For a side-by-side English translation of the text of Marcion's Gospel of the Lord [Mcg] and Luke 22, see Luke Chapter 22
From Ernest Evans on Adv. Marcion IV: Appendix 2: In ch. 22 he omits verse 16 [I will not again eat etc.] and vv. 35-8 [When I sent you out, and Here are two swords etc.] as well as vv. 39-51 [Gethsemane: the arrest: the high priest's servant].
Now the feast of unleavened bread drew nigh, which is called the Passover. [22:1]
In his chapter 40 Tertullian refers to the Passover [22:1], and being betrayed by Judas in return for some money [22:3-5], but does not actually quote any of these verses. He also refers to v. 22:3 in his commentary on Marcion's version of First Corinthians:
Epiphanius quotes from v. 22:4:
“He communed with the captains how he might deliver him unto them,” (Scholion 60)
He omits 'chief priests,' while Bezae has “And he went his way, and communed with the chief priests, how he might betray him.” The parallels in both Matthew and Mark side with Bezae in having Judas go just to the chief priests, while Epiphanius has just the captains, and only Luke has both. If Mcg had the captains, then it would seem that Luke is simply incorporating both. However, this does not explain where the captains originated, although there seems little reason for Marcion to make such a change. Some mss omit “And he promised” [or agreed] at the beginning of v. 22:6, but we do not know what Mcg read here.
Then came the day of unleavened bread, when the passover must be killed. [22:7]
Tertullian mentions none of these details of the preparation for the Passover, and Epiphanius just reports:
“And he said unto Peter and the rest, Go and prepare that we may eat the Passover.” (Scholion 61)
He does not suggest that Marcion made a change here. Sense comments:
This quotation may be assumed to cover the story of the mission, though I feel that it does not satisfactorily do so, and the existence of the passage 9-13 in both Gospels [i.e. Mcg and Lk] is doubtful. I can find no references to the passage in contemporary writers.
There are parallel passages at Mt 26:17-19 and Mk 14:12-16, and in both Jesus directs (some of) the disciples to make contact with a man at who’s house they are to eat the Passover. The existence of the parallels and the quote from Epiphanius suggest that these verses were present in both Mcg and Luke at the time. They may not be mentioned by Tertullian simply because there is no action or teaching by Jesus on which to comment.
And when the hour was come, he sat down, and the twelve apostles with him. [22:14]
Epiphanius quotes from both vv. 22:14-15:
“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.” (Scholion 62)
He then indicates that Mcg did not have v. 22:16:
He falsified, “I say unto you, I will not any more eat thereof, until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God.” (Scholion 63)
Tertullian quotes v 22:15b, but does not mention vv. 22:14 or 16. As neither Tertullian nor Epiphanius mention v. 22:14 (which has parallels in both Mark and Matthew, and is basically just scene-setting and contains no contentious points) it is reasonable to assume that it was present in Mcg. However, because Epiphanius specifically mentions the absence of v. 22:16 from Mcg, the fact that Tertullian has nothing to say about it strongly suggests that he did not expect to see it because it was not in his copy of Luke. This possibility is supported by the fact that v. 22:16 does not have a parallel in either Matthew or Mark, and also that it contains a difficult variant, with multiple different forms centering around the inclusion (or not) of ouketi (no longer, no more, any more, etc.).
In the majority of mss of Luke (mainly Greek, but also some other versions: P75 A B C L Tvid W Q f1 f13 (33 defective) 565 579 700 892 1241 aur c f q r1 vg hark pal so bo arm geo eth slav), vv. 22:17-20 read as follows:
And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, Take this, and divide it among yourselves: [22:17]
This ‘Majority Text’ gives the impression of being a hybrid, containing elements seen in the Markan parallel and 1 Cor 11:23b-25, although with a number of significant differences from both, which read as follows:
And as they did eat, [14:22a]
1 Cor 11:23b-25
… the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: [11:23b]
The square brackets enclosing words shown above identify variants in 1 Corinthians, Mark, and Matthew, with double square brackets marking those that are considered to be not original.
