Luke 6
For a side-by-side English translation of the text of Marcion's Gospel and Luke 6, see Luke Chapter 6
Summary:
This chapter of Marcion [Mcg] is very similar to Luke 6..
Details:
Luke 6:1-4 – Picking Corn on the Sabbath
And it came to pass on the second sabbath after the first, that he went through the corn fields; and his disciples plucked the ears of corn, and did eat, rubbing them in their hands. [6:1] And certain of the Pharisees said unto them, Why do ye that which is not lawful to do on the sabbath days? [6:2] And Jesus answering them said, Have ye not read so much as this, what David did, when himself was an hungered, and they which were with him; [6:3] How he went into the house of God, and did take and eat the showbread, and gave also to them that were with him; which it is not lawful to eat but for the priests alone? [6:4]
Tertullian refers to most of Mcg / Lk 6:1-4, 'interpreting' Marcion's motive for including this passage:
The disciples had been hungry [6:3b]; on that the Sabbath day they had plucked some ears and rubbed them in their hands; [6:1] by thus preparing their food, they had violated the holy day. Christ excuses them, and became their accomplice in breaking the Sabbath. The Pharisees bring the charge against Him. [6:2] Marcion sophistically interprets the stages of the controversy (if I may call in the aid of the truth of my Lord to ridicule his arts), both in the scriptural record [6:3] and in Christ's purpose. For from the Creator's Scripture, and from the purpose of Christ, there is derived a colorable precedent -- as from the example of David, when he went into the temple on the Sabbath, and provided food by boldly breaking up the shew-bread. [6:3-4, c.f. 1 Sam 21:5-6]
He mentions that the disciples had been hungry, as we see in Mt 12:1 but not Luke, but does not refer to them eating, agreeing with Mk 2:23. Despite these differences Tertullian does not indicate that he saw any variation in Mcg. Epiphanius indicates that Mcg 6:3-4 were as we see in Bezae by quoting parts of these verses. He omits “how” at the beginning of Mcg 6:4, as also in P4, B, and Bezae:
Have ye not read so much as this, what David did: [6:3a] he went into the house of God. [6:4a] (Scholion 21)
Given that Tertullian mentions that the disciples had been hungry, thus suggesting that he saw Mcg 6:3b, it is likely that Epiphanius is just quoting the words he needs to make the point that Marcion does not deny the meaning of “the house of God,” and so both he and Tertullian saw Mcg 6:1-4 almost as we see in Lk 6:1-4.
Luke 6:5 – Lord of the Sabbath?
And he said unto them, That the Son of man is Lord also of the Sabbath. [6:5]
In Scholion 3 Epiphanius quotes: “The Son of Man is lord also of the Sabbath,” and does not suggest that he saw any difference here. Tertullian spends the whole of his chapter 12 discussing the Sabbath and refers to the term “Lord of the Sabbath” twice: first when introducing the topic, and later when he states that: ‘He was called "Lord of the Sabbath."’ However, this second mention comes after he refers to the healing of the withered hand that we see in Lk 6:10. This appears to match Bezae (both d and D) in which what we see as Lk 6:5 is positioned after Lk 6:10, with the following text replacing Lk 6:5:
On the same day, seeing one working on the Sabbath, he said unto him, Man, if thou knowest what you doest, thou art blessed: but if thou dost not know thou art cursed and a transgressor of the law.
Willker comments:
This passage is generally referred to as Lk 6:5D, but D actually shifts verse 5 after verse 10. This way D has three incidents concerning Jesus and the Sabbath which are finished by the statement of Jesus' sovereignty over the Sabbath…
Neither Tertullian nor Epiphanius refer to Lk/Mcg 6:5d, and the existence of this verse in Bezae where text based on Mk 2:27 or Mt 12:5-7 might be expected instead lends additional weight to the possibility that the author of Mcg Marcion, or perhaps the author of an early version of Luke, did not know these verses from Mark or Matthew. Klinghardt comments that Mcg most likely did not contain a parallel of Mt 12:5-7:
If Luke had read Matthew, an equivalent of Matt. 12:5-7 was to be expected between Luke 6:4 and 6:5. However, Tertullian (4.12) attests the whole pericope of the plucking of corn for Mcn and even alludes to parts of *6:4 (4.12.5) and *6:6-7 (4.12.9-10). Epiphanius, too, clearly read *6:3-4 in Mcn. Luke’s lack of an equivalent of Matt. 12:5-7 is, therefore, easily understandable if he followed Mcn, not Matthew.
