Peter Kirby wrote:spin wrote:Praps people should take note of the fact that Tertullian records Marcion's gospel as containing what is now Lk 22:19-20. (See Contra Marcion 4.40 and/or Dieter T. Roth, The Text of Marcion's gospel, Brill: 2015. 180, 443. What's not attested are 22:16, probably 17, 18, 21-22a.)
Good note.
For visual reference,
Luke 22.14-20, bread and cup (blue = attested as present according to Roth; red = attested as absent according to Roth; black = unattested; italics = hypothesized as present by DeBuhn; underlined italics = additions or changes to adequately reflect BeDuhn):
| 14 Καὶ ὅτε ἐγένετο ἡ ὥρα, ἀνέπεσεν, καὶ οἱ δώδεκα ἀπόστολοι σὺν αὐτῷ. 15 καὶ εἶπεν πρὸς αὐτούς Ἐπιθυμίᾳ ἐπεθύμησα τοῦτο τὸ πάσχα φαγεῖν μεθ’ ὑμῶν πρὸ τοῦ με παθεῖν· 16 λέγω γὰρ ὑμῖν ὅτι οὐκέτι οὐ μὴ φάγω αὐτὸ ἕως ὅτου πληρωθῇ ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ τοῦ Θεοῦ. 17 καὶ δεξάμενος ποτήριον εὐχαριστήσας εἶπεν Λάβετε τοῦτο καὶ διαμερίσατε εἰς ἑαυτούς· 18 λέγω γὰρ ὑμῖν, οὐ μὴ πίω ἀπὸ τοῦ νῦν ἀπὸ τοῦ γενήματος τῆς ἀμπέλου ἕως οὗ ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ Θεοῦ ἔλθῃ. 19 καὶ λαβὼν ἄρτον εὐχαριστήσας ἔκλασεν καὶ ἔδωκεν αὐτοῖς λέγων Τοῦτό ἐστιν τὸ σῶμά μου τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν διδόμενον· τοῦτο ποιεῖτε εἰς τὴν ἐμὴν ἀνάμνησιν. 20 καὶ τὸ ποτήριον ὡσαύτως μετὰ τὸ δειπνῆσαι, λέγων Τοῦτο τὸ ποτήριον ἡ καινὴ διαθήκη ἐν τῷ αἵματί μου, τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν ἐκχυννόμενον. |
14 When the hour had come, he sat down with the twelve apostles. 15 He said to them, “I have earnestly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer, 16 for I tell you, I will no longer by any means eat of it until it is fulfilled in God’s Kingdom.” 17 He received a cup, and when he had given thanks, he said, “Take this, and share it among yourselves, 18 for I tell you, I will not drink at all again from the fruit of the vine, until God’s Kingdom comes.” 19 He, after they had dined, took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke, and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body which is given for you. Do this in memory of me.” 20 Likewise, he took the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you. |
Tertullian, Against Marcion 4.40.1: [1] Proinde scit et quando pati oporteret eum cuius passionem lex figurat. Nam ex tot festis Iudaeorum paschae diem elegit. In hoc enim sacramentum pronuntiarat Moyses, Pascha est domini. Ideo et aflfectum suum ostendit: Concupiscentia concupivi pascha edere vobiscum, antequam patiar. O legis destructorem, qui concupierat etiam pascha servare! Nimirum vervecina illum Iudaica delectaret? An ipse erat qui tanquam ovis ad victimam adduci habens, et tanquam ovis coram tondente sic os non aperturus, figuram sanguinis sui salutaris implere concupiscebat? / [1] In like manner does He also know the very time it behoved Him to suffer, since the law prefigures His passion. Accordingly, of all the festal days of the Jews He chose the passover. In this Moses had declared that there was a sacred mystery: "It is the Lord's passover." How earnestly, therefore, does He manifest the bent of His soul: "With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer." What a destroyer of the law was this, who actually longed to keep its passover! Could it be that He was so fond of Jewish lamb? But was it not because He had to be "led like a lamb to the slaughter; and because, as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so was He not to open His mouth," that He so profoundly wished to accomplish the symbol of His own redeeming blood?
