In these examples, either Epiphanius or Tertullian weren't truly quoting the same text. If you believe that the gospel of the Marcionites was (almost always) very close to Luke in its wording, or if you believe that Tertullian had only the gospel of the Marcionites in front of him, you might conclude (as Roth does) that Epiphanius had the text of this gospel in front of him but still failed to quote it with reasonable accuracy. A different explanation is often likely if it is considered that Tertullian doesn't have the text of this gospel in front of him. It is, in any case, not possible that they are both quoting from the same text and that they are both accurate in these quotes.
I will take them in the order of Luke:
(1) Luke 9:22
(2) Luke 9:41
(3) Luke 12:28
(4) Luke 16:16
(5) Luke 18:21
(6) Luke 23:34
(7) Luke 23:46
I will explain in each case how I think Tertullian and Epiphanius arrived at their references. I've selected cases where I think Epiphanius preserves the original reading and where Tertullian says something significantly different. This excludes a few instances where I don't think Epiphanius preserves the original reading exactly and the many where Tertullian is silent or where the difference is minor. I attempt to show the probability that, in these cases, Epiphanius has the better reading, and Tertullian is either confused by his sources or following Luke.
(1) Luke 9:22
Epiph. Schol. 16: δεῖ τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου πολλὰ παθεῖν καὶ ἀποκτανθῆναι καὶ μετὰ τρεῖς ἡμέρας ἐγερθῆναι.
the Son of Man must suffer many things, and be slain, and be raised after three days.
Tert. Marc. 4.21.7: oportet filium hominis multa pati, et reprobari a presbyteris et scribis et sacerdotibus, et interfici, et post tertium diem resurgere.
the Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected by the elders and scribes and priests, and be slain, and after three days rise again.
Let's look at how the text that is now Luke handled the other two passion predictions. For comparison, add Epiphanius and his quote of the text of Marcion's gospel as the first.
Mark |
Evangelion / Luke |
the Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected by the elders and the chief priests and the scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again |
the Son of Man must suffer many things, and be slain, and be raised after three days |
The Son of man will be delivered into the hands of men, and they will kill him; and when he is killed, after three days he will rise. |
the Son of man is to be delivered into the hands of men. |
the Son of man will be delivered to the chief priests and the scribes, and they will condemn him to death, and deliver him to the Gentiles; and they will mock him, and spit upon him, and scourge him, and kill him; and after three days he will rise |
he will be delivered to the Gentiles, and will be mocked and shamefully treated and spit upon; they will scourge him and kill him, and on the third day he will rise |
Now that we have done this, we can fill in where Luke likely expanded Evangelion, assuming here that Luke was secondary.
Mark |
Evangelion |
Luke |
the Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected by the elders and the chief priests and the scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again |
the Son of Man must suffer many things, and be slain, and be raised after three days |
the Son of Man must suffer many things, and be rejected by the elders and the chief priests and the scribes, and be slain, and be raised after three days |
The Son of man will be delivered into the hands of men, and they will kill him; and when he is killed, after three days he will rise. |
the Son of man is to be delivered into the hands of men |
the Son of man is to be delivered into the hands of men |
Behold, we are going up to Jerusalem; and the Son of man will be delivered to the chief priests and the scribes, and they will condemn him to death, and deliver him to the Gentiles; and they will mock him, and spit upon him, and scourge him, and kill him; and after three days he will rise |
Behold, we are going up to Jerusalem; and the Son of man will be delivered to the Gentiles, and will be mocked and shamefully treated and spit upon; they will scourge him and kill him, and on the third day he will rise |
Behold, we are going up to Jerusalem, and everything that is written of the Son of man by the prophets will be accomplished. 18.32 For he will be delivered to the Gentiles, and will be mocked and shamefully treated and spit upon; 18.33 they will scourge him and kill him, and on the third day he will rise. |
In the third passion prediction, we can recover the likely wording of Evangelion on analogy with Mark and with reference to the resurrection narrative, which refers back to the passion predictions, as quoted by Epiphanius:
He falsified what Christ said to Cleopas and the other when he met them, “O 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 said unto you.”
