Markan Marcion: A Contrarian Synopsis

[Peter Kirby]

@Peter This reading of the passage makes a lot of sense, but how exactly does this relate to Epiphanius vs Tertullian? I feel like I missed something.

There's an implied "to be continued" on all my posts. This was a digression; "I think I need to address this briefly before going on." If Epiphanius had the citation habits that Roth says that he has, in the extreme degree that Roth implies, there would be less to present.

The real question is why does this material end up in chapter 16 of Luke when it clearly was one of the first things Jesus said according to Matthew and likely the Marcionites too.

My approach so far is somewhat mechanical, but even so it gets placed much earlier, in a section corresponding to Mark 2-3.

viewtopic.php?p=157466#p157466

[Peter Kirby]

In these examples, either Epiphanius or Tertullian weren't truly quoting the same text. If you believe that the gospel of the Marcionites was (almost always) very close to Luke in its wording, or if you believe that Tertullian had only the gospel of the Marcionites in front of him, you might conclude (as Roth does) that Epiphanius had the text of this gospel in front of him but still failed to quote it with reasonable accuracy. A different explanation is often likely if it is considered that Tertullian doesn't have the text of this gospel in front of him. It is, in any case, not possible that they are both quoting from the same text and that they are both accurate in these quotes.

I will take them in the order of Luke:

(1) Luke 9:22
(2) Luke 9:41
(3) Luke 12:28
(4) Luke 16:16
(5) Luke 18:21
(6) Luke 23:34
(7) Luke 23:46

I will explain in each case how I think Tertullian and Epiphanius arrived at their references. I've selected cases where I think Epiphanius preserves the original reading and where Tertullian says something significantly different. This excludes a few instances where I don't think Epiphanius preserves the original reading exactly and the many where Tertullian is silent or where the difference is minor. I attempt to show the probability that, in these cases, Epiphanius has the better reading, and Tertullian is either confused by his sources or following Luke.

(1) Luke 9:22

Epiph. Schol. 16: δεῖ τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου πολλὰ παθεῖν καὶ ἀποκτανθῆναι καὶ μετὰ τρεῖς ἡμέρας ἐγερθῆναι.
the Son of Man must suffer many things, and be slain, and be raised after three days.

Tert. Marc. 4.21.7: oportet filium hominis multa pati, et reprobari a presbyteris et scribis et sacerdotibus, et interfici, et post tertium diem resurgere.
the Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected by the elders and scribes and priests, and be slain, and after three days rise again.

Let's look at how the text that is now Luke handled the other two passion predictions. For comparison, add Epiphanius and his quote of the text of Marcion's gospel as the first.

Mark	Evangelion / Luke
the Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected by the elders and the chief priests and the scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again	the Son of Man must suffer many things, and be slain, and be raised after three days
The Son of man will be delivered into the hands of men, and they will kill him; and when he is killed, after three days he will rise.	the Son of man is to be delivered into the hands of men.
the Son of man will be delivered to the chief priests and the scribes, and they will condemn him to death, and deliver him to the Gentiles; and they will mock him, and spit upon him, and scourge him, and kill him; and after three days he will rise	he will be delivered to the Gentiles, and will be mocked and shamefully treated and spit upon; they will scourge him and kill him, and on the third day he will rise

Now that we have done this, we can fill in where Luke likely expanded Evangelion, assuming here that Luke was secondary.

Mark	Evangelion	Luke
the Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected by the elders and the chief priests and the scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again	the Son of Man must suffer many things, and be slain, and be raised after three days	the Son of Man must suffer many things, and be rejected by the elders and the chief priests and the scribes, and be slain, and be raised after three days
The Son of man will be delivered into the hands of men, and they will kill him; and when he is killed, after three days he will rise.	the Son of man is to be delivered into the hands of men	the Son of man is to be delivered into the hands of men
Behold, we are going up to Jerusalem; and the Son of man will be delivered to the chief priests and the scribes, and they will condemn him to death, and deliver him to the Gentiles; and they will mock him, and spit upon him, and scourge him, and kill him; and after three days he will rise	Behold, we are going up to Jerusalem; and the Son of man will be delivered to the Gentiles, and will be mocked and shamefully treated and spit upon; they will scourge him and kill him, and on the third day he will rise	Behold, we are going up to Jerusalem, and everything that is written of the Son of man by the prophets will be accomplished. 18.32 For he will be delivered to the Gentiles, and will be mocked and shamefully treated and spit upon; 18.33 they will scourge him and kill him, and on the third day he will rise.

In the third passion prediction, we can recover the likely wording of Evangelion on analogy with Mark and with reference to the resurrection narrative, which refers back to the passion predictions, as quoted by Epiphanius:

He falsified what Christ said to Cleopas and the other when he met them, “O fools, and slow to believe all that the prophets have spoken: Ought not he to have suffered these things?” And instead of, “what the prophets have spoken,” he put, “what I said unto you.”

So this gospel likely had the passion prediction without "the prophets," while Luke had the phrase, even if Evangelion is secondary.

In all three predictions, Evangelion is shorter than Mark. In two of them, Luke is longer than Evangelion; in one of them, Luke is identical to Evangelion. Since the other two passion predictions are shorter in Luke than in Mark, and because the third passion prediction similarly does not have the reference to "the chief priests and the scribes," it's likely that Epiphanius has an accurate quote here. We can explain the fact that it is different from Luke's first passion prediction by the simple fact that Epiphanius is not quoting from Luke here. This implies that Epiphanius is quoting from the gospel of the Marcionites here, while Tertullian is quoting from his copy of Luke.

