I think 'mutilate' is an incorrect translation. It would be better to translate:Nam ex iis commentatoribus quos habemus Lucam videtur Marcion elegisse quem caederet.
For out of those authors whom we possess, Marcion is seen to have chosen Luke as the one to mutilate [Evans]
Now, of the authors whom we possess, Marcion seems to have singled out Luke for his mutilating process [Holmes]
For out of those authors whom we possess, Marcion is seen to have chosen Luke as the one to assault (or 'beat up')
In other words, Marcion had all four gospels in front of him when making his gospel but 'beat up' the text of Luke. Could this provide a new way to interpret Book 4? Marcion made a gospel harmony with mostly accurate citations of the other three but with Marcion 'mauling' the Luke references?Verres, inflamed with wickedness and rage, came into the forum; his eyes were burning, and cruelty was emanating from his whole face. Having come into the forum, he suddenly ordered that in the middle of the forum Gavius be stripped and bound and beaten. When that miserable man [Gavius] began to shout that he was a Roman citizen, and began to name the Roman knight Lucius Raecius as a witness, then that man [Verres] said that he had been sent by Sertorius into Sicily.
Then he ordered the slaves to strip the man, bind him and beat him. When that man had ordered this, the slaves did it, and it happened that in the middle of the forum of Messana a Roman citizen was beaten with sticks, judges, and no other shout was heard from that miserable man except "I am a Roman citizen." Having used these words, did he persuade Verres, by whom he was being so harshly beaten, to spare him or not to beat him? No, judges! For it happened that not only was he beaten, but even a cross (a cross, I say!) was prepared for that miserable man. Verres dared to put on a cross a man who was saying that he was a Roman citizen.
Verres, scelere et furore inflammatus, in forum venit; ardebant oculi, toto ex ore crudelitas eminebat. in forum ingressus, repente imperat ut Gavius medio in foro nudetur et deligetur et caedatur. cum ille miser se civem Romanum esse clamaret, et Lucium Raecium equitem Romanum cognitorem nominaret, tum iste eum a Sertorio in Siciliam missum esse dicit.
deinde imperat servis ut hominem nudent, deligent, caedant. quae cum iste imperavisset, servi ita fecere, et accidit ut medio in foro Messanae virgis caederetur civis Romanus, iudices, et nulla alia vox illius miseri audiretur nisi haec - 'civis Romanus sum.' quibus verbis usu, persuasitne Gavius Verri, a quo tam atrociter caedebatur, ut sibi parceret neue caederet? minime, iudices! is enim perfecit ut non modo caederetur, sed etiam crux (crux! inquam) illi misero compararetur. In crucem ausus est Verres hominem agere qui se civem Romanum esse dicebat.
Indeed later in the same work (Book 4) caedo has this same meaning - beat up:
Here Luke 12:47, 48 has δαρήσεται which derives from δέρω http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex ... %3Dde%2Frw The word translated here as “beat” properly means to flay or to take off the skin; hence to beat or to whip so that the skin in many places is taken off.Quem alium intellegam caedentem servos paucis aut multis plagis, et prout commisit illis ita et exigentem ab eis, quam retributorem deum? Cui me docet obsequi nisi remuneratori?
Whom else than the God of retribution can I understand by Him who shall "beat His servants with stripes," either "few or many," and shall exact from them what He had committed to them? Whom is it suitable for me to obey, but Him who remune [4.29.11]
The argument that the text of Luke in Against Marcion was a harmony was advocated most recently by Dieter T. Roth, 'Matthean Texts and Tertullian's Accusations in Adversus Marcionem', JTS 59 (2008), 580–97 saying that Tertullian is not claiming (mistakenly) that Marcion has eliminated such verses from Luke, but that he has omitted what was in the 'true gospel.' https://www.jstor.org/stable/23971061?s ... b_contents
Roth's abstract:
I don't think that quite gets it right (as Lieu also notes). It is more that both Marcion used a harmony and the author the four gospels (Irenaeus) and that Marcion's harmony 'beats up' the portions that correspond back to Luke in the canon alleged to be the primary tetrad behind all the 'harmonies.'the best explanation for his (Tertullian's) accusations is that he viewed the four gospels as comprising 'the Gospel', and therefore that his (Tertullian's) accusations in Adversus Marcionem were motivated by Marcion having rejected the Gospel of Matthew.