Previous Page: The Text of Epiphanius' Copy of Luke
Having previously identified the most likely text of Epiphanius copy of Luke, we can go through his scholia one-by-one, noting that where he indicates a difference or an omission (that Tertullian does not), he is in reality not just allowing us to identify the text of Marcion's Gospel (Ev) at that point, but at the same time that of Tertullian’s copy of Luke. However, as Epiphanius’ first scholion refers to Lk 5:14, we need some other way to determine what Tertullian saw in Lk 1:1 – 5:13. As previously indicated, there are references in Adv. Marcion IV (and elsewhere in Tertullian’s works) to text in Luke 1-4. For example in The Prescription Against Heretics, chapter 26, he writes:
Indeed they would have found it impossible either to convert Jews or to bring in Gentiles, unless they "set forth in order" [1:1]
Also, in ‘On the Flesh of Christ’ Tertullian refers to many people and events from Chapters 1-2 of Luke. He also knew John’s baptism, but he does not appear to have known either the genealogy, or the temptation (although he did know the version in Matthew). He also knew the reading from Isaiah, but because Tertullian does not comment on Capernaum coming before Nazareth in Ev, it appears that this is also the order he saw in Luke. He also appears to have seen two verses that we only see in Matthew following the reading from Isaiah, but has no mention of the “many widows,” although he does refer to Naaman the Syrian in a later verse. As Epiphanius appears to know everything we see in Luke 1-4, this tells us that the first four chapters of Luke existed in three different forms:
Luke 1-4 were shortest in Ev, having only Lk 3:1a, 4:31-39, 16, 22-24, 28-30, 40-44 (in that order), and with Lk 4:27 following 17:14.
In comparison with Ev, Tertullian’s Luke added chapters 1-2, Lk 3:1b-21, 4:1-14a, 17-21, 25-27, and with Lk 4:27 moved to its current position.
In comparison with Tertullian, Epiphanius’ Luke added just the genealogy (Lk 3:23-30) and Lk 4:14b-15, and had Nazareth before Capernaum. This is essentially what we see in canonical Luke, except possibly for a few small variants.
Following Luke 1-4, Ev and Tertullian’s copy of Luke were very similar, with just the seven differences referred to earlier. In contrast, Epiphanius’ copy of Luke had verses that were not present in Tertullian’s copy, and there were twelve other places where their texts differed, so what can we glean from Epiphanius’ comments on the differences between his copy of Luke and Ev, and consequently, Tertullian’s copy of Luke also?
As has been noted in many places in the body of this analysis, there is manuscript support for variants supporting (or very close to) the different reports of Tertullian and Epiphanius regarding the differences they saw between Ev and their respective copies of Luke. These different reports, plus information from other sources (see the Textual Considerations), point strongly towards Tertullian using a shorter Western (and quite likely Old Latin) copy of Luke. In his note 'Knowledge of Documents,' Willker provides these observations on Luke, in which he emphasizes the ties between Luke, the Western text, and the Old Latin:
The Western texttype in Lk, represented by D and the Old Latin, is exceptionally strong. D and the Old Latin share so many special readings that one could speak of a complete revision. Most of these readings give a secondary impression. The Western text of Lk is worse than the majority/Byzantine text. The closest neighbors of D/it are Sy-S and Sy-C, but they are not so close as in Mt. They share only about one third of the Western minority readings (two third in Mt).
Several D-readings are supported by Marcion. Also some readings are supported by Tatian's Diatessaron. Since both Marcion and Tatian probably used some kind of Western text it is difficult to distinguish them. Nevertheless it can be said that probably some readings of D come from Marcion and/or Tatian.
Klijn goes further:
Marcion’s text raises particular difficulties for us. It is known only from quotations in Tertullian’s Adv. Marcionem. The question has been raised whether Tertullian quotes from a Latin or a Greek text. It has even been questioned whether Tertullian himself used a Latin or a Greek New Testament. At the moment the matter seems to have been settled. Higgins who went into the problem, came to the conclusion that the quotations taken from Marcion show a clear agreement with the Old Latin usage in the European branch and the quotations taken from Tertullian’s New Testament show agreement with the usage in the African branch. This seems to show that both Marcion’s text as known to Tertullian and his own text were in a Latin translation.
Marcion’s text has been thoroughly investigated by Blackman. The agreement between each individual Old Latin manuscript and Marcion is listed. The result is that Marcion does not show a particular agreement with any one Old Latin text, but the general impression is that Marcion’s text belongs to the Western text as it is manifested in the Old Latin version.
We do not have ms support for all the reported differences between the two copies of Luke, but perhaps the single most compelling piece of evidence we have for believing that Tertullian’s copy of Luke was in Old Latin, and that so was the copy of Marcion that he had, is the additions to Lk 23:2 reported by Epiphanius, but, importantly, not Tertullian. As reported earlier (see Lk 23), mss support for these variants only exists in the Old Latin and some copies of the Vulgate. For example, from Epiphanius:
After, “We found this fellow perverting the nation,” Marcion added, “and destroying the Law and the prophets.” (Scholion 69)
An addition after, “forbidding to give tribute,” is “and turning away their wives and children.” (Scholion 70)
Other evidence indicating that the copies of both Ev and Luke that Tertullian used were in Old Latin can be found elsewhere in statements by both Tertullian and Epiphanius. For example, as mentioned in the Textual Considerations, Tertullian’s mention of the trees producing fruit [cum fructum protulerint] in Lk 21:30 is almost exclusively an Old Latin variant. Other scholia from Epiphanius identify yet more places at which Ev (and hence also Tertullian’s copy of Luke) follows Bezae or other Old Latin mss:
Scholion 1: Epiphanius states that Ev had “that this may be a testimony unto you,” instead of “for a testimony unto them” in Lk 5:14. This variant is found in codex Bezae.
