The Marcionite gospel and the gospel of Matthew.

[Secret Alias]

So it's not actually 'a solution.' I must have felt compelled to offer what I thought (or wanted) the Marcionite text to read. It's really not pertinent to the discussion.

[Ben C. Smith]

I don't know what I write (or wrote - I haven't done much on my blog lately). Andrew and I have debated this reference in Stromata 1.

And to prove that this is true, it is written in the Gospel by Luke as follows: "And in the fifteenth year, in the reign of Tiberius Caesar, the word of the Lord came to John, the son of Zacharias." And again in the same book: "And Jesus was coming to His baptism, being about thirty years old," and so on. And that it was necessary for Him to preach only a year, this also is written: "He hath sent Me to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord." This both the prophet spake, and the Gospel.

Andrew thinks that was a summary of what is in Luke. I think it was a citation from Clement's gospel. In other words, he doesn't (necessarily) read the passage from Isaiah only comes to announce the Jubilee. Does that really solve the problem I claim was solved by this reference? Probably not. I have a tendency to use a lot of hyperbole. Dramatic flair I guess.

Okay, so this is what I think of your list of bare possibilities so far.

The first three items all come from the same passage in On the Flesh of Christ:

25. 'Marcion cut Matthew 1:23'
26. 'Marcion cut Matthew 2:1, 11, 16 - 18
27. 'Marcion cut Matthew 2:11'

I do not think that Tertullian is bound in this work to stick to Luke in any way; this is not Against Marcion. Tertullian is allowed to complain, as did Irenaeus, that Marcion used only one gospel (and an allegedly butchered one at that). That said, could this be a holdover from a critique of Marcion from the point of view of somebody holding a Diatessaronic text? Certainly. I am just not convinced that it has to be, or even that the wording inclines the probability in that direction. Whether it is or not will depend, I think, on other examples. You observation about the passage immediately after this evincing parallels with Against Marcion is quite interesting, but I am not sure it impacts the source of the infancy details.

The next item is this:

28. 'Marcion cut Matthew 4:13'
“It behoved Marcion’s Christ to have forborne all connection whatever with the domestic localities of the Creator's Christ.” [18:37, 24:19] - “Nazareth” not mentioned by either Tertullian or Epiphanius. Ephrem makes a similar statement that 'Nazareth' is replaced by 'Bethsaida' in the Marcionite gospel

I think that all this means is that the Marcionite text makes no town his hometown. It does not even necessarily mean that Nazareth (or Bethlehem, for that matter) do not show up in the text; it just means that no such town is his fatherland. How could it be, if he dropped down from heaven as a fully grown man? But I am willing to be shown otherwise. Your words were quite laconic.

The next items are:

29. 'Marcion cut Matthew 4:14'
30. 'Marcion cut Matthew 5:17'
It is, in short, too bad that Romulus should have had in Proculus an avoucher of his ascent to heaven, when the Christ of (this) god could not find any one to announce his descent from heaven; just as if the ascent of the one and the descent of the other were not effected on one and the same ladder of falsehood! Then, what had he to do with Galilee, if he did not belong to the Creator by whom that region was destined (for His Christ) when about to enter on His ministry? As Isaiah says: "Drink in this first, and be prompt, O region of Zabulon and land of Nephthalim, and ye others who (inhabit) the sea-coast, and that of Jordan, Galilee of the nations, ye people who sit in darkness, behold a great light; upon you, who inhabit (that) land, sitting in the shadow of death, the light hath arisen." It is, however, well that Marcion's god does claim to be the enlightener of the nations, that so he might have the better reason for coming down from heaven; only, if it must needs be, he should rather have made Pontus his place of descent than Galilee. But since both the place and the work of illumination according to the prophecy are compatible with Christ, we begin to discern that He is the subject of the prophecy, which shows that at the very outset of His ministry, He came not to destroy the law and the prophets, but rather to fulfil them; for Marcion has erased the passage as an interpolation. [Tertullian Adv Marc 4.7.3]

