Navigation

Lk 22

For a side-by-side English translation of the text of Mcg and Lk 22, see Luke Chapter 22

Lk 22:1-6 – Kill Jesus

Now the feast of unleavened bread drew nigh, which is called the Passover. [22:1]
And the chief priests and scribes sought how they might kill him; for they feared the people. [22:2] 
Then entered Satan into Judas surnamed Iscariot, being of the number of the twelve. [22:3] 
And he went his way, and communed with the chief priests and captains, how he might betray him unto them. [22:4] 
And they were glad, and covenanted to give him money. [22:5] 
And he promised, and sought opportunity to betray him unto them in the absence of the multitude. [22:6] 

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. 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 Mt and Mk side with Bezae in having Judas go just to the chief priests, while Epiphanius has just the captains, and only Lk has both. If Mcg had the captains, then it would seem that Lk 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.

Lk 22:7-13 – Preparing the Last Supper

Then came the day of unleavened bread, when the passover must be killed. [22:7]
And he sent Peter and John, saying, Go and prepare us the passover, that we may eat. [22:8] 
And they said unto him, Where wilt thou that we prepare? [22:9] 
And he said unto them, Behold, when ye are entered into the city, there shall a man meet you, bearing a pitcher of water; follow him into the house where he entereth in. [22:10] 
And ye shall say unto the goodman of the house, The Master saith unto thee, Where is the guestchamber, where I shall eat the passover with my disciples? [22:11] 
And he shall shew you a large upper room furnished: there make ready. [22:12] 
And they went, and found as he had said unto them: and they made ready the passover. [22:13] 

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 Lk at the time. They may not be mentioned by Tertullian simply because there is no action or teaching by Jesus on which to comment.

Lk 22:14-16 – Supper’s Ready

And when the hour was come, he sat down, and the twelve apostles with him. [22:14]
And he said unto them, With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer: [22:15] 
For I say unto you, I will not any more eat thereof, until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God. [22:16]

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 Mk and Mt, 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 Lk. This possibility is supported by the fact that v. 22:16 does not have a parallel in either Mt or Mk, 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.).

Lk 22:17-20 – (Cup,?) Bread and Cup

In the majority of mss of Lk (mainly Greek, but also some other versions: P75 AlephA B C L Tvid W Q f1 f13 (33 defective) 565 579 700 892 1241 Maur 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]
For I say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, [22:18a] 
until the kingdom of God shall come. [22:18b] 
And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body [22:19a] 
which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me. [22:19b] 
Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, [22:20a] 
This cup is the new testament in my blood, [22:20b] 
which is shed for you. [22:20c]

Note: To assist in the following discussion, the verses shown are sub-divided in a way that highlights various issues discussed below.

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:

Mk 14:22-25

And as they did eat, [14:22a]
[Jesus][He] took bread, and blessed, and brake it, and gave to them, and said, Take[[, eat:]] this is my body. [14:22b] 
And he took the cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them: and they all drank of it. [14:23] 
And he said unto them, This is my blood of the [[new]] testament, [14:24a] 
which is shed for many. [14:24b] 
Verily I say unto you, I will drink no more of the fruit of the vine, [14:25a] 
until that day that I drink it new in the kingdom of God. [14:25b]

1 Cor 11:23b-25

… the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: [11:23b]
And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, [[Take, eat:]] this is my body, [11:24a] 
which is [[broken]] for you: this do in remembrance of me. [11:24b] 
After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, [11:25a] 
this cup is the new testament in my blood; [11:25b] 
this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. [11:25c]

The square brackets enclosing words shown above identify variants in 1 Cor, Mk, and Mt, 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 Lk. 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 likewise, when mentioning the cup and making the covenant to be sealed "in His blood," affirms the reality of His 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…
… Thus did He now consecrate His blood in wine, who then (by the patriarch) used the figure of wine to describe His blood.

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:

  • He has the order: bread/body (v. 22:19a); cup (either vv. 22:17 or 20a); blood (v. 22:20b); and wine (v. 22:18); instead of cup – wine – bread/body – cup - blood. 
  • He does not refer to “the cup” as being “after supper.” This singular mention of the cup, together with the lack of any identifying features, suggest that he saw just the first mention, in v. 22:17. 
  • He does not mention Jesus’ atoning words in v. 22:19b and 20c (“This is … for you”), 
  • He does not mention v. 22:20a, and in v. 22:20b refers to “the covenant,” rather than “the new covenant.”

