἀκούεται ἐν ὑμῖν πορνεία, καὶ τοιαύτη πορνεία ἥτις οὐδὲ ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν, ὥστε γυναῖκά τινα τοῦ πατρὸς ἔχειν. 21 162 J.P. MATHUR – M. VINZENT ‘sexually immoral’ which are not ‘of this world’ is clarified in 1Cor. 5:10: ‘In no way did I mean the immoral people of this world, or the greedy and swindlers and idolaters, since you would then have to go out of the world.’22 Two worlds and two types of beings are referenced – the ‘immoral people of this world’ who Paul does not refer to, and beings not of this world (and therefore, of another) which Paul means and which the Corinthians should not associate with, leading the reader to understand that distinguishing between the two sets is necessary. The phrase ‘sexually immoral’ specifically does not refer to the people of this world, that is, mankind. If not the people on planet Earth, then whom? We will need to come back to this question. Paul is clear, however, in his assertion that one cannot abstain from the ‘immoral people of this world’, as to do so one would need to leave the world; immorality is all over the place and surrounds everybody, including his addressees. Despite this clear distinction, the critical reader is surprised to read in the following verse 1Cor. 5:11: ‘But now I have written to you not to keep company with anyone named a brother, who is sexually immoral…’23 Already the opening (νῦν δὲ ἔγραψα ὑμῖν) points out that, in this verse, Paul either disregards the distinction he has just made, and now does mean to refer to ‘people of this world’, or builds on a distinction between ‘the people of this world’ and the brothers and sisters of the church who would then be regarded as being not of this world. Indeed, 1Cor. 5:9-10 is commonly read with the understanding that the author is likely making a reference to the same context in which ‘of this world’ is used in John 8:23, 15:9, 17:14.16. There, the idea that Christians are in the world, but not of it, is established, with ‘of’ expressing a direct relationship between a part and its larger whole. Applying this, 1Cor. 5:9-11 then means, ‘I wrote to you not to associate with sexually immoral Christians’. Tertullian vs. Marcion Despite the pleasing congruity of these three verses, their meaning is obfuscated when taken in the context of the chapters as they are accepted and used today. This confusion is amplified further when we consider where in 1Corinthians 4-6 Tertullian comments verses and where he does not: 22 1Cor. 5:9-10: Ἔγραψα ὑμῖν ἐν τῇ ἐπιστολῇ μὴ συναναμίγνυσθαι πόρνοις, οὐ πάντως τοῖς πόρνοις τοῦ κόσμου τούτου ἢ τοῖς πλεονέκταις καὶ ἅρπαξιν ἢ εἰδωλολάτραις, ἐπεὶ ὠφείλετε ἄρα ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου ἐξελθεῖν. 23 1Cor. 5:11: νῦν δὲ ἔγραψα ὑμῖν μὴ συναναμίγνυσθαι ἐάν τις ἀδελφὸς ὀνομαζόμενος ᾖ πόρνος ἢ πλεονέκτης ἢ εἰδωλολάτρης ἢ λοίδορος ἢ μέθυσος ἢ ἅρπαξ, τῷ τοιούτῳ μηδὲ συνεσθίειν. Pre-canonical Paul: His Views towards Sexual Immorality Tert., Adv. Marc. V 7 (E. Evans) 1Corinthians 4-6 4:1 One should think about us this way – as servants of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God. 4:2 Now what is sought in stewards is that one be found faithful. 4:3 So for me, it is a minor matter that I am judged by you or by any human court. In fact, I do not even judge myself. 4:4 For I am not aware of anything against myself, but I am not acquitted because of this. The one who judges me is the Lord. 4:5 So then, do not judge anything before the time. Wait until the Lord comes. He will 7. [1] Et occulta tenebrarum bring to light the hidden things ipse illuminabit, utique per Christum, qui Christum of darkness and reveal the motives illuminationem repromisit, se of hearts. Then each will receive quoque lucernam pronuntiavit, recognition from God. scrutantem corda et renes. 4:6 I have applied these things Ab illo erit et laus unicuique to myself and Apollos because of a quo et contrarium you, brothers and sisters, so that laudis, ut a iudice. through us you may learn “not to Certe, inquis, vel hic go beyond what is written,” so that mundum deum mundi none of you will be puffed up in interpretatur, dicendo, favor of the one against the other. 4:7 For who concedes you any superiority? What do you have that you did not receive? And if you received it, why do you boast as though you did not? 4:8 Already you are satisfied! Already you are rich! You have become kings without us! I wish you had become kings so that we could reign with you! 4:9 For, I think, God has exhibited us apostles last of all, as men condemned to die, because Spectaculum facti sumus mundo we have become a spectacle to the et angelis et hominibus: quia si world, both to angels and to peomundum homines ple. 4:10 We are fools for Christ, mundi significasset, non etiam but you are wise in Christ! We are homines postmodum nominasset. weak, but you are strong! You are Immo ne ita argumentareris, distinguished, we are dishonored! providentia spiritus sancti 4:11 To the present hour we are hungry and thirsty, poorly clothed, demonstravit quomodo dixisset, brutally treated, and without a roof Spectaculum facti sumus mundo, dum angelis qui mundo over our heads. 