Although referring to this passage as Lk 6:5D suggests that it replaces Lk 6:5, it is perhaps more accurate to consider it to be an interpolation between Lk 6:4 and 6.6, so filling the gap left due to the positioning of Lk 6:5 after Lk 6:10 (which is most likely a separate variant). Given that Mk 2:27 is not present in some mss (see the additional information on Mark 2:27-28) and that this verse, Mt 12:5-7, and Lk 6:5D are all different from each other, when viewed in this light it becomes easier to see that all these passages are intrusive, and none may be original. In each synoptic gospel the relevant passage interrupts the same two surrounding passages (Plucking Grain on the Sabbath, and Healing a Man with a Withered Hand), and in each case the narrative works well without these interrupting passages.
Nevertheless, for some reason it was felt necessary to add something to reinforce the point in all three synoptics, and yet all three additions are different, with each showing no knowledge of either of the others. The addition of Lk 6:5D may have therefore been prompted by the recognition that an additional passage was expected here. Willker comments:
E Bammel writes: "The old Latin codex Palatinus (e) introduces Luke 6:1 by the addition of mane [‘early,’ or ‘in the morning’] to the normal text, that means in a way which suggests that another story was to follow later on the same day – as it actually does in D. If this is right, it would point to the existence of the pericope at some stage of the Latin version and thereby to a more widespread occurrence, the last trace of which is found in e."
These three variants: the addition to Lk 6:1; Lk 6:5D; and the positioning of what we see as Lk 6:5 between Lk 6:10 and 11; are all connected, and suggest that at some point the Old Latin contained three ‘Sabbath’ stories in Luke, with the re-located Lk 6:5 providing the concluding explanation from Jesus. Unfortunately, P45 is not extant for these verses of Luke, and P75 is little help here: It does not include the addition to Lk 6:1, but has a large lacuna from close to the end of Lk 6:4 to just after the beginning of Lk 6:11 (the top 2/3 of the leaf are not extant). It could therefore have contained the re-located Lk 6:5, and (just possibly) Lk 6:5D, but we have no way of knowing. All we can say for sure is that neither P4 nor P75 contained the addition to Lk 6:1.
The only evidence we have regarding the status of these three variants in Mcg is in regard to the re-positioning of Mcg 6:5. Neither Tertullian nor Epiphanius make any reference to Mcg 6:5D, and neither mention the time of day in Mcg 6:1. However, as previously mentioned, Tertullian refers to Mcg 6:5 at an unusual location in his narrative. After discussing the incident of the shew-bread, he continues directly as follows:
Then the Pharisees watch whether “He would heal on the Sabbath-day,” [6:6-7] that they might accuse Him -- surely as a violator of the Sabbath, not as the propounder of a new god; for perhaps I might be content with insisting on all occasions on this one point, that another Christ is nowhere proclaimed.
There is no suggestion of either Mcg 6:5 or 6:5D here. However, after referring to the Pharisees error in their interpretation of the law of the Sabbath, Tertullian writes:
Wishing, therefore, to initiate them into this meaning of the law by the restoration of the withered hand, [6:6-10] He requires, "Is it lawful on the Sabbath-days to do good, or not? to save life, or to destroy it?" [6:9] In order that He might, whilst allowing that amount of work which He was about to perform for a soul, remind them what works the law of the Sabbath forbade -- even human works; and what it enjoined -- even divine works, which might be done for the benefit of any soul, He was called "Lord of the Sabbath," [6:5] because He maintained the Sabbath as His own institution.
Tertullian here refers to Jesus being the “Lord of the Sabbath” at exactly the place where Lk 6:5 is located in D, and from this we can reasonably conclude at least that Tertullian saw Mcg 6:5 between Mcg 6:10 and 11, and that this did not differ from what he saw in his own copy of Luke. Epiphanius’ own odd positioning of his reference to this text is less certain, but his lack of any mention of a difference here suggests that he at least knew of the position of Lk 6:5 between Lk 6:9 and 10, even if it was not so positioned in his copy of Luke.
