The Marcionite gospel with accompanying sources.

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
andrewcriddle
Posts: 2816
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:36 am

Re: The Marcionite gospel with accompanying sources.

Post by andrewcriddle »

Ben C. Smith wrote:There they are, 24 chapters of Luke encoded to Roth's reconstruction of the Evangelion and accompanied by the relevant ancient source texts. Enjoy. :)

Ben.
Thanks Ben

Andrew Criddle
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: The Marcionite gospel with accompanying sources.

Post by Ben C. Smith »

andrewcriddle wrote:
Ben C. Smith wrote:There they are, 24 chapters of Luke encoded to Roth's reconstruction of the Evangelion and accompanied by the relevant ancient source texts. Enjoy. :)
Thanks Ben
You are quite welcome.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: The Marcionite gospel with accompanying sources.

Post by John2 »

My knowledge of Marcion is very basic so I've been following this general line of discussion with interest and am keeping an open mind. But one thing that suddenly comes to mind, as I look at the introduction of the Marcionite gospel, is the idea that Luke and Acts imitate Josephus, which seems odd for Marcion to do if his gospel is otherwise (or purposely) without Judaic elements (which is my present understanding).
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: The Marcionite gospel with accompanying sources.

Post by Secret Alias »

Finally a smart comment.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: The Marcionite gospel with accompanying sources.

Post by Ben C. Smith »

Now that I have Jason BeDuhn, The First New Testament, I have gone back and added some coding to this reconstruction of the Marcionite gospel. Details of this updated coding are included in the OP. Having both Roth's specific verbal reconstruction and BeDuhn's general thematic reconstruction (where it does not overlap with Roth's, which takes precedence) ought to provide some more perspective on the text.

The new coding is not based on color; it is based on font choices (underlining and italicizing) for the black (unattested) words or phrases left over from Roth.

Ben.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: The Marcionite gospel with accompanying sources.

Post by mlinssen »

Ben, you have done amazing work here - and it's an awfully handy one as well.
Thank you very much!

Martijn Linssen
Stuart
Posts: 878
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2014 12:24 am
Location: Sunnyvale, CA

Re: The Marcionite gospel with accompanying sources.

Post by Stuart »

Ben,

A few criticisms.

1) Many of the transposition of words are Latinisms, where Tertullian has translated the phrase into Latin. We see some examples in Greek-Latin diglots, where the same transposition has occurred when the Latin leaks into the Greek. These transpositions likely do not reflect the actual Marcionite text.

2) Tertullian sometimes paraphrases or quotes from memory rather than give an exact quote. So word differences need to be careful.

3) Some of the quotes from Tertullian are from the Catholic text, so you have to be careful not to bleed that into your rendering.

4) The Catholic text has bleed into Epiphanius at points, so one needs to be careful.

5) DA part 5 is dispute by Clabeaux as actually presenting Catholic text and not Marcionite. I did an analysis of the 18:35-43 passage and found that there is a very late HT (verse 39 missing), that suggests the text has had contact with Catholic text long posterior to the Marcionite. Also of note. Rufinus uses statim which more often reflects εὐθέως than παραχρῆμα in DA – this could reflect corruptions in both the Greek text we have and also in the Greek text Rufinus translated.

The reason I note this is that DA 5 cannot be considered any better than a category 3 witness, reflecting a local text that may have Marcionite influence but itself is not Marcionite. If we accepted the Greek without challenge you would have a hapax legomenon for παραχρῆμα, even as Rufinus' text shows a reasonable probability that in the text he translated εὐθέως might have stood there. I agree however that there is a good chance ὁ Ναζωραῖος was not in the Marcionite text, and is correctly reflected in DA. This also harkens back to comment about Tertullian, that his reporting when paraphrased or from memory rather than directly from the text, often allows the local Catholic readings he was familiar with to creep in.

6) "A spirit does not bones" passage should give us pause about the construction of tehhe Marcionite gospel. Either a common source for Terullian and Epiphanius was incorrectly read as Marcionite text when in fact it was Catholic text used in retort, or else the Marcionite text already had some catholic scribal imprints at the time the sect broke from the Church and froze the text.

Overall quibbles. But in the main I think you did a good job shooting down those who somehow claim the text is Mark or Matthew or something other than a form of what became Luke.
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: 6.4.5 Luke 5:36–37: Marcion has wine / wineskins and then patch, just like Thomas

Post by mlinssen »

Ben's work has been corrected below:
CORRECTION START and CORRECTION END mark where he ignored Roth's comment about wine(skins) and patch being in reversed order, something which didn't get corrected even after adding BeDuhn who explicitly reconstructs it this way and even labels it "one of the best attested facts we have about the text".
I have opted for this way of redacting as it keeps the entire original page intact, including all Patristic comment.
I have highlighted those for the wine as well as the patch so it's easy to spot that the wine-patch order is attested 5 times, and the patch-wine order only 2 times
Ben C. Smith wrote: Thu Aug 20, 2015 7:10 pm
Luke 5.33-39, the controversy over fasting.

