Luke 9

For a side-by-side English translation of the text of Marcion's Gospel of the Lord and Luke 9, see Luke Chapter 9

Summary:

From Ernest Evans on Adv. Marcion IV: Appendix 2: In ch. 9 he omits [all reference to Jairus], but retains the episode of the woman with an issue.

Details:

Luke 9:1-6 – The Twelve (1)

Then he called his twelve disciples together, and gave them power and authority over all the demons, and to cure diseases. [9:1]  And he sent them to preach the kingdom of God, and to heal the sick. [9:2]  And he said unto them, Take nothing for your journey, neither staves, nor scrip, neither bread, neither money; neither have two coats apiece. [9:3]  And whatsoever house ye enter into, there abide, and thence depart. [9:4]  And whosoever will not receive you, when ye go out of that city, shake off the very dust from your feet for a testimony against them. [9:5] And they departed, and went through the towns, preaching the gospel, and healing every where. [9:6]

At the beginning of his chapter 21 Tertullian refers to several clauses of Mcg 9:1-6, but does not give actual quotes. He also appears to suggest that aMarcion removed text that we only see in Mt 10:10:

He sends forth His disciples to preach the kingdom of God. [9:1-2] … He forbids their taking anything for their journey, by way of either food or raiment. [9:3] … Who anciently enjoined for the treading ox an unmuzzled mouth, that he might be at liberty to gather his fodder from his labor, on the principle that the worker is worthy of his hire? [Mt 10:10c] Marcion may expunge such precepts, but no matter, provided the sense of them survives...  But when He charges them to shake off the dust of their feet against such as should refuse to receive them, He also bids that this be done as a witness. [9:5]

Tertullian does not mention healing the sick in Mcg 9:2, but Matthew has: 

Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils: freely ye have received, freely give. [Mt 10:8]

Only the very beginning of this verse has any parallel in Luke, and even here there is a variant, either omitting “the sick” (B, 2206, Sy-S, Sy-C,), or having “the infirm” instead *(Latt ("infirmos"), Sy-P, Sy-H, Sy-Pal, Co, goth). The variants suggest that this is likely to be an addition from Matthew, and that in turn Tertullian probably did not see “to heal the sick” in Mcg. Tertullian also does not refer to Mcg 9:4, 6, but as Epiphanius refers to none of these verses it is reasonable to assume that they were unchanged in Marcion.

The KJV mentions houses (oikian) in Lk 9:4, cities/town (tēs poleōs) in Lk 9:5, and towns/villages (tas kōmas) in Lk 9:6. The parallel at Mt 10:11a has cities/towns (an polin) and towns/villages ‘(ē kōmēn’ - omitted in D, f1, 700, it(a, b, d, ff1, h, k), Sy-S), and that house or that city/town (tēs oikias ē tēs poleōs ekeinēs) in Mt 10:14. In contrast, Tertullian does not refer to Mcg 6:4 or 6:6, and in Mcg 9:5 mentions no specific place, similar to the parallel at Mk 6:10a, which has house, and 6:11a, 12, which also mention no specific place.

We see a difference in size or importance of the places referred to: Mark and Mcg refer to people in houses in ‘generic’ places, while Matthew and Luke refer to houses in places of various sizes (with Matthew having a variant not present in either Mark or Luke). On this basis it appears that Mcg has a more primitive form of this passage than either Matthew or Luke, being close to that seen in Mark instead.

Luke 9:7-9 – Herod is Perplexed

Now Herod the tetrarch heard of all that was done by him: and he was perplexed, because that it was said of some, that John was risen from the dead; [9:7]  And of some, that Elias had appeared; and of others, that one of the old prophets, was risen again. [9:8]  And Herod said, John have I beheaded: but who is this, of whom I hear such things? And he desired to see him. [9:9]

Continuing his chapter 21, Tertullian states that “some maintained to Herod that Jesus was the Christ; others, that He was John; some, that He was Elias; and others, that He was one of the old prophets,” a clear reference to Mcg 9:7-8. He does not mention Mcg 9:9. Tertullian’s reference to “the Christ” is an anomaly, as we do not see these words in any of the synoptics. He does not note this as a difference, so it could indicate that at one time Luke also contained these words. However, Epiphanius refers to none of these verses, indicating that he saw nothing of note, so in the absence of any other evidence we should assume that he saw no differences between Mcg and Luke.