4:12 We do hard ministrant, et hominibus quibus work, toiling with our own hands. ministrant. When we are verbally abused, we respond with a blessing, when 163 Tert., Against Marcion V (E. Evans) 7. [1] He himself will bring to light the hidden things of darkness – evidently by Christ as agent – who has promised that Christ will be a light, and has declared that he himself is a lantern, searching the hearts and reins. Praise for each several man will come from him from whom, as from a judge, will come also the opposite of praise. Surely, you say, here at least by ‘world’ he means the god of the world, when he says, We are made a spectacle to the world and to angels and to men, because if by ‘world’ he had referred to the men of the world he would not have gone on to mention ‘men’. Nay rather, to deprive you of this argument the Holy Spirit’s foresight has indicated in what sense he meant We are made a spectacle to the world, (namely) the angels who minister to the world, and the men to whom they minister. 164 [2] Verebatur nimirum tantae constantiae vir, ne dicam spiritus sanctus, praesertim ad filios scribens, quos in evangelio generaverat, libere deum mundi nominare, adversus quem nisi exserte non posset videri praedicare. Non defendo secundum legem creatoris displicuisse illum qui mulierem patris sui habuit. Communis et publicae religionis secutus sit disciplinam. J.P. MATHUR – M. VINZENT persecuted, we endure, 4:13 when people lie about us, we answer in a friendly manner. We are the world’s dirt and scum, even now. 4:14 I am not writing these things to shame you, but to correct you as my dear children. 4:15 For though you may have ten thousand guardians in Christ, you do not have many fathers, because I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel. 4:16 I encourage you, then, be imitators of me. 4:17 For this reason, I have sent Timothy to you, who is my dear and faithful son in the Lord. He will remind you of my ways in Christ, as I teach them everywhere in every church. 4:18 Some have become arrogant, as if I were not coming to you. 4:19 But I will come to you soon, if the Lord is willing, and I will find out not only the talk of these arrogant people, but also their power. 4:20 For the kingdom of God is demonstrated not in idle talk but with power. 4:21 What do you want? Shall I come to you with a rod of discipline or with love and a spirit of gentleness? 5:1 It is actually reported that sexual immorality exists among you, the kind of immorality that is not permitted even among the Gentiles, so that someone is cohabiting with his father’s wife. 5:2 And you are proud! Shouldn’t you have been deeply sorrowful instead and removed the one who did this from among you? 5:3 For even though I am absent physically, I am present in spirit. And I have already judged the one who did this, just as though I were present. 5:4 When you gather together in the name of our Lord Jesus, and I am with you in spirit, along with the [2] Do you think a man of such strong convictions – I leave the Holy Spirit out of account – especially when writing to his sons whom he had begotten in the gospel, would hesitate to name freely the god of the world, against whom he could not give the impression of preaching except by doing so openly? I make no claim that it was by the Creator’s law that the apostle disapproved of the man who had his father’s wife: suppose him to have followed the rule of natural or state religion. {I indeed absent in body but present in spirit, have already judged, as though I were present, him who has so done, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. When you are gathered together along with my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus}24 24 So Adam., Dial. II 5: Ἄκουε τοῦ αὐτοῦ ἀποστόλου λέγοντος, ἐγὼ μὲν γὰρ ὡς ἀπὼν τῷ σώματι, παρὼν δὲ τῷ πνεύματι, ἤδη κέκρικα ὡς παρὼν τὸν οὕτω τοῦτο κατεργασάμενον, ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ, συναχθέντων ὑμῶν καὶ τοῦ ἐμοῦ πνεύματος σὺν τῇ δυνάμει τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ, παραδοῦναι τὸν τοιοῦτον τῷ Σατανᾷ εἰς ὄλεθρον. Pre-canonical Paul: His Views towards Sexual Immorality Sed cum eum damnat dedendum satanae, damnatoris dei praeco est. Viderit et quomodo dixerit, In interitum carnis ut spiritus salvus sit in die domini, dum et de carnis interitu et de salute spiritus iudicarit, et auferri iubens malum de medio creatoris frequentissimam sententiam commemoraverit: power of our Lord Jesus, 5:5 turn this man over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord. 5:6 Your boasting is not good. Don’t you know that a little yeast affects the whole batch of dough? [3] Expurgate vetus fermentum, ut sitis nova conspersio, sicut estis azymi. Ergo azymi figurae erant nostrae apud creatorem. Sic et pascha nostrum immolatus est Christus. Quare pascha Christus, si non pascha figura Christi per similitudinem sanguinis salutaris pecoris et Christi? Quid nobis et Christo imagines induit sollemnium creatoris, si non erant nostrae? 