This one is kind of a toss-up for me. Until I read your comments, I thought that the "erased passage" was Matthew 5.17, about the law and the prophets, and I included this example in my initial list in the OP. If, however, the "erased passage" is actually the illumination of Zabulon and Nephthalim, then I think that variant at Luke 5. in Bezae probably does the trick: καὶ κατῆλθεν εἰς Καφαρναοὺμ πόλιν τῆς Γαλιλαίας τὴν παραθαλάσσιον ἐν ὁρίοις Ζαβουλὼν καὶ Νεφθαλείμ καὶ ἦν διδάσκων αὐτοὺς ἐν τοῖς σάββασιν. Of course, comparing Marcion to a gospel harmony would yield the same result. There are just going to be examples in which it is impossible to tell; and those examples will have to rely on other examples. That said, I am still inclined, I think, to count this example as pertaining to Matthew 5.17, in which case it would definitely be an example of Marcion being accused of cutting out something Matthean.

The next item is:

31. 'Marcion cut Matthew 5:45'

This one counts, and it is in the OP.

The last item I have examined so far is:

32. 'Marcion cut Matthew 8:4'
Scholion One from Marcion’s Own Version of the Gospel "Go shew thyself unto the priest, and offer for thy cleansing, according as Moses commanded – that this may be a testimony unto you,” instead of the Saviour’s, “for a testimony unto them.” (Scholion 1) In Elenchus 1 (b) Epiphanius then states: “And offer for thy cleansing.” Even if you excise “the gift,” it will be evident, from the word, “offer,” that he is speaking of a gift. From this it appears that while Mcg had “offer,” Epiphanius knew a slightly different variant of this verse, containing “the gift,” as we see today in Mt 8:4.

A tricky one! Tertullian attests "gift" in the text of Marcion. Epiphanius accuses Marcion of cutting out "gift". Yet "gift" appears in virtually no manuscripts of Luke 5.14 (only in Monacensis, b/Verona, and c/Colbertinus 4051). Epiphanius appears to be relying on Luke 5.14 in Panarion 66.57.2, for the most part (the underlined words are unique to Luke in the standard texts, and the only words absent from our standard texts of Luke are the ones in dispute, τὸ δῶρόν): «ἀπελθὼν προσένεγκε τὸ δῶρόν σου,» τῷ καθαρισθέντι ὑπ' αὐτοῦ λεπρῷ λέγων «καθὼς προσέταξε Μωυσῆς». So maybe Epiphanius' text of Luke was similar to Monacensis and contained τὸ δῶρόν while his text of Marcion lacked it? And meanwhile, Tertullian's text of Marcion contained it? Those are a lot of dots to connect. Honestly, I am not sure about this one. Are there other cases where Epiphanius accuses Marcion of dropping Matthean material?

That is what I have so far.

Ben.

[Ben C. Smith]

Oh, and I added this last example to the OP (as it is a contender for meeting either of the two criteria for inclusion: Matthean material attested in Marcion and Marcion being accused of omitting Matthean material). Thanks, Stephan.

[Secret Alias]

Just a question of methodology. If you think that Against Marcion itself was developed from a gospel harmony doesn't that settle the issue of whether Marcion was accused of cutting things from Matthew out of his gospel? Aren't we too far removed from the original author to know whether or not he's telling the truth only that this was original argument. And doesn't that have weight on other borderline cases. My point was always these 100 or so are seen as possibilities through the prism of that (Against Marcion is based on a gospel harmony) argument. And Ephrem parallels that argument again in another century.

[Ben C. Smith]

Just a question of methodology. If you think that Against Marcion itself was developed from a gospel harmony doesn't that settle the issue of whether Marcion was accused of cutting things from Matthew out of his gospel?

Well, I do not yet have enough information to make that call for myself. That is what I am doing: gathering information. The information I am listing on this thread is that which appears that it might be instrumental in helping me decide. I imagine all of the examples from your list will work if I decide in favor of a gospel harmony. But they will probably not all be instrumental in getting me there.

[Secret Alias]

But why not start there and then look at the individual pieces of evidence after that's settled. The likelihood your wife is serially unfaithful changes if she grew up in a convent than a bordello no?

[Secret Alias]

I am sorry. I won't tell you how to conduct your investigation. Sorry. Carry on

[Ben C. Smith]

My OP gave the following list of passages in Matthew that Tertullian seems to be accusing Marcion of having omitted from Luke:

1. Matthew 5.17.
2. Matthew 5.45.
3. Matthew 5.21-48.
4. Matthew 8.4.
5. Matthew 10.10.
6. Matthew 10.34 (Luke 12.51).
7. Matthew 12.48 (Mark 3.33).
8. Matthew 15.24, 26 (Mark 7.37).