Luke 9:10-11 – The Twelve (2)

And the apostles, when they were returned, told him all that they had done. And he took them, and went aside privately into a desert place belonging to the city called Bethsaida. [9:10]  And the people, when they knew it, followed him: and he received them, and spake unto them of the kingdom of God, and healed them that had need of healing. [9:11]

Tertullian reports that “He feeds the multitude in the desert place,” (Pascit populum in solitudine) so referring to Mcg 9:10, 12, and 16, from which we can reasonably assume that Tertullian saw the whole passage in Mcg. However, by not mentioning Bethsaida it is possible that he saw a shorter variant in Mcg 9:10, one of many actually found in the mss, as reported in the NET:

εἰς τόπον ἔρημον                     (“to a deserted place”; א*,2 [1241])

εἰς τόπον ἔρημον πόλεως καλουμένης Βηθσαϊδά    (“to a deserted place of a town called Bethsaida”; [A] C W Ξmg [Ë1,13] [565] Ï)

εἰς κώμην καλουμένην Βηθσαϊδά εἰς τόπον ἔρημον    (“to a village called Bethsaida to a deserted place”; Θ)

εἰς κώμην λεγομένην Βηδσαϊδά   (“to a village called Bedsaida”; D, d)

εἰς τόπον καλουμένον Βηθσαϊδά                                   (“to a place called Bethsaida”; Ψ).

εἰς πόλιν καλουμένην Βηθσαϊδά                                    (“to a town called Bethsaida”; P75 א1 B L Ξ* 33 2542 pc co).

The NET states that “There is a seeming myriad of variants for this text,” and summarizes them as follows:

The variants can be grouped generally into those that speak of a “deserted place” and those that speak of a place/city/town called Bethsaida. The Byzantine reading is evidently a conflation of the earlier texts, and should be dismissed as secondary. The variants that speak of a deserted place are an assimilation to Mark 6:32, as well as a harmonization with v. 12, and should also be regarded as secondary. The reading that best explains the rise of the others – both internally and externally – is the one that stands behind the translation and is found in the text of NA28.

As we cannot tell whether Tertullian saw “Bethsaida” (but did not refer to it) or not, we do not know for sure which of the first three variants above he saw (although the third seems unlikely), but his reference to a desert/deserted place/wilderness (solitudine) tells us that he did not see any of the last three. Epiphanius makes no reference to either verse, but as both have parallels in Matthew it is reasonable to assume that neither Tertullian nor Epiphanius saw any differences here between their copies of Mcg and Luke.

The existence of the variants, coupled with the fact that Marcion would have had no reason to change "Bethsaida" to anything else, strongly suggests that, contrary to NA27, the original version of Luke referred to “a deserted place.”

Luke 9:12-17 – The Five Thousand

And when the day began to wear away, then came the twelve, and said unto him, Send the multitude away, that they may go into the towns and country round about, and lodge, and fetch victuals: for we are here in a desert place. [9:12]  But he said unto them, Give ye them to eat. And they said, We have no more but five loaves and two fishes; except we should go and buy meat for all this people. [9:13]  For they were about five thousand men. And he said to his disciples, Make them sit down by fifties in a company. [9:14]  And they did so, and made them all sit down. [9:15]  Then he took the five loaves and the two fishes, and looking up to heaven, he blessed them, and brake, and gave to the disciples to set before the multitude. [9:16]  And they did eat, and were all filled: and there was taken up of fragments that remained to them twelve baskets. [9:17]