5:7 Clean out the old yeast so that you may be a new batch of dough – you are, in fact, without yeast. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed. 5:8 So then, let us celebrate the festival, not with the old yeast, the yeast of vice and evil, but with the bread without yeast, the bread of sincerity and truth. [4] Avertens autem nos a fornicatione manifestat carnis resurrectionem. 165 But when he sentences him to be delivered unto Satan, he becomes the apparitor of a God who condemns. Pass over also what he means by, For the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord, provided you admit that by destruction of the flesh and saving of the spirit he has spoken as a judge, and that when he orders the wicked person to be put away from among them, he has in mind one of the Creator’s most regular expressions. [3] Purge out the old leaven, that ye may be a new baking, even as ye are unleavened: so that unleavened bread was to the Creator a figure of ourselves, and in this sense too Christ our Passover was sacrificed. Yet how can Christ be the Passover except that the passover is a figure of Christ because of the similitude between the saving blood of the <paschal> lamb and of Christ? How can he have applied to us and to Christ the likenesses of the Creator’s solemnities, if they were not ours already? [4] In telling us to flee fornication 5:9 I wrote you in my letter not to associate with the sexually immoral. 5:10 In no way did I mean the immoral people of this world, or the greedy and swindlers he gives evidence of the and idolaters, since you would then resurrection of the flesh: have to go out of the world. 5:11 But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who calls himself a brother who is sexually immoral, or greedy, or an idolater, or verbally abusive, or a drunkard, or a swindler. Do not even eat with such a person. 5:12 For what do I have to do with judging those outside? Are you not to judge those inside? 5:13 But God will judge those outside. Remove the evil person from among you. 6:1 When any of you has a legal dispute with another, does he 166 Corpus, inquit, non fornicationi sed domino, et dominus corpori, ut templum deo et deus templo. Templum ergo deo peribit, et deus templo? J.P. MATHUR – M. VINZENT dare go to court before the unrighteous rather than before the saints? 6:2 Or do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world is to be judged by you, are you not competent to settle trivial suits? 6:3 Do you not know that we will judge angels? Why not ordinary matters! 6:4 So if you have ordinary lawsuits, do you appoint as judges those who have no standing in the church? 6:5 I say this to your shame! Is there no one among you wise enough to settle disputes between fellow Christians? 6:6 Instead, does a Christian sue a Christian, and do this before unbelievers? 6:7 The fact that you have lawsuits among yourselves demonstrates that you have already been defeated. Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be cheated? 6:8 But you yourselves wrong and cheat, and you do this to your brothers and sisters! 6:9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! The sexually immoral, idolaters, adulterers, passive homosexual partners, practicing homosexuals, 6:10 thieves, the greedy, drunkards, the verbally abusive, and swindlers will not inherit the kingdom of God. 6:11 Some of you once lived this way. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. 6:12 “All things are lawful for me” – but not everything is beneficial. “All things are lawful for me” – but I will not be controlled by anything. 6:13 “Food is for the stomach and the stomach is for food, but God will do away with both.” The body is not for sexual The body, he says, is not for immorality, but for the Lord, and fornication but for the Lord, the Lord for the body. and the Lord for the body, as the temple is for God and God for the temple. Shall the temple then perish for God, and God for the temple? But you see it written, Pre-canonical Paul: His Views towards Sexual Immorality Atquin vides, Qui dominum suscitavit, et nos suscitabit; in corpore quoque suscitabit, quia corpus domino, et dominus corpori. Et bene quod aggerat, Nescitis corpora vestra membra esse Christi? Quid dicet haereticus? Membra Christi non resurgent, quae nostra iam non sunt? Empti enim sumus pretio magno. [5] Plane nullo, si phantasma fuit Christus nec habuit ullam substantiam corporis quam pro nostris corporibus dependeret. Ergo et Christus habuit quo nos redimeret, et si aliquo magno redemit haec corpora, in quae eadem committenda fornicatio non erit, ut in membra iam Christi non nostra, utique sibi salva praestabit quae magno comparavit. Iam nunc quomodo honorabimus, quomodo tollemus deum in corpore perituro? 