Luke 5

For a side-by-side English translation of the text of Marcon's Gospel and Luke 5, see Luke Chapter 5

Summary:

This chapter of Marcion's Gospel [Mcg] is very similar to Luke 5.

Details:

Luke 5:1-11 – The Call of the First Disciples

And it came to pass, that, as the people pressed upon him to hear the word of God, he stood by the lake of Gennesaret, [5:1]  And saw two ships standing by the lake: but the fishermen were gone out of them, and were washing their nets. [5:2]  And he entered into one of the ships, which was Simon's, and prayed him that he would thrust out a little from the land. And he sat down, and taught the people out of the ship. [5:3] ...

When Simon Peter saw it, he fell down at Jesus' knees, saying, Depart from me; for I am a sinful man, O Lord. [5:8]  For he was astonished, and all that were with him, at the draught of the fishes which they had taken: [5:9]  And so was also James, and John, the sons of Zebedee, which were partners with Simon. And Jesus said unto Simon, Fear not; from henceforth thou shalt catch men. [5:10]  And when they had brought their ships to land, they forsook all, and followed him. [5:11]

Tertullian refers to this passage in general terms at the beginning of his chapter 9, but directly refers only to Mcg 5:10:

Out of so many kinds of occupations, why indeed had He such respect for that of fishermen, [5:2] as to select from it for apostles Simon and the sons of Zebedee [5:10] … saying to Peter, when he trembled at the very large draught of the fishes, [5:9] "Fear not; from henceforth thou shalt catch men"? [5:10] … Then at last they left their boats, and followed Him. [5:11]

Tertullian does not mention Mcg 5:3-8, and so gives no indication as to whether he knew these verses. Although P45 is not extant for these verses, P75 includes all of Lk 5:1-11, so it is almost certain that Epiphanius knew this passage. However, he provides no information as to whether he saw these verses in Mcg. Despite the fact that Lk 5:3-9 have no parallels in either Mark or Matthew, we have no evidence on which to exclude any of these verses from Mcg.

Luke 5:12-16 – The Leper Cleansed

And it came to pass, when he was in a certain city, behold a man full of leprosy: who seeing Jesus fell on his face, and besought him, saying, Lord, if thou wilt, thou canst make me clean. [5:12]  And he put forth his hand, and touched him, saying, I will: be thou clean. And immediately the leprosy departed from him. [5:13]  And he charged him to tell no man: but go, and shew thyself to the priest, and offer for thy cleansing, according as Moses commanded, for a testimony unto them. [5:14]  But so much the more went there a fame abroad of him: and great multitudes came together to hear, and to be healed by him of their infirmities. [5:15]  And he withdrew himself into the wilderness, and prayed. [5:16]

Tertullian refers to Mcg 5:12-13 in general terms only, mentioning “the cure of leprosy,” and that “The Lord, therefore … touched the leper.” However, he also comments on the contrast between the ease with which Jesus cured this leper “by the employment of a word only” [5:13] and the (relative) difficulty that Elisha had in curing just one out of many lepers in 2 Kings 5:

If, however, the Creator's prophet Elisha cleansed Naaman the Syrian alone, to the exclusion of so many lepers in Israel, [4:27] this fact contributes nothing to the distinction of Christ, as if he were in this way the better one for cleansing this Israelite leper, although a stranger to him, whom his own Lord had been unable to cleanse…

Seven times, therefore, as if once for each, did he [Naaman] wash in Jordan [2 Kings 5:14]; both in order that he might celebrate the expiation of a perfect hebdomad; and because the virtue and fulness of the one baptism was thus solemnly imputed to Christ, alone, who was one day to establish on earth not only a revelation, but also a baptism, endued with compendious efficacy. Even Marcion finds here an antithesis: how that Elisha indeed required a material resource, applied water, and that seven times; whereas Christ, by the employment of a word only, and that but once for all, instantly effected the cure. [Mcg 5:13] 

Following the references to Naaman and Mcg 5:12-13, Tertullian then refers to or quotes from most of Mcg 5:14:

So far as renouncing all human glory went, He forbade the man to publish abroad the cure; but so far as the honor of the law was concerned, He requested that the usual course should be followed: "Go, show thyself to the priest, and present the offering which Moses commanded." … He added: "that it may be for a testimony unto you".