Tertullian, Against Marcion 4.40.3-4: [3] Professus itaque se concupiscentia concupisse edere pascha ut suum (indignum enim ut quid alienum concupisceret deus), acceptum panem et distributum discipulis corpus suum illum fecit, Hoc est corpus meum dicendo, id est figura corporis mei. Figura autem non fuisset nisi veritatis esset corpus: ceterum vacua res, quod est phantasma, figuram capere non posset. Aut si propterea panem corpus sibi finxit quia corporis carebat veritate, ergo panem debuit tradere pro nobis. Faciebat ad vanitatem Marcionis, ut panis crucifigeretur. Cur autem panem corpus suum appellat, et non magis peponem, quem Marcion cordis loco habuit? Non intellegens veterem fuisse istam figuram corporis Christi, dicentis per Hieremiam, Adversus me cogitaverunt cogitatum, dicentes, Venite coniciamus lignum in panem eius, scilicet crucem in corpus eius. [4] Itaque illuminator antiquitatum quid tunc voluerit significasse panem satis declaravit corpus suum vocans panem. Sic et in calicis mentione testamentum constituens sanguine suo obsignatum, substantiam corporis confirmavit. Nullius enim corporis sanguis potest esse nisi carnis. Nam et si qua corporis qualitas non carnea opponetur nobis, certe sanguinem nisi carnea non habebit. / [3] When He so earnestly expressed His desire to eat the passover, He considered it His own feast; for it would have been unworthy of God to desire to partake of what was not His own. Then, having taken the bread and given it to His disciples, He made it His own body, by saying, "This is my body," that is, the figure of my body. A figure, however, there could not have been, unless there were first a veritable body. An empty thing, or phantom, is incapable of a figure. If, however, (as Marcion might say, ) He pretended the bread was His body, because He lacked the truth of bodily substance, it follows that He must have given bread for us. It would contribute very well to the support of Marcion's theory of a phantom body, that bread should have been crucified! But why call His body bread, and not rather (some other edible thing, say) a melon, which Marcion must have had in lieu of a heart! He did not understand how ancient was this figure of the body of Christ, who said Himself by Jeremiah: "I was like a lamb or an ox that is brought to the slaughter, and I knew not that they devised a device against me, saying, Let us cast the tree upon His bread," which means, of course, the cross upon His body. [4] And thus, casting light, as He always did, upon the ancient prophecies, He declared plainly enough what He meant by the bread, when He called the bread His own body. He likewise, when mentioning the cup and making the new testament to be sealed "in His blood," affirms the reality of His body. For no blood can belong to a body which is not a body of flesh. If any sort of body were presented to our view, which is not one of flesh, not being fleshly, it would not possess blood.
Tertullian, Against Marcion 4.40.6: [6] Spiritus enim propheticus velut iam contemplabundus dominum ad passionem venientem, carne scilicet vestitum, ut in ea passum, cruentum habitum carnis in vestimentorum rubore designat, conculcatae et expressae vi passionis tanquam in foro torcularis; quia exinde quasi cruentati homines de vini rubore descendunt. Multo manifestius Genesis in benedictione Iudae, ex cuius tribu carnis census Christi processurus, iam tunc Christum in Iuda delineabat: Lavabit, inquit, in vino stolam suam et in sanguine uvae amictum suum, stolam et amictum carnem demonstrans et vinum sanguinem. Ita et nunc sanguinem suum in vino consecravit, qui tunc vinum in sanguine figuravit. / [6] The prophetic Spirit contemplates the Lord as if He were already on His way to His passion, clad in His fleshly nature; and as He was to suffer therein, He represents the bleeding condition of His flesh under the metaphor of garments dyed in red, as if reddened in the treading and crushing process of the wine-press, from which the labourers descend reddened with the wine-juice, like men stained in blood. Much more clearly still does the book of Genesis foretell this, when (in the blessing of Judah, out of whose tribe Christ was to come according to the flesh) it even then delineated Christ in the person of that patriarch, saying, "He washed His garments in wine, and His clothes in the blood of grapes" ----in His garments and clothes the prophecy pointed out his flesh, and His blood in the wine. Thus did He now consecrate His blood in wine, who then (by the patriarch) used the figure of wine to describe His blood.