After reporting that “He feeds the multitude in the desert place,” [9:12, 16] Tertullian notes that five thousand were fed bread and fish [9:13-16], and that “He willed the slender supply of food, not only to be enough, but even to prove superabundant.” [9:17]  In his only reference to these verses, Epiphanius quotes from Mcg 9:16: “Looking up to heaven he pronounced a blessing upon them,” (Scholion 15) in order to mention that Marcion’s Jesus could not have looked if he did not have eyes, and therefore a body. There is no indication that these verses differed in Mcg.

Luke 9:18a – The Great Omission

And it came to pass, as he was alone praying, … [9:18a]

The text of Luke does not contain any equivalent to the contents of Mk 6:45-8:26 (See The Great Omission), and this applies even to the verses that have parallels in Matthew. However, if Luke were following Matthew at this point he would have been able to include Peter walking on the water, which includes the Sondergut Matthew verses Mt 14:28-31. Klinghardt makes the same point:

The Lukan parallel for the next example, Matt. 14:28-31, would be part of the passage that, in the terminology of the 2DH, is known as the “great omission”, i.e. the text of Mark 6:45-8:26 which has no counterpart in Luke and would be expected to appear between Luke 9:17 and 9:18. As expected, Tertullian confirms that Mcn had both verses in immediate succession (Tert. 4.21.4, 6). In this case, Luke followed neither Mark nor Matt. but Mcn; therefore, he could not possibly have Matt. 14:28-31.

There is an inconsistency in Luke, with Jesus praying alone in Lk 9:18a, and yet asking his disciples questions in v 9:18b. However, there is no suggestion from either Tertullian or Epiphanius that Mcg differed from Luke at this point.

Luke 9:18b-21 – Who Do You Say That I Am?

... his disciples were with him: and he asked them, saying, Whom say the people that I am? [9:18]  They answering said, John the Baptist; but some say, Elias; and others say, that one of the old prophets is risen again. [9:19]  He said unto them, But whom say ye that I am? Peter answering said, The Christ of God. [9:20]  And he straightly charged them, and commanded them to tell no man that thing; [9:21]

Tertullian continues his chapter 21 by referring to Mcg 9:18b, 20-21, stating that Peter answered the question: "Whom do you say that I am?" with the answer: "You are the Christ," and then Jesus asks the disciples to “enjoin silence respecting it.” Because the phase “The Christ of God” is only found in Luke (here and in Lk 23:35), by giving the shorter answer “You are the Christ,”  Tertullian may be indicating that he saw here the answer that we see in Mark:

And he saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Peter answereth and saith unto him, Thou art the Christ. [Mk 8:29]

Klinghardt comments on the fact that, assuming that Mcg (and Luke) followed Matthew, there is no equivalent to Mt 16:17-19 in either gospel:

The same phenomenon [the omission of a Matthean parallel] must be assumed for Peter’s confession and beatitude (Matt. 16:16-19) which would have its place between Luke 9:20 and 9:21. Again, Tertullian read both verses successively (4.21.6). Although Peter’s confession is attested differently by Tertullian (4.21.6: tu es Christus) and by Adamantius (Dial. 2.13: τὸν Χριστόν), these short forms are much closer to Luke 9:20 (τὸν Χριστὸν τοῦ θεοῦ) than to Matt. 16:16 (εἶ ὁ Χριστὸς ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ ζῶντος).

Note that the addition of the words “of God” constitute one of the 'Minor Agreements' of Matthew and Luke against Mark. It is therefore possible that what Tertullian reports was the original form of the verse in Luke, and that “of God” was added later. Epiphanius makes no comment about this verse, indicating that whatever he saw did not merit any mention.

Luke 9:22 – The first passion prophecy

Saying, The Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be slain, and be raised the third day. [9:22]

In his Chapter 21 Tertullian states:

It was, however, a different reason which He assigned for the silence, even because "the Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected of the elders, and scribes, and priests, and be slain, and be raised again the third day."