So this gospel likely had the passion prediction without "the prophets," while Luke had the phrase, even if Evangelion is secondary.
In all three predictions, Evangelion is shorter than Mark. In two of them, Luke is longer than Evangelion; in one of them, Luke is identical to Evangelion. Since the other two passion predictions are shorter in Luke than in Mark, and because the third passion prediction similarly does not have the reference to "the chief priests and the scribes," it's likely that Epiphanius has an accurate quote here. We can explain the fact that it is different from Luke's first passion prediction by the simple fact that Epiphanius is not quoting from Luke here. This implies that Epiphanius is quoting from the gospel of the Marcionites here, while Tertullian is quoting from his copy of Luke.
As an aside, the third passion prediction in Evangelion could have been after Mark 9:30-48 (after 'The Dispute about Greatness', Luke keeps 'The Unknown Exorcist' here, and Matthew keeps 'On Temptations' here) and in place of Luke 9:51. The third passion prediction in Evangelion, with its reference to going up to Jerusalem, would be the cue here for Luke to have Jesus set his face to Jerusalem. The passion prediction in Evangelion has Jesus being delivered to the Gentiles. The passion predictions are generally followed by a misunderstanding and a rebuke. In Evangelion, that is the story of Luke 9:52-56 but without the strange addition of Luke 9:53b, "because his face was set toward Jerusalem." In reference to the passion prediction, Jesus being "delivered to the Gentiles," this is a story of Jesus being rejected by Gentiles (in this case, referring to Samaritans). The disciples ask if this means that they (the Samaritans, representing Gentiles) should be destroyed, and Jesus says no. Set in this context, it's not a basically random episode (as Luke has it) but rather part of the core message of Evangelion.
As one more remark: after this point, there is a long section in Evangelion that is not present in Mark. If this idea is correct, the result is that Evangelion is similar to Mark in having the three passion predictions close together, while Luke is similar to Mark in having the third passion prediction close to the entry into Jerusalem, and the third prediction is in a different context in Evangelion relative to Luke (and Mark).
(2) Luke 9:41
Epiph. Schol. 19: Ἐδεήθην τῶν μαθητῶν σου. εἶχε δὲ παρὰ τό οὐκ ἠδυνήθησαν ἐκβαλεῖν αὐτό καὶ πρὸς αὐτούς· ὦ γενεὰ ἄπιστος, ἕως πότε ἀνέξομαι ὑμῶν;
“I besought thy disciples.” But in addition to, “And they could not cast it out,” he had, “And he said to them, O faithless generation, how long shall I suffer you?”
Tert. Marc. 4.23.1: O genitura incredula, quousque ero apud vos? quousque sustinebo vos?
O faithless generation, how long shall I be with you, how long shall I bear with you?
The formula here is similar to other occasions where Epiphanius is correcting Marcion's gospel with respect to Luke. Instead of merely quoting the text of Marcion's gospel (in agreement with Luke), Epiphanius takes note of where Marcion's gospel has a point of departure, providing the text that comes after. There would be no point of doing so if not to mark out a change; if agreement is implied, a simple quote is enough.
As such, I think Tertullian got his quote from Luke (which it matches), and Epiphanius didn't.
(3) Luke 12:28
Epiph. Schol. 31: οὐκ ἔχει τό Ὁ θεὸς ἀμϕιέννυσι τὸν χόρτον
He does not have, “God doth clothe the grass.”
Tert. Marc. 4.29.1: cuius et corvi non serunt nec metunt nec in apothecas condunt, et tamen aluntur ab ipso, cuius et lilia et foenum non texunt nec nent, et tamen vestiuntur ab ipso, cuius et Salomon gloriosissimus, nec ullo tamen flosculo cultior.
for his ravens neither sow nor reap nor gather into storehouses, and yet receive nourishment from him, whose lilies and whose grass neither weave nor spin and yet are clothed by him: his Solomon too was of excellent glory, yet was not better arrayed than one little flower.
