Previous Page: Marcion's Gospel up to Luke 5:13
As previously stated, after noting in general terms what was different, or omitted, at the beginning of Marcion's Gospel of the Lord (The Evangelion, Ev), Epiphanius then uses his scholia to identify specific individual differences between the rest of Ev and his copy of Luke. Although the first such difference he notes is at v. 5:14 (i.e. the parallel to Lk 5:14 in Ev), he does not identify any actual omissions in Ev until v. 8:19. Then, in almost all cases he identifies specific verses or phrases that he saw in Luke but not Ev by stating, for example, “He did not have,” or “He falsified,” followed by a description of the text that was not in Ev.
In some places Epiphanius identifies the difference by noting just the subject of a passage (e.g. “the passage about …”), in some he gives the missing text itself, and in others just the first part of a longer missing passage. The 24 portions of text shown below (encompassing 110 verses) identify those places in Ev about which Epiphanius commented that they did not contain text that he saw in Luke. Also noted below is any ms support, Tertullian’s comments (or lack thereof) regarding these places in Ev, and the parallels (if any) in Mark and/or Matthew, denoted as follows:
Sondergut Luke – Text only present in Luke;
Double Tradition – Parallel text in Matthew and Luke;
Triple Tradition – Parallel text in Mark, Matthew and Luke.
Lk 8:19: He did not have, “His mother and his brethren,” [8:19] (Scholion 12)
Tertullian refers to Ev 8:16-18, 20-21, but not 19. - Triple Tradition: Mk 3:31 / Mt 12:46
Lk 10:21: “I thank thee, Lord of Heaven.” But he did not have, “and earth” or “Father.” (Scholion 22)
Support for part of this omission is found in P45, in which “and earth” is omitted. Tertullian omits these words when he quotes the verse. - Double Tradition: Parallel in Mt 11:25b has the words.
Lk 10:29-37: “the whole course of the journey from Jericho which brought him to Bethpage.” (Scholion 53) and “the crook concealed what happened on the road.” (Elenchus 53e)
This appears to be a reference to the passage about The Good Samaritan. Tertullian mentions nothing regarding the presence or absence of Ev 10:29-37. and given that these verses are speech by Jesus a comment from Tertullian would be expected if they were present. - Sondergut Luke.
Lk 11:29-32: “The saying about Jonah the prophet has been falsified; Marcion had, ‘This generation, no sign shall be given it.’ But he did not have the passages about Nineveh, the queen of the south, and Solomon” (Scholion 25), I.e. Epiphanius saw Ev 11:19a, but not Ev 11:29b-32.
Tertullian states that Jesus ‘refuses to give to those "who seek a sign"’ (i.e. that the exception of the sign of Jonas was not in Ev), and then moves on to Ev 11:33 without having referred to Ev 11:30-32. - Double Tradition: Parallel at Mt 12:39c-42 close to Marcion, and doublet at Mt 16:4 / Mk 8:12 (Overlap).
Lk 11:49-51: He did not have, “Therefore said the wisdom of God, I send unto them prophets,” and the statement that the blood of Zacharias, Abel and the prophets will be required of this generation. (Scholion 28)
After referring to Ev 11:47, Tertullian next mentions Ev 11:52. - Double Tradition: Parallel at Mt 23:34-36.
Lk 12:6-7: But he did not have, “Are not five sparrows sold for two farthings, and not one of them is forgotten before God?” (Scholion 29)
Tertullian refers to Ev 12:4-5, 8-9, but has no mention of Ev 12:6-7. - Double Tradition: Parallel at Mt 10:29-31.
Lk 12:28a: He does not have, “God so clothe the grass” [12:28a] (Scholion 31)
Tertullian refers to Ev 12:28b, but not Ev 12:28a. - Double Tradition: Parallel at Mt 6:30.
Lk 13:1-9: 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.” (Scholion 38)
Tertullian refers to Ev 12:57-59 and then Ev 13:13-16, but does not mention Ev 13:1-9. - Sondergut Luke.
Lk 13:29-30: Again, he falsified: “They shall come from the east, and from the west, and shall sit down in the kingdom,” “The last shall be first,” (Scholion 41)
Tertullian refers to Ev 13:25-28, but not Ev 13:29-30. - Double Tradition: Parallel at Mt 8:11, and doublet at Mt 20:16 // Mt 19:30 / Mk 10:31 (Overlap).
Lk 13:31-35: [Again he falsified] “The Pharisees come saying, Get thee out and depart, for Herod will kill thee,” Also, “He said, go ye and tell that fox,” till the words, “It cannot be that a prophet perish out of Jerusalem,” and “Jerusalem, Jerusalem, which killest the prophets and stonest them that are sent,” “Often would I have gathered, as a hen, thy children,” “Your house is left unto you desolate,” and “Ye shall not see me until ye shall say, Blessed.” (Scholion 41)
After Ev 13:25-28 Tertullian next refers to Ev 14:12-14. He does not refer to any of Ev 13:29-35. - Sondergut Luke: (Lk 13:31-33) and Double Tradition: (Lk 13:34-35) - parallel at Mt 23:37-39.