Scholion 25: “Marcion had, ‘This generation, no sign shall be given it.’ [11:29b] But he did not have the passages about Nineveh, the queen of the south, and Solomon” [11:30-32]. Although there are no known mss in which all this text is omitted, Bezae does not contain Lk 11:32.
Scholion 35: “Instead of, “in the second or third watch,” he had, “in the evening watch.”” [12:38]. There are several variants in this verse, which has no parallels in either Mark or Matthew. Bezae has both “in the evening watch” and “in the second or third watch.”
Scholion 53: “He falsified the section about the ass and Bethpage – and the one about the city and the temple, because of the scripture, “My house shall be called an house of prayer, but ye make it a den of thieves” [19:29-46]. Although all of Lk 19:29-36 have parallels in Mark and/or Matthew, Lk 19:37, 39-40, 41b-44 have none. In addition, Bezae has shorter variants of Lk 19:30-34 and an insertion in Lk 19:38, and G*, 063, and 477 omit Lk 19:32-34.
Scholion 67: “He falsified what Peter did when he struck the servant of the high priest and cut off his ear” [22:49-51]. D and the Old Latin have a longer variant of Lk 22:51, while this verse is omitted in 0171.
It therefore appears that Ev (and Tertullian’s copy of Luke) were most likely in Old Latin, and their text has strong Western tendencies, but does this provide any information on its antiquity? One of the curious things is that, although it appears to be as ancient as the Alexandrian text, The Western Text is currently held in much lower regard. To no small extent the spread of this view appears to be due to one man: Bruce Metzger, as can be seen by Googling for occurrences of the phrase "fondness for paraphrase" in conjunction with the word ’characteristic,’ which will retrieve over 1,000 quotes from, or what are themselves paraphrases of, Metzger’s comments on the Western text. In the introduction to his ‘Textual Commentary of the Greek New Testament,’ after showing that he clearly recognizes the antiquity of the Western text, he writes:
The chief characteristic of Western readings is fondness for paraphrase. Words, clauses, and even whole sentences are freely changed, omitted, or inserted. Sometimes the motive appears to have been harmonization, while at other times it was the enrichment of the narrative by the inclusion of traditional or apocryphal material. Some readings involve quite trivial alterations for which no special reason can be assigned. One of the puzzling features of the Western text (which generally is longer than the other forms of text) is that at the end of Luke and in a few other places in the New Testament certain Western witnesses omit words and passages that are present in other forms of text, including the Alexandrian. Although at the close of the last century [the 19th] certain scholars were disposed to regard these shorter readings as original (Westcott and Hort called them “Western non-interpolations”), since the acquisition of the Bodmer Papyri many scholars today are inclined to regard them as aberrant readings.
Metzger's comment on the Bodmer Papyri refers to the change of opinion resulting from the knowledge of (in particular) P75, the text of which is very similar to B, and which includes many Alexandrian readings for which no early mss were previously known to exist. The problem is that there was never any dispute regarding the B-text predating B itself, so P75 should simply have provided supporting evidence. However, as Robert Waltz points out, this was not what happened:
The discovery of P75 has had a profound effect on New Testament criticism. The demonstration that the B text is older than B seems to have encouraged a much stronger belief in its originality. The UBS committee, for instance, placed the Western Non-Interpolations back in their text based largely on the evidence of P75.
The irony, as E. C. Colwell pointed out in the essay "Hort Redivivus: A Plea and a Program" (p. 156 in the reprint in Studies in Methodology in Textual Criticism of the New Testament), is that P75 should have had no such effect. The existence of manuscripts such as P75 had never been questioned. The major Bodmer papyri (P66, P72, P74, and P75) are important and influential witnesses, but they should have little effect on our textual theory.
There is no question that the Western and P75/B texts differ in many regards, but that in itself says nothing about their relative age, and, as we have seen regarding Ev and Luke, phrases such as “Words, clauses, and even whole sentences are freely changed, omitted, or inserted” pre-suppose a known ‘good’ text against which the other can be judged. The problem here is that the determination of the ‘good’ text is largely a matter of opinion.
There can be little doubt that much of the difference between what Tertullian and Epiphanius report is due to the fact that Tertullian’s copy of Luke was both Western and written in Old Latin (the two are not necessarily synonymous). In addition, we can sure that Tertullian’s almost complete silence regarding any differences between Ev and Luke 5-24 is due to Ev also being Western and Old Latin. However, whether Ev was originally written in Old Latin, or translated from Greek, is unknown.
Next: Marcion's Gospel and the Synoptic Problem
If you have any comments, questions, suggestions, etc. regarding Marcion or my analysis please email me at davidinglis2@comcast.net