Epiphanius does not mention these verses in any way, so we do not know what he saw here in Mcg. However, in the second half of Adv. Marcion IV, chapter 40, Tertullian mentions (in the order given below) various elements of these verses, without giving any indication that the text he saw in Mcg differed from that in his copy of Luke. He mentions (translated from the Latin original) that “He so earnestly expressed His desire to eat the Passover” (Lk 22:15), and then writes:
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…
He then refers to wine several times, for example:
In order, however, that you may discover how anciently wine is used as a figure for blood, turn to Isaiah…
At first sight Tertullian appears to refer to all the important elements that we see in the Majority Text variant. He refers to bread, the cup, and wine, quotes “This is my body” (v. 22:19a), and mentions the covenant to be sealed in His blood (v. 22:20b), and it is these references that has led to the view that Mcg contained all of vv. 22:17-20, i.e. the Majority Text. However, it is important to note the order in which Tertullian mentions these elements, and also what he does not say, and a detailed examination shows that he departs from the Majority Text in several ways. For example:
Although Tertullian is of course not required to mention every part of every verse of Mcg, nor to maintain the same text order in his discussion, where there are apparent differences we should not just assume that they are insignificant without further examination. As Lietzmann & Richardson remark:
“…in any enquiry into the genuineness of a disputed text, and especially in the case of the earliest witnesses, the evidence cited on its behalf cannot be assumed to testify to more than the actual words quoted.”
Lietzmann & Richardson also make various points regarding Tertullian’s account:
From these points they “conclude that the maximum reconstruction of Marcion’s text that can be reached with any degree of probability is:”
“Having taken the bread and … it to his disciples, (he said) [v. 22:19a]
However, Tertullian’s later mention of wine being “used as a figure for blood” would be very unusual if he had not seen wine mentioned in Mcg. Therefore, the above all suggests that Tertullian did not see vv. 19b, 20a, and 20c, and that what he did see read in the order vv. 22:19a, 17, 20b, 18.
As seen above, both 1 Corinthians 11 and Mark contain close parallels to the words we see in Luke, and therefore are possible sources of these words. It is possible that liturgical practices or different, unknown, sources may be behind the words in Luke, but, as Billings states:
“If the longer text is a harmonization/conflation in the manner suggested by supporters of the shorter reading then evidence of this should be detectable in the vocabulary, grammar and syntax of Lk 22:19b-20.”
Then, after a detailed discussion of the “vocabulary, grammar and syntax,” he concludes that:
“It can be … sustained that the words of the longer reading are demonstrably non-Lukan and do not conform to the usual vocabulary, style, and syntax of the writer of the Third Gospel. A source critical analysis reveals that there are enough very close similarities between the text of the longer Lukan reading [vv. 22:17-20] and the parallels in Mark and Paul to at least suggest, and very possibly sustain, literary dependence.”
In other words, given the closeness of the text in the parallels, a direct literary relationship between the parallels and Luke is most likely. These parallels are shown in the table below, aligned according to the order of the Lukan Majority Text, together with the comments from Tertullian.
None of the parallels contain all the elements found in the Majority Text variant of vv. 22:17-20, and what text they do have is not identical to that in Luke, but perhaps the most significant differences are with regard to order:
Only the sequence ‘bread/body – cup/blood’ is common to all five, and only the Majority Text has the initial cup. Tertullian, Mark, and Matthew refer to wine (”the fruit of the vine”) last, while in the Majority Text it follows the initial cup, and is not mentioned in 1 Cor 11. Tertullian does not directly connect “the cup” with the “covenant” (as is done in 1 Cor 11:25), but instead connects it with “His blood.”
On this basis it appears that Tertullian’s words more closely match the order and content of the text found in Mark (or possibly Matthew) than that in the Majority Text of Luke:
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…
And as they did eat, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and brake it, and gave to them, and said, Take it: this is my body. [c.f. v. 22:19a]
Because Tertullian does not mention any differences here between Mcg and Luke, we should assume that his copy of Luke had essentially the same text as he saw in Mcg. This suggests that an early form of the Lukan text (as known to Tertullian) was similar to what we see today as Lk 22:19a, 17, 20b, 18, with the most significant difference being that Tertullian does not mention the atoning sacrifice that we see in Lk 22:20c, which he therefore may not have seen in Mcg.
Tertullian does not quote the exact words we see in Mark, but some of this may simply be a translation issue, as although (as far as we know) Mcg was written in Greek, it is highly likely that Tertullian had an Old Latin copy of Luke. Therefore, allowing for the typical variations we see elsewhere between Mark and Luke, it is possible that what Tertullian saw read approximately as follows:
And he took bread, and blessed, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body. [22:19a]
Because Epiphanius does not mention any of these verses, we should assume that he also saw text very similar to this in his copy of Luke.
But, behold, the hand of him that betrayeth me is with me on the table. [22:21]
Sense points out that Tertullian refers to v. 22:22b:
The next passage (vv. 22:21-23) is briefly alluded to by Tertullian in ch. 41. He quotes verse 22 thus: “Woe unto him by whom the Son of man is betrayed." The preceding clause, "and truly the Son of man goeth as it was determined," is not necessarily discredited. The quotation of verse 22 may be taken to cover this short passage.
