Biblical bias: Schaff's harmonisation of Tertullian (kingdom of heaven)

[mlinssen]

All translations are falsifications, and the Christians who made them are to be trusted as much as those who wrote the original texts

Schaff is a fine example as well

Tertullian Adversus Marcionem 4.13.13 Spiritus domini super me, propter quod unxit me ad evangelizandum pauperibus. Beati mendici, quoniam illorum est regnum caelorum
4.14.1 Beati mendici (sic enim exigit interpretatio vocabuli quod in
Graeco est), quoniam illorum est regnum dei

https://www.tertullian.org/articles/eva ... 9book4.htm

Schaff:

https://ccel.org/ccel/tertullian/agains ... v.xiv.html
”3965 “Blessed are the needy, because theirs is the kingdom of heaven.”3966

Blessed are the needy” (for no less than this is required for interpreting the word in the Greek,3937 “because theirs is the kingdom of heaven

Now why, oh why, would Schaff do this?

https://archive.org/details/fivebooksof ... 4/mode/2up

Page 224 first couple of lines and page 227 last couple of lines

[mlinssen]

For the Latin impaired among you: regnum caelorum means kingdom of-heavens, regnum dei means kingdom of-god

It's a good thing that Schaff apparently knew what Tertullian intended to say, isn't it?

I've said it a thousand times and I'll say it again: all translations are falsified and christified, and the only way to study any and all of this is by reading the original texts in the original language

Needless to say, Thomas has heavens, and Luke has god - and Tertullian's pen slips here

54. IS said: some Fortunate are the poor: yours is the reign of king of the heavens

[Secret Alias]

In the same chapter of the same work by Tertullian

Beati mendici (sic enim exigit interpretatio vocabuli quod in Graeco est), quoniam illorum est regnum dei

Beati mendici, quoniam illorum est regnum caelorum

Your point is, how is this explained? Let's start with Roth.

https://books.google.com/books?id=hNYuB ... 22&f=false

[mlinssen]

In the same chapter of the same work by Tertullian

Beati mendici (sic enim exigit interpretatio vocabuli quod in Graeco est), quoniam illorum est regnum dei

Beati mendici, quoniam illorum est regnum caelorum

Your point is, how is this explained? Let's start with Roth.

https://books.google.com/books?id=hNYuB ... 22&f=false

Of course Roth pretends that Tertullian is reading Matthew here, but don't you think it's a little odd to mention Matthew 86 times in a book about Luke? That's about 6% of the mentions of Luke

It is undeniable that MatthewLuke contain twice as much Thomasine material as Mark, and why wouldn't Matthew copy the kingdom of the heavens as well?

"For discussion of this issue cf. Dieter T. Roth, “Matthean Texts and Tertullian’s Accusations in Adversus Marcionem,” jts 59 (2008): 580–97 as well as the brief comments in Lieu, “Marcion and the Synoptic Problem,” 737–38."

What if, for every mention of Matthew, there is also a parallel with Thomas? What would your advice be then?

[MrMacSon]

Dieter T. Roth, “Matthean Texts and Tertullian’s Accusations in Adversus Marcionem,” JTS 59 (2008): 580–97

Abstract
This article examines the curious phenomenon that Tertullian, despite explicitly contending that Marcion mutilated the Gospel of Luke, appears to accuse Marcion of having excised passages from it which are found in, and usually only in, Matthew. Scholarly explanations for this phenomenon include his having committed some type of error, his employing the term ‘Gospel’ for the fourfold Gospel, and his text of Luke containing readings from Matthew or Mark that are not in Luke as we know it. A version of the view that Tertullian's text of Luke contained harmonizations to Matthew or Mark was advocated by David S. Williams in a 1991 article, and subsequently embraced by Andrew Gregory. Though the possibility of harmonizations in Tertullian's text must be taken seriously, Williams's ‘exploratory and programmatic’ arguments for Tertullian's potentially extensive use of a harmonized source are, for both methodological and conceptual reasons, less than persuasive. After discussing the weaknesses in Williams's view, this article argues that in all but one case, where Tertullian's memory failed him, the best explanation for his accusations is that he viewed the four gospels as comprising ‘the Gospel’, and therefore that his accusations in Adversus Marcionem were motivated by Marcion having rejected the Gospel of Matthew.

• https://academic.oup.com/jts/article-ab ... m=fulltext
• https://www.jstor.org/stable/23971061 ( <- full article via jstor )

wow. So many more hoops jumped through.

Key points:

Tertullian...appears to accuse Marcion of having excised passages from it which are found in, and usually only in, Matthew.

'Scholarly' explanations for this phenomenon include [1] his having committed some type of error, [2] his employing the term ‘Gospel’ for the fourfold Gospel, and [3] his text of Luke containing readings from Matthew or Mark that are not in Luke as we know it [a 'harmonization'].

• the possibility of harmonizations in Tertullian's text must be taken seriously

this article argues that in all but one case, where Tertullian's memory failed him, the best explanation for his accusations is that he viewed the four gospels as comprising ‘the Gospel’

• therefore...his accusations in Adversus Marcionem were motivated by Marcion having rejected the Gospel of Matthew

Does proposing Tertullian " viewed the four gospels as comprising ‘the Gospel’ " take the cake ??

There's a lot of nonsense here too:

https://books.google.com/books?id=hNYuB ... 22&f=false

What if, for every mention of Matthew, there is also a parallel with Thomas?

• a coup de gras?

eta:
Maybe Roth redeems himself here:

• Roth (2022) 'The Testimony for Marcion's Gospel in NA28: Revisiting the Apparatus to Luke in the Light of Recent Research' New Testament Studies 68(1): 52-60
  
  
  
  Abstract
  Scholarly work on Luke has often noted the significance of Marcion's Gospel for understanding the textual history of the third canonical Gospel. It is not surprising, therefore, that in the past new insights into Marcion's Gospel have led to revisions in the apparatus of the highly influential Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece, now in its 28th edition. In view of the precedent for continually updating the Nestle-Aland text and apparatus, this article revisits the apparatus to Luke in the light of recent research on Marcion's Gospel in order to highlight problematic references that should be changed or removed in the apparatus of future Nestle-Aland editions.
  
  https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals ... B8ED0B001B
  
  
  
  

This looks interesting too:

• Roth, 'Raising the Bar: An Overlooked Element for Identifying a Staurogram within Nomina Sacra,' Novum Testamentum 63 (2021): 112–27.
  