As an aside, the third passion prediction in Evangelion could have been after Mark 9:30-48 (after 'The Dispute about Greatness', Luke keeps 'The Unknown Exorcist' here, and Matthew keeps 'On Temptations' here) and in place of Luke 9:51. The third passion prediction in Evangelion, with its reference to going up to Jerusalem, would be the cue here for Luke to have Jesus set his face to Jerusalem. The passion prediction in Evangelion has Jesus being delivered to the Gentiles. The passion predictions are generally followed by a misunderstanding and a rebuke. In Evangelion, that is the story of Luke 9:52-56 but without the strange addition of Luke 9:53b, "because his face was set toward Jerusalem." In reference to the passion prediction, Jesus being "delivered to the Gentiles," this is a story of Jesus being rejected by Gentiles (in this case, referring to Samaritans). The disciples ask if this means that they (the Samaritans, representing Gentiles) should be destroyed, and Jesus says no. Set in this context, it's not a basically random episode (as Luke has it) but rather part of the core message of Evangelion.

As one more remark: after this point, there is a long section in Evangelion that is not present in Mark. If this idea is correct, the result is that Evangelion is similar to Mark in having the three passion predictions close together, while Luke is similar to Mark in having the third passion prediction close to the entry into Jerusalem, and the third prediction is in a different context in Evangelion relative to Luke (and Mark).

(2) Luke 9:41

Epiph. Schol. 19: Ἐδεήθην τῶν μαθητῶν σου. εἶχε δὲ παρὰ τό οὐκ ἠδυνήθησαν ἐκβαλεῖν αὐτό καὶ πρὸς αὐτούς· ὦ γενεὰ ἄπιστος, ἕως πότε ἀνέξομαι ὑμῶν;
“I besought thy disciples.” But in addition to, “And they could not cast it out,” he had, “And he said to them, O faithless generation, how long shall I suffer you?”

Tert. Marc. 4.23.1: O genitura incredula, quousque ero apud vos? quousque sustinebo vos?
O faithless generation, how long shall I be with you, how long shall I bear with you?

The formula here is similar to other occasions where Epiphanius is correcting Marcion's gospel with respect to Luke. Instead of merely quoting the text of Marcion's gospel (in agreement with Luke), Epiphanius takes note of where Marcion's gospel has a point of departure, providing the text that comes after. There would be no point of doing so if not to mark out a change; if agreement is implied, a simple quote is enough.

As such, I think Tertullian got his quote from Luke (which it matches), and Epiphanius didn't.

(3) Luke 12:28

Epiph. Schol. 31: οὐκ ἔχει τό Ὁ θεὸς ἀμϕιέννυσι τὸν χόρτον
He does not have, “God doth clothe the grass.”

Tert. Marc. 4.29.1: cuius et corvi non serunt nec metunt nec in apothecas condunt, et tamen aluntur ab ipso, cuius et lilia et foenum non texunt nec nent, et tamen vestiuntur ab ipso, cuius et Salomon gloriosissimus, nec ullo tamen flosculo cultior.
for his ravens neither sow nor reap nor gather into storehouses, and yet receive nourishment from him, whose lilies and whose grass neither weave nor spin and yet are clothed by him: his Solomon too was of excellent glory, yet was not better arrayed than one little flower.

I have noticed that Epiphanius is considerably more sparing with his citations when they come from Luke, which is reasonable under the assumption that the reader is already familiar with Luke and has it available. By this short phrase, Epiphanius is most likely noting the absence of a longer passage, the same absence noted once by Tertullian with reference to his source. The fact that Epiphanius himself notices the omission when going through the gospel of Marcion shows that we didn't misunderstand that reference in Tertullian. Since this ensures that the interpretation of Tertullian is correct, this also implies that noticing those contradictions of Tertullian against himself was correct, and this presents a strong argument against Tertullian's direct use of Marcion's gospel in Against Marcion, book 4.

Tertullian certainly treats this passage as something Marcionites must explain, imagining that it would be interpreted as a disparagement of the Creator: "If indeed it is as a disparager of the Creator that he would have us not take thought for the sort of trivialities for which neither ravens nor lilies toil, because in fact for their little worth they come naturally to hand, this will shortly appear." Because Tertullian failed to recognize here, in the discussion that appears in the order of Luke, that this passage wasn't present in the gospel used by Marcionites, Tertullian was working from Luke instead.

(4) Luke 16:16

Epiph. Schol. 43: ῾Ο νόμος καὶ οἱ προϕῆται ἕως Ἰωάννου καὶ πᾶς εἰς αὐτὴν βιάζεται
The Law and the prophets were until John, and everyone is forced into it.

Tert. Marc. 4.33.7: Lex et prophetae usque ad Ioannem, ex quo regnum dei annuntiatur
The law and the prophets were until John, since which time the kingdom of God is announced.

Tertullian shows how someone would naturally offer an abbreviated quote from Luke: continuing on to the next few words and omitting the final words that typically, for the reader of Luke, are hard to understand.

The quote from Epiphanius presents a different way to view the passage, and it's one that helps explain why we have two very difficult to understand passages now standing in Matthew and Luke. As I've suggested above, the gospel used by Marcionites presented a simple contrast that emphasizes the freedom that comes with the preaching of the kingdom of God: "The Law and the prophets were until John, and everyone is forced into it. Since then the good news of the kingdom of God is preached."

That previous post is here: viewtopic.php?p=157643#p157643

(5) Luke 18:21

Adam. 2,17 (832a/b): τὰς ἐντολὰς οἶδα
“I know the commandments.”

Epiph. Schol. 50: ἀντὶ τοῦ Τὰς ἐντολὰς οἶδας λέγει Τὰς ἐντολὰς οἶδα
instead of, “Thou knowest the commandments,” says, “I know the commandments.”

