Luke 23
For a side-by-side English translation of the text of Marcion's Gospel of the Lord and Luke 23, see Luke Chapter 23
Summary:
From Ernest Evans on Adv. Marcion IV: Appendix 2: In ch. 23 he adds to verse 2, and destroying the law and the prophets and perverting women and children: and omits verse 43 [Today shall thou be with me].
Details:
Luke 23:1-3 – Jesus Before Pilate
And the whole multitude of them arose, and led him unto Pilate. [23:1] And they began to accuse him, saying, We found this fellow perverting the nation, and forbidding to give tribute to Caesar, saying that he himself is Christ a King. [23:2] And Pilate asked him, saying, Art thou the King of the Jews? And he answered him and said, Thou sayest it. [23:3]
Tertullian describes Jesus being brought before Pontius Pilate, referring to Mcg [Marcion's gospel] 23:1 and all of Mcg 23:3, but only the last part of Mcg 23:2, giving no indication that he saw anything different between Mcg and his copy of Luke:
For when He was brought before Pilate, [23:1] they proceeded to urge Him with the serious charge, of declaring Himself to be Christ the King; [23:2] … Likewise, when Pilate asked Him, "Art thou Christ (the King)?" [23:3] He answered, as He had before (to the Jewish council [22:70]) "Thou sayest that I am" [23:3] …
Epiphanius does not mention either Mcg 23:1 or 3 (so indicating that he also saw no differences here), but does record two additions in Mcg 23:2, the first being:
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)
Willker notes that the first addition (Et solventem legem nostram et prophetas) is found only in the Old Latin mss b, c, e, ff2, gat, i, l, q, r2, and also vgmss . He also notes that a slightly different variant of the second addition is found in c and e only, although in these mss it is placed after Lk 23:5:
et filios nostros et uxores avertit a nobis; non enim baptizantur sicut et nos, nec se mundant.
"and our sons and wives he turns away from us, for they do not receive baptism in the same way as we do, nor do they purify themselves."
In The Problem of the Itala, Musurillo also notes this addition after Mcg 23:5, although he states that in c it ends with "sicut nos." He also reports::
Marcion knew of a similar Greek reading (embracing in sense from "et" to "avertit") inserted in 23:2 after "Caesari." Though the verse was not preserved in either the Greek or the Vulgate tradition, it is possible that it does reflect some primitive stratum of Luke, now lost.
It is not clear how Musurillo knew that the addition known to Marcion was originally in Greek, rather than Latin, as we have no evidence for it. If he simply took the reading from Epiphanius then this would be no proof of the original language. Instead, as both these additions only have mss support in the Old Latin this supports Mcg having originally been written in Old Latin. Then, as Tertullian’s lack of reference to these additions suggests that they were in his copy of Luke, this also supports the view that his copy of Luke was in Latin.
Luke 23:4-8 – Pilate Sends Jesus to Herod
Then said Pilate to the chief priests and to the people, I find no fault in this man. [23:4] And they were the more fierce, saying, He stirreth up the people, teaching throughout all Jewry, beginning from Galilee to this place. [23:5] When Pilate heard of Galilee, he asked whether the man were a Galilaean. [23:6] And as soon as he knew that he belonged unto Herod's jurisdiction, he sent him to Herod, who himself also was at Jerusalem at that time. [23:7] And when Herod saw Jesus, he was exceeding glad: for he was desirous to see him of a long season, because he had heard many things of him; and he hoped to have seen some miracle done by him. [23:8]
Tertullian mentions nothing of these verses except that “He was sent to Herod gratuitously by Pilate,” [23:7] and that Herod was “exceeding glad” [23:8] when he saw Jesus, in keeping with Tertullian's focus on the actions and speech of Jesus. Although these verses have no parallels in Matthew or Mark the existence of Tertullian’s remarks mean that we have no reason to suppose that Marcion excluded them from Mcg
Luke 23:9-11 – Herod Sends Him Back to Pilate
Then he questioned with him in many words; but he answered him nothing. [23:9] And the chief priests and scribes stood and vehemently accused him. [23:10] And Herod with his men of war set him at nought, and mocked him, and arrayed him in a gorgeous robe, and sent him again to Pilate. [23:11]
Epiphanius does not mention these verses, but Tertullian refers to Mcg.23:9, saying that Herod “heard not a word from Him.” As Lk 23:9-11 have parallels in both Matthew and Mark (although the verses are in a different order, and refer to Pilate, not Herod) it is likely that all three verses were in Mcg.