In both Luke and the parallel in Mt 8:2 the leper calls Jesus ‘Κύριε’ (Lord), but in Mk 1:40 he does not, although Lord is present in some mss: C, L, W, Θ, S, 579, 700, 892, 1342, Lat(c, e, ff2, vgmss), Sy-Pal. Streeter comments on the use of Κύριε in both Matthew and Luke but not Mark (a minor agreement):

… But the combination of the three distinct traditions, Egyptian B C L Sah., "African" W c e, and Caesarean Θ 700, is a very strong one. Either, then, B is right and there is no agreement of Matthew and Luke against Mark; or we have, not only a clear case of B L convicted of assimilation, but evidence of such an orgy of assimilation in these small details that no text can be relied on, and it is just as likely that the presence of κύριε in either Matthew or Luke may be due to the same cause.

Although this case is not clear cut, as Tertullian also mentions “the Lord” it supports the possibility that Mcg is the source of Κύριε in both Matthew and Luke.

Tertullian’s above reference to Naaman could suggest that he saw here in Mcg what we see as Lk 4:27, but the following discussion makes it clear that he is in fact using it just to contrast Elisha’s cure with that of Jesus, and not that Mcg actually had a reference to Naaman here. Instead, the only suggestion from Tertullian that Mcg 5:12-14 differed from Luke is that he gives the ending of Mcg 5:14 as "that it may be for a testimony unto you." Epiphanius has only one comment on this passage, in which he confirms Tertullian’s reading in Mcg 5:14:

Scholion < One >, from Marcion’s Own Version of the Gospel "Go shew thyself unto the priest, and offer for thy cleansing, according as Moses commanded – that this may be a testimony unto you,” instead of the Saviour’s, “for a testimony unto them.” (Scholion 1)

In Elenchus 1 (b) Epiphanius then states:

“And offer for thy cleansing.” Even if you excise “the gift,” it will be evident, from the word, “offer,” that he is speaking of a gift.

From this it appears that while Mcg had “offer,” Epiphanius knew a slightly different variant of this verse, containing “the gift,” as we see today in Mt 8:4. In Lk 5:14 Bezae also has “that it may be a testimony unto you” instead of “for a testimony unto them,” thus providing ms evidence of this variant, and establishing beyond reasonable doubt that it was the reading in Mcg. However, this does not explain how there could be (apparently) two different testimonies.

Lev 14:1-32 describes the lengthy ritual process that a leper had to undertake to be declared clean “as Moses commanded.” A large part of this process involved having the cured leper being seen by the community for 7 days, so that the ritual would be a “testimony unto them” (the community) that he was clean. On this basis changing “them” to “you” would seem to be meaningless.

However, the leper was asked to do two different things: to obey OT law regarding the ritual cleansing; but also to keep quiet regarding Jesus’ role in curing him. So, if the “testimony” instead refers to whether the ex-leper kept quiet, then not telling anyone would be a testimony to him (“you”). Unfortunately, there is no information in our copies of Luke regarding whether the leper did in fact “tell no man,” although we are told in Lk 5:15 Jesus’ fame spread “so much the more,” suggesting that the leper did not in fact keep quiet. In Bezae this is made explicit by the following addition to the end of Lk 5:14:

But when he went out he began to proclaim and spread abroad the word so that he was no longer able to enter into the city openly, but he was without in a desert place and they were coming together to him and he came again to Capernaum.

