From Ernest Evans on Adv. Marcion IV: Appendix 2: At 24: 25 he reads, to believe all that I have spoken to you, omitting vv. 26-7 [and beginning at Moses etc.]: he also omits vv. 32-6 [and they said one to another etc.] and vv. 44-6 [These are the words etc.]: he retains verse 47, and that repentance should be preached etc., but omits vv. 48-53 [And behold I send the promise . . . returned to Jerusalem . . . blessing God].
Now upon the first day of the week, very early in the morning, they came unto the sepulchre, bringing the spices which they had prepared, and certain others with them. [24:1] And they found the stone rolled away from the sepulchre. [24:2] And they entered in, and found not the body of the Lord Jesus. [24:3] And it came to pass, as they were much perplexed thereabout, behold, two men stood by them in shining garments: [24:4] And as they were afraid, and bowed down their faces to the earth, they said unto them, Why seek ye the living among the dead? [24:5] He is not here, but is risen: remember how he spake unto you when he was yet in Galilee, [24:6] Saying, The Son of man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again. [24:7]
Tertullian refers to some of these verses. He does not mention either Ev 24:2 or 5, but does mention: “the women who resorted before day-break to the sepulchre with the spices which they had prepared.” [24:1] and that after "they found not the body," [24:3] “Two angels however, appeared there." [24:4b, 23] He then quotes the words of the angels:
For the same thing was said by the angels to the women: "Remember how He spake unto you when He was yet in Galilee, saying, The Son of man must be delivered up, and be crucified, and on the third day rise again." [24:6b-7]
Epiphanius does not refer to any of Ev 24:1-3, but in Scholion 76 he appears to quote from much of Ev 24:4-7:
The men in shining garments [24:4b] said, Why seek ye the living among the dead? [24:5b] He is risen; remember all that he spake when he was yet with you, [24:6] that the Son of Man must suffer and be delivered. [24:7]
He then confirms what he saw in Ev in Elenchus 76:
(a) Not even these holy angels convince you, Marcion…
(b) For they tell the women, “He is risen; he is not here.” And what does “He is risen” mean but that he also fell asleep? For they make it clearer: “Remember that while he was yet with you he told you these things, that the Son of Man must suffer.”
Several of these verses have significant variants. The KJV (and other Byz mss) add “and certain other with them” at the end of Lk 24:1, with Willker noting:
The Byzantine addition is strange. In 23:55 only "women" are noted. So why is it needed to add here "and certain others with them"?
He then points out that not only does Bezae have the phrase, but it is followed by: “reasoned with themselves: ‘who then shall roll away the stone?’“ (Cogitabant autem intra se, quis utique revolveret lapidem) He suggests that this addition may be a harmonization to Mark, but does not point out that the problematic: “and certain others with them” only really makes sense if the two pieces of text are paired, as in Bezae, which in Lk 24:1 reads:
Now upon the first day of the week, very early in the morning, they came unto the sepulchre, bringing the spices which they had prepared, and certain others with them reasoned with themselves: ‘who then shall roll away the stone?’
Neither Tertullian nor Epiphanius mention either the “certain others,” or anything regarding the stone, so we do not know whether Ev had this variant or not. It is above mentioned that Tertullian did not report the words “of the Lord Jesus” in Ev 24:3. The NET has the longer reading, and notes these variants:
The translation follows the much better attested longer reading here, “body of the Lord Jesus” (found in {Ì75 א A B C L W Θ Ψ Ë1,13 33 565 700 Ï}), rather than simply “the body” (found in D it) or “the body of Jesus” (found in 579 1241 pc). Further, although this is the only time that “Lord Jesus” occurs in Luke, it seems to be Luke’s normal designation for the Lord after his resurrection (note the many references to Christ in this manner in Acts, e.g., 1:21; 4:33; 7:59; 8:16; 11:17; 15:11; 16:31; 19:5; 20:21; 28:31).