Luke 6:6-10 – Healing a Withered Hand
And it came to pass also on another sabbath, that he entered into the synagogue and taught: and there was a man whose right hand was withered. [6:6] And the scribes and Pharisees watched him, whether he would heal on the sabbath day; that they might find an accusation against him. [6:7] But he knew their thoughts, and said to the man which had the withered hand, Rise up, and stand forth in the midst. And he arose and stood forth. [6:8] Then said Jesus unto them, I will ask you one thing; Is it lawful on the sabbath days to do good, or to do evil? to save life, or to destroy it? [6:9] And looking round about upon them all, he said unto the man, Stretch forth thy hand. And he did so: and his hand was restored whole as the other. [6:10]
As mentioned above, Tertullian refers to the whole of this passage both in general terms, and by using quotes from Lk 6:7, 9. As also mentioned above, he refers to Jesus as “Lord of the Sabbath” after his references to Lk 6:9 and 10. Epiphanius notes in Scholion 3 that Mcg had: “The Son of Man is lord also of the Sabbath,” but does not suggest that this was a difference. He has no other comment on these verses. The NET has this note:
The term “lord” is in emphatic position in the Greek text. To make this point even clearer a few mss add “also” before the reference to the Son of Man, while a few others add it before the reference to the Sabbath.
There is no indication in what Tertullian wrote that anything he saw in Mcg 6:6-10 differed from his copy of Luke. Many mss include “whole as the other” (As shown above, but with several variations) at the end of Lk 6:10, and this is generally considered to be an assimilation to Matthew. We do not know what Tertullian saw at this point, but it does appear that he saw Mcg 6:5 following Mcg 6:10.
Luke 6:11 – What Can We Do?
And they were filled with madness; and communed one with another what they might do to Jesus. [6:11]
Neither Tertullian nor Epiphanius mention Mcg 6:11, but as it has parallels in both Mark and Matthew it was most likely present unchanged in Mcg.
Luke 6:12-16 – Choosing the Twelve
And Judas the brother of James, and Judas Iscariot, which also was the traitor. [6:16]
As with Lk 6:6-11, Tertullian refers to the whole of this passage in general terms and by specific references or quotes, with no indication that he saw anything different in Mcg when compared to Luke. Epiphanius also does not mention any differences in these verses, except (possibly) a small variation in Mcg 6:16, writing:
Judas Iscariot, which was a betrayer. (Scholion 4, first part)
This appears most likely to be a simple translation difference, as other Bibles have, variously: “who became a traitor” (NET); “who betrayed him” (RSV), and “the man who betrayed him.” (NEB)
Luke 6:17 – Joining the Disciples
And he came down with them, and stood in the plain, and the company of his disciples, and a great multitude of people out of all Judaea and Jerusalem, and from the sea coast of Tyre and Sidon, which came to hear him, and to be healed of their diseases; [6:17]
Tertullian does not mention this verse directly, instead having:
There come to Him from Tyre, and from other districts even, a transmarine multitude.
This clearly is a reference to Mcg 6:17b, and although Tertullian only mentions Tyre by name, we have no reason to doubt that he saw the other locations in Mcg. Epiphanius notes:
Instead of, “He came down with them,” he has, ”He came down among them.” (Scholion 4, second part)
Who did Jesus come down with? In Lk 6:13 he has just been with his disciples, so he could have come down with them. However, the disciples are mentioned in Lk 6:17 as though Jesus is joining them, so perhaps at some point Lk 6:17 did not follow Lk 6:16 (as is the case in the parallels in both Mark and Matthew). Whatever the reason for this difference, it is highly unlikely that Marcion would make so unnecessary (to him) a change.