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:

  • Tertullian’s only definite quote is that Christ “made it his own body by saying ‘This is my body.’” 
  • Tertullian uses the word ‘distributum’ regarding the bread instead of “eklasen kai edōken” (broke it and gave it), leaving doubt as to whether he saw “eklasen,” or whether it was just “an example of Tertullian’s free method of quotation.” 
  • Tertullian does not mention that the bread is “given for you.” 
  • From Tertullian;s words: “Sic et in calicis mentione testamentum constituens sanguine suo obsignatum” it is likely that he saw Mark’s form of Lk 22:20. 
  • “It is moreover unlikely that Tertullian, who has so much to say of the old and new covenants, himself omitted the ‘kainē’ [new] inadvertently.”

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]
    This is my body [? Which is given for you].
And in like manner the cup, (saying)                                                               [v. 22:17]
    This cup is the covenant in my blood [or This is my blood of the covenant].    [v. 22:20b]
(We cannot infer any mention of “Do this in remembrance of me.)”

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 Cor 11 and Mk contain close parallels to the words we see in Lk, and therefore are possible sources of these words. It is possible that liturgical practices or different, unknown, sources may be behind the words in Lk, 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 Lk 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. 

1 Cor 11:23b-25

Mk 14:22-25

Mt 26:26-29

Lk 22:15-20

Tertullian

 

14:23 And he took the cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them: and they all drank of it.

26:27 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;

22:17 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, Take this, and divide it among yourselves:

2 (possibly): “when mentioning the cup

 

14:25a Verily I say unto you, I will drink no more of the fruit of the vine,

26:29a But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine,

22:18a For I say unto you, [that] I will not drink of the fruit of the vine,

4: “wine is used as a figure for blood,” etc.

 

14:25b until that day that I drink it new in the kingdom of God.

26:29b until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom.

22:18b until the kingdom of God shall come.

 

 

14:22a And as they did eat,

26:26a And as they were eating,

 

 

11:23b … the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread:

 

 

 

 

11:24a And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, this is my body,

14:22b [Jesus] took bread, and blessed, and brake it, and gave to them, and said, Take, this is my body.

26:26b Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body.

22:19a And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body

1: having taken the bread and given it to His disciples, He made it His own body, by saying, "This is my body,"

11:24b which is for you: this do in remembrance of me.

 

 

22:19b which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.

 

11:25a After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying,

 

 

22:20a Likewise also the cup after supper, saying,

2 (possibly): “when mentioning the cup

11:25b this cup is the new covenant in my blood;

14:24a And he said unto them, This is my blood of the covenant,

26:28a For this is my blood of the covenant,

22:20b This cup is the new covenant in my blood,

3: making the covenant to be sealed in His blood,

 

14:24b which is shed for many.

26:28b which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

22:20c which is shed for you.

 

11:25c this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me

 

 

 

 

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 Lk, but perhaps the most significant differences are with regard to order: 

  • 1 Cor 11:23b-25 refers to bread/body and cup/blood, in that order, with no mention of wine; 
  • Mk and Mt both have the sequence bread/body - cup/blood - wine; 
  • Lk (Majority Text) has cup – wine - bread/body - cup/blood; 
  • Tertullian has bread/body – cup/blood – wine.

Only the sequence ‘bread/body – cup/blood’ is common to all five, and only the Majority Text has the initial cup. Tertullian, Mk, and Mt 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 Mk (or possibly Mt) than that in the Majority Text of Lk:

Tertullian

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 likewise, when mentioning the cup and making the covenant to be sealed in His blood, affirms the reality of His body… 
In order, however, that you may discover how anciently wine is used as a figure for blood, turn to Isaiah…

Mk 14:22-25

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]
And he took the cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them: and they all drank of it. [c.f. v. 22:17] 
And he said unto them, This is my blood of the covenant, [c.f. v. 22:20b] 
which is shed for many. [c.f. v. 22:20c] 
Verily I say unto you, I will drink no more of the fruit of the vine, [c.f. v. 22:18a] 
until that day that I drink it new in the kingdom of God. [c.f. v. 22:18b]

Because Tertullian does not mention any differences here between Mcg and Lk, we should assume that his copy of Lk 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 Mk, 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 Lk. Therefore, allowing for the typical variations we see elsewhere between Mk and Lk, 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]
And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, Take this, and divide it among yourselves: [22:17] 
And he said unto them, This is my blood of the covenant. [22:20b] 
For I say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, [22:18a] 
until the kingdom of God shall come. [22:18b]

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 Lk.

