I have lived two generations on the earth. For one generation I have thought about Marcion. I have come to the conclusion that scholarship has not sufficiently separated the reporting about Marcion in second and third and fourth century witnesses and the information being reported. Others have come to other conclusions.
What I mean by that is it is certainly easier just to assume that Irenaeus reports X about the Marcionite Bible, Tertullian seconds that reporting, Epiphanius thirds that reporting and suddenly we are in Deuteronoy 19:15 territory (cf. one witness is not enough to convict ... a matter must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses).
But there are obvious problems which get brushed under the table namely:
1. Irenaeus doesn't tell us much if anything about the specifics of the Marcionite Bible other than to say it was based on a corrupt version of the gospel of Luke.
2. Tertullian seconds the claim that the Marcionite Bible was based on a corrupt version of the gospel of Luke, provides a refutation of Marcionite interpretation of the scriptures held in common based on detailed scriptural citations from the commonly held Bible material but never says he has in front of him the Marcionite Bible. This is inferred by modern scholarship but never stated in any form (implicitly or explicitly) and the idea of citing from and publishing comprehensive extracts from heretical scriptures is explicitly prohibited by the 'rule of faith' adhered to by Tertullian (cf. Prescriptionem). Tertullian can't be citing and publishing material from the heretical scriptures Marcionite or otherwise. He is citing from his own canon of scriptures which happened to have many variant readings (at least when judged from the received Byzantine text).
3. Epiphanius also explicitly confirms the claim that the Marcionite Bible was based on a corrupt version of the gospel of Luke, provides detailed refutation of Marcionite interpretation of the scriptures held in common with the orthodox and explicitly says many times that he has in front of him the Marcionite Bible but he is certainly lying. Ehrman has already demonstrated his dishonesty with Epiphanius's claims of having in his possession 'heretical documents' and his witness of heretical practices. The most likely scenario in my opinion that Epiphanius, as was his habit, culled references from ancient source material on the Marcionites, compiled a list of variant readings from those sources in his library (or it was carried out by a scribe) and then he published that list of second and third hand references in his 'outline' against Marcion attached to the Panarion.
When we examine this situation then there really is only the claim of Irenaeus as to the Marcionite gospel being a corrupt version of Luke. The question of why Tertullian has been led to believe the same thing is no different that the situation with Epiphanius. Irenaeus was a terribly influential writer which accounts for the fact that he is one of the most cited sources in the Panarion (especially the early sections). In other words, Epiphanius was led to believe that the Marcionite gospel was developed from Luke in the same way he was led to accept all the different things he copied from Irenaeus. That Irenaeus is likely Tertullian's source for Adversus Marcionem has already been presumed by a number of others.
Toward the Creation of Luke
-
Secret Alias
- Posts: 18719
- Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am
Toward the Creation of Luke
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
-
Secret Alias
- Posts: 18719
- Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am
Re: Toward the Creation of Luke
The point then is that instead of moving forward and accepting the foundational claim of Irenaeus that the Marcionite gospel was just shortened or altered Luke and culling together all the different variants that arise in Tertullian and Epiphanius and Adamantius as 'witnesses' to Marcion's Bible which should instead - going back to my original point - just assume that what Tertullian admits in the beginning of Adversus Marcionem was true for all testimonies about Marcion i.e. that they were worked, reworked and reworked over and over again from lost primary sources.
Why does this matter? The greatest concentration of Marcionites was not in the Roman Empire but beyond the eastern frontier in semi-independent kingdoms like Osroene and Armenia as well as Syria. In these places the Diatessaron was the standard gospel text. This is one of the strangest things when reading Epiphanius's reporting in the Panarion. Both the Panarion and the outline of the anti-Marcionite work inserted into the Panarion were prompted by request from Syrian monks. We must presume that the Diatessaron or some other 'gospel harmony' was the standard text of the Syrian monks themselves or their community or at least communities they were in contact with.
It should be noted that Epiphanius does make reference to Tatian's authorship of the Diatessaron. Yet a little background is needed which Petersen provides - https://books.google.com/books?id=kbe9C ... us&f=false The point is that Eusebius is the first to mention Tatian authoring a 'Diatessaron' in Church History but later he attributes the same wording dia tessaron to Ammonius's creation of a text from four. The ambiguity over Tatian's actual role carries over to Epiphanius who confusingly and vaguely alludes to the report of some that the Gospel according to the Hebrews was Tatian's Diatessaron.
As Petersen notes the fact that the Christians of the East didn't refer to their gospel by the title 'Diatessaron' made the reporting about Tatian have little impact. It is not clear for instance that the Syrian monks would have equated Tatian's efforts with their gospel. But with respect to Epiphanius's emphasis that he had the Marcionite gospel and it was a corrupt version of Luke it is unlikely that it would have led them to actually 'discover' a Marcionite gospel (as they would have been looking for a VERY CURTAILED text at least when compared to their own 'super text').
But the specific arrangement of the outline into individual readings WOULD HAVE allowed for a correction of variant readings in pre-existent 'harmony' gospels. What I mean is that the story of Tatian would have been known. That Tatian composed a gospel 'like' their own (at least from the perspective of four pre-existent ur-texts) the idea that this text might have 'influenced' texts used in churches and monasteries would have allowed them for the opportunity to 'correct' their gospels of heretical influence.
This might well have been Epiphanius's underlying purpose.
Why does this matter? The greatest concentration of Marcionites was not in the Roman Empire but beyond the eastern frontier in semi-independent kingdoms like Osroene and Armenia as well as Syria. In these places the Diatessaron was the standard gospel text. This is one of the strangest things when reading Epiphanius's reporting in the Panarion. Both the Panarion and the outline of the anti-Marcionite work inserted into the Panarion were prompted by request from Syrian monks. We must presume that the Diatessaron or some other 'gospel harmony' was the standard text of the Syrian monks themselves or their community or at least communities they were in contact with.
It should be noted that Epiphanius does make reference to Tatian's authorship of the Diatessaron. Yet a little background is needed which Petersen provides - https://books.google.com/books?id=kbe9C ... us&f=false The point is that Eusebius is the first to mention Tatian authoring a 'Diatessaron' in Church History but later he attributes the same wording dia tessaron to Ammonius's creation of a text from four. The ambiguity over Tatian's actual role carries over to Epiphanius who confusingly and vaguely alludes to the report of some that the Gospel according to the Hebrews was Tatian's Diatessaron.
As Petersen notes the fact that the Christians of the East didn't refer to their gospel by the title 'Diatessaron' made the reporting about Tatian have little impact. It is not clear for instance that the Syrian monks would have equated Tatian's efforts with their gospel. But with respect to Epiphanius's emphasis that he had the Marcionite gospel and it was a corrupt version of Luke it is unlikely that it would have led them to actually 'discover' a Marcionite gospel (as they would have been looking for a VERY CURTAILED text at least when compared to their own 'super text').