167 6:14 Now God indeed raised He that hath raised up the Lord the Lord and he will raise us by will also raise us up: in the body also he will raise us up, because his power. the body is for the Lord and the Lord for the body. And well it is 6:15 Do you not know that that he piles it on, know ye not your bodies are members of that your bodies are the Christ? Should I take the mem- members of Christ? bers of Christ and make them What has the heretic to say? Shall members of a prostitute? Never! those members of Christ not 6:16 Or do you not know that any- rise again, which are ours no one who is united with a prostitute longer? For we have been bought is one body with her? For it is said, at a great price. “The two will become one flesh.” [5] Evidently at no price at all if 6:17 But the one united with the Christ was a phantasm without any Lord is one spirit with him. 6:18 corporal assets which he could pay Flee sexual immorality! “Every sin over as the purchase-price for our a person commits is outside of the bodies. So then Christ did possess body” – but the immoral person something to redeem us with, and sins against his own body. 6:19 Or since in fact he has at some do you not know that your body is great price redeemed these bodies the temple of the Holy Spirit who against which we are not to is in you, whom you have from commit fornication because they God, and you are not your own? are now not ours but Christ’s, 6:20 For you were bought at a price. he will surely bring to salvation Therefore glorify God with your for himself possessions he has acquired at so great a cost. And body. besides, how can we glorify God, and how can we exalt him, in a body meant for destruction? In the context of 1Corinthians 4-6, Tertullian (Adv. Marc. V 7,1) first makes a direct quote of verse 4:5 (‘He himself will bring to light the hidden things of darkness’), and simultaneously mentions the search for the ‘hearts’ and the reception of ‘praise for each’. On this, he points out the antithesis between praise and the opposite of praise (laus unicuique … et contrarium laudis, ut a iudice), as well as the antithesis between Marcion’s god of the other world and the God of this world, the judge. This may be Tertullian’s own inference from Marcion’s interpretation of verse 4:5,25 from whom Tertullian had distinguished the judging ‘god of the world’ from the revelator Christ. Given this, it is then surprising that Tertullian does not mention 1Cor. 4:6-8, where Paul applies the revelatory activity to himself ‘and Apollos … so that through us you may learn … “not to go beyond what is written”’. If Tertullian had read this in Marcion’s version of Paul, he could have easily made an argument against Marcion as 25 This states that the God who brings light to the hidden things of darkness is one and the same with the God of the other world, the revelator Christ. 168 J.P. MATHUR – M. VINZENT being somebody who goes against the text as it was handed down by Paul (which he does in other cases where he evidently finds the opportunity),26 but does not. When Tertullian, instead, continues by picking up the second part of verse of 1Cor. 4:9 (‘We are made a spectacle to the world and to angels and to men’), it reads like a straight continuation of Marcion’s text of Paul: 4:5 He will bring to light the hidden things of darkness and reveal the motives of hearts. Then each will receive recognition from God. 4:9 We are made a spectacle to the world and to angels and to men. This gives us reason to conclude the probability that the text in between (4:6-8) is a gloss which was applied by a later editor; the advice ‘not to go beyond what is written’ may even reveal the redactor’s hand which is, ironically, going beyond what Paul had written. Then in 4:9, Tertullian’s commentary again leaves aside the rest of chapter 4 (4:10-21) and only resumes later in 5:1.27 In other words, he speaks nothing on the content between 4:10 and 4:21, where Paul talks so vividly about himself in contrast to his addressees: 4:10 We are fools for Christ, but you are wise in Christ! We are weak, but you are strong! You are distinguished, we are dishonored! 4:11 To the present hour we are hungry and thirsty, poorly clothed, brutally treated, and without a roof over our heads. 4:12 We do hard work, toiling with our own hands. When we are verbally abused, we respond with a blessing, when persecuted, we endure, 4:13 when people lie about us, we answer in a friendly manner. We are the world’s dirt and scum, even now. And again, Tertullian, who likes such contrasts and criticisms of the world, would have certainly been able and willing to make a point against the rich businessman Marcion, had these verses been part of Marcion’s text of Paul. So also the following verses of 4:14-21 seem to have been missing in the version of Paul that Tertullian comments on. Note, parenthetically, that mention is made of ‘Timothy’ ‘who is my dear and faithful son in the Lord’ and he is endorsed as the one who ‘will remind you of my ways in Christ, as I teach them everywhere in every church’ (4:17). We will see below, what – if this were the next redactional addition – the function of it might be. Tertullian is as explicit in his commentary in 1Cor. 5:1 as he is again in his commentary for verses 5:5 and 5:7-9. The way Tertullian uses Marcion’s quotations of