Tertullian here follows the shorter reading seen in D and a, b, d, e, ff2, l, r1, providing yet more evidence to suggest that Marcion followed the Old Latin. However, against this is “He is not here, but is risen,” in Lk 24:6a. Tertullian does not mention this text where he quotes the angel’s words, but Epiphanius has the words so it appears that it was present in what he saw in Ev. The NET notes that D and the Old Latin also omit these words:
The phrase “He is not here, but has been raised ” is omitted by a few mss (D it), but it has wide ms support and differs slightly from the similar statement in Matt 28:6 and Mark 16:6. Although NA27 places the phrase at the beginning of v. 6, as do most modern English translations, it is omitted from the RSV and placed at the end of v. 5 in the NRSV. [24:6]
Tertullian and Epiphanius seem to be in conflict here, but this is easily explained if Tertullian had an Old Latin copy of Ev, while Epiphanius had a (later) Greek copy. From the combination of the reports of Tertullian and Epiphanius it would seem most likely that Ev had all of these verses, with the possible exception of v. 24:2, in the shorter (Old Latin) form:
Now upon the first day of the week, very early in the morning, they came unto the sepulchre, bringing the spices which they had prepared. [24:1] And they entered in, and found not the body. [24:3] And it came to pass, as they were much perplexed thereabout, behold, two men stood by them in shining garments: [24:4] And as they were afraid, and bowed down their faces to the earth, they said unto them, Why seek ye the living among the dead? [24:5] Remember how he spake unto you when he was yet with you, [24:6] Saying, The Son of man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again. [24:7]
As neither Tertullian nor Epiphanius suggest that they saw any differences, it is unlikely that Marcion made any changes here.
And they remembered his words, [24:8] And returned from the sepulchre, and told all these things unto the eleven, and to all the rest. [24:9] It was Mary Magdalene, and Joanna, and Mary the mother of James, and other women that were with them, which told these things unto the apostles. [24:10] And their words seemed to them as idle tales, and they believed them not. [24:11]
Epiphanius does not mention these verses, while Tertullian just reports that “they doubted of the truth of the resurrection which had been reported to them by the women.” [24:11] Because Bezae and a number of Old Latin mss and versions do not have “from the sepulchre” in Lk 24:9 and “It was” in Lk 24:10, it is possible that Ev read the same, but if so then neither Tertullian nor Epiphanius appear to have seen any differences here between Ev and their respective copies of Luke.
Then arose Peter, and ran unto the sepulchre; and stooping down, he beheld the linen clothes laid by themselves, and departed, wondering in himself at that which was come to pass. [24:12]
This verse has no parallel in either Mark or Matthew, and as the NET states it is not present in much of the Old Latin:
Some Western mss (D it) lack 24:12. The verse has been called a Western noninterpolation, meaning that it reflects a shorter authentic reading in D and other Western witnesses. Many regard all such shorter readings as original (the verse is omitted in the RSV), but the ms evidence for omission is far too slight for the verse to be rejected as secondary. It is included in Ì75 and the rest of the ms tradition.
Basing his analysis on Harnack's reconstruction Tyson stated “with a relatively high degree of confidence” that Ev 24:12 did not exist. The fact that this is one of the Western non-interpolations supports this, and by the same token the omission in these mss makes it unlikely that the verse was removed by Marcion.
And, behold, two of them went that same day to a village called Emmaus, which was from Jerusalem about threescore furlongs. [24:13] And they talked together of all these things which had happened. [24:14] And it came to pass, that, while they communed together and reasoned, Jesus himself drew near, and went with them. [24:15] But their eyes were holden that they should not know him. [24:16] And he said unto them, What manner of communications are these that ye have one to another, as ye walk, and are sad? [24:17] And the one of them, whose name was Cleopas, answering said unto him, Art thou only a stranger in Jerusalem, and hast not known the things which are come to pass therein these days? [24:18] And he said unto them, What things? And they said unto him, Concerning Jesus of Nazareth, which was a prophet mighty in deed and word before God and all the people: [24:19] And how the chief priests and our rulers delivered him to be condemned to death, and have crucified him. [24:20] But we trusted that it had been he which should have redeemed Israel: and beside all this, to day is the third day since these things were done. [24:21] Yea, and certain women also of our company made us astonished, which were early at the sepulchre; [24:22] And when they found not his body, they came, saying, that they had also seen a vision of angels, which said that he was alive. [24:23] And certain of them which were with us went to the sepulchre, and found it even so as the women had said: but him they saw not. [24:24]
Epiphanius has no comment on this whole passage, while Tertullian summarizes it in his chapter 48 by alluding to several verses:
It was well, however, that the unbelief of the disciples was so persistent, in order that to the last we might consistently maintain that Jesus revealed Himself to the disciples as none other than the Christ of the prophets. For as two of them were taking a walk [24:13], and when the Lord had joined their company [24:15], without its appearing that it was He, [24:16] and whilst He dissembled His knowledge of what had just taken place, [24:17-19] they say: "But we trusted that it had been He which should have redeemed Israel," [24:21] -- meaning their own, that is, the Creator's Christ.
