Key Points in Tertullian's On Going Use of Luke Against Marcion

[Secret Alias]

Even at Nazareth there is no indication that his preaching was of anything new, though for all that, by reason of one single proverb, we are told that he was cast out.

This is particularly strange but I think is reflective of a stable text of Luke already being written:

Jesus said to them, “Surely you will quote this proverb to me: ‘Physician, heal yourself!’ And you will tell me, ‘Do here in your hometown what we have heard that you did in Capernaum.’” “Truly I tell you,” he continued, “no prophet is accepted in his hometown. 25 I assure you that there were many widows in Israel in Elijah’s time, when the sky was shut for three and a half years and there was a severe famine throughout the land. 26 Yet Elijah was not sent to any of them, but to a widow in Zarephath in the region of Sidon. 27 And there were many in Israel with leprosy[g] in the time of Elisha the prophet, yet not one of them was cleansed—only Naaman the Syrian.”

But to me this is one of the least credible historical passages in the entire New Testament. Jesus declaring "Surely you will quote this proverb to me ..." is almost like something you would see in a musical or a make believe story. In the Marcionite story the crowd is dead. They tried to push him off a cliff and end up falling in the abyss themselves. So we must imagine whoever wrote this reference in Adversus Marcionem knows the specific details of the Gospel of Luke.

The self-identification of Jesus as a prophet, the comparison with Elijah was all part of the motivation referenced in the quote from Adversus Marcionem - "Even at Nazareth there is no indication that his preaching was of anything new." This was a key anti-Marcionite element. Jesus was just a prophet, a servant of the Creator whatever. He wasn't new or a stranger. The self-reference to Capernaum preceding Nazareth in Luke is important too.

[Secret Alias]

I forgot this one. Another example of Adversus Marcionem coming before the canonical gospels. From Adversus Marcionem 1.8:

But to Christ the appellation of Nazarene was to apply because of his hiding-place in infancy, for which he went down to Nazareth, to escape from Archelaus, the son of Herod.c My reason for not leaving this out is that Marcion's Christ ought by rights to have forsworn all association even with the places frequented by the Creator's Christ, since he had all those towns of Judaea, which were not in the same way conveyed over to the Creator's Christ by the prophets. But Christ has to be the Christ of the prophets, wherever it is that he is found to accord with the prophets.

What is this? Clearly again as I said earlier this is part of the explanation of "Nazarene" from "Jesus the Nazarene" in the demoniac narrative which the Marcionites connected with "secret/hidden" from the Hebrew and Adversus Marcionem works to connect with Nazareth (which supposedly was connected with the dominical logoi argument). How so? Look at Matthew chapter 2 again:

So he got up, took the child and his mother and went to the land of Israel. 22 But when he heard that Archelaus was reigning in Judea in place of his father Herod, he was afraid to go there. Having been warned in a dream, he withdrew to the district of Galilee, 23 and he went and lived in a town called Nazareth. So was fulfilled what was said through the prophets, that he would be called a Nazarene.

Can anyone honestly say that this understanding was developed without Papias's dominical logoi or more importantly without Adversus Marcionem trying to find an alternative explanation for the "Hidden Man/Ish Nazarene" argument of the Marcionites/heretical tradition? There is no way that Matthew first wrote this bit about Archelaus, Nazareth etc. The first "Jesus" was the cosmic Man. Justin proves this. But along comes one of the editors of Adversus Marcionem trying to deflect the heretical understanding of the opening lines of the Marcionite gospel with (a) the Hidden Man/Ish Nazarene (b) engaging with the demons who Solomon put in water bottles under the Jerusalem temple and an alternative Galilean narrative emerged to deflect the original truth. I even suspect that the synoptic gospels "exorcism" of the "demoniac wasn't in the Marcionite gospel. You need the demons in the temple of Jerusalem to lurk in the background in all that happens in the gospel narrative refracted as it was with the Daniel 9:24 - 7 reference (where the demons are only destroyed by Roman armies).

[Stuart]

"When all the people were being baptized, Jesus was baptized too. And as he was praying, heaven was opened and the Holy Spirit descended on him in bodily form like a dove. And a voice came from heaven: “You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased.”

Baptismal scenes are absent from the Marcionite. This is an Adoptionist element, which was the Catholic view in Tertullian's day.

You confuse yourself when you mix materials from different textual strata and sources.

[Secret Alias]

So we've gotten to the "Secret Man" appearance emerging from the initial Marcionite Jerusalem temple scene. But notice how Adversus Marcionem immediately goes into a discussion of his quality or characteristic - in this case whether or not he was a "phantasm." I've already mentioned numerous times that Man in the Pentateuch is described by Josephus as encountering Jacob as a phantasma. This is what Marcion meant. Adversus Marcionem however goes over and around the bend by trying to prove that a phantasm can't be touched when plainly even Josephus would concede that Man is both a phantasm and someone who wrestled with Jacob. So we read in what immediately follows in Adversus Marcionem:

Here, as I for the first time observe that hands were laid upon him, I am called upon to say something definite about his corporal substance; that he who admitted of contact, contact even full of violence, in being seized and captured and dragged even to the brow of the hill, cannot be thought of as a phantasm. It is true that he slipped away through the midst of them, but this was when he had experienced their violence, and had afterwards been let go: for, as often happens, the crowd gave way, or was even broken up: there is no question of its being deceived by invisibility, for this, if it had been such, would never have submitted to contact at all. "Touch or be touched nothing but body may," is a worthy sentence even of this world's philosophy.

Clearly the reference is to ἐξέβαλον to throw someone like a wrestler is an allusion to Jesus as the "Man" of Jacob's wrestling narrative. "manus ei iniectas" is not a Marcionite gospel citation as Harnack supposes but a reference to taking ἐξέβαλον as a wrestling reference - viz. that hands were needed to throw someone. But it can also have a symbolic or allegorical meaning - even divorce. But let's suppose that they wrestle with him. This means or could mean that the Man was the same Man as in Genesis 32. The important thing was that he had the ability to turn immaterial so the crowd passed through him and, as I reconstruct from other sources, the Jews of the temple fell to their death as a foreshadowing of the war to come.

