From Ernest Evans on Adv. Marcion IV: Appendix 2: At 17:10 he omits [say, We are unprofitable servants etc.], and in vv. 11-19 he reads, There met him ten men that were lepers and he sent them away saying, Shew yourselves to the priest, inserting here apparently 4:27, Then were many lepers in Israel etc.
Then said he unto the disciples, It is impossible but that offences will come: but woe unto him, through whom they come! [17:1] It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones. [17:2]
Epiphanius says nothing about these verses (suggesting that they were the same as in his copy of Luke), but Tertullian indicates that he saw a different variant, omitting: “It is impossible but that offences will come,” and adding that it would be better “if he had not been born.”
Then, turning to His disciples, He says: "Woe unto him through whom offences come! It were better for him if he had not been born, or if a millstone were hanged about his neck and he were cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones,"
This text has parallels in both Mark and Matthew:
And whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in me, [Mk 9:42a] it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea. [Mk 9:42b] But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, [Mt 18:6a]
it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea. [Mt 18:6b] Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh! [Mt 18:7]
Neither of these parallels include “if he had not been born,” but essentially the same phrase is present elsewhere in Mk and Mt:
The Son of man indeed goeth, as it is written of him: but woe to that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! good were it for that man if he had never been born. [Mk 14:21]
The Son of man goeth as it is written of him: but woe unto that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! it had been good for that man if he had not been born. [Mt 26:24]
In addition, The Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians (1 Clement 46:8), written close to the end of the 1st century, has what appears to be a combination of Mk 9:42 and 14:21, or Mt 18:6 and 26:24, and therefore possibly is evidence of an early form of Lk 17:2:
Remember the words of the Lord Jesus; for he said, “Woe unto that man: it were good for him if he had not been born, than that he should offend one of my elect; it were better for him that a millstone be hung on him, and he be cast into the sea, than that he should turn aside one of my elect.” [or: “and that should be drowned in the sea, than that he should offend one of my little ones.”]
This is one of a number of places in which Tertullian appears to have seen in Ev (and from his lack of comment, also in his copy of Luke) text that we do not see in Luke, but that is in Matthew. In this case it suggests that Ev contained an earlier version of Lk 17:2, similar to that quoted by Clement, and that the reference to not being born was later removed from Luke.
Because there are no known variants of Luke that contain “if he had not been born,” we can reasonably assume that Epiphanius did not have it in his copy. If so, then because Epiphanius does not mention these verses either he failed to note the difference, or it was not in his copy of Ev either. This latter option seems the least unlikely because, as Tertullian stated in Adv. Marcion IV, chapter 5: “they are daily retouching their work, as daily they are convicted by us.” By the same token it is possible that: “It is impossible but that offences will come:” was in Epiphanius' copy of Ev, but here it is more likely that Tertullian was simply paraphrasing Ev 17:1, and that in Ev this verse was the same as we see in Luke.
Take heed to yourselves: If thy brother trespass against thee, rebuke him; and if he repent, forgive him. [17:3] And if he trespass against thee seven times in a day, and seven times in a day turn again to thee, saying, I repent; thou shalt forgive him. [17:4]
Tertullian refers to both these verses, without suggesting he saw any differences:
… Such identity of care proceeds from one and the same Being. A trespassing brother He will have rebuked. [17:3] … He commands you to forgive your brother, should he trespass against you even "seven times." [17:4]
As Epiphanius makes no comment we can assume that they both saw these verses unchanged from what they expected.
And the apostles said unto the Lord, Increase our faith. [17:5] And the Lord said, If ye had faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye might say unto this sycamine tree, Be thou plucked up by the root, and be thou planted in the sea; and it should obey you. [17:6]
Neither Tertullian nor Epiphanius mention these verses. However, Lk 17:6 has a different parallel at Mt 17:20:
And Jesus said unto them, Because of your unbelief: for verily I say unto you, If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you.