33 Οἱ δὲ εἶπαν πρὸς αὐτόν, Οἱ μαθηταὶ Ἰωάννου νηστεύουσιν πυκνὰ καὶ δεήσεις ποιοῦνται, ὁμοίως καὶ οἱ τῶν Φαρισαίων, οἱ δὲ σοὶ ἐσθίουσιν καὶ πίνουσιν. 34 ὁ δὲ Ἰησοῦς εἶπεν πρὸς αὐτούς, Μὴ δύνασθε τοὺς υἱοὺς τοῦ νυμφῶνος ἐν ᾧ ὁ νυμφίος μετ' αὐτῶν ἐστιν ποιῆσαι νηστεῦσαὶ; [Marcion: μὴ δύνανται νηστεύειν ο υἱοὶ τοῦ νυμφῶνος, ἐφ᾽ ὅσον μετ᾽ αὐτῶν ἐστιν ὁ νύμφιος.] 35 ἐλεύσονται δὲ ἡμέραι, καὶ ὁταν ἀπαρθῇ ἀπ' αὐτῶν ὁ νυμφίος τότε νηστεύσουσιν ἐν ἐκείναις ταῖς ἡμέραις.

CORRECTION START

36 Ἔλεγεν δὲ καὶ παραβολὴν πρὸς αὐτοὺς ὅτι 37 καὶ οὐδεὶς βάλλει οἶνον νέον εἰς ἀσκοὺς παλαιούς· εἰ δὲ μή γε, ῥήξει ὁ οἶνος ὁ νέος τοὺς ἀσκούς, καὶ αὐτὸς ἐκχυθήσεται καὶ οἱ ἀσκοὶ ἀπολοῦνται· 38 ἀλλὰ οἶνον νέον εἰς ἀσκοὺς καινοὺς βλητέον. 39 [καὶ] οὐδεὶς πιὼν παλαιὸν θέλει νέον· λέγει γάρ, Ὁ παλαιὸς χρηστός ἐστιν.
Οὐδεὶς ἐπίβλημα ῥάκους ἀγνάφου ἀπὸ ἱματίου καινοῦ σχίσας ἐπιβάλλει ἐπὶ ἱμάτιον παλαιόν· εἰ δὲ μή γε, καὶ τὸ καινὸν σχίσει καὶ τῷ παλαιῷ οὐ συμφωνήσει τὸ ἐπίβλημα τὸ ἀπὸ τοῦ καινοῦ.

CORRECTION END
33 They said to him,Why do John’s disciples often fast and pray, likewise also the disciples of the Pharisees, but yours eat and drink?” 34 He said to them,The friends of the bridechamber cannot fast as long as [Marcion: while] the bridegroom is with them, can they?35 But the days will come when the bridegroom will be taken away from them. Then they will fast in those days.”

CORRECTION START

36 He also told a parable to them. 37 No one puts new wine into old wine skins, or else the new wine will burst the skins, and it will be spilled, and the skins will be destroyed. 38 But new wine must be put into fresh wine skins, and both are preserved. 39 No man having drunk old wine immediately desires new, for he says, ‘The old is better.’ ”
“No one puts a piece of unshrunk fabric from a new garment on an old garment, or else he will tear the new, and also the piece from the new will not match the old.

