Previous Page: Marcion's Gospel Today
To understand better the difficulties involved in reconstructing the text of "Marcion's" Gospel of the Lord (The Evangelion, here Ev) it is worth looking in detail at a portion of Chapter 42 of Tertullian's Adv. Marcion IV, which deals with the 'version' of Luke 24 in Ev as far as we know it. In this chapter Tertullian quotes from text in Ev that parallels Lk 24:1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 21, 25, 37-39, 41, and 47. In cases such as this we know that the events mentioned in Luke 24 were paralleled in Ev, and we have a good indication of some of the text in Ev, but even here the quotes do not always cover complete passages from Luke. Tertullian also refers to some passages without actually quoting from them, for example:
For as two of them were taking a walk, and when the Lord had joined their company, without its appearing that it was He, and whilst He dissembled His knowledge of what had just taken place, they say: "But we trusted that it had been He which should have redeemed Israel,"
This is a clear reference to the events mentioned in Lk 24:13-19 (but without any indication of the exact text in Ev), followed by a direct quote from Lk 24:21a. Despite there being other references, most of the verses in Lk 24 (vv. 2, 5, 8-12, 20, 22-24, 26-36, 40, and 42-46) are not mentioned by Tertullian, although vv. 4-7 , 25-26 , 30-31 , 38-39 are mentioned by Epiphanius. In this way we know that much of Luke 24 is at least paralleled in Ev but, as is the case more often than not, Tertullian and Epiphanius do not provide us with the full text. Does this mean that the verses not mentioned by Tertullian were not present in Ev, or that they were present but were not worthy of mention (perhaps because there was no variation from what he saw in Luke), or because they did not support Tertullian’s argument? Because of the uncertainty involving the details of what anyone, but particularly Tertullian and Epiphanius, actually saw in Ev, all reconstructions of the text show some degree of variation. Head writes:
Our procedure involves assessing the difference between Marcion's text, as attested by Tertullian and/or Epiphanius, and the NT. This method has been called into question by [Frank] Williams ('Reconsidering Marcion’s gospel') on the grounds that:
Tertullian and Epiphanius do not quote accurately or consistently from Marcion (p. 478f; e.g. Tertullian (Adv. Marc. IV.29.1) apparently refers to Luke 12:28, said to be absent by Epiphanius (Schol. 31); and on the other hand Epiphanius (Schol. 71) refers to Luke 23:34, said to be absent by Tertullian (Adv. Marc. IV.24.4));
Variations occur between direct and indirect quotations and allusions (p. 479f.);
Tertullian criticises Marcion for omitting passages which are not in Luke (p. 480).
He concludes that 'for the majority of cases, it is not justifiable to assume that Marcion ever saw what he is accused of omitting' (p. 483). But Williams exaggerates the problems associated with the evidence of Epiphanius and Tertullian, since variations in patristic quotations occur regularly, for example in gospel citations: this does mean care must be exercised, but it doesn't mean that the testimony of ancient authors can be disregarded (especially when from an apologetic point of view Tertullian et al. had nothing to gain by accusing Marcion of altering Luke rather than using another source).
Both Tertullian and Epiphanius are silent with regard to various areas of Ev, and in these places all reconstructions make assumptions about what Lukan text might not have been present in Ev, often based on assumptions regarding what Marcion logically should have done to support his theology. Of course, these assumptions themselves rely on the assumption that Marcion actually removed the text, and are invalid if he did not, e.g. if he had access to an earlier 'version' of Luke in which the text was not present, and based his theology around that.
In particular, Epiphanius only reports dfferences between Ev and Luke, and Tertullian is only interested in how Jesus is portrayed in Ev (in order to determine whether Mariocn's Jesus is the same as 'his' Jesus). Therefore, in cases where Tertullian and Epiphanius are silent, and the only evidence for Marcion having made a change to Luke is the supposition that (assuming Marcion did edit Luke) it would have suited his purpose so to do, such suggested changes must be treated with suspicion. Sense covers the theological issues in this way:
To summarise my procedure, I have followed implicitly and confidently the statements of Irenaeus and Tertullian regarding the text of the Marcionite and Canonical Gospels, without heeding their representations regarding the theology and alleged acts of Marcion, both which latter do not come within the purview of textual criticism. What these writers say of the text of the two Gospels is alone my concern as a textual critic, and my guide in recovering the text of the two Gospels. Epiphanius affords subsidiary assistance. The theological views attributed to Marcion by these writers have no bearing on the text, and their explanations of the meaning of Marcionite passages are occasionally referred to, not as affording indications for the recovery of the text, but simply to amuse the reader by their quaintness and folly.