Although the use of “the third day” in this quote agrees with many bibles this translation may be incorrect, with both Mk 8:31 and Mt 27:63 having "after three days." A few bibles and Tertullian’s Latin agree with this variant: “et post tertium diem resurgere” (and after three days rise again).

This is the first of six passion summaries in Luke, with the other five located at Lk 9:44; 17:25; 18:31-33; 24:7; and 24:46-47. Some reconstructions of Mcg (Williams, Waite) have a shorter version of Lk 9:22, agreeing with the text of Marcion given by Epiphanius:

Saying, The Son of man must suffer many things, and be slain, and be raised after three days. (Scholion 16)

Here Epiphanius agrees with Tertullian that Mcg had “after three days,” but neither suggest that this is a difference from their copies of Luke. In Elenchus 16 Epiphanius makes it clear that his only point is that Jesus could not have been raised if he did not have a body. Accordingly, does this mean that he did see a shorter version of this verse, or not? As we have seen earlier, Epiphanius may sometimes appear to quote in full from Mcg, when he is actually quoting selectively. As almost the whole verse is quoted by Tertullian, and the details appear in the parallels at Mt 16:21 and Mk 8:31, it is most likely that the details in Marcion were as we see them in Luke.

Luke 9:23-25 – Saving and Losing Life

And he said to them all, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me. [9:23]  For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: but whosoever will lose his life for my sake, the same shall save it. [9:24]  For what is a man advantaged, if he gain the whole world, and lose himself, or be cast away? [9:25]

Epiphanius does not mention any of these verses, and while Tertullian does not mention Mcg 9:23, 25 he does quote Mcg 9:24 (but only to comment on its meaning). Tertullian omits “For” at the beginning of Mcg 9:24, possibly indicating that he did not see Mcg 9:23. However, as parallel versions of these verses exist at Mt 16:24-26 and Mk 8:34-37 with all salient details the same as in Luke, there is no reason to suppose that the version in Mcg was any different.

Luke 9:26-27 – A Call to Discipleship

For whosoever shall be ashamed of me, of him shall the Son of man be ashamed when he shall come in his own glory, and in the glory of his Father's and of the holy angels. [9:26]  But I tell you truly, there be some of those that stand here, which shall by no means taste death, till they see the kingdom of God. [9:27]

Epiphanius makes no comment on these verses, indicating that he saw no difference here between Mcg and Luke. However, according to some reconstructions Mcg 9:26b-27 did not exist, and this appears to be because Tertullian only mentions Mcg 9:26a, writing in his chapter 21:

It is, however, a jealous God whom He here presents to me; one who returns evil for evil. "For whosoever," says He, "shall be ashamed of me, of him will I also be ashamed."[9:26a]  Now to none but my [i.e. Tertullian’s] Christ can be assigned the occasion of such a shame as this. His whole course was so exposed to shame as to open a way for even the taunts of heretics, declaiming with all the bitterness in their power against the utter disgrace of His birth and bringing-up, and the unworthiness of His very flesh. But how can that Christ of yours [i.e. aMarcion’s] be liable to a shame, which it is impossible for him to experience?

As in so many other places, Tertullian here quotes Mcg in order to show that the text could not apply to Marcion’s Christ, and not to point out any change of wording. Tertullian’s text from here until the end of his chapter 21 is directly aimed at showing that Marcion’s Christ could not have been ashamed, and he could not have made this point if Mcg had not included the words he quotes from Mcg 9:26a. However, rather than mentioning Mcg 9:26b-27, Tertullian instead moves directly to the Transfiguration account in Mcg 9:28-36 to continue the same argument.