Tertullian infers that non possit phantasma credi qui contactum et quidem violentia plenum detentus et captus et ad praecipitium usque protractus admiserit." But I've noticed that just as the proto-gospels moved up material from later parts of the canonical texts (notice Adversus Marcionem's previous use of Matthew 15:28) the baptism of John question is too late in the canonical gospels. It must necessarily have precipitated the Jerusalem synagogue dwellers to lunge at Jesus as we see from later in Adversus Marcionem:

Christ knew the baptism of John, whence it was. Why then did he ask the question, as though he did not know? He did know that the pharisees would not answer him. Why then did he ask, to no purpose? Was it not that he might judge them out of their own mouth, or even out of their own heart? So take this episode to bear on the justification of the Creator, and on Christ's agreement with him, and ask yourself what the consequence would have been if the pharisees had returned an answer to his question. Suppose they had answered that John's baptism was from men: they would at once have been stoned to death. Some anti-marcionite Marcion would have stood up and said, 'See a god supremely good, a god the opposite of the Creator's doings! well aware that men were going to fall headlong (praeceps), he himself put them on the edge of a precipice (= praerupium MR1: praeruptum R).

Not only do I suppose that these two passages belonged together the commentary from Adversus Marcionem has made its way into our canonical gospels.

EXAMPLE 5 of Adversus Marcionem BEING WRITTEN BEFORE THE CANONICAL GOSPELS WERE ESTABLISHED.

Matthew 20

Jesus replied, “I will also ask you one question. If you answer me, I will tell you by what authority I am doing these things. 25 John’s baptism—where did it come from? Was it from heaven, or of human origin?” They discussed it among themselves and said, “If we say, ‘From heaven,’ he will ask, ‘Then why didn’t you believe him?’ 26 But if we say, ‘Of human origin’—we are afraid of the people, for they all hold that John was a prophet.”

27 So they answered Jesus, “We don’t know.”

Then he said, “Neither will I tell you by what authority I am doing these things.

Mark 11

Jesus replied, “I will ask you one question. Answer me, and I will tell you by what authority I am doing these things. 30 John’s baptism—was it from heaven, or of human origin? Tell me!”

31 They discussed it among themselves and said, “If we say, ‘From heaven,’ he will ask, ‘Then why didn’t you believe him?’ 32 But if we say, ‘Of human origin’ …” (They feared the people, for everyone held that John really was a prophet.)

33 So they answered Jesus, “We don’t know.”

Jesus said, “Neither will I tell you by what authority I am doing these things.”

Luke 20

He replied, “I will also ask you a question. Tell me: 4 John’s baptism—was it from heaven, or of human origin?”

5 They discussed it among themselves and said, “If we say, ‘From heaven,’ he will ask, ‘Why didn’t you believe him?’ 6 But if we say, ‘Of human origin,’ all the people will stone us, because they are persuaded that John was a prophet.”

7 So they answered, “We don’t know where it was from.”

8 Jesus said, “Neither will I tell you by what authority I am doing these things.”

Adversus Marcionem seems to have taken a much barer narrative and taken great efforts to explain the material in a way which did not support the heretical understanding (known to Irenaeus in Book 1 of Adversus Haerses) that Jesus's Father came from another god.

Adversus Marcionem 4.38:

He did know that the pharisees would not answer him. Why then did he ask, to no purpose? Was it not that he might judge them out of their own mouth, or even out of their own heart? So take this episode to bear on the justification of the Creator, and on Christ's agreement with him, and ask yourself what the consequence would have been if the pharisees had returned an answer to his question. Suppose they had answered that John's baptism was from men: they would at once have been stoned to death. Some anti-marcionite Marcion would have stood up and said, 'See a god supremely good, a god the opposite of the Creator's doings! well aware that men were going to fall headlong, he himself put them on the edge of a precipice.' For this is how they treat of the Creator, in his law about the tree.a But suppose John's baptism was from heaven. And why, Christ says, did ye not believe him ? So then he whose wish it was that John should be believed, who was expected to blame them for not believing him, belonged to that God whose sacrament John was the minister of. At all events, when they refused to answer what they thought, and he replied in like terms, Neither do I tell you by what power I do these things, he returned evil for evil.

There would be no need for Tertullian to recycle all the contents of the synoptic gospels as if no one had ever interpreted the text in the manner he did if these details were articulated by three different witnesses (i.e. Matthew, Mark, Luke). The way he speaks it would seem as if he were the first to make plain the original meaning of the barer original narrative found in the Marcionite gospel. As such this is yet another example of Adversus Marcionem shaping the canonical gospels.

[Secret Alias]

EXAMPLE 6 of Adversus Marcionem BEING WRITTEN BEFORE THE CANONICAL GOSPELS WERE ESTABLISHED.

The next line in 4.8 is not a citation of the equivalent passage in Matthew but the editor of the canonical gospels borrowed the idea from Adversus Marcionem.

In fine, he did himself before long touch others, and by laying his hands upon them—hands evidently meant to be felt—conveyed the benefits of healing, benefits no less true, no less free from pretence, than the hands by which they were conveyed. Consequently he is the Christ of Isaiah, a healer of sicknesses: He himself, he says, takes away our weaknesses and carries our sicknesses.e For the Greeks are accustomed to write 'carry' as equivalent to 'take away'. That promise in general terms is enough for me at present. Whatever it was that Jesus healed, he is mine. We shall however come to specific instances of healing. Moreover even to deliver from demons is a healing of sickness.

The editor of the canon read this and thought presumably "This confirms dominical logoi let's make it explicit." So Matthew:

When Jesus came into Peter’s house, he saw Peter’s mother-in-law lying in bed with a fever. 15 He touched her hand and the fever left her, and she got up and began to wait on him.