Tert. Marc. 4.36.4: cumque ille principaliora quaeque affirmasset observasse se ab adulescentia
when that man replied, in respect of the chief of them, that he had kept them from his youth up

Tertullian presents the canonical version of the text, where the man replied that he kept the commandments, which were stated by Jesus: "And he said, 'All these I have observed from my youth.'" (Luke 18:21)

Both Epiphanius and Adamantius, however, show that the Marcionites' version had "I know the commandments," which would place the list of precepts on the lips of the inquiring man here, not Jesus. That would not allow for the shorter, canonical reading of the man's reply from Tertullian where Jesus wants to know if the man keeps the commandments, and the man replies nothing more than that he had kept them from his youth. This reading from Tertullian came from Luke, not the gospel in use by Marcionites.

(6) Luke 23:34

Epiph. Schol. 71: Καὶ ἐλθόντες εἰς τόπον λεγόμενον Κρανίον τόπος ἐσταύρωσαν αὐτὸν καὶ διεμερίσαντο τὰ ἱμάτια αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐσκοτίσθη ὁ ἥλιος.
“And when they were come unto a place called Place of a Skull, they crucified him and parted his garments, and the sun was darkened.” [Luke 22:33; 34; 44]

Epiph. Schol. 72:
Marcion falsified the words, “Today thou shalt be with me in paradise.” [Luke 23:43]

Tert. Marc. 4.42.4: Vestitum plane eius a militibus divisum, partim sorte concessum, Marcion abstulit, respiciens psalmi prophetiam: Dispertiti sibi sunt vestimenta mea, et in vestitum meum sortem miserunt
Evidently the statement that his raiment was divided among the soldiers and partly assigned by lot, has been excised by Marcion, because he had in mind the prophecy of the psalm, "They parted my garments among them, and upon my vesture did they cast lots."

This is an extraordinary case. Something's going on here. The first thing that I will note is that Tertullian's objection to the text (which I consider inherited, as always) is drawn from John, not from Luke nor even from Matthew. Of course, we already know about someone who considered both Matthew and John as scripture, quoting them in particular as such, and that's Theophilus of Antioch (in Ad Autolycum), whose Against Marcion is regarded as remarkable by both Eusebius and Jerome. What's interesting about Theophilus is that he regards Matthew as scripture (unlike Justin who doesn't view the gospels as scripture), that he quotes from John (unlike Justin who doesn't explicitly quote from John), and that he doesn't quote from Luke (unlike Irenaeus who quotes from Luke extensively in his Against Heresies, written before his own Against Marcion, which promised to compare Marcion's scriptures to Luke and Paul). This again raises the probability that Theophilus is a source for Tertullian's claims, given that all these features are predicted by the use of Theophilus.

We can see this by noting the separation of the two clauses ("his raiment was divided among the soldiers," "and partly assigned by lot"), the oddly specific Johannine detail that only part was assigned by lot ("partim sorte concessum" or "partly allotted by chance"), and the quotation of the prophecy, also in two clauses, that motivated the author of John to make this passage conform more explicitly to scripture.

Mark	Luke	Matthew	John	Peter
15.22 And they brought him to the place called Gol'gotha (which means the place of a skull). 15.23 And they offered him wine mingled with myrrh; but he did not take it. 15.24 And they crucified him, and divided his garments among them, casting lots for them, to decide what each should take. 15.25 And it was the third hour, when they crucified him. ... Those who were crucified with him also reviled him. 15.33 And when the sixth hour had come, there was darkness over the whole land until the ninth hour. ... 15.37 And Jesus uttered a loud cry, and breathed his last.	23.32 Two others also, who were criminals, were led away to be put to death with him. 23.33 And when they came to the place which is called The Skull, there they crucified him, and the criminals, one on the right and one on the left. 23.34 And Jesus said, "Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do." And they cast lots to divide his garments. ... 23.39 One of the criminals who were hanged railed at him, saying, "Are you not the Christ? Save yourself and us!" 23.40 But the other rebuked him, saying, "Do you not fear God, since you are under the same sentence of condemnation? 23.41 And we indeed justly; for we are receiving the due reward of our deeds; but this man has done nothing wrong." ... 23.44 It was now about the sixth hour, and there was darkness over the whole land until the ninth hour, 23.45 while the sun's light failed; and the curtain of the temple was torn in two. ... 23.46 Then Jesus, crying with a loud voice, said, "Father, into thy hands I commit my spirit!" And having said this he breathed his last. 23.47 Now when the centurion saw what had taken place, he praised God, and said, "Certainly this man was innocent!"	27.33 And when they came to a place called Golgotha (which means the place of a skull), 27.34 they offered him wine to drink, mingled with gall; but when he tasted it, he would not drink it. 27.35 And when they had crucified him, they divided his garments among them by casting lots; ... 27.44 And the robbers who were crucified with him also reviled him in the same way. 27.45 Now from the sixth hour there was darkness over all the land until the ninth hour.	19.17 So they took Jesus, and he went out, bearing his own cross, to the place called the place of a skull, which is called in Hebrew Golgotha. ... 19.23 When the soldiers had crucified Jesus they took his garments and made four parts, one for each soldier; also his tunic. But the tunic was without seam, woven from top to bottom; 19.24 so they said to one another, "Let us not tear it, but cast lots for it to see whose it shall be." This was to fulfil the scripture, "They parted my garments among them, and for my clothing they cast lots." 19.25 So the soldiers did this.	[10] And they brought two wrongdoers and crucified the Lord in the middle of them. But he was silent as having no pain. ... [12] And having put his garments before him, they divided them up and threw as a gamble for them. [13] But a certain one of those wrongdoers reviled them, saying: 'We have been made suffer thus because of the wrong that we have done; but this one, having become Savior of men, what injustice had he done to you?' ... [15] But it was midday, and darkness held fast all Judea; and they were distressed and anxious lest the sun had set, since he was still living.