Tertullian (in particular) uses passages from Ev specifically to attempt to refute Marcion, and hence he selectively quotes from or refers to passages in Ev depending on whether they advance his argument. Of course, Tertullian is under no obligation to report every word he finds in Ev, and may also omit complete passages if he has nothing to say about them, typically because they do not include actions by or speech from Jesus. However, in his chapter 2 he does indicate that he used everything that could support his position: "But we prefer to join issue on every point [emphasis added]; nor shall we leave unnoticed what may fairly be understood to be on our side." He expands on this in his chapter 6:
For it is certain that the whole aim at which he [Marcion] has strenuously labored even in the drawing up of his Antitheses, centers in this, that he may establish a diversity between the Old and the New Testaments, so that his own Christ may be separate from the Creator, as belonging to this rival god, and as alien from the law and the prophets.
It is certain, also, that with this view [including that Marcion did write what we know as Ev] he has erased everything that was contrary to his own opinion and made for the Creator, as if it had been interpolated by His advocates, whilst everything which agreed with his own opinion he has retained.
The latter statements we shall strictly examine; and if they shall turn out rather for our side, and shatter the assumption of Marcion, we shall embrace them. It will then become evident, that in retaining them he has shown no less of the defect of blindness, which characterizes heresy, than he displayed when he erased all the former class of subjects.
However, what are the 'points' on which Tertullian wanted to join issue? As he makes clear in Adversus Marcionem I-III the whole thrust of his argument is to refute Marcion regarding his two Gods: The Creator God (of the Old Testament) and the God of the New Testament, i.e. supposedly the father of Jesus Christ. Consequently, the above statements should be mediated to indicate that Tertullian went through the text with a fine-tooth comb, but ONLY looking at all differences in the actions and/or speech of Jesus, including places where one gospel did not have text telated to Jesus found in the other. Epiphanius has no such agenda and is much less verbose than Tertullian, in most cases simply noting differences (including lack of text) between Ev and whatever copy of Luke (possibly Latin) he had in front of him, without Tertullian’s lengthy prose, OT quotations, and rhetorical questions. However, like Tertullian, he does also identify places where Marcion's gospel includes text that (according to him) refutes Marcion’s own position.
We have no reason to expect that either Tertullian or Epiphanius would comment on or otherwise refer to every part of every passage of Ev (whether ot not it was present in Luke). As their expressly stated purpose was to refute Marcion’s theology and/or Christology from the text contained in Ev, we would fully expect them to only mention such text in Luke or Ev as would further their agendas. For example, Tertullian focuses entirely on the sayings and actions of Jesus (and to a lesser extent his disciples), and often has nothing to say about people and places only tangentially involved with Jesus.
As a result, we often find that when Tertullian mentions something that Jesus did he may ignore where he did it, how he got there, who he was with at the time, the reactions of other people, or other unimportant (to Tertullian) details. For example, when he mentions the man with a palsy, this is he all he says in relation to the details provided in Lk 5:19-20: “The sick of the palsy is healed, and that in public, in the sight of the people.” Tertullian is not in any way interested the details of how the man was lowered through the roof of the house, and so ignores them. Another example is Lk 8:22-26, in which Jesus calms the wind and water. Tertullian ignores most of this passage, concentrating on just the actions of Jesus:
When He disperses its waves, Habakkuk's words are fulfilled, where he says, "Scattering the waters in His passage." When at His rebuke the sea is calmed, Nahum is also verified: He rebukes the sea, and makes it dry, including the winds indeed, whereby it was disquieted.
As with the healing of the sick of the palsy, we have no reason to doubt that Tertullian saw in Ev the details we see in Lk 8:22-26, but simply found any mention of them to be irrelevant to his task.
In ‘The Oldest Gospel and the Formation of the Canonical Gospels Klinghardt comments on seven places in Luke in which Jesus quotes a parable the content of which is referred to by Tertullian, but where Tertullian does not mention that Jesus spoke the parable.
The introduction of the canonical version of the metaphor (5,36a) ἔλεγεν δὲ καὶ παραβολὴν πρὸς αὐτοὺς ὅτι is unattested for *Ev [Marcion’s Evangelion]. Comparable introductions occur also elsewhere as Lukan peculiarities:
6,39: εἶπεν δὲ καὶ παραβολὴν αὐτοῖς.
12,16: εἶπεν δὲ παραβολὴν πρὸς αὐτοὺς λέγων.