But the specific arrangement of the outline into individual readings WOULD HAVE allowed for a correction of variant readings in pre-existent 'harmony' gospels. What I mean is that the story of Tatian would have been known. That Tatian composed a gospel 'like' their own (at least from the perspective of four pre-existent ur-texts) the idea that this text might have 'influenced' texts used in churches and monasteries would have allowed them for the opportunity to 'correct' their gospels of heretical influence.
This might well have been Epiphanius's underlying purpose.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
-
Secret Alias
- Posts: 18719
- Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am
Re: Toward the Creation of Luke
In other words, a work directed at Syrian monks, has to be considered with due deliberation. Epiphanius tells them in effect that Tatian's text might have been written in Hebrew. Epiphanius displays an openness to the Hebrew communities listed as 'heresies' in his compendium. They aren't condemned. Nevertheless he develops an outline whereby 'Marcionite readings' can easily be identified and corrected.
But most of these readings are in fact Western readings and Western readings are commonly found in harmonies. What Epiphanius has done in effect is set up a scenario where - building upon Irenaeus's claims regarding the develop of the Marcion gospel from Luke - 'dangerous readings' readings that were traditionally associated with heretical doctrines could be easily corrected from lectionaries.
For how else would any of this have occurred? The standardization of harmony gospels must have been the underlying purpose of the outline. After all most understandings of Epiphanius ignore the people that he was writing to - i.e. those two Syrian monks. Petersen on the Diatessaron as the 'gospel of Syria' until the fifth century (i.e. after Epiphanius) - https://books.google.com/books?id=E_Nuf ... 22&f=false
Had Epiphanius written to any other community the idea that the list of readings was intended to be used as 'corrective' to lectionary harmonies might be dismissed. But given the correspondence with Syrian monks the idea HAS TO BE accepted. Indeed just think of how counter intuitive all of this is. If Epiphanius had really wanted to help Acacius and Paul identify a Marcionite gospel the logical course of action would have been to cite the opening lines - the words that would have faced one when opening a Marcionite gospel - or at least the fucking title or name of the text! But he doesn't do any of this.
Of course Epiphanius claims to have this text in his possession so it would have been easy to carry out but he doesn't for Marcion but does do this for the gospel of the Ebionites. Very odd that. He has this obscure and much talked about book in his possession and yet doesn't demonstrate to us that he has the book - i.e. citing the opening lines. It is obvious now that Epiphanius is a dishonest source and likely doesn't have the book. But why claim he does? He wants to purge the variant readings associated with the Marcionite tradition from harmony gospels in the East. For this he certainly needs to have a Marcionite gospel in his possession if he wants to convince anyone to listen to him.
Also note that the Galatians first ordering of the Pauline canon would have been the same ordering for the Syrian monks (as per Ephrem). Eventually the ordering was 'corrected' - likely in no small part owing to Epiphanius's efforts to identify that ordering as specifically 'Marcionite' or heretical. But remember the purging of the harmony gospel from Syria occurred AFTER Epiphanius. He knows full well that a harmony rather than the four are being used by Acacius and Paul and the other monasteries in the region but says nothing about it. Epiphanius after all lived and worked in these monasteries and undoubtedly employed a harmony in his daily religious life in Syria.
I think this also begins to help us understand how and why Luke was developed. But more on that later.
But most of these readings are in fact Western readings and Western readings are commonly found in harmonies. What Epiphanius has done in effect is set up a scenario where - building upon Irenaeus's claims regarding the develop of the Marcion gospel from Luke - 'dangerous readings' readings that were traditionally associated with heretical doctrines could be easily corrected from lectionaries.
For how else would any of this have occurred? The standardization of harmony gospels must have been the underlying purpose of the outline. After all most understandings of Epiphanius ignore the people that he was writing to - i.e. those two Syrian monks. Petersen on the Diatessaron as the 'gospel of Syria' until the fifth century (i.e. after Epiphanius) - https://books.google.com/books?id=E_Nuf ... 22&f=false
Had Epiphanius written to any other community the idea that the list of readings was intended to be used as 'corrective' to lectionary harmonies might be dismissed. But given the correspondence with Syrian monks the idea HAS TO BE accepted. Indeed just think of how counter intuitive all of this is. If Epiphanius had really wanted to help Acacius and Paul identify a Marcionite gospel the logical course of action would have been to cite the opening lines - the words that would have faced one when opening a Marcionite gospel - or at least the fucking title or name of the text! But he doesn't do any of this.
Of course Epiphanius claims to have this text in his possession so it would have been easy to carry out but he doesn't for Marcion but does do this for the gospel of the Ebionites. Very odd that. He has this obscure and much talked about book in his possession and yet doesn't demonstrate to us that he has the book - i.e. citing the opening lines. It is obvious now that Epiphanius is a dishonest source and likely doesn't have the book. But why claim he does? He wants to purge the variant readings associated with the Marcionite tradition from harmony gospels in the East. For this he certainly needs to have a Marcionite gospel in his possession if he wants to convince anyone to listen to him.
Also note that the Galatians first ordering of the Pauline canon would have been the same ordering for the Syrian monks (as per Ephrem). Eventually the ordering was 'corrected' - likely in no small part owing to Epiphanius's efforts to identify that ordering as specifically 'Marcionite' or heretical. But remember the purging of the harmony gospel from Syria occurred AFTER Epiphanius. He knows full well that a harmony rather than the four are being used by Acacius and Paul and the other monasteries in the region but says nothing about it. Epiphanius after all lived and worked in these monasteries and undoubtedly employed a harmony in his daily religious life in Syria.
The wheels of change occur slowly.Epiphanius was born into a Christian family in the small settlement of Besanduk, near Eleutheropolis (modern-day Beit Guvrin, Israel),[3] and lived as a monk in Egypt, where he was educated and came into contact with Valentinian groups. He returned to Palestine around 333, when he was still a young man, and he founded a monastery at Ad nearby,[4] which is often mentioned in the polemics of Jerome with Rufinus and John, Bishop of Jerusalem. He was ordained a priest, and lived and studied as superior of the monastery in Ad that he founded for thirty years and gained much skill and knowledge in that position ... His reputation for learning prompted his nomination and consecration as Bishop of Salamis, Cyprus, in 365 or 367, a post which he held until his death.
I think this also begins to help us understand how and why Luke was developed. But more on that later.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
-
Secret Alias
- Posts: 18719
- Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am
Re: Toward the Creation of Luke
Monastery of the Old Ad or of Epiphanius, near Besandouk, in the territory of Eleutheropolis. Epiphanius was born in Besandouk. It remained active when the saint was bishop of Salamina in Cyprus, but little is known of the later period.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
-
Secret Alias
- Posts: 18719
- Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am
Re: Toward the Creation of Luke
Epiphanius's references to the synoptic gospels in the Panarion:
On the Cerinthians 5:1 For they use the Gospel according to Matthew—in part and not in its entirety, but they do use it for the sake of the physical genealogy20—and they cite the following as a proof-text, arguing from the Gospel, ' 'It is enough for the disciple that he be as his master.'21
On the Nazoraeans 9:4 They have the Gospel according to Matthew in its entirety in Hebrew.48 For it is clear that they still preserve this as it was originally written, in the Hebrew alphabet. But I do not know whether they have also excised the genealogies from Abraham till Christ. But now that we have also detected this sect—like a stinging insect that is small, and yet causes pain with its poison—and have squashed it with the words of the truth, let us go on to the next, beloved, praying for help from God.