  
  
  Abstract
  Recent discussions of the “meta-data” of NT manuscripts have included consideration of the so-called “staurogram” found in some forms of the nomen sacrum for σταυρόω or σταυρός. In several early NT papyri, this tau/rho monogram is clearly visible; however, in certain passages (e.g., in 𝔓⁴⁵, 𝔓⁶⁶, and 𝔓¹²¹), its presence is either not entirely certain or debated. In such instances, the discussion must necessarily appeal to other elements in or features of the manuscript in order to posit the presence or the absence of a staurogram. This brief study considers a heretofore overlooked paleographical feature as evidence for identifying the presence of unclear or disputed instances of a staurogram in nomina sacra, namely the elevated manner in which the attendant supralinear stroke is written.
  
  https://brill.com/view/journals/nt/63/1 ... anguage=en
  
  
  
  

[mlinssen]

Matthew in Marcion

I will be going by Roth's, and that starts at page 8:

"As early as 1689 Richard Simon raised questions about the reliability of some elements in Tertullian’s testimony concerning Marcion’s Gospel,5"

and the footnote points to

5 Cf. Richard Simon, Histoire critique du texte du Nouveau Testament, où l’on établit la verité des actes sur lesquels la religion Chrêtienne est fondée (Rotterdam: Reiner Leers, 1689), 127– 28. A major component in Simon’s discounting the value of Tertullian’s testimony was that Tertullian, despite stating that Marcion mutilated Luke, appears to accuse him of excising passages found in Matthew. For discussion of this issue cf. Dieter T. Roth, “Matthean Texts and Tertullian’s Accusations in Adversus Marcionem,” jts 59 (2008): 580–97 as well as the brief comments in Lieu, “Marcion and the Synoptic Problem,” 737–38.

There are many more mentions of other authors who note this anomaly, and one can find them in Roth's.
The following pieces of text contain 'Matthew' in combination with Luke's / Marcion's text, and I will number them, and then go by Thomas to see if there are any matches. I have been lazy and just copy-pasted it all, and one will have to filter the footnote numbering from the verse numbering themselves sometimes.
I am also following Roth to the letter / order, meaning that verse order follows the ToC; hence ther continuation at (20) etc

1. 17:23–24 footnote 75: "The citation of the parallel Matt 24:27 in Adam. 50,1-3 (1.25) is not an attestation of Marcion’s Gospel. Though Adamantius introduces the reference with λέγει δὲ καὶ ἐν τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ, the previous reference to Matt 21:7 as a statement found in “the Gospel,” reveals that, in context, Matthew is in view."
2. The difficulty is that μάχαιραν is the reading of Matt 10:34 and, according to igntp, never, apart from the 13th-century minuscule 1242, appears in Luke 12:51.19
3. Luke 6:22 At the same time it is notable that in Tertullian’s citation of Matt 5:11 in Scorp. 9.2, he also writes beati eritis, which, once again, is attested by a handful of ol manuscripts.73 It is possible that both Marcion’s Gospel and Tertullian’s copy of Matthew contained ἔσεσθε, but it may also be that Tertullian simply chose to translate ἔστε with a Latin future as he interpreted the meaning of the verb “to be” in the only beatitude that has a verb after μακάριοι.
4. Luke 6:23b The second half of the verse is multiply cited, though in Scorp. 9.2 the citation is a conflation of Matt 5:12 and Luke 6:23
5a. Luke 6:31 Though, according to the apparatus of Tischendorf and von Soden, γίνομαι instead of ποιέω is unattested in the Greek manuscript tradition of Matthew, that the former underlies fiant/fieri in k and h is almost certain.
5b. Once again, that Tertullian attests the expected homines in Scorp. 10.3 would tend to confirm Tertullian’s attesting a different Greek text for Marcion than that of Luke
6. Tertullian’s phrasing quaerentes videre eum, conflates Luke 8:20 and Matt 12:46, as in Luke Jesus’ mother and brothers are standing outside ἰδεῖν θέλοντές
σε, but in Matthew ζητοῦντες αὐτῷ λαλῆσαι
7. Luke 9:24 Tertullian simply leaves the noun to be understood despite the fact that Matt 10:39 has an overt reference to τὴν ψυχὴν αὐτου. In other words, in three attestations to this element common to both Luke and Matthew, Tertullian once offers a pronoun, once the entire phrase, and once nothing at all
Since Tertullian in his other writings reveals the strong influence of Matt 10:33 on his reproduction of this saying,184 it is at least possible that Tertullian sees the verse in Marcion’s text, begins to cite it accurately, and then slips into a rendering of the verse influenced by Matthew
8. Luke 10:21 Gratias ago (εὐχαριστῶ), according to igntp, is not attested for either Luke 10:21 or, accord-
ing to Tischendorf and von Soden, Matt 11:25. A.F.J. Klijn, however, provides evidence from several church fathers and witnesses to the diatessaron for this reading (“Matthew 11:25 // Luke 10:21” in New Testament Textual Criticism: Its Significance for Exegesis: Essays in Honour of Bruce M. Metzger [ed. Eldon Jay Epp and Gordon D. Fee; Oxford: Clarendon, 1981], 6–9). Though the evidence of other witnesses is necessary before coming to a conclusion, Klijn states that the addition of confiteor after gratias ago “is possibly from the hand of Tertullian, which means that Marcion’s text probably read εὐχαριστῶ” (ibid., 9).
9. Luke 11:2 Harnack’s view of the original form of the Lord’s Prayer in Luke (cf. n. 251) led him to posit that the presence of this petition was a pre-Marcionite intrusion from Matthew into the text used by Marcion (Marcion, 208* and idem, “Der ursprüngliche Text,” 28). Harnack without comment offered the spelling ἐλθάτω as found in א and several other manuscripts, instead of ἐλθέτω
10. Luke 12:2 Second, an additional οὐδέν has been inserted before κρυπτόν. Unfortunately, this element of the verse is not multiply cited, but its complete absence in the textual tradition of both Matthew and Luke may lend some credence to the supposition that the repetition is due to Tertullian himself.291
11. Luke 12:10 Fourth, Luke speaks of “blaspheming” the Holy Spirit where Tertullian’s quote repeats the idea of “speaking against.” Once again, it is true that this reading creates a better parallel, and it is also the reading of Matthew; however, it is also attested in numerous ol manuscripts
12. Luke 12:24 Third, Harnack notes that nec in apothecas condunt is Matthean and then leaves unanswered the question of whether Tertullian’s memory of Matt 6:26 has influenced the wording or whether Marcion’s text had been harmonized to Matthew
13a. Luke 12:27-28 Harnack believed that Marcion’s text read οὐχ ὑφαίνει οὔτε νήθει,329 though the fact that these other witnesses attest οὔτε νήθει οὔτε ὑφαίνει may mean that the slightly different phrasing, possibly under the influence of 12:24 and νήθει being the second action in both Matthew and Luke, is due to Tertullian.
13b. It is worth noting that not only does Luke not make the statement that the lilies are clothed, neither does Matthew (cf. Matt 6:28–30); yet, in both Idol. 12.2 and Ux. 1.4.7 Tertullian speaks of the clothing of the lilies
14. Luke 12:58-9 ἀποδῷς is also attested and may have preceded the phrase, as in D (cf. Matt 5:26);342 however, Tertullian’s proclivity to Matthew’s reading may once again be the reason for the phrasing here (cf. An. 35.1).343
15. Luke 20:1,4 Though the parallels in Matt 21:25//Mark 11:30 also read the singular ἐξ οὐρανοῦ, it is worth noting that in Matt the plural occurs twice as often as the singular (55 vs. 27 times). In Luke the singular occurs 31 times and the plural only 4 times. It is quite possible that the frequency of the occurrence of the plural in Matthew has influenced the way Tertullian refers to “heaven(s).
16. Luke 21:8 Fourth, such a simple omission may become more probable when one considers the attested reading ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ Χριστός, which is the reading of the parallel Matt 24:5.415 Harnack believed that Marcion’s text had been influenced by the text of Matthew, which is indeed possible.416 At the same time, however, in 5.1.3 Tertullian cites the pithy statement in its Matthean form