I've performed all this highlighting so that it's easy to see that the passion narrative wasn't a fixed entity and that the various components of it could be rearranged, altered, omitted, or expanded in various ways. A sixth gospel to these five would have its own differences.

And when they were come unto a place called Place of a Skull, they crucified him and parted his garments, and the sun was darkened.

Marcion falsified the words, “Today thou shalt be with me in paradise.”

Based on the quote from Epiphanius and the note regarding the omission, something like this may have stood here:

15.16 And the soldiers led him away inside the palace (that is, the praetorium); and they called together the whole battalion. 15.17 And they clothed him in a purple cloak, and plaiting a crown of thorns they put it on him. 15.18 And they began to salute him, "Hail, King of the Jews!" 15.19 And they struck his head with a reed, and spat upon him, and they knelt down in homage to him. 15.20 And when they had mocked him, they stripped him of the purple cloak, and put his own clothes on him.

23.26 And as they led him away, they seized one Simon of Cyrene, who was coming in from the country, and laid on him the cross, to carry it behind Jesus. 23.27 And there followed him a great multitude of the people, and of women who bewailed and lamented him. 23.28 But Jesus turning to them said, "Daughters of Jerusalem, do not weep for me, but weep for yourselves and for your children. 23.29 For behold, the days are coming when they will say, 'Blessed are the barren, and the wombs that never bore, and the breasts that never gave suck!' 23.30 Then they will begin to say to the mountains, 'Fall on us'; and to the hills, 'Cover us.' 23.31 For if they do this when the wood is green, what will happen when it is dry?" 23.32 Two others also, who were criminals, were led away to be put to death with him.

And when they came to a place which is called the place of a skull, they crucified him and divided his garments among them, and the sun was darkened. There was darkness over the whole land, and the curtain of the temple was torn in two.

15.29 And those who passed by derided him, wagging their heads, and saying, "Aha! You who would destroy the temple and build it in three days, 15.30 save yourself, and come down from the cross!" 15.31 So also the chief priests mocked him to one another with the scribes, saying, "He saved others; he cannot save himself. 15.32 Let the Christ, the King of Israel, come down now from the cross, that we may see and believe. 27.43 He trusts in God; let God deliver him now, if he desires him; for he said, 'I am the Son of God.'" And a certain one of those wrongdoers reviled them, saying: "We have been made suffer thus because of the wrong that we have done; but this one, the Son of God, what injustice had he done to you?" And Jesus said, "Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do." Then Jesus, crying with a loud voice, breathed his last. 23.47 Now when the centurion saw what had taken place, he praised God, and said, "Certainly this man was innocent!"

This highly speculative possibility combines Mark, Luke, a bit of Matthew, and a dash of Peter. There's no real certainty about it, except perhaps for the paragraph highlighted, which is attested by Epiphanius. It's presented here just to illustrate that the quote from Epiphanius could have come from a much more detailed account and does not have to be viewed as a drastic exercise in abbreviation.

The fact that Epiphanius both jumps to "and the sun was darkened" (a unique phrasing not found in Luke or any of these gospels) and explicitly states that the previous verse was missing strongly suggests that there was a large section corresponding to Luke absent here, which resumed with the darkness. If part of the dialogue were different in the gospel used by the Marcionites, as it is in the Gospel of Peter, that would explain both the jump here (compared to Luke) and the notice from Epiphanius specifically about the response made by Jesus not being here.

If Epiphanius is correct that the text used by Marcionites had them part the garments, then Tertullian is strictly incorrect to deny it. Earlier I had presented Tertullian as if marking the omission of "And they cast lots to divide his garments." What we have to see here, however, is that Tertullian was confused by his source. That source was accusing Marcion of falsification because it didn't include the casting of lots, which is something stated briefly in the other synoptics and in Peter but not in the gospel used by Marcionites. That source was making the accusation on the basis of John, which provides the fullest account, which again shows that Tertullian's source wasn't comparing to Luke. That Tertullian was confused is shown by the quote from Epiphanius, which shows that the text of the gospel used by Marcionites had the division of garments.

(7) Luke 23:46

Mark 15:37: ὁ δὲ Ἰησοῦς ἀφεὶς φωνὴν μεγάλην ἐξέπνευσεν.
And Jesus uttered a loud cry, and breathed his last.

Epiph. Schol. 63: Καὶ φωνήσας φωνῇ μεγάλῃ ἐξέπνευσεν.
And when he had cried with a loud voice he breathed his last.

Ellenchus 63. ... Εἰ ἐξέπνευσεν, ὦ Μαρκίων, καὶ φωνὴν μεγάλην ἀπέδωκεν, πόθεν ἐξέπνεεν ἢ τί τὸ ἐκπνέον; ...
... If he breathed his last, O Marcion, and gave a loud cry, from where did he breathe out or what was he expelling? ...

Luke 23:46: καὶ φωνήσας φωνῇ μεγάλῃ ὁ Ἰησοῦς εἶπεν Πάτερ εἰς χεῖράς σου παραθήσομαι τὸ πνεῦμά μου καὶ ταῦτα εἰπὼν ἐξέπνευσεν
Then Jesus, crying with a loud voice, said, "Father, into thy hands I commit my spirit!" And having said this he breathed his last.

Adam. 5.12 (857d), Adamantius: καὶ ϕωνήσας μεγάλῃ ϕωνῇ ὁ Ἰησοῦς εἶπε· Πάτερ, εἰς χεῖράς σου παραθήσομαι τὸ πνεῦμά μου, καὶ ἐξέπνευσε.
And with a loud voice, Jesus cried out and said, 'Father, into your hands I commit my spirit,' and he breathed his last.
... It was certainly no spirit that 'gave up the ghost,' since that is eternal and incorruptible. ...