Although there are no parallels in Matthew or Mark, Tertullian’s references and the lack of comment from Epiphanius make it likely that this passage was present unchanged in Ev, except that “of Nazareth” may have not been present in v. 24:19.
Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken: [24:25] Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory? [24:26] And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself. [24:27]
Tertullian suggests that Ev had a different variant of Lk 24:25b, but has no mention of Ev 24:26-27:
He pointedly reproached them: "O fools, and slow of heart in not believing that which He spake unto you."
In Scholion 77 Epiphanius records a difference:
He falsified what Christ said to Cleopas and the other disciples when he met them: ”Oh fools, and slow to believe all that the prophets have spoken. Ought not he to have suffered these things?” And instead of “what the prophets have spoken.” he put, "what I have said unto you.”
When Epiphanius writes “He falsified…” it usually means that the text he then quotes was not present in Ev, but here he then states that Marcion replaced “what the prophets have spoken” in Lk 24:25b by "what I have said unto you,” (Sense comments that “I spake” instead of “He spake” was “simply a clerical error … an alpha instead of an epsilon”). In this instance he cannot therefore be suggesting that all the text he quotes (Lk 24:25-26a) was removed by Marcion. However, it is possible that he is indicating that v. 24:26a was not present in Ev. Indeed, given that elsewhere Epiphanius does not always quote in full the text he claims that Marcion omitted (sometimes indicating this by use of the phase “and so on”), it is at least possible that he did not see any of Ev 24:26-27.
It is certainly the case that without the reference to “the prophets” at the end of Ev 24:25 the inclusion of Ev 24:27 makes less sense, and several analysts of Marcion share this view. Tyson suggests that according to Harnack's reconstruction, the “references to the scriptures, prophets, and Moses” were not present in Ev 24:25-27, while Lardner comments:
In the 24th chapter he [Marcion] omitted that part of the conference between our Saviour and the two disciples going to Emmaus, which related to the prediction of his sufferings, and which is contained in the 26th and 27th verses. These two verses were wholly expunged by him …
Evans agrees with Lardner, while Sense argues that v. 24:27 was not present in either Ev or Luke at that time:
The next verse is not referred to by Tertullian or Epiphanius, and I have failed to find a quotation or reference to it in any contemporary writer. The statement in it is not Marcionite, and it is impossible to think that the Marcionite Gospel contained it; and if it did not contain it, it must necessarily have been wanting in the Canonical Gospel also, as Tertullian does not speak of any variation, and finally, as Epiphanius is silent regarding it, the presumption is exceedingly strong that it was absent from the Canonical Gospel in his hands… For the above strong reasons, I feel justified in cutting out this verse from both Gospels.
Lardner, Baring-Gould, Waite, Evans, Head and Sense all agree that Ev 24:27 did not exist, but they assumed that Marcion edited Luke and so would have removed these verses because they did not fit his theology. Unfortunately, this falls foul of the fact that (making the same assumption) both Tertullian and Epiphanius gleefully point out that Marcion did no such thing in many other places, leaving text that he would have been expected to remove. Without this assumption (which is the main issue under examination here), and because Tertullian does not mention Ev 24:26-27, we are left with just the ambiguous words of Epiphanius.