CORRECTION END


Tertullian, Against Marcion 3.15.5: [5] Quomodo denique docet novam plagulam non adsui veteri vestimento, nec vinum novum veteribus utribus credi, adsutus ipse et indutus2 nominum senio? Quomodo abscidit evangelium a lege, tota lege vestitus, in nomine scilicet Christi? Quis illum prohibuit aliud vocari, aliud praedicantem aliunde venientem, cum propterea nec corporis susceperit veritatem ne Christus creatoris crederetur? / [5] How is it, again, that he tells us that "a piece of new cloth is not sewed on to an old garment," or that "new wine is not trusted to old bottles," when he is himself patched and clad in an old suit of names? How is it he has rent off the gospel from the law, when he is wholly invested with the law,--in the name, forsooth, of Christ? What hindered his calling himself by some other name, seeing that he preached another (gospel), came from another source, and refused to take on him a real body, for the very purpose that he might not be supposed to be the Creator's Christ?
Tertullian, Against Marcion 4.11.4-6: [4] Unde autem et Ioannes venit in medium? Subito Christus, subito et Ioannes. Sic sunt omnia apud Marcionem, quae suum et plenum habent ordinem apud creatorem. Sed de Ioanne cetera alibi. Ad praesentes enim quosque articulos respondendum est. Nunc illud tuebor, ut demonstrem et Ioannem Christo et Christum Ioanni convenire, utique prophetae creatoris, qua Christum creatoris, atque ita erubescat haereticus, Ioannis ordinem frustra frustratus. [5] Si enim nihil omnino administrasset Ioannes, secundum Esaiam vociferator in solitudinem et praeparator viarum dominicarum per denuntiationem et laudationem paenitentiae, si non etiam ipsum inter ceteros tinxisset, nemo discipulos Christi manducantes et bibentes ad formam discipulorum Ioannis assidue ieiunantium et orantium provocasset, quia, si qua diversitas staret inter Christum et Ioannem et gregem utriusque, nulla esset comparationis exactio, vacaret provocationis intentio. [6] Nemo enim miraretur et nemo torqueretur, si diversae divinitatis aemulae praedicationes de disciplinis quoque inter se non convenirent, non convenientes prius de auctoritatibus disciplinarum. Adeo Ioannis erat Christus et Ioannes Christi, ambo creatoris, et ambo de lege et prophetis praedicatores et magistri. Sed et Christus reiecisset Ioannis disciplinam, ut dei alterius, et discipulos defendisset, ut merito aliter incedentes, aliam scilicet et contrariam initiatos divinitatem. At nunc humiliter reddens rationem quod non possent ieiunare filii sponsi quamdiu cum eis esset sponsus, postea vero ieiunaturos promittens cum ablatus ab eis sponsus esset, nec discipulos defendit, sed potius excusavit, quasi non sine ratione reprehensos, nec Ioannis reiecit disciplinam, sed magis concessit, tempori Ioannis eam praestans, ut tempori suo eam destinans, reiecturus alioquin eam et defensurus aemulos eius, si non ipsius fuisset iam quae erat. / [4] Whence, too, does John come upon the scene? Christ, suddenly; and just as suddenly, John! After this fashion occur all things in Marcion's system. They have their own special and plenary course in the Creator's dispensation. Of John, however, what else I have to say will be found in another passage. To the several points which now come before us an answer must be given. This, then, I will take care to do ----demonstrate that, reciprocally, John is suitable to Christ, and Christ to Joan, the latter, of course, as a prophet of the Creator, just as the former is the Creator's Christ; and so the heretic may blush at frustrating, to his own frustration, the mission of John the Baptist. [5] For if there had been no ministry of John at all----"the voice," as Isaiah calls him, "of one crying in the wilderness," and the preparer of the ways of the Lord by denunciation and recommendation of repentance; if, too, he had not baptized (Christ) Himself along with others, nobody could have challenged the disciples of Christ, as they ate and drank, to a comparison with the disciples of John, who were constantly fasting and praying; because, if there existed any diversity between Christ and John, and their followers respectively, no exact comparison would be possible, nor would there be a single point where it could be challenged. [6] For nobody would feel surprise, and nobody would be perplexed, although there should arise rival predictions of a diverse deity, which should also mutually differ about modes of conduct, having a prior difference about the authorities upon which they were based. Therefore Christ belonged to John, and John to Christ; while both belonged to the Creator, and both were of the law and the prophets, preachers and masters. Else Christ would have rejected the discipline of John, as of the rival god, and would also have defended the disciples, as very properly pursuing a different walk, because consecrated to the service of another and contrary deity. But as it is, while modestly giving a reason why "the children of the bridegroom are unable to fast during the time the bridegroom is with them," but promising that "they should afterwards fast, when the bridegroom was taken away from them," He neither defended the disciples, (but rather excused them, as if they had not been blamed without some reason), nor rejected the discipline of John, but rather allowed it, referring it to the time of John, although destining it for His own time. Otherwise His purpose would have been to reject it, and to defend its opponents, if He had not Himself already belonged to it as then in force.