Luke 23:12-16 – Pilate Decides to Release Him
And the same day Pilate and Herod were made friends together: for before they were at enmity between themselves. [23:12] And Pilate, when he had called together the chief priests and the rulers and the people, [23:13] Said unto them, Ye have brought this man unto me, as one that perverteth the people: and, behold, I, having examined him before you, have found no fault in this man touching those things whereof ye accuse him: [23:14] No, nor yet Herod: for I sent you to him; and, lo, nothing worthy of death is done unto him. [23:15] I will therefore chastise him, and release him. [23:16]
Neither Tertullian nor Epiphanius mention these verses, none of which have a parallel in either Matthew or Mark. However, at least some of this passage is necessary to provide the reason why Pilate is willing to release Jesus. Therefore, there is no evidence to indicate that verses were not in Mcg.
Luke 23:17-25 – Back to Pilate Again
(For of necessity he must release one unto them at the feast.) [23:17] And they cried out all at once, saying, Away with this man, and release unto us Barabbas: [23:18] (Who for a certain sedition made in the city, and for murder, was cast into prison.) [23:19] Pilate therefore, willing to release Jesus, spake again to them. [23:20] But they cried, saying, Crucify him, crucify him. [23:21] And he said unto them the third time, Why, what evil hath he done? I have found no cause of death in him: I will therefore chastise him, and let him go. [23:22] And they were instant with loud voices, requiring that he might be crucified. And the voices of them and of the chief priests prevailed. [23:23] And Pilate gave sentence that it should be as they required. [23:24] And he released unto them him that for sedition and murder was cast into prison, whom they had desired; but he delivered Jesus to their will. [23:25]
Tertullian provides almost no details regarding why Barabbas is released instead of Jesus:
Then Barabbas [23:18], the most abandoned criminal, [23:19] is released, as if he were the innocent man; while the most righteous Christ is delivered to be put to death, as if he were the murderer. [23:25]
Epiphanius says nothing about these verses, indicating that he saw nothing of note. The NET points out that Lk 23:17 is missing in some mss, and in Bezae is it placed after Lk 23:19:
Many of the best mss, as well as some others (Ì75 A B K L T 070 1241 pc sa), lack 23:17 “(Now he was obligated to release one individual for them at the feast.)” This verse appears to be a parenthetical note explaining the custom of releasing someone on amnesty at the feast. It appears in two different locations with variations in wording, which makes it look like a scribal addition. It is included in א (D following v. 19) W Θ Ψ Ë1,13 Ï lat. The verse appears to be an explanatory gloss based on Matt 27:15 and Mark 15:6, not original in Luke.
As Lk 23:17 is a clarifying note, is not mentioned by either Tertullian or Epiphanius, has no parallel in either Mark or Luke, is missing in many mss, and is located in a different position in Bezae, it may not have been present in Mcg. However, even if it was in Mcg Tertullian would have had no reason to comment because it does not directly involve Jesus.
Luke 23:26 – Simon of Cyrene
And as they led him away, they laid hold upon one Simon, a Cyrenian, coming out of the country, and on him they laid the cross, that he might bear it after Jesus. [23:26]
This verse is not mentioned by either Tertullian or Epiphanius, exists unchanged in Bezae, and has parallels in both Matthew and Mark. It is therefore most likely that it was also in Mcg but required no comment from Tertullian.
Luke 23:27-31 – The Daughters of Jerusalem
This passage is not mentioned by either Tertullian or Epiphanius, and has no parallels in either Matthew or Mark. Although it exists unchanged in Bezae, it is possible that it was not in Mcg.
Luke 23:32-34 – Parting His Raiment
And there were also two other, malefactors, led with him to be put to death. [23:32] And when they were come to the place, which is called Calvary, there they crucified him, and the malefactors, one on the right hand, and the other on the left. [23:33] Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do. And they parted his raiment, and cast lots. [23:34]
Tertullian refers briefly to these verses:
… Moreover two malefactors are crucified around Him, [23:32-33] in order that He might be reckoned amongst the transgressors. Although His raiment was, without doubt, parted among the soldiers, and partly distributed by lot, yet Marcion has erased it all (from his Gospel), [23:34] for he had his eye upon the Psalm: "They parted my garments amongst them, and cast lots upon my vesture."