Lk 22:21-23 – One of You…

But, behold, the hand of him that betrayeth me is with me on the table. [22:21]
And truly the Son of man goeth, as it was determined: but woe unto that man by whom he is betrayed! [22:22] 
And they began to enquire among themselves, which of them it was that should do this thing. [22:23]

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 Mk and Mt it can be reasonably inferred that all three were present in Mcg, although with v. 22:22 as seen in Bezae.

Lk 22:24-30 – Eating and Drinking in the Kingdom

And there was also a strife among them, which of them should be accounted the greatest. [22:24]
And he said unto them, The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors. [22:25] 
But ye shall not be so: but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that doth serve. [22:26] 
For whether is greater, he that sitteth at meat, or he that serveth? is not he that sitteth at meat? but I am among you as he that serveth. [22:27] 
Ye are they which have continued with me in my temptations. [22:28] 
And I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me; [22:29] 
That ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel. [22:30]

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 Lk, 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.

Lk 22:31-34 – Deny, Deny, Deny

And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat: [22:31]
But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren. [22:32] 
And he said unto him, Lord, I am ready to go with thee, both into prison, and to death. [22:33] 
And he said, I tell thee, Peter, the cock shall not crow this day, before that thou shalt thrice deny that thou knowest me. [22:34]

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.

Lk 22:35-65 – Tertullian’s Gap

Following the reference above to v. 22:33, Tertullian takes very little note of any of the second half of Lk 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 Lk. 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 Lk either.

Lk 22:35-38 – Supper’s End

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]
Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. [22:36] 
For I say unto you, that this that is written must yet be accomplished in me, And he was reckoned among the transgressors: for the things concerning me have an end. [22:37] 
And they said, Lord, behold, here are two swords. And he said unto them, It is enough. [22:38]

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 Lk 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 Mk or Mt. 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 Lk, and so not an omission by Marcion.

Lk 22:39-46 – Sweat Like Drops of Blood

And he came out, and went, as he was wont, to the mount of Olives; and his disciples also followed him. [22:39]
And when he was at the place, he said unto them, Pray that ye enter not into temptation. [22:40] 
And he was withdrawn from them about a stone's cast, and kneeled down, and prayed, [22:41] 
Saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done. [22:42] 
And there appeared an angel unto him from heaven, strengthening him. [22:43] 
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. [22:44] 
And when he rose up from prayer, and was come to his disciples, he found them sleeping for sorrow, [22:45] 
And said unto them, Why sleep ye? rise and pray, lest ye enter into temptation. [22:46]

The only mention of any of these verses by either Tertullian or Epiphanius comes from Epiphanius, where in his Scholion 65 he 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. As this is the only comment on these verses it would suggest that neither Tertullian nor Epiphanius saw anything else to note regarding vv. 22:42-46, either more ammunition with which to attack Marcion, or any differences between Mcg and Lk. As it is almost certain that at least one of them would have gleefully mentioned seeing vv. 22:43-44 (again showing the corporal nature of Jesus) in Mcg if they saw these verses there, it is most likely that they saw them neither in Mcg nor Lk.

The textual evidence strongly suggests that vv. 22:43-44 were not originally in Lk, as noted in the NET:

Several important Greek mss (Ì75 א1 A B N T W 579 1071*) along with diverse and widespread versional witnesses lack 22:43-44. In addition, the verses are placed after Matt 26:39 by Ë13. Floating texts typically suggest both spuriousness and early scribal impulses to regard the verses as historically authentic. These verses are included in א*,2 D L Θ Ψ 0171 Ë1 Ï lat Ju Ir Hipp Eus. However, a number of mss mark the text with an asterisk or obelisk, indicating the scribe’s assessment of the verses as inauthentic.

Wikipedia has these quotes on the matter from Aland and Metzger:

Kurt Aland (1995): "These verses exhibit a conclusive clue to their secondary nature (like the Pericope Adulterae) in the alternative locations for its insertion. While the majority of the (now known) manuscripts place them at Luke 22:43-44, they are found after Matthew 26:39 in the minuscule family 13 and in several lectionaries. This kind of fluctuation in the New Testament manuscript tradition is one of the surest evidences for the secondary character of a text."

Bruce M. Metzger (2005): "These verses are absent from some of the oldest and best witnesses, including the majority of the Alexandrian manuscripts. It is striking to note that the earliest witnesses attesting the verses are three Church fathers - Justin, Irenaeus, and Hippolytus - each of whom uses the verses in order to counter Christological views that maintained that Jesus was not a full human who experienced the full range of human sufferings. It may well be that the verses were added to the text for just this reason, in opposition to those who held to a docetic Christology."