In addition, this longer version exists in Bezae:
And the apostles said unto the Lord, Increase our faith. [17:5] But he said unto them, if ye had faith as a grain of mustard-seed, ye might have said unto this mountain, remove hence to yonder place, and it should have removed; and unto this sycamine tree, be thou planted in the sea; and it should obey you. [17:6]
This appears to be a conflation of the versions in Matthew and Luke, but of course if it was early then it is more likely to have been the source of those versions. Because of the parallel in Matthew it is reasonable to assume that these verses were present in Ev (even though in a different form), and that Tertullian and Epiphanius saw these verses as they expected them to be.
But which of you, having a servant plowing or keeping cattle, will say unto him by and by, when he is come from the field, Go and sit down to meat? [17:7] And will not rather say unto him, Make ready wherewith I may sup, and gird thyself, and serve me, till I have eaten and drunken; and afterward thou shalt eat and drink? [17:8] Doth he thank that servant because he did the things that were commanded him? I trow not. [17:9] So likewise ye, when ye shall have done all those things which are commanded you, say, We are unprofitable servants: we have done that which was our duty to do. [17:10]
This passage is not mentioned by Tertullian, while Epiphanius states only that Ev did not have v. 17:10b:
He falsified, “Say, we are unprofitable servants; we have done that which it was our duty to do.” (Scholion 47)
When neither Tertullian nor Epiphanius mention a verse we should take this to mean that they saw what they expected: Either the verse was present in both Luke and Ev, or present in neither. As these verses do not have any parallels in Matthew or Mark, in the absence of any other evidence we might reasonably assume that these verses were absent. However, from Epiphanius’ comment we know that at least Lk 17:10b must have been in his copy of Luke. Also, as Lk 17:10b would not make sense without some or all of Lk 17:7-10a, at least some of these verses were also present in Luke, and this in turn would mean that they were most likely present in Ev. However, we would then have Ev 17:10a without Ev 17:10b, which appears to make little sense. As we see Lk 17:10 it basically says:
So likewise ye, … say, We are unprofitable servants: we have done that which was our duty to do.
It is just possible to see “So likewise ye” without “say, …”, meaning approximately “So likewise [would] ye [do], but this is awkward. It is also possible that when Epiphanius says that aMarcion falsified, “Say, we are unprofitable servants; we have done that which it was our duty to do,” he is referring to the whole passage that ends at this point. However, although Epiphanius does in places quote just the beginning of a passage when he is referring to the whole passage, quoting just the end of a passage is very unusual. Nevertheless, this seems preferable to the alternative very awkward interpretation suggested above, meaning that the whole passage was not present in Ev.
And it came to pass, as he went to Jerusalem, that he passed through the midst of Samaria and Galilee. [17:11]
In his chapter 35 Tertullian described the location of the following episode:
The miracle was performed in the district of Samaria [17:11], to which country also belonged one of the lepers. [17:16]
Epiphanius does not mention this verse, which as the NET states is the second Jerusalem travel note:
This is another travel note about Jesus going to Jerusalem in vv. 9:51-19:48, the so-called “Jerusalem journey” section of Luke’s Gospel. It is not a straight line journey, because to travel along the Galilean and Samaritan border is to go east or west, not south to Jerusalem.
From Tertullian we know that this verse was present in Ev, but it may have only referred to Samaria.