13,6: ἔλεγεν δὲ ταύτην τὴν παραβολήν.
14,7: ἔλεγεν δὲ πρὸς τοὺς κεκλημένους παραβολήν ... λέγων πρὸς αὐτούς.
15,3: εἶπεν δὲ πρὸς αὐτοὺς τὴν παραβολὴν ταύτην λέγων.
21,29: καὶ εἶπεν παραβολὴν αὐτοῖς.
Of these six introductions, none is directly attested for *Ev. In four cases, Tertullian mentions the keyword parabola in a more detailed context but never as part of a quotation. Whether Tertullian adopted the keyword parabola from the *Ev text, or whether he independently introduced it as a convenient reference into his discussion, can no longer be ascertained. In view of the effortless manner by which Tertullian integrates the *Ev text into his argumentation, the latter is likely.
Klinghardt here misses the key point that Tertullian does not have to mention that it is Jesus who spoke since the only speech that matters to Tertullian IS that of Jesus. He does not even care whether they were referred to as parables, nor does he have to state that it was Jesus who spoke them as his whole point is that he is using Jesus’ actions and words to refute Ev, such that at the end of his treatise can state: “I am sorry for you, Marcion: your labour has been in vain. Even in your gospel Christ Jesus is mine.”
Because of the above issues reconstructions of Ev are to some extent ‘best guesses,’ depending on the reconstructor’s view of the reliability of Tertullian and Epiphanius as witnesses, and how they deal with text in Luke not mentioned by either. Many potential omissions or changes in Ev are disputed, generally based on different interpretations of what Tertullian or Epiphanius reported, but it is clear that 1) Tertullian is only interested in how Jesus is portrayed, and is not remotely interested in any other narrative or speech, and 2) Epiphanius is simply reporting differences between Ev and Luke - nothing else.
The biggest problem that is faced by anyone reconstructing Ev is where Tertullian, Epiphanius and the other church fathers are all silent over the presence or absence in Ev of text that we see in Luke. There are many of these passages, verses, or individual words where what we see in Luke is assumed to have been in Ev, generally because including them does nothing to impact the common view of Marcion’s theology. This is effectively taking the view that Tertullian and Epiphanius both saw text in Ev that matched what they saw in Luke. Of course, the silence of Tertullian and Epiphanius could instead mean that, rather than them each seeing the same text in both Ev and Luke, they actually saw no text in their copies of either gospel, in which case those passages should be excluded from Ev. However, in such cases the only thing we can infer from their silence, with any degree of certainty, is that neither saw anything at these points on which they wished to comment.
For the above reasons, in some reconstructions of Ev the portions of text not mentioned by Tertullian, Epiphanius, or any other church father are simply recorded as ‘unattested.’ While this is certainly accurate, it is not necessarily the most helpful stance to take, as there may well be features of the text (e.g. variants) not only in Luke, but in any parallels in the other synoptic gospels (Mark and Matthew), John, and the Paulines, that can provide insights into whether the text is likely to have been in Ev as well.
In the 19th and early 20th centuries there was very little definitive information about the contents of the gospels prior to the early 4th century, and this lack of information left analysts of Marcion’s work free to attempt to ascribe meaning to lack of comment by either Tertullian or Epiphanius. For example, Cassels quotes Volkmar on this subject:
He goes on to argue that the silence of Tertullian may be weighty testimony for the fact that passages which exist in Luke, but which he does not mention, were missing in Marcion's Gospel, though he does so with considerable reservation.
"But his silence alone," he says, "can only under certain conditions represent with diplomatic certainty an omission in Marcion. It is indeed probable that he would not lightly have passed over a passage in the Gospel of Marcion which might in any way be contradictory to its system, if one altogether similar had not preceded it, all the more as he frequently drags in by force such proof passages from Marcion's text, and often plainly, but with a certain sophistry, tries to refute his adversary out of the words of his own Gospel.
But it remains always possible that in his eagerness he has overlooked much; and, besides, he believes that by his replies to particular passages he has already sufficiently dealt with many others of a similar kind; indeed, avowedly, he will not willingly repeat himself. A certain conclusion, therefore, can only be deduced from the silence of Tertullian when special circumstances enter."
However, Sense writes the following regarding Volkmar:
His restoration of the text of the Marcionite Gospel proceeds on the basis of conformity with the swinging falsehoods regarding the doctrines of Marcion invented by Tertullian: viz., two gods hostile to each other; the dropping of Jesus from the sky on his thirtieth year of age; the phantom body of Jesus; his want of a mother, and such like.