A recent post by Stephan appears to quote from David Inglis, listing a few passages to consider, including Matthew 5.17 and 15.24, 26, which already appear on my list, but also adding:

Tertullian quotes from many other apparently Matthean verses, and in some cases does specifically note that he is referring to Mt. However, there are other verses for which he does not indicate whether he is quoting from or referring to Mt, or to his copy of Lk:

the blind man leads the blind down into the ditch. [Mt 15:14]
… sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust, and maketh His sun to rise on the evil and on the good; [Mt 5:45]
for the workman is worthy of his meat. [Mt 10:10]
whosoever preferred father or mother or brethren to the Word of God, was not a disciple worthy of Him. [Mt 10:37]
Who is my mother, and who are my brothers? [Mt 12:48b, or possibly Mk 3:33b]
Ye shall hear with the ear, but ye shall not understand. [Mt 13:14]
… but also obtained the testimony of possessing knowledge which was given to him by the Father. [Mt 16:17]
… if he had not been born. [Mt 26:24]

Some of these already appear on my list (5.45; 10.10; 12.48); I have added two others to the OP (15.14; 26.24); but I have not yet tracked down the following references in Tertullian:

whosoever preferred father or mother or brethren to the Word of God, was not a disciple worthy of Him. [Mt 10:37]
Ye shall hear with the ear, but ye shall not understand. [Mt 13:14]
… but also obtained the testimony of possessing knowledge which was given to him by the Father. [Mt 16:17]

Any help would be appreciated.

[Ben C. Smith]

Matthew 5.17.

From Tertullian, Against Marcion 4.7.4: [3] Indignum denique ut Romulus quidem ascensus sui in caelum habuerit Proculum affirmatorem, Christus vero dei descensus de caelo sui non invenerit annuntiatorem, quasi non sic et ille ascenderit iisdem mendacii scalis, sicut et iste descendit. Quid autem illi cum Galilaea, si non erat creatoris, cui ista regio destinabatur ingressuro praedicationem? dicente Esaia, Hoc primum bibito, cito facito, regio Zabulon et terra Nephthalim, et ceteri qui maritimam et Iordanis, Galilaea nationum, populus qui sedetis in tenebris, videte lumen magnum: qui habitatis terram, sedentes in umbra mortis, lumen ortum est super vos. [4] Bene autem quod et deus Marcionis illuminator vindicatur nationum, quo magis debuerit vel de caelo descendere, et, si utique, in Pontum potius descendere quam in Galilaeam. Ceterum et loco et illuminationis opere secundum praedicationem occurrentibus Christo iam eum prophetatum incipimus agnoscere, ostendentem in primo ingressu venisse se non ut legem et prophetas dissolveret, sed ut potius adimpleret. Hoc enim Marcion ut additum erasit. / [3] It is, in short, too bad that Romulus should have had in Proculus an avoucher of his ascent to heaven, when the Christ of (this) god could not find any one to announce his descent from heaven; just as if the ascent of the one and the descent of the other were not effected on one and the same ladder of falsehood! Then, what had he to do with Galilee, if he did not belong to the Creator by whom that region was destined (for His Christ) when about to enter on His ministry? As Isaiah says: "Drink in this first, and be prompt, O region of Zabulon and land of Nephthalim, and ye others who (inhabit) the sea-coast, and that of Jordan, Galilee of the nations, ye people who sit in darkness, behold a great light; upon you, who inhabit (that) land, sitting in the shadow of death, the light hath arisen." [4] It is, however, well that Marcion's god does claim to be the enlightener of the nations, that so he might have the better reason for coming down from heaven; only, if it must needs be, he should rather have made Pontus his place of descent than Galilee. But since both the place and the work of illumination according to the prophecy are compatible with Christ, we begin to discern that He is the subject of the prophecy, which shows that at the very outset of His ministry, He came not to destroy the law and the prophets, but rather to fulfil them; for Marcion has erased the passage as an interpolation.

There is no parallel in Luke to Matthew 5.17.