16 When evening came, many who were demon-possessed were brought to him, and he drove out the spirits with a word and healed all the sick. 17 This was to fulfill what was spoken through the prophet Isaiah:

“He took up our infirmities and bore our diseases.”

Then in the most recent layer of Adversus Marcion the final editor thought it odd that Matthew was being apparently cited against Marcion so he has to mention what became fixed in Luke:

And so the wicked spirits, as if following the precedent of the previous instance, bore witness to him as they went out, by crying aloud, Thou art the Son of God. Which God, let it even here be evident. 'But they were rebuked, and ordered to be silent.' Quite so: because Christ wished himself to be acknowledged as the Son of God by men, not by unclean spirits—that Christ at all events who had the right to expect this, because he had sent before him those preachers, worthier preachers beyond question, through whose agency recognition might be possible. To reject the commendation of an unclean spirit was within the rights of him who had at his disposal abundant commendations of the Holy Spirit. One however of whom there had been no announcement—if of course he wished to be recognized, for his coming was to no purpose if he did not—would not have rejected the testimony of an alien substance of any sort whatever, if he had no testimony of any substance of his own, and had come down on to another's property. One thing more: as a destroyer of the Creator his greatest desire would have been to be recognized by the Creator's spirits and have them spread his name abroad, through the fear they had of him: except that Marcion says that his god is not an object of fear, claiming that the object of fear is not the kind god but the judge, with whom are to be found the materials of fear, which are wrath, severity, judgements, vengeance, and condemnation. But the demons did in fact submit through fear. So then their confession was that he was the Son of the God who is to be feared: for if there had been no fear involved, they could have taken this as an occasion when submission might be refused. But in driving them out by command and rebuke, not by persuasion as a kind one would have done, he disclosed himself as one to be feared. Or perhaps he rebuked them just because they were afraid of him, being unwilling to be an object of fear? Yet how did he expect them to come out—a thing they would not have done except from fear? So then he fell under the necessity of having to conduct himself contrary to his own nature, though he might, as being kind, have pardoned them once for all. He fell also under another bad mark, that of changing sides, when he allowed himself to be feared by the demons as the son of the Creator, so as now to drive the demons out not by any power of his own but by the Creator's authority. He goes forth into a desert place. This kind of country the Creator often made use of. It was right and proper that the Word should also be visible in a body in the place where of old time he had been active also in a cloud. The gospel was well suited by that type of place which had been found satisfactory for the law. So let the wilderness rejoice—for so Isaiah had promised.f When the multitudes detained him he said, I must proclaim the kingdom of God to other cities also. Had he anywhere yet shown who this god of his was? Not even yet, I think. But was he speaking of people who knew there was another god besides? This too I do not believe. So then, if neither he himself had said anything about another god, nor did they know of any god besides the Creator, the kingdom he looked forward to was the kingdom of precisely that God whom he knew to be the only God known to those who heard him.

Out of all possible lands of occupations why had he such respect for that of fisherman that from it he took for apostles Simon and the sons of Zebedee—a fact from which an argument was to be drawn cannot be regarded as without significance—when he said to Peter, amazed because of the abundant draught of fishes, Fear not, for from henceforth thou shall catch men? By this remark he suggested how they were to understand the prophecy was fulfilled, and that he it was who had declared, through Jeremiah, Behold I will send many fishers, and they shall fish them,a meaning men. Thereupon they left their boats and followed him, with understanding of one who had begun to do in fact what he had said in words. It is quite another thing if he made a pretence of choosing them from the Association of Shipmasters, because he was sometime going to have as his apostle Marcion the navigator.

My suspicion is that all of this Lukan material was not in the original layer of Adversus Marcionem. The reason for this is that Luke 4:27 doesn't make any sense as it now stands:

And there were many in Israel with leprosy in the time of Elisha the prophet, yet not one of them was cleansed—only Naaman the Syrian.”

Adversus Marcionem 4.9 by contrast, in what immediately follows our last citation makes repeated reference to Elisha in relation to the healing of the leper in Luke 5. Why is this? Again the Lukan reference to Elisha and Namaan happens in isolation in Luke chapter 4. Adversus Marcionem 4.9 makes a lengthy reference to Elisha which finds no correspondence to the equivalent passage in Luke:

Now I have already postulated, in opposition to the Antitheses, that Marcion's purpose is in no sense served by what he supposes to be an opposition between the law and the gospel, because this too was ordained by the Creator, and in fact was foretold by that promise of a new law and a new word and a new testament. But seeing that he argues with unusual insistence in the presence of one whom he calls a kind of suntalai/pwroj, companion in misery, and summisou&menoj, companion in hatred,1 regarding the cleansing of the leper, I shall not think it amiss to meet him, and first to show him the force of that figurative law: for by the example of the leprous person who must not be touched but must even be excluded from all communication with others, it forbade association with any man defiled by sins—with whom the apostle too says we must not even eat:b for the stains of sins are passed from one to another, as by contagion, if anyone makes contact with a sinner. And so our Lord, who desired to suggest deeper understanding of that law which indicates spiritual things by means of things carnal, and on that account was not pulling down but rather building up that law which he wished men to acknowledge as a matter of closer concern, touched the leper: for although a man could have suffered defilement from such a one, God could certainly not be defiled, being immune from contamination. Thus there can be no injunction laid upon him that he ought to have observed the law and not have touched the unclean person, since contact with the unclean was not going to defile him. That this is more in keeping with my Christ I show you by this, that I prove it is not in keeping with yours. For if it was in hostility to the law that he touched the leper, making the commandment of the law of no account through contempt of defilement—how could he possibly suffer defilement who possessed no body which might be defiled? For a phantasm cannot suffer defilement. He therefore who was incapable of defilement because he was a phantasm, will be found to be immune from contamination not through divine power but by the phantasm's inanity. Nor can he be supposed to have held in contempt that defilement which he had no ground for: nor for that matter to have destroyed the law, since he had escaped defilement through the good fortune of the phantasm and not by any display of power. But even though Elisha, the Creator's prophet, cleansed no more than one leper, Naaman the Syrian, when there were all those many lepers in Israel, even this does not indicate that Christ was in some sense different, as though he were in this respect superior, that being a stranger he cleansed an Israelite leper, whom his own Lord had not had power to cleanse: because the Syrian was more easily cleansed as a sign throughout the gentiles of their cleansing in Christ the light of the gentiles, who were marked with those seven stains of capital sins, idolatry, blasphemy, homicide, adultery, fornication, false witness, fraud. Therefore seven times over, as though once under each heading, did he wash in Jordan, both with intent to prophesy the purging of the whole seven, and because the force and fullness of one single washing was reserved for Christ alone, who was to make upon earth not only a determined wordc but also a determined washing. Even in this Marcion sees an 'opposition', that whereas Elisha needed a material help, and made use of water, seven times at that, Christ by the act of his word alone, without repeating it, immediately put the healing into effect—as though I were not bold enough to claim even the word he used, as part of the Creator's property. In any and every object the primary author has the better claim to it. You regard it perhaps as incredible that the Creator's power should with a word have performed the healing of one single sickness, though that power did with a word produce at an instant this great fabric of the universe. How better may one discern the Christ of the Creator than by the power of his word? But perhaps he is another's Christ, because his action is other than Elisha's, because any master is more powerful than his own servant. By what right, Marcion, do you rule that servants' activities are exactly like their masters' ? Are you not afraid of it turning to your discredit if you claim that Christ is not the Creator's, on the ground that he had greater powers than the Creator's servant, when it is evident that he is greater by comparison with Elisha's littleness—if indeed he is greater? For the healing is the same, though the method of working is different. Has your Christ provided a greater gift than my Elisha gave? What indeed was that great effect of your Christ's word, which did just the same as the Creator's river had done?