Luke 6:18-19 – The Multitude Healed
And they that were vexed with unclean spirits: and they were healed. [6:18] And the whole multitude sought to touch him: for there went virtue out of him, and healed them all. [6:19]
Tertullian has nothing to say regarding these verses, but Epiphanius notes this apparent variant in Mcg 6:19-20:
And the whole multitude sought to touch him. [6:19a] And he lifted up his eyes, [6:20a] and so forth. (Scholion 5)
In Elenchus 5 he makes it clear that he quoted these words just to show that Marcion’s Jesus was “composed of flesh,” and he gives no indication that he has any interest in how Jesus healed the multitude. Given Tertullian’s lack of comment, it is therefore likely that he did not quote Mcg 6:19b simply because he did not need to in order to make his point, and not because it was not in Mcg.
Luke 6:20-23 – The Beatitudes
And he lifted up his eyes on his disciples, and said, [6:20a] Blessed be ye poor: for yours is the kingdom of God. [6:20b] Blessed are ye that hunger now: for ye shall be filled. [6:21a] Blessed are ye that weep now: for ye shall laugh. [6:21b] Blessed are ye, when men shall hate you, and when they shall separate you from their company, and shall reproach you, and cast out your name as evil, for the Son of man's sake. [6:22] Rejoice ye in that day, and leap for joy: for, behold, your reward is great in heaven: for in the like manner did their fathers unto the prophets. [6:23]
As shown above, Epiphanius quotes from Mcg 6:20a when he indicates that it had “'And he lifted up his eyes,' and so forth.” As he mentions nothing further regarding Mcg 6:20-22 we can assume that he saw no differences in these verses, i.e. that Mcg read the same as he saw in Luke. At the beginning of his chapter 14 Tertullian quotes from Mcg 6:20b:
I now come to those ordinary precepts of His, by means of which He adapts the peculiarity of His doctrine to what I may call His official proclamation as the Christ. "Blessed are the needy" (for no less than this is required for interpreting the word in the Greek), "because theirs is the kingdom of heaven."
In this translation Tertullian appears to see a different end to Mcg 6:20. However, his Latin actually reads “the kingdom of God:”
Venio nunc ad ordinarias sententias eius, per quas proprietatem doctrinae suae inducit, ad edictum, ut ita dixerim, Christi: Beati mendici (sic enim exigit interpretatio vocabuli quod in Graeco est), quoniam illorum est regnum dei.
Tertullian believes that the usual translation of “hoi ptōchoi” as “the poor,” does not correctly identify the people whom Jesus is blessing, and according to him, the meaning is: “Blessed are the beggars, for theirs is the kingdom of God.” It is not completely clear what source Tertullian is using here, as he uses the 3rd person (the beggars, for theirs is …) as we see in Mt 5:3, while having “kingdom of God,” as in Luke. This makes it unlikely that he is quoting directly from either Matthew or Luke. However, as the evidence suggests that Mcg may have been written in Latin, Tertullian’s reference to Greek is unusual, but this may simply be Tertullian referring back to the Greek in Luke in order to obtain a better translation of the words in Mcg. As with Epiphanius, Tertullian gives no indication that he saw any differences here between Mcg and Luke. He then intersperses quotes from Isa 61 and 65 with Mcg 6:21-22 (emphasis added):
Blessed are they that hunger, for they shall be filled. [6:21a] Blessed are they that weep, for they shall laugh. [6:21b]
As in Mcg 6:20b Tertullian uses the 3rd person rather than Luke’s 1st person, and he also omits “now” after both “hunger” and “weep,” but again he does not suggest that Mcg had changed any text. The parallel verses in both Matthew and Thomas also have similar differences:
Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. [Mt 5:3] Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted. [Mk 5:4]
Jesus said: Blessed are the poor, for yours is the kingdom of heaven. [Thomas 54]
Jesus said … Blessed are the hungry, for the belly of him who desires will be filled. [Thomas 69b]
Although this might suggest that Tertullian is quoting Matthew here, other differences between what he writes and the parallels in Matthew, and the corresponding closeness to Luke, show that this is not the case. Instead, it appears that here Luke is the ‘odd one out,’ perhaps making these verses more ‘personal’ via the use of the 1st person, and that Tertullian is quoting what he saw in Mcg.