From Tertullian’s quote it is likely that Mcg contained the variant of v. 22:22 seen in Bezae, e, Sy-S and Sy-C, in which “that man” is omitted, so that the verse reads:
“For the Son of man indeed goeth as it was determined: but woe unto him by whom he is betrayed.”
As all three of these verses have parallels in both Mark and Matthew it can be reasonably inferred that all three were present in Mcg, although with v. 22:22 as seen in Bezae.
And there was also a strife among them, which of them should be accounted the greatest. [22:24]
Tertullian mentions none of these verses, while in Epiphanius refers only to v. 22:30, where in Elenchus 63 he explains why Marcion removed v. 22:16:
Marcion took this out [v. 22:16] 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 which we do not know.
b) For the Savior 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.
Some authorities report that, according to Epiphanius, Marcion omitted v. 22:30. For example, Sense states:
“Epiphanius, in his Refutation 63., in which he tells us of Marcion's motive for erasing verse 16, namely, because he objected to eating and drinking in the kingdom of God, tells us that Marcion also cut out verse 30, which he thus quotes: "That ye shall sit at my table, eating and drinking in the kingdom of the heavens"; but he does not expressly say that the long passage from verses 24-29 was erased.”
Waite suggests that all of vv. 22:28-30 was omitted by Marcion. However, Epiphanius uses a Scholion to identify changes wrought by Marcion, and the immediately following Elenchus to provide more details, or to expand on the Scholion. As Scholion 63 only mentions v. 22:16, we should expect that Elenchus 63 also only refers to v. 22:16, not any part of vv. 22:28-30.
Because Epiphanius does not comment that Marcion made a mistake by omitting v 22:16 but not v. 22:30, it is assumed that, as Marcion omitted v. 22:16, then for the same reason he must have omitted v. 22:30. However, it is clear that Epiphanius is quoting from Luke, not Mcg, when he says; “Ye shall sit at my table, eating and drinking in the kingdom of heaven,” but it is not clear that when he says “he falsified these things” he is referring to v. 22:30, and not v. 22:16.
There are no significant known variants in vv. 22:24-29, and as neither Tertullian nor Epiphanius comments on these verses it is safe to say that Mcg contained these verses unchanged. However, although v. 22:30 is present in all mss for which this part of the text is extant, it does have some variants. Mss D, d, e, gat, g1, l, vg mss, and Sy-C omit “my” before kingdom, so reading “the kingdom,” as Epiphanius quotes, while E, F, G, H, S, V, Y, G, L, W, 047, 174, 230(=f13), 2, 22, 565, 1342, 1424, 1675, Maj, geoIII omit “en tē basileia mou” (“in my kingdom”). It is therefore possible that when Epiphanius states that Marcion “falsified these things, if you please, to give the Law’s provisions no place in the kingdom of heaven” he may have simply been indicating that “in my kingdom” was missing from Mcg.
And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat: [22:31]
Epiphanius has no comment on these verses, while Tertullian refers to them in general terms in his chapter 41, where he writes:
“For in the case of Peter, too, he gives you proof that he is a jealous God, when he destined the apostle, after his presumptuous protestations of zeal, to a flat denial of him, rather than prevent his fall.”
Sense remarks that:
“Verse 33, in which Peter says, "Lord, I am ready to go with thee, both into prison and to death," may be justly regarded as covered by the remark that Peter said something presumptuous or pretentious; and as Peter's remark is consistently a reply to Jesus' observations in verses 31 and 32, Tertullian's remark may be stretched to cover them also.”
According to Tertullian Jesus destined Peter to a “flat denial.” Because there is no mention of Peter denying Jesus three times Sense suggests that detail of the triple denial before the cock crow was not present in Mcg:
“There was no need of prophetic power at all to foresee the denial of Peter; for the knowledge of his personal character would be a sufficient guide to a sagacious man to indicate his course of conduct in the impending crisis, which Jesus foresaw was inevitable from the persistent and fierce hostility towards him of the chief priests and Pharisees. The extravagant and unnecessary terms of the prediction are inconsistent with the moderation and sobriety of the narratives in the Marcionite Gospel. I find it hard to believe that it contained such a peculiar prophecy as this is. I cannot reconcile myself to its admission into this Gospel, and I have very serious doubt whether it was universally admitted into any of the four Gospels till late in the fourth century, when Jerome made his collection.”
Despite the doubts by Sense as to the authenticity of the cock crow, there is no extant mss in which this verse is missing. The most that can be said is that even if it was missing in Mcg, the lack of comment from Tertullian and Epiphanius suggest that it was missing in their mss too, and therefore was not a Marcionite omission.