On the Ebionites 3:7 They too accept the Gospel according to Matthew. Like the Cerinthians and Merinthians, they too use it alone. They call it, 'According to the Hebrews,' and it is true to say that only Matthew expounded and preached the Gospel in the Hebrew language and alphabet16 in the New Testament. But some may already have replied that the Gospel of John too, translated from Greek to Hebrew, is in the Jewish treasuries, I mean the treasuries at Tiberias, and is stored there secretly, as certain Jewish converts have described to me in detail. And not only that, but it is said that the book of the Acts of the Apostles, also translated from Greek to Hebrew, is there in the treasuries, so that the Jews who have read it, the ones who told me about it, have been converted to Christ from this.
6:7 During this time Josephus' mind was often troubled over the rites that had been performed in the affair of the baptism, and he was considering what he should do. Now there was a 'gazophylacium' there which was sealed—'gaza' means 'treasure' in Hebrew. As many had different notions about this treasury because of its seal, Josephus plucked up the courage to open it unobserved—and found no money, but books money could not buy. Browsing through them he found the Gospel of John translated from Greek to Hebrew, as I said, and the Acts of the Apostles—and Matthew's Gospel moreover, which is actually Hebrew. After reading from them he was once more distressed in mind, for he was somehow troubled over the faith of Christ. But now he was prodded for two reasons, his reading of the books and the patriarch’s initiation. Still, as often happens, his heart was hardened.
13:1 But I shall resume the thread of my argument against Ebion—because of the Gospel according to Matthew the course of the discussion obliged me to insert the whole of the knowledge which I had gained. Now in what they call a Gospel according to Matthew, though it is not the entire Gospel but is corrupt and mutilated—and they call this thing 'Hebrew'!—the following passage is found: 'There was a certain man named Jesus, and he was about thirty years of age,20 who chose us. And coming to Capernaum he entered into the house of Simon surnamed Peter, and opened his mouth and said, Passing beside the Sea of Tiberias I chose John and James, the sons of Zebedee,21 and Simon and Andrew and Philip and Bartholomew, James the son of Alphaeus and Thomas, Thaddaeus, Simon the Zealot, and Judas Iscariot.22 Thee too, Matthew, seated at the receipt of custom, did I call, and thou didst follow me.23 I will, then, that ye be twelve apostles24 for a testimony to Israel.' And, 'John came baptizing, and there went out unto him Pharisees and were baptized, and all Jerusalem. And John had a garment of camel's hair, and a girdle of skin about his loins. And his meat,' it says, 'was wild honey, whose taste was the taste of manna, as a cake in oil.'25 This, if you please, to turn the account of the truth into falsehood, and substitute 'a cake in honey' for 'locusts'! But the beginning of their Gospel is, 'It came to pass in the days of Herod, king of Judea, in the high-priesthood of Caiaphas, that a certain man, John by name, came baptizing with the baptism of repentance in the river Jordan, and he was said to be of the lineage of Aaron the priest, the son of Zacharias and Elizabeth, and all went out unto him.'26 And after saying a good deal it adds, 'When the people had been baptized Jesus came also and was baptized of John. And as he came up out of the water the heavens were opened, and he saw the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove which descended and entered into him. And (there came) a voice from heaven saying, Thou art my beloved Son, in thee I am well pleased,27 and again, This day have I begotten thee.28 And straightway a great light shone round about the place.29 Seeing this,' it says, 'John said unto him, Who art thou, Lord?30 And again (there came) a voice to him from heaven, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.31 And then,' it says, 'John fell down before him and said, I pray thee, Lord, do thou baptize me. But he forbade him saying, Let it alone, for thus it is meet that all be fulfilled.'32 See how their utterly false teaching is all lame, crooked, and not right anywhere! For by supposedly using their same so-called Gospel according to Matthew Cerinthus and Carpocrates want to prove from the beginning of Matthew, by the genealogy, that Christ is the product of Joseph's seed and Mary. But these people have something else in mind. They falsify the genealogical tables in Matthew's Gospel and make its opening, as I said, 'It came to pass in the days of Herod, king of Judea, in the high-priesthood of Caiaphas, that a certain man, John by name, came baptizing with the baptism of repentance in the river Jordan' and so on. This is because they maintain that Jesus is really a man, as I said, but that Christ, who descended in the form of a dove, has entered him—as we have found already in other sects—and been united with him. Christ himself is from God on high, but Jesus is the offspring of a man's seed and a woman.
Against the Alogoi
(special section)
Against the Manichaeans
35,5 And what does scripture say? “He healed all whom they brought unto him, that were lunatick and were taken with diverse diseases.”191 They brought him the blind, the deaf, the lame, the palsied, the maimed, and he extended his benefaction and healing to all of them; but scripture nowhere says that they brought him animals. Then again, “He came to the parts of Gergestha,”192 as Mark says— or, “in the coasts of the Gergesenes,” as Luke says;193 or “of the Gadarenes,” as in Matthew,194 or “of the Gergesenes” as some copies [of Matthew] have it.195 (The site was in between the three territories.) (7) “And behold two
possessed with devils, exceeding fierce, coming out of the tombs, and they cried out, saying, Let us alone, what have we to do with thee, Jesus thou Son of God, that thou hast come before the time to torment us? We know thee who thou art, the holy one of God. And there was an herd of swine there feeding and the devils besought him saying, If thou cast us out of the men, send us into the swine. And they ran violently into the sea and perished in the waters. And they that kept them fled and told it in the city.”196 And in Matthew we are told of two possessed, but it simply mentions swine and does not give the number. (9) But Mark even reported the exact number of the swine and said, “He came unto the parts of Gergestha, and there met him one possessed of a devil, and he had been bound with iron chains and plucked the chains asunder, and he had his dwelling among the tombs and cried out, Let us alone, what have we to do with thee, Jesus thou Son of God? Thou hast come before the time to torment us. And Jesus asked him, What is thy name? And he said, Legion,
for many devils had entered into him. And they besought him not to be sent out of the country, but to enter into the swine. For there was there an herd of swine feeding, and he gave them leave to enter into the swine. And the herd ran violently down a steep place into the sea (for they were about two thousand) and were choked in the sea. And they that fed the swine fled, and told it in the city.”197
38–39,5 But now that we have reached this stage of describing the differences between souls, < we have explained* >—and on the authority of the truth itself and its perfect Example—that a man’s soul is one thing, and a beast’s is another. And Christ did not come to save the soul of the beast but the soul of the man, since beasts are not judged. (6) For human beings inherit the kingdom of heaven, and human beings are judged. “These shall go away into everlasting judgment and these to life eternal,”210 says the Only-begotten.