I see many pieces of an original narrative deliberately scattered in the surviving copies of Adversus Marcionem. The repeated reference to Jesus as a "phantasma" come from the wrestling language of the enraged crowd "throwing out" Jesus, the Elisha reference seems tied to the ineffectiveness of baptism, we've already included the question of John's baptism also here because of the Jews being "on a precipice" now we have to see that the juxtaposition between Jesus healing with a bare word when compared to Elisha's baptism necessarily demonstrate that the healed leper had undoubtedly come to the "Bethsaida pool" to offer himself to the "demons" for healing. Jesus's rejection of baptism is connected with "John"? Which John? There is no John the Baptist in the Marcionite gospel. Could it be John Hyrcanus the Jewish king who forcibly baptized the neighbors of the Jews? Hard to say. But it seems time to tackle the healing of the leper narrative as it read very differently in the Marcionite gospel as evidenced by both Tertullian and Epiphanius.

[Secret Alias]

The point here is that we are about to set foot in a very difficult narrative. The healing of the leper. The evidence from anti-Marcionite treatises in my mind all come from the same lost source - Irenaeus. Epiphanius's first reference to the Marcionite gospel in Panarion is here. I have always found enough parallels to see Tertullian and Epiphanius using the same source which I identify as Irenaeus's Adversus Marcionem. But it must be said that there are actually three more levels of complexity.

1. Overlaps between anti-Marcionite reporting of Luke 5:12-15 and Luke 17:11-19 (back to common source Irenaeus)
2. References to Luke 4:27 in the section in Adversus Marcionem which deals with Luke 5:12 - 15
3. Use of Adversus Marcionem 4.9 to construct Matthew 8:4

In short, I think this is further evidence that the Marcionite gospel WAS NOT like the synoptics. Instead the synoptics were constructed in a way which "neutralizes" the immediate context of the Marcionite gospel which, as I have noted many times, begins with a journey to the Jerusalem temple where demons are supposed to live having been placed in a pool or near a pool constructed by Solomon where healing is alleged to occur. THIS is why Marcion is supposed to be "anti-Jewish." The temple of Jerusalem is a "demon house" (bethsaida).

What is the immediate consequence of this understanding? The command to "show yourself(ves) to the priests" takes on a whole different meaning if the scene occurred near or at the Jewish temple. I also throw in the parallels between John's pool of Bethsaida and the synoptic material on top of John's start at the temple of Jerusalem (inexplicably). If Jesus says "go show yourself(ves) to the priests" from Galilee it can only mean that the priests have some connection to Jesus's religion/message. However "go show yourselves to the priests" if said at the pool of Bethsaida i.e. the environs of the temple takes on a different meaning. It's the kind of thing you say when your having a debate/argument with someone close by. It's almost a courtroom drama type thing. "Look at him/them, I healed him/them" unlike the demon pool.

[Secret Alias]

EXAMPLE 7 of Adversus Marcionem BEING WRITTEN BEFORE THE CANONICAL GOSPELS WERE ESTABLISHED.

Let's start with the variant from Epiphanius Panarion;

48. When the ten lepers met him. Marcion excised a great deal and wrote, “He sent them away, saying, Show yourselves unto the priests”; and he substituted different words for others and said, “Many lepers were in the day of Elisha the prophet, and none was cleansed, saving Naaman the Syrian.”80

80 Luke 17:12; 14; 4:27. Cf. Tert. Adv. Marc. 4.35.4; 6.

Luke 17:12 reads:

11 Now on his way to Jerusalem, Jesus traveled along the border between Samaria and Galilee. 12 As he was going into a village, ten men who had leprosy met him. They stood at a distance 13 and called out in a loud voice, “Jesus, Master, have pity on us!”

14 When he saw them, he said, “Go, show yourselves to the priests.” And as they went, they were cleansed.

15 One of them, when he saw he was healed, came back, praising God in a loud voice. 16 He threw himself at Jesus’ feet and thanked him—and he was a Samaritan.

17 Jesus asked, “Were not all ten cleansed? Where are the other nine? 18 Has no one returned to give praise to God except this foreigner?” 19 Then he said to him, “Rise and go; your faith has made you well.”

