Different Copies of Luke?

Why Do Tertullian and Epiphanius Differ So Much in Their Comments on Marcion?

Given that Tertullian and Epiphanius agree (or at least, do not disagree) on what they saw in Mcg corresponding to Luke 1-4, how could they apparently disagree to such a large extent regarding differences between Mcg and Luke elsewhere? Did Tertullian simply ignore the many differences between Mcg and Luke that Epiphanius reported, or perhaps (as suggested by Lardner) was he comparing Marcion with Matthew for much of the time? Alternatively, did Epiphanius perhaps have a mutilated copy of Marcion, or was he simply guilty of greatly exaggerating the differences between Marcion and Luke? The problem with all of these speculative suggestions is that they fall foul of the claims of both Tertullian and Epiphanius that they had been very diligent regarding their respective examinations of the content of Marcion. For example, Tertullian claims to have gone to great lengths to look at all the differences between Marcion and Luke:

It is certain, also, that with this view he [Marcion] has erased everything that was contrary to his own opinion and made for the Creator, as if it had been interpolated by His advocates, whilst everything which agreed with his own opinion he has retained. The latter statements we shall strictly examine; and if they shall turn out rather for our side, and shatter the assumption of Marcion, we shall embrace them. It will then become evident, that in retaining them he has shown no less of the defect of blindness, which characterizes heresy, than he displayed when he erased all the former class of subjects.

Epiphanius is similarly strident regarding the effort he put into refuting Marcion from his own works:

Some years ago, to find what falsehood this Marcion had invented and what his silly teaching was, I took up his very books which he had <mutilated>, his so-called Gospel and Apostolic Canon. From these two books I made a series of <extracts> and selections of the material which would serve to refute him, and I wrote a sort of outline for a treatise, arranging the points in order, and numbering each saying one, two, three (and so on). And in this way I went through all of the passages in which it is apparent that, foolishly, he still retains against himself these leftover sayings of the Savior and the apostle. For some of them had been falsely entered by himself, in an altered form and unlike the authentic copy of the Gospel and the meaning of the apostolic canon. But others were exactly like both the Gospel and Apostle, unchanged by Marcion but capable of completely demolishing him.

Despite these statements, if we believe that Tertullian and/or Epiphanius were mistaken, or worse, lied, regarding the content of Mcg to such an extent that all differences between their respective reports can be do explained, then we can have no confidence in their comments as to the character or motives of Marcion himself. Consequently, we must abandon any quest to discover the ‘true’ Mcg. However, before resorting to such explanations all other avenues must be explored, and there is much we can still do.

One of the generally unstated issues with attempts to reconcile Tertullian’s comments with those of Epiphanius is that both are based on comparisons of Marcion with something, but exactly what that ‘something’ is, is never given. Unless we can show otherwise we must assume that in each case it is Luke's gospel, but from what year, in what language, and containing what variants? Tertullian and Epiphanius do not provide such information, possibly because they were unaware of the differences between their copies and others, but perhaps more likely that these issues were simply not in any way pertinent to what they were trying to achieve. Tyson makes the following statement when discussing the sources used by Harnack as the basis of his reconstruction of Marcion:

Since Tertullian treated canonical Luke as a base and compared Marcion’s gospel with it, his order in Adversus Marcionem 4 is that of canonical Luke, and Harnack follows this order.

Unfortunately, Tyson (and possibly also Harnack) has here fallen into two related traps: Tyson assumes that Tertullian knew canonical Luke, and that, consequently, Tertullian’s order in Adv. Marcion IV is that of canonical Luke. While we cannot state with any degree of certainty that Tertullian even knew “canonical Luke” (however we choose to define it), we can be absolutely certain that Tertullian’s order in Adv. Marcion IV is not what we see in Luke today, with the single most important difference being the swapping of Capernaum and Nazareth.

As has been shown in Marcion’s Gospel, Compared Verse by Verse With Luke, Tertullian makes it clear that Mcg had differences in order compared to what we see in Luke, and in Adv. Marcion IV he quite specifically refers to several verses of Luke in an order different to that which we see in canonical Luke. Even though Tertullian does not mention all the verses that we see in Luke 3-4 (and there is no reason that he should) it is clear that elements of the Capernaum and Nazareth passages in Mcg are not in the order that we see them in Luke. Epiphanius also makes it clear that the order in Mcg was not everywhere as he saw it in Luke when, after quoting what we see as Lk 3:1a as the beginning of Mcg, he states:

He [meaning Marcion] falsifies some things, as I said, he adds others helter-skelter, not going straight on but disingenuously wandering all over the material.

