Another possible argument for Marcionite priority over Luke.

[Ben C. Smith]

What book is that scan from?

Sabatier, volume 3. It is what I could lay my eyes on the most quickly. But Roth also mentions that lots of Old Latin manuscripts have this reading.

[Peter Kirby]

(emphasis added)

Mark famously calls Galilee's main body of water a sea (θάλασσα), against all common sense. Matthew follows this Marcan usage. Luke, however, never calls this body of water a sea, always referring to it more properly as a lake (λίμνη).

This difference of vocabulary can be seen most vividly in the account of Jesus calming the storm:

However, Marcion is attested as mentioning the sea here. Tertullian attests (the standard Latin translation of) this word at Against Marcion 4.20.1: "Who then is this man who commands both the winds and the sea [mari]?" This attestation is all the more meaningful since Tertullian immediately turns around and, in his own words, describes in the same context the bodies of water in Palestine as "the lakes" or "pools of Judea" (stagna Iudaeae). Epiphanius also attests "sea" instead of "lake" for the Marcionite gospel in Panarion 42.11.6: "As they sailed he fell asleep. Then he arose and rebuked the wind and the sea [θαλάσσῃ]."

Also relevant here are the Old Latin manuscripts of Luke. (And the Bezae manuscript of Luke.)

Google Books, Itala. Das Neue Testament in Altlateinischer Überlieferung


Here's a nice table (these things take forever to get right!).

Mark 4:35-41	Matthew 8:23-27	Evangelion	Luke 8:22-25	Variants	Diatessaron
35 On that day, when evening came, He says to them, “Let us go over to the other side.” 36 Leaving the crowd, they take Him along with them in the boat, just as He was; and other boats were with Him.	23 And when he was entered into a ship, his disciples followed him.	[... “Let us go over to the other side.” ...[?]]	22 Now on one of those days Jesus and His disciples got into a boat, and He said to them, “Let us go over to the other side of the lake [λίμνης].” So they launched out.	...	And he said to them on that day in the evening, Let us go over to the other side of the lake; and he left the multitudes. And Jesus went up and sat in the ship, he and his disciples, and there were with them other ships.
37 And there arises a fierce gale of wind, and the waves were breaking over the boat so much that the boat was already filling up.	24 And, behold, there arose a great tempest in the sea, insomuch that the ship was covered with the waves: but he was asleep.	[And, behold, there arose a great tempest in the sea, insomuch that the ship was covered with the waves but[?]] As they sailed he fell asleep. (Πλεόντων αὐτῶν ἀφύπνωσεν)	23 But as they were sailing along He fell asleep; and a fierce gale of wind descended on the lake [λίμνην], and they began to be swamped and to be in danger.	...	And there occurred on the sea a great tempest of whirlwind and wind, and the ship was on the point of sinking from the greatness of the waves. But Jesus was sleeping on a cushion in the stern of the ship;
38 Jesus Himself was in the stern, asleep on the cushion; and they wake Him and say to Him, “Teacher, do You not care that we are perishing?” 39 And He got up and rebuked the wind and said to the sea [θαλάσσῃ], “Hush, be still.” And the wind died down and it became perfectly calm.	25 And his disciples came to him, and awoke him, saying, Lord, save us: we perish. 26 And he saith unto them, Why are ye fearful, O ye of little faith? Then he arose, and rebuked the winds and the sea; and there was a great calm.	Then he arose and rebuked the wind and the sea. (ὁ δὲ ἐγερθεὶς ἐπετίμησε τῷ ἀνέμῳ καὶ τῇ θαλάσσῃ) [and there was a great calm.[?]]	24 They came to Jesus and woke Him up, saying, “Master, Master, we are perishing!” And He got up and rebuked the wind and the surging waves [κλύδωνι τοῦ ὕδατος], and they stopped, and it became calm.	D omits "and the surging waves" OL f reads "tempes[tate] maris"	and his disciples came and awoke him, and said unto him, Our Lord, save us; lo, we perish. And he rose, and rebuked the winds and the turbulence of the water, and said to the sea, Be still, for thou art rebuked; and the wind was still, and there was a great calm.
40 And He said to them, “Why are you afraid? Do you still have no faith?” 41 They became very much afraid and said to one another, “Who then is this, that even the wind and the sea [θάλασσα] obey Him?	27 But the men marvelled, saying, What manner of man is this, that even the winds and the sea obey him!	[But the men marvelled, saying,[?]] Now who is this, that commands even the winds and the sea? (Quis autem iste est qui et ventis et mari imperat?) ...	25 And He said to them, “Where is your faith?” They were fearful and amazed, saying to one another, “Who then is this, that He commands even the winds and the water [ὕδατι], and they obey Him?”	P75, B omit "and they obey him." Many OL read "et mari"	And he said unto them, Why are ye thus afraid? and why have ye no faith? And they feared greatly. And they marvelled, and said one to another, Who, think you, is this, who commandeth also the wind and the waves and the sea, and they obey him?

