πνεῦμα σάρκα καὶ ὀστέα οὐκ ἔχει καθὼς ἐμὲ θεωρεῖτε ἔχοντα (Tertullian)
πνεῦμα γὰρ σάρκα καὶ ὀστέα οὐκ ἔχει, καθὼς ἐμὲ θεωρεῖτε ἔχοντα (Ignatius)
πνεῦμα ὀστᾶ οὐκ ἔχει, καθὼς ἐμὲ θεωρεῖτε ἔχοντα (Epiphanius)
Lieu:
While I don't have time to complete this initial post it should be noted that many scholars have seen a relationship between Luke and John here. Note the similarity in the final words of John:Tertullian and Epiphanius agree that Jesus reassured them, '… see my hands and feet, (that it is I myself [Tertullian only]) because a spirit does not have bones, as you see me have'.103 Both are perplexed by Marcion's failure to delete these words, which to them provide the most effective refutation of his explicit 'docetism'. Surprisingly, neither remarks on the absence, also attested by the Dialogue of Adamantius, of the Lukan Jesus' invitation to them to 'touch and see', or on the simple 'bones' against the 'flesh and bones' of the Lukan manuscript tradition.104 Although in the On the Flesh of Christ Tertullian claims ignorance as to how Marcion interpreted this response, here he proposes that Marcion twisted the syntax so as to imply a positive comparison between a 'boneless' spirit and Jesus: 'A spirit does not have bones, which is how you see me having', that is, 'not having'. Undoubtedly, the differences between Marcion's and Tertullian's interpretation of key texts were sometimes based on different grammatical analyses, yet the latter's proposal here is remarkably tortuous – as he himself admits in a characteristic neologism (tortuositas).
Tertullian's focus on grammar may have been misplaced. It is notable that he describes the disciples as initially believing that they were seeing 'a phantasm' (Luke 24.37: phantasma); presumably this, rather than 'spirit', was the word read by Marcion, as it also is by Codex Bezae.105 It is also the term that Tertullian consistently uses to describe Marcion's Christ. This may suggest that Marcion saw some significance in the difference between 'phantasm' in v. 37 and 'spirit' in v. 39, and perhaps also that he was more comfortable with such a being having 'bones' than having 'flesh' – whose absence, as noted, goes unremarked by his opponents.106
Again, such niceties may not have been entirely due to Marcion's creative reading of the Lukan tradition. Indeed, although 'flesh' is well attested in Luke 24.39, the textual variants there of the formula may suggest that scribes felt the need to clarify the relationship between the two. In addition, there is considerable evidence that this saying was also transmitted outside the Lukan tradition in various forms. In confirmation of his own conviction that Jesus was 'in flesh' (ἐν σαρκί or σαρκικός) after the resurrection Ignatius Smyrn 3:1 - 2) A similar tradition occurs more widely, although its origin and transmission have been extensively debated; Origen associates it with 'the teaching of Peter' and Jerome with the 'Gospel of the Hebrews' or with another Jewish Gospel.107 Some connection with the Lukan narrative seems probable, not least because Ignatius continues with a statement that 'after the resurrection he ate and drank with them' (cf. Luke 24.41–3), although a literary relationship seems unlikely and an explicit challenge to a Marcionite position even less so.108 Indeed, Ignatius' own somewhat ambiguous continuation that the disciples 'touched him and believed, being mingled with his flesh and spirit.' (Smyrn 3:2 - 3). indicate something of the flexibility that 'fleshly' or 'not bodiless' might encompass. Evidently, Marcion's understanding of Jesus' physical substance was far from as straightforward as his opponents suggest; indeed, he may well have he may well have seen in this incident a crucial evidence for that understanding, as shall be seen when it is further explored.
Could the similarities between Luke and John here preserve something of a problematic original ending to 'the gospels' which 'shortened Mark' corrected by curtailing the ending entirely?Now Thomas (also known as Didymus), one of the Twelve, was not with the disciples when Jesus came. So the other disciples told him, “We have seen the Lord!” But he said to them, “Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe.”
A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you!” Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe.”
Thomas said to him, “My Lord and my God!” Then Jesus told him, “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”