Lk 15:11-32: Again, he falsified the entire parable of the two sons, the one who took his share of the property and spent it on dissipation, and the other. (Scholion 42)
Tertullian has no mention of any of Ev 15:11-32. - Sondergut Luke.
Lk 17:10b: He falsified, “Say, we are unprofitable servants; we have done that which it was our duty to do.” (Scholion 47)
Tertullian does not mention Ev 17:7-10. - Sondergut Luke.
Lk 17:13, 18: When the ten lepers met him, Marcion cut a great deal out and wrote, “He sent them away, saying, Show yourselves unto the priests,” and yet he made a substitution and said, “Many lepers were in the days of Elisha the prophet, and none was cleansed, saving Naaman the Syrian.” (Scholion 48)
Although Epiphanius is not clear, it seems likely that Ev 17:13, 18 did not exist. These are verses that Tertullian does not mention. - Sondergut Luke.
Lk 18:31-33: Marcion falsified, “He took unto him the twelve and said, Behold, we go up to Jerusalem, and all things that are written in the prophets concerning the Son of man shall be accomplished. For he shall be delivered and killed, and the third day he shall rise again.” He falsified this in its entirety. (Scholion 52)
Several mss omit or have different variants of the end of Lk 18:32. Tertullian does not mention Ev 18:31-33, although he does mention Ev 18:35-43. - Triple Tradition: Parallels at Mk 10:33-34 / Mt 20:18-19 (Sondergut at Lk 18:31c).
Lk 19:29-46: He falsified the section about the ass and Bethpage – and the one about the city and the temple, because of the scripture, “My house shall be called an house of prayer, but ye make it a den of thieves.” (Scholion 53)
Tertullian mentions Ev 19:12-27, but then none of Ev 19:28-48. - Sondergut Luke: Lk 19:37, 39-40, 41b-44 - Triple Tradition: Parallels at Mk 11:1-10, 15-17 / Mt 21:1-13, 16.
Lk 20:9-18: Again, he excised the material about the vineyard which was let out to husbandmen, and the verse, “What is this, then, The stone which the builders rejected?” (Scholion 55)
There are variants in Lk 20:9-10, 13, 19 that argue for this passage in Luke being late. From Ev 20:8 Tertullian jumps straight to Ev 20:25 without mentioning the intervening verses. - Triple Tradition: Parallels at Mk 12:1-11 / Mt 21:33-44.
Lk 20:37-38: He excised, “Now that the dead are raised, even Moses showed at the bush, in calling the Lord the God of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob. But he is a God of the living, not of the dead.” (Scholion 56)
Tertullian refers to Ev 20:27-31 and 33-36, but does not mention Ev 20:37-38. - Triple Tradition: Parallels at Mk 12:26-27 / Mt 22:31-32.
Lk 20:37-38?: He did not have the following: “Now that the dead are raised, even Moses showed, saying that the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob is God of the living.” (Scholion 57)
Tertullian makes no reference to this ‘copy’ of Ev 20:37-38, that for some reason Epiphanius indicates was present in Luke.
Lk 21:18: Again he falsified. “There shall not an hair of your head perish.” (Scholion 58)
This verse is omitted in Sy-C. Tertullian refers to Ev 21:17, 19, but not 18. - Sondergut Luke.
Lk 21:21-24: Again, he falsified the following, “Then let them which are in Judaea flee to the mountains” and so on, because of the words sub-joined in the text, “until all things that are written be fulfilled.” (Scholion 59)
Tertullian refers to Ev 21:20, but then nothing until Ev 21:25. In Luke these verses appear to refer to a different event than the parallels in Mark and Matthew. - Sondergut Luke: Lk 21:21b-22, 23b-24 - Triple Tradition: Lk 21:21a, 23a. Parallels at Mk 13:14b, 17 / Mt 24:16, 19.
Lk 22:16: He falsified, “I say unto you, I will not any more eat thereof, until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God.” (Scholion 63)
There are multiple variants describing when Jesus would next eat bread. Tertullian quotes from Ev 22:15, 18 but does not refer to Ev 22:16 or 17. - Sondergut Luke.
Lk 22:35-38: He falsified, “When I sent you, lacked ye anything?” and so on, because of the words, “This also that is written must be accomplished, And he was numbered among the transgressors.” (Scholion 64)
Tertullian does not refer to Ev 22:35-38. - Sondergut Luke. Parallel (Mk 15:28b / Lk 22:37b) in some mss.
Lk 22:49-51: He falsified what Peter did when he struck the servant of the high priest and cut off his ear. (Scholion 67)
Tertullian does not refer to Ev 22:49-51. - Sondergut Luke: Lk 22:49, 51 - Triple Tradition: Lk 22:50. Parallels at Mk 14:47 / Mt 26:51.
Lk 23:43: Marcion removed the words, “Today thou shalt be with me in paradise.” (Scholion 72)
Tertullian mentions none of Ev 23:35-44. - Sondergut Luke.