I have noticed that Epiphanius is considerably more sparing with his citations when they come from Luke, which is reasonable under the assumption that the reader is already familiar with Luke and has it available. By this short phrase, Epiphanius is most likely noting the absence of a longer passage, the same absence noted once by Tertullian with reference to his source. The fact that Epiphanius himself notices the omission when going through the gospel of Marcion shows that we didn't misunderstand that reference in Tertullian. Since this ensures that the interpretation of Tertullian is correct, this also implies that noticing those contradictions of Tertullian against himself was correct, and this presents a strong argument against Tertullian's direct use of Marcion's gospel in
Against Marcion, book 4.
Tertullian certainly treats this passage as something Marcionites must explain, imagining that it would be interpreted as a disparagement of the Creator: "If indeed it is as a disparager of the Creator that he would have us not take thought for the sort of trivialities for which neither ravens nor lilies toil, because in fact for their little worth they come naturally to hand, this will shortly appear." Because Tertullian failed to recognize here, in the discussion that appears in the order of Luke, that this passage wasn't present in the gospel used by Marcionites, Tertullian was working from Luke instead.
(4) Luke 16:16
Epiph. Schol. 43: ῾Ο νόμος καὶ οἱ προϕῆται ἕως Ἰωάννου καὶ πᾶς εἰς αὐτὴν βιάζεται
The Law and the prophets were until John, and everyone is forced into it.
Tert. Marc. 4.33.7: Lex et prophetae usque ad Ioannem, ex quo regnum dei annuntiatur
The law and the prophets were until John, since which time the kingdom of God is announced.
Tertullian shows how someone would naturally offer an abbreviated quote from Luke: continuing on to the next few words and omitting the final words that typically, for the reader of Luke, are hard to understand.
The quote from Epiphanius presents a different way to view the passage, and it's one that helps explain why we have two very difficult to understand passages now standing in Matthew and Luke. As I've suggested above, the gospel used by Marcionites presented a simple contrast that emphasizes the freedom that comes with the preaching of the kingdom of God: "The Law and the prophets were until John, and everyone is forced into it. Since then the good news of the kingdom of God is preached."
That previous post is here:
viewtopic.php?p=157643#p157643
(5) Luke 18:21
Adam. 2,17 (832a/b): τὰς ἐντολὰς οἶδα
“I know the commandments.”
Epiph. Schol. 50: ἀντὶ τοῦ Τὰς ἐντολὰς οἶδας λέγει Τὰς ἐντολὰς οἶδα
instead of, “Thou knowest the commandments,” says, “I know the commandments.”
Tert. Marc. 4.36.4: cumque ille principaliora quaeque affirmasset observasse se ab adulescentia
when that man replied, in respect of the chief of them, that he had kept them from his youth up
Tertullian presents the canonical version of the text, where the man replied that he kept the commandments, which were stated by Jesus: "And he said, 'All these I have observed from my youth.'" (Luke 18:21)
Both Epiphanius and Adamantius, however, show that the Marcionites' version had "I know the commandments," which would place the list of precepts on the lips of the inquiring man here, not Jesus. That would not allow for the shorter, canonical reading of the man's reply from Tertullian where Jesus wants to know if the man keeps the commandments, and the man replies nothing more than that he had kept them from his youth. This reading from Tertullian came from Luke, not the gospel in use by Marcionites.
(6) Luke 23:34
Epiph. Schol. 71: Καὶ ἐλθόντες εἰς τόπον λεγόμενον Κρανίον τόπος ἐσταύρωσαν αὐτὸν καὶ διεμερίσαντο τὰ ἱμάτια αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐσκοτίσθη ὁ ἥλιος.
“And when they were come unto a place called Place of a Skull, they crucified him and parted his garments, and the sun was darkened.” [Luke 22:33; 34; 44]
Epiph. Schol. 72:
Marcion falsified the words, “Today thou shalt be with me in paradise.” [Luke 23:43]
Tert. Marc. 4.42.4: Vestitum plane eius a militibus divisum, partim sorte concessum, Marcion abstulit, respiciens psalmi prophetiam: Dispertiti sibi sunt vestimenta mea, et in vestitum meum sortem miserunt
Evidently the statement that his raiment was divided among the soldiers and partly assigned by lot, has been excised by Marcion, because he had in mind the prophecy of the psalm, "They parted my garments among them, and upon my vesture did they cast lots."