Tert. Marc. 4.42.6: And see how it continues, even in the thirtieth psalm, to present Christ in his own person: he cries aloud to the Father, so as even in dying, with his last words, to fulfil the prophets [Into your hand I commit my spirit - Psalms 31(30):5]: And having said thus, he gave up his spirit [Hoc dicto expiravit]. Who did? Did the spirit give up itself, or the flesh give up the spirit? But the spirit cannot have given up [expirare] itself: there is a difference between the one which gives up and the other which is given up [expiratur]. If the spirit is given up [expiratur], it has to be given up [expiretur] by something else: whereas if the spirit had been by itself, the word used would have been 'depart' [discessisse] and not 'give up' [expirasse]. Who is it then that gives up the spirit, if not the flesh?

Two things are immediately obvious:

Epiphanius doesn't look like he is quoting Luke, nor is it very reasonable to assume that he is abbreviating Luke in an idiosyncratic way. We already know that there is a gospel that has a quote that is almost exactly the same as the one Epiphanius gives, but it's also unexpected to find influence from Mark on the quotations of ancient Christians. This suggests the likelihood that Epiphanius is quoting from a gospel text that was similar to Mark 15:37 but was not Mark itself, i.e., which was the gospel used by Marcionites, which he said he read and made extracts from.

Epiphanius omits an important bit of the passage in terms of apologetics. The final words of Jesus, as given in Luke, provided a powerful statement to Adamantius and Tertullian that runs through their entire commentary. This is the reference to "my spirit" (τὸ πνεῦμά μου) in the last words of Jesus. And so Tertullian asks, "did the spirit give up itself"? Adamantius said, "It was certainly no spirit" that breathed its last. They both allow the words of Jesus about his spirit to help guide the interpretation of "breathed his last" (ἐξέπνευσε / expiravit). Meanwhile, Epiphanius doesn't immediately slip into talking about the spirit being given up.

So it seems to me that Adamantius and Tertullian are quoting from Luke, while Epiphanius is quoting from the gospel used by Marcionites.

[Peter Kirby]

After reading Epiphanius, I have found one occasion in which I am inclined to revise my opinion on the interpretation of Tertullian. This was one of the most difficult parts of Tertullian for me to interpret anyway. I originally referred to it as a "tangled web." The problem is resolved with a different translation of a single word.

What we encounter next is a tangled web, so I will provide a signpost to the conclusion here. The Gospel used by Marcion had both the original leper story (Mark 1:40-45) and the story of the ten lepers (Luke 7:11-19). In the story of the ten lepers, this Gospel has an injunction to show themselves to the priests. In the original story, this Gospel doesn't have such an injunction. The reasoning here will be apparent soon, but it is essentially this: the injunction appears in one of these stories, and it doesn't appear in the original leper story.

...

But why did he give no such order to the original leper? Because neither did Elisha to Naaman the Syrian: but that does not mean he was not the Creator's prophet.

I now see from Epiphanius that the story of the ten lepers is where the statement regarding Naaman stood.

When the ten lepers met him. Marcion excised a great deal and wrote, “He sent them away, saying, Show yourselves unto the priests”; and he substituted different words for others and said, “Many lepers were in the day of Elisha the prophet, and none was cleansed, saving Naaman the Syrian.” [Luke 17:12; 14; 4:27]

And the command to see the priests is in the first leper story.

“Go shew thyself unto the priest, and offer for thy cleansing, according as Moses commanded—that this may be a testimony unto you,” instead of the Savior’s “for a testimony unto them.” [Luke 5:14]

Tertullian connects the idea that he gave "no such order to the original leper" to the story of Elisha and Naaman the Syrian, which is something that (we know from Epiphanius) appeared in the story of the ten lepers. I will set these two side by side from the version in Luke.

4.24 And he said, "[Truly, I say to you, no prophet is acceptable in his own country. 4.25 But in truth,] I tell you, there were many widows in Israel in the days of Elijah, when the heaven was shut up three years and six months, when there came a great famine over all the land; 4.26 and Elijah was sent to none of them but only to Zarephath, in the land of Sidon, to a woman who was a widow. 4.27 And there were many lepers in Israel in the time of the prophet Elisha; and none of them was cleansed, but only Naaman the Syrian."

17.11 On the way to Jerusalem he was passing along between Samaria and Galilee. 17.12 And as he entered a village, he was met by ten lepers, who stood at a distance 17.13 and lifted up their voices and said, "Jesus, Master, have mercy on us." 17.14 When he saw them he said to them, "Go and show yourselves to the priests." And as they went they were cleansed. 17.15 Then one of them, when he saw that he was healed, turned back, praising God with a loud voice; 17.16 and he fell on his face at Jesus' feet, giving him thanks. Now he was a Samaritan. 17.17 Then said Jesus, "Were not ten cleansed? Where are the nine? 17.18 Was no one found to return and give praise to God except this foreigner?" 17.19 And he said to him, "Rise and go your way; your faith has made you well."

Now suppose that the Samaritan leper was cleaned as they went and that this "one of them, when he saw that he was healed, turned back." A natural interpretation here is that he turned back before he arrived at the priests. Then, when he came back to Jesus, he didn't receive a command to show himself to the priests. And thus he became the leper to whom Jesus didn't give this order, or at least didn't when he returned to Jesus unlike the others (and in a way that is superior to them, which could have been some kind of Marcionite argument). Tertullian argues against the Marcionite interpretation and attempts to connect what Jesus doesn't say here to scripture instead.

So I think that the statement that he gave "no such order to the former leper" [pristino leproso] is found here on the basis of Marcionite argument regarding the ten lepers story. I have changed my notes on Tertullian regarding this.

[Peter Kirby]

Dispensing with the idea that Tertullian had the gospel of the Marcionites in front of him helps solve a riddle found in Epiphanius.