In brackets I've suggested a sequence that takes very seriously the omission found in Epiphanius (most reconstructions attempt to restore text in the middle of the quote, which isn't impossible but doesn't make the difference nearly as significant! -- yet what's missing is exactly what jumps out at you when reading Epiphanius' quote, not the very minor difference in wording from Luke -- so I tried to keep it entirely missing, to see if it worked).

With that omission considered, it looked like gMatthew generally provided the most straightforward way to account for the features of the text (putting the reference to the storm before Jesus sleeping, while still being sure to mention both wind and sea, is sensible if Matthew's parallel is read in Evangelion). The quote of Epiphanius from the Evangelion agrees (in "rebuked the winds and the sea") with Matthew against Mark and Luke, while also retaining other features different from both Matthew and Luke, which also inspires looking to gMatthew for the surrounding text.

(We can also see other things; for example, both Matthew and Luke, if this is correct, smooth out the way that the Evangelion refers to Jesus falling asleep, both neglecting to use Mark's particular details here in the process. It's unclear how much of the first verse is also found in Luke or Mark; the beginning in Matthew agrees with that gospel's decision to declare Jesus' intent to cross beforehand. Tertullian's reference to "crossing the sea" being foretold suggests that the quote with "go over to the other side" was there.)

What I get from all this is that "lake [λίμνην]" is characteristically "canonical Luke" vocabulary in reference to this body of water, absent as it is not only in Matthew and Mark at this point but also (apparently) in the text of the Evangelion.

Yet the vocabulary appears to be part of more than a once-off scribal remark; it has the extensiveness expected of an "edition" of the text, where the author made a conscious decision to choose this language, against his sources, and did so, among other changes made.

The point of dispute seems to be -- what is the text of the Evangelion here?

Since the precise words used in Marcion's Evangelium are not relevant to the point being made, I'm wondering whether a harmonised text similar to the reading here of the Diatessaron is being recalled by the writer.

It's hard to say anything about unnamed harmonies, but as for this text itself:

[?]	And he said to them on that day in the evening, Let us go over to the other side of the lake; and he left the multitudes. And Jesus went up and sat in the ship, he and his disciples, and there were with them other ships.
As they sailed he fell asleep. (Πλεόντων αὐτῶν ἀφύπνωσεν)	And there occurred on the sea a great tempest of whirlwind and wind, and the ship was on the point of sinking from the greatness of the waves. But Jesus was sleeping on a cushion in the stern of the ship;
Then he arose and rebuked the wind and the sea. (ὁ δὲ ἐγερθεὶς ἐπετίμησε τῷ ἀνέμῳ καὶ τῇ θαλάσσῃ)	and his disciples came and awoke him, and said unto him, Our Lord, save us; lo, we perish. And he rose, and rebuked the winds and the turbulence of the water, and said to the sea, Be still, for thou art rebuked; and the wind was still, and there was a great calm.
Now who is this, that commands even the winds and the sea? (Quis autem iste est qui et ventis et mari imperat?)	And he said unto them, Why are ye thus afraid? and why have ye no faith? And they feared greatly. And they marvelled, and said one to another, Who, think you, is this, who commandeth also the wind and the waves and the sea, and they obey him?