As a result, in Bezae it makes perfect sense for the “testimony” in Lk 5:14 to refer to the ex-leper keeping quiet, because it is followed by text showing that he did exactly what Jesus told him not to do, with the result being as given in Lk 5:15. However, without this additional text in Luke “you” would seem to make no sense. The use of “them” instead then suggests that the ritual was the testimony, but does not indicate why Jesus’ fame spread even more. It is reasonable to suppose that these two differences (“you” vs. “them,” and the addition to Lk 5:14) are linked. As we know that Mcg had “you,” is there any evidence that it also had the addition seen in Bezae? The addition itself closely parallels Mk 1:45 - 2:1a:

But he went out, and began to publish [it] much, and to blaze abroad the matter, insomuch that Jesus could no more openly enter into the city, but was without in desert places: and they came to him from every quarter. And again he entered into Capernaum…

As we do not currently see this text in Luke, it is conceivable that Mk 1:45 itself is an interpolation that didn’t make it into most copies of Luke, but did get picked up and used in Bezae. However, it is unlikely that this additional text was also in Mcg, because neither Tertullian nor Epiphanius note any difference at this point.

Neither Tertullian nor Epiphanius mention Mcg 5:15-16. Although they do not have any direct parallels, because they continue the passage from Mcg 5:12-14 it is likely that they were unchanged in Mcg.

See also: The Leper and the Lord: Mk-1:40

Luke 5:17-26 – A Man with Palsy Healed

And it came to pass on a certain day, as he was teaching, that there were Pharisees and doctors of the law sitting by, which were come out of every town of Galilee, and Judaea, and Jerusalem: and the power of the Lord was present to heal them. [5:17] …

And the scribes and the Pharisees began to reason, saying, Who is this which speaketh blasphemies? Who can forgive sins, but God alone? [5:21] …

But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power upon earth to forgive sins, (he said unto the sick of the palsy), I say unto thee, Arise, and take up thy couch, and go into thine house. [5:24]

Tertullian summarizes the whole of Mcg 5:17-26 as follows: “The sick of the palsy is healed, and that in public, in the sight of the people.” He quotes: "Arise, and take up thy couch," and “Who can forgive sins, but God alone?”, and then spends most of the rest of the chapter discussing the meaning of “the Son of man,” saying nothing more about the actual content of these verses. Bezae has this shorter version of Lk 5:17:

And it came to pass on one of the days, as he was teaching, the Pharisees and teachers of the law came together, now they were come together out of every village of Galilee, and Judea, to be healed.

By stating just that the “the sick of the palsy is healed,” without referring to “the power of the Lord” being present, it is possible that Tertullian is showing that he saw this shorter ending in Mcg 5:17, but all we can really say is that we can’t rule out this possibility. Epiphanius records this variation in Mcg 5:24 (emphasis added):

But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power to forgive sins upon earth. (Scholion 2)

In the KJV the parallels at Mk 2:10a and Mt 9:6a both read:

But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins,

However, in Mk 2:10a the Aramaic Bible in Plain English has:

But that you may know The Son of Man is authorized to forgive sins in the earth

NA27, B, Θ (038), 157, pc also have this order in Mk 2:10a, suggesting that this may have been the original form of these words.

From the above we can be sure that Tertullian saw at least Mcg 5:21 and 5:24, and it is also likely that he saw the rest of this passage, essentially as we see it in Luke. It is possible that he saw the shorter version of Mcg 5:17, and also the different word order in Mcg 5:24, but if so it does not seen likely that either would be a change made by Marcion.

Luke 5:27-32 – The Call of Levi

And after these things he went forth, and saw a publican, named Levi, sitting at the receipt of custom: and he said unto him, Follow me. [5:27]  …

And Jesus answering said unto them, They that are whole need not a physician; but they that are sick. [5:31]

Neither Epiphanius nor Tertullian comment on any difference between Mcg and Luke in these verses. Epiphanius does not mention the verses at all, and Tertullian, in a similar way to with Mcg 5:17-26, makes just a general statement about the “publican who was chosen by the Lord” [5:27], and then quotes from one verse, when he says: "The whole needed not a physician, but they that are sick."[5:31]  Bezae has a different version of Lk 5:27:

And coming again to the sea, he taught the multitude that followed him; and passing by he saw Levi, the son of Alphaeus, at the receipt of custom: and he saith unto him, Follow me.

It is unlikely that Tertullian saw this version, as he mentions that it was a publican that was chosen, a detail that is not in Bezae. Based on this information, it is most likely that Mcg 5:27-32 read the same as in Luke.