40,1 And what do the people accomplish who go hunting for problems? Whenever they find them and do not grasp the interpretation of the text, they distress themselves by thinking of contradictions instead of looking for things that are of use to them—for Matthew says that there were two demoniacs, but Luke mentions one. 40,2 And indeed, < besides this > one evangelist says that the thieves who were crucified with Jesus reviled him; but the other disagrees, and < not > only shows that both did not revile him, but gives the defense of the one. (3) For “He rebuked the other and said, Dost not thou fear God seeing that we are in the same condemnation? But this holy man hath done nothing < amiss >.” And he exclaimed besides, “Jesus, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom.” And the Savior told him, “Verily I say unto thee, today shalt thou be with me in Paradise.”211
40,4 These things make it seem that there is disagreement in the scripture. But it is all smooth. (5) Even if there are two demoniacs in Matthew the same ones are to be found in Luke. Since it is the scripture’s way to give the causes of events, Luke mentions not the two, but only the one, for the following reason. (6) There were two men healed of demon possession, but one persevered in the faith while the other came to grief. And so, because of his perseverance in the faith, he followed Jesus “whithersoever he went,”212 as the Gospel says. This is why Luke omitted the one thief and mentioned the one who is in the kingdom of heaven. And nothing can be contrary to the true interpretation.
41,1 But the Gospel now gives another reason, similar to this instance, [for speaking of more than one person] as though of one. The Lord had cleansed ten lepers and the nine had gone away without giving glory to God. But the one had turned back and remained—the one who was also commended by the Lord, as he said, “Ten lepers were cleansed. Why hath not one of them returned to give glory to God save only this stranger?”213 (2) And you see that, because of this man’s perceptiveness and his demonstration of gratitude, the Gospel mentions the one in place of the ten. It is a comparable case, since the same evangelist spoke of the thieves. 41,3 For we are accustomed to speak of singulars in the plural, and plurals in the singular. We say, “We have told you,” and, “We have seen you,” and, “We have come to you,” and there are not two people speaking, but the one who is present. And yet by customary usage the one says this in the plural, in the person of many. (4) Thus the Gospel’s214 narrative included [many persons] by its use of the plural, but the other [Gospel]
tells us that one was the blasphemer, but that the confessed and attained salvation.
41,5 And you see that all parts of the truth are plain, and there is no contradiction in the scripture. (6) But I suppose I’ve made my statement of the argument lengthy by going over all this scriptural material. Let me wear myself out by the time the argument takes, but confound < the > truth’s < opponents* > and, with the truth’s healing remedies, bring joy
to her sons
Against the Arians
But some crackbrain who is struck with this frightful plague and has enmity for the Son of God in his heart will be sure to rush forward and say, (6) “He said, ‘If I tell you the incidents of each day, I shall remember to recount the happenings from everlasting.’61 And you see that he says, ‘from everlasting.’ But according to Matthew God’s incarnation came after
seventy-two generations; how can ‘from everlasting’ be said by the human nature?” (22,1) And those who have strayed entirely off the road of the truth do not realize that whatever the sacred scripture wishes to teach, < if > it is beginning an exposition it does not go straight to the oldest data and, as it were, the main point, but begins with the events nearest at hand in order to show last of all what came first. (2) For this is why it said, “If I tell you the incidents of each day,” [first], but afterwards,” I < shall > also recount the things from everlasting.”62 So God showed Moses the burning bush first, and the vision in the first instance was that of a bush on fire. And an angel spoke to him immediately, but later the Lord spoke to him from the bush.
22,3 But Moses did not ask him straight off about what he had seen, but inquired about things in the distant past. For God said, “Come, I send thee to the children of Israel, and thou shalt say unto them, The God of your fathers hath sent me, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob,”63—naming Abraham and the others, five or six generations before Moses. And since he had said “the God of your fathers” he had declared something ancient to him. (4) But Moses, with God-given understanding, was not asking about this but about something even more ancient: “If I go unto them and they say to me, What is his name? what shall I say unto them?”64 and then he revealed his name: “I am He Who
Is.”65 (5) And he had begun first with the things nearest in time, but last of all revealed what was furthest in the past.
Luke too begins with things that are later and nearest in time, “And Jesus began to be about thirty years of age, being, as was supposed, the son of Joseph, the son of Eli, the son of Matthan, the son of Nathan, the son of David, the son of Judah, the son of Jacob, the son of Abraham, the son of Nahor, the son of Noah, the son of Lamech, the son of Enoch, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.”66 And you see how he spoke of the incarnation first, and then the [things he says] last. 22,6 And so when Matthew, in the fleshly genealogy, wished to remind people of Christ’s human nature, he did not say at once, “The birth of Jesus Christ the son of Abraham.” He said “son of David” first and then “son of Abraham,” indicating the sight most lately seen and the most recent happening and [then] one still further in the past, to show the indispensability of what is still higher above all creation.
23,1 And so, when the blessed John came and found people preoccupied with Christ’s human nature on earth, with the Ebionites gone wrong because of < Mathew’s > tracing of Christ’s earthly genealogy from Abraham and Luke’s carrying of it back to Adam—and the Cerinthians and Merinthians, saying that he was conceived sexually as a mere man, and the Nazoraeans and many other sects,—(2) John, as though coming along behind them (he was the fourth evangelist) began to recall them from their wandering, as it were, and their preoccupation with Christ’s coming below. As though following behind and seeing that some were pointed
towards rough, steep paths and had left the straight, true road, he began, as it were, to say to them, “Where are you headed? Where are you going, you who are taking that rough road full of obstacles and leading to a pit? (3) That isn’t so! Turn back! The divine Word begotten of the Father on high does not date only from Mary. He is not from the time of Joseph
her betrothed. He is not from the time of Shealtiel, Zerubbabel, David, Abraham, Jacob, Noah and Adam. ‘In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.’ ”67
23,4 The word, “was,” followed by “was” and followed by another “was,” admits of no “was not.” And you see, first of all, how scripture gave the most recent events at once—how Matthew showed the way with the genealogy and still did not give < all > the precise facts himself, though he surely carried the genealogy into the past. And Mark < described > the events in the world, a voice crying in the wilderness, < and > the Lord who was foretold
by the Prophets and Law. And Luke traced him from the most recent times back to the earliest, < But later John, coming fourth, made the crowning touch manifest, and the perfection of the order on high and the eternal Godhead. (5) In the same way Solomon in his proverb < first indicated* > the beginning of the ways—(if, indeed, some may wish to say with piety that, since his Godhead itself had made the flesh and human nature as “the beginning of his ways for his works”68 of men’s salvation and his own goodness)--his incarnate self, since it says itself of Christ’s Godhead, “The Godhead itself founded the house,”69 and immediately afterwards, as the topic develops, says, “He founded me in the beginning.”