On the basis that Epiphanius’ words do not suggest that vv. 24:27 was missing from Ev Sense concludes that this verse was also not present in Epiphanius’ copy of Luke. As there are no parallels of Lk 24:26-27 in either Matthew or Mark, this could be taken as a further indication that either or both of these verses were neither in Ev nor the copies of Luke seen by Tertullian and Epiphanius. However, Lk 24:25 has no parallels either, but both report a variant of this verse in Ev. In addition, all these verses are present in P75, so it is not possible to reject Ev 24:26-27 on this basis. It is perhaps more likely that Epiphanius’ words can be taken to indicate that he recognized that some or all or vv. 24:26-27 was not present in Ev (and hence that he saw these verses in Luke), and that Tertullian’s silence then indicates that they were not present in his (much earlier) copy of Luke. However, there is no mss support for this possibility.
Based on what is reported by both Tertullian and Epiphanius, Ev 24:25 read:
Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that He spake unto you:
It is not possible to be definitive regarding whether Ev 24:26-27 existed or not.
And they drew nigh unto the village, whither they went: and he made as though he would have gone further. [24:28] But they constrained him, saying, Abide with us: for it is toward evening, and the day is far spent. And he went in to tarry with them. [24:29] And it came to pass, as he sat at meat with them, he took bread, and blessed it, and brake, and gave to them. [24:30] And their eyes were opened, and they knew him; and he vanished out of their sight. [24:31]
Neither Tertullian nor Epiphanius mention these verses, they have no parallels in Mark or Matthew, but they do exist in P75, and have no significant variants. As vv. 24:13-27 would have no point without v. 24:31 it is reasonable to assume that these verses were present in Ev.
And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures? [24:32] And they rose up the same hour, and returned to Jerusalem, and found the eleven gathered together, and them that were with them, [24:33] Saying, The Lord is risen indeed, and hath appeared to Simon. [24:34] And they told what things were done in the way, and how he was known of them in breaking of bread. [24:35]
As with the preceding passage, neither Tertullian nor Epiphanius mention these verses, they have no parallels in Mark or Matthew, but they do exist in P75. The NET notes this variant in Lk 24:32:
Most mss have the phrase ἐν ἡμῖν (en Jhmin, “within us”) after οὐχὶ ἡ καρδία ἡμῶν καιομένη ἦν (ouci Jh kardia Jhmwn kaiomenh hn, “Didn’t our hearts burn”). The phrase “within us” is lacking in some early mss (Ì75 B D c e sys,c). These early witnesses could have overlooked the words, since there are several occurrences of ἡμῖν in the context. But it seems likely that other scribes wanted to clarify the abrupt expression “Didn’t our hearts burn,” even as the translation has done here. NA27 includes the words in brackets, indicating doubts as to their authenticity.
Baring-Gould and Sense believe that the end of Lk 24:32 did not exist in Ev:
The excision of [v. 24:27] necessitates the same treatment for the concluding clause of verse 32, "and while he opened to us the Scriptures." There can be no doubt that there was no variance in the whole of this passage between the two Gospels, or Tertullian and Epiphanius would have pointed it out. Whether the name Simon (verse 34) existed in the Marcionite Gospel may, perhaps, be doubted. Tertullian is silent regarding both, while Epiphanius mentions Cleopas only in this passage, and in another (ch. xlii. 6 ; Pet.t i. p. 67) he says Nathaniel was his companion. The first mention in Christian literature of both names in connection with this passage is found in Origen's treatise Against Cetsus, ii. 68; but Origen was an innovator of the Gospel. (Sense)
If Ev 24:27 did not exist then it is indeed likely that neither did Ev 24:32b. Also, if Ev 24:12 did not exist, then (assuming that Simon Peter is being referred to) it is likely that neither did Ev 24:34. However, as there is no hard evidence for the absence of any of this text it is more reasonable to assume that it was present in Ev even though it does not contain speech or action by Jesus, because without it the following verses would have much less effect.
