Previous page: Tertullian and Epiphanius
Both Tertullian and Epiphanius indicate that Marcion's Gospel of the Lord (The Evangelion, or Ev) contained text that we do not see in canonical Luke, but do instead see in Matthew. This has led people to suggest that neither Tertullian nor Epiphanius actually had Ev in front of them when they wrote, or that they were comparing Ev to Matthew, and perhaps relying on memory for the text of Luke. For example, in Supernatural Religion Walter Cassels comments:
The question even arises whether Tertullian and Epiphanius had Marcion's Gospel in any shape before them when they wrote, or merely his work the Antitheses. In commencing his onslaught on Marcion's Gospel, Tertullian says: "Marcion seems (videtur) to have selected Luke to mutilate it." This is the first serious introduction of his "mutilation hypothesis," which he thenceforward presses with so much assurance; but the expression is very uncertain for so decided a controversialist, if he had been able to speak more positively.
We have seen that it is admitted that Epiphanius wrote without again comparing the Gospel of Marcion with Luke, and it is also conceded that Tertullian, at least, had not the canonical Gospel, but in professing to quote Luke evidently does so from memory, and approximates his text to Matthew, with which Gospel, like most of the Fathers, he was better acquainted. (Highlighted)
This may be illustrated by the fact that both Tertullian and Epiphanius reproach Marcion with erasing passages from the Gospel of Luke which never were in Luke at all. In one place Tertullian says: "Marcion, you must also remove this from the Gospel: "I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel,' and 'It is not meet to take the children's bread and give it to dogs,' in order, be it known, that Christ may not seem to be an Israelite.
The "Great African" [Tertullian] thus taunts his opponent, evidently under the impression that the two passages were in Luke, immediately after he had accused Marcion of having actually expunged from that Gospel, "as an interpolation," the saying that Christ had not come to destroy the law and the prophets, but to fulfil them, which likewise never formed part of it. He repeats a similar charge on several other occasions. Epiphanius commits the same mistake of reproaching Marcion with omitting from Luke what is only found in Matthew.
According to Cassels, both Tertullian and Epiphanius (very improbably) made exactly the same mistake when they complained that Marcion had omitted text from Luke that each saw only in Matthew. He concludes: “We have, in fact, no certain guarantee of the accuracy or trustworthiness of their statements.” Dieter Roth agrees:
Even more significantly, as Tertullian works his way through Marcion’s text there are indications that he does so without referring to his own text of Luke. Perhaps the clearest example of this fact is when Tertullian accuses Marcion of having changed μάχαιραν to διαμερισμόν in Luke 12:51. The problem is that the former is the reading of Matt 10:34 and never, apart from the corrector of the 13th century minuscule 1242 (italics added), appears in Luke 12:51. If Tertullian were consistently checking his own text of Luke, it is difficult to imagine how such an error could have occurred. Tertullian apparently did not consult his own copy of Luke even when accusing Marcion of making an alteration.
Unfortunately Roth is here making a basic error. He is commenting that Tertullian is mistaken in thinking that Lk 12:51 contained the word ‘μάχαιραν,’ because it is only extant in Luke in one ms (1242). In other words, a variant in Luke that is a possible harmonization to Matthew (See ‘Harmonizations’ in Textual Considerations) occurs just once, in a correction. Of course, just like any other unique variant, it may well be the case that we only know one extant example of a variant that could have existed in a number of (non-extant) mss. This illustrates the ‘Black Swan’ problem with regard to unique variants: If any hypothesized variant is not extant, then it is easily dismissed as never having existed, but as soon as one example is found then it must be allowed that other examples may have existed as well. Roth is failing to allow for that here, and so believes that Tertullian could not have seen ‘μάχαιραν’ in his own copy of Luke, and instead was thinking of Mt 10:34.
The reality is that the existence of the variant in 1242 removes any reason for us to doubt Tertullian's evidence here, and so increases the likelihood that Tertullian’s other ‘mistakes’ as to the text of Luke are not mistakes at all, but accurately reflect what he saw in his copy of Luke (See also Marcion's Gospel and Matthew). In his note summarizing the major sections of Luke omitted by Marcion, Dr. Holmes noted several similar problems with Tertullian's comments:
From Tertullian's remarks (chap. 19), it would seem at first as if Marcion had added to his Gospel that answer of our Savior which we find related by St. Matthew, chap. 12:48: "Who is my mother, and who are my brethren?" For he represents Marcion (as in De carne Christi, vii., he represents other heretics, who deny the nativity) as making use of these words for his favorite argument. But, after all, Marcion might use these words against those who allowed the authenticity of Matthew's Gospel, without inserting them in his own Gospel; or else Tertullian might quote from memory, and think that to be in Luke which was only in Matthew -- as he has done at least in three instances. (Lardner refers to two of these instances to passages in chap. 7 of his Book 4, where Tertullian mentions, as erasures from Luke, what really are found in Matthew 5:17 and 15:24. The third instance referred to by Lardner probably occurs at the end of chap. 9 of this same Book iv., where Tertullian again mistakes Matt. 5:17 for a passage of Luke, and charges Marcion with expunging it; curiously enough, the mistake recurs in chap. 12 of the same Book.)