20a. Luke 5:33-35 The Lukan text has been influenced by Matthew in several manuscripts, and it is possible to view Marcion’s text, as Harnack did, as also containing harmonization with Matthew.
20b. Though Matthew reads πενθεῖν in the question, D, W, 1424, and many of the versions read νηστεύειν
21. First, ἐπείνασαν appears only in the parallel Matt 12:1, a fact that Harnack also recognized but which did not keep him from including the term in Marcion’s text. Yet, several factors argue against Harnack’s conclusion: though present in Matthew, the term appears in no witness to Luke 6:1;
22. Luke 8:4,8 Yet, the fact that Tertullian introduces the citation with the idea that Christ frequently spoke these words, that this is the form always found in Matthew and only in Matthew (cf. Matt 11:5, 13:9, and 13:43), and that it is essentially unattested for Luke makes it quite likely that this form is due to Tertullian and not the reading of Marcion’s Gospel.
23. Luke 13:19 It is possible that Matt 13:31 can shed light on more than simply the verb. The entire phrase in Matthew reads ἔσπειρεν ἐν τῷ ἀγρῷ αὐτοῦ. If Tertullian has greater familiarity with the Matthean text, he may have begun harmonizing elements from Marcion’s Gospel and the Matthean reading at the end of the citation. This suggestion would explain the Matthean verb and prepositional phrase as well as the Lukan horto.
24. Luke 20:41,44 Harnack recognized that Tertullian only alludes to vv. 41–44, though he was convinced that v. 41 had been influenced by Matt 22:42. He therefore reconstructed (τί ὑμῖν) δοκεῖ (περὶ τοῦ) Χριστοῦ; (τίνος) υἱός (ἐστιν; λέγουσιν αὐτῷ) Δαυείδ [sic].353 Harnack argued that this influence is revealed in the fact that existimabant (δοκεῖ) is only found in Matthew and that only there do the Scribes, though in Matthew it is actually the Pharisees, say that the Christ is David’s son.354

30. Luke 8:19-20 In his other four citations of this verse, Epiphanius appears to cite Matt 12:47; however, the opening of the statement appears verbatim in Matthew and Luke
31. Luke 8:23-24 Second, the rebuking of the wind καὶ τῇ θαλάσσῃ also reflects the reading from Matthew.109
32. Luke 9:16 115 The plural “heavens” occurs only 4 times in Luke compared to 31 occurrences of the singular. In Matthew, however, the plural occurs 55 times and the singular 27 times. It is possible that familiarity with the Matthean plural influenced the reference here.
33. Luke 10:21 Gregory, following Klijn, rightly notes “although the omission of καὶ τῆς γῆς can be explained as the result of a particular Marcionite tendency, nevertheless this is not a necessary explanation.”136
34. Luke 12:31 Epiphanius’s citation in the first listing of this scholion begins with ζητεῖτε δέ, a reading also attested by D, d, and a.170 Both listings of the scholion also read πάντα, the reading of Matt 9:33 but also of many (mostly later) Lukan manuscripts. It is difficult to evaluate whether Epiphanius is offering readings from Marcion’s text corresponding to the text attested in D, for example, or is being influenced by the Matthean version
35. Harnack reconstructed . . . . Ἰούδας . . . και� � ἤγγισε καταφιλῆσαι αὐτόν καὶ εἶπεν (χαῖρε ῥαββεί [sic]).227 It seems that both Zahn and Harnack may have been too hasty in their assessment. First, there is no manuscript evidence for Luke ever containing the reading καταφιλῆσαι.228 Second, Epiphanius seems to have omitted the universally attested τῷ Ἰησοῦ after ἤγγισε. Third, in both Matthew and Mark, the reference to Judas saying something precedes the kiss. Finally, and most significantly, in Epiphanius’s two other references to this scene in 38.4.13 and 66.63.9–10, he clearly draws from Matt 26:48–50 and in both instances cites Judas’s words.