I think I may be ready to render a verdict on this one. I originally sided with the idea that the allegedly expunged passage was Matthew 5.17, highlighted in blue above, but I no longer think this is the case. I wrote later:

It is, in short, too bad that Romulus should have had in Proculus an avoucher of his ascent to heaven, when the Christ of (this) god could not find any one to announce his descent from heaven; just as if the ascent of the one and the descent of the other were not effected on one and the same ladder of falsehood! Then, what had he to do with Galilee, if he did not belong to the Creator by whom that region was destined (for His Christ) when about to enter on His ministry? As Isaiah says: "Drink in this first, and be prompt, O region of Zabulon and land of Nephthalim, and ye others who (inhabit) the sea-coast, and that of Jordan, Galilee of the nations, ye people who sit in darkness, behold a great light; upon you, who inhabit (that) land, sitting in the shadow of death, the light hath arisen." It is, however, well that Marcion's god does claim to be the enlightener of the nations, that so he might have the better reason for coming down from heaven; only, if it must needs be, he should rather have made Pontus his place of descent than Galilee. But since both the place and the work of illumination according to the prophecy are compatible with Christ, we begin to discern that He is the subject of the prophecy, which shows that at the very outset of His ministry, He came not to destroy the law and the prophets, but rather to fulfil them; for Marcion has erased the passage as an interpolation. [Tertullian Adv Marc 4.7.3]

This one is kind of a toss-up for me. Until I read your comments, I thought that the "erased passage" was Matthew 5.17, about the law and the prophets, and I included this example in my initial list in the OP. If, however, the "erased passage" is actually the illumination of Zabulon and Nephthalim, then I think that variant at Luke 4.31 in Bezae probably does the trick: καὶ κατῆλθεν εἰς Καφαρναοὺμ πόλιν τῆς Γαλιλαίας τὴν παραθαλάσσιον ἐν ὁρίοις Ζαβουλὼν καὶ Νεφθαλείμ καὶ ἦν διδάσκων αὐτοὺς ἐν τοῖς σάββασιν. Of course, comparing Marcion to a gospel harmony would yield the same result. There are just going to be examples in which it is impossible to tell; and those examples will have to rely on other examples. That said, I am still inclined, I think, to count this example as pertaining to Matthew 5.17, in which case it would definitely be an example of Marcion being accused of cutting out something Matthean.

And I think that that final inclination of mine was mistaken; I now incline in the other direction. I think that Tertullian is using Matthew 5.17 as a "gotcha" for Marcion; the logic runs as follows:

1. Isaiah predicted that Christ would illuminate the Galilean area defined by the tribes of Zabulon and Nephthalim.
2. Christ, even according to Marcion, descended into Galilee, and not into Pontus.
3. Christ's god, even according to Marcion, is an enlightener of the nations.
4. Therefore, whether Marcion likes it or not, Christ is fulfilling Isaiah's prophecy.
5. Therefore, Christ did not come to destroy (the law and) the prophets. Matthew 5.17, from a text Marcion does not recognize enough even to mutilate, is right.
6. Gotcha!

This actually is not the worst argument in the world, if one believes in predictive prophecy. So I think what Tertullian is accusing Marcion of having erased is stuff from Isaiah. Now, canonical Luke does not quote Isaiah 9.1-2 in its entirety like Matthew 4.15-16 does, but Bezae does have that variant at Luke 4.31 which is directly based on Isaiah 9.1-2: τὴν παραθαλάσσιον ἐν ὁρίοις Ζαβουλὼν καὶ Νεφθαλείμ. It seems quite possible that Tertullian's text of Luke had this line, but Marcion's did not, and this more nod to Isaianic prophecy is what Marcion is accused of deleting.

I admit it is not entirely clear that this is what is happening, but the allegation that Matthew 5.17 is what is being erased is not sound in my judgment. If anything, it would be Matthew 4.15-16 (a quotation of Isaiah 9.1-2) that is said to have been erased here; the Isaianic prophecy is what is in focus here, not the "gotcha" text of 5.17. But there is enough of Isaiah 9.1-2 in the Bezae version of Luke that this may be what Tertullian noticed as being missing from Marcion's text.

[Ben C. Smith]

(For the record, even if I am right about this one, it is not looking to me so far as if some of the others are going to be as yielding.)