Lk 24:25-26a: He falsified what Christ said to Cleopas and the other disciples when he met them: ”Oh fools, and slow to believe all that the prophets have spoken. Ought not he to have suffered these things?” And instead of “what the prophets have spoken.” he put, "what I have said unto you.” (Scholion 77)
Tertullian does not mention Ev 24:26-27, but quotes Ev 24:25b as “that which He spake unto you.” - Sondergut Luke.
Seven of the above pieces of text identified by Epiphanius as being not present in Ev have parallels in both Mark and Matthew, and seven others have no parallel in Mark. Eleven have no parallel in either Mark or Matthew, while four more have some text with no parallels. Overall 15 of the 24 omissions (62.5%) are in text some or all of which is only in Luke, while only four are in text present in all three synoptic gospels. This leads to the question of why, assuming Ev is an edited version of Luke, would aMarcion have created his gospel by mainly removing text unique to Luke (and adding virtually nothing), when it would perhaps have been more sensible to use a shorter gospel as the basis of his text.
Tertullian does not contradict Epiphanius regarding any of these ‘omissions.’ Instead, in all instances he simply does not mention the passages that Epiphanius reports were omitted by aMarcion (i.e. where Ev did not have text that Epiphanius saw in Luke). Although this lack of comment could suggest that the text of these ‘omissions’ was not present in Tertullian’s copy of Luke, it is possible that Tertullian was simply not interested in this text (e.g. there was nothing specific involving Jesus) or he had a single comment on speech spanning several of our verses. However, sometimes Tertullian quotes from verses immediately preceding or following the supposed omission, or, where Epiphanius identifies differences involving just a few words, Tertullian quotes the phrase or verse in Ev in the same form, but still with no suggestion that he saw a difference between Ev and his copy of Luke.
It must also be noted that, in the majority of cases, Tertullian shows no knowledge in any other of his works of the text or verses that Epiphanius above states had been removed by Marcion. This may indicate that he did not know the text supposedly omitted by Marcion, but there is a problem. As described at the end of the examination of Luke 15, Tertullian refers to the Prodigal Son in three other works, in sufficient detail to show that it is the same story that we see in Lk 15:11-32, so suggesting that he did see at least this parable in Luke. If so then Tertullian's silence cannot simply be taken to indicate that he saw nothing of note, because he would have seen Lk 15:11-32 in Luke, but no equivalent in Ev. However, as Tertullian gives no indication of where he saw this parable, it is possible that he saw it elsewhere, as suggested by P. C. Sense and also referred to at the end of Luke 15. Nevertheless, as Tertullian is commenting on the portrayal of Jesus in Ev (including Jesus' speech) his total silence regarding Ev 15:11-32 simply confirms Epiphanius' comment that these verses did not exist in Ev.
What is roughly the center section of canonical Luke is taken up by what is often referred to as the ‘Lukan Travel Narrative.’ This begins when Jesus ‘set his face’ to go to Jerusalem in Lk 9:51 even though, strangely, at this point he does not actually tell the disciples what he is planning to do (despite other people apparently deducing it just from looking at Jesus, as in Lk 9:53!). The initial portion is generally considered to consist of 350 consecutive verses, from Lk 9:51 to Lk 18:14, in which only approximately 20 verses have any parallel in Mark, and two-thirds of which is unique to Luke.
Although Jesus is supposedly going to Jerusalem he appears to take a very roundabout route through Samaria (which is not mentioned in either Mark or Matthew), as either the place or the inhabitants of Samaria are referred to in Lk 9:52, 10:33, 17:11, and 17:16. Then, although by Lk 18:15 Jesus has not yet reached Jerusalem, the text in Luke ‘re-joins’ the parallels in the other synoptics, at Mk 10:13 and Mt 19:13 respectively. Mark and Matthew then begin their own ‘travel narratives’ shortly after, at Mk 10:32 and Mt 20:17 respectively, with Luke paralleling Mark and Matthew by beginning a new travel narrative at Lk 18:31 (where Jesus at long last actually tells the disciples where he is going), and ending at Lk 19:44.
The information above from Epiphanius regarding omissions in Ev shows us that the majority of the text from Luke 5-24 that he states was not present in Ev occurs in the area of this travel narrative. Not only are more than half (60) of the 110 ‘omitted’ verses (none of which have a parallel in Mark) part of the travel narrative, but more importantly, 84% of them also have no parallel in Matthew, and so are unique to Luke. If we were to assume that Marcion did in fact see these verses in Luke and chose to omit them, then the great majority of the material he deliberately removed from the travel narrative was material that had been created by the author of Luke, and none of it was material that originated in Mark.
Although individually each instance of ‘absence of evidence’ (lack of comment from Tertullian at a place where Epiphanius notes an omission by Marcion) should not be considered significant, the fact that this phenomenon occurs at all 25 such places noted above is statistically significant. Consequently, in these instances we can infer that Tertullian has either no comment because the text supposedly omitted by Marcion was not known to him, or that it was simply text in which that he was not interested.
Next: Epiphanius: Differences After Luke 5:13
If you have any comments, questions, suggestions, etc. regarding Marcion or my analysis please email me at davidinglis2@comcast.net