This is an extraordinary case. Something's going on here. The first thing that I will note is that Tertullian's objection to the text (which I consider inherited, as always) is drawn from John, not from Luke nor even from Matthew. Of course, we already know about someone who considered both Matthew and John as scripture, quoting them in particular as such, and that's Theophilus of Antioch (in
Ad Autolycum), whose
Against Marcion is regarded as remarkable by both Eusebius and Jerome. What's interesting about Theophilus is that he regards Matthew as scripture (unlike Justin who doesn't view the gospels as scripture), that he quotes from John (unlike Justin who doesn't explicitly quote from John), and that he doesn't quote from Luke (unlike Irenaeus who quotes from Luke extensively in his
Against Heresies, written before his own
Against Marcion, which promised to compare Marcion's scriptures to Luke and Paul). This again raises the probability that Theophilus is a source for Tertullian's claims, given that all these features are predicted by the use of Theophilus.
We can see this by noting the separation of the two clauses ("his raiment was divided among the soldiers," "and partly assigned by lot"), the oddly specific Johannine detail that only part was assigned by lot ("partim sorte concessum" or "partly allotted by chance"), and the quotation of the prophecy, also in two clauses, that motivated the author of John to make this passage conform more explicitly to scripture.
Mark |
Luke |
Matthew |
John |
Peter |
15.22 And they brought him to the place called Gol'gotha (which means the place of a skull). 15.23 And they offered him wine mingled with myrrh; but he did not take it. 15.24 And they crucified him, and divided his garments among them, casting lots for them, to decide what each should take. 15.25 And it was the third hour, when they crucified him. ... Those who were crucified with him also reviled him. 15.33 And when the sixth hour had come, there was darkness over the whole land until the ninth hour. ... 15.37 And Jesus uttered a loud cry, and breathed his last. |
23.32 Two others also, who were criminals, were led away to be put to death with him. 23.33 And when they came to the place which is called The Skull, there they crucified him, and the criminals, one on the right and one on the left. 23.34 And Jesus said, "Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do." And they cast lots to divide his garments. ... 23.39 One of the criminals who were hanged railed at him, saying, "Are you not the Christ? Save yourself and us!" 23.40 But the other rebuked him, saying, "Do you not fear God, since you are under the same sentence of condemnation? 23.41 And we indeed justly; for we are receiving the due reward of our deeds; but this man has done nothing wrong." ... 23.44 It was now about the sixth hour, and there was darkness over the whole land until the ninth hour, 23.45 while the sun's light failed; and the curtain of the temple was torn in two. ... 23.46 Then Jesus, crying with a loud voice, said, "Father, into thy hands I commit my spirit!" And having said this he breathed his last. 23.47 Now when the centurion saw what had taken place, he praised God, and said, "Certainly this man was innocent!" |
27.33 And when they came to a place called Golgotha (which means the place of a skull), 27.34 they offered him wine to drink, mingled with gall; but when he tasted it, he would not drink it. 27.35 And when they had crucified him, they divided his garments among them by casting lots; ... 27.44 And the robbers who were crucified with him also reviled him in the same way. 27.45 Now from the sixth hour there was darkness over all the land until the ninth hour. |
19.17 So they took Jesus, and he went out, bearing his own cross, to the place called the place of a skull, which is called in Hebrew Golgotha. ... 19.23 When the soldiers had crucified Jesus they took his garments and made four parts, one for each soldier; also his tunic. But the tunic was without seam, woven from top to bottom; 19.24 so they said to one another, "Let us not tear it, but cast lots for it to see whose it shall be." This was to fulfil the scripture, "They parted my garments among them, and for my clothing they cast lots." 19.25 So the soldiers did this. |
[10] And they brought two wrongdoers and crucified the Lord in the middle of them. But he was silent as having no pain. ... [12] And having put his garments before him, they divided them up and threw as a gamble for them. [13] But a certain one of those wrongdoers reviled them, saying: 'We have been made suffer thus because of the wrong that we have done; but this one, having become Savior of men, what injustice had he done to you?' ... [15] But it was midday, and darkness held fast all Judea; and they were distressed and anxious lest the sun had set, since he was still living. |
I've performed all this highlighting so that it's easy to see that the passion narrative wasn't a fixed entity and that the various components of it could be rearranged, altered, omitted, or expanded in various ways. A sixth gospel to these five would have its own differences.