Luke 5:33-35 – Fasting

And they said unto him, Why do the disciples of John fast often, and make prayers, and likewise the disciples of the Pharisees; but thine eat and drink? [5:33]  And he said unto them, Can ye make the children of the bridechamber fast, while the bridegroom is with them? [5:34]  But the days will come, when the bridegroom shall be taken away from them, and then shall they fast in those days. [5:35]

In his chapter 11 Tertullian refers to John the Baptist for the first time, and indicates that this is also the first mention of John in Mcg:

Whence, too, does John come upon the scene?  Christ, suddenly; and just as suddenly, John! After this fashion occur all things in Marcion’s system.

He mentions “the disciples of John, who were constantly fasting and praying,” showing that he did see Mcg 5:33, and then refers to Mcg 5:34-35:

"the children of the bridegroom are unable to fast during the time the bridegroom is with them," [5:34], and

"they should afterwards fast, when the bridegroom was taken away from them," [5:35]

As far as we can tell, Tertullian saw these verses as we do, except for the possible mention of “the children of the bridegroom” (not “bridechamber”). Epiphanius does not mention these verses, indicating that he saw nothing worthy of note here.

Luke 5:36-39 – Old Wine, New Wine

And he spake also a parable unto them; No man putteth a piece of a new garment upon an old; if otherwise, then both the new maketh a rent, and the piece that was taken out of the new agreeth not with the old. [5:36]  And no man putteth new wine into old bottles; else the new wine will burst the bottles, and be spilled, and the bottles shall perish. [5:37]  But new wine must be put into new bottles; and both are preserved. [5:38]  No man also having drunk old wine straightway desireth new: for he saith, The old is better. [5:39]

Tertullian spends two paragraphs talking about old and new garments and bottles. He refers to Mcg 5:36-37 (and possibly Mcg 5:38) as follows (Note: ‘Bottles’ in the KJV and in the translations below is incorrect, and is instead best read as ‘wineskins’):

You have erred also in that declaration of Christ, wherein He seems to make a difference between things new and old. You are inflated about the old bottles, [5:37] and brain-muddled with the new wine; [5:37/38] and therefore to the old (that is to say, to the prior) gospel you have sewed on the patch [5:36] of your new-fangled heresy...

For new wine is not put into old bottles [5:37], except by one who has the old bottles; nor does anybody put a new piece to an old garment [5:36], unless the old garment be forthcoming to him.

In both paragraphs Tertullian refers to Mcg 5:36 after Mcg 5:37/38. Although Epiphanius does not comment directly on these verses in Mcg, he does mention the discussion that Marcion had with the church elders regarding them: 

And he began – at the very beginning, as it were, and as though at the starting-point of the questions at issue – to put this question to the elders of that time: “Tell me, what is the meaning of, ‘Men do not put new wine into old bottles, or a patch of new cloth unto an old garment; else it both taketh away the fullness, and agreeth not with the old. For a greater rent will be made’ ?"

Although this is not a direct quote from what we see in Luke, it is nevertheless clear that wine/bottles comes before cloth/garment, i.e. the reference to Mcg 5:36 comes after that to Mcg 5:37/38, so agreeing with Tertullian’s order. Thomas and Adamantius also place their variants of Lk 5:36 last:

No one drinks old wine and immediately desires to drink new wine [c.f. 5:39]. And new wine is not poured into old wineskins, lest they burst; [c.f. 5:37] nor is old wine poured into a new wineskin, lest it spoil. An old patch is not sewn on a new garment, for a rent would result [c.f. 5:36]. (Thomas 47).

The Saviour clearly says, “A new commandment I give to you." The new one is not the same as the old, for the Saviour says again, “New wine they put into new wineskins, and both are preserved [c.f. Lk 5:38].” The new commandment is not the complement of the old one, for the Saviour says again, “Nobody puts a patch of unshrunk cloth on an old garment [c.f. Lk 5:36b].” Neither Christ not the Apostle is the complement of the law. (Adamantius 2.16).

