Previous Page: Summary
It appears to be generally considered that Tertullian and Epiphanius paint a similar picture of Marcion (as a heretic), and corroborate each other with regard to the contents of Ev. Indeed, there is much on which they agree, whether by both identifying specific text in Ev that differed from what they saw in their respective copies of Luke, e.g. text that Marcion (the assumed author) ‘should have changed’ to suit his theology but didn’t, or by both remaining silent over (we may assume) text that was the same in Ev as in Luke. From both Tertullian and Epiphanius we know that the greatest differences between Ev and Luke occur in the first four chapters, with Ev containing nothing corresponding to Luke 1-2 and little of Luke 3-4, and with significant differences in those small parts of Luke 3-4 that were present in Ev.
From Lk 5:14 onwards Epiphanius provides details of individual differences or omissions that he sees in Ev in comparison with Luke, but in contrast his comments on the early parts of the gospel are very different. He begins in straightforward fashion, with some specifics:
At the very beginning he excised everything Luke had originally composed—his “inasmuch as many have taken in hand,” and so forth, and the material about Elizabeth and the angel’s annunciation to the Virgin Mary, John and Zacharias and the birth at Bethlehem; the genealogy and the story of the baptism. All this he cut out and turned his back on, and made this the beginning of the Gospel, “In the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar,” and so on.
This tells us that Epiphanius knew the contents of Luke 1-3, that Ev contained nothing from Luke 1-2, and that it began with Lk 3:1a “and so on," whatever we can take from that. However, Epiphanius then just summaries the contents of the following section of Ev, stating just that:
He starts from there then and yet, again, does not go on in order. He falsifies some things, as I said, he adds others helter-skelter, not going straight on but disingenuously wandering all over the material.
After this very general statement suggesting great differences between Ev and Lk 3-4, Epiphanius returns to specifics, using his scholia to comment on individual verses in Ev, the first of which is v. 5:14. As a result, all we know from Epiphanius regarding the parts of the gospel corresponding to Lk 3:1b–5:13 is that in comparison with what he saw in Luke some text was not present in Ev, other text was added, and that the order of the text was different. The implication of this appears to be that here the text in Ev was so different from what Epiphanius saw in Lk 3:1b–5:13 that he either did not want to, or could not, identify specific differences.
None of what Tertullian wrote in Adv. Marcion IV regarding the early part of Ev contradicts Epiphanius, although what he writes is more specific. He agrees that Ev began with v. 3:1a, but then makes no mention of the baptism and the genealogy (which Epiphanius specifically states were not in Ev), or the temptation (Lk 4:1-14), about which Epiphanius has no specific comment. However, comments in Chapter 2 of Tertullian’s “On the flesh of Christ” confirm that Marcion’s Christ was ‘un-announced,’ so indicating that there was nothing prior to Ev 3:1a:
Clearly enough is the nativity announced by Gabriel. But what has he [Marcion] to do with the Creator's angel? The conception in the virgin's womb is also set plainly before us. [Lk 1:26-38] But what concern has he with the Creator's prophet, Isaiah? He will not brook delay, since suddenly (without any prophetic announcement) did he bring down Christ from heaven.
Note: The reference to heaven here is from Lk 4:31 in some Latin bibles that does not occur in the Greek: Καὶ κατῆλθεν εἰς Καφαρναοὺμ. In English bibles this is generally translated as 'And [he] went [or came] down to Capernaum.'
Tertullian then refers to Lk 2:1-8, 13, and 22-38, making it plain that he knew Luke 1-2 but that Ev contained nothing from these chapters. Following his reference to Ev 3:1a the order of Tertullian's comments confirms Epiphanius’ statement that Marcion did not keep to the order that we see in Luke, with the most notable difference being that Capernaum comes before Nazareth, as it also does in both Mark and Matthew. By piecing together the comments from both Tertullian and Epiphanius, we can deduce that Ev began as follows:
In the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar, [3:1a] he came down to Capernaum, a city of Galilee, and taught them on the sabbath days. [4:31]
Tertullian remarks that none of Jesus’ sayings were reported at this point, but comments that it does not matter, suggesting re. Marcion: "[Even if you were to] withdraw all the sayings of my Christ. His acts shall speak. Lo, He enters the synagogue...” The fact that he expected to see sayings here in Ev almost certainly means that in his copy of Luke he here saw the reading from Isaiah that Irenaeus stated took place at Capernaum, but that in Lk 4:17-21 takes place in Nazareth, as described in Capernaum or Nazareth First?. Tertullian also states that Ev did not here have what today we see as Mt 15:24, 26, and suggests that the gospel had no specific sayings from Jesus at this point (as is also the case in the parallels in both Mark and Matthew) when he simply notes:
and they were astonished at his doctrine: for his word was with power. [4:32]
Tertullian then discusses Jesus rebuking the spirit of the unclean devil in Ev 4:33-35. He does not mention the amazement of those in the synagogue, that knowledge (fame) of Jesus spread to every place, or Simon’s mother-in-law (Lk 4:36-39), and so we cannot tell whether he saw these verses in Ev or not. However, we do know that Lk 4:36-39 have close parallels at Mk 1:27-39, and that Lk 4:38-39 are paralleled at Mt 8:14-15 (although the Matthean parallels exist in a different context), so on this basis it would seem more likely that Tertullian saw these verses in Ev than not. However, if so then why would he not mention them?