de Fide
Now a generation in Christ is called a “queen,” not because the whole generation ruled, but because the one generation which knew the Lord is elevated < to > the royal rank and status by the name of its husband.19 For example, Adam and his whole generation are to be counted as this, a “queen”—both his rule, and the ruling family which reigned with him—because of his knowledge of God, his privilege of being the first man created, and because he was given the first penance, as the sequel shows. (2) Then after him came Seth and all humankind with him, and Enosh, Cainan, Mahalaleel, Jared, Enoch, Methuselah, Lamech and Noah; these holy men have been listed individually by number, one generation after another, and the number of them is given in Matthew. (3) For in Matthew there are sixty-two generations and lineages, listed under the names of their finest men, who had the knowledge of God or shared the royal glory and dignity because of some other excellence. The roll of
the number < of them > goes on until the incarnation of Christ. 4,4 For ten generations passed between Adam and Noah and another ten between Noah and Abraham. But there were fourteen generations from Abraham until David, fourteen generations from David until the captivity, and fourteen generations from the captivity until Christ, so that there are sixty-two generations from Adam to Christ, and they are rounded off to sixty. (5) For although there were seventy-two palm trees in the wilderness, scripture called them seventy. And although the seventy men were called to the mount, with Eldad and Medad they are seventy-two. And
there were seventy-two translators under Ptolemy, but to round this off we customarily speak of the Septuagint version.
6:3 The sacred body itself is on high with the Godhead—altogether God, one Son, the Holy One of God seated at the Father’s right hand. As the Gospels of Mark and the other evangelists put it, 'And he ascended up to heaven and sat on the right hand of the Father.'26 And your and your dupes' trashy yarn will be a complete failure from every standpoint.
Against the Antidicomarians
7,5 For how could such an old man,16 who had lost his first wife so many years before, take a virgin for a wife? Joseph was the brother of Cleopas but the son of Jacob surnamed Panther; both of these brothers were the sons of the man surnamed Panther. (6) Joseph took his first wife from the tribe of Judah and she bore him six children in all, four boys and two girls, as the Gospels according to Mark and John have made clear.17
6:5 And Luke affirms that the Saviour himself appeared on the road to Nathanael and Cleopas after his resurrection from the dead, and admonished them from the psalms and the prophets that 'Thus it behoved Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead the third day.'34 And there is no discrepancy whatever between Christ's incarnation and the oracles of the prophets.
Against the Ebionites
29:6 And it was not after his thirtieth year that he was doing this, allowing you to say he became Christ when the Spirit had come to him, but right at the age of twelve as I said, as it is written in the Gospel according to Luke.
Against the Marcionites
9:1 But I shall come to his writings, or rather, to his tamperings. This man has only Luke as a Gospel, mutilated at the beginning because of the Saviour's conception and his incarnation. But this person who harmed himself rather than the Gospel did not cut just the beginning off. He also cut off many words of the truth both at the end and in the middle, and he has added other things besides, beyond what had been written. And he uses only this (Gospel) canon, the Gospel according to Luke.
11:3 For the (Marcionite) canon of Luke is revelatory of their form of the Gospel: mutilated as it is, without beginning, middle or end, it looks like a cloak full of moth holes. At the very beginning he excised everything Luke had originally composed—his 'inasmuch as many have taken in hand,' and so forth, and the material about Elizabeth and the angel's announcement to Mary the Virgin; about John and Zacharias and the birth at Bethlehem; the genealogy and the story of the baptism. All this he cut out and turned his back on, and made this the beginning of the Gospel, 'In the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar,' and so on.
11:9 This is Marcion's corrupt compilation, containing a version and form of the Gospel according to Luke, and an incomplete one of the apostle Paul—not of all his epistles
11:13 I have made this laborious, searching compilation from the scripture he has chosen, Paul and the Gospel according to Luke, so that all who are attempting to contradict his imposture may understand that the altered sayings have been fraudulently inserted,
Elenchus 28. Here too there is a great embarrassment for you, Marcion, since the standard of the truth is preserved, and your removal of the texts you have stolen can be discovered from the authentic copy of Luke's Gospel with the passages which are still there, and your excisions exposed.
This concludes Marcion's arrangement of the remains of the words and their subject which he preserves from Luke's Gospel and The Apostle.
Against the Arians
And it says in the Gospel according to Luke, ‘There appeared an angel of the Lord strengthening him when he was in agony, and he sweat; and his sweat was as it were drops of blood,’ when he went out to pray before his betrayal.42
see above in Matthew for another
60,1 They cite still another text from the Gospel according to Luke, one which is marvelous, choice, and in every way most useful. Which text? When the Lord, by his own will, was about to enter upon the passion, taking the disciples into the mount at that time he “went apart from them about a stone’s cast, and went and prayed and said, “Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me that I drink it not. Nevertheless, not what I will, but what thou wilt.”266 And first, once more these people pretend and say, “Do you see how he speaks coaxingly and shows a will that is distinguished from the Father’s by saying, ‘Not what I will, but what thou wilt?’ How can it be the same essence,” they ask, “when there is one will in him, but another in the Father?
61,1 And Arius adds next that “ ‘being in agony while he prayed,’ ” < as > we find in the Gospel according to Luke, and “ ‘He sweat, and his sweat was as it were drops of blood falling to the ground. And there appeared an angel of the Lord strengthening him.’ ”271 (2) Those nit-pickers jump up at once as though they had found an opening against an enemy, and add, “Do you see that he even needed the strength of angels? An angel strengthened him, for he was in agony.”
Against the Antidicomarians
Similarly Joseph himself is held by dispensation to be in the position of a father, though he had had no part in the fleshly generation of the Savior. Thus Luke the evangelist says of the Savior himself that he was “the son of Joseph, as was supposed” 21 and Mary too said to him the Gospel according to Luke, “Behold, thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing.” 22 (12) Who, then, can call Joseph the Lord’s father when he had no responsibility for his generation, especially when the incarnation took place without a man’s seed?
And Joseph survived for another eight years; and in Jesus’ twelfth year, as it says in the Gospel according to Luke, he was sought for on their journey to Jerusalem, when he could not be found on the road.