And as they thus spake, Jesus himself stood in the midst of them, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you. [24:36] But they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they had seen a spirit. [24:37] And he said unto them, Why are ye troubled? and why do thoughts arise in your hearts? [24:38] Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have. [24:39] And when he had thus spoken, he shewed them his hands and his feet. [24:40] And while they yet believed not for joy, and wondered, he said unto them, Have ye here any meat? [24:41] And they gave him a piece of a broiled fish, and of an honeycomb. [24:42] And he took it, and did eat before them. [24:43]
Near the end of his Chapter 43 Tertullian makes the following observations regarding Ev 24:37-39:
When they were doubting whether He were not a phantom -- nay, were supposing that He was one [24:37] -- He says to them, “Why are ye troubled, and why do thoughts arise in your hearts? See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself; for a spirit hath not bones, as ye see me have." [24:38-39]
Epiphanius confirms the text of Ev 24:39:
“Why are ye troubled? Behold my hands and feet, for a spirit hath not bones as ye see me hath.” (Scholion 78)
Most mss have “pneuma” (ghost, or spirit) at the end of Lk 24:37, while Tertullian has “phantasma” (phantom) instead, following Bezae. In The Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans, written around 110, Ignatius gives Jesus’ words at this meeting as follows:
He said to them, Lay hold, handle Me, and see that I am not an incorporeal spirit.
The words used by Ignatius (δαιμόνιον ἀσώματον) may also be translated as a bodiless phantom or demon, and according to Jerome are taken from the Gospel of the Nazarenes. However, this statement is disputed, and the Gospel of the Hebrews has also been suggested as the source instead. William Petersen claims that this variant is earlier than what we see in Lk 24:39:
The variant “bodiless daemon” is clearly the most ancient extant version of Luke 24:39, for it is known not just to Ignatius -- which means it was known in the first decade of the second century -- but also to a clutch of other second and third century writers. It is interesting how the reading -- which is apparently the standard reading for Ignatius -- is later attributed to heretical gospels by Origen and Jerome. But it is still the standard text for Titus of Bostra, who died c. 370: “touch and see that a daemon…does not have flesh and bones” (Contra Manicheaos,IV.37, Syriac version) [Petersen 1994; 145; emphasis original].
In the History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire Edward Gibbon ponders the question of why Ignatius: “should choose to employ a vague and doubtful tradition, instead of quoting the certain testimony of the evangelists,” and then re-visits this issue in his later ‘Vindication of some passages…’ from ‘the Decline and Fall.’
2. Jerom, who cites this remarkable passage from the Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans (See Catalog. Script. Eccles. in Ignatio, tom. i. p. 273. edit. Erasm. Basil 1537), is of opinion that it was taken from the Gospel which he himself had lately translated: and this, from the comparison of two other passages in the same Work (in Jacob. et in Matthaeo, p. 264), appears to have been the Hebrew Gospel, which was used by the Nazarenes of Beraea, as the genuine composition of St. Matthew. Yet Jerom mentions another Copy of this Hebrew Gospel (so different from the Greek Text), which was extant in the library formed at Caesarea, by the care of Pamphilus: whilst the learned Eusebius, the friend of Pamphilus and the Bishop of Caesarea, very frankly declares (Hist. Eccles. l. iii. c. 36.), that he is ignorant from whence Ignatius borrowed those words, which are the subject of the present Enquiry.
3. The doubt which remains, is only whether he took them from an Apocryphal Book, or from unwritten tradition...
Although Ignatius’ source (and hence that for Marcion, Bezae, and Tertullian) is disputed, it does seem that it is early. The fact that Tertullian does not note this as a difference in Ev is yet another indication that he had a Western (and most likely Old Latin) copy of Luke that contained the D reading. However, the text in Ev puzzled Tertullian, who continues:
Thus, in the passage before us, he would have the words, "A spirit hath not bones, as ye see me have," so transposed, as to mean, "A spirit, such as ye see me to be, hath not bones;" that is to say, it is not the nature of a spirit to have bones. But what need of so tortuous a construction, when He might have simply said, "A spirit hath not bones, even as you observe that I have not?" Why, moreover, does He offer His hands and His feet for their examination [24:39] -- limbs which consist of bones -- if He had no bones? Why, too, does He add, "Know that it is I myself," when they had before known Him to be corporeal? Else, if He were altogether a phantom, why did He upbraid them for supposing Him to be a phantom? But whilst they still believed not, He asked them for some meat, [24:41] for the express purpose of showing them that He had teeth.