Tertullian then quotes a shorter variant form of Mcg 6:22, omitting: “and when they shall separate you from their company:”
Blessed shall you be, when men shall hate you, and shall reproach you, and shall cast out your name as evil, for the Son of man's sake. [6:22]
This is very similar to the parallel in Matthew:
Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you [falsely], for my sake. [Mt 5:11]
As before, the other wording differences make it clear that Tertullian is not just quoting Matthew here, so it could be that he is misquoting Mcg instead. However, at the end of The Stromata, Book IV, chapter 6, Clement of Alexandria gives this version of Lk 6:22:
Blessed are you when men shall hate you, when they shall separate you, when they shall cast out your name as evil, for the Son of man's sake;
There is also this variant in Thomas:
Jesus said: Blessed are you when you are hated and persecuted, and they will find no place where you have been persecuted. [Thomas 68]
Thomas omits the same phrase as Tertullian, and while Clement does have “when they shall separate you,” he does not have “from their company, and shall reproach you,” indicating that there were variants of Lk 6:22 shorter than we see in canonical Luke. As with the other differences mentioned above, there is no apparent reason for Marcion to have removed: “and when they shall separate you from their company” from Mcg 6:22. Instead, this piece of text (which is unique to Luke) is more likely to be an addition to Luke that Tertullian did not see in Mcg. As Mcg and Matthew here agree against Luke, it suggests that Mcg pre-dates canonical Luke, and hence that it could also have pre-dated Matthew. In this scenario the author of Matthew (aMatthew) used the words he saw in Mcg, and they were perhaps later changed by the aLuke to what we see in Luke today.
The only part of this passage noted by Epiphanius is Mcg 6:23b, which he gives in his Scholion 6 as: “In the like manner did your fathers unto the prophets.” He has “your fathers” instead of “their fathers,” but does not note this as a difference. In Elenchus 6 he then indicates that he is simply noting that in Mcg Jesus acknowledges both the existence of prophets and his authority over them. Perhaps as a result, Epiphanius has no reason to refer to any other part of these verses. Tertullian begins his Chapter 15 by also quoting just the end of Mcg 6:23:
In the like manner did their fathers unto the prophets. [6:23b]
Both Tertullian and Epiphanius omit “For” at the beginning of Mcg 6:23b, as is also the case in D, suggesting that Lk 6:23a may not have been present in Luke at some point. This is supported by the fact that neither Tertullian nor Epiphanius mention Mcg 6:23a, although against this is the fact that it is present in P75. Tertullian quotes several different variants of these verses. None of them significantly affect the meaning, and are very unlikely to have been changes that Marcion would have made. Instead, as in almost all instances these variants in Mcg match Matthew against Luke, it seems more likely that Mcg here represents an earlier form of what we see in Luke, oneand that perhaps was seen by aMatthew.
Luke 6:24-26 – The Woes
But woe unto you that are rich! for ye have received your consolation. [6:24] Woe unto you that are full! for ye shall hunger. Woe unto you that laugh now! for ye shall mourn and weep. [6:25] Woe unto you, when all men shall speak well of you! for so did their fathers to the false prophets. [6:26]
Tertullian refers to Mcg 6:24-25 in detail (although he does not actually quote), omitting only “and weep” from the end of Mcg 6:25, but does not mention Mcg 6:26. Epiphanius does not mention these verses, which suggests he saw no variation. The NET makes these comments regarding Lk 6:25b-26:
The wording “to you” (ὑμῖν, Jumin) is lacking in several witnesses (א B K L T W Θ Ξ 0147 Ë1,13 579 700 892 1241 2542 al), though found in most (Ì75 A D Q Ψ 33 Ï lat co). The longer reading looks to be a clarifying addition; nevertheless, “to you” is included in the translation because of English requirements. [6:25b]
The wording “to you” (ὑμῖν, Jumin) is lacking throughout the ms tradition except for a few witnesses (D W* Δ 1424 pc co). The Western witnesses tend to add freely to the text. Supported by the vast majority of witnesses and the likelihood that “to you” is a clarifying addition, the shorter reading should be considered original; nevertheless, “to you” is included in the translation because of English requirements. [6:26]
The variations in Lk 6:25b-26 (but not in Lk 6:24-25a) suggest that these woes may have been added to Luke after Lk 6:24-25a. Also, as Lk 6:26 does not have any parallels in either Mark or Matthew, it is possible that it was not in Mcg.