Matthew
On Judaism For St. Matthew enumerated the generations (of Christ's genealogy) in three divisions,11 and said that there were fourteen generations from Abraham till David, fourteen from David till the captivity, and fourteen from the captivity until Christ. The first two counts are plain to be seen with no lack of an item, for they include the times previous to Jeconiah. But we see that the third count no longer has the total of fourteen generations found in a succession of names, but the total of thirteen.12 This is because certain persons found a Jeconiah next to another Jeconiah, and thought that the item had been duplicated. It was not a duplication however, but a distinct item. The son had been named 'Jeconiah the son of Jeconiah' for his father. By removing the one name as though for scholarship's sake, certain persons ignorantly made the promise (which is implied in the text) come short of its purpose with regard to the total of the fourteen names, and destroyed the regularity of the arrangement. On the Cerinthians 5:1 For they use the Gospel according to Matthew—in part and not in its entirety, but they do use it for the sake of the physical genealogy20—and they cite the following as a proof-text, arguing from the Gospel, ' 'It is enough for the disciple that he be as his master.'21
On the Nazoraeans 9:4 They have the Gospel according to Matthew in its entirety in Hebrew.48 For it is clear that they still preserve this as it was originally written, in the Hebrew alphabet. But I do not know whether they have also excised the genealogies from Abraham till Christ. But now that we have also detected this sect—like a stinging insect that is small, and yet causes pain with its poison—and have squashed it with the words of the truth, let us go on to the next, beloved, praying for help from God.
On the Ebionites 3:7 They too accept the Gospel according to Matthew. Like the Cerinthians and Merinthians, they too use it alone. They call it, 'According to the Hebrews,' and it is true to say that only Matthew expounded and preached the Gospel in the Hebrew language and alphabet16 in the New Testament. But some may already have replied that the Gospel of John too, translated from Greek to Hebrew, is in the Jewish treasuries, I mean the treasuries at Tiberias, and is stored there secretly, as certain Jewish converts have described to me in detail. And not only that, but it is said that the book of the Acts of the Apostles, also translated from Greek to Hebrew, is there in the treasuries, so that the Jews who have read it, the ones who told me about it, have been converted to Christ from this.
6:7 During this time Josephus' mind was often troubled over the rites that had been performed in the affair of the baptism, and he was considering what he should do. Now there was a 'gazophylacium' there which was sealed—'gaza' means 'treasure' in Hebrew. As many had different notions about this treasury because of its seal, Josephus plucked up the courage to open it unobserved—and found no money, but books money could not buy. Browsing through them he found the Gospel of John translated from Greek to Hebrew, as I said, and the Acts of the Apostles—and Matthew's Gospel moreover, which is actually Hebrew. After reading from them he was once more distressed in mind, for he was somehow troubled over the faith of Christ. But now he was prodded for two reasons, his reading of the books and the patriarch’s initiation. Still, as often happens, his heart was hardened.
13:1 But I shall resume the thread of my argument against Ebion—because of the Gospel according to Matthew the course of the discussion obliged me to insert the whole of the knowledge which I had gained. Now in what they call a Gospel according to Matthew, though it is not the entire Gospel but is corrupt and mutilated—and they call this thing 'Hebrew'!—the following passage is found: 'There was a certain man named Jesus, and he was about thirty years of age,20 who chose us. And coming to Capernaum he entered into the house of Simon surnamed Peter, and opened his mouth and said, Passing beside the Sea of Tiberias I chose John and James, the sons of Zebedee,21 and Simon and Andrew and Philip and Bartholomew, James the son of Alphaeus and Thomas, Thaddaeus, Simon the Zealot, and Judas Iscariot.22 Thee too, Matthew, seated at the receipt of custom, did I call, and thou didst follow me.23 I will, then, that ye be twelve apostles24 for a testimony to Israel.' And, 'John came baptizing, and there went out unto him Pharisees and were baptized, and all Jerusalem. And John had a garment of camel's hair, and a girdle of skin about his loins. And his meat,' it says, 'was wild honey, whose taste was the taste of manna, as a cake in oil.'25 This, if you please, to turn the account of the truth into falsehood, and substitute 'a cake in honey' for 'locusts'! But the beginning of their Gospel is, 'It came to pass in the days of Herod, king of Judea, in the high-priesthood of Caiaphas, that a certain man, John by name, came baptizing with the baptism of repentance in the river Jordan, and he was said to be of the lineage of Aaron the priest, the son of Zacharias and Elizabeth, and all went out unto him.'26 And after saying a good deal it adds, 'When the people had been baptized Jesus came also and was baptized of John. And as he came up out of the water the heavens were opened, and he saw the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove which descended and entered into him. And (there came) a voice from heaven saying, Thou art my beloved Son, in thee I am well pleased,27 and again, This day have I begotten thee.28 And straightway a great light shone round about the place.29 Seeing this,' it says, 'John said unto him, Who art thou, Lord?30 And again (there came) a voice to him from heaven, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.31 And then,' it says, 'John fell down before him and said, I pray thee, Lord, do thou baptize me. But he forbade him saying, Let it alone, for thus it is meet that all be fulfilled.'32 See how their utterly false teaching is all lame, crooked, and not right anywhere! For by supposedly using their same so-called Gospel according to Matthew Cerinthus and Carpocrates want to prove from the beginning of Matthew, by the genealogy, that Christ is the product of Joseph's seed and Mary. But these people have something else in mind. They falsify the genealogical tables in Matthew's Gospel and make its opening, as I said, 'It came to pass in the days of Herod, king of Judea, in the high-priesthood of Caiaphas, that a certain man, John by name, came baptizing with the baptism of repentance in the river Jordan' and so on. This is because they maintain that Jesus is really a man, as I said, but that Christ, who descended in the form of a dove, has entered him—as we have found already in other sects—and been united with him. Christ himself is from God on high, but Jesus is the offspring of a man's seed and a woman.
Against the Alogoi
(special section)
Against the Manichaeans
35,5 And what does scripture say? “He healed all whom they brought unto him, that were lunatick and were taken with diverse diseases.”191 They brought him the blind, the deaf, the lame, the palsied, the maimed, and he extended his benefaction and healing to all of them; but scripture nowhere says that they brought him animals. Then again, “He came to the parts of Gergestha,”192 as Mark says— or, “in the coasts of the Gergesenes,” as Luke says;193 or “of the Gadarenes,” as in Matthew,194 or “of the Gergesenes” as some copies [of Matthew] have it.195 (The site was in between the three territories.) (7) “And behold two
possessed with devils, exceeding fierce, coming out of the tombs, and they cried out, saying, Let us alone, what have we to do with thee, Jesus thou Son of God, that thou hast come before the time to torment us? We know thee who thou art, the holy one of God. And there was an herd of swine there feeding and the devils besought him saying, If thou cast us out of the men, send us into the swine. And they ran violently into the sea and perished in the waters. And they that kept them fled and told it in the city.”196 And in Matthew we are told of two possessed, but it simply mentions swine and does not give the number. (9) But Mark even reported the exact number of the swine and said, “He came unto the parts of Gergestha, and there met him one possessed of a devil, and he had been bound with iron chains and plucked the chains asunder, and he had his dwelling among the tombs and cried out, Let us alone, what have we to do with thee, Jesus thou Son of God? Thou hast come before the time to torment us. And Jesus asked him, What is thy name? And he said, Legion,
for many devils had entered into him. And they besought him not to be sent out of the country, but to enter into the swine. For there was there an herd of swine feeding, and he gave them leave to enter into the swine. And the herd ran violently down a steep place into the sea (for they were about two thousand) and were choked in the sea. And they that fed the swine fled, and told it in the city.”197
38–39,5 But now that we have reached this stage of describing the differences between souls, < we have explained* >—and on the authority of the truth itself and its perfect Example—that a man’s soul is one thing, and a beast’s is another. And Christ did not come to save the soul of the beast but the soul of the man, since beasts are not judged. (6) For human beings inherit the kingdom of heaven, and human beings are judged. “These shall go away into everlasting judgment and these to life eternal,”210 says the Only-begotten.