Following the reference above to v. 22:33, Tertullian takes very little note of any of the second half of Luke chapter 22. He mentions that Jesus was “betrayed with a kiss" [v. 22:48], and mentions Peter’s "flat denial" [v. 22:57], but has nothing else until vv. 22:66-71, which he refers to in some detail. Although such a long period of silence from Tertullian is unusual, all we can reliably conclude from this is that he saw nothing in Mcg that he could use to refute Marcion, either text left in Mcg that would hurt Marcion’s case, or differences between Mcg and Luke. However, as discussed below, comments from Epiphanius make it almost certain that vv. 22:35-38 and 49-51 were not present in Mcg, thus making it very likely that these verses were not in Tertullian’s copy of Luke either.
And he said unto them, When I sent you without purse, and scrip, and shoes, lacked ye any thing? And they said, Nothing. [22:35]
As noted above Tertullian does not mention these verses, but Epiphanius states that:
He falsified, “When I sent you, lacked ye anything?" and so on, because of the words, “This also that is written must be accomplished, And he was numbered among the transgressors.” (Scholion 64)
Sense comments that this indicates that at least vv. 22:35-37a were missing from Mcg:
The next passage (vv. 22:35-38) is not alluded to by Tertullian, and Epiphanius tells us (Sch., 64) that Marcion cut out the passage from "When I sent you" unto "he was reckoned among the transgressors." The final clause, "for the things concerning me have an end," may be regarded as included in the excision; but hardly the next verse (38), "And they said, Lord, behold here are two swords. And he said unto them, It is enough," which Epiphanius does not notice. My conclusion is that the whole passage was interpolated in the Canonical Gospel in Epiphanius' hands; but verse 38 was a later interpolation which Epiphanius knew nothing of.
However, Lardner suggests that Epiphanius’ words should be taken to include v. 22:38, and indeed, as Epiphanius does not actually specify that “among the transgressors” is the end of the omission, this could be the case. Although there are no variants of Luke in which any of these verses are not present, it is worth noting that vv. 22:35-36 and 38 have no parallels in either Mark or Matthew. In addition, although v. 22:37a has a parallel at Mk 15:28, the Markan parallel is probably not original, as it is not present in 01, A, B, C, D, X, Y*, Ψ, 047, 157, pm173, d, k, Sy-S, sa, and bopt. Further, although Mk 15:28 fits very well after Mk 15:27: “And with him they crucify two thieves; the one on his right hand, and the other on his left,” v. 22:37 interrupts the narrative of vv. 22:36, 38.
It should also be noted that as v. 22:38 is pointless without v. 22:36, it is likely that the whole of vv. 22:35-38 was missing from what Epiphanius saw in Mcg. As Tertullian does not mention the absence of these verses, they are most likely an interpolation that was not present in his copy of Luke, and so not an omission by Marcion.
And he came out, and went, as he was wont, to the mount of Olives; and his disciples also followed him. [22:39]
Tertullian has no comment on these verses, but in Scholion 65 Epiphanius writes: “He was withdrawn from them about a stone’s cast, and kneeled down and prayed.” He then notes in Elenchus 65 that Jesus was kneeling in human fashion, showing his fleshly nature. This suggests that these verses were present unchanged in Mcg, but there is some doubt regarding v. 22:42. Although this verse does have parallels in Mark and Matthew, and is in P75, it is not present in P69 (POxy 2383). Based on these images and reconstruction, Willker concludes:
It is certain that P69 does not contain Lk 22:42-44.
Willker then comments:
Regarding P69, there are two possibilities:
Both points are equally possible and probable. Therefore one cannot assign P69 as a witness for the omission of verses 43-44, but only, as a "third way", for the omission of 42-44.
Despite the final comment above from Willker, it is equally likely that the lack of comment from both Tertullian and Epiphanius support the view that they saw these verses in Mcg as in their copies of Luke.
And there appeared an angel unto him from heaven, strengthening him. [22:43]
Neither Tertullian nor Epiphanius refer to vv. 22:43-44. However, it is certain that Epiphanius knew these verses in Luke, as in Panarion 69, section 61:1-2 he records:
And Arius adds next that “ ‘being in agony while he prayed,’” <as> we find in the Gospel according to Luke, and “ ‘he sweat, and his sweat was as it were drops of blood falling to the ground. And there appeared an angel of the Lord strengthening him.’ ” Those nit-pickers jump up at once as though they had found an opening against an enemy, and add, “Do you see that he even needed the strength of angels? An angel strengthened him, for he was in agony.”