Tertullian, Against Marcion 4.11.9-10: [9] Errasti in illa etiam domini pronuntiatione qua videtur nova et vetera discernere. Inflatus es utribus veteribus et excerebratus es novo vino, atque ita veteri, id est priori evangelio, pannum haereticae novitatis assuisti. In quo alter creator, velim discere. Cum per Hieremiam praecepit, Novate vobis novamen novum, nonne a veteribus avertit? cum per Esaiam edicit, Vetera transierunt, et ecce nova quae ego facio, nonne ad nova convertit? Olim hanc statuimus destinationem pristinorum a creatore potius repromissam a Christo exhiberi, sub unius et eiusdem dei auctoritate, cuius sint et vetera et nova. [10] Nam et vinum novum is non committit in veteres utres qui et veteres utres non habuerit, et novum additamentum nemo inicit veteri vestimento nisi cui non defuerit et vetus vestimentum. Ille non facit quid, si faciendum non est, qui habeat unde faciat, si faciendum esset. Itaque si in hoc dirigebat similitudinem, ut ostenderet se evangelii novitatem separare a legis vetustate, suam demonstrabat et illam a qua separabat alienorum separatione non fuisse notandam, quia nemo alienis sua adiungit ut ab alienis separare possit. / [9] You have erred also in that declaration of Christ, wherein He seems to make a difference between things new and old. You are inflated about the old bottles, and brain-muddled with the new wine; and therefore to the old (that is to say, to the prior) gospel you have sewed on the patch of your new-fangled heresy. I should like to know in what respect the Creator is inconsistent with Himself. When by Jeremiah He gave this precept, "Break up for yourselves new pastures," does He not turn away from the old state of things? And when by Isaiah He proclaims how "old things were passed away; and, behold, all things, which I am making, are new," does He not advert to a new state of things? We have generally been of opinion that the destination of the former state of things was rather promised by the Creator, and exhibited in reality by Christ, only under the authority of one and the same God, to whom appertain both the old things and the new. [10] For new wine is not put into old bottles, except by one who has the old bottles; nor does anybody put a new piece to an old garment, unless the old garment be forthcoming to him. That person only does not do a thing when it is not to be done, who has the materials wherewithal to do it if it were to be done. And therefore, since His object in making the comparison was to show that He was separating the new condition of the gospel from the old state of the law, He proved that that from which He was separating His own ought not to have been branded as a separation of things which were alien to each other; for nobody ever unites his own things with things that are alien to them, in order that he may afterwards be able to separate them from the alien things.
Epiphanius, Panarion 42.2.1: Καὶ ἄρχεται ὡς εἰπεῖν ἐξ αὐτῆς τῆς ἀρχῆς καὶ ὡς ἀπὸ θυρῶν τῶν ζητημάτων προτείνειν τοῖς κατ' ἐκεῖνο καιροῦ πρεσβυτέροις τοῦτο τὸ ζήτημα λέγων «εἴπατέ μοι, τί ἐστι τό· οὐ βάλλουσιν οἶνον νέον εἰς ἀσκοὺς παλαιοὺς οὐδὲ ἐπίβλημα ῥάκους ἀγνάφου ἐπὶ ἱματίῳ παλαιῷ· εἰ δὲ μή γε, καὶ τὸ πλήρωμα αἴρει καὶ τῷ παλαιῷ οὐ συμφωνήσει. μεῖζον γὰρ σχίσμα γενήσεται». / 2:1 And he began—at the very beginning, as it were, and as though at the starting-point of the questions at issue—to put this question to the elders of that time: 'Tell me, what is the meaning of, 'Men do not put new wine into old bottles, or a patch of new cloth unto an old garment; else it both taketh away the fullness, and agreeth not with the old. For a greater rent will be made.' '
Philastrius, Book of Diverse Heresies 45.2: Quid est, inquit [Marcion], quod in evangelio dicente domino scriptum est? "Nemo pannum rudem mittet in vestimentum vetus, neque vinum novum in utres veteres, alioquin rumpuntur utres et effunditur vinum." Et iterum: "Non est arbor bona quae facit malum fructum, neque arbor mala quae faciat bonum fructum. / What is it, says he, that is written in the gospel, the Lord speaking? "No one puts a piece of raw fabric on an old garment, nor new wine in old skins, or else the skins are ruptured and the wine is poured out." And again: "It is not a good tree which makes evil fruit, nor an evil tree which makes good fruit."
Adamantius Dialogue, according to Dieter T. Roth (page 359): 90,5–9 (2.16)—[Mark.] [follows citation of John 13:34] . . . λέγει γὰρ πάλιν ὁ σωτήρ βάλλουσιν οἶνον νέον εἰς ἀσκοὺς νέους καὶ ἀμφότεροι συντηροῦνται. . . . πάλιν γὰρ λέγει ὁ σωτήρ οὐδεὶς ἐπιβάλλει ἐπιβλημα ῥάκους ἀγνάφου ἱματίῳ παλαιῷ. . . . | . . . Dicit enim salvator quia Si mittatur vinum novum in utres novos, utraque conservabuntur. . . . Et iterum: Nemo assuit assumentum panni rudis ad vestimentum vetus. . . . | 90,22–23 (2.16)—[Mark.] . . . οὐδεὶς γάρ, φησίν, ἐπιβάλλει ἀπὸ ῥάκους ἀγνάφου ἐπὶ ἱματίῳ παλαιῷ. | . . . Nemo enim, inquit, assuit pannum rudem ad vestimentum vetus.
Pseudo-Ephrem, An Exposition of the Gospel, according to Dieter T. Roth (page 400): 64—You cannot order the bridegroom’s companions to fast, as long as the bridegroom shall be with them. |
Ephrem, Hymns Against Heresies, according to Dieter T. Roth (page 400): 47.4—Auch der Fremde . . . kannte . . . als Bräutigam jeden Tag (Freude und) Ergötzen—während Johannes in Trauer, Entsagung und Fasten (lebte).—Nicht können die Söhne des Brautgemaches fasten. Die Leute des Schöpfers sind Faster,—der Fremde, der nicht existiert, ist ein Schlemmer.
Ephrem, Hymns Against Heresies, according to Dieter T. Roth (page 400): 44.6–7—Nicht tut man neuen Wein in abgenützte Schläuche. Er gab (neue) Sinne—wie (neue) Gebote, neues Ohr—wie (neues) Gebot. Denn von einem alt gewordnen Ohr—werden neue Melodien nicht vernommen. Darüber muss man staunen, dass er (neue) Gebote gab,—nicht die alten, und dass er (die alten) Glieder gab,—nicht fremde! Die Sinne, die er heilte,—verkünden laut von ihm: Auch wenn neu sind—die Aussprüche, die er tat, ist er (dennoch) nicht der Fremde!
Dieter T. Roth remarks (page 414) concerning verses 36-38: This parable is attested in multiple sources; however, the precise wording can no longer be reconstructed. It is likely that ὁ οἶνος was discussed before τὸ ἐπίβλημα and the Matthean ἐπίβλημα ῥάκους ἀγνάφου may have been present in Marcion’s text. The attestation of v. 38 is uncertain.