Epiphanius, Panarion 42.11.6: <ξβ>. «Καὶ ἀνέπεσε, καὶ οἱ δώδεκα ἀπόστολοι σὺν αὐτῷ καὶ εἶπεν· ἐπιθυμίᾳ ἐπεθύμησα τοῦτο τὸ Πάσχα φαγεῖν μεθ' ὑμῶν πρὸ τοῦ με παθεῖν». <ξγ>. Παρέκοψε τό «λέγω γὰρ ὑμῖν, οὐ μὴ φάγω αὐτὸ ἀπάρτι, ἕως ἂν πληρωθῇ ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ τοῦ θεοῦ». / 62. 'And he sat down, and the twelve apostles with him, and he said, With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer.' 63. He falsified, 'I will not any more eat thereof until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God.'
Epiphanius, Panarion 42.11.17: <Σχόλιον> <ξβ>. «Καὶ ἀνέπεσε καὶ οἱ δώδεκα ἀπόστολοι σὺν αὐτῷ, καὶ εἶπεν· ἐπιθυμίᾳ ἐπεθύμησα τοῦτο τὸ Πάσχα φαγεῖν μεθ' ὑμῶν πρὸ τοῦ με παθεῖν». <Ἔλεγχος> <ξβ>. Ἀνέπεσεν ὁ σωτήρ, ὦ Μαρκίων, καὶ οἱ δώδεκα ἀπόστολοι μετ' αὐτοῦ. εἰ ἀνέπεσε καὶ συνανέπεσον, οὐ δύναται μία λέξις τὴν σημασίαν ἔχειν ἑτέραν καὶ ἑτέραν, κἄν τε τῇ ἀξίᾳ καὶ τῷ τρόπῳ ἔχοι τὴν διαφοράν. ἢ γὰρ δώσεις καὶ τοὺς δώδεκα δοκήσει ἀναπεπτωκέναι ἢ καὶ αὐτὸν ἀληθείᾳ σάρκα ἔχοντα ἀληθινῶς ἀναπεπτωκέναι. καί «ἐπιθυμίᾳ ἐπεθύμησα τοῦτο τὸ Πάσχα φαγεῖν μεθ' ὑμῶν πρὸ τοῦ με παθεῖν», ἵνα δείξῃ Πάσχα πρὸ τοῦ πάθους αὐτοῦ ἐν τῷ νόμῳ προτυπούμενον καὶ γινόμενον τὸ βέβαιον αὐτοῦ τοῦ πάθους καὶ ἐντελέστερον προσκαλούμενον· καὶ ὑποδεικνύων, ὡς καὶ ὁ ἅγιος ἀπόστολός φησι <ὅτι> «παιδαγωγὸς ἡμῖν γέγονεν ὁ νόμος εἰς Χριστόν». εἰ δὲ παιδαγωγὸς ὁ νόμος εἰς Χριστόν, οὐκ ἀλλότριος Χριστοῦ ὁ νόμος. <Σχόλιον> <ξγ>. Παρέκοψε τό «λέγω γὰρ ὑμῖν, οὐ μὴ φάγω αὐτὸ ἀπάρτι, ἕως ἂν πληρωθῇ ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ τοῦ θεοῦ». <Ἔλεγχος> <ξγ>. Τοῦτο περιεῖλεν καὶ ἐρρᾳδιούργησεν, ἵνα δῆθεν μὴ ποιήσῃ ἐν βασιλείᾳ τοῦ θεοῦ βρωτὰ ἢ ποτά· οὐκ εἰδὼς ὁ κτηνώδης ὅτι ἀντιμίμημα τῶν ἐπιγείων δύναται εἶναι πνευματικὰ καὶ ἐπουράνια, μεταλαμβανόμενα ὡς ἡμεῖς οὐκ οἴδαμεν· μαρτυρεῖ γὰρ πάλιν ὁ σωτὴρ καὶ λέγει ὅτι «καθήσεσθε ἐπὶ τῆς τραπέζης μου, ἐσθίοντες καὶ πίνοντες ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ τῶν οὐρανῶν». ἢ παρέκοψε πάλιν ταῦτα, ἵνα δῆθεν ποιήσῃ τὰ ἐν τῷ νόμῳ μὴ ἔχοντα τόπον ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ τῶν οὐρανῶν. πόθεν οὖν Ἠλίας καὶ Μωυσῆς ὤφθησαν μετ' αὐτοῦ ἐν τῷ ὄρει ἐν δόξῃ; ἀλλ' οὐδὲν δυνήσεταί τις πρὸς τὴν ἀλήθειαν. / Scholion 62. 