My problem starts with your discussion of the evidence, let alone your interpretation that the emphasis is on YOU rather than ALSO.Ben C. Smith wrote:The more I think about this, the more I suspect you are simply not hearing the emphatic "you" in the text, since in English we have to express the pronoun, no matter what, whereas in Greek the pronoun does not generally get expressed unless the idea is emphatic. To convey the same sense in English, you have to imagine the word "you" with some sort of emphatic formatting:Ben C. Smith wrote:Even with the emphatic "you" in the Greek? Why is that emphatic "you" there if the previous subject was also "you"?Michael BG wrote:As I said you have not convinced me that having “you” then "so also you" is wrong. (I wonder if it is an Aramaicism?)
You already know how to read agricultural signs; so also YOU ought to read apocalyptic signs.
I am betting what you have been hearing is this:
You already know how to read agricultural signs; so you ALSO ought to read apocalyptic signs.
Ben.
However I am not sure you understood what I mean by my idea that the only reason Marcion has the word “men” in 21:30 is in the words of Catchpole that he caught it from 21:26. That if “men” was not in 21:26 then it wouldn’t be in 21:30. It is the opposite of “fatigue”. I am content to put this discussion to one side and return to it, if necessary in the future.
I can’t see any difference in the English. Please accept my apologies for my poor explanation. I think I will have to get down into the Latin and Greek.Ben C. Smith wrote:I see now. Thanks for explaining again. It was actually a botched job on my part getting the information in the Greek into the English translation, resulting mainly from the fact that the WEB translation reflects a different text than Nestle at that point. I have fixed it now. You will see a lot more differences on the Greek side of that verse now compared to the English, since the latter was already primed in the direction of Marcion's text to begin with while the former was not. Again, thanks for spotting that. I am sure there are going to be errors of that kind remaining.Tertullian is in Latin and he says the text of Marcion includes according to your translation, “the children of the bridegroom are unable to fast during the time the bridegroom is with them," and "they should afterwards fast, when the bridegroom was taken away from them,". So where does the change from “cannot” in Luke to “can” happen here? Where is the “make” here? Where is the change from Luke’s “in which” to “while” here? They do not seem to be present in the Latin. I am questioning that the Greek you are quoting as being in Marcion is there, because the words are not there in the Latin from which the Greek is meant to reflect.
Tertullian has “non possent ieiunare filii sponsi quamdiu cum eis esset sponsus, postea vero ieiunaturos promittens cum ablatus ab eis sponsus esset,”(no they to-fast sons bridegroom as-long-as with them it-was bridegroom afterwards [but] fast [promising] with withdrawn from them bridegroom it-was)
Luke has “δὲ Ἰησοῦς εἶπεν πρὸς αὐτούς, Μὴ δύνασθε τοὺς υἱοὺς τοῦ νυμφῶνος ἐν ᾧ ὁ νυμφίος μετ' αὐτῶν ἐστιν ποιῆσαι νηστεῦσαι;
(Now Jesus said to them, “No you-can the sons of-the bridechamber in which the bridegroom with them is to-make fast.)
ἐλεύσονται δὲ ἡμέραι, καὶ ὅταν ἀπαρθῇ ἀπ' αὐτῶν ὁ νυμφίος τότε νηστεύσουσιν ἐν ἐκείναις ταῖς ἡμέραις.
(Shall-be-coming yet days also whenever may-be-taken-away from them the bridegroom then they-shall-be-fasting in those the days.)
The differences are Marcion has “they” (possent), “sons bridegroom” (filii sponsi) instead of “sons bridechamber” “as-long-as” (quamdiu) instead of “in which” in the first clause. And “afterwards” instead of “Shall-be-coming yet days also” and no “in those the days”.
The change from sons of the bridechamber to sons of the bridegroom I think makes it later, not earlier and the other two changes in the first clause make little difference. The change from “in the future will come the time when” to “afterwards” I suggest is a later change. It is highly unlikely it would be changed the other way round.
I am sorry I thought I had been clear, but I had only implied it. I was saying that if the Matthean words “ῥάκους ἀγνάφου” were in Marcion, they could be there because they were present in the version of Luke that Marcion was using (i.e. he was using Bezae). This cannot be the case because they are not present in Bezae. However I don’t think they are present in Marcion because Tertullian, Epiphanius and Philastruis don’t have them.Ben C. Smith wrote:What theory are you referring to? You mentioned Bezae, so I gave you the full text. I was not sure what you were going to do with it.But Bezae does not have Matthew’s “ῥάκους ἀγνάφου” = “cloth unshrunk”. Sorry that theory does not apply here.
Ben.
Therefore there is no evidence that the Marcion version of Lk 5:33-39 is earlier than Luke’s version.
The next variation is Lk 6:1-19
There appears to be only weak attestations to any Marcion text from those you give and even then there are no significant variations from Luke which might be considered older.
The beatitudes and the woes Lk 6:20-26 might have some variations
Lk 6:20-26 (RSV)
[20] And he lifted up his eyes on his disciples, and said: "Blessed are you poor, for yours is the kingdom of God.
[21] "Blessed are you that hunger now, for you shall be satisfied. "Blessed are you that weep now, for you shall laugh.
[22]"Blessed are you when men hate you, and when they exclude you and revile you, and cast out your name as evil, on account of the Son of man!
[23] Rejoice in that day, and leap for joy, for behold, your reward is great in heaven; for so their fathers did to the prophets.
[24] "But woe to you that are rich, for you have received your consolation.
[25] "Woe to you that are full now, for you shall hunger. "Woe to you that laugh now, for you shall mourn and weep.
[26] "Woe to you, when all men speak well of you, for so their fathers did to the false prophets.
The Marcion text might be:
20 He lifted up his eyes and said, “Blessed are the poor, God’s Kingdom is theirs. 21 Blessed are they who hunger, for they will be filled. Blessed are you they who weep, for they will laugh.
22 Blessed are you when men shall hate you, … and mock you, and throw out your name as evil, for the Son of Man’s sake.
23 … for their fathers did the same thing to the prophets.
24 “But woe to you who are rich! For you have received your consolation.
25 Woe to you, you who are full, for you will be hungry. Woe to you who laugh now, for you will mourn and weep.
26 Woe to you when ~all~ men speak well of you, for their fathers did the same thing also to the false prophets.
It is generally accepted that Q had “you” and Matthew changed it to “theirs etc. as here in Marcion. The proof is the fatigue in Mt 5:11, 12. Also the beatitudes have been changed but not the woes (the woes are not in Matthew). It has been suggested that priests often prefer Matthew’s version of the stories in Mark and Luke. I don’t know if this goes back to the second century but it could. Therefore either Marcion was influenced by Church usage to change to the Matthean version, or those writing about Marcion misquoted him because of Church usage.
There is no older tradition here in Marcion than in Luke.