40a. Luke 6:29 In the final element of 6:29a, an element to which Tertullian alluded, the Adamantius Dialogue’s use of παράθες is unattested for either Luke or Matthew and likely is due to the author of the dialogue.59
40b. The attestation of Luke 6:29b is closer to the Lukan version in the Greek text of the Adamantius Dialogue with its use of the verb αἴρω and the order ἱμάτιον/ χιτών. Only the verb προστίθημι, used neither in Matthew nor in Luke, tends more towards the sense of Matt 5:40 (ἄφες αὐτω)
41. Luke 6:38 The final words of Luke 6:38, also attested by Tertullian, are cited in two locations in the Adamantius Dialogue. As rightly noted by Tsutsui, since the comments immediately following the citation in 32,17 (1.15) refer to a clear citation of Matt 10:33 as being found in “the same Gospel,” the implication is that this citation is taken from Matt 7:2 and not Luke 6:38.64 Interestingly, the Lukan ἀντιμετρηθήσεται (though this verb is also attested in some manuscripts of Matthew, including N, Θ, and f 13) is found here as is the same otherwise unattested word order seen in Tertullian (ᾧ μετρεῖτε μέτρῳ). It is unlikely, how- ever, that the Adamantius Dialogue is here confirming Tertullian’s word order, even if the reverse order is found in 66,32–33 (2.5).65
42. Luke 6:45 This verse is attested by Tertullian and Origen. The citation here is similar to the situation in Luke 6:38, in that Adamantius begins his statement with a ref- erence to a demonstration of his point from “the Gospel” followed by a citation from Matthew (Matt 7:15). The following citations from Matt 12:35, 34; and 15:19 thus reveal their Matthean origin both through the context and their wording. Worth noting, however, is that the order of the elements cited with the word- ing from Matt 12:35, 34 is that found in Luke 6:45 and that the Lukan προφέρει is used.75
43. Luke 7:19 The question posed by the disciples of John the Baptist in Luke 7:19 is attested by Tertullian. In the Adamantius Dialogue, Megethius once again argues with a citation essentially drawn from Matthew (Matt 11:2–3),77 and Adamantius repeats elements in their Matthean form (cf. ἕτερον).78 With regard to Marcion’s Gospel, Zahn simply noted “cf. Dl. 819” without further comment;79 however, Harnack offered the observation “In Dial. i, 26 ist v. 19 nach Matth. Zitiert.”80 It is presumably for this reason that Harnack rightly followed the wording of Tertullian and reconstructed only the final element of Luke 7:19

That's it. I have ommitted a few that didn't seem directly related to a specific Lukan verse.
I haven't gone by all the occurrences of 'Matt', of which there are 318 - but let it be noted that there is an abundance of "Matthean" text attested to by the Patristics

Loose "comments":

A. In addition, Lieu has recently rightly noted: There is a marked tendency in patristic citation for Matthew to influence quotations of Luke (or Mark), and this is more generally evident in both Epiphanius and Adamantius.67 Indeed, in the index volume to Epiphanius’s works noted above (Epiphanius iv: Register zu den Bänden i–iii), there are 9.5 columns of verses cited from Matthew, 1.5 columns of verses cited from Mark, and 8.5 columns of verses cited from Luke, though here one needs to take into account that many of the verses are cited only in Epiphanius’s refutation of Marcion. Thus, the tendency already seen in Tertullian once again must be taken into account for Epiphanius.

B. 136 Gregory, Reception of Luke and Acts, 181. Cf. Klijn, “Matthew 11:25 // Luke 10:21,” 13–14. Klijn’s summary is helpful: “Marcionite influence on early Greek papyri seems impossible. This means that here also variant readings originated spontaneously, possibly influenced by the usage of the lxx where in this phrase the words καὶ τῆς γῆς are often omitted, as we have seen above. . . . The omission . . . can be explained from a particular Marcionite tendency, but incidental errors, free rendering in quotations, and the influence of the lxx are equally possible as sources of corruption” (“Matthew 11:25 // Luke 10:21,” 14).

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

To be continued later - it's quite a bit of work and I'll likely do a Reply to this so they can easily be compared side-to-side

[MrMacSon]

Matthew in Marcion

I will be going by Roth's, and that starts at page 8:

• p.8 of what? Roth's The Text of Marcion's Gospel( Leiden: Brill, 2015) ??

[mlinssen]

This looks interesting too:

• Roth, 'Raising the Bar: An Overlooked Element for Identifying a Staurogram within Nomina Sacra,' Novum Testamentum 63 (2021): 112–27.
  
  
  
  Abstract
  Recent discussions of the “meta-data” of NT manuscripts have included consideration of the so-called “staurogram” found in some forms of the nomen sacrum for σταυρόω or σταυρός. In several early NT papyri, this tau/rho monogram is clearly visible; however, in certain passages (e.g., in 𝔓⁴⁵, 𝔓⁶⁶, and 𝔓¹²¹), its presence is either not entirely certain or debated. In such instances, the discussion must necessarily appeal to other elements in or features of the manuscript in order to posit the presence or the absence of a staurogram. This brief study considers a heretofore overlooked paleographical feature as evidence for identifying the presence of unclear or disputed instances of a staurogram in nomina sacra, namely the elevated manner in which the attendant supralinear stroke is written.
  
  
  
  

You can find my summary of all 10 Christian staurograms and 14 Chrestian stirograms in the Commentary, pages 459-486.
A preview:

All_10.png (233.01 KiB) Viewed 701 times

All14.png (229.11 KiB) Viewed 701 times

[mlinssen]

See the above post. Comments inline, all from Berean of course

1. 17:23–24 footnote 75: "The citation of the parallel Matt 24:27 in Adam. 50,1-3 (1.25) is not an attestation of Marcion’s Gospel. Though Adamantius introduces the reference with λέγει δὲ καὶ ἐν τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ, the previous reference to Matt 21:7 as a statement found in “the Gospel,” reveals that, in context, Matthew is in view."