Most mss read “For whosoever shall be ashamed of me and of my words” at the beginning of Lk 9:26. However, Bezae, three other old Latins (a, e, and l), and Syr-C omit the word for “words,” so that the text reads “me and mine.” The same variant exists in the parallel at Mk 8:38, although here P45vid, W, k, and sa omit the word, while D does not. Willker comments that the omission is likely to be a scribal mistake, but then quotes J.M. Ross, who suggests the opposite:

The words make good sense both ways. But an omission is more likely, probably due to h.t. (OUS - OUS). Accidental omission is also supported by the fact that the supporting witnesses are not the same in both cases.

But note what Ross writes: "The decisive consideration in this case is that neither Mark nor Luke would have written tous emous logous unless with the intention of giving special emphasis to emous, of which there is no sign in the context; had they wished to convey the sense "ashamed of me and my words" they would have written tous emous mou. Mark uses the possessive mou 29 times elsewhere but both he and Luke rarely use emous, and never in a possessive sense with a noun. […] It therefore seems highly probable, on stylistic grounds alone, that logous was missing from the original text both here and in Luke." (J.M. Ross "Some unnoticed points in the text of the NT" NovT 25 (1983) 59-72}

In Whiston’s Primitive New Testament Lk 9:26 reads: “For whosoever shall be ashamed of me, of him shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he shall come in his own glory, and in his Fathers, and of the holy angels.” As stated above, Bezae omits “words,” while Whiston omits the whole phrase “and [of] my words.” Based on Whiston’s statement regarding his sources, the reasonable assumption is that this reading came from what he refers to as “the vulgar Latin.”

Given that Tertullian quotes just “Whosoever shall be ashamed of me,” without indicating that he saw a difference here, the above points suggest that the whole phrase “and [of] my words” were probably neither in his old Latin copy of Mcg, nor in his copy of Luke. It has been suggested that Mcg 9:26b did not exist because of the reference to the holy angels:

In various places (12:8, 9; 15:10) the words τῶν ἀγγέλων are omitted, because only the Creator god had angels (cf. 9:26 where the whole verse was omitted). (Head)

However, it is not obvious how Head reaches this conclusion regarding 9:26, since the whole thrust of Tertullian’s argument above would be null and void if at least Mcg 9:26a did not exist. Also, Head argues that these references were omitted because Marcion would not have wanted them, which presupposes that Marcion himself made the changes, and is irrelevant if he did not. As Epiphanius does not comment on these verses, and there is no evidence suggesting a reason why Mcg 9:27 might not have existed, the most likely scenario is that Mcg 9:26b-27 were present, and that Tertullian did not mention them simply because he had no point to make.

Luke 9:28-36 – The Transfiguration

And it came to pass about an eight days after these sayings, he took Peter and John and James, and went up into a mountain to pray. [9:28]  And as he prayed, the fashion of his countenance was altered, and his raiment was white, and glistering. [9:29]  And, behold, there talked with him two men, which were Moses and Elias, [9:30]  Who appeared in glory, and spake of his decease, which he should accomplish at Jerusalem. [9:31]  But Peter and they that were with him were heavy with sleep: but when they were awake, they saw his glory, and the two men that stood with him. [9:32]  And it came to pass, as they departed from him, Peter said unto Jesus, Master, it is good for us to be here: and let us make three tabernacles; one for thee, and one for Moses, and one for Elias: not knowing what he said. [9:33]  While he thus spake, there came a cloud, and overshadowed them: and they feared as they entered into the cloud. [9:34]  And there came a voice out of the cloud, saying, This is my beloved Son: hear him. [9:35]  And when the voice was past, Jesus was found alone. And they kept in close, and told no man in those days any of those things which they had seen. [9:36]

These verses describe Jesus’ meeting with Moses and Elijah on the mountaintop. Tertullian devotes the whole of his Chapter 22 to this episode, but this is all he states about the meeting itself and the subsequent events:

You [Marcion] ought to be very much ashamed of yourself on this account too, for permitting him to appear on the retired mountain in the company of Moses and Elias, [9:28, 30] whom he had come to destroy. This, to be sure, was what he wished to be understood as the meaning of that voice from heaven: ‘This is my beloved Son, hear Him’ [9:35] -- Him, that is, not Moses or Elias any longer. The voice alone, therefore, was enough, without the display of Moses and Elias; for, by expressly mentioning whom they were to hear, he must have forbidden all others from being heard…. they surely should not be represented as conversing together, [9:30] which is a sign of familiarity; nor as associated in glory with him, [9:31] for this indicates respect and graciousness.