Ben C. Smith made a mistake by sticking to the canonical order of patch and then wineskins, whereas both his sources, Roth as well as BeDuhn, explicitly attest to the reverse order - and he even quotes Roth himself:

Roth page 289-290

6.4.5 Luke 5:36–37 42.2.1—[Marcion speaking] εἲπατέ μοι, τί ἐστι τό· οὐ βάλλουσιν οἶνον νέον εἰς ἀσκοὺς παλαιοὺς οὐδὲ ἐπίβλημα ῥάκους ἀγνάφου ἐπὶ ἱματίῳ παλαιῷ· εἰ δὲ μή γε, καὶ τὸ πλήρωμα αἴρει καὶ τῷ παλαιῷ οὐ συμφωνήσει. μεῖζον γὰρ σχίσμα γενήσεται.
In his discussion of Marcion prior to his direct interaction with Marcion’s texts, Epiphanius refers to the parable found in Luke 5:36–37 within the context of his account of Marcion’s “debate” with the elders in Rome.81 The verses are attested for Marcion in Tertullian, Philastrius, Ephrem, and in the Adamantius Dialogue, though here in Epiphanius, it is not entirely clear whether in this introductory material Marcion’s own text is in view. It is interesting, however, that when comparing Epiphanius’s reference to the verse here with the testi-mony of Tertullian, Epiphanius attests the order “wine” then “patch” as also found in Tertullian’s references to the verses. In addition, Epiphanius attests the reading ἐπίβλημα ῥάκους ἀγνάφου (Matt 9:16//Mark 2:21), which may be underlying a play on words in Tertullian. Overall, Epiphanius begins with the Matthean wording from Matt 9:17a and 9:16, continues with a completely sin-gular reading and sense, and concludes with wording similar to Matt 9:16c though with a future tense form of γίνομαι and referring to a σχίσμα that is μεῖζον rather than χεῖρον.

Roth page 97

Harnack recognized that this parable “im Wortlaut genau nicht mehr fest-zustellen [ist],” an assessment with which Tsutsui agrees.58 The parable is also attested by Epiphanius, Ephrem, Philastrius, and in the Adamantius Dialogue, which means that here, and whenever there are multiple witnesses to Marcion’s text, no final conclusion concerning readings in that text can be made without considering the testimony of those witnesses. Concerning Tertullian’s testimony, first, in 4.11.9–10, Tertullian twice makes reference to the wine and then to the patch, which is the order found in Gos. Thom. 47. This is different from Tertullian’s order in 3.15.5, where the reverse order, found in the Synoptic Gospels (Matt 9:16–17//Mark 2:21–22//Luke 5:36–37), is followed.
When considering only Tertullian’s testimony, some hesitancy about conclud-ing that Tertullian definitively attests the reverse order of the elements for Marcion’s Gospel arises as Tertullian himself chose the variant order—wine then patch—in Or. 1.1. Second, Tertullian employed a word-play in his accu-sations leveled against Marcion in 4.11.9 that is suggestive of the underlying reading. The phrase pannum haereticae novitatis59 seems to play on ἐπίβλημα ῥάκους ἀγνάφου (as in Matt 9:16//Mark 2:21) and not on the Lukan ἐπίβλημα ἀπὸ ἱματίου καινοῦ (Luke 5:36).60

See also pages 359, 360.
Roth's reconstruction:

5:36–38 [4.4.6; 6.4.5; 7.4.2; 8.6]—[This parable is attested in multiple sources;
however, the precise wording can no longer be reconstructed. It is likely that ὁ οἶνος was discussed before τὸ ἐπίβλημα and the Matthean ἐπίβλημα ῥάκους ἀγνάφου may have been present in Marcion’s text. The attestation of v. 38 is uncertain]

BeDuhn page 134-135:

Order: 5.37–38 precedes 5.36 Adam* 2.16; Epiphanius, Pan. 42.2.1;
Tertullian, Marc. 4.11.9–12; Ps.-Eph A 9, 15, 18. That Marcion’s text had the two parables of 5.36–38 in an order the reverse of that found in Mark, Matthew, and Luke is one of the best attested facts we have about the text, demonstrated by the order they are discussed in Tertullian, Epiphanius, Adamantius, and the anti-Marcionite tract Pseudo-Ephrem A. Particularly noteworthy is the fact that both Thomas 47 and the Diatessaron follow the order of the Evangelion.
This would suggest that the order now found in Luke may be a late conformation of the text to Matthew and Mark (apparently already so in Tertullian’s copy of Luke, see Marc. 3.15.5).
5.37–38 Adam* 2.16; Epiphanius, Pan. 42.2.1; Tertullian, Marc. 4.11.9–12;
Ps.-Eph A 9; Philastrius, Div. her. 45. Based on the preponderance of witnesses, the Evangelion (as OL ms e) in v. 38 reads “must be poured,” in agreement with the wording in v. 37 and the parallel in Mat u 9.17, and not “must be cast” as in almost all witnesses to Luke.
Pseudo-Ephrem A appears to attest the “minor agreement” between Matthew and Luke here (“the wine is spilled out”). Harnack concluded that the Evangelion probably lacked “and the bags will be ruined” (Marcion, E37), but this, too, is attested by Pseudo-Ephrem A.
It appears to have had the additional clause “and both are preserved” at the end of the verse (Adam* 2.16), which is a harmonization to Matt 9.17, and is attested as well in several Greek manuscripts, the Old Latin (OL), and other versions of Luke; but in this case Pseudo-Ephrem A lacks the clause. Such variants among the witnesses at u est typical textual variation in circulating copies of the Evangelion, carrying forward variants that had already been introduced into the transmission of the Evangelion before it became isolated within the Marcionite community.

BeDuhn's reconstruction:

37“No one pours new wine into old bags; and if one does, then the new wine will burst the bags, and it will be spilled out. 38But new wine must be poured into fresh bags, and both are preserved.
36“And no one puts an unshrunk patch on an old cloak;
but if one does, then both the full fabric tears away and the old (cloak) does not hold together, for a greater tear occurs.”

Thomas:

47.1. IS said: there is not strength of a human to be mounted on two horses and to stretch two bows,
47.2. and there is not strength of a slave to serve two slaveowners, Or he will make be Honour the one and the other one he will make be "Hubrize" him;
47.3a. not usually a human drinks old wine and
47.3b. within the hour he Desires to drink new wine, and
47.4. not usually they cast new wine to old Wineskin in order that they will not split; and
47.5. not usually they cast old wine to new Wineskin So that he will not destroy him;
47.6. not usually they glue~ old rag old to new* garment Since therefore a split will come to be.

Last edited by mlinssen on Fri Dec 09, 2022 5:18 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: 6.4.5 Luke 5:36–37: Marcion has wine / wineskins and then patch, just like Thomas

Post by MrMacSon »

mlinssen wrote: Thu Dec 08, 2022 12:59 am Ben's work has been corrected below:
You might be better or it might have been better to have fully cited Ben's work and put your corrections outside it.

Thus
Ben C. Smith wrote: Thu Aug 20, 2015 7:10 pm
Luke 5.33-39, the controversy over fasting.