Paul to turn them against Marcion’s views can be clearly seen by 5:5 – Paul states that the man who sleeps with his father’s wife should be turned 26 27 See, for example, Tert., Adv. Marc. V 4,2. Tert., Adv. Marc. V 7. Pre-canonical Paul: His Views towards Sexual Immorality 169 to Satan (a verse evidently accepted and used by Marcion), and Tertullian deduces that, therefore, Marcion’s God is a judge – a qualification that Marcion had associated with the God of the Jews, not with Christ. Thus, as Tertullian points out, Marcion contradicts himself. And yet, Tertullian lets us know that Marcion must have read this first part of the verse together with the second part of it, where there is mention of ‘the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord’. Marcion, therefore, understood Paul as teaching a condemnation of the flesh and a handing it over to Satan (without indicating a distinction between Satan and the god of the world), and a salvation of the spirit alone ‘in the day of the Lord’. This is a crucial paragraph, as it sets up the evidence for the next sentence, pointing to the celebration of Passover and the sacrifice of Christ, the Passover lamb. Verse 5:6 is another direct address to the readers which, as with the aforementioned potential glosses, is not referred to by Tertullian’s commentary. Tertullian’s commentary continues with 1Cor. 5:7, which reads: 5:7 Purge out the old leaven, that ye may be a new baking, even as ye are unleavened. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed. As before, the text without the unreferenced interjection reads like a continuous Pauline text. The cleaning out the old yeast is reminiscent of Passover, which is then mentioned in this verse. Paul, however, demonstrates an even higher degree of radicalness in his first assertion that the destruction of the flesh (and the saving of the spirit) does not only mean a clearing out of the flesh, but a total doing away with any flesh (‘You are, in fact, without yeast’), so that there is not a single trace of flesh left, neither old nor new. If ‘the day of the Lord’ meant the resurrection, then this was conceived of as a purely spiritual one – a future Passover with ‘unleavened bread’, with a spirit without flesh. The additional text in 5:8, which is unreferenced by Tertullian (‘So then, let us celebrate the festival, not with the old yeast, the yeast of vice and evil, but with the bread without yeast, the bread of sincerity and truth’), moralizes this clear eschatological message of Marcion’s Paul, which Tertullian could have used; instead, he develops his own argument, to support his belief in ‘the resurrection of the flesh’, for which he takes recourse to our core verse 1Cor. 5:9.28 Marcion interpreted Paul to support his focus on the separating the yeast of vice from the bread of truth, whereas Tertullian took it to emphasize the separation of the flesh and the spirit, and the bodily resurrection of the flesh. 28 5:9 ‘I wrote you in my letter not to associate with the sexually immoral. 5:10 In no way did I mean the immoral people of this world, or the greedy and swindlers and idolaters, since you would then have to go out of the world’. 170 J.P. MATHUR – M. VINZENT Sexual and spiritual immorality The context has made it plain that fleeing fornication or not associating with the sexually immoral was a pointer to ‘the resurrection’, where the line ‘but now I am writing to you’ of 5:11 acts as a formula that makes a distinction to the previous verse, and Tertullian’s commentary indicates that 5:10 was still part of Marcion’s Paul. If this is true, Paul took the dissociation to be one between his addressees and the ‘sexually immoral’, and not to be one between ‘people of this world’ and the immoral brethren. This is an admission to the fact that, while living in the temporal realm, one cannot flee the sexual immorality of this world (or its greed, swindle, and idolatry), but that this is only possible once we have totally left the flesh (in death). Nevertheless, as is added in the next verse that Tertullian references and which seems to have come straight next in Marcion’s Paul, the second part of 1Cor. 6:13 (‘The body, he says, is not for fornication but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body’), the spirit will not reside without a body in the resurrection, although it will be an ‘unleavened bread’ – a spiritual body. If so, the sexual immorality in the verse before (5:10) which is meant to be unrelated to ‘people of this world’, extends to the otherworld. When we follow Tertullian’s commentary on Marcion’s text of Paul, therefore, the reader learns that Paul’s main concern was with the sexual purity of the members of the church and how their actions effected their spiritual selves. Unusual as the idea may sound today, there exist several reasons supporting why it is likely that Paul (and Marcion) was concerned about sexual relations with spiritual beings, which center within Paul’s traditional Jewish context. The first biblical discussion of sexual relations between humans and non-humans