And as he entered into a certain village, there met him ten men that were lepers, which stood afar off: [17:12] And they lifted up their voices, and said, Jesus, Master, have mercy on us. [17:13] And when he saw them, he said unto them, Go shew yourselves unto the priests. And it came to pass, that, as they went, they were cleansed. [17:14] And one of them, when he saw that he was healed, turned back, and with a loud voice glorified God, [17:15] And fell down on his face at his feet, giving him thanks: and he was a Samaritan. [17:16] And Jesus answering said, Were there not ten cleansed? but where are the nine? [17:17] There are not found that returned to give glory to God but this stranger. [17:18] And he said unto him, Arise, go thy way: thy faith hath made the whole. [17:19]
In his chapter 35 Tertullian discusses this episode in detail:
“… even in His cure of the ten lepers. [17:12] These He simply commanded to show themselves to the priest; [17:14a] "and as they went, He cleansed them" [17:14b] -- without a touch, and without a word, by His silent power and simple will …
Now, although He said in a preceding chapter [or, “Now although he has said before this” (Evans)], that "there were many lepers in Israel in the days of Eliseus the prophet, and none of them was cleansed saving Naaman the Syrian," [4:27] yet of course the mere number proves nothing towards a difference in the gods, as tending to the abasement of the Creator in curing only one, and the pre-eminence of Him who healed ten. For who can doubt that many might have been cured by Him who cured one more easily than ten by him who had never healed one before? ... Why, however, did He not give such a command to the leper who first returned? [17:15] Because Elisha did not in the case of Naaman the Syrian, and yet was not on that account less the Creator's agent? …
Consider, therefore, the true motives. The miracle was performed in the district of Samaria [17:11], to which country also belonged one of the lepers. [17:16] … Seeing, therefore, that they recognised the truth that at Jerusalem the law was to be fulfilled, He healed them whose salvation was to come of faith [17:19] without the ceremony of the law. Whence also, astonished that one only out of the ten was thankful for his release to the divine grace, [17:17] He does not command him to offer a gift according to the law, because he had already paid his tribute of gratitude when "he glorified God; [17:15] for thus did the Lord will that the law's requirement should be interpreted. And yet who was the God to whom the Samaritan gave thanks, [17:16], because thus far not even had an Israelite heard of another god?
Tertullian refers to all of the above verses except Ev 17:13, 18, without giving any indication that he saw anything unexpected. He also quotes from Lk 4:27, but is clear that he is referring to something he saw earlier, although it is not immediately clear whether he saw it in Luke or Ev. However, he appears to be using this text to comment on the healing abilities of Elisha vs. Jesus, and the location of the comment suggests that this text was present in Ev between vv. 17:14 and 15.
Epiphanius quotes very little of this passage, but at first sight seems to see something different to Tertullian, writing as follows:
When the ten lepers met him, [17:12] Marcion cut a great deal out and wrote, “He sent them away, saying, Show yourselves unto the priests,” [17:14] and yet he made a substitution and said, “Many lepers were in the days of Elisha the prophet, and none was cleansed, saving Naaman the Syrian.” (Scholion 48)
Epiphanius clearly saw significant differences in this passage between Luke and Ev, but we cannot tell exactly what was in the “great deal” that was excised from Ev. However, given what Tertullian did not quote, Ev may not have had vv. 17:13 and 18, and some clauses from the other verses. In addition, Epiphanius makes it clear that Ev did include the “Naaman the Syrian” passage, which may have replaced some of the text that was not present. Cassels suggests the following:
Between xvii. 14 and 15 (some critics say in verse 18) Marcion introduced the verse which is found in Luke iv. 27: "And many lepers were in Israel in the time of Elisha the prophet; and none of them was cleansed saving Naaman, the Syrian."
From the place in his narrative at which Tertullian mentions Naaman, an insertion between Ev 17:14 and 15 seems the most likely place. Dr. Holmes also suggests this in his note:
He made many alterations in the story of the ten lepers; he left out part of ver. 12, all of ver. 13, and altered ver. 14, reading thus: "There met Him ten lepers; and He sent them away, saying, Show yourselves to the priest;" after which he inserted a clause from chap. iv. 27: "There were many lepers in the days of Eliseus the prophet, but none of them were cleansed, but Naaman the Syrian."
From the preceding discussion it appears that both Tertullian and Epiphanius saw Lk 4:27 in its normal position in their respective copies of Luke, and also between Ev 17:14 and 15. In addition, both appear to agree that some of Ev 17:15-19 was not present, with these verses possibly reading as follows:
And there met him ten men that were lepers, [17:12] And when he saw them, he said unto them, Go shew yourselves unto the priests. And it came to pass, that, as they went, they were cleansed. [17:14] And many lepers were in Israel in the time of Eliseus the prophet; and none of them was cleansed, saving Naaman the Syrian. [4:27] And one of them, when he saw that he was healed, turned back, and with a loud voice glorified God, [17:15] giving him thanks: and he was a Samaritan. [17:16] And Jesus answering said, Were there not ten cleansed? but where are the nine? [17:17] And he said unto him, Arise, go thy way: thy faith hath made thee whole. [17:19]
There is no obvious reason why Marcion would have made such a change.