Luke 22 And He said to the disciples, “ The days will come when you will desire to see one of the days of the Son of Man, and you will not see it . 23 And they will say to you, ‘Behold there,’ or ‘Behold here.’ Do not go forth nor follow. 24 For as the lightning shines, flashing from the one end of the sky to the other end of the sky, thus the Son of Man will be in His day. 25 But first it behooves Him to suffer many things, and to be rejected by this generation.

Matthew 26 Therefore if they say to you, ‘Behold, He is in the wilderness,’ do not go forth; or ‘Behold, in the inner rooms,’ do not believe. 27 For just as the lightning comes forth from the east and shines as far as the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. 28 For wherever the carcass may be, there the vultures will be gathered.

Thomas 91. said they to he : say it to us : you who? So-that will make-be Believe [dop] you(SG) said he to they : you(PL) make-be Tempt [dop] the face of the(F) heaven with the earth and he-who of your(SG.PL) presence outward did-not you(PL) know he and this Time you(PL) know not [dop] make-be Tempt [dop] he

Weak / absent parallel. Yet Luke 22 / Matthew 26 parallel Thomas 59:

59. said IS : look behind he-who be-living While you(PL) be-living So-that : will-not you(PL) die and and you(PL) seek [dop] behold [dop] he and you(PL) will be-able find-strength not [dop] behold

+++++++++++++++
2. The difficulty is that μάχαιραν is the reading of Matt 10:34 and, according to igntp, never, apart from the 13th-century minuscule 1242, appears in Luke 12:51.19

51 Do you think that I came to give peace on the earth? No, I say to you, but rather division

100% Thomas

16. IS said: Perhaps they think, the humans: I have come to cast a Peace upon the World, and they know not: I have come to cast some divisions upon the earth; a fire, a sword, a War. There are five Indeed that will come to be in a house; there are three that will come to be upon two, and two upon three: the father upon the child and the child upon the father, and they will stand to their feet in case they been made Single-One.

ⲙⲁⲕⲁⲣⲓⲟⲥ Fortunate - Noun Logion 7, 18, 19, 49, 54, 58, 68, 69, 103

Inspiration for the word only 2-3 logia down in Thomas

+++++++++++++++
3. Luke 6:22 At the same time it is notable that in Tertullian’s citation of Matt 5:11 in Scorp. 9.2, he also writes beati eritis, which, once again, is attested by a handful of ol manuscripts.73 It is possible that both Marcion’s Gospel and Tertullian’s copy of Matthew contained ἔσεσθε, but it may also be that Tertullian simply chose to translate ἔστε with a Latin future as he interpreted the meaning of the verb “to be” in the only beatitude that has a verb after μακάριοι.

22 Blessed are you when men shall hate you, and when they shall exclude you, and shall insult you , and shall cast out your name as evil, on account of the Son of Man.

100% Thomas

68. said IS : yourselves some(PL) Fortunate Whenever if they "should" hate you(PL) and they make-be Persecute [dop] you(PL) and they will fall not to Place in the place have they Persecute [dop] you(PL) upper-part of heart/mind he
69. said IS some(PL) Fortunate are these-ones have they Persecute [dop] they upper-part in their heart/mind they-who therein are have know the father in a(n) truth some(PL) Fortunate they-who being-hungry So-that they will make-satisfied [dop] the(F) belly of he-who desire

+++++++++++++++
4. Luke 6:23b The second half of the verse is multiply cited, though in Scorp. 9.2 the citation is a conflation of Matt 5:12 and Luke 6:23

23 Rejoice in that day, and leap for joy; for behold, your reward is great in heaven. For their fathers according to these things used to treat the prophets likewise.

Nope

+++++++++++++++
5a. Luke 6:31 Though, according to the apparatus of Tischendorf and von Soden, γίνομαι instead of ποιέω is unattested in the Greek manuscript tradition of Matthew, that the former underlies fiant/fieri in k and h is almost certain.

31 And as you desire that men should do to you, do likewise to them.

Nope, but observe the previous verse:

30 Give to everyone asking you, and from the one taking away what is yours, do not ask it back

95. said IS : if-it-befall has/ve you(PL) copper do-not give [dop] the(F) interest Rather give [dop] he to he-who you(PL) did take they not from-the-hand-of he

+++++++++++++++
5b. Once again, that Tertullian attests the expected homines in Scorp. 10.3 would tend to confirm Tertullian’s attesting a different Greek text for Marcion than that of Luke

(Idem)

+++++++++++++++
6. Tertullian’s phrasing quaerentes videre eum, conflates Luke 8:20 and Matt 12:46, as in Luke Jesus’ mother and brothers are standing outside ἰδεῖν θέλοντές σε, but in Matthew ζητοῦντες αὐτῷ λαλῆσαι

20 And it was told Him, “Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside, wishing to see You.”

100% Thomas - typical sandbox case

99. said the(PL) Disciple to he : your(PL.SG) brothers with your(F.SG) mother they standing-on-foot they on the part of-outside said he to they : they-who of these place who/which make-be [dop] the desire of my father these-ones are my(PL) brothers with my(F) mother themselves is who/which will go-inward to the(F) reign-of(F) king of my father

+++++++++++++++
7. Luke 9:24 Tertullian simply leaves the noun to be understood despite the fact that Matt 10:39 has an overt reference to τὴν ψυχὴν αὐτου. In other words, in three attestations to this element common to both Luke and Matthew, Tertullian once offers a pronoun, once the entire phrase, and once nothing at all
Since Tertullian in his other writings reveals the strong influence of Matt 10:33 on his reproduction of this saying,184 it is at least possible that Tertullian sees the verse in Marcion’s text, begins to cite it accurately, and then slips into a rendering of the verse influenced by Matthew

24 For whoever might desire to save his life will lose it; but whoever might lose his life on account of me, he will save it.

Matthew 33 And whoever shall deny Me before men, I also will deny him before My Father in the heavens.

Nope, but observe the previous verse:

23 And He was saying to all, “If anyone desires to come after Me, let him deny himself, and let him take up his cross every day, and let him follow Me

55. IS said: he who will hate his father not with his mother he will be able make be Disciple not to me and he hate his brothers with his sisters and he carry his Stiff drunken he will come to be not he been made Worth as much to me.