The million dollar question is why does Epiphanius think that Luke 4:27 paired with 17:12? I don't take it as coincidental that Adversus Marcionem also quotes Luke 4:17 in its discussion of Luke 17:12

Now although he has said before this that there were many lepers in Israel in the days of Elisha the prophet and that none of them was cleansed, but only Naaman the Syrian,g the matter of number will be no indication of a difference of gods, to the diminution of the Creator who heals only one, and the advancement of him who cleansed ten. For who can doubt that many more could have been cured by him who had already cured one, rather than the ten by him who had never in the past cured even one? But he is chiefly concerned in this statement to attack Israel's Unbelief or pride, in that though there were among them many lepers, and a prophet was not unavailable, even when proof had been given, no one made speed to God who was at work in the prophets. So then, since he himself was with primary and plenary authority the high priest of God the Father, he did examine them in accordance with the secret meaning of the law, which indicates that Christ is the true examiner and remover of the defilements of men. But he also gave them the order which was in the surface meaning of the law: Go, shew yourselves to the priests. Why so, if his intention was to cleanse them first? Was it perhaps as one casting scorn on the law, so as to let them see, as they were healed on the way, that the law was nothing to them, nor the priests either? Any man must himself answer for it, who thinks Christ so tied to rule as this. No, we need worthier interpretations, more conformable to faith: that the cause of their healing was that when commanded to make their way to the priests, according to the law, they did as they were told. For it is beyond belief, that observers of the law should have won their healing from a destroyer of the law. But why did he give no such order to the original leper?1 Because neither did Elisha to Naaman the Syrian: but that does not mean he was not the Creator's prophet. I have given a fair answer: yet he who has believed understands also something deeper. Hear then what the reasons were. The act took place in the parts of Samaria, from which in fact one of the lepers had come. But Samaria had revolted from Israel, deriving that schism from the nine tribes torn away by Ahijah the prophet, which Jeroboam had settled about Samaria.

Clearly it is my contention that:

1. Irenaeus's Adverrsus Marcionem cited Luke 4:17 AS IF it belonged with a lost original leper healing episode that had parts of both Luke 5 and Luke 17. Epiphanius or his source reading the same lost account took this as a reference to the lost Marcionite gospel. However it was only Irenaeus the ultimate source of both Tertullian and Epiphanius.
2. the leper scene at Luke 5 and Luke 17 are two versions of the same lost original narrative that must have been very important to the Marcionite tradition that the orthodox spend so much time combatting it and reshaping the synoptic gospels to combat it.
3. Tertullian's comments on the Luke 5 leper scene and Luke 17 leper scene hint that a centrally important figure (like Simon Magus because of the "Samaritan" reference) was being introduced here.

Scholion 48. When the ten lepers met him. Marcion cut a great deal out and wrote, “He sent them away, saying, Show yourselves unto the priests,” and yet he made a substitution and said, “Many lepers were in the days of Elisha the prophet, and none was cleansed, saving Naaman the Syrian.” Elenchus 48. Here too the Lord calls Elisha a prophet, and says that he himself is accomplishing the things which, equally, had been done before him by Elisha—in refutation of Marcion and all who make light of God’s prophets.

[Secret Alias]

Ephrem's text of the gospel might be useful at this juncture.

After these things , he came to his town and was teaching them in their synagogues.1 Was there not another people , or another land apart from that of the Jews ? But , in order that Marcion's lie be refuted , [ the evangelist ] said after this , He entered the synagogue as was his custom , on the Sabbath day.2 What was the custom of him who had come just now ? He had come to Galilee , and had begun to teach , not outside of the synagogue , but within it . Since the matter was known through their cultic service , he [ came ] to talk to them about their God .Otherwise it would have been in order for him to proclaim to them outside their synagogue . He therefore entered Bethsaida3 among the Jews . [ The evangelist ] does not indicate that they said anything to him other than , Physician, heal yourself . They seized him and brought him out to the side of the mountain . It is not likely that the word they had spoken was leading them to anger.6 For , if he had been speaking to them concerning the Creator , and [ if ] this was why they had given him the response. They seized him that they might cast him down , 7 why then did [ the evangelist ] not record in other places that it was like this too ? That the people of the town hated him , there is this testimony : A prophet is not accepted in his own town.8 $ 24 . For Anathoth did not receive Jeremiah , 9 nor the Tishbites Elijah , nor Abelmeholah Elisha , nor Ramah Samuel , 10 nor the synagogue Moses , nor Israel our Lord . Elijah accordingly despised their wives , 11 and Elisha their men.12 They were called lacking in faith to their shame.13 But [ the 1 Matt 13:54 ; Luke 4:15 . 2 Luke 4:16 . 3 Ephrem incorrectly refers to Bethsaida here instead of Nazareth . 4 Luke 4:23 . 5 Luke 4:29 . 6 It is not clear who " they " are . It may refer to the Marcionites , and " the word they had spoken " could refer to their belief that the Lord would have angered the Jews in placing their inferior God in opposition to the supreme God , whom Jesus had come to reveal to humanity. . 7 Luke 4:29 . 8 Luke 4:24 . 9 Cf. Jer 11:21 . 10 Cf. 1 Sam 8 : 1-22 . 11 Cf. 1 Kgs 17 : 17-24 . 12 Cf. 2 Kgs 5 : 1-14 . 13 Cf. Matt 6:30 ; 8:26 ; 17:17 .

the Lord ] honoured the Arameans more than these.1 This is why they were filled with anger.2 The reason for this was as follows : Physican , heal yourself , that is , " Save yourself from us , instead of seeking to heal [ us ] ! " Although they were in need of healing , he was not able to heal them because of their lack [ of faith ] . By reason of their freewill , they were casting him down , but because of his divinity he did not fall . Audacity was casting him . Audacity was casting him down , but the submissive air received him on its wings , and he did not fall , so that through this he might perhaps procure faith for those who did not believe . Perhaps [ it was ] on this account that the Galileans received him.5 From the moment when they saw him passing through their midst , 6 they did not dare do anything more to him . This was his first healing , that of the right hand which was ill . Consequently , through the influence of the Prince of the Left , the Nazarenes were murmuring against him , envious of the healing of this Right [ hand ] , which was envious of the healing of this Right [ hand ] , which was established in the solemn mystery , and released unto every divine use.