Tertullian clearly believed that Marcion had missed a ‘golden opportunity’ here by NOT changing the text of Luke, and in Elenchus 78 Epiphanius makes a similar point regarding Ev 24:39, delighting in the fact that Marcion made mistakes by leaving unchanged text that refuted his theology:
(a) Who can fail to laugh at the driveler who has foolishly dragged himself and the souls of others down to hell? If he had not acknowledged these words his imposture would be plausible, and his dupes would be pardonable.
(b) But now, since he acknowledged these texts and did not take them out, and his followers read them too, his sin and theirs remains and the fire is inescapable for him and them, since they have no excuse. For the Savior has clearly taught that < even after > his resurrection he has bones and flesh, as he testified himself with the words, “as ye see me have.”
After this comment on Ev 24:39 Epiphanius makes the following statement:
This is the publication of the treatise against Marcion based on the remains of the Gospel he preserves, which I have composed on his account and which, in my opinion, is adequate to expose his deceit.
He then says nothing further regarding Marcion's Gospel, continuing instead with Marcion’s version of Paul’s epistles. As Tertullian comments (below) on later verses it is reasonable to assume that Epiphanius saw at least some text in Ev corresponding to Lk 24:40-50, but that he simply had nothing to say about it.
Neither Tertullian nor Epiphanius refer to Ev 24:36, 42-43, so we cannot tell from this alone whether these verses were in Ev or not. Nevertheless, it is perhaps significant that while both point out that Ev contained v. 24:39 (with it’s reference to Jesus having flesh and bones), neither comment on Ev referring to Jesus eating in vv. 24:42-43, which would have reinforced the point they were making. It is therefore tempting to suggest that neither Ev nor their respective copies of Luke contained these verses, but the problem here is that no known copy of Luke omits vv. 24:42-43. However, there are a number of variants in this part of Luke 24 that do hint at this as a possibility. The first of these is a Western non-interpolation at Lk 24:36b: “and saith unto them, Peace be unto you,” upon which Metzger comments as follows:
The words ἐγώ εἰμι, μὴ φοβεῖσθε, either before εἰρήνη ὑμῖν (as in W 579) or after (as in G P itc vg syrp,h,pal, copbo-mss arm eth geo Diatessarona,i,n), are undoubtedly a gloss, derived perhaps from Jn 6.20. The Committee was less sure concerning the origin of the words καὶ λέγει αὐτοῖς, Εἰρήνη ὑμῖν [not present in D, it (a, b, e, ff2, l, r1)], which, as the regular form of Semitic greeting, might well be expected on this occasion.
Tertullian’s reference to the disciples “supposing Him to be a phantom” in v. 24:37 shows that Ev sides with Bezae in this verse, and this in turn suggests that Ev may also side with Bezae in v. 24:36.
Tertullian asks: “Why, moreover, does He offer His hands and His feet for their examination,” but is he here thinking of Ev 24:39 or 40? The mention of an offer appears more likely to refer to Jesus saying “handle me, and see” than to the statement that Jesus “shewed them his hands and his feet.” However, if so, why does Tertullian not include “handle me, and see” in his earlier quotation of the rest of Ev 24:39? It is possible that he simply wanted to separate the words so that he could make two slightly different points, but we cannot know for sure. However, the ms evidence can help. While there are no known variants in which “handle me, and see” is missing from Lk 24:39, the whole of Lk 24:40 is not present in several Old Latin (and other) mss. Metzger again:
Was ver. 40 omitted by certain Western witnesses (D ita,b,d,e,ff2,l,r1 syrc,s) because it seemed superfluous after ver. 39? Or is it a gloss introduced by copyists in all other witnesses from Jn 20.20, with a necessary adaptation (the passage in John refers to Jesus' hands and side; this passage refers to his hands and feet)? A minority of the Committee preferred to omit the verse as an interpolation (see the Note following 24.53); the majority, however, was of the opinion that, had the passage been interpolated from the Johannine account, copyists would probably have left some trace of its origin by retaining τὴν πλευράν in place of τοὺς πόδας (either here only, or in ver. 39 also).