(Yes, I know, my version is entirely different)

+++++++++++++++
8. Luke 10:21 Gratias ago (εὐχαριστῶ), according to igntp, is not attested for either Luke 10:21 or, according to Tischendorf and von Soden, Matt 11:25. A.F.J. Klijn, however, provides evidence from several church fathers and witnesses to the diatessaron for this reading (“Matthew 11:25 // Luke 10:21” in New Testament Textual Criticism: Its Significance for Exegesis: Essays in Honour of Bruce M. Metzger [ed. Eldon Jay Epp and Gordon D. Fee; Oxford: Clarendon, 1981], 6–9). Though the evidence of other witnesses is necessary before coming to a conclusion, Klijn states that the addition of confiteor after gratias ago “is possibly from the hand of Tertullian, which means that Marcion’s text probably read εὐχαριστῶ” (ibid., 9).

21 In the same hour, He rejoiced in the Holy Spirit and said, “I fully consent to You, Father, Lord of the heaven and of the earth, that You have hidden these things from the wise and intelligent, and have revealed them to little children; yes, Father, for thus was it well-pleasing before You.

Nope, although the little children / father don't come from nowhere

+++++++++++++++
9. Luke 11:2 Harnack’s view of the original form of the Lord’s Prayer in Luke (cf. n. 251) led him to posit that the presence of this petition was a pre-Marcionite intrusion from Matthew into the text used by Marcion (Marcion, 208* and idem, “Der ursprüngliche Text,” 28). Harnack without comment offered the spelling ἐλθάτω as found in א and several other manuscripts, instead of ἐλθέτω

Nope, but observe the previous verse:

1 And it came to pass in His being in a certain place praying, when He ceased, one of His disciples said to Him, “Lord, teach us to pray, as John also taught his disciples.”

104. said they to IS : come! and we pray [al] today and and we make-be Fast said IS : who/at? Indeed is the sin have I make-be he Or have they become-strong to I in who/at? Rather Whenever "should" the Bridegroom come-forth in the Bridal-chamber Then let! they Fast and let! they pray

+++++++++++++++
10. Luke 12:2 Second, an additional οὐδέν has been inserted before κρυπτόν. Unfortunately, this element of the verse is not multiply cited, but its complete absence in the textual tradition of both Matthew and Luke may lend some credence to the supposition that the repetition is due to Tertullian himself.291

2 And nothing is concealed up which will not be revealed, nor hidden which will not be known.

100% Thomas

6. His Disciples questioned him; they said to him: do you desire that we Fast, and what is the manner we will pray, we will give Alms, and we will Observe what within food? IS said: do not tell lies, and he who you hate, do not make him be: they all are uncovering outward within the presence of the heaven. There is not anyone Indeed while he is hiding, who will reveal outward not; and there is not anyone, while he is covering, who will remain with lack of him being uncovered.

+++++++++++++++
11. Luke 12:10 Fourth, Luke speaks of “blaspheming” the Holy Spirit where Tertullian’s quote repeats the idea of “speaking against.” Once again, it is true that this reading creates a better parallel, and it is also the reading of Matthew; however, it is also attested in numerous ol manuscripts

100% Thomas - and this is a banger, as Coptic simply uses "to tell one" in order to express the act of blasphemy / -ing

44. IS said: he who will say one to the father they will dismiss him, and he who will say one to the child they will dismiss him. He who will say one However to the Spirit who is pure they will dismiss him not Nor in the earth Nor in the heaven.

+++++++++++++++
12. Luke 12:24 Third, Harnack notes that nec in apothecas condunt is Matthean and then leaves unanswered the question of whether Tertullian’s memory of Matt 6:26 has influenced the wording or whether Marcion’s text had been harmonized to Matthew

24 Consider the ravens, that they do not sow, nor reap; to them there is not a storehouse, nor barn—and God feeds them. How much more valuable are you than the birds!

100% Thomas - yet only in the Greek copies

36. IS said there is not to carry concern starting from morning toward evening and starting from on evening toward morning: who is who will clothe him on you.

Attridge: (36) [Jesus said, "Do not be concerned] from morning [until evening and] from evening [until] morning, neither [about] your [food] and what [you will] eat, [nor] about [your clothing] and what you [will] wear. [You are far] better than the [lilies] which [neither] card nor [spin]. As for you, when you have no garment, what [will you put on]? Who might add to your stature? He it is who will give you your cloak."

+++++++++++++++
13a. Luke 12:27-28 Harnack believed that Marcion’s text read οὐχ ὑφαίνει οὔτε νήθει,329 though the fact that these other witnesses attest οὔτε νήθει οὔτε ὑφαίνει may mean that the slightly different phrasing, possibly under the influence of 12:24 and νήθει being the second action in both Matthew and Luke, is due to Tertullian.

+++++++++++++++
13b. It is worth noting that not only does Luke not make the statement that the lilies are clothed, neither does Matthew (cf. Matt 6:28–30); yet, in both Idol. 12.2 and Ux. 1.4.7 Tertullian speaks of the clothing of the lilies

See previous

+++++++++++++++
14. Luke 12:58-9 ἀποδῷς is also attested and may have preceded the phrase, as in D (cf. Matt 5:26);342 however, Tertullian’s proclivity to Matthew’s reading may once again be the reason for the phrasing here (cf. An. 35.1).343

58 For as you are going with your adversary before a magistrate, give earnestness to be set free from him in the way, lest he should drag you away to the judge, and the judge will deliver you to the officer, and the officer will cast you into prison. 59 I say to you, you shall never come out from there until you shall have paid even the last lepton.”

Nope, but observe the previous verses:

54 And also He was saying to the crowds, “When you see a cloud rising up from the west, immediately you say, ‘A shower is coming,’ and so it happens. 55 And when a south wind is blowing, you say, ‘There will be heat,’ and it happens. 56 Hypocrites! You know how to discern the appearance of the earth and of the sky, but how do you not know to discern this time?