He appears to be saying that v. 23:34b was missing from Mcg because Marcion did not want the reference to a Psalm. However, we do not see any mention of a Psalm in Lk, and Psalm Lardner suggests that he was referring to Mt 27:35 instead of text in Luke or Mcg:
And they crucified him, and parted his garments, casting lots: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, They parted my garments among them, and upon my vesture did they cast lots. [Mt 27:35, Ps 22:18]
This is inconsistent with Epiphanius, who saw these words in Mcg, although he suggests that Marcion should have removed this text:
And when there were come unto a place called Place of a Skull, they crucified him [23:33] and parted his raiment, [23:34] and the sun was darkened. [23:45] (Scholion 71)
Why did you not evade this great text? Why did you not try to conceal this great event, which undoes all your evil which you have devised from the beginning? (Elenchus 71b)
Sense believes that Epiphanius made a mistake here:
Epiphanius, in Sch. and Ref. 71, quotes this passage in an intermittent way, thus: "And coming to the place called a place of a skull, they crucified him, and parted his raiment, and the sun was darkened" (verses 33-45). The good bishop was so earnestly occupied with developing a mare's nest in his Refutation, … that he totally forgot to point out that Marcion had cut out the clause about parting the garments of Jesus and the casting of lots.
Despite this suggestion from Sense, Elenchus 71b confirms that Epiphanius knew that this text was in Mcg, apparently contradicting Tertullian, who states that it was not. However, it is very unlikely that Tertullian and Epiphanius were looking at the same ms of Mcg. Given that they are separated by around 170 years, perhaps the most likely explanation is that Mcg originally did not include the text, but that it had been added in the copy seen by Epiphanius.
It is also possible that the whole of Mcg 23:34 was originally not present in Mcg, as neither Tertullian nor Epiphanius make any mention of Jesus’ words in Mcg 23:34a. These words do not exist in the parallel passages in Mark and Matthew, and are also not present in many mss of Luke, as the NET notes:
Many important mss (Ì75 א1 B D* W Θ 070 579 1241 pc sys sa) lack v. 34a. It is included in א*,2 (A) C D2 L Ψ 0250 Ë1,(13) 33 Ï lat syc,p,h. It also fits a major Lukan theme of forgiving the enemies (6:27-36), and it has a parallel in Stephen’s response in Acts 7:60. The lack of parallels in the other Gospels argues also for inclusion here. On the other hand, the fact of the parallel in Acts 7:60 may well have prompted early scribes to insert the saying in Luke’s Gospel alone. Further, there is the great difficulty of explaining why early and diverse witnesses lack the saying.
Many church fathers from the 2nd, 3rd and 4th centuries cite the verses, but this does not necessarily mean that they saw them where we do. The most serious evidence against the view that they may have originated with Luke is their omission from P75 and B, both of which are generally considered to be very reliable witnesses to the early text of the gospels. Willker puts it this way:
Lk 23:34 together with Lk 22:43-44 are two of the most important variants in the Gospels, perhaps THE two most important. If we accept these words to be genuine, which I am inclined to do (still with a big question mark, of course), then we must accept that P75/B suffered from some strange, selective, but serious recensional activity.
In other words, if the words were originally in Luke, why would such important mss not have them? Hort believed that the words were likely to have been genuine (i.e. were uttered by Jesus), but that they originated somewhere else:
Its omission, on the hypothesis of its genuineness, cannot be explained in any reasonable manner… Few verses of the Gospels bear in themselves a surer witness to the truth of what they record than this first of the Words from the Cross; but it need not therefore have belonged originally to the book in which it is now included. We cannot doubt that it comes from an extraneous source. (Hort, Notes on Select Readings. p68).
Given the importance of these words it is unlikely that Marcion added them. Instead, as there is no suggestion from either Tertullian or Epiphanius that they saw any difference here, it is likely from the way Tertullian and Epiphanius write that the whole of Mcg 23:34 was not originally present, although it may have been later added to the copy seen by Epiphanius.