And when they were come unto a place called Place of a Skull, they crucified him and parted his garments, and the sun was darkened.
Marcion falsified the words, “Today thou shalt be with me in paradise.”
Based on the quote from Epiphanius and the note regarding the omission, something like this may have stood here:
15.16 And the soldiers led him away inside the palace (that is, the praetorium); and they called together the whole battalion. 15.17 And they clothed him in a purple cloak, and plaiting a crown of thorns they put it on him. 15.18 And they began to salute him, "Hail, King of the Jews!" 15.19 And they struck his head with a reed, and spat upon him, and they knelt down in homage to him. 15.20 And when they had mocked him, they stripped him of the purple cloak, and put his own clothes on him.
23.26 And as they led him away, they seized one Simon of Cyrene, who was coming in from the country, and laid on him the cross, to carry it behind Jesus. 23.27 And there followed him a great multitude of the people, and of women who bewailed and lamented him. 23.28 But Jesus turning to them said, "Daughters of Jerusalem, do not weep for me, but weep for yourselves and for your children. 23.29 For behold, the days are coming when they will say, 'Blessed are the barren, and the wombs that never bore, and the breasts that never gave suck!' 23.30 Then they will begin to say to the mountains, 'Fall on us'; and to the hills, 'Cover us.' 23.31 For if they do this when the wood is green, what will happen when it is dry?" 23.32 Two others also, who were criminals, were led away to be put to death with him.
And when they came to a place which is called the place of a skull, they crucified him and divided his garments among them, and the sun was darkened. There was darkness over the whole land, and the curtain of the temple was torn in two.
15.29 And those who passed by derided him, wagging their heads, and saying, "Aha! You who would destroy the temple and build it in three days, 15.30 save yourself, and come down from the cross!" 15.31 So also the chief priests mocked him to one another with the scribes, saying, "He saved others; he cannot save himself. 15.32 Let the Christ, the King of Israel, come down now from the cross, that we may see and believe. 27.43 He trusts in God; let God deliver him now, if he desires him; for he said, 'I am the Son of God.'" And a certain one of those wrongdoers reviled them, saying: "We have been made suffer thus because of the wrong that we have done; but this one, the Son of God, what injustice had he done to you?" And Jesus said, "Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do." Then Jesus, crying with a loud voice, breathed his last. 23.47 Now when the centurion saw what had taken place, he praised God, and said, "Certainly this man was innocent!"
This highly speculative possibility combines Mark, Luke, a bit of Matthew, and a dash of Peter. There's no real certainty about it, except perhaps for the paragraph highlighted, which is attested by Epiphanius. It's presented here just to illustrate that the quote from Epiphanius could have come from a much more detailed account and does not have to be viewed as a drastic exercise in abbreviation.
The fact that Epiphanius both jumps to "and the sun was darkened" (a unique phrasing not found in Luke or any of these gospels) and explicitly states that the previous verse was missing strongly suggests that there was a large section corresponding to Luke absent here, which resumed with the darkness. If part of the dialogue were different in the gospel used by the Marcionites, as it is in the Gospel of Peter, that would explain both the jump here (compared to Luke) and the notice from Epiphanius specifically about the response made by Jesus not being here.
If Epiphanius is correct that the text used by Marcionites had them part the garments, then Tertullian is strictly incorrect to deny it. Earlier I had presented Tertullian as if marking the omission of "And they cast lots to divide his garments." What we have to see here, however, is that Tertullian was confused by his source. That source was accusing Marcion of falsification because it didn't include the casting of lots, which is something stated briefly in the other synoptics and in Peter but not in the gospel used by Marcionites. That source was making the accusation on the basis of John, which provides the fullest account, which again shows that Tertullian's source wasn't comparing to Luke. That Tertullian was confused is shown by the quote from Epiphanius, which shows that the text of the gospel used by Marcionites had the division of garments.