The answer would seem to be simply that they held no interest for him, as there is nothing noteworthy about Jesus simply removing the fever from Simon's mother-in-law, given that he had just rebuked the spirit in Ev 4:33-35, which IS reported by Tertullian. In this context it is noteworthy that Lk 4:36-39 (and their parallels) also appear to have not been mentioned by the other church fathers, for conceivably the same reason. This reasoning also fits with what we see in other places in Adv. Marcion IV where Tertullian does not note the contents of verses that we see in Luke, and that are not noted as having been absent in Ev. Basically, Tertullian only mention verses that support his arguments regarding Marcion's portrayal of Jesus, and so ignores text in Ev that does not feature Jesus (See Reconstructing Marcion's Gospel). This ends the events in Capernaum, after which Tertullian mentions:
The synagogue in Nazareth [vv. 4:16, 22-24, 28-30]
Curing the sick [vv. 4:40-41]
A desert place [vv. 4:42-43]
Preaching in Galilee [v. 4:44]
He does not mention what we see as the initial preaching in Galilee before Nazareth (Lk 4:14-15), nor the reading from Isaiah (Lk 4:17-21). Instead, he reported that Jesus did not preach anything new (as Marcion's Jesus might have done), perhaps suggesting that instead he did see Jesus reading from the Old Testament. He also does not mention Naaman the Syrian and the widows and lepers in Israel (Lk 4:25-27) here (although he mentions Naaman later), and again does not suggest that any text was missing in Ev, or that the order was any different from what he expected. After this Tertullian continues with Ev's version of Luke 5, mentioning the Lake of Gennesaret and healing the leper, again without any indication that these verses might not have been as we see them, either in his copy of Luke or in Ev.
Overall, the first four chapters of Luke contain 80, 52, 38 and 44 verses respectively, a total of 214 verses. The above comments tell us that Ev contained nothing from Luke 1 and 2, ½ a verse (3.1a) from Luke 3, and 25 verses from Luke 4, so only 13% of the verses from Luke 1-4 have any parallel in Ev. Consequently, in this part of the text at least, it is very hard to think of Ev as a ‘trimmed’ version of Luke, since so little of Luke is present here in Ev that very little substance remains.
When considering the Markan parallels to Ev as well as to Luke 1-4, Mark also contains nothing equivalent to Luke 1 and 2, although it does include some verses on John and the baptism of Jesus (but has no equivalent to Lk 3:5-16a, 17-21a). Mark also does not have a genealogy, any parallels to most of Luke’s version of the temptation (Lk 4:2b-13), and Lk 4:14b-15. Like Ev, Mark does contain the Capernaum and Nazareth passages (in the same order, unlike in Luke), and, perhaps as also Ev, does not have the reading from Isaiah. Mark also does not have the ‘many widows and lepers' passage (which Ev does not have at this point), although the Nazareth episode ends slightly differently in Mark. Luke 4 then ends with vv. 4:40-44, all of which are paralleled in both Mark and Ev. From this we can see that the only major difference here between Mark and Ev is that Mark contains a short temptation passage that Ev does not. It is clear that in the events covered by Luke 1-4 Ev is textually much closer to Mark than to Luke, and so perhaps here was based on Mark, on an overlapping account parallel to Mark, or even was a source used by aMark.
Next: Epiphanius: Omissions After Luke 5:13
If you have any comments, questions, suggestions, etc. regarding Marcion or my analysis please email me at davidinglis2@comcast.net