A prophet is not received in his own town , 8 that is , in his own people . Elijah was from Tishbi , and [ Scripture ] does not say that Elijah was not received in Tishbi , but in all Israel.9 If this is not so , let it be proved that the inhabitants of Tishbi persecuted him , and the Israelites received him . But who [ received him ] , if not the widow from Zarephath , of the Gentiles ? 10 There were many widows , not at Tishbi , but in the house of Israel . But he was not sent to any of these. Likewise , in the case of lepers , not in the town of Elisha , but in the house of Israel.11 [ The Lord ] underlined thus that he was not able to reveal miracles , not only in Nazareth , but in the house of Israel.12

1This statement is interesting in the light of Ephrem's Syrian ( = Aramean ) origins . 2 Luke 4:28 . 3 Luke 4:23 . 4 Luke 4:29 . 5 John 4:45 . 6 Cf. Luke 4:30 . 7 Cf. Luke 6 : 6-10 . 8 Luke 4:24 . 9 Cf. 1 Kgs 19 : 10,14 . 10 1 Kgs 17 : 7-24 . 11 Luke 4 : 25-27 . 12 Mark 6 : 5 .

$ 26 . The people of Nazareth saw that he 187.

Unfortunately I can't get the information from p 188. If anyone can help I would appreciate. It begins with "The people of Nazareth saw that he" and then Let's try my cell phone. from here we segue to the Syro-Phoenician woman (like Adversus Marcionem) and then the Leper narrative. Let's see the order from McCarthy:

Jesus in Nazareth ( cf. Matt 13 : 53-58 ; Mark 6 : 1-6 ; Luke 4 : 16- 30 )
The Death of John the Baptist ( cf. Matt 14 : 1-12 ; Mark 6 : 14- 29 ; Luke 9 : 7-9 )
Bread Multiplied and Water Changed into Wine ( cf. John 6 : 1-13 ; 2 : 1-11 )
Jesus Walks on the Water ( cf. Matt 14 : 22-33 ; Mark 6 : 45-52 ; John 6 : 16-21 )
The Bread of Life ( cf. John 6 : 30-51 )
Respect for Parents ( cf. Matt 15 : 3-14 ; Mark 7 : 10-11 )
The Canaanite Woman ( cf. Matt 15 : 21-28 ; Mark 7 : 24-30 )
The Samaritan Woman ( cf. John 4 : 5-42 )
The Healing of the Leper ( cf. Matt 8 : 1-4 ; Mark 1 : 40-45 ; Luke 5 : 12-16 ) XIII , §§1-7
The Healing of a Paralytic ( cf. John 5 : 1-18 )
The Son Is Equal to the Father ( cf. John 5 : 19-47 )
The Healing of a Blind Man at Bethsaida ( cf. Mark 8 : 22-26 )

Let's get rid of almost all the Johannine narratives for a moment:

Jesus in Nazareth ( cf. Matt 13 : 53-58 ; Mark 6 : 1-6 ; Luke 4 : 16- 30 )
The Death of John the Baptist ( cf. Matt 14 : 1-12 ; Mark 6 : 14- 29 ; Luke 9 : 7-9 )
Bread Multiplied and Water Changed into Wine ( cf. John 6 : 1-13 ; 2 : 1-11 )
Jesus Walks on the Water ( cf. Matt 14 : 22-33 ; Mark 6 : 45-52 ; John 6 : 16-21 )
Respect for Parents ( cf. Matt 15 : 3-14 ; Mark 7 : 10-11 )
The Canaanite Woman ( cf. Matt 15 : 21-28 ; Mark 7 : 24-30 )
The Healing of the Leper ( cf. Matt 8 : 1-4 ; Mark 1 : 40-45 ; Luke 5 : 12-16 ) XIII , §§1-7
The Healing of a Paralytic ( cf. John 5 : 1-18 )
The Healing of a Blind Man at Bethsaida ( cf. Mark 8 : 22-26 )

We can start to see a synoptic narrative emerging from the Diatessaron which approximates (I would argue) the parallel material in the Marcionite gospel. As I said that I can't get the info for p 188 but when we pick up the material for the healing of the leper we read:

The Canaanite Woman

She was crying out [ as ] she was following after him , Have mercy on me . But he did not reply to her.5 The silence of our Lord engendered an even deeper cry in the mouth of the Canaanite woman . He spurned her by his silence , but she did not give up . He despised her by his word , but she did not hold back . He showed honour to Israel who had spurned him , but she was not envious . On the contrary , she again humbled herself and again magnified Israel , by [ her words ] , Even the dogs eat from their masters ' [ crumbs ] , 6 as though the Jews were masters of the Gentiles . His disciples therefore drew near and begged him to send her away . ? He gave them an example of the insistent love of the Gentiles . He called them dogs , and Israel , sons . The Gentiles , symbolized as dogs , possess the daring of dogs and the love of dogs . But the Israelites , symbolized as sons , possess the frenzy of dogs . People do not take the bread of the sons and throw it to the dogs . He poured forth and filled her ears with a great reproach , so that her faith might be revealed . Listen to her response ! Yes , indeed , My Lord.9

1 Mal 1 : 6 . 2 Matt 15 : 4-5 . 3 Cf. Matt 15 : 6 . Matt 15:13 . Matt 15 : 22-23 . Matt 15:27 . 7 Cf. Matt 15:23 . Matt 15:26 . 9 Matt 15:27 .

But she was not ashamed , to her own benefit 196.