'And he sat down, and the twelve apostles with him, and he said, With desire I have desired to eat the Passover with you before I suffer.' (a) Elenchus 62. The Saviour sat down, Marcion, and the twelve apostles sat down with him. If he 'sat down' and they 'sat down' with him, one expression cannot have two different meanings, even if it can be differentiated in its dignity and manner. For you must either admit that the twelve apostles have also sat down in appearance, or that he has really sat down because he really has flesh. (b) And (he said), 'With desire I have desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer,' to show that a Passover is already portrayed in the Law before his passion, both becoming the guarantee of his passion and calling forth something more perfect—showing too that, as the holy apostle also said, 'The Law was our guardian until Christ.' But if the Law is a guardian until Christ, the Law is not unrelated to Christ. Scholion 63. He falsified, 'I say unto you, I will not any more eat thereof until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God.' (a) Elenchus 63. Marcion took this out and tampered with it, to avoid putting food or drink in the Kingdom of God, if you please. He was unaware, oaf that he is, that spiritual, heavenly things can correspond with the earthly, partaken of in ways that we do not know. (b) For the Saviour testifies in turn, 'Ye shall sit at my table, eating and drinking in the kingdom of heaven.' (c) Or again, he falsified these things to show, if you please, that the legislation in the Law has no place in the kingdom of heaven. Then why did Elijah and Moses appear with him on the mount in glory? But no one can accomplish anything against the truth.
From Epiphanius, Panarion 42.11.17 (elenchus 61): καὶ μὴ λέγε ὅτι ὃ ἔμελλε μυστήριον ἐπιτελεῖν, τοῦτο προωνόμαζε λέγων· θέλω μεθ' ὑμῶν φαγεῖν τὸ Πάσχα. / And don't tell me that he was naming beforehand the mystery he was about to celebrate when he said, 'I desire to eat the Passover with you.'
Adamantius Dialogue, according to Dieter T. Roth (page 390): 108,25–26 (2.20)—[Ad.] λαβὼν δὲ ἄρτον καὶ ποτήριον καὶ εὐλογήσας, . . . | Not in Rufinus’s Latin translation.
Eznik, De Deo 415: Indeed if nowhere we discover it saying in our own: "Do not eat this thing", it is clear that the distinction of foods which was according to the Law would come to an end, in that with sinners, and with custom-house officers, and with Pharisees he ate and drank. And concerning the Pasch he said to his disciples: “I desire strongly to eat this Pasch with you.” (Luke 22:15) Perhaps about this Pasch too they will say that it was fish and not lamb!
Dieter T. Roth remarks (page 433) concerning verse 17: If the Adamantius Dialogue is attesting Marcion’s Gospel, ποτήριον is attested.
Ben.