Although 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,” the evidence for them being instead a post-Marcion interpolation in Lk is strong. 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.'

It is important to note that none of vv. 22:43:45a have parallels in either Mk or Mt, thus lending weight to the possibility that these verses might be an interpolation in Lk. There is also some doubt regarding v. 22:42. Although this verse does have parallels at Mk 14:36 and Mt 26:39b and is in P75it is not present in P69 (POxy 2383), in addition to vv. 43-44 (and possibly also v. 45a), thus removing all information regarding Jesus’ prayer from this ms. According to Willker:

Clivaz suggests that P69 could be "a fragment of Marcion's redaction of the Gospel of Luke". The excision only makes sense "in a type of Christianity that preserved a single Gospel, as did Marcion", because the sentence of the cup is present also in Mt 26:39 and in Mk 14:36. We don't know for certain, but there is no evidence that these verses were in Marcion's gospel.

On the basis of the evidence it seems safe to state that Mcg did not contain vv. 22:43-44, and P69 makes it possible that Mcg also did not contain v. 22:42. Whichever is the case, the lack of comment from both Tertullian and Epiphanius is an indication that their copies of Lk were the same as Mcg here, and that the omission was not due to action by Marcion.

Lk 22:47-48 – Judas’ Kiss

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]
But Jesus said unto him, Judas, betrayest thou the Son of man with a kiss? [22:48]

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.

Lk 22:49-53 – Cutting Off His Ear

When they which were about him saw what would follow, they said unto him, Lord, shall we smite with the sword? [22:49]
And one of them smote the servant of the high priest, and cut off his right ear. [22:50] 
And Jesus answered and said, Suffer ye thus far. And he touched his ear, and healed him. [22:51] 
Then Jesus said unto the chief priests, and captains of the temple, and the elders, which were come to him, Be ye come out, as against a thief, with swords and staves? [22:52] 
When I was daily with you in the temple, ye stretched forth no hands against me: but this is your hour, and the power of darkness. [22:53]

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.
And reaching out his hand he/Jesus touched him and restored his ear.

In addition to this variant 0171 omits this verse completely.

Lk 22:54-62 – Peter at the Fire

Then took they him, and led him, and brought him into the high priest's house. And Peter followed afar off. [22:54]
And when they had kindled a fire in the midst of the hall, and were set down together, Peter sat down among them. [22:55] 
But a certain maid beheld him as he sat by the fire, and earnestly looked upon him, and said, This man was also with him. [22:56] 
And he denied him, saying, Woman, I know him not. [22:57] 
And after a little while another saw him, and said, Thou art also of them. And Peter said, Man, I am not. [22:58] 
And about the space of one hour after another confidently affirmed, saying, Of a truth this fellow also was with him: for he is a Galilaean. [22:59] 
And Peter said, Man, I know not what thou sayest. And immediately, while he yet spake, the cock crew. [22:60] 
And the Lord turned, and looked upon Peter. And Peter remembered the word of the Lord, how he had said unto him, Before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice. [22:61] 
And Peter went out, and wept bitterly. [22:62]

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 Mk and Mt 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 Lk. For Tertullian’s Old Latin copy this may be a reasonable deduction, but it seems less likely in the case of Epiphanius.

Lk 22:63-65 – Who Hit You?

And the men that held Jesus mocked him, and smote him. [22:63]
And when they had blindfolded him, they struck him on the face, and asked him, saying, Prophesy, who is it that smote thee? [22:64] 
And many other things blasphemously spake they against him. [22:65]

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 Mk and Mt, 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 Mt (and the slightly different ‘covering’ in Mk) 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 Lk either. Neither Tertullian nor Epiphanius mention v. 22:65, so it is unlikely that this verse differed from what they saw in Lk.

Lk 22:66-71 – The Sanhedrin

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]
Art thou the Christ? tell us. And he said unto them, If I tell you, ye will not believe: [22:67] 
And if I also ask you, ye will not answer me, nor let me go. [22:68] 
Hereafter shall the Son of man sit on the right hand of the power of God. [22:69] 
Then said they all, Art thou then the Son of God? And he said unto them, Ye say that I am. [22:70] 
And they said, What need we any further witness? for we ourselves have heard of his own mouth. [22:71]

Epiphanius makes no mention of these verses, indicating that he saw no difference between Mcg and his copy of Lk. 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 Lk.

Next Chapter: Lk 23

Comments