I can't get the information for p. 197. Then we pick up the narrative:

4 The Healing of the Leper

If you are willing , Lord , you can cleanse me.5 This leper had thought that he was observing the Law like Elisha , for [ Elisha ] had not gone forward to Naaman.6 [ The Lord ] resolved this [ doubt ] , in that he touched him , in order Or , [ the leper ] was certainly thinking that [ the Lord ] was a stranger to the Law , and so he healed him both secretly and openly at the same time , lest he , who was healed corporeally , be wounded spiritually . Go, show yourself.3 This was for the sake of the priests. For the leper was afraid to touch him lest he defile him. But the Lord touched him to show him that he would not be defiled, he, at whose rebuke the defilement fled from the defiled one. . Did not Moses carry Joseph's bones ?? When [ God ] chose him , did he not indeed make him a leper when he said to him , Put your hand into your bosom ? 10 Samson ate honey from the dead body of an impure animal , 11 and with the jawbone of a dead ass he was victorious and rescued Israel.12 Furthermore , God gave him water from the dead jawbone . He gave him to drink and he was refreshed.1 Just as [ Paul ] has said , The Law was not laid down for the just.2 What our Lord had showed the leper through a tangible experience , the [ woman ] of the haemorrhage knew through faith , before ( any ) experience . ( The need for ) experience is for the foolish. Accordingly our Lord was refuting two things . If he had not touched the leper he would have been confirming [ the leper ] with regard to what he had conjured up in his thought , that [ the Lord ] was indeed afraid of leprosy But if he had touched him , the other [ thought ] would have had free course in his mind , that he was a stranger to the Law . Therefore , by stretching out his hand , he showed his divinity and drove impurity away , and by the word of his mouth he showed his familiarity [ with the Law ] and put flight to the [ possibility of ] being a stranger [ to it ] . Because this [ leper ] was a Jew , and had heard it [ said ] by the priests that this Jesus was opposed to the Law and an enemy to the [ Mosaic ] precept , accordingly , he had thought that he was not positively disposed towards the positively disposed towards the healing of the Jews .

§22 . If you are willing , you can cleanse me.4 The formula is one of petition and the word is one of fear . " That you are able to I know , but whether you are willing , I am not certain . " Therefore our Lord showed him two things in response to this double [ attitude ] : reproof through his anger , and mercy through his healing . For , in response to if you are willing , he was angry , and in response to you can , he was healed . In order to cleanse the leper's soul of his [ unwise ] thoughts , just as [ he had cleansed ] his body from its defilement , he taught him , Go !, to those corrupt ones who taught you , and make the offering for your purification , as Moses prescribed , 5 and , Do not speak of it to anyone , 6 lest the priests think that it was because they had complained , that he was pleasing them and offering the sacrifice . Be silent , " he said , " and when you draw near to them , and they ask you how it was that you were healed, they will learn that I am concerned for the commandments of Moses , lest these be despised .

1 Cf. Judg 15 : 18-19 . 21 Tim 1 : 9 . 3 Cf. Mark 5 : 27-28,34 . Matt 8 : 2 . 5 Luke 5:14 . Matt 8 : 4 .

23 . If you are willing , you can cleanse me.1 This man was taking note that [ the Lord ] was not raising all dead people to life , and that he was not healing all those who were blemished . He therefore thought , " He is healing whomsoever he wishes . " So he said to him , Lord , If you are willing , you can cleanse me . Through his anger , [ the Lord ] showed that he was healing without exception of persons . But , because the leper had believed that if you are willing , you can , he showed that he did not spurn this faith . Moreover , [ the leper ] had seen that the priests were not cleansing [ the lepers ] , but [ instead ] were burdening them by means of the prescriptions in the Law concerning leprosy , and [ thus ] the service of the Law was belittled in his eyes. . Wherefore , he said , If you are willing , you can cleanse me.2 [ The Lord ] was angry with regard to this line of reasoning , and so [ he ordered ] secondly , " Go , show yourself to the priests , 3 and fulfil that Law which you are despising . " [ The Lord ] also [ commanded him thus ] , because [ the leper ] had been thinking about him in this manner , [ because ] he had seen him relax some elements of the Law . It is also said that [ the Lord ] was not angry with him , but with his leprosy . $ 24 . If you are willing , you can cleanse me . So he stretched out his hand . In this stretching out of his hand was the abrogation of the Law . . For [ it is written ] in the Law that whoever approaches a leper becomes impure . He [ himself ] did not approach the leper , but [ rather ] his right hand that was full of healing , and he extended it to him . Indeed , he did not show himself to be opposed to the Law , as the Scripture which follows narrates . . He showed that nature was good in that he repaired its defect . Because he sent him to the priests , he thereby upheld the priesthood . He also ordered him to make an offering for his cleansing.19 Did he not thus uphold the law, as Moses had commanded? There were many prescriptions concerning leprosy. . But they were unable to procure any benefit. Then the Messiah came, and, with his word, bestowed healing and abolished these many precepts which the law had reckoned should exist for leprosy ,

1 Matt 8 : 2 . In the Syriac text the personal suffix attached to the verb here , and in the next citation of this verse three sentences later , is in the first person plural form , but , in the remaining citations of the verse , it is in the singular . 2 Idem . Matt 8 : 4 . 3 4 Matt 8 : 2-3 . 5 Luke 5:14 .

Go, therefore , to the priests for their testimony , 1 since it was prescribed for them that , before the cleansing , they must examine the leper , and after the cleansing , they must be witnesses . These things were the Law of Moses in the Old [ Testament ] . The Messiah invoked them as testimony to his teaching , [ saying ] , As Moses commanded , so that these [ precepts ] would not take flight before him , but [ instead ] become his heralds before the people . 1 Matt 8 : 4 .

[Secret Alias]

Some of my observations. The first is that there is a disguised textual criticism at the beginning of the discussion of Luke 4:24:

A prophet is not received in his own town , 8 that is , in his own people . Elijah was from Tishbi , and [ Scripture ] does not say that Elijah was not received in Tishbi , but in all Israel.9 If this is not so , let it be proved that the inhabitants of Tishbi persecuted him , and the Israelites received him . But who [ received him ] , if not the widow from Zarephath , of the Gentiles ? 10 There were many widows , not at Tishbi , but in the house of Israel . But he was not sent to any of these. Likewise , in the case of lepers , not in the town of Elisha , but in the house of Israel.11 [ The Lord ] underlined thus that he was not able to reveal miracles , not only in Nazareth , but in the house of Israel.