Tertullian here is not really concerned with the specific details of what happened on the mountaintop. Instead, he is simply pointing out Marcion’s supposed error in allowing Jesus (supposedly the son of the demiurge) to be seen talking with these Old Testament figures. For Tertullian this is really all that matters, and the details are basically irrelevant. Epiphanius quotes the same two parts of this passage:

And, behold, there talked with him two men, Elijah and Moses in glory. [9:30-31] (Scholion 17)

Out of the cloud, a voice, This is my beloved son [9:35] (Scholion 18)

In neither case does Epiphanius state that he found a difference in Mcg. Instead, he is using these verses to show that by leaving these words in place Marcion shows that his Jesus knew who the men “in glory” were, and that his ‘god’ (the demiurge) was not just master above heaven.

The reading “my beloved son” is found in the majority of mss (including D), as well as in the parallels at Mk 9:7 and Mt 17:5, although P45, P75, 01, B, L, Q, X, f1, 579, 892, 1241, 1342, pc, Lat(b, c, e, f, q, r1, vg), Sy-S, Sy-Hmg, Co, arabMS have “my chosen one” instead. As it is unlikely that Marcion would assimilate the text to either Mark or Matthew, it appears that “my beloved son” is the original reading in Luke. It is possible that Mcg contained the shorter form of Lk 9:30-31 as given by Epiphanius, but it seems unlikely that Marcion would have removed just these words, as removing the whole episode would have suited his purpose so much better. Instead, as Epiphanius does not note that Marcion’s text was shorter, it is more likely that he is just quoting only those parts of these verses that he needs to make his points, and that here Mcg was the same as we see today in the majority of mss of Luke.

Luke 9:37-43a – O Faithless Generation

…  And I besought thy disciples to cast him out; and they could not. [9:40]  And Jesus answering said, O faithless and perverse generation, how long shall I be with you, and suffer you? Bring thy son hither. [9:41]  And as he was yet a coming, the devil threw him down, and tare him. And Jesus rebuked the unclean spirit, and healed the child, and delivered him again to his father. [9:42]  And they were all amazed at the mighty power of God. [9:43a]

Tertullian begins his Chapter 23 as follows:

I take on myself the character of Israel. Let Marcion’s Christ stand forth, and exclaim, "O faithless generation! [O genitura incredula] how long shall I be with you? how long shall I suffer you?"… [and then later] … "O perverse nation! [O natio incredula] how long shall I be with you? how long shall I suffer you? [9:41a] …

… Now, if you come from Him, we will bear your reproof. If, however, you are acting for another, pry thee tell us what you have ever conferred upon us that is simply your own, which it had become our duty to believe, seeing that you reproach us with 'faithlessness,' although up to this moment you show us no credentials.”

Tertullian makes no reference to Mcg 9:37-39 and 9:41b-43a, so ignoring almost all of the context of Jesus’ exclamation. Instead, he is using the first part of his chapter 23 simply to point out that Marcion’s Christ could not have reproved the “faithless generation,“ and that therefore here is another mistake by Marcion. Tertullian is not interested in the reason for this outburst, and so his failure to refer to the rest of the passage provides no evidence as to whether these verses were included in Mcg or not. Epiphanius provides the following comment:

“I besought thy disciples.” But in addition to, “And they could not cast it out,” [9:40]

he had “And he said unto them, ‘O faithless generation, how long shall I suffer you’?” [9:41] (Scholion 19)

As Epiphanius does not always quote whole verses this may be the case here. He is not suggesting that anything is missing from Mcg, but instead is just commenting on the use of “how long,” writing in Elenchus 19:

“How long” is an indication of a time span in Christ’s incarnate life; “O faithless generation,” indicates that the prophets worked miracles in his name and believed as we find Elijah doing, and Elisha and the others.