occurs in Gen. 6:1-4.29 This chapter simultaneously assumes the ability for humans and angels30 to sexually engage and the ability for women to produce half-breeds, commonly thought of to be the Nephilim. Later in Gen. 19:1-22, two angels are described as spending the night with a man named Lot, resulting in Sodom’s male populace surrounding Lot’s house and demanding the angels come out so they could have sex with them. The book of Jubilees (Jub. 15:25-7) knows the story as the begetting of a monstrous generation of Giants. Likewise, the book of Enoch (1Enoch 6-19) reports the sinning of angels and the death 29 ‘Now it came to pass … that the sons of God saw the daughters of men, that they were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves of all whom they chose… There were giants on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men and they bore children to them…’ 30 In this case, the beings who are described as cohabitating with women are referred to as sons of God, and are traditionally thought of as being fallen angels. While there exist different schools of thought debating whether the creatures referred to as sons of God are angels versus something else altogether, this paper will assume the former position. Pre-canonical Paul: His Views towards Sexual Immorality 171 of their bodies which might even be reflected in 1Peter 4:631 and other early Christian writings.32 Heb. 13:12 warns Christians to be kind to all, because it may not be obvious when they are in the presence of angels. Acts 12 tells of a group of intercessors insisting that a young girl was confusing Peter’s angel for Peter, indicating that the two are evidently similar and common enough in nature to be confused. Although Bauckham is correct in his suggestion, that some of the Gospel pericopes which refer to the topic of demons may have these stories as their background, there exists no explicit narrative about sexual interactions between angels and human beings in these canonical writings. Nevertheless, the stories that describe angel-human sexual interactions, with occasionally added homosexual variants, are casual commonplace in Jewish and Christian writings. Thus, Paul was likely aware and against the idea of church members engaging in sexual relations with the spiritual, and believed doing so would pervert the body, as it is ‘for the Lord’ and vice versa (1Cor. 6:13), that ‘the one who raised the Lord will also raise us up’ (6:14) and that one should ‘know that’ one’s ‘bodies are members of Christ’ and shall not make ‘a prostitute’s limbs’ (6:15), (verses all of which are referenced by Tertullian).33 Rationale for Redactions If Paul truly did compose only the contents of 1Cor. 4-6 referenced explicitly by Tertullian, then what remains is his criticism of incest in 5:5, but not homosexuality, as it, in that case, never comes up. Then arises the question of when and by whom could the redaction have been done. If it was because of Paul’s obvious contradiction to what, for example, was taught in 1Timothy, the redactor might have been from the tradition of the ‘Pastoral Letters’ which would also explain why in the aforementioned potential gloss there is an explicit endorsement of Timothy. In this case, the later editor attempted to clarify what he believed Paul had meant. Just as plausibly, Paul was initially 31 ‘ 4:6 For this reason the gospel was preached also to those who are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit.’ 32 See on these and similar stories Richard Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter (Waco, 1983), 53; A.T. Wright, ‘Evil Spirits in Second Temple Judaism: The Watcher Tradition as a Background to the Demonic Pericopes in the Gospels’, Henoch 28 (2006), 141-59; Andrei A. Orlov, Divine Scapegoats: Demonic Mimesis in Early Jewish Mysticism (New York, 2015), 235; Grant Macaskill, ‘Priestly Purity, Mosaic Torah and the Emergence of Enochic Judaism’, Henoch 29 (2007), 67-89; Eibert J.C. Tigchelaar, ‘Some Remarks on the Book of the Watchers, the Priests, Enoch and Genesis, and 4Q208’, Henoch 24 (2002), 143-5. 33 1Cor. 6:13-5. The second part of 1Cor. 6:15 is not referenced by Tertullian in Adv. Marc. V, but in IV 34.5, and we have the additional witness by Adam., Dial. V 22, so also Jason D. BeDuhn, The First New Testament. Marcion’s Scriptural Canon (Salem, 2013), 235 with his comments ibid. 276. 