Not only does this show that Epiphanius knew Lk 22:43-44, but in these comments he uses these verses against the Marcionites to show that Jesus had a real body. Despite this he does not, either here or in Panarion 42, make any comment regarding whether Mcg itself contained these verses. However, it is clear that Epiphanius knew of copies of Luke that did not contain these verses, as in The Firmly Anchored One he states that Luke 22:43-44:
“is found in the unrevised copies of the Gospel of Luke, and St. Irenaeus, in his work Adversus Haereses, brings it as a testimony to confute those who say that Christ [only] seemed to be manifest [in the flesh]. But the orthodox, being afraid and not understanding the meaning and power of the passage, have expunged it. Thus, ‘when he was in agony he sweated and his sweat became as drops of blood, and an angel appeared strengthening him.’”
There are two items of note here: Firstly, in both quotations Epiphanius places Lk 22:44 before 22:43, suggesting that perhaps he saw the verses in that order, an order that does make perfect sense; secondly, Epiphanius knew mss both with and without Lk 22:43-44, and he believed that the original text of Luke contained these verses, as Lincoln Blumell explains:
Though some have cited Epiphanius as evidence against the authenticity of the passage, this is a fundamental misunderstanding of the passage. When Epiphanius talks about Luke 22:43– 44 being present in the “unrevised” or “uncorrected” copies of Luke (ἐν τῷ κατὰ Λουκᾶν εὐαγγελίῳ ἐν τοῖς ἀδιορθώτοις ἀντιγράφοις) he is not making a general statement about the nature of the manuscript evidence per se, or implying that in more reliable manuscripts the passage is not present. He is simply stating that in the copies not deliberately corrupted (i.e. “unrevised”) by the orthodox the passage is attested and is otherwise genuine.
Although Epiphanius clearly knew Lk 22:43-44, there is no good evidence to indicate whether Tertullian also did. It is conceivable that he is referring to Lk 22:44 in Against Praxeas 27, where he writes that Jesus’ flesh:
… was hungry under the devil's temptation, thirsty with the Samaritan woman, wept over Lazarus, was troubled even unto death, and at last actually died.
However, the Latin used here (anxia usque ad mortem) would appear to suggest that this is more likely a reference to Mt 26:38 (tristis anima mea usque ad mortem) than to Lk 22:44.
The textual evidence supports Epiphanius that Lk 22:43-44 were not in some mss, as indicated by Willker, and summarized by James Snapp, Jr in ‘Luke 22:43-44 – Jesus, Strengthened and Resolved – Part 1’:
The witnesses for non-inclusion are P75, ﬡC1, A, B, N, R, T, W, 0211, 13*, 579, 1071*, four assorted minuscules (158, 512*, 552, and 1128), Old Latin f (i.e., Codex Brixianus), the Sinaitic Syriac, the Sahidic version, the Bohairic version, manuscripts mentioned by Jerome, the Armenian version, and the Georgian version, plus possible support from Clement and Origen. P69, uniquely, does not include verse 42 and the first part of verse 45! Some other witnesses with unusual features will be described later.
There are also other interesting variations:
The fragmentary ms 0171 is non-extant for any of these verses except the end of verse 44, with a dot at the end;
Willker recounts the following from Severus of Antioch, who “preserves a statement from Cyrill († 444 CE) from an otherwise lost work. Severus writes in "the 3rd letter of the 6th book of those after the exile" to the "glorious Caesaria"”:
But, as to the passage about the sweat and the drops of blood, know that in the divine and evangelical Scriptures that are at Alexandria it is not written. Wherefore also the holy Cyril in the 12th of the books written by him on behalf of the religion of all the Christians against the impious demon-worshipper Julian plainly stated as follows:
"But, since he said that the divine Luke inserted among his own words the statement that an angel stood and strengthened Jesus, and his sweat dripped like blood-drops or blood, let him learn from us that we have found nothing of this kind inserted in Luke's work, unless perhaps an interpolation has been made from outside which is not genuine. The books therefore that are among us contain nothing whatever of this kind; and I therefore think it madness for us to say anything to him about these things: and it is a superfluous thing to oppose him on things that are not stated at all, and we shall be condemned to be laughed at and that very justly."
In the books therefore that are at Antioch and in other countries it is written, and some of the fathers mention it; among whom Gregory the Theologian made mention of this same passage in the 2nd homily on the Son [Or. Theol. IV. 16]; and John bishop of Constantinople in the exposition composed by him about the passage, 'My Father if possible let this cup pass from me.'