.
33 Οἱ δὲ εἶπαν πρὸς αὐτόν, Οἱ μαθηταὶ Ἰωάννου νηστεύουσιν πυκνὰ καὶ δεήσεις ποιοῦνται, ὁμοίως καὶ οἱ τῶν Φαρισαίων, οἱ δὲ σοὶ ἐσθίουσιν καὶ πίνουσιν. 34 ὁ δὲ Ἰησοῦς εἶπεν πρὸς αὐτούς, Μὴ δύνασθε τοὺς υἱοὺς τοῦ νυμφῶνος ἐν ᾧ ὁ νυμφίος μετ' αὐτῶν ἐστιν ποιῆσαι νηστεῦσαὶ; [Marcion: μὴ δύνανται νηστεύειν ο υἱοὶ τοῦ νυμφῶνος, ἐφ᾽ ὅσον μετ᾽ αὐτῶν ἐστιν ὁ νύμφιος.] 35 ἐλεύσονται δὲ ἡμέραι, καὶ ὁταν ἀπαρθῇ ἀπ' αὐτῶν ὁ νυμφίος τότε νηστεύσουσιν ἐν ἐκείναις ταῖς ἡμέραις.
.
36 Ἔλεγεν δὲ καὶ παραβολὴν πρὸς αὐτοὺς ὅτι Οὐδεὶς ἐπίβλημα ῥάκους ἀγνάφου ἀπὸ ἱματίου καινοῦ σχίσας ἐπιβάλλει ἐπὶ ἱμάτιον παλαιόν· εἰ δὲ μή γε, καὶ τὸ καινὸν σχίσει καὶ τῷ παλαιῷ οὐ συμφωνήσει τὸ ἐπίβλημα τὸ ἀπὸ τοῦ καινοῦ. 37 καὶ οὐδεὶς βάλλει οἶνον νέον εἰς ἀσκοὺς παλαιούς· εἰ δὲ μή γε, ῥήξει ὁ οἶνος ὁ νέος τοὺς ἀσκούς, καὶ αὐτὸς ἐκχυθήσεται καὶ οἱ ἀσκοὶ ἀπολοῦνται· 38 ἀλλὰ οἶνον νέον εἰς ἀσκοὺς καινοὺς βλητέον. 39 [καὶ] οὐδεὶς πιὼν παλαιὸν θέλει νέον· λέγει γάρ, Ὁ παλαιὸς χρηστός ἐστιν.
.
.
33 They said to him,Why do John’s disciples often fast and pray, likewise also the disciples of the Pharisees, but yours eat and drink?” 34 He said to them,The friends of the bridechamber cannot fast as long as [Marcion: while] the bridegroom is with them, can they? 35 But the days will come when the bridegroom will be taken away from them. Then they will fast in those days.”
.
.
.
36 He also told a parable to them. “No one puts a piece of unshrunk fabric from a new garment on an old garment, or else he will tear the new, and also the piece from the new will not match the old. 37 No one puts new wine into old wine skins, or else the new wine will burst the skins, and it will be spilled, and the skins will be destroyed. 38 But new wine must be put into fresh wine skins, and both are preserved. 39 No man having drunk old wine immediately desires new, for he says, ‘The old is better.’ ”
.

And
mlinssen wrote: Thu Dec 08, 2022 12:59 am
Ben's work has been corrected below:

Luke 5.36-39

.
CORRECTION START

36 Ἔλεγεν δὲ καὶ παραβολὴν πρὸς αὐτοὺς ὅτι 37 καὶ οὐδεὶς βάλλει οἶνον νέον εἰς ἀσκοὺς παλαιούς· εἰ δὲ μή γε, ῥήξει ὁ οἶνος ὁ νέος τοὺς ἀσκούς, καὶ αὐτὸς ἐκχυθήσεται καὶ οἱ ἀσκοὶ ἀπολοῦνται· 38 ἀλλὰ οἶνον νέον εἰς ἀσκοὺς καινοὺς βλητέον. 39 [καὶ] οὐδεὶς πιὼν παλαιὸν θέλει νέον· λέγει γάρ, Ὁ παλαιὸς χρηστός ἐστιν.
Οὐδεὶς ἐπίβλημα ῥάκους ἀγνάφου ἀπὸ ἱματίου καινοῦ σχίσας ἐπιβάλλει ἐπὶ ἱμάτιον παλαιόν· εἰ δὲ μή γε, καὶ τὸ καινὸν σχίσει καὶ τῷ παλαιῷ οὐ συμφωνήσει τὸ ἐπίβλημα τὸ ἀπὸ τοῦ καινοῦ.

CORRECTION END
.
.
CORRECTION START

36 He also told a parable to them. 37 No one puts new wine into old wine skins, or else the new wine will burst the skins, and it will be spilled, and the skins will be destroyed. 38 But new wine must be put into fresh wine skins, and both are preserved. 39 No man having drunk old wine immediately desires new, for he says, ‘The old is better.’ ”
“No one puts a piece of unshrunk fabric from a new garment on an old garment, or else he will tear the new, and also the piece from the new will not match the old.

CORRECTION END
.


You could even do them side-by-side for the English and the Greek. Thus:

Greek:

Ben's version
Martijn's Corrected version
.
36 Ἔλεγεν δὲ καὶ παραβολὴν πρὸς αὐτοὺς ὅτι
Οὐδεὶς
ἐπίβλημα ῥάκους ἀγνάφου ἀπὸ ἱματίου καινοῦ σχίσας ἐπιβάλλει ἐπὶ ἱμάτιον παλαιόν· εἰ δὲ μή γε, καὶ τὸ καινὸν σχίσει καὶ τῷ παλαιῷ οὐ συμφωνήσει τὸ ἐπίβλημα τὸ ἀπὸ τοῦ καινοῦ.