In combination, Tertullian and Epiphanius refer to almost all of Mcg 9:40-41, albeit with slight variations. Like Tertullian, Epiphanius does not mention Mcg 9:37-39 and 9:42-43, which could mean that these verses were not present in Mcg. However, Mcg 9:40-41a on their own would make little sense. In addition, the whole passage has parallels in both Matthew and Mark, making it almost certain that the rest of the passage did exist in Mcg. Both Tertullian and Epiphanius quote “O faithless generation” rather than “O faithless and perverse generation,” so it is virtually certain that this is what they saw in Mcg. As neither suggest that Marcion had omitted anything here it is highly likely that this is also what they saw in Luke, as in the parallel at Mk 9:19 in most mss (P45 and W have both words, possibly as an assimilation to Matthew or Luke).

Although there are slight wording differences between Luke and what is reported by Tertullian and Epiphanius, and Mcg’s text may have been very slightly shorter, none of the possible changes affect the overall meaning of these verses. Consequently, it is hard to see any reason why Marcion might have shortened the text, and instead it is likely that any slight differences represent an addition of detail to an earlier, shorter, version.

Luke 9:43b-45 – The second passion prophecy

But while they wondered every one at all things which Jesus did, he said unto his disciples, [9:43b]  Let these sayings sink down into your ears: for the Son of man shall be delivered into the hands of men. [9:44]  But they understood not this saying, and it was hid from them, that perceived it not: and they feared to ask him of that saying. [9:45]

Epiphanius comments on Mcg 9:44b in his Scholion 20: “for the Son of man shall be delivered into the hands of men.” However, he then makes it clear that this is purely to indicate that Marcion’s Jesus could not have been delivered like this if he did not have a body. Tertullian does not mention these verses, and so there is nothing to indicate that they differed in Mcg.

Luke 9:46-48 – True Discipleship

Then there arose a reasoning among them, which of them should be greatest. [9:46]  And Jesus, perceiving the thought of their heart, took a child, and set it by him, [9:47]  And said unto them, Whosoever shall receive this child in my name receiveth me: and whosoever shall receive me receiveth him that sent me: for he that is least among you all, the same shall be great. [9:48]

Epiphanius does not refer to these verses, and Tertullian has just this very general statement in chapter 23:

But, behold, Christ takes infants, and teaches how all ought to be like them, if they ever wish to be greater. [9:46-47]

There is no indication that these verses differed in Mcg.

Luke 9:49-50 – For Us or Against Us

And John answered and said, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name; and we forbad him, because he followeth not with us. [9:49]  And Jesus said unto him, Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us. [9:50]

Neither Tertullian nor Epiphanius refer to these verses. However, they are present in P75, and have parallels in Mk 9:38-40, so they were most likely the same in Mcg as in Luke.

Luke 9:51 – The Travel Narrative

And it came to pass, when the time was come that he should be received up, he stedfastly set his face to go to Jerusalem, [9:51]

Neither Tertullian nor Epiphanius refer to this verse, and it has no parallels in either Mark or Matthew. It marks the beginning of 350 consecutive verses, from Lk 9:51 to 18:14, that are generally known as the Lukan Travel Narrative, in which only 20 verses have any parallel in Mark. Because Lk 9:51 introduces the whole narrative, and Mcg 9:52 is referred to by Tertullian, it is certain that this verse was in Mcg.