Luke 6:27-28 – Friends and Enemies (1)
But I say unto you which hear, Love your enemies, do good to them which hate you, [6:27] Bless them that curse you, and pray for them which despitefully use you. [6:28]
Tertullian begins his chapter 16 by quoting from most of Mcg 6:27-29. Although the sense of these verses is the same as in Luke, he gives a shorter version of Mcg 6:27-28:
But I say unto you which hear, Love your enemies, and bless those which hate you, [6:27] and pray for them which calumniate [Latin ‘calumniantur’: falsely accuse or speak evil of] you. [6:28]
These two verses have a parallel at Mt 5:44, which in the KJV reads:
But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you.
In the NET this verse in Matthew is much shorter, reading just: “But I say to you, love your enemy and pray for those who persecute you,” with the NET adding this note:
Most mss ([D] L [W] Θ Ë13 33 Ï lat) read “bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who mistreat you,” before “those who persecute you.” ... The shorter text is found in א B Ë1 pc sa, as well as several fathers and versional witnesses.
In Luke the text is similar to the longer variant in Matthew, except that “bless them that curse you” is swapped with “do good to them that hate you,” and Luke does not have: “and persecute you.” The longer variant in Matthew is taken to be an assimilation to Luke, but this does not explain why anyone would swap the two phrases instead of just adding the text from Luke unchanged.
Assuming that Marcion edited Luke we have a hard to explain omission plus a change of order, from: “do good to them which hate you, bless them that curse you” to just ”bless those which hate you,” but it is also hard to see why aLuke would make the reverse change if Luke is an expanded version of Mcg. However, if Mcg was earlier than Matthew, then it is possible to see how two independent changes could occur: an expansion from Mcg (without a change of order) by aMatthew; and a later change of order by aLuke.
As Epiphanius does not mention this passage at all, it appears that he saw no differences.
Luke 6:29-31 – Friends and Enemies (2)
And unto him that smiteth thee on the one cheek offer also the other; and him that taketh away thy cloak forbid not to take thy coat also. [6:29] Give to every man that asketh of thee; and of him that taketh away thy goods ask them not again. [6:30] And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise. [6:31]
After commenting on Mcg 6:27-28 Tertullian 'quotes' Mcg 6:29, although the text given is not exactly as we see it, mainly resulting from Tertullian preceding it with “and bids us, on the contrary:”
to him who smites us on the one cheek, to offer the other also, and to give up our coat to him that takes away our cloak. [6:29]
However, Tertullian has the active “to give up our coat” instead of the passive “forbid not to take thy coat,” which is similar to the parallel at Mt 5:40b, which has: “and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also,” although here “cloak” and “coat” are reversed. Later in the same chapter Tertullian quotes from Mcg 6:30a, 31:
Give to everyone that asks of you [6:30a] And as you would that men should do to you, do also to them likewise. [6:31]
He does not refer to Mcg 6:30b, but as Epiphanius does not mention these verses it appears that he saw nothing of note, and so it is most likely that Mcg included v. 6:30b.
Luke 6:32-36 – Friends and Enemies (3)
For if ye love them which love you, what thank have ye? for sinners also love those that love them. [6:32] And if ye do good to them which do good to you, what thank have ye? for sinners also do even the same. [6:33] And if ye lend to them of whom ye hope to receive, what thank have ye? for sinners also lend to sinners, to receive as much again. [6:34] But love ye your enemies, and do good, and lend, hoping for nothing again; and your reward shall be great, and ye shall be the children of the Highest: for he is kind unto the unthankful and to the evil. [6:35] Be ye therefore merciful, as your Father also is merciful. [6:36]
Epiphanius mentions none of these verses, while Tertullian begins his chapter 17 by quoting Mcg 6:34a:
And if you lend to them of whom you hope to receive, what thank do you have? [6:34a]
He does not refer to Mcg 6:32-33, or 6:34b, all of which provide a contrast with the actions of sinners. After more talk about lending without expecting repayment (from Deut 24 and 15), he states that “we should lend to those of whom we cannot receive,” and then again quotes:
And you shall be the children of God: Because he is kind unto the unthankful and to the evil, [6:35b]
Here Tertullian quotes “children of God” (as is also found in Lk 20:36) rather than ‘’children of the highest.” He then writes:
Well done, Marcion! How cleverly have you withdrawn from Him the showers and the sunshine, that He might not seem to be a Creator!