Whatever the reason that Lk 24:40 is not in several Western mss, this evidence suggests that Tertullian did not have this verse in his copy of Luke either, and therefore, from his lack of comment, that he also did not see Ev 24:40. In his very last comment on the text of Ev Tertullian follows his comments on Jesus being a “phantom” with a reference to Ev 24:41:
But whilst they still believed not, He asked them for some meat [cibum – food], for the express purpose of showing them that He had teeth.
It is curious that Tertullian refers to Jesus’ teeth (which are not mentioned in Luke), but not that the food was fish, nor that Jesus ate it, which would show that he had more than just teeth. This may suggest that Tertullian did not have this verse in his copy of Luke either, and therefore, from his lack of comment, that he did not see Ev 24:40. However, Tertullian’s reference to Jesus asking for meat in Ev 24:41 makes it likely that Ev 42-43 were present, although possibly with the following variant seen in Lk 24:42. Although not a Western Non-interpolation, “and of an honeycomb” in Lk 24:42 is omitted in Bezae, as well in as P75, א, A, B, L, W, P, 579, 1079, 1377*, 2411, e, Sy-S, cosa,bomss.
The above all suggests that in Ev this passage read as follows:
And as they thus spake, Jesus himself stood in the midst of them, [24:36] But they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they had seen a phantom. [24:37] And he said unto them, Why are ye troubled? and why do thoughts arise in your hearts? [24:38] Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have. [24:39] And while they yet believed not for joy, and wondered, he said unto them, Have ye here any meat? [24:41] And they gave him a piece of a broiled fish, [24:42] And he took it, and did eat before them. [24:43]
Luke 24:44-50 – Fulfilling all Things
And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. [24:44] Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures, [24:45] “And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day:” [24:46] And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. [24:47] And ye are witnesses of these things. [24:48] And, behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you: but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high. [24:49] And he led them out as far as to Bethany, and he lifted up his hands, and blessed them. [24:50]
Epiphanius’ comment on Ev 24:39 marks the final point in his discussion of Ev, after which he closes with the following statement:
This is the publication of the treatise against Marcion based on the remains of the Gospel he preserves, which I have composed on his account and which, in my opinion, is adequate to expose his deceit.
Epiphanius says nothing further regarding Ev, continuing instead with a discussion of Marcion’s version of Paul’s epistles) As Tertullian comments on some of the following verses it is reasonable to assume that Epiphanius may not have seen Ev 24:40, but may have seen at least some text in Ev corresponding to Lk 24:41-53. However, whatever he saw here in Ev he had nothing to say about it, neither to refute Marcion, nor regarding any difference from his copy of Luke.
After mentioning Jesus asking for meat in Ev 24:51, Tertullian also concludes his discussion, writing (using the translation by Evans):
I have, I think, fulfilled my promise. I have set before you Jesus as the Christ of the prophets in his doctrines, his judgements, his affections, his feelings, his miracles, his sufferings, as also in his resurrection, none other than the Christ of the Creator. And so again, when sending forth his apostles [24:50] to preach to all the nations [24:47], he fulfilled the psalm by his instruction that their sound must go out into all the world and their words unto the ends of the earth [Psa 19:4]. I am sorry for you, Marcion: your labour has been in vain. Even in your gospel Christ Jesus is mine.
Implevimus, ut opinor, sponsionem. Exhibuimus Iesum Christum prophetarum doctrinis, sententiis, affectibus, sensibus, virtutibus, passionibus, etiam resurrectione, non alium quam creatoris; siquidem et apostolos mittens ad praedicandum universis nationibus, in omnem terram exire sonum eorum et in terminos terrae voces eorum, psalmum adimplendo praecepit. Misereor tui, Marcion, frustra laborasti. Christus enim Iesus in evangelio tuo meus est.