Epiphanius, Panarion 42.11.6: <η>. Παρηλλαγμένον τό «μακάριος ὃς οὐ μὴ σκανδαλισθῇ ἐν ἐμοί»· εἶχε γὰρ ὡς πρὸς Ἰωάννην. <θ>. «Αὐτός ἐστι περὶ οὗ γέγραπται· ἰδού, ἀποστέλλω τὸν ἄγγελόν μου πρὸ προσώπου σου».

8. 'Blessed is he who shall not be offended in me,' [Luke 7:23] is altered. For he had it as though it refers to John. 9. 'He it is of whom it is written, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face.' [Luke 7:27]

Traditional reconstruction of the text of the gospel of the Marcionites shows Luke 7:24 and 7:26 attested from Tertullian, which obscures the testimony of Epiphanius. Without these (non)attestations from Tertullian, the most natural interpretation of Epiphanius is that he explains himself in his next scholion, which is also the next attested verse for the gospel of the Marcionites.

In other words, this is likely what stood here in the gospel of the Marcionites:

22 Jesus answered them, “Go and tell John ... [miracles, etc.] ... the poor have good news preached to them. 23 Blessed is he who finds no occasion for stumbling in me. 27 This is he of whom it is written, ‘Behold, I send my messenger before your face.’ 28 For I tell you, among those who are born of women there is not a greater prophet than John the Baptizer, yet he who is least in God’s Kingdom is greater than he.”

Epiphanius also shows that he misunderstood the impact of this verse in the more likely interpretation of the author of the Gospel. If the following verse is meant to apply to John (a very natural assumption for Epiphanius!), then the author would be calling John he who is blessed. But what if it isn't actually referring to John?

We could have here a story where the previously known meaning (presumably from Mark?) of ‘Behold, I send my messenger before your face’ is subverted. In this story, John is the one who is finding an occasion for stumbling. By contrast, the least in God's Kingdom is greater than John. Accordingly, he who is truly blessed is the one who is in God's Kingdom. They are the ones who have understood that Jesus is the one. There are three parallel statements said here:

• Blessed is he who finds no occasion for stumbling in me.
• This is he of whom it is written, ‘Behold, I send my messenger before your face.’
• he who is least in God’s Kingdom is greater than [John the Baptizer]

The other two items in this list, with the remark about not finding occasion for stumbling and the remark about the least in the kingdom being greater than John, guide the reader to an unexpected interpretation of whom it should be said, ‘Behold, I send my messenger before your face.’ The messengers being sent are those who are in God's Kingdom. As a vivid example here, Jesus had just sent messengers to John.

This also could imply that Epiphanius didn't abbreviate this quote and that the Gospel didn't have the bit about preparing the way.

If Luke is secondary to the Gospel, then Luke has obscured the meaning of the Gospel by cutting off this speech from Jesus to make a point of saying that the disciples of John departed before Jesus got to finish. Luke inserts material here to separate these statements further, a separation that changes their original meaning.

[Ken Olson]

In the third passion prediction, we can recover the likely wording of Evangelion on analogy with Mark and with reference to the resurrection narrative, which refers back to the passion predictions, as quoted by Epiphanius:

He falsified what Christ said to Cleopas and the other when he met them, “O fools, and slow to believe all that the prophets have spoken: Ought not he to have suffered these things?” And instead of, “what the prophets have spoken,” he put, “what I said unto you.”

So this gospel likely had the passion prediction without "the prophets," while Luke had the phrase, even if Evangelion is secondary.

In all three predictions, Evangelion is shorter than Mark. In two of them, Luke is longer than Evangelion; in one of them, Luke is identical to Evangelion. Since the other two passion predictions are shorter in Luke than in Mark, and because the third passion prediction similarly does not have the reference to "the chief priests and the scribes," it's likely that Epiphanius has an accurate quote here. We can explain the fact that it is different from Luke's first passion prediction by the simple fact that Epiphanius is not quoting from Luke here. This implies that Epiphanius is quoting from the gospel of the Marcionites here, while Tertullian is quoting from his copy of Luke.

As an aside, the third passion prediction in Evangelion could have been after Mark 9:30-48 (after 'The Dispute about Greatness', Luke keeps 'The Unknown Exorcist' here, and Matthew keeps 'On Temptations' here) and in place of Luke 9:51. The third passion prediction in Evangelion, with its reference to going up to Jerusalem, would be the cue here for Luke to have Jesus set his face to Jerusalem. The passion prediction in Evangelion has Jesus being delivered to the Gentiles. The passion predictions are generally followed by a misunderstanding and a rebuke. In Evangelion, that is the story of Luke 9:52-56 but without the strange addition of Luke 9:53b, "because his face was set toward Jerusalem." In reference to the passion prediction, Jesus being "delivered to the Gentiles," this is a story of Jesus being rejected by Gentiles (in this case, referring to Samaritans). The disciples ask if this means that they (the Samaritans, representing Gentiles) should be destroyed, and Jesus says no. Set in this context, it's not a basically random episode (as Luke has it) but rather part of the core message of Evangelion.

As one more remark: after this point, there is a long section in Evangelion that is not present in Mark. If this idea is correct, the result is that Evangelion is similar to Mark in having the three passion predictions close together, while Luke is similar to Mark in having the third passion prediction close to the entry into Jerusalem, and the third prediction is in a different context in Evangelion relative to Luke (and Mark).

Peter,

Sorry for the interruption. I am sill trying to absorb what you've said here (and in this thread in general) and I'm afraid I've fallen a bit behind. I hope you can clarify two points for me (I had a third but have forgotten what it was):

First, and I hope this isn't too stupid a question, what is Epiph. Schol.? Could you give publication details or a link? (I know of Migne and the Holl/Dummer GCS editions of Epiphanius, but I'm not clear on what you're using).

Second, could you comment on the spelling of Jerusalem in the third passion prediction in Mark, Luke and Epiphanius/Marcion (and if those two need to be disentangled, please by all means disentangle them).

Thanks,

Ken

[Peter Kirby]

Sorry for the interruption. I am sill trying to absorb what you've said here (and in this thread in general) and I'm afraid I've fallen a bit behind. I hope you can clarify two points for me (I had a third but have forgotten what it was):

Sure, no worries! I've been busy. I'm happy that you're reading along.

First, and I hope this isn't too stupid a question, what is Epiph. Schol.? Could you give publication details or a link? (I know of Migne and the Holl/Dummer GCS editions of Epiphanius, but I'm not clear on what you're using).

I haven't been consistent. I have been using some quotes from Ben Smith, which might come from Migne (?):

The Greek of Epiphanius I got from Skeptik, the English from Masseiana.

And I've been using other quotes from Roth's thesis or book (I have both), which come from Holl/Dummer.

Here is Roth's thesis: https://era.ed.ac.uk/bitstream/handle/1 ... sequence=1

If there are any oddities in my citations, it might be from this eclecticism.

Second, could you comment on the spelling of Jerusalem in the third passion prediction in Mark, Luke and Epiphanius/Marcion (and if those two need to be disentangled, please by all means disentangle them).

I haven't given any thought to it, but I believe there is no explicit attestation for the third passion prediction in the text of Evangelion anywhere. In fact, it is one of the passages that Epiphanius says were absent, which is why it is marked as being omitted from Evangelion in almost all reconstructions. My hypothesis presented above is that there may have been a third passion prediction in Evangelion, which wasn't quoted anywhere but which appeared in a different place in Evangelion than it does in Luke, which might be able to explain why Epiphanius considers it absent (given that it was absent in that location in Luke). I have to remain open to the idea that it could have been entirely absent. The spelling of Jerusalem here, in any case, is unrecoverable.

[Ken Olson]

Sorry for the interruption. I am sill trying to absorb what you've said here (and in this thread in general) and I'm afraid I've fallen a bit behind. I hope you can clarify two points for me (I had a third but have forgotten what it was):

Sure, no worries! I've been busy. I'm happy that you're reading along.

First, and I hope this isn't too stupid a question, what is Epiph. Schol.? Could you give publication details or a link? (I know of Migne and the Holl/Dummer GCS editions of Epiphanius, but I'm not clear on what you're using).

I haven't been consistent. I have been using some quotes from Ben Smith, which might come from Migne (?):

The Greek of Epiphanius I got from Skeptik, the English from Masseiana.

And I've been using other quotes from Roth's thesis or book, which come from Holl/Dummer.

If there are any oddities in my citations, it might be from this eclecticism.

Second, could you comment on the spelling of Jerusalem in the third passion prediction in Mark, Luke and Epiphanius/Marcion (and if those two need to be disentangled, please by all means disentangle them).

I haven't given any thought to it, but I believe there is no explicit attestation for the third passion prediction in the text of Evangelion anywhere. In fact, it is one of the passages that Epiphanius says were absent, which is why it is marked as being omitted from Evangelion in almost all reconstructions. My hypothesis presented above is that there may have been a third passion prediction in Evangelion, which wasn't quoted anywhere but which appeared in a different place in Evangelion than it does in Luke, which might be able to explain why Epiphanius considers it absent (given that it was absent in that location in Luke). I have to remain open to the idea that it could have been entirely absent. The spelling of Jerusalem here, in any case, is unrecoverable.

Thank you! That helps considerably.

Best,

Ken

[Peter Kirby]

Epiphanius also presents this description of the Marcionite canon:

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 Savior’s conception and his incarnation.32 (2) 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.
9,3 He also possesses ten Epistles of the holy apostle, the only ones he uses, but not all that is written in them. He deletes some parts of them, and has altered certain sections. He uses these two volumes (of the Bible) but has composed other treatises himself for the persons he has deceived.

Unlike Tertullian, who has only omissions or minor alterations, Epiphanius finds occasion to note some of these additions.

Here are most of those (leaving out minor alterations of a word):

Instead of, “In the second or third watch,” he had, “in the evening watch.” [Luke 12:38]

Again, he falsified, “Then ye shall see Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and all the prophets, in the kingdom of God.” In place of this he put, “When ye see all the righteous in the kingdom of God and yourselves thrust”—but he put, “kept”—“out.” “There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” [Luke 13:28]

When the ten lepers met him. Marcion excised a great deal and wrote, “He sent them away, saying, Show yourselves unto the priests”; and he substituted different words for others and said, “Many lepers were in the day of Elisha the prophet, and none was cleansed, saving Naaman the Syrian.” [Luke 17:12; 14; 4:27]

“One said unto him, Good master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? He replied, Call not thou me good. One is good, God.” Marcion added, “the Father,” and instead of, “Thou knowest the commandments,” says, “I know the commandments.” [Luke 18:18-19]

After, “We found this fellow perverting the nation,” Marcion added, “and destroying the Law and the prophets.” [Luke 23:2]

The addition after “forbidding to give tribute” is “and turning away the wives and children.” [Luke 23:2]

“And when they were come unto a place called Place of a Skull they crucified him and parted his garments, and the sun was darkened.” [Luke 22:33; 34; 44]

He falsified what Christ said to Cleopas and the other when he met them, “O fools, and slow to believe all that the prophets have spoken: Ought not he to have suffered these things?” And instead of, “what the prophets have spoken,” he put, “what I said unto you.” But he is shown up since, “When he broke the bread their eyes were opened and they knew him.” [Luke 24:25-26; 30-31]

These notices regarding additions help to substantiate his knowledge of a different gospel.

The absence of such notices is, by contrast, not a credit to Tertullian.

[Peter Kirby]

There are a couple instances where the testimony of Tertullian (by which I mean, his source) make me doubt the wording of Epiphanius.

“One said unto him, Good master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? He replied, Call not thou me good. One is good, God.” Marcion added, “the Father,” and instead of, “Thou knowest the commandments,” says, “I know the commandments.” [Luke 18:18-19]

Tertullian says a lot about "eternal" being missing in a similar quote, and I launched an argument that this had been transposed from another passage that was a lot more important to Marcionites. I'm not sure if Tertullian's source here was the Antitheses or an earlier anti-Marcionite source, but in either case, the point was made that there was a textual difference between the gospel of the Marcionites and Luke with respect to this question. It remains possible that the earlier source was comparing this gospel to Luke, but this and the beginning would be the only such examples. I continue to consider it more likely that the dispute was about the more important passage for Marcionites; or, at least, that the gospel of the Marcionites omitted "eternal" in the question in both places (both passages are attested in Epiphanius but the question here isn't quoted in the other one), for consistency.

If so, who knows how the phrasing in all the canonical gospels entered here? There are multiple possible options. It could have been the slip of a copyist of Epiphanius, the slip of Epiphanius himself, or the slip of a copyist of the Marcionite gospel, perhaps unfamiliar with the earlier debate that hinged on the word. All of these are plausible enough, consistent with scribal habits and citation habits. Notably, this is one of the times where Epiphanius has a "Marcion added" formula, implying that the previous words came from Luke. Then the only slip would be not taking full notice of the other change here when copying from Luke.

Here is the other one:

“And, behold, there were talking with him two men, Elijah and Moses in glory.” [Luke 9:30-31]

Most reconstructions approach this quote in this manner: Tertullian says they aren't shown in conversation. Epiphanius says that two man were talking with him. So a harmonization is proposed that they were talking with him, but the very words of the conversation weren't portrayed; i.e., that the quote in Luke was missing. This harmonization depends on knowing this detail from Epiphanius. The implication here, after performing the harmonization, is that the comparison was against Luke's gospel. But I don't think the harmonization is the correct sense of what Tertullian says. The harmonization could still survive if this is misunderstood by Tertullian, using his source, but I don't find much support otherwise for thinking that his source was comparing against Luke. So I don't think this harmonization is the text of Evangelion here.

If I then accept that Tertullian's source knew that the men were not shown talking with him, I have to amend Epiphanius.

There is one feature of Epiphanius that lends itself to an amendation. The word "appeared" doesn't show up at all, but the words "in glory" do. This is basically inconsistent, and the word "appeared" needs to be somewhere earlier here. Most reconstructions here take the view that Epiphanius has abbreviated, jumping over the words "who appeared." I don't think this makes the best sense of the quote from Epiphanius, given the way that the quote that remains is unnatural after this jump. I would suggest that it is unnatural because it reflects the source text, i.e. Evangelion, and that there was nothing inbetween the names of Moses and Elijah and the words "in glory."

We can then supply a beginning to this quote from Evangelion that is based on Matthew: "And behold, there appeared to them." The original quote from Evangelion being this: "And behold, there appeared to them two men, Moses and Elijah, in glory." (Roth makes an argument that Epiphanius has reversed the word order with respect to these two names, with reference to the word order elsewhere in Epiphanius being Elijah and Moses, with the exception of the elenchus here.) If so, Epiphanius substituted the wording of Luke in the middle of the quote.

This is of course its own kind of harmonization, which wouldn't occur to me without the testimony of Tertullian and his source. So the result is uncertain, but this is the proposal that I would make here.

[Peter Kirby]

Tertullian transposes the argument made about the ten lepers into the first story of the leper. A reference to Naaman is here also (pg. 291).

But even though Elisha, the Creator's prophet, cleansed no more than one leper, Naaman the Syrian, when there were all those many lepers in Israel, even this does not indicate that Christ was in some sense different, as though he were in this respect superior, that being a stranger he cleansed an Israelite leper, whom his own Lord had not had power to cleanse: because the Syrian was more easily cleansed as a sign throughout the gentiles of their cleansing in Christ the light of the gentiles, who were marked with those seven stains of capital sins, idolatry, blasphemy, homicide, adultery, fornication, false witness, fraud.

We now know, from Epiphanius, that this quote regarding Naaman appeared in the story of the ten lepers, which would mean that it wouldn't appear earlier in the story of the first leper or earlier than that, as in Luke, in the speech of Jesus (supposedly at Nazareth). Tertullian presented that argument here, with a reference to Elisha and Naaman, in the first story he encountered about the healing of a leper.

And here Tertullian indicates that he regarded this saying as appearing before, which is different than saying that it appeared here in the story of the ten lepers. This is especially true when it would be most natural for these words of Jesus, if appearing here, to appear closer to the end of the episode, after narrating about the one leper who came back. So Tertullian (pg. 461):

Now although he has said before this that there were many lepers in Israel in the days of Elisha the prophet and that none of them was cleansed, but only Naaman the Syrian, the matter of number will be no indication of a difference of gods, to the diminution of the Creator who heals only one, and the advancement of him who cleansed ten.

And here Tertullian makes his own argument with reference to the scriptures regarding Elisha and Naaman (pg. 461):

But why did he give no such order to the original [i.e. former] leper? Because neither did Elisha to Naaman the Syrian: but that does not mean he was not the Creator's prophet.

But there is no notice here either that Tertullian was aware that Jesus himself had quoted this story here.

Being unaware of where this quote actually appears (and regarding it as appearing earlier, as it does in Luke) indicates that Tertullian didn't have the gospel of the Marcionites in front of him.