From this it appears that Tertullian expected to see what we know as Mt 5:45b as part of this passage:
for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. [Mt 5:45b]
Tertullian does not state where he obtained this text from, and so it is possible that he is mistaking Matthew for Luke at this point, as the verses following the text (Mt 5:46-47) do have close parallels at Lk 6:32-33. Despite this apparent confusion of Matthew for Luke, he then follows this with text clearly from Luke instead of the parallel at Mt 5:48:
"Be merciful," says He, "as your Father also that had mercy upon you." [6:36]
However, In Dial 96 Justin Martyr quotes from Lk 6:35a, 36 and then immediately follows it with what we see as Mt 5:46-47, where he writes:
… For He taught us to pray for our enemies also, saying, 'Love your enemies; [6:35a] be kind and merciful, as your heavenly Father is.' [6:36] For we see that the Almighty God is kind and merciful, causing His sun to rise on the unthankful and on the righteous, and sending rain on the holy and on the wicked; [Mt 5:45] all of whom He has taught us He will judge.
The combination of the testimony from Tertullian and Justin suggests that at some point these two pieces of text did exist together. Tertullian’s comment indicates that he did not see in Mcg the text that we see in Matthew, but that because he stated that Marcion had removed it, it was in his copy of Luke. Epiphanius’ lack of comment on this point indicates that it was not in his copy of Luke, and hence he did not expect it in Mcg.
Tertullian refers to most of Mcg 6:34-36, either by using direct quotes, or in more general terms, but he does not mention Mcg 6:32-33 at all. In Mcg he expected to see text that we see in Matthew, and quotes “children of God” from Mcg 6:35, but there is no other indication in his writing that any other part of this passage differed from what he saw in Luke. As Epiphanius does not mention any variation from Luke in these verses, it is likely that Tertullian simply had no point to make regarding Mcg 6:32-33.
Luke 6:37-38 – Judging Others
Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven: [6:37] Give, and it shall be given unto you; good measure, pressed down, and shaken together, and running over, shall men give into your bosom. For with the same measure that ye mete withal it shall be measured to you again. [6:38]
Tertullian quotes both verses in full, omitting only “and shaken together” from Mcg 6:38a, as also in the ‘Aramaic Bible in Plain English,’ and “For” from Mcg 6:38b, as in P45. He also has “Judge not, [so that/lest] ye be not judged: condemn not, [so that/lest] ye be not condemned,” (equivalent to omitting ‘kai’ in both places) in Mcg 6:37, as found in א, B, L, W, Ξ, Ψ, f1, 579, 1071, pc, c, d, Sy-S, Co. Not only does the existence of these variants make it clear that Tertullian was not simply misquoting, but his lack of comment indicates that this was also what he saw in his copy of Luke.
Luke 6:39-40 – The Blind Leading the Blind
And he spake a parable unto them, Can the blind lead the blind? shall they not both fall into the ditch? [6:39] The disciple is not above his master: but every one that is perfect shall be as his master. [6:40]
Tertulian quotes: “a blind man will lead a blind man into the ditch." and "the disciple is not above his master." While the second quote is clearly Mcg 6:40a, the first is a variant in which the questions in Lk 6:39 are turned into a statement. Although this short parable has no parallel in Mark, Lk 6:39 does have a parallel in Matthew:
Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch. [Mt 15:14]
This parallel suggests that here Tertullian might be quoting Mt 15:14b, but his lack of reference to Mt 15:14a and addition of Mcg 6:40a instead makes this unlikely. It should also be noted that there is a parallel in Thomas, with saying 34 being essentially the same as Tertullian’s variant of Lk 6:39:
Jesus said, "If a blind man leads a blind man, they will both fall into a pit."
Neither Tertullian nor Thomas refer to Lk 6:40b, which is missing in a small number of mss (036 039* 669*) and lectionaries (48, 292). In addition, while Mcg 6:40a has a parallel in Matthew, Lk 6:40b is unique to Luke, making it possible that Mcg is based on a copy of Luke that did not contain it. On the above basis it is likely that Tertullian is accurately reporting what he saw in Mcg.