37 καὶ οὐδεὶς βάλλει οἶνον νέον εἰς ἀσκοὺς παλαιούς· εἰ δὲ μή γε, ῥήξει ὁ οἶνος ὁ νέος τοὺς ἀσκούς, καὶ αὐτὸς ἐκχυθήσεται καὶ οἱ ἀσκοὶ ἀπολοῦνται·
.
38 ἀλλὰ οἶνον νέον εἰς ἀσκοὺς καινοὺς βλητέον.
.
39 [καὶ] οὐδεὶς πιὼν παλαιὸν θέλει νέον· λέγει γάρ, Ὁ παλαιὸς χρηστός ἐστιν.
.
.
36 Ἔλεγεν δὲ καὶ παραβολὴν πρὸς αὐτοὺς ὅτι
.
.
.
.
.
37 καὶ οὐδεὶς βάλλει οἶνον νέον εἰς ἀσκοὺς παλαιούς· εἰ δὲ μή γε,
ῥήξει ὁ οἶνος ὁ νέος τοὺς ἀσκούς, καὶ αὐτὸς ἐκχυθήσεται καὶ οἱ
ἀσκοὶ ἀπολοῦνται·

.
38 ἀλλὰ οἶνον νέον εἰς ἀσκοὺς καινοὺς βλητέον.
.
39 [καὶ] οὐδεὶς πιὼν παλαιὸν θέλει νέον· λέγει γάρ, Ὁ παλαιὸς χρηστός ἐστιν. Οὐδεὶς ἐπίβλημα ῥάκους ἀγνάφου ἀπὸ ἱματίου καινοῦ σχίσας ἐπιβάλλει ἐπὶ ἱμάτιον παλαιόν· εἰ δὲ μή γε, καὶ τὸ καινὸν σχίσει καὶ τῷ παλαιῷ οὐ συμφωνήσει τὸ ἐπίβλημα τὸ ἀπὸ τοῦ καινοῦ.
.


English:

Ben's version
Martijn's Corrected version
.
36 He also told a parable to them.
“No one puts
a piece of unshrunk fabric from a new garment on an old garment, or else he will tear the new, and also the piece from the new will not match the old.
.
37 No one puts new wine into old wine skins, or else the new wine will burst the skins, and it will be spilled, and the skins will be destroyed.
.
38 But new wine must be put into fresh wine skins, and both are preserved.
.
39 No man having drunk old wine immediately desires new, for he says, ‘The old is better.’ ”
.
.
36 He also told a parable to them.
.
.
.
.
37 No one puts new wine into old wine skins, or else the new wine
will burst the skins, and it will be spilled, and the skins will be destroyed.

.
38 But new wine must be put into fresh wine skins, and both are preserved.
.
39 No man having drunk old wine immediately desires new, for he says,
‘The old is better.’
No one puts a piece of unshrunk fabric from a new garment on an old garment, or else he will tear the new, and also the piece from the new will not match the old.
.

mlinssen wrote: Thu Dec 08, 2022 12:59 am
Thomas:

47.1. IS said: there is not strength of a human to be mounted on two horses and to stretch two bows,
47.2. and there is not strength of a slave to serve two slaveowners, Or he will make be Honour the one and the other one he will make be "Hubrize" him;
47.3a. not usually a human drinks old wine and
47.3b. within the hour he Desires to drink new wine, and
47.4. not usually they cast new wine to old Wineskin in order that they will not split; and
47.5. not usually they cast old wine to new Wineskin So that he will not destroy him;
47.6. not usually they glue~ old rag old to new* garment Since therefore a split will come to be.

Last edited by MrMacSon on Thu Dec 08, 2022 2:52 am, edited 3 times in total.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: The Marcionite gospel with accompanying sources.

Post by MrMacSon »

This is worth highlighting:
mlinssen wrote: Thu Dec 08, 2022 12:59 am
BeDuhn p.134:

Order: 5.37–38 precedes 5.36 Adam* 2.16; Epiphanius, Pan. 42.2.1; Tertullian, Marc. 4.11.9–12; Ps.-Eph A 9, 15, 18. That Marcion’s text had the two parables of 5.36–38 in an order the reverse of that found in Mark, Matthew, and Luke is one of the best attested facts we have about the text, demonstrated by the order they are discussed in Tertullian, Epiphanius, Adamantius, and the anti-Marcionite tract Pseudo-Ephrem A. Particularly noteworthy is the fact that both Thomas 47 and the Diatessaron follow the order of the Evangelion. This would suggest that the order now found in Luke may be a late conformation of the text to Matthew and Mark (apparently already so in Tertullian’s copy of Luke, see Marc. 3.15.5).

Though what order of Thomas 47, the Diatessaron and the Evangelion really were might be debateable (?)
ie. Thomas and the Diatessaron might not have 'followed' the Evangelion
Post Reply