Luke 9:52-56 – Fire From Heaven

And sent messengers before his face: and they went, and entered into a village of the Samaritans, to make ready for him. [9:52] And they did not receive him, because his face was as though he would go to Jerusalem. [9:53] And when his disciples James and John saw this, they said, Lord, wilt thou that we command fire to come down from heaven, and to consume them, even as Elias did? [9:54] But he turned, and rebuked them, and said, Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of. [9:55] For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them. And they went to another village. [9:56]

Tertullian makes one general comment on this passage, remarking that, in contrast to Elias, Jesus did not want to harm the villagers:

The Creator, at the request of Elias [Elijah], [9:54] inflicts the blow of fire from heaven in the case of that false prophet (of Baalzebub). I recognize herein the severity of the Judge. And I, on the contrary, the severe rebuke of Christ on His disciples, when they were for inflicting a like visitation on that obscure village of the Samaritans. [9:52, 55-56]

The NET comments on the ending of Lk 9:54:

Most mss, especially the later ones (A C D W Θ Ψ Ë1,13 33 Ï it), read here “as also Elijah did,” making the allusion to 2 Kgs 1:10, 12, 14 more explicit. The shorter reading has better and earlier support (Ì45,75 א B L Ξ 579 700* 1241 pc lat sa). It is difficult to explain how the shorter reading could have arisen from the longer, especially since it is well represented early on. However, the longer reading looks to have been a marginal note originally, incorporated into the text of Luke by early scribes.

Tertullian’s mention of Elijah indicates that Mcg had the longer reading here. The NET then reads Lk 9:55-56 as:

But Jesus turned and rebuked them, [9:55] and they went on to another village. [9:56]

and adds the following note regarding the end of Lk 9:55:

Many mss ([D] K Γ Θ Ë1,13 [579] 700 2542 pm it) have at the end of the verse (with slight variations) “and he said, ‘You do not know what sort of spirit you are of, for the Son of Man did not come to destroy people’s lives, but to save [them].’” This variant is clearly secondary, as it gives some content to the rebuke. Further, it is difficult to explain how such rich material would have been omitted by the rest of the witnesses, including the earliest and best mss.

Although Tertullian indicates that the disciples had been given a “severe rebuke,” he does not mention any other part of Mcg 9:55-56. It therefore is possible that Tertullian saw the earlier, shorter, variant (omitting Mcg 9:55b-56), rather than the longer one seen in the KJV. However, Lk 9:55a on its own does not suggests that the rebuke was “severe,” so it is perhaps more likely that Tertullian saw the ‘intermediate’ variant found in Bezae:

But he turned, and rebuked then, and said, Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of. [9:55]  And they went to another village. [9:56]

As Tertullian does not suggest that he saw a difference here, and Epiphanius does not mention these verses at all, we should assume that neither saw any difference between their copies of Mcg and Luke.

Luke 9:57-62 – Following Jesus

And it came to pass, that, as they went in the way, a certain man said unto him, Lord, I will follow thee whithersoever thou goest. [9:57]  And Jesus said unto him, Foxes have holes, and the birds of the air have nests; but the Son of man hath not where to lay his head. [9:58]  And he said unto another, Follow me. But he said, Lord, suffer me first to go and bury my father. [9:59]  Jesus said unto him, Let the dead to bury their dead: but go thou and preach the kingdom of God. [9:60]  And another also said, Lord, I will follow thee; but let me first go bid them farewell, which are at home at my house. [9:61]  And Jesus said unto him, No man, having put his hand to the plough, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God. [9:62]

Continuing the theme of the character of Jesus, at the end of chapter 23 Tertullian clearly refers to all of Mcg 9:57-62, with no note of any difference of wording. There are two known textual variations here, where in some mss “Lord” is omitted from Lk 9:57, 59, but unfortunately Tertullian’s quotes do not indicate whether Mcg had “Lord” in these places. Epiphanius has nothing to say regarding these verses, so we have no indication of any difference in Mcg.

Next Chapter: Luke 10