91. said they to he : say it to us : you who? So-that will make-be Believe [dop] you(SG) said he to they : you(PL) make-be Tempt [dop] the face of the(F) heaven with the earth and he-who of your(SG.PL) presence outward did-not you(PL) know he and this Time you(PL) know not [dop] make-be Tempt [dop] he

+++++++++++++++
15. Luke 20:1,4 Though the parallels in Matt 21:25//Mark 11:30 also read the singular ἐξ οὐρανοῦ, it is worth noting that in Matt the plural occurs twice as often as the singular (55 vs. 27 times). In Luke the singular occurs 31 times and the plural only 4 times. It is quite possible that the frequency of the occurrence of the plural in Matthew has influenced the way Tertullian refers to “heaven(s).

1 And it came to pass on one of the days He was teaching the people in the temple and proclaiming the gospel, the chief priests and the scribes came up with the elders, 2 and spoke to Him, saying, “Tell us by what authority You do these things, or who is the one having given to You this authority?” 3 And answering, He said to them, “I also will ask you one thing, and you tell Me: 4 The baptism of John, was it from heaven, or from men?”

Nope

+++++++++++++++
16. Luke 21:8 Fourth, such a simple omission may become more probable when one considers the attested reading ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ Χριστός, which is the reading of the parallel Matt 24:5.415 Harnack believed that Marcion’s text had been influenced by the text of Matthew, which is indeed possible.416 At the same time, however, in 5.1.3 Tertullian cites the pithy statement in its Matthean form

8 And He said, “Take heed, lest you be led astray; for many will come in My name, saying, ‘I am He ,’ and ‘The time is drawn near.’ Do not go after them

Nope, but observe the previous verse:

7 And they asked Him, saying, “Teacher, when will these things be, and what will be the sign when these things are about to take place?”

43. His Disciples said to him: you who? you say these ones to us. In these; I say them to you(PL) and you(PL) understand not: myself who? Rather yourselves you came to be in the manner of those Judeans: they love the tree, they hate his Fruit and they love the Fruit, they hate the tree.

TO BE CONTINUED RIGHT HERE

+++++++++++++++
20a. Luke 5:33-35 The Lukan text has been influenced by Matthew in several manuscripts, and it is possible to view Marcion’s text, as Harnack did, as also containing harmonization with Matthew.

+++++++++++++++
20b. Though Matthew reads πενθεῖν in the question, D, W, 1424, and many of the versions read νηστεύειν

+++++++++++++++
21. First, ἐπείνασαν appears only in the parallel Matt 12:1, a fact that Harnack also recognized but which did not keep him from including the term in Marcion’s text. Yet, several factors argue against Harnack’s conclusion: though present in Matthew, the term appears in no witness to Luke 6:1;

+++++++++++++++
22. Luke 8:4,8 Yet, the fact that Tertullian introduces the citation with the idea that Christ frequently spoke these words, that this is the form always found in Matthew and only in Matthew (cf. Matt 11:5, 13:9, and 13:43), and that it is essentially unattested for Luke makes it quite likely that this form is due to Tertullian and not the reading of Marcion’s Gospel.

+++++++++++++++
23. Luke 13:19 It is possible that Matt 13:31 can shed light on more than simply the verb. The entire phrase in Matthew reads ἔσπειρεν ἐν τῷ ἀγρῷ αὐτοῦ. If Tertullian has greater familiarity with the Matthean text, he may have begun harmonizing elements from Marcion’s Gospel and the Matthean reading at the end of the citation. This suggestion would explain the Matthean verb and prepositional phrase as well as the Lukan horto.

+++++++++++++++
24. Luke 20:41,44 Harnack recognized that Tertullian only alludes to vv. 41–44, though he was convinced that v. 41 had been influenced by Matt 22:42. He therefore reconstructed (τί ὑμῖν) δοκεῖ (περὶ τοῦ) Χριστοῦ; (τίνος) υἱός (ἐστιν; λέγουσιν αὐτῷ) Δαυείδ [sic].353 Harnack argued that this influence is revealed in the fact that existimabant (δοκεῖ) is only found in Matthew and that only there do the Scribes, though in Matthew it is actually the Pharisees, say that the Christ is David’s son.354


+++++++++++++++
30. Luke 8:19-20 In his other four citations of this verse, Epiphanius appears to cite Matt 12:47; however, the opening of the statement appears verbatim in Matthew and Luke

+++++++++++++++
31. Luke 8:23-24 Second, the rebuking of the wind καὶ τῇ θαλάσσῃ also reflects the reading from Matthew.109

+++++++++++++++
32. Luke 9:16 115 The plural “heavens” occurs only 4 times in Luke compared to 31 occurrences of the singular. In Matthew, however, the plural occurs 55 times and the singular 27 times. It is possible that familiarity with the Matthean plural influenced the reference here.

+++++++++++++++
33. Luke 10:21 Gregory, following Klijn, rightly notes “although the omission of καὶ τῆς γῆς can be explained as the result of a particular Marcionite tendency, nevertheless this is not a necessary explanation.”136

+++++++++++++++
34. Luke 12:31 Epiphanius’s citation in the first listing of this scholion begins with ζητεῖτε δέ, a reading also attested by D, d, and a.170 Both listings of the scholion also read πάντα, the reading of Matt 9:33 but also of many (mostly later) Lukan manuscripts. It is difficult to evaluate whether Epiphanius is offering readings from Marcion’s text corresponding to the text attested in D, for example, or is being influenced by the Matthean version

+++++++++++++++
35. Harnack reconstructed . . . . Ἰούδας . . . και� � ἤγγισε καταφιλῆσαι αὐτόν καὶ εἶπεν (χαῖρε ῥαββεί [sic]).227 It seems that both Zahn and Harnack may have been too hasty in their assessment. First, there is no manuscript evidence for Luke ever containing the reading καταφιλῆσαι.228 Second, Epiphanius seems to have omitted the universally attested τῷ Ἰησοῦ after ἤγγισε. Third, in both Matthew and Mark, the reference to Judas saying something precedes the kiss. Finally, and most significantly, in Epiphanius’s two other references to this scene in 38.4.13 and 66.63.9–10, he clearly draws from Matt 26:48–50 and in both instances cites Judas’s words.