Although Epiphanius does in general terms note what Mcg omits (when compared with Luke) prior to Lk 5:14, indicating (but without giving details) that what was not omitted was ordered differently, from Lk 5:14 he details specific omissions and other changes but does not comment on any differences in order. Unlike Epiphanius Tertullian gives no indication in Adv Marcion that anything in Mcg is out of order when compared with Luke even though he begins with Jesus coming to Capernaum (Lk 3:1a) before Nazareth. However, there is another possible way of explaining this difference between Tertullian and Epiphanius: Tertullian records that the contents of Mcg were not static, but instead, the Marcionites were constantly updating Marcion’s original words. First he states that Luke had not been changed prior to Marcion:

For if the (Gospels) of the apostles have come down to us in their integrity, whilst Luke’s, which is received amongst us, so far accords with their rule as to be on a par with them in permanency of reception in the churches, it clearly follows that Luke’s Gospel also has come down to us in like integrity until the sacrilegious treatment of Marcion. In short, when Marcion laid hands on it, it then became diverse and hostile to the Gospels of the apostles. I will therefore advise his followers, that they either change these Gospels, however late to do so, into a conformity with their own, whereby they may seem to be in agreement with the apostolic writings (for they are daily retouching their work, as daily they are convicted by us); or else that they blush for their master, who stands self-condemned either way -- when once he hands on the truth of the gospel conscience smitten, or again subverts it by shameless tampering.

Tertullian’s comments suggest that Marcion was still changing when Tertullian wrote this statement, which on the face of it could be the reason that Epiphanius was able to identify 110 verses that were not in Marcion when he saw it, but that would appear to have been in the copy that Tertullian saw. However, if the Marcionites were being daily “convicted by us” then the most obvious changes for them to have made would have been to remove from Marcion all the text that Tertullian was able to use to refute Marcion himself. Strangely, on this theory the text that was deliberately removed by the Marcionites (i.e. the text reported by Epiphanius as not being in Marcion) would appear to have been largely selected on the basis of removing text similar to that in P⁷⁵, and leaving in place text like that found in the Old Latin! However, it is clear that the Marcionites did not remove this text, because Epiphanius was later able to use it reiterate the very same arguments against Marcion that Tertullian himself had made two centuries earlier.

Sense lists two sets of Lukan verses that were not in Marcion, the first of which he states were: “Passages not mentioned by Tertullian, introduced into Marcionite and Canonical Gospels by Volckmar.” The second set he identifies as: “Passages not mentioned by Tertullian, removed from the Marcionite Gospel, but retained in the Canonical Gospel by Volckmar,” and these are essentially those which Epiphanius claimed that Marcion had “falsified” (although with some omissions of less than a verse not included), but which Tertullian did not refer to. He states:

Regarding these verses, Epiphanius tells us that they existed in the Canonical Gospel, but were absent in the Marcionite Gospel. The significance of the statement of Epiphanius is, however, not corrective but corroborative of Tertullian’s silence. Epiphanius, finding these verses in his copy of the Canonical Gospel, believed that they were originally there, and hence he concluded that Marcion had cut them out. This was an erroneous inference, and inconsistent with Tertullian’s silence. The real fact was consistent with Tertullian’s silence, viz. the verses were absent both in the original Canonical and Marcionite Gospels, but were subsequently interpolated in the long interval of nearly two centuries which intervened between the original publication and the date of Epiphanius. A further corroboration of the significance of Tertullian’s silence is that there is no collateral proof that these verses existed in the Gospel of Luke in the second and third centuries, but clear collateral proof in at least two important passages, the parables of the of the Prodigal Son and Good Samaritan, of their non-existence.

The above passage from Sense refers to "Tertullian's silence" three times, using this silence as evidence of absence, i.e. that Tertullian had no comment not because he simply chose (for whatever reason) to not comment in these places, but that neither an 'original' Luke not Marcion's gospel contained this text. However, having already rejected assumptions of (for example) incompetence, mistakes, or plain falsehoods on the part of either Tertullian or Epiphanius, or (unknown) changes to Marcion as the reasons for the 110 verse difference referred to above, we can now reject post-Tertullian changes by the Marcionites as well. We are then left with only two possibilities: Either a person or persons unknown removed the 'wrong' verses (i.e. not the ones that would have helped the Marcionites) from Marcion in the 200 or so years between Tertullian and Epiphanius, or Tertullian’s copy of Luke contained those verses but that he simply had no reason to comment on them because they did not involve any action by, or interaction with, Jesus.

Next: The Text of Epiphanius' Copy of Luke

If you have any comments, questions, suggestions, etc. regarding Marcion or my analysis please email me at davidinglis2@comcast.net