Luke 23:35-42 – The King of the Jews
And the people stood beholding. And the rulers also with them derided him, saying, He saved others; let him save himself, if he be Christ, the chosen of God. [23:35] And the soldiers also mocked him, coming to him, and offering him vinegar, [23:36] And saying, If thou be the king of the Jews, save thyself. [23:37] And a superscription also was written over him in letters of Greek, and Latin, and Hebrew, THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS. [23:38] And one of the malefactors which were hanged railed on him, saying, If thou be Christ, save thyself and us. [23:39] But the other answering rebuked him, saying, Dost not thou fear God, seeing thou art in the same condemnation? [23:40] And we indeed justly; for we receive the due reward of our deeds: but this man hath done nothing amiss. [23:41] And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom. [23:42]
Tertullian mentions none of these verses directly. Instead, by quoting Psalm 22 he implies that he saw Mcg 23:35-37 :
You may as well take away the cross itself! But even then the Psalm is not silent concerning it: "They pierced my hands and my feet." Indeed, the details of the whole event are therein read: "Dogs compassed me about; the assembly of the wicked enclosed me around. All that looked upon me laughed me to scorn; they did shoot out their lips and shake their heads, (saying,) He hoped in God, let Him deliver Him."
Sense records:
He [Tertullian] refers to the mocking (verses 35-37), by the remark that the whole outcome, or details, totus exitus, are read in Ps. 22:16, 17, 18, which he quotes. These remarks cover the whole passage.
After this Tertullian has nothing that could be said to refer to either Mcg or Luke until he states that the veil of the temple was rent," [23:45] and as previously noted, in Scholion 71 Epiphanius makes no mention of any of Mcg 23:35-44:
… and parted his raiment, [23:34] and the sun was darkened. [23:45] (Scholion 71)
Although there are noteworthy variants in most of the verses in this passage, it is not possible to know what Mcg read here. The lack of mention from both Tertullian and Epiphanius led Head to believe that Mcg 23:36-42 were “probably omitted.” However, because Lk 23:35-39 have parallels in both Matthew and Mark it is more probable that these verses were also present in Mcg, and, by extension, possibly Lk 23:40-42 as well. Because in Elenchus 71 Epiphanius states that Marcion did not “try to conceal this great event,” the most that we can conclude is that here neither Tertullian nor Epiphanius saw any differences between Mcg and their copies of Luke.
Luke 23:43 – In Paradise
And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, Today shalt thou be with me in paradise. [23:43]
Baring-Gould writes that:
In Marcion’s gospel, either the whole of the verse, "Yerily, I say unto thee. To-day shalt thou be with me in Paradise," was omitted, or more probably only the words "in Paradise." Marcion would not have purposely cut out such an instance of free acceptance of one who had all his life transgressed the Law, but he may have cancelled the words "in Paradise."
However, the supposition that only “in Paradise” was omitted conflicts with Epiphanius, who in scholion 72 states:
Marcion removed the words, “Today thou shalt be with me in paradise.”
Epiphanius often quotes just the beginning, or first part, of a piece of text that he claims that Marcion removed, without noting the exact end point. If he is here following his usual practice, not only is the end point not at all clear, but he is pointing out that Mcg contained “And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee,” but without any of the actual words that Jesus said. This makes no sense at all, and it is exceedingly unlikely that Marcion would have made such a meaningless edit to Luke. However, Codex D contains a unique variant of Lk 23:43:
and Jesus answering said to him - the one who rebuked - `Courage! To-day thou shalt be with me in paradise.
If Epiphanius knew this variant of Lk 23:43, then from his statement what he saw in Mcg read:
and Jesus answering said to him - the one who rebuked - `Courage!
Not only is this perfectly understandable, but the variant in D is then also a perfectly reasonable expansion of the text of Mcg. This would also supply the answer to the ‘punctuation’ issue in Lk 23:43 in other mss, confirming that Jesus said: “I say unto thee, Today thou shalt…,” and not “I say unto thee today, thou shalt…”
Luke 23:44-46 – The Death of Jesus
And it was about the sixth hour, and there was a darkness over all the earth until the ninth hour. [23:44] And the sun was darkened, and the veil of the temple was rent in the midst. [23:45] And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the ghost. [23:46]
Tertullian uses passages from Joshua, Isaiah, Amos, Ezekiel, and Psalms to show that the darkness referred to in Lk.23:44-45 could not have happened if it were “Marcion’s Christ suspended on his gibbet.” His only references to the text of Mcg are that “the veil of the temple was rent" [23:45] and:
He calls with a loud voice to the Father, "Into Thine hands I commend my spirit," that even when dying He might expend His last breath in fulfilling the prophets. Having said this, He gave up the ghost. [23:46]
Epiphanius has: “And when he has cried with a loud voice he gave up the ghost.” (Scholion 73). The NET notes the following variant in Lk 23:45a
The wording “the sun’s light failed” is a translation of τοῦ ἡλίου ἐκλιπόντος/ ἐκλείποντος (tou Jhliou eklipontos/ ekleipontos), a reading found in the earliest and best witnesses (among them Ì75 א B C*vid L 070 579 2542 pc) as well as several ancient versions. The majority of mss (A C3 [D] W Θ Ψ Ë1,13 Ï lat sy) have the flatter, less dramatic term, “the sun was darkened” (ἐσκοτίσθη, eskotisqe), a reading that avoids the problem of implying an eclipse. This alternative thus looks secondary because it is a more common word and less likely to be misunderstood as referring to a solar eclipse. That it appears in later witnesses rather than the earliest ones adds confirmatory testimony to its inauthentic character.