These additional references make it clear that Tertullian and Epiphanius were not mistaken, and that Mcg 5:36b came after Mcg 37-38. In addition, their joint lack of comment suggests that this was also the order they saw in their copies of Luke. However, of the four only Adamantius refers to the last clause of Lk 5:38, and only Thomas refers to Lk 5:39. While P45 is not extant for this part of Luke, P75 includes Lk 5:37b-39 (there is a missing leaf covering LK 5:36 and most of Lk 5:37), and P4 contains all four verses.

There are several known variants in this passage, in Lk 5:36, 38, and 39. Lk 5:36 refers either to simply putting a new patch on an old garment, or tearing a piece out of a new garment to use as the patch (himatiou kainou vs. apo himatiou kainou schisas). None of the quotes above mention tearing out a patch, suggesting that all saw the shorter variant, as found in the majority of mss (P4 has the longer variant). Most mss of Luke have an addition at the end of Lk 5:38 that is not mentioned by Tertullian, Epiphanius, or Thomas, but is quoted by Adamantius. The NET notes:

Most mss (A C [D] Θ Ψ Ë13 Ï latt sy) have καὶ ἀμφότεροι συντηροῦνται (kai amfoteroi sunthrountai, “and both will be preserved”), assimilating the text to Matt 9:17. The earliest and best witnesses, as well as many others (Ì4,75vid א B L W Ë1 33 579 700 1241 2542 co), however, lack the words.

Lk 5:33-39 as a whole has direct parallels in both Mark and Matthew, while neither of the parallels have an equivalent to Lk 5:39, although as seen above there is a variant of this verse in Thomas 47. It is also not present in Luke in D, it(a, b, c, d, e, ff2, l, r1), and is omitted by both Irenaeus and Eusebius. Even where present there are variants, as reported in the NET:

Although most mss begin the verse with καί (kai, “and”), beginning the sentence without a conjunction is both a harder reading and is found in early and important witnesses (Ì4,75vid א2 B 579 700 892 1241).

Most mss, especially the later ones (A C Θ Ψ Ë1,13 33 Ï lat), read χρηστότερος (crhstotero, “better”), a smoother reading. The reading of the text (found in Ì4 א B L W 1241 pc) is preferred as the more difficult reading.

The lack of Lk 5:39 in D and the Old Latin, of parallels in both Matthew and Mark, and mention of this verse in Tertullian, Epiphanius and others, all indicate that this verse was not present in Mcg. Head provides the following rationale for its omission: 

Marcion also omits v. 5:39: 'the old [wine] is better'; which was presumably thought to support a positive view of the OT (although it appears to be ironical in Luke).

However, Tyson suggests the following:

Epiphanius writes that there was heated debate over Luke 5:36-38 between Marcion and the church at Rome, with Marcion saying that they supported his position that the gospel was something completely new... Given the historical controversy surrounding the previous verses, and the awkwardness of the additional verse 39 as a conclusion of the parable, this verse may well have been added by the canonical author to rebut Marcionite teaching.

Head’s suggestion could explain the lack of Mcg 5:39, but not the different location of Mcg 5:36b, for which a different explanation would be required. Instead, given the lack of a parallel to Lk 5:39 in both Matthew and Mark, and its omission in D and the old Latin, it is more likely that Lk 5:39 is a later addition to the text that was in Marcion. As the omission of Lk 5:39 is generally considered to be a Western non-interpolation, it is possible that the original text of Luke omitted Lk 5:38b-39. Taking into account both this and the different location of Lk 5:36b, it is likely that in Marcion this passage read approximately:

And he spake also a parable unto them; [5:36a] No man putteth new wine into old wineskins; else the new wine will burst the wineskins, and be spilled, and the wineskins shall perish. [5:37]  But new wine must be put into new wineskins; [5:38a] And no man putteth a piece of a new garment upon an old; if otherwise, then both the new maketh a rent, and the piece that was taken out of the new agreeth not with the old. [5:36b]

As neither Tertullian nor Epiphanius suggest that they saw any differences here between Mcg and Luke, it is likely that their copies of Luke contained the same text.

Next Chapter: Luke 6