172 J.P. MATHUR – M. VINZENT clear with what he wanted to say, but the message referred to the intercourse with the spiritual, something which the later editor was unfamiliar with, and accordingly changed the text to what he was predisposed to believe. Or, because the redactor noticed that any criticism of homosexuality was missing in Paul, but wanted to impart such criticism to the Apostle. It is interesting to note that the so-called Prologues to the Pauline Letters, preserved in many Latin Bible codices, mention that 1Corinthians was written ‘from Ephesus by Timothy’ (ab Epheso per Timotheum).34 Though, Harnack and BeDuhn regard ‘by Timothy’ as a later addition – for which the unanimous manuscript reading of this prologue gives no reason – it might have been that this prologue paved the way for both the introduction of the gloss in 1Cor. 4:17 and the creation of the Pastoral Letters, if the Prologue dated from the time (and perhaps hand) of Marcion, or, if it were later, took this information from the already redacted 1Corinthians. Conversely, if Harnack and BeDuhn were right that ‘by Timothy’ was a later addition,35 in this case – against the manuscript reading of this passage – one can point to the Prologue to Galatians where at the end in two manuscripts ‘by Titus’ was added, to the Prologue to 2Corinthians where various manuscripts introduced ‘by Titus’ at different places, to the Prologues to 1-2Thessalonians where at the end some manuscripts added ‘by Timothy’ or ‘by Tychicus (and Onesimus)’, and similarly to the Prologue to Colossians where at the end some manuscripts added ‘by Tychicus (and Onesimus)’ or ‘by Titus’, to the Prologue to Philippians where at the end most manuscripts added ‘by Epaphrodites’ and to the Prologue to Philemon where at the end some manuscript added ‘by Onesimus’.36 Just like Paul’s Letters, so the Prologues to the Pauline Letters seem to have been re-worked in light of the redaction of Paul’s Letters by people who created the Pastoral Letters and added these with references to them. Regardless of why the meanings of the verses in 1Corinthians became obscured (for how can we know the exact motivations with which an unknown editor distorted his copies?) it remains clear that if Tertullian (through Marcion) gives us Paul’s initial ideas, they somehow conflicted with those of later editors, and were accordingly changed and added to in a way that was and continues to be far more normative for the more recent culture. The same can be said particularly for the verses (or rather lack of verses) that pertain specifically to homosexuality. The presented evidence strongly suggests that Paul may have never touched on the subject, and what is available today are additions from 34 See the edition of this text in M. Vinzent, Marcion and the Dating of the Synoptic Gospels (2014), 118. 35 Adolf von Harnack, Marcion. Das Evangelium vom fremden Gott. Neue Studien zu Marcion, 2nd ed. (Leipzig, 1924 = Darmstadt, 1960), 128*; id., ‘Der marcionitische Ursprung der ältesten Vulgata-Prologe zu den Paulusbriefen’, ZNW 24 (1925), 204-18, 204. 36 For the readings with the variations see the edition in M. Vinzent, Marcion and the Dating of the Synoptic Gospels (2014), 121. Pre-canonical Paul: His Views towards Sexual Immorality 173 redactors who fine-tuned Paul by not only adding to his collection of Letters those which we call ‘Pastoral Letters’, 1-2Timothy, Titus, but also re-writing Paul with references to these Letters. In all likelihood, they acted on motivations that coincided with the time in which they lived. According to 1Tim. 1:9-10 it was clear that 1:9 the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, 1:10 for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers – and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine. (trans. NIV). If what was observed above is right, then the ‘sound doctrine’ may not have been Paul, or even Pauline, but instead a reflection of the tradition of the Pastoral Letters. In that case, it would seem that Paul’s letters and his views did not spread very rapidly without being drastically altered and changed. In order to obtain a better idea of the text that Tertullian comments upon, we give this text of the passage of 1Corinthians 4-6 in what follows:37 4:5 He will bring to light the hidden things of darkness and reveal the motives of hearts. Then each will receive recognition from God, 4:9 because we have become a spectacle to the world, both to angels and to people … 4:15 … whom he had begotten in the gospel. 5:1 It is actually reported that someone is sleeping with his father’s wife, 5:3 For even though I am absent physically, I am present in spirit. And I have already judged the one who did this, just as though I were present. 5:4 When you gather together in the name of our Lord Jesus, and I am with you in spirit, along with the power of our Lord Jesus, 5:5 turn this man over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord. 5:7 Clean out the old yeast so that you may be a new batch of dough – you are, in fact, without yeast. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed, 5:8 the bread without yeast. 5:9 I wrote you in my letter not to associate with the sexually immoral. 5:10 In no way did I mean the immoral people of this world, or the greedy and swindlers and idolaters, since you would then have to go out of the world. 