… Tertullian says (in the 4th chapter of the preceding Book) that Marcion erased the passage which gives an account of the parting of the raiment of our Saviour among the soldiers. But the reason he assigns for the erasure-`respiciens Psalmi prophetiam'-shows that in this, as well as in the few other instances which we have already named, where Tertullian has charged Marcion with so altering passages, his memory deceived him into mistaking Matthew for Luke, for the reference to the passage in the Psalm is only given by St. Matthew xxvii. 35
From the above quotes it is clear that Dr. Holmes also regarded these as mistakes by Tertullian, even though he points out that Tertullian made one of the 'mistakes' in two different places. Head refers to the same issue:
On other issues Williams is, of course, correct to notice firstly that Tertullian did charge Marcion with excising passages found in Matthew (so Mt. 5:17 in Adv. Marc. IV.7.4, 9.15, 12, 14; also Mt. 15:24 & 26 in Adv. Marc. IV.7.5).
In addition to the reference to Mt 15:24, 26 already given above by Cassels, Tertullian writes as follows regarding the remaining verse referred to by Head:
... But since both the place and the work of illumination according to the prophecy are compatible with Christ, we begin to discern that He is the subject of the prophecy, which shows that at the very outset of His ministry, He came not to destroy the law and the prophets, but rather to fulfil them; [Mt 5.17] for Marcion has erased the passage as an interpolation.
Tertullian is stating that text that we see only in Matthew, but that he saw in his copy of Luke, was removed (or perhaps should have been removed) by aMarcion when he created 'his' gospel. Either he was mistaken (as Dr. Holmes and Lardner clearly believed), or it is evidence that Tertullian’s copy of Luke contained some text that today we only see in Matthew.
Tertullian quotes from many other apparently Matthean verses, and in some cases does specifically note that he is referring to Matthew. However, there are other verses for which he does not indicate whether he is quoting from or referring to Matthew, or to his copy of Luke:
the blind man leads the blind down into the ditch. [Mt 5:14]
… sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust, and maketh His sun to rise on the evil and on the good; [Mt 5:45]
for the workman is worthy of his meat. [Mt 10:10]
It is written "a sword," but Marcion makes an emendation of the word, just as if a division were not the work of the sword. [Mt 10:34]
whosoever preferred father or mother or brethren to the Word of God, was not a disciple worthy of Him. [Mt 10:37]
Who is my mother, and who are my brothers? [Mt 12:48b, or possibly Mk 3:33b]
Ye shall hear with the ear, but ye shall not understand. [Mt 13:14]
… but also obtained the testimony of possessing knowledge which was given to him by the Father. [Mt 16:17]
… if he had not been born. [Mt 26:24]
Although Dr. Holmes and Lardner comment on some of these verses, neither note that Epiphanius confirms the presence of Jesus’ question from Mt 12:48/Mk 3:33: ”Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?” at the equivalent of Lk 8:21 in Ev, nor that because Tertullian does not identify this as a difference, it was likely also in his copy of Luke.
Despite their apparent certainty, Cassels, Roth, Holmes, Head et al are ignoring the possibility that rather than Tertullian and Epiphanius being inaccurate or untrustworthy, there may have been an earlier version of what we know as Luke that included some text that we do not see in any extant ms, but do see in Matthew (for example “sword” instead of “division”), and that Ev may actually be, or be based on that earlier version, and so have contained similar passages. Given the synoptic relationship between Matthew and Luke, it is not at all unreasonable to suppose that Luke may have contained either more or less of the text that we see in Matthew during its development, or that text that we see in Luke may have been copied into Matthew (See Marcion's Gospel and the Synoptic Problem and The Mark-Ev Hypothesis.
It is also the case that at least some of these apparently Matthean pieces of text can be found outside the synoptic gospels. For example, what we see as Mt 5:14 has a very close parallel in the Gospel of Thomas, saying 34, so we need to be careful not to claim that Tertullian is quoting from Matthew unless we can be certain that the text did not also exist elsewhere.
In addition to the above possibilities regarding an earlier version of Luke, there is ms evidence of ‘floating text’ in the gospels, with passages either moving within a gospel, or even from one gospel to another, the best known example of which is the Pericope Adulterae. In addition to its usual location at Jn 7:53-8:11, in several mss it is located elsewhere (as noted by Wieland Willker):
f1, 565, al23 at the end of Jn (in f1 only 1, 565, 1582 and 2193 have it at the end of Jn, 118 et al. have it at 7:52)
f13, 1434 post Lk 21:38, (but 174, 230, 1689 only in John)
225, 1128 post Jn 7:36
al17 post Jn 8:12
2691 post Jn 8:14a
981 post Jn 8:20
Geomss post Jn 7:44
1333 between Lk and Jn.
Not only is the position of the pericope uncertain in John, but in a few mss it exists either in Luke, or between Luke and John. Consequently, it is at least possible that phrases seen by Tertullian in Luke may have also been in Matthew and later removed from Luke, or moved from Luke to Matthew. If it is assumed that Ev is an edited version of what we see in canonical Luke, then it is not unreasonable to believe that both Tertullian and Epiphanius were confusing Luke with the perhaps more familiar text of Matthew. However, this ignores the following possibilities:
That Tertullian (in particular) may have had an early text of Luke that was more Matthean in character than what we see today;
That Ev preceded both Matthew and Luke, and that as a result the text of Matthew may have had a lot in common with Ev, and that in Luke we in places see text that differed from the Marcion/Matthew version.
All the above Matthean references are discussed at the appropriate point in Tertullian’s narrative in Marcion’s Gospel, Compared Verse by Verse With Luke.
Next: Marcion's Gospel Today
If you have any comments, questions, suggestions, etc. regarding this topic or this page please email me at davidinglis2@comcast.net