These falsehoods are not supported by history, and they are further contradicted by the Marcionite Gospel itself, which Volkmar himself candidly admits contains nothing of them; but they are discovered, he says, in the interpretation of the text! Such interpretation, it is manifest, depends on the mind of the interpreter. Hence Volkmar declares that the only true guide to the restoration of the Marcionite text is the Zusammenhang or connection, that is, the consistency of the text with Tertullian's falsehoods. The history of the text is thus reduced to a very subordinate position. I, on the other hand, while regarding Tertullian as our best historical authority for the text of both the Marcionite and original Canonical Gospels, consider his interpretations of the text (which Volkmar values and follows) as appropriate subjects for laughter, not worthy of the attention of a textual critic. With such opposite views on each side, the divergences between Volkmar's restoration and mine are perfectly intelligible.
This is, of course, not to say that the restoration by Sense is necessarily better, but just that they are based on different assumptions. However, the resort to what amounts to ‘special pleading’ is not unique to Volkmar, as this quote from Hilgenfeld indicates:
As Tertullian, in going through the Marcionitish Gospel, has only the object of refutation in view, he very rarely states explicitly what is missing from it; and as, on the one hand, we can only venture to conclude from the silence of Tertullian that a passage is wanting, when it is altogether inexplicable that he should not have made use of it for the purpose of refutation; so, on the other, we must also know how Marcion used and interpreted the Gospel, and should never lose sight of Tertullian's refutation and defense.
There is a degree of circularity in this quote from Hilgenfeld, since we have to ask: If Tertullian does not explicitly state what was missing, how does Hilgenfeld himself know what was missing? We can only assume that he has some other (unstated) source of information. Unfortunately, this is too often just based on opinion. Part of the issue is that Volkmar, Hilgenfeld, Hahn, and others felt free to interpret what Tertullian and Epiphanius wrote (or did not write) regarding the text of Ev on the basis of their stated intentions and views of Marcion, and hence made assumptions that are not justified on the basis of an examination of their comments alone. As a result, in some reconstructions of Ev various passages are removed on the grounds that: ‘Marcion would surely not have tolerated them,’ or some such similar phrase.
Nevertheless, there are places in what Tertullian wrote at which we can reasonably say that what he saw in Ev did not diverge in any significant way from what we see in Luke. For example, in Adv Marcion Chapter 29 Tertullian discusses Lk 12:22-59, and then begins his Chapter 30 with a reference to some of what we know as Lk 13:11-17:
When the question was again raised concerning a cure performed on the Sabbath day, how did He discuss it: "Does not each of you on the Sabbath loose his ass or his ox from the stall, and lead him away to watering?"
Tertullian has no comment on Lk 13:1-9, but in Scholion 38 Epiphanius writes:
There was falsification of “There came some that told him of the Galilaeans whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices” until the mention of the eighteen who died in the tower at Siloam, and of “Except ye repent < and so forth >, until the parable of the fig tree of which the cultivator said, “I am digging about it and dunging it, and if it bear no fruit, cut it down.”
Here Epiphanius explicitly records that Ev contained none of what we see as Lk 13:1-9, so at least here Tertullian’s silence is due to him also not seeing these verses in Ev, but the text quoted above shows that Tertullian did see at least some of Lk 13:10-17 in Ev (specifically those portions directly involving Jesus); that the event happened on the Sabbath; that someone was cured; and that Jesus discusses this with unstated people. Tertullian later paraphrases Lk 13:14-16, so that the only significant details missing from Tertullian’s account are who needed to be cured of what ailment, how the cure was performed, who questioned this action, and how those others present reacted. Given Epiphanius’ lack of comment regarding Lk 13-10-17 we can reasonably assume that he saw no differences here between Ev and Luke, giving us confidence that in Ev these verses were as we see them in Luke, even though neither Tertullian nor Epiphanius refer directly to the details in Lk 13:11-14, 16b-17.
Some people maintain that the lack of any mention from either Tertullian or Epiphanius (Absence of Evidence) as to whether a particular portion of Luke was in Ev tells us nothing, and in particular is not Evidence of Absence. This might be the case if there was no significant pattern to the absences (whereas in fact there is - see Epiphanius: Omissions After Lk 5:13), and if we also had no statement from either Tertullian or Epiphanius as to their intentions. However, as both stress that they are attempting to refute Marcion from his own words, then in the absence of evidence to the contrary we should accept that that is indeed what they did, to the best of their abilities. A major consequence of this is that it is a feature of their procedures that there should be no comment from either of them regarding text in Ev that was the same as in their respective copies of Luke, and that they were therefore unable to use against Marcion.