As noted above, Epiphanius refers to Lk 22:43-44 in reverse order, and although there are no extant mss which support the order vv. 22:44, 43, it should be noted that in A concise view of the Scriptures (1824) and repeated in A View of the Scriptures, and of Natural Knowledge (1838), by an anonymous author, we find:
The recorded sufferings of our Saviour under temptations. “yet without sin,” were to that excess by the oppression of the spirit of evil, or those passions which beset all of us, “that his sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling to the ground; and being in an agony he prayed more earnestly: and there appeared an angel from heaven, strengthening him.”
Although noted in these books as being “Luke xxii.44,” this is actually Lk 22:44b, 44a, 43, in that order. In addition, in Daniel Whedon's Commentary on the Bible, when commenting on Matthew 26, he adds the following note:
Luke adds: “And being in an agony, he prayed more earnestly; and his sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground. And there appeared an angel unto him from heaven strengthening him.” This marks the climax and the close of his present cup.
This quotation consists of Lk 22:44, 43 in that order, as we also see in a sermon titled Terror by Night from the English priest Charles Kingsley in the second half of the 19th century:
And therefore it is, that our Lord Jesus Christ, in order that he might taste sorrow for every man, and be made in all things like to his brethren, endured, once and for all, in the garden of Gethsemane, the terror which cometh by night, as none ever endured it before or since; the agony of dread, the agony of helplessness, in which he prayed yet more earnestly, and his sweat was as great drops of blood falling down to the ground. And there appeared an angel from heaven strengthening him; because he stood not on his own strength, but cast himself on his Father and our Father, on his God and our God.
Here we have a reference to Lk 22:44a, followed by Lk 22:44b, 43, and the Ministry of Prayer Handbook from 2008 also supports Epiphanius, as on page 19 it reverses Lk 22:43 and 44, quoting their text as:
Luke 22:43-44 And being in an agony he prayed more earnestly: and his sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground. And there appeared an angel unto him from heaven, strengthening him.
Finally, Ellen G White, co-founder of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, also quotes these verses in the order Lk 22:44, 43 in ‘The Divine-Human Nature of Christ:’
And the third time He prayed saying the same words. It was here the mysterious cup trembled in the hands of the Son of God. Shall He wipe the bloody sweat from His agonized countenance and let man go? The wail, wretchedness, and ruin of a lost world rolls up its horrible picture before Him. “And being in an agony He prayed more earnestly; and His sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground.” “And there appeared an angel unto him from heaven, strengthening him.” The conflict is ended, Jesus consents to honor His Father by doing His will and bearing His curse, the consequence of man’s transgression.
There is no indication as to the source or sources from which these translations were derived, but their existence means that Epiphanius’ readings are not unique, and leads to the possibility that he did not twice make a mistake, but actually knew the verses in this order. One possibility is that Lk 22:44 (but not v. 43) might have been missing in some mss, and then re-inserted before v. 43. For example, it has been suggested that Lk 22:44 (or less likely vv. 43-44) could have been removed to avoid Jesus appearing to have been physically weak. Blumell writes:
As Clivaz has pointed out, the anti-docetic argument could perhaps account for the omission of Luke 22:44 since this verse talks about Jesus’ agony and sweat, but questions whether it could adequately account for verse 43 and the appearance of the angel. What is there about verse 43 that is patently anti-docetic? (On this point it need not be automatically supposed that vv. 43 and 44 are a conjoined pair and that v. 43 is necessary to introduce v. 44. If both verses apparently represent anti-docetic interpolations then it ought to be clearly articulated by proponents of this theory exactly how v. 43 functions to combat Docetism)
Another possibility is that Luke 22:40–46 form a chiasmus, and that Lk 22:43-44 (or just v. 44) would be intrusive if included. This has been suggested by Bart D. Ehrman in ‘The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, and also appears in pp 129-130 of The Story of Q.: Inspired by Actual Events, N. M. Freeman, which in particular suggests not only that v. 44 is intrusive, but also that it originally stood before v. 43.
Although the above quotes are by no means conclusive, there is a distinct possibility that at some point Lk 22:43 and 44 were reversed compared to what we see, perhaps as a result of the removal and re-insertion of v. 44, and that Epiphanius saw these verses in the reverse order, although he also knew that in some mss neither verse was present. It would not be at all unreasonable to suppose that Marcion might remove verses such as these for suggesting that Jesus was a “full human,” but the evidence for them being instead a post-Marcion interpolation in Luke is strong.