It's obviously combining Matthew, Mark, and Luke in a harmonization effort, and it in no way provides a good explanation for the quotes being made from the Evangelion at this point, in the references found in Epiphanius and Tertullian. There are more points of contact with canonical Mark ("sleeping on a cushion in the stern of the ship" and "and said to the sea, Be still") and canonical Luke ("and the turbulence of the water," "and the waves," "and they obey him") than there are with the quotes from the Evangelion, even where the parallel passages are found in this Diatessaronic passage.

Tertullian's own variation in terminology, when considered along with the quote from Epiphanius, seems best explained by the choice of making a direct reference to the text (which used "sea") and making his own commentary. Nothing seems to indicate that the part in which Tertullian refers to "lakes" is coming from his copy of anything in particular at this point, beyond perhaps a familiarity with canonical Luke, which is the origin of this use in the synoptic tradition and which is a text Tertullian is known to have read at some point anyway.

As for the use of this reading as an argument -- it's not meant to be a great crux, IMO, but rather as yet "another possible argument" adding to the list.

[Ben C. Smith]

The quote of Epiphanius from the Evangelion agrees (in "rebuked the winds and the sea") with Matthew against Mark and Luke, while also retaining other features different from both Matthew and Luke, which also inspires looking to gMatthew for the surrounding text.

To be exact:

Matthew: τότε ἐγερθεὶς ἐπετίμησεν τοῖς ἀνέμοις καὶ τῇ θαλάσση....
Mark: καὶ διεγερθεὶς ἐπετίμησεν τῷ ἀνέμῳ καὶ εἶπεν τῇ θαλάσση....
Luke: ὁ δὲ διεγερθεὶς ἐπετίμησεν τῷ ἀνέμῳ καὶ τῷ κλύδωνι τοῦ ὕδατος....
Epiphanius: ὁ δὲ ἐγερθεὶς ἐπετίμησε τῷ ἀνέμῳ καὶ τῇ θαλάσσῃ....

Epiphanius shares ὁ δὲ with Luke, ἐγερθεὶς (without the prefixed δι-) with Matthew (though Alexandrinus, Bezae, and Washingtonianus also have ἐγερθεὶς without the prefix in Luke; and both Bezae and Washingtonianus have the same for Mark), ἐπετίμησε with all three synoptics (not counting the movable nu), the singular τῷ ἀνέμῳ with Mark and Luke (against Matthew's plural, though the first hand of Sinaiticus has the singular for Matthew), and καὶ τῇ θαλάσση with Matthew, though Mark also has the dative τῇ θαλάσση (after a verb of speaking), and both Bezae and Washingtonianus lack εἶπεν in Mark.

As for the use of this reading as an argument -- it's not meant to be a great crux, IMO, but rather as yet "another possible argument" adding to the list.

Agreed. The distinctiveness of the "lake" terminology in canonical Luke (against the other gospels) is what stands out.

[Ben C. Smith]

Epiphanius shares ὁ δὲ with Luke, ἐγερθεὶς (without the prefixed δι-) with Matthew (though Alexandrinus, Bezae, and Washingtonianus also have ἐγερθεὶς without the prefix in Luke; and both Bezae and Washingtonianus have the same for Mark), ἐπετίμησε with all three synoptics (not counting the movable nu), the singular τῷ ἀνέμῳ with Mark and Luke (against Matthew's plural, though the first hand of Sinaiticus has the singular for Matthew), and καὶ τῇ θαλάσση with Matthew, though Mark also has the dative τῇ θαλάσση (after a verb of speaking), and both Bezae and Washingtonianus lack εἶπεν in Mark.

Wow, Ben, why not make that as hard to read as possible? Let me try again:

• Epiphanius shares ὁ δὲ with Luke.
• Epiphanius shares ἐγερθεὶς (without the prefixed δι-) with Matthew; with Alexandrinus, Bezae, and Washingtonianus for Luke; and with Bezae and Washingtonianus for Mark.
• Epiphanius shares ἐπετίμησε with all three synoptics (not counting the movable nu).
• Epiphanius shares the singular τῷ ἀνέμῳ with Mark, with Luke, and with the first hand of Sinaiticus for Matthew.
• Epiphanius shares καὶ τῇ θαλάσση with Matthew and with both Bezae and Washingtonianus for Mark (which in other manuscripts has the dative τῇ θαλάσση following εἶπεν).