There is no evidence to suggest that the text in Mcg differed from what Tertullian and Epiphanius saw in their copies of Luke, nor is there any indication of what they saw in Mcg 23:45a.
Luke 23:47-49 – A Righteous Man
Now when the centurion saw what was done, he glorified God, saying, Certainly this was a righteous man. [23:47] And all the people that came together to that sight, beholding the things which were done, smote their breasts, and returned. [23:48] And all his acquaintance, and the women that followed him from Galilee, stood afar off, beholding these things. [23:49]
Sense states that:
Neither Tertullian nor Epiphanius refers to the next passage (vv. 23:47-49), in which the centurion remarks, "Certainly this was a righteous man." The remark is of no value, and the short passage is redundant, as it is not required even for maintaining the connection of the stream of the narrative. There is no authority or pretence for admitting it into either Gospel.
Presumably Sense is suggesting that the lack of comment by both Tertullian and Epiphanius means that neither saw these verses either in Mcg or their copies of Luke. However, as absence of evidence is not evidence of absence it is just as likely that they simply had no reason to comment. Lk 23:47, 49 have parallels at Mk 15:39-41 and Mt 27:54-57, and even though Jesus is referred to as “the Son of God,” the existence of the parallels makes it likely that these verses were in Mcg. However, it is possible that Mcg 23:48 was not.
Luke 23:50-56 – The Tomb
And, behold, there was a man named Joseph, a counseller; and he was a good man, and a just: [23:50] (The same had not consented to the counsel and deed of them;) he was of Arimathaea, a city of the Jews: who also himself waited for the kingdom of God. [23:51] This man went unto Pilate, and begged the body of Jesus. [23:52] And he took it down, and wrapped it in linen, and laid it in a sepulchre that was hewn in stone, wherein never man before was laid. [23:53] And that day was the preparation, and the sabbath drew on. [23:54] And the women also, which came with him from Galilee, followed after, and beheld the sepulchre, and how his body was laid. [23:55] And they returned, and prepared spices and ointments; and rested the sabbath day according to the commandment. [23:56]
Tertullian briefly mentions Joseph:
The only shift left to the impudence of the heretics, is to admit that what remained there was the phantom of a phantom! But what if Joseph knew that it was a body which he treated with so much piety? That same Joseph "who had not consented" with the Jews in their crime? [23:50-51]
Epiphanius refers to other verses from this same passage:
And, lo, a man named Joseph took the body down, wrapped it in linen and laid it in a sepulcher that was hewn in stone. (Scholion 74)
And the women returned and rested the sabbath day according to the law. (Scholion 75)
The combined testimony of Tertullian and Epiphanius covers Lk 23:50-51, 53, and 56, so it is likely that all the verses of this passage were present in Mcg. Nevertheless, it is possible some of the words may have varied. For example, the NET reports the following in Lk 23:53:
Codex Bezae (D), with some support from 070, one Itala ms, and the Sahidic version, adds the words, “And after he [Jesus] was laid [in the tomb], he [Joseph of Arimathea] put a stone over the tomb which scarcely twenty men could roll.” Although this addition is certainly not part of the original text of Luke, it does show how interested the early scribes were in the details of the burial and may even reflect a very primitive tradition. Matt 27:60 and Mark 15:46 record the positioning of a large stone at the door of the tomb.
However, with so little of the text being referred to by Tertullian and Epiphanius, the most likely scenario is that in Mcg these verses were as we see them in Luke, without any reference to the stone.
Next Chapter: Luke 24