40,1 And what do the people accomplish who go hunting for problems? Whenever they find them and do not grasp the interpretation of the text, they distress themselves by thinking of contradictions instead of looking for things that are of use to them—for Matthew says that there were two demoniacs, but Luke mentions one. 40,2 And indeed, < besides this > one evangelist says that the thieves who were crucified with Jesus reviled him; but the other disagrees, and < not > only shows that both did not revile him, but gives the defense of the one. (3) For “He rebuked the other and said, Dost not thou fear God seeing that we are in the same condemnation? But this holy man hath done nothing < amiss >.” And he exclaimed besides, “Jesus, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom.” And the Savior told him, “Verily I say unto thee, today shalt thou be with me in Paradise.”211
40,4 These things make it seem that there is disagreement in the scripture. But it is all smooth. (5) Even if there are two demoniacs in Matthew the same ones are to be found in Luke. Since it is the scripture’s way to give the causes of events, Luke mentions not the two, but only the one, for the following reason. (6) There were two men healed of demon possession, but one persevered in the faith while the other came to grief. And so, because of his perseverance in the faith, he followed Jesus “whithersoever he went,”212 as the Gospel says. This is why Luke omitted the one thief and mentioned the one who is in the kingdom of heaven. And nothing can be contrary to the true interpretation.
41,1 But the Gospel now gives another reason, similar to this instance, [for speaking of more than one person] as though of one. The Lord had cleansed ten lepers and the nine had gone away without giving glory to God. But the one had turned back and remained—the one who was also commended by the Lord, as he said, “Ten lepers were cleansed. Why hath not one of them returned to give glory to God save only this stranger?”213 (2) And you see that, because of this man’s perceptiveness and his demonstration of gratitude, the Gospel mentions the one in place of the ten. It is a comparable case, since the same evangelist spoke of the thieves. 41,3 For we are accustomed to speak of singulars in the plural, and plurals in the singular. We say, “We have told you,” and, “We have seen you,” and, “We have come to you,” and there are not two people speaking, but the one who is present. And yet by customary usage the one says this in the plural, in the person of many. (4) Thus the Gospel’s214 narrative included [many persons] by its use of the plural, but the other [Gospel]
tells us that one was the blasphemer, but that the confessed and attained salvation.
41,5 And you see that all parts of the truth are plain, and there is no contradiction in the scripture. (6) But I suppose I’ve made my statement of the argument lengthy by going over all this scriptural material. Let me wear myself out by the time the argument takes, but confound < the > truth’s < opponents* > and, with the truth’s healing remedies, bring joy
to her sons
Against the Arians
But some crackbrain who is struck with this frightful plague and has enmity for the Son of God in his heart will be sure to rush forward and say, (6) “He said, ‘If I tell you the incidents of each day, I shall remember to recount the happenings from everlasting.’61 And you see that he says, ‘from everlasting.’ But according to Matthew God’s incarnation came after
seventy-two generations; how can ‘from everlasting’ be said by the human nature?” (22,1) And those who have strayed entirely off the road of the truth do not realize that whatever the sacred scripture wishes to teach, < if > it is beginning an exposition it does not go straight to the oldest data and, as it were, the main point, but begins with the events nearest at hand in order to show last of all what came first. (2) For this is why it said, “If I tell you the incidents of each day,” [first], but afterwards,” I < shall > also recount the things from everlasting.”62 So God showed Moses the burning bush first, and the vision in the first instance was that of a bush on fire. And an angel spoke to him immediately, but later the Lord spoke to him from the bush.
22,3 But Moses did not ask him straight off about what he had seen, but inquired about things in the distant past. For God said, “Come, I send thee to the children of Israel, and thou shalt say unto them, The God of your fathers hath sent me, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob,”63—naming Abraham and the others, five or six generations before Moses. And since he had said “the God of your fathers” he had declared something ancient to him. (4) But Moses, with God-given understanding, was not asking about this but about something even more ancient: “If I go unto them and they say to me, What is his name? what shall I say unto them?”64 and then he revealed his name: “I am He Who
Is.”65 (5) And he had begun first with the things nearest in time, but last of all revealed what was furthest in the past.
Luke too begins with things that are later and nearest in time, “And Jesus began to be about thirty years of age, being, as was supposed, the son of Joseph, the son of Eli, the son of Matthan, the son of Nathan, the son of David, the son of Judah, the son of Jacob, the son of Abraham, the son of Nahor, the son of Noah, the son of Lamech, the son of Enoch, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.”66 And you see how he spoke of the incarnation first, and then the [things he says] last. 22,6 And so when Matthew, in the fleshly genealogy, wished to remind people of Christ’s human nature, he did not say at once, “The birth of Jesus Christ the son of Abraham.” He said “son of David” first and then “son of Abraham,” indicating the sight most lately seen and the most recent happening and [then] one still further in the past, to show the indispensability of what is still higher above all creation.
23,1 And so, when the blessed John came and found people preoccupied with Christ’s human nature on earth, with the Ebionites gone wrong because of < Mathew’s > tracing of Christ’s earthly genealogy from Abraham and Luke’s carrying of it back to Adam—and the Cerinthians and Merinthians, saying that he was conceived sexually as a mere man, and the Nazoraeans and many other sects,—(2) John, as though coming along behind them (he was the fourth evangelist) began to recall them from their wandering, as it were, and their preoccupation with Christ’s coming below. As though following behind and seeing that some were pointed
towards rough, steep paths and had left the straight, true road, he began, as it were, to say to them, “Where are you headed? Where are you going, you who are taking that rough road full of obstacles and leading to a pit? (3) That isn’t so! Turn back! The divine Word begotten of the Father on high does not date only from Mary. He is not from the time of Joseph
her betrothed. He is not from the time of Shealtiel, Zerubbabel, David, Abraham, Jacob, Noah and Adam. ‘In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.’ ”67
23,4 The word, “was,” followed by “was” and followed by another “was,” admits of no “was not.” And you see, first of all, how scripture gave the most recent events at once—how Matthew showed the way with the genealogy and still did not give < all > the precise facts himself, though he surely carried the genealogy into the past. And Mark < described > the events in the world, a voice crying in the wilderness, < and > the Lord who was foretold
by the Prophets and Law. And Luke traced him from the most recent times back to the earliest, < But later John, coming fourth, made the crowning touch manifest, and the perfection of the order on high and the eternal Godhead. (5) In the same way Solomon in his proverb < first indicated* > the beginning of the ways—(if, indeed, some may wish to say with piety that, since his Godhead itself had made the flesh and human nature as “the beginning of his ways for his works”68 of men’s salvation and his own goodness)--his incarnate self, since it says itself of Christ’s Godhead, “The Godhead itself founded the house,”69 and immediately afterwards, as the topic develops, says, “He founded me in the beginning.”