Although Lk 22:43:45a do not have any parallels in either Mark or Matthew, Lk 22:42 does have parallels in both, is in P75, but as noted above is not present in the fragmentary papyrus P69 (POxy 2383), about which Willker suggests:
Regarding P69, there are two possibilities:
1. The P75, A, B et al. reading (omission) is original. Then the scribe of P69 deleted verse 42, perhaps deliberately to get rid of the equally problematic saying of the cup to pass from him.2. The 01*, D et al. reading (inclusion of the verses) is original. Then the scribe of P69 deleted the words either accidentally or deliberately, similar to point 1.
Roth also comments with regard to P69:
Claire Clivaz, “The Angel and the Sweat Like ‘Drops of Blood’ (Lk 22:43-44): P69 and f13,” HTR 98 (2005): 429-32 has cautiously suggested that P69 is a fragment of Marcion’s redaction of Luke. In my estimation, however, this view cannot be accepted as it rests entirely on an argument from silence; the verses Clivaz considers are unattested for Marcion’s Gospel.
Roth is correct regarding Lk 22:42-44 being “unattested for Marcion’s Gospel.” Neither Tertullian nor Epiphanius comment on Lk 22:42-44 with respect to Marcion, from which we can at least deduce that neither saw anything to note regarding these verses in Mcg, whether ammunition with which to attack Marcion, or differences between Mcg and Luke. However, in this case we do have other information, because both Tertullian and Epiphanius exhibit patterns in their comments that can help us to make a determination. Both Tertullian and Epiphanius castigate Marcion several times for not omitting text in other places that shows the corporal nature of Jesus, and so for both to fail to so comment here would be very unusual if Mcg did refer to Jesus’ agony and the bloody sweat from Lk 22:44, strongly suggesting that at least this verse was not in Mcg.
It is clear that Epiphanius knew Lk 22:43-44, although from two different references it seems that he knew these verses in reverse order. He also knew that in some mss both verses were omitted. In Panarion 42 Epiphanius refers to Lk 22:41 and then 22:47b, but says nothing about what he saw of Lk 22:42-47a in Mcg, from which know that, whether or not Lk 22:43-44 were present, he had no point to make. If the verses were not present in Mcg then we might have expected Epiphanius to make some comment about Marcion siding with the orthodox in removing the verses, whereas if the verses were in Mcg then, on the basis of other similar comments from both Tertullian and Epiphanius (as in Panarion 69, section 61:1-2, above) we would have expected at least one of them to have commented that Marcion had left in place text that showed that Jesus had a human body.
Given that it is not at all unreasonable to think that Tertullian (like Epiphanius) would have known mss of Luke both with and without Lk 22:43-44, it is quite possible for neither to have felt the need to comment directly on the presence or absence of the verses in Mcg. In addition, Blumell notes the following on the absence of any comment from Tertullian in particular:
It is important here not to confuse the absence of evidence with actual evidence and to realize that many authors never cited a number of verses they otherwise knew. Thus, very little weight should be put on “negative proof.” For example, while Tertullian has sometimes been invoked as a witness against the passage, because he never explicitly cites it, this is a tenuous argument at best. Based on the extant literary remains of Tertullian it is difficult to know with a high degree of certainty that he definitely did not know the passage as he never devotes considerable attention to the Gethsemane narrative in Luke.
While Blumell is in general correct, he does not take into account patterns of behavior, and from other comments from both Tertullian and Epiphanius it seems more likely that at least one of them would have commented on the verses being present in Mcg rather than being absent. As a result, it is reasonable to believe that Luke 22:43-44 were not present in Mcg.
And when he rose up from prayer, and was come to his disciples, he found them sleeping for sorrow, [22:45]
Neither Tertullian nor Epiphanius comment on these verses, suggesting that they were unchanged in Mcg.
And while he yet spake, behold a multitude, and he that was called Judas, one of the twelve, went before them, and drew near unto Jesus to kiss him. [22:47]
Tertullian makes reference to v. 22:47-48 in his chapter 41:
The Christ of the prophets was destined, moreover, to be betrayed with a kiss, for He was the Son indeed of Him who was "honoured with the lips" by the people. [Isa 29:13]
Epiphanius also comments on the kiss, as noted by Sense:
But Epiphanius here comes to our assistance, and quotes the conclusion of verse 47, "and Judas drew near to kiss him, and he said," etc., in order to refute Marcion by demonstrating that the act of kissing undertaken by Judas proved that the Lord and God made flesh had real lips and was not a dokesis or phantom! (Sch. and Ref., 66).
There is no indication that Marcion had changed any of these verses, but instead both Tertullian and Epiphanius note a detail in Mcg that can be used to refute Marcion, i.e. something that, according to them, Marcion ‘should’ have omitted, but didn’t.