+++++++++++++++
40a. Luke 6:29 In the final element of 6:29a, an element to which Tertullian alluded, the Adamantius Dialogue’s use of παράθες is unattested for either Luke or Matthew and likely is due to the author of the dialogue.59

+++++++++++++++
40b. The attestation of Luke 6:29b is closer to the Lukan version in the Greek text of the Adamantius Dialogue with its use of the verb αἴρω and the order ἱμάτιον/ χιτών. Only the verb προστίθημι, used neither in Matthew nor in Luke, tends more towards the sense of Matt 5:40 (ἄφες αὐτω)

+++++++++++++++
41. Luke 6:38 The final words of Luke 6:38, also attested by Tertullian, are cited in two locations in the Adamantius Dialogue. As rightly noted by Tsutsui, since the comments immediately following the citation in 32,17 (1.15) refer to a clear citation of Matt 10:33 as being found in “the same Gospel,” the implication is that this citation is taken from Matt 7:2 and not Luke 6:38.64 Interestingly, the Lukan ἀντιμετρηθήσεται (though this verb is also attested in some manuscripts of Matthew, including N, Θ, and f 13) is found here as is the same otherwise unattested word order seen in Tertullian (ᾧ μετρεῖτε μέτρῳ). It is unlikely, how- ever, that the Adamantius Dialogue is here confirming Tertullian’s word order, even if the reverse order is found in 66,32–33 (2.5).65

+++++++++++++++
42. Luke 6:45 This verse is attested by Tertullian and Origen. The citation here is similar to the situation in Luke 6:38, in that Adamantius begins his statement with a ref- erence to a demonstration of his point from “the Gospel” followed by a citation from Matthew (Matt 7:15). The following citations from Matt 12:35, 34; and 15:19 thus reveal their Matthean origin both through the context and their wording. Worth noting, however, is that the order of the elements cited with the word- ing from Matt 12:35, 34 is that found in Luke 6:45 and that the Lukan προφέρει is used.75

+++++++++++++++
43. Luke 7:19 The question posed by the disciples of John the Baptist in Luke 7:19 is attested by Tertullian. In the Adamantius Dialogue, Megethius once again argues with a citation essentially drawn from Matthew (Matt 11:2–3),77 and Adamantius repeats elements in their Matthean form (cf. ἕτερον).78 With regard to Marcion’s Gospel, Zahn simply noted “cf. Dl. 819” without further comment;79 however, Harnack offered the observation “In Dial. i, 26 ist v. 19 nach Matth. Zitiert.”80 It is presumably for this reason that Harnack rightly followed the wording of Tertullian and reconstructed only the final element of Luke 7:19

That's it. I have ommitted a few that didn't seem directly related to a specific Lukan verse.
I haven't gone by all the occurrences of 'Matt', of which there are 318 - but let it be noted that there is an abundance of "Matthean" text attested to by the Patristics

Loose "comments":

A. In addition, Lieu has recently rightly noted: There is a marked tendency in patristic citation for Matthew to influence quotations of Luke (or Mark), and this is more generally evident in both Epiphanius and Adamantius.67 Indeed, in the index volume to Epiphanius’s works noted above (Epiphanius iv: Register zu den Bänden i–iii), there are 9.5 columns of verses cited from Matthew, 1.5 columns of verses cited from Mark, and 8.5 columns of verses cited from Luke, though here one needs to take into account that many of the verses are cited only in Epiphanius’s refutation of Marcion. Thus, the tendency already seen in Tertullian once again must be taken into account for Epiphanius.

B. 136 Gregory, Reception of Luke and Acts, 181. Cf. Klijn, “Matthew 11:25 // Luke 10:21,” 13–14. Klijn’s summary is helpful: “Marcionite influence on early Greek papyri seems impossible. This means that here also variant readings originated spontaneously, possibly influenced by the usage of the lxx where in this phrase the words καὶ τῆς γῆς are often omitted, as we have seen above. . . . The omission . . . can be explained from a particular Marcionite tendency, but incidental errors, free rendering in quotations, and the influence of the lxx are equally possible as sources of corruption” (“Matthew 11:25 // Luke 10:21,” 14).

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

To be continued later - it's quite a bit of work and I'll likely do a Reply to this so they can easily be compared side-to-side

[gryan]

Matthew in Marcion

2. The difficulty is that μάχαιραν is the reading of Matt 10:34 and, according to igntp, never, apart from the 13th-century minuscule 1242, appears in Luke 12:51.19

Luke
51Δοκεῖτε ὅτι εἰρήνην παρεγενόμην δοῦναι ἐν τῇ γῇ οὐχί λέγω ὑμῖν
ἀλλ’ ἢ διαμερισμόν
51Do you think that I have come to bring peace to the earth? No, I tell you,
but division.

Matt
34Μὴ νομίσητε ὅτι ἦλθον βαλεῖν εἰρήνην ἐπὶ τὴν γῆν οὐκ ἦλθον βαλεῖν εἰρήνην
ἀλλὰ μάχαιραν
34{Do} not assume that I have come to bring peace to the earth; I have not come to bring peace,
but a sword.

Tertullian
[13b] But He will Himself best explain the quality of that fire which He mentioned, when He goes on to say, "Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division." It is written "a sword," but Marcion makes an emendation of the word, [14] just as if a division were not the work of the sword. He, therefore, who refused to give peace, intended also the fire of destruction. As is the combat, so is the burning. As is the sword, so is the flame. Neither is suitable for its lord. He says at last, "The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother-in-law against the daughter-in-law, and the daughter-in-law against the mother-in-law." Since this battle among the relatives was sung by the prophet's trumpet in the very words, I fear that Micah must have predicted it to Marcion's Christ!

Thomas (BLATZ)
(16) Jesus said: Perhaps men think that I am come to cast peace upon the world; and they do not know that I am come to cast dissensions upon the earth, fire, sword, war. For there will be five who are in a house; three shall be against two and two against three, the father against the son and the son against the father, and they shall stand as solitaries.

-------------
mlinssen : Thanks for this fascinating study.

What's going on here?

It looks to me like Tertullian was criticizing Marcion for adopting a Lukan reading instead of a Matthean reading (since the Gospel written later, according to MPH, is regarded by Tertullian as better, and thus earlier). And it looks to me like GThomas is a later conflation/harmonization of Lk and Matt (perhaps by an author who knows, and is drawn to the flash points where Tertullian criticizes Marcion).