Luke 6:41-42 – The Mote in the Eye
And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but perceivest not the beam that is in thine own eye? [6:41] Either how canst thou say to thy brother, Brother, let me pull out the mote that is in thine eye, when thou thyself beholdest not the beam that is in thine own eye? [6:42a] Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam out of thine own eye, and then shalt thou see clearly to pull out the mote that is in thy brother's eye. [6:42b]
Referring to Marcion, Tertullian writes:
The heretic ought to take the beam out of his own eye, and then he may convict the Christian, should he suspect a mote to be in his eye. [6:41/42b]
Tertullian does not refer to Mcg 6:42a, and in this respect matches Thomas 26:
Jesus said: You see the mote which is in your brother's eye; but you do not see the beam which is in your own eye. [6:41] When you cast out the beam from your own eye, then you will see (clearly) to cast out the mote from your brother's eye. [6:42b]
Both Mt 7:4 and Lk 6:42a simply reinforce the previous text (in Mt 7:3 and Lk 6:41 respectively), and in both cases the narrative would work perfectively well without them, suggesting that the text may be an interpolation in both cases. Alternatively, might it be that Mt 7:3 and Lk 6:41 are the interpolations? A point against this is that in most mss both Mt 7:4 and Lk 6:42 begin with conjunctions: Matthew with ‘e,’ and Luke variously with ‘kai,’ ‘de,’ or ‘e’ (P75 has a lacuna here, but space consideration suggest that something must have been present). However, it is typically suggested that a conjunction was added in Luke to smooth the text and that it was lacking in the original, i.e. that it was brought from somewhere else and later changed slightly.
Both Thomas and the variant just described support the possibility that Lk 6:42a is an interpolation, and that it was not in Mcg. As the whole of this passage has a close parallel at Mt 7:3-5, and there appears to be no reason why Marcion would remove just Lk 6:42a, it appears that Tertullian and Thomas are both reporting a shorter variant of this saying that is earlier than what we see today in Matthew and Luke.
Luke 6:43-45 – Good and Bad Fruit
A good man out of the good treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is good; and an evil man out of the evil treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is evil: for of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaketh. [6:45]
Tertullian uses the whole of Mcg 6:39-45 to show how: “Marcion brought nothing good out of Cerdon's evil treasure; [6:45] nor Apelles out of Marcion's,” indicating that Marcion’s theology was based on Cerdon, and that Apelles then followed Marcion. Tertullian quotes from or refers to Mcg 6:43, 45, and nothing in his writing suggests that anything had been altered by Marcion. Epiphanius makes no comment on these verses, again suggesting that Mcg did not differ from Luke here.
The Majority text reads as the KJV, but several mss (P75, 01*, B, D, L, Y, f1, 579, 700, 892, 1342, pc, it(a, b, d, l), Co) have a shorter variant of Lk 6:45, reading: “and an evil out of his evil bringeth forth that which is evil.” Because Tertullian refers to Cerdon’s “evil treasure” (thesauro) it is likely that he saw the longer variant, as also in Adamantius 28 and Thomas 45.
Luke 6:46-49 – The Wise and Foolish Builders
And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say? [6:46] Whosoever cometh to me, and heareth my sayings, and doeth them, I will show you to whom he is like: [6:47] He is like a man which built a house, who digged deep, and laid the foundation on a rock: and when the flood arose, the stream beat vehemently upon that house, and could not shake it: for it was founded upon a rock. [6:48] But he that heareth, and doeth not, is like a man that without a foundation built an house upon the earth; against which the stream did beat vehemently, and immediately it fell; and the ruin of that house was great. [6:49]
Epiphanius makes no comment on these verses, indicating that he saw nothing of note here. Tertullian quotes the whole of Mcg 6:46, but then does not refer to any of Mcg 6:47-49, possibly because he is not interested in the answer they supply. Instead, he may be quoting Mcg simply in order to refute Marcion, as, after quoting Mcg 6:46, he provides his own (very different) rhetorical answer. Because these verses have a parallel at Mt 7:24-26, and are present (in fragmentary form) in P75, they were most likely the same in Marcion as we see in Luke.
Next Chapter: Luke 7