(7) Luke 23:46
Mark 15:37: ὁ δὲ Ἰησοῦς ἀφεὶς φωνὴν μεγάλην ἐξέπνευσεν.
And Jesus uttered a loud cry, and breathed his last.
Epiph. Schol. 63: Καὶ φωνήσας φωνῇ μεγάλῃ ἐξέπνευσεν.
And when he had cried with a loud voice he breathed his last.
Ellenchus 63. ... Εἰ ἐξέπνευσεν, ὦ Μαρκίων, καὶ φωνὴν μεγάλην ἀπέδωκεν, πόθεν ἐξέπνεεν ἢ τί τὸ ἐκπνέον; ...
... If he breathed his last, O Marcion, and gave a loud cry, from where did he breathe out or what was he expelling? ...
Luke 23:46: καὶ φωνήσας φωνῇ μεγάλῃ ὁ Ἰησοῦς εἶπεν Πάτερ εἰς χεῖράς σου παραθήσομαι τὸ πνεῦμά μου καὶ ταῦτα εἰπὼν ἐξέπνευσεν
Then Jesus, crying with a loud voice, said, "Father, into thy hands I commit my spirit!" And having said this he breathed his last.
Adam. 5.12 (857d), Adamantius: καὶ ϕωνήσας μεγάλῃ ϕωνῇ ὁ Ἰησοῦς εἶπε· Πάτερ, εἰς χεῖράς σου παραθήσομαι τὸ πνεῦμά μου, καὶ ἐξέπνευσε.
And with a loud voice, Jesus cried out and said, 'Father, into your hands I commit my spirit,' and he breathed his last.
... It was certainly no spirit that 'gave up the ghost,' since that is eternal and incorruptible. ...
Tert. Marc. 4.42.6: And see how it continues, even in the thirtieth psalm, to present Christ in his own person: he cries aloud to the Father, so as even in dying, with his last words, to fulfil the prophets [Into your hand I commit my spirit - Psalms 31(30):5]: And having said thus, he gave up his spirit [Hoc dicto expiravit]. Who did? Did the spirit give up itself, or the flesh give up the spirit? But the spirit cannot have given up [expirare] itself: there is a difference between the one which gives up and the other which is given up [expiratur]. If the spirit is given up [expiratur], it has to be given up [expiretur] by something else: whereas if the spirit had been by itself, the word used would have been 'depart' [discessisse] and not 'give up' [expirasse]. Who is it then that gives up the spirit, if not the flesh?
Two things are immediately obvious:
Epiphanius doesn't look like he is quoting Luke, nor is it very reasonable to assume that he is abbreviating Luke in an idiosyncratic way. We already know that there is a gospel that has a quote that is almost exactly the same as the one Epiphanius gives, but it's also unexpected to find influence from Mark on the quotations of ancient Christians. This suggests the likelihood that Epiphanius is quoting from a gospel text that was similar to Mark 15:37 but was not Mark itself, i.e., which was the gospel used by Marcionites, which he said he read and made extracts from.
Epiphanius omits an important bit of the passage in terms of apologetics. The final words of Jesus, as given in Luke, provided a powerful statement to Adamantius and Tertullian that runs through their entire commentary. This is the reference to "my spirit" (τὸ πνεῦμά μου) in the last words of Jesus. And so Tertullian asks, "did the spirit give up itself"? Adamantius said, "It was certainly no spirit" that breathed its last. They both allow the words of Jesus about his spirit to help guide the interpretation of "breathed his last" (ἐξέπνευσε / expiravit). Meanwhile, Epiphanius doesn't immediately slip into talking about the spirit being given up.
So it seems to me that Adamantius and Tertullian are quoting from Luke, while Epiphanius is quoting from the gospel used by Marcionites.