5:13 Remove the evil person from among you. 6:13 The body is not for fornication but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body. 6:14 He that has raised up the Lord will also raise us up, because the body is for the Lord and the Lord for the body. Do you not know that your bodies are the members of Christ? Should I take the members of Christ and make them members of a prostitute?38 37 Text in bold is attested by our sources (Tertullian, Adamantius), normal text is unattested, but somehow needed and taken from the canonical version. The text has been checked against the reconstructed wording of Marcion’s Paul in Ulrich Schmid, Marcion und sein Apostolos (Berlin and New York, 1995), I/322 and J.D. BeDuhn, The First New Testament (2013), 235-6 with his comments ibid. 275-6. 38 In J.D. BeDuhn, The First New Testament (2013), 235-6 the passage is given as follows: 5 ‘4 [Hence do not judge anything before the due time, until the Master comes, who] will bring the secret things of darkness to light [and make the counsels of hearts manifest, and then] the 174 J.P. MATHUR – M. VINZENT Looking at this version, it is necessary to underscore that just because Tertullian does not directly quote all the text on which he comments should not lead us to automatically conclude that this text was not present in Marcion’s Paul (though, as evidenced by this discussion, it is compelling enough when combined with other factors to consider it probable).39 Furthermore, it is equally important to recognize that the verses taken in the above passage are occasionally only part of the verses associated with the textus receptus (for example, verse 4:9 in this revised version only takes the latter half of verse 4:9 in the textus receptus). While the decision process of which phrases ought to be omitted versus kept for analysis was carefully determined based on Tertullian’s direct quoting and general commentary, as well as with some regard to what is known about the culture of the day in which the text was probably written, some of it was also decided upon with an eye towards grammatical necessity demanded by the English language. That combined with the inescapable subjectivity with which all humans are (to varying degrees) plagued, this revised edition is ironically subject to the same critique with which this discussion is concerned – that is, the matter of varying redactions. That said, this version of Paul’s message is far more easily read than the longer version of the textus receptus, especially in terms of topic, language, and logical consistency. At a glance, it is clear by 1Cor. 5:9-10 that Paul is concerned with illicit interactions between humans and some unidentified non-humans. Yet whether that is his primary focus throughout the text remains difficult to discern, due to his fluid movement between the metaphorical and the literal40 and between the spiritual and the temporal.41 praise for each one will come to be from God… 9 … We [emissaries …] have become a show to the world, and to angels, and to humanity… 15… I gave birth to you by the proclamation… 17 [… I sent Timothy to you …] 5 1[… It is reported among you … that] someone possesses his father’s wife. 2[… The one who has done this deed should be removed from among you.] 3For I, thus absent in (my) body but present in (my) spirit, have already judged, as though present, the one who has carried this out this way, 4in the name of our Master Jesus Christos drawing together your and my spirit with the energy of our Master Jesus, 5to hand over such a person … for the destruction of (his) flesh, so that (his) spirit may be rescued on the day of the Master. 6[… Do you not know that a little yeast spoils the whole batch?] 7Clean out the old yeast, so that you may be a new batch, since you are unleavened. For, indeed, our Pascha was sacrificed: Christos… 13… Remove the wicked from yourselves. 6 … 13… The body (is) not for sexual misconduct, but for the Master; and the Master (is) for the body, as the temple is for God and God for the temple. 14 God both awakened the Master and will awaken us… 15Do you not know that your bodies are limbs of Christos? Shall I, then, take the limbs of the Christos and make them a prostitute’s limbs? May it nob be!’ 39 See U. Schmid, Marcion und sein Apostolos (1995); J.D. BeDuhn, The First New Testament (2013); Dieter T. Roth, The Text of Marcion’s Gospel (Leiden, 2015). 40 1Cor. 5:7. 41 1Cor. 5:9-10. Pre-canonical Paul: His Views towards Sexual Immorality 175 Conclusion The New Testament as it is known today contains few verses that pertain directly to homosexuality. A close analysis of these verses in light of Paul’s detailed writing style suggests that he may not have written them at all, and they are in fact results of added edits of unidentified later authors. Whether these edits were genuine attempts to ‘clarify’ Paul, or whether they were intended to change his original meaning remains to be seen, however, the discussion between Marcion and Tertullian allows us clearer insight into where these edits may have been made. After reconstructing what Paul’s letters may have looked like, based on Tertullian’s commentary, it appears that Paul’s concerns in 1Corinthians 4-6 had nothing to do with homosexuality, but with sexual relations with spiritual beings. However, as this tradition of thought became less acceptable and/or relevant through and over time, redactions were made to make the context more amenable to local culture.