[Peter Kirby]

The quote of Epiphanius from the Evangelion agrees (in "rebuked the winds and the sea") with Matthew against Mark and Luke, while also retaining other features different from both Matthew and Luke, which also inspires looking to gMatthew for the surrounding text.

To be exact:

Thanks! I was thinking more big picture -- Mark has said to the sea, Luke has water instead -- but, yeah, translations can be a bit evil.

Matthew: τότε ἐγερθεὶς ἐπετίμησεν τοῖς ἀνέμοις καὶ τῇ θαλάσση....
Mark: καὶ διεγερθεὶς ἐπετίμησεν τῷ ἀνέμῳ καὶ εἶπεν τῇ θαλάσση....
Luke: ὁ δὲ διεγερθεὶς ἐπετίμησεν τῷ ἀνέμῳ καὶ τῷ κλύδωνι τοῦ ὕδατος....
Epiphanius: ὁ δὲ ἐγερθεὶς ἐπετίμησε τῷ ἀνέμῳ καὶ τῇ θαλάσσῃ....

Epiphanius shares ὁ δὲ with Luke, ἐγερθεὶς (without the prefixed δι-) with Matthew (though Alexandrinus, Bezae, and Washingtonianus also have ἐγερθεὶς without the prefix in Luke; and both Bezae and Washingtonianus have the same for Mark), ἐπετίμησε with all three synoptics (not counting the movable nu), the singular τῷ ἀνέμῳ with Mark and Luke (against Matthew's plural, though the first hand of Sinaiticus has the singular for Matthew), and καὶ τῇ θαλάσση with Matthew, though Mark also has the dative τῇ θαλάσση (after a verb of speaking), and both Bezae and Washingtonianus lack εἶπεν in Mark.

Very useful.

Wow, Ben, why not make that as hard to read as possible? Let me try again:

• Epiphanius shares ὁ δὲ with Luke.
• Epiphanius shares ἐγερθεὶς (without the prefixed δι-) with Matthew; with Alexandrinus, Bezae, and Washingtonianus for Luke; and with Bezae and Washingtonianus for Mark.
• Epiphanius shares ἐπετίμησε with all three synoptics (not counting the movable nu).
• Epiphanius shares the singular τῷ ἀνέμῳ with Mark, with Luke, and with the first hand of Sinaiticus for Matthew.
• Epiphanius shares καὶ τῇ θαλάσση with Matthew and with both Bezae and Washingtonianus for Mark (which in other manuscripts has the dative τῇ θαλάσση following εἶπεν).

Even better!

[Ben C. Smith]

Very useful. .... Even better!

Thanks. It can be such a pain trying to display multiple texts together when each text also evinces multiple manuscript readings. We need to be able to display them in 3 dimensions somehow.

[Secret Alias]

But how do we reference the harmonized text in question? Is it 'the gospel of Marcion' or 'the gospel Tertullian used against Marcion'? Important distinction. Read Ephrem. The commentary is from his harmonized gospel but Marcion is assumed to share a similar text (whether from good or bad knowledge we don't know). Epiphanius is inherently dishonest. He might have lifted the reading from one of many anti-Marcionite treatises he searched out. The real question is - to what degree can we say that Tertullian is citing from 'a gospel of Marcion'? Is it an actual reference to the gospel of Marcion (i.e. the Marcionite canon was literally in front of Tertullian as he wrote the treatise) or is it a presumed reference to Marcion's gospel (attributable to a variety of possibilities i.e. the author presumed Marcion stole his gospel or the gospel of his community and interpolated it)? You already know what I think.

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

I get why people are ignoring me.

I would not call this „ignoring“.

In some sense, you are completely right. But on the other hand, it seems to me that your doubts apply to all of our knowledge about Marcion. There is no way to establish parts of this knowledge as “true” and to negate other parts. It’s all or nothing – or cherry picking. I assume you actually know that.

btw I surmise that the text of the Evangelion did not really count for Marcion. It was important to have a Gospel, but - as in all Christian groups - the ideology and regularities of behavior were the real thing. From what we "know" about Marcion, some attested parts of the Evangelion seem senseless to me. But I do not think they were not there.