In chapter 35 Tertullian refers to the Pharisees asking about the kingdom of god, and then quotes most of Ev 17:20-21:
"The kingdom of God," He says, "cometh not with observation; neither do they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you."
Epiphanius does not refer to these verses, and so there is no reason to think that Ev 17:20-21 were different to what we see in Luke.
And he said unto the disciples, The days will come, when ye shall desire to see one of the days of the Son of man, and ye shall not see it. [17:22] And they shall say to you, See here! , or, see there! go not after them, nor follow them. [17:23] For as the lightning, that lighteneth out of the one part under heaven, shineth unto the other part under heaven; so shall also the Son of man be in his day. [17:24] But first must he suffer many things, and be rejected of this generation. [17:25]
Epiphanius quotes from Ev 17:22:
The days will come when ye shall desire to see one of the days of the son of man. (Scholion 49)
Tertullian does not mention Ev 17:22-23, but does quote from Ev 17:24c-25:
… For He tells them that "the Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected," before His coming, at which His kingdom will be really revealed.
The NET notes the following regarding Lk 17:24:
Some very important mss (Ì75 B D it sa) lack the words ἐν τῇ ἡμέρα αὐτοῦ (en th Jhmera autou, “in his day”), but the words are included in א A L W Θ Ψ Ë1,13 Ï lat sy bo. On the one hand, the shorter reading is impressive because it has some of the best Alexandrian and Western witnesses in support; on the other hand, the expression ἐν τῇ ἡμέρα αὐτοῦ is unusual (found nowhere else in the NT), and may be considered the harder reading. A decision is difficult, but it is probably best to retain the words. NA27 rightly has the words in brackets, expressing doubt as to their authenticity.
There is no reason to doubt the existence of these verses in Ev, except that from Tertullian’s quote it seems that he did not see “in his day.“
Epiphanius does not mention any of these verses, while Tertullian refers to Ev 17:26-29, and 32:
If, however, He speaks of His own coming, why does He compare it with the days of Noe and of Lot, which were dark and terrible -- a mild and gentle God as He is? ... Why does He bid us "remember Lot's wife," who despised the Creator's command, and was punished for her contempt, if He does not come with judgment to avenge the infraction of His precepts?
As Tertullian refers to most of this passage, Lk 17:26-27, 30 have a parallel at Mt 24:37-39, and Lk 17:31 has parallels at Mt 24:17-18 and Mk 13:15-16, we should assume that these verses were present in Ev as we see them in Luke.
Whosoever shall seek to save his life shall lose it; and whosoever shall lose his life shall preserve it. [17:33] I tell you, in that night there shall be two men in one bed; the one shall be taken, and the other shall be left. [17:34] Two [women] shall be grinding together; the one shall be taken, and the other left. [17:35] Two [men] shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left. [17:36] And they answered and said unto him, Where, Lord? And he said unto them, Wheresoever the body is, thither will the eagles be gathered together. [17:37]
These verses are not mentioned in any way by either Tertullian or Epiphanius, indicating that neither saw anything of note, and all except Lk 17:34 have parallels in Matthew:
Lk 17:33 has a parallel at Mt 10:39
Lk 17:35-36 have parallels at Mt 24:40-41
Lk 17:37 has a parallel at Mt 24:28
We would normally take this to mean that Ev most likely had these verses. However, the NET (in common with other bibles) omits Lk 17:36:
Several mss (D Ë13 [579] 700 al lat sy) add (with several variations among these witnesses) 17:36 “There will be two in the field; one will be taken and the other left.” It is not well enough attested to be original. Further, it is an assimilation to the parallel in Matt 24:40, which marks the addition as secondary.
If, as the NET states, Lk 17:36 is secondary, then, by the same logic Lk 17:35, which has a parallel at Mt 24:41, is also secondary. However, because of the parallel we are assuming that Ev 17:35 was present, and so we should assume the same regarding Ev 17:36. Although Lk 17:34 could have been a late addition to Luke, and not in Ev, on balance it seems safer to include it.
Next Chapter: Luke 18