When they which were about him saw what would follow, they said unto him, Lord, shall we smite with the sword? [22:49]
Tertullian has no comment on these verses, although Epiphanius notes that Mcg did not contain at least part of this passage:
He falsified what Peter did when he struck the servant of the high priest and cut off his ear. (Scholion 67)
At first sight this would appear to indicate that vv. 22:50-51 were not in Mcg, but as this would leave an unanswered question in v. 22:49, it is clear that this verse could not have been present in Mcg either.
Willker comments that D, it(a, d, e, f, ff2, r1), armms have a variant in v. 22:51b (with slight variations), which avoids the problem of Jesus touching an ear that had already been cut off:
Et extendens manum (suam Iesus) tetigit eum et redintegrata est auris eius.
In addition to this variant 0171 omits this verse completely.
Then took they him, and led him, and brought him into the high priest's house. And Peter followed afar off. [22:54]
Neither Tertullian nor Epiphanius makes any reference to these verses, except that Tertullian mentions Peter’s “flat denial” [vv. 22:57, 58, 60]. Sense comments as follows:
The next passage (vv. 22:54-62) is not noticed by either Tertullian or Epiphanius; but we might admit it as covered by the remark of the former about the denial of Peter, but the words, or all the incidents in the passage, are not guaranteed. I do not, however, think that Tertullian's remark can be stretched to the extent of covering the crow of the cock; and hence the concluding clause of verse 60, and the words in verse 61, "before the cock crew," and "thrice" should be deleted.
The suggestion by Sense that Mcg did not contain any mention of the cock does not appear to be supported by any mss evidence. Not only are there no variants in which the cock is missing, but both Mark and Matthew include parallel references. It is possible that Lk 22:62 was not present in Mcg, as this verse is not in the Old Latin mss a, b, e, ff2, i, l, and r,1 but if that were the case that would mean that v. 22:62 was also not present in both Tertullian’s and Epiphanius’ copies of Luke. For Tertullian’s Old Latin copy this may be a reasonable deduction, but it seems less likely in the case of Epiphanius.
And the men that held Jesus mocked him, and smote him. [22:63]
In vv. 22:63-64 the KJV mentions Jesus being mocked, smote, blindfolded, struck, and then asked who had hit him. Tertullian does not refer to these verses, but Epiphanius refers to them in his Scholion 68:
“They that held him mocked him, smiting and striking him and saying, Prophesy, who is it that smote thee?”
In Elenchus 68 he then confirms what he saw, and comments:
That “they that held,” “mocked,” “smite,” “strike,” and “Prophesy, who is it that smote thee,” was not appearance, but indicative of tangibility and physical reality, is plain to everyone, Marcion, even if you have gone blind and will not acknowledge God’s plain truth.
The KJV has all the actions mentioned by Epiphanius, but between Jesus being ‘smote’ and ‘struck,’ it also has Jesus being blindfolded. As Epiphanius does not mention the blindfolding, and this action is definitely “indicative of tangibility and physical reality,” it seems certain that he did not see it in Mcg. This is similar to the parallels in both Mark and Matthew, in which Jesus is hit but not blindfolded:
And some began to spit on him, and to cover his face, and to buffet him, and the servants did strike him with the palms of their hands, and to say unto him, Prophesy: [Mk 14:65]
Then did they spit in his face, and buffeted him; and others smote him with the palms of their hands, Saying, Prophesy unto us, thou Christ, Who is he that smote thee? [Mt 26:67-68]
The lack of the blindfolding in Matthew (and the slightly different ‘covering’ in Mark) makes it likely that in Mcg it was not an omission by Marcion, but that this was what was in whatever ms formed the basis of Mcg. Further, as Epiphanius does not mention this as an omission in Mcg, it likely that he did not see it in his copy of Luke either. Neither Tertullian nor Epiphanius mention v. 22:65, so it is unlikely that this verse differed from what they saw in Luke.
And as soon as it was day, the elders of the people and the chief priests and the scribes came together, and led him into their council, saying, [22:66]
Epiphanius makes no mention of these verses, indicating that he saw no difference between Mcg and his copy of Luke. Sense notes the following from Tertullian:
The rest of the passage is minutely referred to by Tertullian in ch. 41. He speaks of Jesus being led before the council (verse 66), and interrogated whether he was Christ (verse 67), and his answer, "For if I tell you, ye will not believe," and he would still have to suffer (verse 68). He quotes verse 69, "Hereafter shall the Son of man be sitting on the right hand of the moral perfection or virtue (uirtutis) of God," and verse 70, "Art thou the Son of God?" and "Ye say that I am."
Like Epiphanius, Tertullian does not suggest that Mcg differed from his copy of Luke.
Next Chapter: Luke 23