(David Salter Williams) REconsidering Marcion's Gospel - 1989 - J Bibl Lit 3267115

Reconsidering Marcion's Gospel
Author(s): David Salter Williams

Source: Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 108, No. 3 (Autumn, 1989), pp. 477-496
Published by: The Society of Biblical Literature
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3267115 .
Accessed: 20/06/2014 02:49
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
The Society of Biblical Literature is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Journal of Biblical Literature.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 62.122.78.62 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 02:49:27 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
JBL 108/3 (1989)477-496
RECONSIDERING MARCION'S GOSPEL

DAVID SALTERWILLIAMS
University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602
I
Few personalities associated with early Christianity are so intriguing
and important as Marcion. Expelled from the Roman Christian community
sometime near 140 CE, Marcion gained adherents and founded a rival
church. To Christian writers at the close of the second and the beginning of
the third century CE, this group represented the arch-heresy.1
The movement eventually disappeared, however, and its records were
lost. Among these lost records is the bipartite canon which Marcion pub-
lished, consisting of ten letters ascribed to Paul and a solitary Gospel. This
Gospel will be the focal point of the present essay.2
Several fathers claim that Marcion did not pen his Gospel himself.
Rather,it is supposed to have been identical to the Gospel of Luke, save one
crucial qualification. We are told that Marcion altered or excised from Luke
everything that offended him in order to bring it into line with his own theo-
logical views. Tertullian is representative; in Adversus Marcionem 4.6.2 he
states that Marcion "expunged [from Luke] all the things that oppose his
view.., .but retained those things that accord with his opinion."
Marcion'sdoctrines can be sketched only in a general fashion. To begin
with, it is commonly thought that Marcion distinguished between the God
of the Jews, or the Creator, and the Father of Jesus of Nazareth, the true
supreme deity. The Jewish deity seemed to Marcion to be characterized by
justice, anger, and a lack of mercy. In contrast, the deity proclaimed by Jesus
was a God of love and compassion. This God had been unknown to humanity
before being revealed by Jesus. Consequently, the Hebrew Bible represents
true revelation only for the Creator.Marcion is also thought to have promoted
a docetic Christology, denying Jesus' corporeality.
On Marcion and Marcionism, see A. von Harnack, Marcion:Das Evangelium vom fremden
Gott (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1921); R. S. Wilson, Marcion: A Study of a Second Century Heretic
(London: Clarke, 1933); J. Knox, Marcion and the New Testament (Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 1942); E. C. Blackman, Marcion and His Influence (London: SPCK, 1948); and
R. J. Hoffmann, Marcion: On the Restitution of Christianity (Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1984).
2 This article is a revision of a paper presented on 21 March 1986 at the Southeastern Regional
meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature in Chattanooga, Tennessee, and is based on D. S.

Williams, "Marcion'sGospel: Reconsidered" (M.A. thesis, University of Georgia, 1982).
477

478 Journal of Biblical Literature
With few exceptions, modern scholars have concurred with the judg-
ment of the fathers in regard to Marcion'sGospel. A review of the scholarly
literature finds such scholars as B. F. Westcott and F J. A. Hort, E J. Foakes
Jackson, B. H. Streeter, B. M. Metzger, F. F Bruce, and D. L. Dungan pro-
moting the following claims: Marcion used the Gospel of Luke exclusively?
By means of alteration and excision Marcion made Luke conform to his own
theological ideas. Marcion removed everything offensive to his system from
Luke. Offensive passages include anything that would associate Jesus with his
Jewish background. These considerations mean that Marcion'sGospel repre-
sents simply a systematic abbreviation of the canonical Gospel of Luke. In
A. von Harnack's words, "Marcion'sEv[angelium] ist mithin ausschliesslich
ein verfailschtes Lukasev[angelium]."'4
In the following pages I intend to call this position into question. The
pervasiveness of the views espoused disguises the fact that, in reality, very
little of the actual character of the text of Marcion'sGospel can be known
with any surety. What little is known seems in many instances to run counter
to the traditional claims made concerning the document. In my view, the
standardjudgment that Marcion'sGospel was simply a bowdlerized version
of Luke needs to be reassessed.
II
As I have already pointed out, no manuscript of Marcion's Gospel is
extant. Our entire knowledge of its text is dependent on references and
quotations found in certain fathers. The principal sources are book 4 of
Tertullian'sAdv. Marc.(ca. 200 CE)and book 42 of Epiphanius's Panarion (ca.
375 CE).Both writers assert that they are quoting from Marcion'sGospel, and
there is no reason to doubt their claims? There are serious difficulties
involved, however, in trying to recover genuine readings from their testimony.
The most fundamental problems are the following:
(1) Tertullian writes in Latin, Epiphanius in Greek. This creates a prob-
lem when comparing Tertullian'swording for a given passage with the Greek
of Epiphanius and Luke. Although some of Tertullian's Latin reasonably
allows for only certain Greek correspondents, this is not always the case.
(2) Tertullian and Epiphanius are not consistent in the type and extent
of the attestation they provide. Tertullian's main concern is to convict
3 For a survey of the literature, see Williams, "Marcion'sGospel," 11-13.

4 Harnack, Marcion, 235.
5 Although the following discussion will present some modifications, in general I assume that
when Tertullian and Epiphanius quote Marcion'sGospel these quotations are reflective of their
copies of it. B. Metzger states: "Other things being equal, it is more likely that a Father will
quote accurately in a polemical treatise than in a popular exposition or homily" (New Testament
Studies: Philological, Versionaland Patristic [Leiden: Brill, 1980] 167-68).

Williams: Reconsidering Marcion's Gospel 479
Marcion of heresy out of Marcion'sown Gospel. Thus, he only rarely men-

tions specifically what he considers to be missing from it. He takes up
passages sequentially and, in the main, the order matches that of Luke. In
some cases Tertullian passes over, in his appraisal, some material that stands
in the canonical Luke. It is difficult to tell whether such silence indicates that
Tertullian simply had nothing to say concerning the passage, or whether it
implies that the passage was actually missing from Marcion's Gospel.
The structure of Epiphanius's analysis differs radically from that of Ter-
tullian. Rather than taking up the whole of Marcion'sdocument, Epiphanius
limits his comments to about seventy specific passages. These materials he
calls "Scholia"In his remarks on each Scholion (hereafter Schol.) Epiphanius
displays more concern with what he considers to be missing from Marcion's
text than does Tertullian. Epiphanius can be quite specific in regard to what
he claims that Marcion "cut out" (&~nox67n-TEv) from Luke. When he quotes
Marcion'sGospel, however, he sometimes uses xai & &' or x i t6 XotLt6v,
meaning "andthe rest;' without signifying what the exact wording was.6
(3) There are a surprising number of variant quotations in Adv. Marc.
That is, on occasion Tertullianrepeats all or part of a quotation he has already
given from Marcion's Gospel, but with different wording7 The works of
Tertullianand Epiphanius are, of course, themselves ancient documents and,
as such, have been susceptible to the vicissitudes of textual transmission. It
is possible that some of the variant quotations in Adv. Marc. may be due to
accidental or deliberate changes made in the course of transmission. Thus,
not only is it impossible to establish the genuine reading from Marcion's
Gospel in the case of a variant quotation, but this situation casts doubt on
the wording of all the quotations in Adv. Marc. It is possible that some quota-
tions which stand alone have also incurred changes.
(4) Tertullianvaries between giving direct quotations, indirect quotations,
and mere allusions. Direct quotations are usually identified by the use of a
verb of speech, generally inquit, "he says:'Indirect quotations allow only part
of a saying to be recast in the supposed wording of Marcion'sGospel. In regard
to allusions, the references are so vague that the wording of Marcion's text
6 We cannot be sure what the

missing words are, since Epiphanius's copy of Luke does not
appear to correspond consistently to any one textual form.
7 A few examples of this phenomenon may be instructive. In Adv. Marc. 4.33.4 Tertullian
quotes Marcion's Gospel twice for material corresponding to Luke 16:11,a verse peculiar to
Luke. The first quotation reads: "Ifyou have not been faithful in the unrighteous mammon, who
will entrust to you that which is true [verum]?"The second quotation reads: "Who will entrust
to you that which is more true [verius]?"No witnesses of Luke read "more true:' In Adv. Marc.
4.19, Tertullian three times quotes a saying from Marcion'sGospel not found in Luke at all, but
which corresponds to Matt 12:48 and Mark 3:33. In Adv. Marc. 4.19.6 and 4.19.11 Tertullian
records the saying as: "Who is my mother and [et] who are my brethren?"This essentially agrees
with the majority texts of both Matthew and Mark. In Adv. Marc. 4.19.10 the passage is given
as: "Who is my mother or [aut] brethren?"The use of the word "or"agrees with D W E and
the OL for Matthew, and the Koine text, A 074, the OL and others for Mark.

cannot be restored at all. In Adv. Marc.4.32.1, for example, Tertullianremarks:

"Who is it that seeks for a lost sheep and a lost coin?"By saying this, Tertullian
suggests that Marcion'sGospel contained something of these two pericopes,
but he does not provide any further information as to specific wording.
(5) Several times Tertullian charges Marcion with omitting material
which does not appear in Luke at all. Although Tertullian identifies
Marcion's text base as Luke, he periodically charges Marcion with the ex-
cision of material that does not actually appear in Luke but is found in Mat-
thew or Mark. Three times, for instance, Tertullian accuses Marcion of
removing from his Gospel a statement similar to Matt 5:17- "Thinknot that
I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have come not to abolish
them but to fulfill them:' Tertullian states, for example: "[Jesus] makes it
clear ... that he is come not to destroy the law and the prophets, but to fulfill
them [but] Marcion has blotted this out as an interpolation.... What good
did it do you [Marcion]to excise from the Gospel a sentence which remains
there still?" (Adv. Marc. 4.7.4; 4.9.15; cf. 4.12.14).
This phenomenon, whereby Tertullian accuses Marcion of deleting
material from Luke which is not actually in Luke, is widespread. At times
Tertullian even suggests Marcion's rationale for his presumed omissions. In
Adv. Marc.4.7.5, for instance, Tertullian states: "Toyour task Marcion, remove
even these from the Gospel, 'I am not sent but to the lost sheep of the house
of Israel; and 'It is not right to take away the children's bread and give it to
the dogs':for these give the impression that Christ belongs to Israel.' The first
of these sayings corresponds to Matt 15:24 and the second to Matt 15:26 and
Mark 7:27. Neither is found in Luke.
(6) Marcion's text seems to have undergone widespread changes after
the time of Marcion himself. There are scattered hints of this in the fathers.
Irenaeus accuses not only Marcion but his followers as well of mutilating
Luke? In Adv. Marc. 4.5.7 Tertullian charges that Marcion's disciples are
"everyday reshaping this [Gospel] of theirs.' Sometimes Tertullian refers to
a passage as being present in Marcion'sGospel, while Epiphanius explicitly
states that the same passage is missing.'o Conversely, Tertullian accuses
8 Epiphanius occasionally does the same thing. This happens far more in Adv. Marc., how-
ever, and is thus more serious in regard to Tertullian.For an attempt to provide a partial explana-
tion for this aspect of Tertullian'scritique of Marcion'sGospel, see my article "On Tertullian's
Text of Luke,"The Second Century (forthcoming).
9 Irenaeus remarks:"Marcionand his followers have committed themselves to mutilating the
scriptures, not acknowledging some books at all; and, curtailing the Gospel according to Luke
and the epistles of Paul, they assert that these are alone authentic, which they themselves have
shortened" (Adv. haer. 3.12.12).
10 For example, Epiphanius states (Schol. 31):"[Marcion]does not have this [in his Gospel]-
God clothes the grass" (cf. Luke 12:28 and Matt 6:30). Tertullian, on the other hand, referring
to Marcion's text, asks: "Who is this that would have us not be concerned about our life...
whose lilies and whose grass neither weave nor spin and yet are clothed by him?"(Adv. Marc.
4.29.1; emphasis added).

Marcion of omitting material which Epiphanius quotes as being in Marcion's

Gospel." One must wonder how profound were the changes introduced into
Marcion'swork through the course of its transmission.
III
The problems that I have outlined must qualify our reliance on
Tertullian and Epiphanius and render an exclusive dependence on either
hazardous. The safest and surest procedure in approaching Marcion'sGospel
is to limit study to what I shall call "explicit correlated readings."By "cor-
related readings" I mean passages that both Tertullian and Epiphanius cite.
Limiting attention to explicit readings, that is, readings witnessed by a direct
quote, makes it possible to compare the wording given by each witness with
that of the other. It should be noted that it is not necessary that Tertullian
and Epiphanius actually read together, but only that they are extant for the
same material and provide a direct quotation of it.
I have obtained twenty-three explicit correlated readings for Marcion's
Gospel.12 These readings are provided in the Appendix. My general findings
are as follows: First, our knowledge of the text of Marcion'sGospel is extreme-
ly limited. Of the total corpus of twenty-three readings, only readings 1-5
allow us to be reasonably sure of the wording of Marcion'sGospel, although
at times the witnesses conflict about word order. In a few additional readings,
the witnesses offer only minor variations. In the majority of cases, however,
despite the fact that the witnesses agree about particular parts of a passage,
they display major discrepancies in other parts of the reading.
Second, Marcion'sGospel appears to have been based on a text that was
similar to Luke, with three qualifying factors: it often reads with minority
texts of Luke, especially "Western"witnesses;'3 it occasionally reads with
Matthew and/or Markagainst all Lucan manuscripts;14 and it displays several
1 For instance, Tertullian refers to the scene of the crucifixion as it appeared in his copy of
Marcion'sGospel, stating: "Evidently the statement that his [Jesus']raiment was divided among
the soldiers . . has been excised by Marcion, because he had in mind the prophecy of the
psalm, 'They parted my garments among them'" (Adv.Marc.4.24.4; cf. Luke 23:34). Epiphanius,
however, quotes Marcion's Gospel as containing the phrase "and they parted his garments"
(Schol. 71).
12 Williams, "Marcion's
Gospel," 23-60.
13 Some "Western"readings occur in one witness only, while others occur in both witnesses.
For instance, in reading 19 Tertullian attests munus = 8&pov,"gift,"with b c in Luke against 7tCpi
ro5 xaOalCptL.oL ou, "for your cleansing,"in Schol. 1 and the majority text of Luke. Conversely,
Epiphanius in reading 7 has &yit(rT6S,"beloved,"'with D W lat and sy(c)P for Luke against
Tertullian'sdelictus, which corresponds to in the majority text of Luke.
"chosen,'
In reading 14 both witnesses lack 8tLarpa x•FXEyT.voq,
"depraved,'with a and e against the Lucan
majority reading. [•..v1,
14 Again, some readings occur in only one witness, while others occur in both. In reading
18 Tertullian has primum, "first,"with Matthew's against Epiphanius and the majority
tnpcrov

unique elements, not all of which can be considered tendentious.5

Third, there are difficulties involved with the idea that Marcion edited
theologically. Several readings apparently contain statements contrary to
Marcion'sassumed positions. The majority view is that Marcion eliminated
all offensive passages from his Gospel, including statements connecting
Judaism and Jesus. Yet in the explicit correlated readings are found a quota-
tion from the Hebrew Bible (reading 15), references to Moses and the
prophets (reading 8), an identification of Jesus as the "son of David" (reading
3), and a statement by Jesus that he fervently desires to celebrate Passover
(reading 6). In at least one case, though some material damaging to Marcion's
assumed theology is not present in his Gospel when compared to Luke, other
equally damaging material is present. In reading 17, a statement attributed
to Jesus after the resurrection, the phrase "feel me and see" is not present
in Marcion'stext. Supposedly it has been cut out in deference to Marcion's
docetism. Yet the assertion that "aspirit does not have bones such as you see
me having" does appear in Marcion'stext. Tertullian is left with the rather
embarrassing conclusion: "Marcion- on purpose I think - has refrainedfrom
crossing out of his Gospel certain matters opposed to him, hoping that in
light of these which he might have crossed out and has not, he may be
thought not to have crossed out those which he has crossed out" (Adv.Marc.
4.43.7)!
IV
The foregoing has established that the text base of Marcion's Gospel,
while apparently standing closer to Luke than to any other extant Gospel,
differed in some respects from the modern, eclectically restored form of
Luke, and in some instances from all Lucan witnesses. This has some impor-
tant repercussions.
For example, scholars have often failed to take note of the high incidence
of Matthean and/or Marcan readings in Marcion's Gospel. These readings
suggest that some seemingly theological omissions may be due to Matthean
and/or Marcan influence on Marcion's Lucan text. E. C. Blackman, for
instance, claims that Marcion struck out xauvil, "new,"before
•J•laxrl,
text of Luke, whereas in reading 21 Epiphanius gives ~atLv, "(there is) one who is,' with
Matthew against sed quis, "but who is,' in Tertullian and E•o688(,"no one is,"in Luke. In reading
14 both witnesses attest wS 7r67e,"how long," immediately before &vo[Locat, "shall I endure,"
with Matthew and Mark against Luke.
15 In reading 10, for example, both witnesses lack y&p, the majority text of Luke.
"for,'against
In reading 16, however, both witnesses attest E6)apta-cc, "I thank you," against Luke and
Matthew. In reading 8 Tertullian alone has illic, "there,"against Epiphanius and Luke. In reading
12 Epiphanius gives a different word for "before,"' evw'ntov,from Luke and Matthew,which have
e[tnpoa~v. Tertullian'scoram is ambiguous, since it is used in the Vg to correspond to both
Greek words.

"covenant,"from Luke 22:20. This was, according to Blackman, because "the

'old'covenant was made by the God of the [Hebrew Bible], whereas Marcion's
God had made no previous covenant with [humanity].'l6Not only is the sug-
gestion that xatv'l was missing from Marcion'sGospel based solely on an allu-
sion made by Tertullian, but in corresponding passages in both Matthew and
Mark xoctviis not present before &8tilxr (see Matt 26:28 and Mark 14:24).
Although the possibility that Marcion did occasionally edit on a theo-
logical basis cannot be ruled out, the evidence presented here indicates that
the knowledge of when this may have occurred is restricted. I have men-
tioned several examples of material witnessed for Marcion's Gospel which
one would suppose that Marcion would have cut out from his text. These are
often ignored because scholars focus on Marcion'ssupposed omissions. Yet
such material tends to suggest that we are either less familiar with Marcion's
theology and/or editorial goals than has been previously thought, or he may
have transmitted his text with greater fidelity than has been supposed, that
is, to the extent of leaving intact material that may have offended him in
some way.
In any case, claims made concerning Marcion'seditorial technique are
based on the assumption that what appears in Luke and is missing from
Marcion's Gospel was omitted by Marcion. Since the makeup of Marcion's
Vorlagecannot be determined with certitude, this methodology is inappro-
priate. For the majority of cases, it is not justifiable to assume that Marcion
ever saw what he is accused of omitting.
16 Blackman, Marcion, 46.
APPENDIX: EXPLICIT CORRELATED READINGS
A. Readingsfor which Tertullianand Epiphanius Agree

1. Adv. Marc. 4.20.8/Schol. 14/Luke 8:45/Mark 5:30
Adv. Marc. 4.20.8 Schol. 14 Luke 8:45 Mark 5:30
quis Cc tq
me [Iou *6 & 'EV6o [IOU
tetigit? zco; [ou;1 ,i'(? o0CtcoV
tktloCtov;
IVlouD
il7•TO
D it

2. Adv. Marc. 4.36.4/Schol. 50/Luke 18:18/Matt 19:16/Mark10:17

Adv. Marc. 4.36.4 Schol. 50 Luke 18:18
praeceptor AsUaaxo*e 86 Gaxox•

optime,
&-lyo
t UotLaomC &l'Oc
Et otLiaocS
quid faciens
vitam cojv
ro(v
aeternam acLCvtov aci)VLov
possidebo? xhxlpovo0tnaco; xhxlpovo?niacw;
Matt 19:16 Mark 10:17
#860axaxl 8L08axxXe
t
&r•xO6v &daO•
nottLlao -C notrlawo
L'vxac'va
aCx
octvtLov; XaLCvtov
xxqpovoItoiaco;
3. Adv. Marc. 4.36.9/Schol. 51/Luke 18:38/

Matt 9:27; 20:30/Mark 10:47
Iesu 'Irao5 'I7ao5
fili u..
David, Ao~u, Aoau8,
miserere eXrlaov 6
e'la6v
mei lie lie
Matt 9:27 Matt 20:30 Mark 10:47
iAelapo iAlaov UtL

7i AEouW0
7qtLxC pt=,
xdpte 'Irlao5
utoq utoq elao6v
A AOCuL'a tie
ou.

B. Readingsfor which Tertullianand Epiphanius

Disagree as to Word Order
4. Adv. Marc. 4.30.4/Schol. 40/Luke 13:28/Matt 8:12 et al.
Adv. Marc. 4.30.4 Schol. 40 Luke 13:28 Matt 8:12
illic erit ..ix ..a..e.x.eamxea
fletus x0owu01i S 06 xXou0bt6c
6 6 xxeOuotib
et xat xat xat
dentium 6
0pu0b 0
6 puoqb0 6 puyob
frendor -vy 686vrcv Ztv 686vcWV v Cv 686vc0ov
5. Adv. Marc. 4.36.10/Schol. 51/Luke 18:42/Mark 10:52

Adv. Marc. 4.36.10 Schol. 51 Luke 18:42 Mark 10:52
fides 7l 7t•catq 7l 7ntactL 7l 7ntactL

tua aou aou aou
te aeacwx?v aeacwx?v aeacx?vv
salvum fecit aE ae Q
C. Readingsfor which Tertullianand Epiphanius

Disagree beyond Word Order
6. Adv. Marc. 4.40.1/Schol. 32/Luke 22:15
concupiscentia 'Ert0u(iO entoutil

concupii bre8G
lac•er pigtGtrlGao
To~TO *ToU~O1
pascha Tbn axTaX Tbtraxx
edere CpayTv qCpoyetv
vobiscum, 160' V10' iyJciv
i?6yV
antequam 7rp tCo 7tpo to
patiar e ~V
7to0ev I 7toe0v
1Omit
71 sys.c.bopt


hic o0t6r o006
est laTlv daotv
filius 60u6q 6u06
meus [ou [ou
delictus, 6 6 * I
hunc d&aoCartl6S •x•y~tIVO,
ad"o6
audite 'xo ET"e
Matt 17:5 Mark 9:7

oIT6p
oI-6p
EaTLv EaTtv
6 u6LO 6 uL6q
tou tou
[IXOUt [XOUET
a0OUE a0MOUE
C Koine A D W
lat sy(c)p
8. Adv. Marc. 4.34.10, 17/Schol. 46/Luke 16:29

Adv. Marc. Adv. Marc.
4.34.10 4.34.17 Schol. 46 Luke 16:29
habent habent eXouat0 Xouat
illic illic
Moysen Moysen Moi•aia M ij•aia
et et xai
xao
T
prophetas, prophetas, aq CoS
illos illos rpolor•C
"TO'S 7cpo(cpC"aq
.xotaa.caav axovoacwaav
audiant audiant aoccr&v
oa.crov

9. Adv. Marc. 4.33.7/Schol. 43/Luke 16:16/Matt 11:12, 13

lex 6 v6goS 'O v6[oS
et xt xx't
prophetae 7CpoL
o0 oL 7po(ptr
otr *
usque ad ewq "1XP1t
Johannem; 'Iw&vvou. . "
'Iw&vvou
ex quo Od7CT6OTE
regnum q PatolX
dei 0 oE
oT
annuntiatur 52yy7XL5T~a
xOit7C&q xOtc7C&q
et3 OC etq
j3LOCalClv
pto"(?E-oct
- pt"(4-coc
Koine A D W 0 al
Matt 11:12, 13: 12'At6b 8~ Z&v .lipw5v 'Iw&vvouTo6 7

[3orTtLt-azoewo (pzt
3aLtXe'L T
CCVO0'p(VCOV3LST' LXOCL
XjLGaTa
a p &op7 cwOULvt xtOv. 13%7Cv's
yV p o0
pogrzat x&a6 v6toS t cCpot.zeu
'Io&vvou t av.
10. Adv. Marc. 4.15.1/Schol.6/Luke 6:23/Matt 5:12

Secundum xalz xaz&
haec zT occ&zoc' z& a
*T&p'
faciebant E7toLouv ErtoLouv
prophetis tpo-Tqat Tot-Sn7po(gjLtS
"TO7S
patres ot 7;atpsE OL7CtCps~
eorum U6lov ocrcov
Omit
265 489 544 565
1079 2613 pc it
Matt 5:12: OUzhcw

y&pbC1wcv zoosqrpoylz-caqzo3q tp" 6 y v.

H1.Adv. Marc. 4.20.8/Schol. 14/Luke 8:46/Mark 5:30

tetigit Jlgorc6 ?
me aliquis i'c6
tU"q.
oGo [LOt 1tq
sensi oyc
Kri
enim yTp y&p
eyvwv eyvwv
virtutem 861JVtV
ex me 86JVttV
* orlueoutav
o3aOv
profectam ?,0W56'
oC
&7W' [to4
C Koine A D W E X D pl
Mark 5:30: xodt0euO 6 'Irlqao 'TttLVO6V~ V EUTCOTV 86vojLtv
4 V T 6 * 4
"lv ot'O•Co6
t
OoiX006axV 4)S
tLaTpaC ' CjO )X - [IOU "T?o tCv p
VE2TEV t' wv;
12. Adv. Marc. 4.28.4/Schol. 30/Luke 12:8/Matt 10:32

confitebor 6 oXoylEasL 6o0l0oyx EaeL oloyai0 a
in illo Ev atoctc7 v oc~3c

coram ELOV
v5vfov .poaO5v gLtpoA0v
* tv
dryylXCv1
deo zo~sog6500 TOO 0500 T.Ot zpT
Lou-Cou
ovP•vot
oCpavolS
1Omit R*

13. Adv. Marc. 4.29.3/Schol. 32/Luke 12:30/Matt 6.32

scit JCv oTLv
autem 6tIv
y&p
pater 6 6 Ttailp 6
07CtCIp
tT0rCip
otev oTLv UJCv
6 otpavtoo
opus esse OTt OTt OIt
haec XP ?ESE XpCeT XP EE
vobis
To6Ttov To6Utov To6tov
-tCv axpxtxt&v a7Cavrwv
14. Adv. Marc. 4.23.1, 2/Schol. 19/

Luke 9:41/Matt 17:17/Mark9:19
Adv. Marc. 4.23.1 Adv. Marc. 4.23.2 Schol. 19
O genitura o natio Ji Tyv&
incredula incredula a7&ta-oS
quousque quamdiu
ero ero
apud vos? vobiscum,
Quousque quamdiu WS7t6te
sustinebo vos &viogLtX
vos sustinebo? 6t&v;
Luke 9:41 Matt 17:17 Mark 9:19
otEVEo oyeveow ot yeveao
*xaO xoca
eaoct 0'tov U" 7Cptq 4t•q

?Let
rpb6it••s EaaOOl.l; Eaoo.Lyt;
5VE'O?.Loct 5V, o .LoL
VtO5.LP
1Omit a e


ecce L0UL
o60u
ego
mitto 7nozexxo &7cnoazTo
angelum Tv &T'yyT6v Tzv
meum 'yye•6v
Iou Iou
ante faciem 7tp6 tpoadWtCou tpb7tpoo("rnou
tuam, aou
tou,
qui Oq
praeparet xocxtcaxe•u&•t
viam tuam tIv 686v aou
&E1tpoaOiv
YOU2
L*Addey
KoineA e) pl
2 *Omit
D pc it
Matt 11:10 Mark 1:2
tbv Tyy•X6v tbv &TyyT6v

tou gou
'tpb 7tpoacrnou xtph7tpoa•xrou
XtXOU L XOU.
'ov 686v aou Tv 686v

c aou
EtxTpoaOiv
aoui

16. Adv. Marc. 4.25.1/Schol. 22/Luke 10:21/Matt 11:25

gratias XLa~xptco
enim aot,
ago
et
confiteor, ~ooLoyo6aCT
aot, ~.o•oLoyoT0lt
aot,
7C&-EP,I T7CCP,
domine x6ptL XUptLE xptE
caeli To~ oUp'vo6 To~ odpavo6 To0 oUp'vo6
xat
-C24q y~q' xai -C~q Y~q
1Omit p45
17. Adv. Marc. 4.43.6/Schol. 78 Luke 24:38, 39

Adv. Marc. 4.43.6 Schol. 78 Luke 24:38, 39
quid turbati ct ptctlyvot t T

E
estis? pcTptcyvot
't; "o'
et xat
quid 8t&tE
cogitationes
subeunt 8taLoyaTta•lo
&vap3voutLv
in corda tv p xap8&x
vestra?
Videte ET 6bUyv;
manus a "~T•E
&c Xe~ETp T& Xetp
meas [ou . [ou
et pedes, xaxtTobS =t68ca xat
Cor t68ca
quia [Iou *tIoul
,t
ipse ego yc e~LLtt
sum, taucoq"
tze-e,
xaci
quoniam OTt OtL
spiritus 7CVE[Ito 7cVEUit
aopxox
ossa xat Oao
6oa•a
non habet oIx ExeL oUX XEL
sicut cw xaoc
xa•

me ell ell
habentem e
Oewpe~Tz 8wptct
videtis exovCr exovtx
1Omit
p75 L W E
1.33 al lat
18. Adv. Marc. 3.24.8; 4.29.5/Schol. 33/Luke 12:31/Matt6:33

Adv. Marc. 3.24.8 Adv. Marc. 4.29.5 Schol. 33
quaerite quaerite 7rlNTEt

primum enim
regnum regnum t avP3atLrXv
dei, dei, To0 0OE0
et et xai
haec haec o6t2
adicientur vobis TCPOEO

eT0-L
vobis adicientur
Ut"-v
Luke 12:31 Matt 6:33
7TCX7V
*1
086
5~Tov
*a•oU,2 To0 0oE0

xaot xat v
txa~toodvrlv
*3 pcvt~z
UL LLV
U"
1Add 7tpc7Tov
13 28 69 124 346 543 788 826 983 1241 1352 2757
2 TOU OOU
p45 Koine A W E 070 D pl lat sy

3 Add n7covcot
R corr Koine A D E 070 X D al lat syP sypt bo

19. Adv. Marc. 4.9.9, 10/Schol. 1/Luke 5:14/Matt 8:4/Mark 1:44

Adv. Marc. 4.9.9, 10 Schol. 1
vade,
ostende &•,OEiov
8 ov
te aeCUTov
sacerdoti tcC EpET
et xai
offer 7 poodve~xe
munus, 7TCE~
TOt)
xoa•ptsa~[o
aou
quod xaxcOc
praecepit 7pooa&e'a
Moyses Mow~aiS
ut t'v
sit vobis i
•LpUrptLov
in Cou'Co
testimonium
Ult
Luke 5:14 Matt 8:4 Mark 1:44
85 OVaseOUTOV GaeUT6V
asECUTOV 8e ov 8OV
TcqLtps4 -
Tq)L[EET TCx)pe
xOct xot xxt•
7Cpoaoveyxe tpoaEVE~xov EpoaEVE~xE
TOU TOU
xarapto op xo9ropteo
aOU2 aOU
Ltptaptov
pop Cptov apoC6ptov
a aLoTt; a olqt
ot-•L
1
2
ao•0el 6e xocL D a
Tco wpoV X b c
3 .L rv utv cou-co D it
etl t. U.tLV1;tva G tv

20. Adv. Marc. 4.43.4/Schol. 77/Luke24:25

o insensati w 'v6 ot wov6Toto
et xax xax
tardi ppaoc58 ppac6t
corde t xap8•x
in non credendo 76LTsUAtEv
zoT zTO)7LaTEA•lV
omnibus t&actv(•"- 7CitTa~LV
quae otS otq
locutus est EX0"A(Xcqav
ad vos e1O,14•a o 7po(gztC
6ttv

sed quis 5 ouattv
GtvL
optimus q
&TyObc ObC
nisi E tw
unus, et
deus 60 60 6 O86o
6 7•p
Matt 19:17 Mark 10:18
6 aTL60V5
it
*1 6
0o6e
1Add o O0eo
lat syc bopt;
Clpt;
o 7TCTr7rlp
o 7CC-rlYpLou
Jo vCotC oumpvotq
Ju Clpt Clhom

22. Adv. Marc. 4.28.3/Schol. 29/Luke 12:4, 5/Matt 10:28

Adv. Marc. 4.28.3 Schol. 29 Luke 12:4, 5 Matt 10:28
dico autem Xw0o Ud XTyo 6
vobis to-S 6ti-v KoS
amicis: q(PotS qlots
[ou" Jou,
nolite terreri M71 (o30 Te[Ar 0~oNO xE XGipOI PEa0~
ab eis, qui vos A7Co TCv &7CotTCv TCOv
solummodo &O7OXTELVOVTC)V7OXTELVOVTAC)V &7OXTEVVOVTCiV
&TCo
occidere possunt Cba4C " tOb
c•ctLa
t
Oacoia,
nec post hoc xa t&
lECa ta lTv bU 4 xlv
ullum in vobis tNl)x6vov
Ptl 6uvavov
habent
tptp6aa0tEp6v
Tt &7OXT~Evoc
potestatem 7CotL?a=.
demonstrabo autem 67toBEs 8U
vobis 6tv
quem timeatis: tivo poprlqo
timete s 0oplE 0cpoeioe 6
pop•OOlEoz
eum, qui bv Tv It<XXov
postquam EZt&tC te& tC tv
occiderit t
&atooxTEatVL 7WOXvatVUL v&uV EVOV
potestatem EXov-Cr Exovxca xat uXilv
habet IClv gouo•tav Oaavu xoa oa.lo
mittendi rtoXtL
in gehennam p3•,~tv
se~ •vvav e~ tXE•TV
ty•svvav
v v ysdvvq

23. Adv. Marc. 4.43.5/Schol. 76/Luke 24:6, 7

Adv. Marc. 4.43.5 Schol. 76 Luke 24:6, 7
rememoramini, -v ilo[z
•tV•iaO *i
quae 1ea
locutus sit EXXqasv Eo v
vobis GEXr,
6Uv
eTL (?)V TL (?)V
in Galilaea [)LO' t
v Fo-C
tj•oV'" ,axtt
dicens, e•yov
quod oportet ot 8E TOivuLov
tradi TvutAv toa &vOpWTtou
filium o~o &vOpWt7iou ot 8~
hominis 7toXX&7maeOSv, VOL
7tapC8OOC
xaOL So
Ee XeLP
nopo•O8omL &dvOpcrnocv
et xxt
crucifigi aToCupcWOvct
et xat
tertia die -t 'pha (Ips
resurgere avazervat
'oax D c sy


(David Salter Williams) REconsidering Marcion's Gospel - 1989 - J Bibl Lit 3267115

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

(David Salter Williams) REconsidering Marcion's Gospel - 1989 - J Bibl Lit 3267115

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

(David Salter Williams) REconsidering Marcion's Gospel - 1989 - J Bibl Lit 3267115

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Reconsidering Marcion's Gospel

Author(s): David Salter Williams

This content downloaded from 62.122.78.62 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 02:49:27 AM

RECONSIDERING MARCION'S GOSPEL

meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature in Chattanooga, Tennessee, and is based on D. S.

This content downloaded from 62.122.78.62 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 02:49:27 AM

3 For a survey of the literature, see Williams, "Marcion'sGospel," 11-13.

This content downloaded from 62.122.78.62 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 02:49:27 AM

Marcion of heresy out of Marcion'sown Gospel. Thus, he only rarely men-

6 We cannot be sure what the

This content downloaded from 62.122.78.62 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 02:49:27 AM

cannot be restored at all. In Adv. Marc.4.32.1, for example, Tertullianremarks:

This content downloaded from 62.122.78.62 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 02:49:27 AM

Marcion of omitting material which Epiphanius quotes as being in Marcion's

This content downloaded from 62.122.78.62 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 02:49:27 AM

unique elements, not all of which can be considered tendentious.5

This content downloaded from 62.122.78.62 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 02:49:27 AM

"covenant,"from Luke 22:20. This was, according to Blackman, because "the

16 Blackman, Marcion, 46.

APPENDIX: EXPLICIT CORRELATED READINGS

A. Readingsfor which Tertullianand Epiphanius Agree

This content downloaded from 62.122.78.62 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 02:49:27 AM

2. Adv. Marc. 4.36.4/Schol. 50/Luke 18:18/Matt 19:16/Mark10:17

praeceptor AsUaaxo*e 86 Gaxox•

Matt 19:16 Mark 10:17

3. Adv. Marc. 4.36.9/Schol. 51/Luke 18:38/

Matt 9:27 Matt 20:30 Mark 10:47

iAelapo iAlaov UtL

This content downloaded from 62.122.78.62 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 02:49:27 AM

B. Readingsfor which Tertullianand Epiphanius

5. Adv. Marc. 4.36.10/Schol. 51/Luke 18:42/Mark 10:52

fides 7l 7t•catq 7l 7ntactL 7l 7ntactL

C. Readingsfor which Tertullianand Epiphanius

concupiscentia 'Ert0u(iO entoutil

This content downloaded from 62.122.78.62 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 02:49:27 AM

7. Adv. Marc. 4.22.10/Schol. 18/Luke 9:35/Matt 17:5/Mark9:7

Matt 17:5 Mark 9:7

8. Adv. Marc. 4.34.10, 17/Schol. 46/Luke 16:29

This content downloaded from 62.122.78.62 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 02:49:27 AM

9. Adv. Marc. 4.33.7/Schol. 43/Luke 16:16/Matt 11:12, 13

Matt 11:12, 13: 12'At6b 8~ Z&v .lipw5v 'Iw&vvouTo6 7

10. Adv. Marc. 4.15.1/Schol.6/Luke 6:23/Matt 5:12

Matt 5:12: OUzhcw

This content downloaded from 62.122.78.62 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 02:49:27 AM

H1.Adv. Marc. 4.20.8/Schol. 14/Luke 8:46/Mark 5:30

12. Adv. Marc. 4.28.4/Schol. 30/Luke 12:8/Matt 10:32

confitebor 6 oXoylEasL 6o0l0oyx EaeL oloyai0 a

in illo Ev atoctc7 v oc~3c

This content downloaded from 62.122.78.62 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 02:49:27 AM

13. Adv. Marc. 4.29.3/Schol. 32/Luke 12:30/Matt 6.32

14. Adv. Marc. 4.23.1, 2/Schol. 19/

eaoct 0'tov U" 7Cptq 4t•q

This content downloaded from 62.122.78.62 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 02:49:27 AM

15. Adv. Marc. 4.18.7/Schol. 9/Luke 7:27/Matt 11:10/Mark1:2

Matt 11:10 Mark 1:2

tbv Tyy•X6v tbv &TyyT6v

'ov 686v aou Tv 686v

This content downloaded from 62.122.78.62 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 02:49:27 AM