Previous Page: Epiphanius: Differences After Luke 5:13
Unlike Epiphanius, Tertullian writes in the form of a narrative, referring to or quoting from many verses of Ev, interspersing them with comments regarding their relation to Marcion’s theology, and sometimes addressing comments directly to Marcion himself. Although he quotes from, refers to, or otherwise alludes to, considerably more of Ev than does Epiphanius, after commenting on the first four chapters of Luke there are only seven places at which Tertullian actually mentions that, in comparison with what he saw in Luke, text in Ev was either missing or different. In four of these places the copy of Luke against which Tertullian is comparing Ev appears to contain the same text that we see in Luke.
“It behoved Marcion’s Christ to have forborne all connection whatever with the domestic localities of the Creator's Christ.” [18:37, 24:19] - “Nazareth” not mentioned by either Tertullian or Epiphanius.
"What shall I do to inherit eternal life?" In the heretical gospel life only is mentioned, without the attribute eternal. [10:25]
"Suppose that I have come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division." 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. [12:51] - Reference to a sword not present
Although His raiment was, without doubt, parted among the soldiers, and partly distributed by lot, yet Marcion has erased it all (from his Gospel). [23:34b] - The parting of Jesus’ raiment not present
There are three other places in his narrative where Tertullian states that Marcion had omitted something from Ev. However, in these places the text that Tertullian states had been removed, and presumably that he therefore saw in his copy of Luke, we today only see in Matthew (see Matthew in Marcion?):
The publican who was chosen by the Lord, [v. 5:27] he adduces for a proof that he was chosen as a stranger to the law and uninitiated in Judaism, by one who was an adversary to the law. The case of Peter escaped his memory, who, although he was a man of the law, was not only chosen by the Lord, but also obtained the testimony of possessing knowledge which was given to him by the Father. – Tertullian expected to see Mt 16:17 [or possibly Mt 16:17-19] in Marcion.
"Because," says He, "He is kind unto the unthankful and to the evil." [v. 6:35] Well done, Marcion! How cleverly have you withdrawn from Him the showers and the sunshine. – Tertullian expected to see Mt 5:45 in Marcion.
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? Marcion may expunge such precepts, but no matter, provided the sense of them survives. – Tertullian expected to see Mt 10:10c after v. 9:3 in Marcion.
In a number of places in Adv Marcion IV, Tertullian refers to the existence of Matthew, and also gives quotes that he identifies as coming from that gospel. Consequently, it is conceivable that Tertullian had both Matthew and Luke in front of him when commenting on Ev, and is simply mistaken when indicating the source of the text in the above ‘omissions’ by Marcion. However, Luke still contains text apparently from Matthew in several places, and there is ms evidence of other ‘floating text’ in the gospels, with passages either moving within a gospel, or even from one gospel to another. We also have (as mentioned earlier) Epiphanius' comment in Elenchus 12, in which he states that Ev 8:21 contained Jesus’ question “Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?” that we see in Mt 12:48, which Tertullian also quotes but does not note as a difference. The existence of this text from Matthew in Ev increases the likelihood that other text seen by Tertullian in Ev, that originated in Matthew, may have originally been in Luke, but was removed at an early date.
Given that it is generally considered that both Tertullian and Epiphanius provide abundant evidence that (as they saw it) Marcion excluded a great deal of text from the early chapters of Luke when creating Ev this very short list of specific erasures noted by Tertullian is highly surprising. Either Tertullian made a very poor job of identifying Marcion’s supposed omissions, or those that Tertullian saw were indeed small in number, as appears to be confirmed by Tertullian himself, when he writes:
Now Marcion was unwilling to expunge from his Gospel some statements which even made against him – I suspect, on purpose, to have it in his power from the passages which he did not suppress, when he could have done so, either to deny that he had expunged anything, or else to justify his suppressions, if he made any.
This extraordinary tendentious explanation from Tertullian is surely proof enough that there was much text in Ev that Marcion might have been expected to remove, or indeed, is generally accused of having removed, but nevertheless was not actually removed.
Next: Tertullian vs. Epiphanius
If you have any comments, questions, suggestions, etc. regarding Marcion or my analysis please email me at davidinglis2@comcast.net