Unde autem et Joannes venit in medium?... Si nihil omnino administra.s.set Joannes ... nemo _discipulos Christi manducantes et bibentes_ ad formam _discipulorum Joannis a.s.sidue jejunantium et orantium_ provoca.s.set.... Nunc humiliter reddens rationem, quod _non possent jejunare filii sponsi quamdiu c.u.m eis esset sponsus, postea vero jejunaturos_ promittens, _c.u.m ablatus ab eis sponsus esset_.
Luke v. 33-35: [33] At illi dixerunt ad eum, Quare discipuli Johannis jejunant frequenter et obsecrationes faciunt, ... tui autem edunt et bibunt? [34] Quibus ipse ait, Numquid potestis filios sponsi dum c.u.m illis est sponsus facere jejunare? [35]
Venient autem dies c.u.m ablatus fuerit ab illis sponsus, tune jejunabunt in illis diebus.
In ver. 33, for obsecrationes a has orationes, and for edunt manducant: a and b also have quamdiu (Vulg. c.u.m) in ver. 35.
Equally erroneous was Marcion"s interpretation of the concluding verses of the chapter which dealt with the distinction between old and new. He indeed was intoxicated with "new wine"--though the real "new wine" had been prophesied as far back as Jer. iv. 4 and Is. xliii. 19--but He to whom belonged the new wine and the new bottles also belonged the old. The difference between the old and new dispensations was of developement and progression, not of diversity or contrariety. Both had one and the same Author.
Errasti in illa etiam domini p.r.o.nuntiatione qua videtur nova et vetera discernere. Inflatus es _utribus veteribus_ et excerebratus es _novo vino_: atque ita _veteri_, i.e. priori evangelio _pannum_ haereticae _novitatis adsuisli ... Venum novum_ is _non committ.i.t in veteres utres_ qui et veteres utres non habuerit, et _novum additamentum nemo inicit veteri vestimento_ nisi cui non defuerit vetus vestimentum.
Luke v. 36-38: [36] Dicebat autem et similitudinem ad illos quia nemo commissuram a vestimento novo inmitt.i.t in vestimentum vetus.... [37] Et nemo mitt.i.t vinum novum in utres veteres....
[38] Sed vinum novum in utres novos mittendum est.
Of the phrases peculiar to Tertullian"s version of Marcion"s text, a has pannum (-no) and adsuisti (-it).
It is observed that Tertullian does not quote verse 39, which is omitted by D, a, b, c, c, ff, l, and perhaps, also by Eusebius.
Two of the Scholia of Epiphanius (Adv. Haer. 322 D sqq.), nos. 1 and 2, have reference to this chapter.
[Greek: Echul. a. Apelthon deixon seauton to hierei kai prosenenke peri tou katharismou sou, kathos prosetaxe Mousaes, hina ae marturion touto humin.]
Luke v. 14. [Greek: Apeltheon deixon seauton to hierei, kai prosenenke peri tou katharismou sou, kathos prosetaxen Mousaes, eis marturion autois.]
v.l. [Greek: hina eis marturion] (D"1, [Greek: ae] D"2) [Greek: humin touto] D, (a, b), c, ff, l.
The comment of Epiphanius on this is similar to that of Tertullian. To bid the leper "do as Moses commanded," was practically to sanction the law of Moses. Epiphanius expressly accuses Marcion of falsifying the phrase "for a testimony unto them." He says that he changed "them" to "you," without however, even in this perverted form, preventing the text from recoiling upon his own head [Greek: diestrepsas de to rhaeton, o Markion, anti tou eipein "eis marturion autois" marturion legon "humin."
kai touto saphos epseuso kata taes sautou kephalaes].
[Greek: Echol. B". Hina de eidaete hoti exousian echei ho uhios tou anthropou aphienai hamartias epi taes gaes.]
Luke v. 24. [Greek: Hina de eidaete hoti exousian echei ho uhios tou anthropou epi taes gaes aphienai hamartias.]
In this order, [Hebrew aleph], A, C, D, rel., a, c, e, Syrr. Pst.
and Hcl., (Memph.), Goth., Arm., Aeth.; [Greek: ex. ech.] after [Greek: ho, hu. t. a.], B, L, [Greek: Xi symbol], K, Vulg., b, f, g"1, ff, l.
By calling Himself "Son of Man," Epiphanius says, our Lord a.s.serts His proper manhood and repels Docetism, and, by claiming "power upon earth," He declares that earth not to belong to an alien creation.
Reverting to Tertullian, we observe, (1) that the narrative of the draught of fishes, with the fear of Peter, and the promise _in this form_, "Thou shalt catch men," ([Greek: Mae phobou apo tou nun anthropous esae zogron]; the other Synoptists have, [Greek: Deute opiso mou, kai poiaeso humas halieis anthropon]), are found only in St. Luke; (2) that the second section of the chapter, the healing of the leper, is placed by the other Synoptists in a different order, by Mark immediately after our Lord"s retirement into solitude (= Luke iv. 42-44), and by Matthew after the Sermon on the Mount; the phrase [Greek: eis marturion autois] is common to all three Gospels, but in the text of St. Luke alone is there the variant Ut sit vobis &c.; (3) that, while the remaining sections follow in the same order in all the Synoptics, still there is much to identify the text from which Tertullian is quoting with that of Luke. Thus, in the account of the case of Levi, the third Evangelist alone has the word [Greek: telonaen]
(=publicanum) and [Greek: hugiainontes] (=sani; the other Gospels [Greek: ischontes] =valentes); in the question as to the practice of the disciples of John, he alone has the allusion to prayers ([Greek: deaeseis poiountai]) and the combination "eat and drink"
(the other Gospels, [Greek: ou naesteyousin]): he too has the simple [Greek: epiblaema], for [Greek: epiblaema rhakous agnaphou]. It seems quite incredible that these acc.u.mulated coincidences should be merely the result of accident.
But this is only the beginning. The same kind of coincidences run uniformly all through the Gospel. From the next chapter, Luke vi, Marcion had, in due order, the plucking of the ears of corn on the sabbath day ("rubbing them with their hands," Luke and Marcion alone), the precedent of David and his companions and the shewbread, the watching _of the Pharisees_ (so Luke only) to see if He would heal on the sabbath day, the healing of the withered hand--with an exact resemblance to the text of Luke and divergence from the other Gospels (licetne animam liberare an perdere? [Greek: psuchaen apolesai] Luke, [Greek: apokteinai]
Mark), in the order and words of Luke alone, the retreat into the mountain for prayer, the selection of the twelve Apostles, and then, in a strictly Lucan form and introduced precisely at the same point, the Sermon on the Mount, the blessing on "the poor"
(not the "poor in spirit"), on those "who hunger" (not on those "who hunger and thirst after righteousness"), on those "who weep, for they shall laugh" (not on those "who mourn, for they shall be comforted"), with an exact translation of St. Luke and difference from St. Matthew, the clause relating to those who are persecuted and reviled: then follow the "woes;" to the rich, "for ye have received your consolation;" to "those who are full, for they shall hunger;" to "those who laugh now, for they shall mourn:" and so on almost verse by verse.
It is surely needless to go further. There are indeed very rarely what seem to be reminiscences of the other Gospels (e.g.
"esurierunt discipuli" in the parallel to Luke vi. 1), but the total amount of resemblance to St. Luke and divergence from St.
Matthew and St. Mark is overwhelming. Of course the remainder of the evidence can easily be produced if necessary, but I do not think it will long remain in doubt that our present St. Luke was really the foundation of the Gospel that Marcion used.