de Fide
Now a generation in Christ is called a “queen,” not because the whole generation ruled, but because the one generation which knew the Lord is elevated < to > the royal rank and status by the name of its husband.19 For example, Adam and his whole generation are to be counted as this, a “queen”—both his rule, and the ruling family which reigned with him—because of his knowledge of God, his privilege of being the first man created, and because he was given the first penance, as the sequel shows. (2) Then after him came Seth and all humankind with him, and Enosh, Cainan, Mahalaleel, Jared, Enoch, Methuselah, Lamech and Noah; these holy men have been listed individually by number, one generation after another, and the number of them is given in Matthew. (3) For in Matthew there are sixty-two generations and lineages, listed under the names of their finest men, who had the knowledge of God or shared the royal glory and dignity because of some other excellence. The roll of
the number < of them > goes on until the incarnation of Christ. 4,4 For ten generations passed between Adam and Noah and another ten between Noah and Abraham. But there were fourteen generations from Abraham until David, fourteen generations from David until the captivity, and fourteen generations from the captivity until Christ, so that there are sixty-two generations from Adam to Christ, and they are rounded off to sixty. (5) For although there were seventy-two palm trees in the wilderness, scripture called them seventy. And although the seventy men were called to the mount, with Eldad and Medad they are seventy-two. And
there were seventy-two translators under Ptolemy, but to round this off we customarily speak of the Septuagint version.
Mark
Against the Apellians 6:3 The sacred body itself is on high with the Godhead—altogether God, one Son, the Holy One of God seated at the Father’s right hand. As the Gospels of Mark and the other evangelists put it, 'And he ascended up to heaven and sat on the right hand of the Father.'26 And your and your dupes' trashy yarn will be a complete failure from every standpoint.
Against the Antidicomarians
7,5 For how could such an old man,16 who had lost his first wife so many years before, take a virgin for a wife? Joseph was the brother of Cleopas but the son of Jacob surnamed Panther; both of these brothers were the sons of the man surnamed Panther. (6) Joseph took his first wife from the tribe of Judah and she bore him six children in all, four boys and two girls, as the Gospels according to Mark and John have made clear.17
Luke
Against the Satornilians 6:5 And Luke affirms that the Saviour himself appeared on the road to Nathanael and Cleopas after his resurrection from the dead, and admonished them from the psalms and the prophets that 'Thus it behoved Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead the third day.'34 And there is no discrepancy whatever between Christ's incarnation and the oracles of the prophets.
Against the Ebionites
29:6 And it was not after his thirtieth year that he was doing this, allowing you to say he became Christ when the Spirit had come to him, but right at the age of twelve as I said, as it is written in the Gospel according to Luke.
Against the Marcionites
9:1 But I shall come to his writings, or rather, to his tamperings. This man has only Luke as a Gospel, mutilated at the beginning because of the Saviour's conception and his incarnation. But this person who harmed himself rather than the Gospel did not cut just the beginning off. He also cut off many words of the truth both at the end and in the middle, and he has added other things besides, beyond what had been written. And he uses only this (Gospel) canon, the Gospel according to Luke.
11:3 For the (Marcionite) canon of Luke is revelatory of their form of the Gospel: mutilated as it is, without beginning, middle or end, it looks like a cloak full of moth holes. At the very beginning he excised everything Luke had originally composed—his 'inasmuch as many have taken in hand,' and so forth, and the material about Elizabeth and the angel's announcement to Mary the Virgin; about John and Zacharias and the birth at Bethlehem; the genealogy and the story of the baptism. All this he cut out and turned his back on, and made this the beginning of the Gospel, 'In the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar,' and so on.
11:9 This is Marcion's corrupt compilation, containing a version and form of the Gospel according to Luke, and an incomplete one of the apostle Paul—not of all his epistles
11:13 I have made this laborious, searching compilation from the scripture he has chosen, Paul and the Gospel according to Luke, so that all who are attempting to contradict his imposture may understand that the altered sayings have been fraudulently inserted,
Elenchus 28. Here too there is a great embarrassment for you, Marcion, since the standard of the truth is preserved, and your removal of the texts you have stolen can be discovered from the authentic copy of Luke's Gospel with the passages which are still there, and your excisions exposed.
This concludes Marcion's arrangement of the remains of the words and their subject which he preserves from Luke's Gospel and The Apostle.
Against the Arians
And it says in the Gospel according to Luke, ‘There appeared an angel of the Lord strengthening him when he was in agony, and he sweat; and his sweat was as it were drops of blood,’ when he went out to pray before his betrayal.42
see above in Matthew for another
60,1 They cite still another text from the Gospel according to Luke, one which is marvelous, choice, and in every way most useful. Which text? When the Lord, by his own will, was about to enter upon the passion, taking the disciples into the mount at that time he “went apart from them about a stone’s cast, and went and prayed and said, “Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me that I drink it not. Nevertheless, not what I will, but what thou wilt.”266 And first, once more these people pretend and say, “Do you see how he speaks coaxingly and shows a will that is distinguished from the Father’s by saying, ‘Not what I will, but what thou wilt?’ How can it be the same essence,” they ask, “when there is one will in him, but another in the Father?
61,1 And Arius adds next that “ ‘being in agony while he prayed,’ ” < as > we find in the Gospel according to Luke, and “ ‘He sweat, and his sweat was as it were drops of blood falling to the ground. And there appeared an angel of the Lord strengthening him.’ ”271 (2) Those nit-pickers jump up at once as though they had found an opening against an enemy, and add, “Do you see that he even needed the strength of angels? An angel strengthened him, for he was in agony.”
Against the Antidicomarians
Similarly Joseph himself is held by dispensation to be in the position of a father, though he had had no part in the fleshly generation of the Savior. Thus Luke the evangelist says of the Savior himself that he was “the son of Joseph, as was supposed” 21 and Mary too said to him the Gospel according to Luke, “Behold, thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing.” 22 (12) Who, then, can call Joseph the Lord’s father when he had no responsibility for his generation, especially when the incarnation took place without a man’s seed?
And Joseph survived for another eight years; and in Jesus’ twelfth year, as it says in the Gospel according to Luke, he was sought for on their journey to Jerusalem, when he could not be found on the road.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote