Roth Doesn't Have a Fucking Clue How "Marcionite" Luke 20:35 Read

[Secret Alias]

4.4.84 Luke 20:35–36 3.9.4—Et utique, si deus tuus veram quandoque substantiam angelorum hominibus pollicetur (erunt enim, inquit, sicut angeli)394 cur non et deus meus veram substantiam hominum angelis accommodarit unde sumptam? | 4.38.5 – . . . quos vero dignatus sit deus illius aevi possessione et resurrectione a mortuis neque nubere neque nubi, quia nec morituri iam sint, cum similes angelorum sint dei,395 resurrectionis filii facti.396 | 4.38.7—Nacti enim scripturae textum ita in legendo decucurrerunt: Quos autem dignatus est deus illius aevi, <ut illius aevi> deo adiungant,397 quo alium deum faciant illius aevi, cum sic legi oportet: Quos autem dignatus est deus, ut facta hic distinctione post deum ad sequentia pertineat illius aevi, id est: Quos dignatus sit deus illius aevi possessione et resurrectione. | 4.38.8—filii huius aevi nubunt et nubuntur . . . quos deus illius aevi, alter scilicet, dignatus sit resurrectione, . . . | 4.39.11—. . . quia nec morientur in illo, nec nubent, sed erunt sicut angeli. | 5.10.14—. . . erimus enim sicut angeli. | Mon. 10.5—Si autem in illo aevo neque nubent neque nubentur, sed erunt aequales angelis, . . . | Res. 36.4–5—Neque enim, si nupturos tunc negavit, ideo nec resurrecturos demonstravit, atquin filios resurrectionis appellavit per eam quodammodo nasci habentes, post quam non nubent, sed resuscitati. Similes enim erunt angelis, qua non nupturi, quia nec morituri, . . . | Res. 62.1—Sed huic disceptationi finem dominica pronuntiatio imponet: Erunt, inquit, tanquam angeli, si non nubendo, quia nec moriendo, . . . | Res. 62.4—Denique non dixit: Erunt angeli, ne homines negaret, sed tanquam angeli, ut homines conservaret: . . .398

Tsutsui refers to v. 35a as “eine der unklarsten Stellen im Evangelium Marcions.”399 The significant challenges lie not only in attempting to work back to the Greek from Tertullian’s Latin, but also in attempting to understand the interpretation that Tertullian attributes to Marcion in 4.38.7. Harnack reconstructed οὓς δὲ κατηξίωσεν ὁ θεὸς τοῦ αἰῶνος ἐκείνου τυχεῖν (καὶ?) τῆς ἀναστάσεως τῆς ἐκ νεκρῶν.400 Braun and Tsutsui both note the key difficulty surrounding how possessione is to be understood in the sentence.401 I would suggest that Tsutsui is correct in noting the problem with τυχεῖν in Harnack’s text, though I am not persuaded that the answer to the difficulty of the verse is to affirm the wording of Tertullian’s citation while questioning the interpretation that Tertullian attributes to Marcion.402 Rather, a different approach seems to be in order. First, although Tertullian does not elsewhere cite Luke 20:35a he repeats the citation of it several times in Adversus Marcionem. In 4.38.5 he uses vero in his citation, in 4.38.7 he twice uses autem and once no conjunction at all, and in 4.38.8 once again no conjunction. It is likely that Marcion read δέ in his text and that this alteration is due to Tertullian’s own tendency to omit and change introductory conjunctions. On the other hand, Tertullian consistently using dignatus sit/est deus would seem to indicate that Marcion did not read the substantive passive participle of Luke, and indeed the interpretation that Tertullian ascribes to Marcion requires ὁ θεός to be an external subject.403 A construction of the sentence that may allow both Marcion’s and Tertullian’s interpretation is precisely the Latin reading that Tertullian gives in both 4.38.5 and 4.38.7: quos dignatus sit deus illius aevi possessione et resurrectione.404 In Greek one could posit οὓς [δὲ] κατηξίωσεν ὁ θεὸς τοῦ αἰῶνος ἐκείνου τῆς κληρονομίας καὶ τῆς ἀναστάσεως,405 in all likelihood followed by τῆς ἐκ νεκρῶν as attested in 4.38.5. Thus, in 4.38.7–8 Tertullian, consonant with established citation habits, simply shortens the reference and mentions only being considered worthy of the resurrection by the God of that world. Luke 20:35b is multiply cited. igntp lists several witnesses attesting future forms of γαμέω, and it is interesting that in every reference other than 4.38.8 Tertullian uses a future form of the verb.406 This fact presents strong evidence that Marcion’s text read the present tenses of Luke. Harnack reconstructed οὔτε γαμοῦσιν οὔτε γαμίζονται, though, it should be noted that the Latin does not allow for a definitive decision on the Greek lemma used for the final term of the verse.407 Harnack reconstructed Luke 20:36 as οὐδὲ γὰρ ἀποθανεῖν ἔτι μέλλουσιν, ἰσάγγελοι γὰρ εἰσιν ‹καὶ υἱοὶ εἰσιν, vormarcionitischer Defekt› τοῦ θεοῦ, τῆς ἀναστάσεως υἱοὶ (γεγονότες?).408 Several points merit discussion. First, Harnack posited that Marcion’s text read μέλλουσιν with D, W, Θ, and a handful of other witnesses, which certainly is possible.409 In his other references, however, Tertullian never uses posse and always seems primarily to have the state of “not dying” in view instead of the absence of the ability to die (cf. 4.39.11; Res. 36.5 and 62.1). Therefore, it is possible that the morituri sint in 4.38.5 is due to Tertullian’s own conception and not the reading of Marcion’s text. Second, ἰσάγγελοι γὰρ εἰσιν for Marcion’s text is confirmed by Tertullian’s persistent use of the future tense elsewhere (cf. 3.9.4, 4.39.11, 5.10.14; Mon. 10.5; Res. 36.4–5, 62.1, 62.4). Third, Harnack believed that καὶ υἱοὶ εἰσιν was not present in Marcion’s text due to a pre-Marcion scribal error caused by homoeoteleuton.410 Once again, this view is possible, though Tertullian nowhere else includes this element in his references to this Lukan element, possibly due to the influence of Matt 22:30//Mark 12:25. It may be a simple omission or an imprecise reference by Tertullian. In either case, the words are unattested for Marcion. Fourth, Tertullian’s Latin cannot reveal whether the article preceded θεοῦ. Finally, Harnack wondered if Marcion’s text read γεγονότες, apparently due to Tertullian’s use of facere. According to igntp, this reading is attested elsewhere only in the Arabic Diatessaron, which makes it rather more likely that Tertullian is offering a loose rendering of ὄντες.

394  Moreschini rejects the addition of dei after angeli attested only in X.
395  The main text and apparatus in the sc edition are problematic, and apparently erroneous, on two accounts. The text reads . . . quia nec morituri iam sint, cum similes angelorum sunt dei, . . . and the apparatus provides data for the variant reading fiant for sint. The problem, however, is that the variant occurs not at morituri iam sint (the only occurrence of sint in the sc text), but at sint dei, which for some reason, and apparently without manuscript attestation, here reads sunt dei. For the correct text and variant cf. the apparatus in Moreschini’s text found in his Tertulliani Adversus Marcionem, 307–8 and in Kroymann’s edition in ccsl 1:649. Nevertheless, the sc apparatus, though placing the variant at the incorrect place in the manuscript, correctly records the witnesses noting that sint (actually before dei) is found in M, γ, Rigalti, and Kroymann and fiant (again before dei) in R, Gelenius, Pamelius, Oehler, and Evans.
396  Pamelius, Rigalti, Oehler, and Evans read et resurrectionis filii so that the passage is read “. . . since they are like the angels, being made the sons of God and of the resurrection” instead of “. . . seeing that they might be like the angels of God, being made sons of the resurrection.”
397  There are several text critical issues here. illius aevi is read twice in R3 and all editors attest illius aevi twice, but it is attested only once in M, γ, R1, and R2. adiungant is the reading of M and Kroymann, whereas γ, R1, and R2 attest adiungat. Rhenanus, followed by the other editors, amended the text to adiungunt in his third edition. Kroymann added ut in order to preserve the reading of M and Braun comments “Il nous paraît indispensable d’accueillir ici la correction de Kroymann qui supplée <ut> entre les deux illius aevi . . . Le parallélisme ita in legendo . . . ut/sic legi . . . ut garantit que telle était la structure de la phrase à l’origine” (Contre Marcion iv, 470n3).
398  Additional allusions to Luke 20:35–36//Matt 22:30//Mark 12:25 occur in 3.9.7; An. 56.7; and Cult. fem. 1.2.5.
399  Tsutsui, “Evangelium,” 120.
400  Harnack, Marcion, 229*.
401  Braun (trans.), Contre Marcion iv, 471n5 and Tsutsui, “Evangelium,” 120.
402  Tsutsui, “Evangelium,” 120. Though Zahn, Geschichte, 2:487 rightly criticized the view of Ritschl, Hilgenfeld, and Volckmar, who viewed the text as simply containing the canonical reading with the addition ὑπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ, he also appeared simply to assume that possessione is rendering τυχεῖν. In addition, Zahn understood καί as “also,” rather than questioning its presence, as Harnack did. Though Zahn’s interpretation is not impossible, possessione et resurrectione do strongly give the appearance of being two things of which some are considered worthy (cf. also nn. 404 and 405).
403  As in Luke 10:21 above, it seems unlikely that Tertullian created a reading, then created a Marcionite interpretation requiring that reading, only to refute the interpretation.
404  Interpreting dignari with an accusative object (quos) and two ablatives of respect (possessione and resurrectione) along with an external subject (deus). The genitive phrase (illius aevi) is then taken either with deus or possessione.
405  Tsutsui, with reference to Luke 18:18 and 1 Cor 15:50, also suggests that if possessione is understood in an absolute sense, as the interpretation attributed to Marcion requires, the Greek behind it cannot be τυχεῖν but rather κληρονομία/κληρονομῆσαι. At the same time he also notes that the sentence structure remains unusual (“Evangelium,” 120). τυχεῖν is not attested in numerous ol manuscripts, the Vulgate, sys, and syp, the Arabic Diatessaron, and several other witnesses; however, Tertullian’s use of posessione seems to indicate that more than simply τοῦ αἰῶνος ἐκείνου preceded καὶ τῆς ἀναστάσεως in Marcion’s text.
406  In 4.39.11 and Mon. 10.5 he uses future indicatives, in Res. 36.4–5 a future indicative and a future participle, and in Res. 62.1 a future participle.
407  ἐκγαμίζω, ἐκγαμίσκω, γαμίζω, and γαμίσκω are all attested in the Greek manuscript tradition.
408  Harnack, Marcion, 229*.
409  D. Plooij also posited this reading for Marcion’s text (“Eine enkratische Glosse im Diatessaron,” znw 22 [1923]: 15).
410  Harnack, Marcion, 229*. The phrase is also not in D, several ol manuscripts, and sys

[Secret Alias]

Remember Tertullian's point is to say the same words are found in Marcion's and his (Tertullian's) gospel. They are supposedly repunctuated to say something "heretical" by Marcion. No one can figure it out how the Greek read to anyone else satisfaction.

The Diatessaron reads "Is it not for this that ye have erred, because ye know not the scriptures, nor the power of God? And the sons of this world take wives, and the women become the men's; but those that have become worthy of that world, and the resurrection from among the dead, do not take wives, and the women also do not become the men's."

Ephrem "The children of this world take wives , et cetera.5 Those who are worthy of that [ heavenly ] world are like the angels.6 If [ some ] people , in their similarity with angels , do not marry , what shall we say of those who dare to revile angels"