As Evans demonstrates, the Syriac texts read "town" whereas the Greek "patrida" country. https://books.google.com/books?id=Y-VFE ... 22&f=false So clearly this level of the discussion comes from someone who was correcting a Syriac text with the Greek original.

So if Ephrem's text is "stuck" at the level of Syriac and doesn't go back to a Greek original there would be nothing more here. So the point of the Greek author is that Jesus was being rejected by "the house of Israel" not the inhabitants of the town. In this section the town is identified as "Nazareth" but a little earlier it was "Bethsaida." There a similar logic is demonstrated earlier in the discussion apparently from a Syriac author.

For Anathoth did not receive Jeremiah , 9 nor the Tishbites Elijah , nor Abelmeholah Elisha , nor Ramah Samuel , 10 nor the synagogue Moses , nor Israel our Lord .

Here Tishbi IS identified as rejecting Elisha and the application overall is to Israel rejecting Jesus. It would seem, at least superficially, that there are two layers to the existing Ephrem discussion of the Diatessaron. "A prophet is not received in his town" is the standard Syriac reading. But it is taken in the sense of the "country" when "all of Israel" is mentioned. The specific line "house of Israel" is used as an explanation of Jesus being unable to perform any miracles there. We know however from Adversus Marcionem that this material from the Canaanite Woman story was not present in the Marcionite gospel. Adversus Marcionem even accuses Marcion of deleting them.

From heaven straightway into the synagogue. As the saying goes, let us get down to it: to your task, Marcion: remove even this from the gospel, I am not sent but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, and, It is not <meet> to take away the children's bread and give it to dogs:c for this gives the impression that Christ belongs to Israel. I have plenty of acts, if you take away his words. Take away Christ's sayings, and the facts will
speak; See how he enters into the synagogue: surely to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. See how he offers the bread of his doctrine to the Israelites first: surely he is giving them preference as sons. See how as yet he gives others no share of it: surely he is passing them by, like dogs. Yet on whom would he have been more ready to bestow it than on strangers to the Creator, if he himself had not above all else belonged to the Creator?

In other words, there is confirmation from TWO sources now that Matthew 15:27 was present in the early portions of a Diatessaronic gospel that was original used (by Justin?) to combat Marcion. While the Diatessaron in the heads of Ephrem included portions of John's gospel there seems to be reason to conclude that an earlier gospel harmony, likely in the hands of Justin, connected the last section in a continuous narrative with the healing of the leper narrative. For even in Ephrem's commentary a few pages later we read:

She was crying out [ as ] she was following after him , Have mercy on me . But he did not reply to her.5 The silence of our Lord engendered an even deeper cry in the mouth of the Canaanite woman . He spurned her by his silence , but she did not give up . He despised her by his word , but she did not hold back . He showed honour to Israel who had spurned him , but she was not envious . On the contrary , she again humbled herself and again magnified Israel , by [ her words ] , Even the dogs eat from their masters ' [ crumbs ] , 6 as though the Jews were masters of the Gentiles . His disciples therefore drew near and begged him to send her away . ? He gave them an example of the insistent love of the Gentiles . He called them dogs , and Israel , sons . The Gentiles , symbolized as dogs , possess the daring of dogs and the love of dogs . But the Israelites , symbolized as sons , possess the frenzy of dogs . People do not take the bread of the sons and throw it to the dogs . He poured forth and filled her ears with a great reproach , so that her faith might be revealed . Listen to her response ! Yes , indeed , My Lord.

I find it difficult to believe that these two interpretations of the passage are not related and likely both go back to Justin, in Adversus Marcionem by way of Irenaeus. I will try and get more information from p 188 of Ephrem.

[Secret Alias]

Adversus Marcionem = Matt 15:27f references in a discussion of Luke 4:34 - 6
Ephrem = Matt 15:27f references in a discussion of Luke 4:24 - 26

The point here is that bringing in Matthew 15:27f in a discussion of Luke chapter 4 can only be explained - not by an appearance in the Marcionite gospel (Adversus Marcionem makes clear this is not so) but the gospel which the author of the anti-Marcionite material is using. No one read Adversus Marcionem this way. They followed all the Germans to chase after the idea that Tertullian was working from the gospel of Marcion. Clearly though the comments necessitate he was working from his own gospel harmony. Hence Ephrem's parallel makes sense. The Canaanite woman narrative was woven into the early parts of the lost gospel harmony of Justin.

It should be noted that Origen's Against Celsus has a curious confirmation of Matthew 15:17 being located near the beginning of the gospel when he responds to something Celsus said:

And he continues: What is the meaning of such a descent upon the part of God? not observing that, according to our teaching, the meaning of the descent is pre-eminently to convert what are called in the Gospel the lost sheep of the house of Israel [Contra Celsum 4:3]

and again:

And he would have observed one descent, distinguished by its great benevolence, undertaken to convert (as the Scripture mystically terms them) the lost sheep of the house of Israel, which had strayed down from the mountains, and to which the Shepherd is said in certain parables to have gone down, leaving on the mountains those which had not strayed.

Clearly Origen thinks "strayed down from the mountains" is Jesus's descent from heaven. Mani seems to know something similar when he seems to interpret the passage as a heavenly descent also:

Manes said: God forbid that I should admit that our Lord Jesus Christ came down to us through the natural womb of a woman! For He gives us His own testimony that He came down from the Father's bosom; and again He says, He that receives me, receives Him that sent me; and. I came not to do my own will, but the will of Him that sent me; and once more, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel. And there are also innumerable other passages of a similar import, which point Him out as one that came, and not as one that was born. But if you are greater than He, and if you know better than He what is true, how do we yet believe Him?