At first sight this appears to suggest that vv. 24:47 and 50 were both in Ev. However, Tertullian indicates that he has completed his task, and then refers to Jesus Christ. As he (and Epiphanius) would most surely have pointed out that for Marcion to have allowed his Christ to have fulfilled the psalm would have been a big mistake, the fact that Epiphanius does not mention these verses at all, and that Tertullian only does so after stating that he has finished, strongly suggests that here his reference is to Luke, not Ev.
Assuming the above, then neither Tertullian nor Epiphanius mention Ev 24:44-50. As these verses have no parallels in either Mark or Matthew this may lead us to suspect that they were not in Ev, but the evidence of the mss containing Luke points to them being present. There are however a few variants in these verses, in particular with the Western mss (as exemplified by Bezae) omitting “from the dead” in v. 24:46 and “of my Father” in Lk 24:49, so reading:
And said unto them, Thus it is written, that Christ should suffer, and rise the third day, [24:46]
And behold I send what was promised upon you; but tarry ye in the city until ye be endued with power from on high. [24:49]
While it is tempting to suggest that Ev followed these Western variants, we have no specific evidence to support this, and therefore all we can say is that neither Tertullian nor Epiphanius report any differences in this passage between Ev and their respective copies of Luke.
Tertullian's final point is that he sees no difference between the Jesus as portrayed in Luke and as portrayed in Ev, i.e. that whatever Marcion may have been trying to do he has failed to present a Jesus who was the son of the New Testament God that he championed. This in itself strongly suggests that what we know as Marcion's gospel was not written by Marcion, because there is nothing in it to support Jesus being the son of a God different to that portrayed in Luke.
Luke 24:51-53 – The Ascension
And it came to pass, while he blessed them, he was parted from them, and carried up into heaven. [24:51] And they worshipped him, and returned to Jerusalem with great joy: [24:52] And were continually in the temple, praising and blessing God. Amen. [25:53]
Tertullian and Epiphanius may or may not have seen vv. 24:51-53, either in Ev or their respective copies of Luke, but we cannot tell this from what they wrote. In both cases they appear to have seen no significant differences from what they expected, with nothing in these verses that either could use to refute Marcion. However, it is possible that what they do not write is more illuminating. In his final comment Tertullian refers to “the last … when He sent forth His apostles,” and this does suggest that as far as he was concerned nothing of significance followed v. 24:50, either in Ev or Luke.
The Western text has shorter variants of all three of these verses. In particular, the crucial phrase kai anephereto eis ton ouranon (“and was taken up into heaven”) in Lk 24:51 is not present in א*, D, a, b, d, e, ff2, l (with Sy-S having “And while he blessed them, he was lifted up from them"). With the absence of this phrase there is no suggestion in Lk 24:52-5 that the disciples had witnessed a miraculous event, and the following Western variants reinforce this position:
D, a, b, d, e, ff2, l and Sy-S do not have proskynēsantes auton (“worshipped him”) in Lk 24:52
D, a, b, d, e, ff2 ,l ,r1 and vgmss do not have eulogounte (“blessing”) in Lk 24:53. P75, א, B, C*, L, Sy-S, Sy-P, cosa,bo, geo do not have ainounte (“praising”), while most mss have both.
Finally, the NET notes:
The majority of Greek mss, some of which are important witnesses (A B C2 Θ Ψ Ë13 Ï lat), add “Amen” to note the Gospel’s end. Such a conclusion is routinely added by scribes to NT books because a few of these books originally had such an ending (cf. Rom 16:27; Gal 6:18; Jude 25). A majority of Greek witnesses have the concluding ἀμήν in every NT book except Acts, James, and 3 John (and even in these books, ἀμήν is found in some witnesses). It is thus a predictable variant. Further, since significant witnesses lack the word (Ì75 א C* D L W 1 33 pc it co), it is evidently not original.
These verses therefore read as follows in Bezae and other (mainly Old Latin) Western mss, and therefore may have been what Tertullian (and, we assume, Epiphanius) saw in Ev:
And it came to pass while he blessed them, he was parted from them, [24:51]
And they returned to Jerusalem with great joy. [24:52]
And were continually in the temple praising God. [24:53]
Next: Having completed a verse-by-verse analysis of the most likely content of Marcion's Gospel of the Lord (Ev), please see the Summary.