Although this does not rule out errors, it does mean that the default stance to take when neither Tertullian nor Epiphanius comment on a piece of text should be to assume that both saw in Ev text that matched what they saw in Luke: either the text was present in both, or in neither. Whether we are then justified in assuming that text was missing in Ev when neither Tertullian nor Epiphanius comment primarily depends on what they saw in their copies of Luke. Given that we now have access to P45 and P75, both generally dated no later than the first half of the 3rd century, it is perhaps likely that Epiphanius had a copy of Luke that was substantially the same as we see in many editions today. However, it is possible that he may have been using an earlier copy of Luke in which some text that we see as unique to Luke (e.g. some of the parables) might have been not present.
In the absence of evidence from Tertullian and Epiphanius, to help make a determination as to whether a passage from Luke existed in Ev or not we must look at what other church fathers might have to say, what the mss record tells us in the way of known variant readings in Luke, and, perhaps, what parallels exist in Mark and Matthew. Nevertheless, there are places where there is no obvious way of deciding whether such a passage should be included in a reconstruction of Ev or not. In these cases this reconstruction will use a simple rule of thumb to decide:
If there are comments from Tertullian, Epiphanius, Irenaus, etc. on a specific passage or verse in Ev, then these comments will be taken at face value;
If a passage in Luke does not directly involve Jesus and Tertullian does not mention it re. Ev, then we will assume that this is BECAUSE it did not involve Jesus, although Epiphanius may refer to a textual difference in the passage;
If there is no evidence from Tertullian, Epiphanius, the extant mss, other early church fathers, etc., that the passage (or variant) was in Luke at the time of Marcion, and there are no parallels in either Matthew or Mark, then it will be assumed that the text did not exist in Ev, and was also not seen in Luke by either Tertullian or Epiphanius;
In all other cases we will make no assumption regarding what Ev might have done to support his theology, and instead assume that the passage was in Ev, and hence also in Luke, even though Tertullian and/or Epiphanius may only supply the main points of the passage.
How does this apply to passages not in Luke? This appears to be a rather strange question, because if it was not in Luke, then (if Luke follows Ev) how could it be in Ev? In fact there are a few verses attested in Ev that we do not see in Luke, but that we do see in Matthew (see Matthew in Marcion?), so we should not be surprised if there were some unattested (for whatever reason) verses present in Ev that are not in Luke. As deliberate action to ‘suppress’ text in Ev by both Tertullian and Epiphanius seems highly unlikely, we are left with the possibility of mistakes by both, which is plausible, but likely to only apply to very small additions.
Notwithstanding the above, and despite the difficulties of knowing exactly what Ev contained, it is nevertheless useful to have an existing reconstruction as a ‘base’ for the comparison, and to then use that to comment on places where other reconstructions differ, or where the text is simply uncertain. In the discussions in Marcion’s Gospel, Compared Verse by Verse With Luke and in the ‘Marcion’ column in the Marcion Luke Parallel table the text shown takes as its starting point the English language translation of Ev at The Gnostic Society Library: Marcion: Gospel of The Lord and Other Writings, which states:
The text is based on "The Gospel of the Lord" by James Hamlyn Hill (1891), which itself made use of the 1823 reconstruction by August Hahn. This current version is further revised by Daniel Mahar to reflect the reconstruction done by Theodor Zahn ("Geschichte des n.t. Kanons", vol.II., 1888), which places in doubt some of the material Hahn and Hill allowed into their versions.
The online text of this ‘base’ reconstruction is hyperlinked to Adv. Marcion Book IV; and Epiphanius, Panarion, Section 42, "Against the Marcionites" (Dindorfus' Greek edition of Epiphanius is included along with a few other notes in English). However, in many places in the current document the text has been revised in the light of other evidence, for example ms evidence not available in the 19th century, and also as a result the use of computers in this analysis. These alterations are discussed in detail later.
The English language text of Luke is taken from the KJV, chosen simply because of the similarities to the words used in the translations of the two reconstructions of Ev, and also of Codex Bezae, and not for any theological reasons. Textual comments, variations, and information on the Western Non-interpolations from the NET Bible and other sources are included for clarification.
Next: Textual Considerations
If you have any comments, questions, suggestions, etc. regarding this topic or this page please email me at davidinglis2@comcast.net