The Evangelion (Luke 7–8)

Notes and Apparatus

39. Tertullian IV, 17: “Caecus caecum ducit in foveam” [“a blind man leads a blind man into a pit”] — 40: the same: “Non est discipulus super magistrum” [“a disciple is not above [his] master”] — 41, 42: the same: “eximat et de oculo suo trabem haereticus; tunc in oculo Christiani si quam putat stipulam revincat” [“let the heretic first take the beam out of his own eye; then let him deal with whatever splinter he supposes to be in the Christian’s eye”]. 43, 44: the same: “proinde ut arbor bona non proferat malum fructum . . . nec mala bonum” [“accordingly, that a good tree does not bring forth bad fruit … nor a bad one, good”]. II, 27: “et quia et Marcion defendit arborem bonam malos quoque fructus non licere producere” [“and because Marcion too maintains that it is not permitted even for a good tree to produce bad fruits”]. Hippolytus (see Filastrius, Haer. 45: “Non est arbor bona quae facit malum fructum, neque arbor mala quae facit bonum fructum” [“there is no good tree that produces bad fruit, nor a bad tree that produces good fruit”]. Pseudo-Tertullian 17: “Omnis arbor bona bonos fructus facit, mala autem malos” [“every good tree produces good fruits, but a bad one, bad ones”]). Origen, De principiis II, 5, 4: “Iterum ad scripturae nos revocant (Marcionitae) verba, proferentes illam suam famosissimam quaestionem; aiunt namque: Scriptum est quia ‘non potest arbor bona malos fructus facere neque arbor mala bonos fructus facere; ex fructu enim arbor cognoscitur’” [“Again they (the Marcionites) call us back to the words of scripture, bringing forward that most notorious question of theirs; for they say: it is written that ‘a good tree cannot produce bad fruits, nor a bad tree good fruits; for a tree is known by its fruit’”]. Compare Comm. Ser. 117 on Matthew, vol. V p. 23; Comm. III, 6 on Romans, vol. VI p. 195: “Non, ut haeretici deum legis accusant, mala radix est lex et mala arbor, per quam peccati venit agnitio, quia non dixit, ex lege agnitio peccati, sed per legem” [“It is not, as the heretics accuse the God of the Law, that the Law is a bad root and a bad tree, through which the knowledge of sin comes — for [Paul] did not say ‘from the Law, the knowledge of sin,’ but ‘through the Law’”] (after Matthew 7:18 and 12:33). Adamantius, Dial.I, 28: Οὐ δύναται δένδρον σαπρὸν καρποὺς καλοὺς ἐνεγκεῖν, οὐδὲ δένδρον καλὸν καρποὺς κακοὺς ἐνέγκαι [“a bad tree cannot bring forth good fruits, nor a good tree bring forth bad fruits”] (repeated immediately afterward, but with προενεγκεῖν and σαπροὺς προενέγκαι, “bring forth”); the otherwise unattested transposition [of the clauses] is understandable for M., because for him (see Origen) the bad tree is the Law, or rather the creator of the world; the otherwise unattested προφέρειν [“to bring forth”] (προσφέρειν, weakly attested in the Matthaean text) is confirmed by Tertullian. It may be taken as certain that M., or his source, here too let itself be influenced by the [p. 177*] —Matthaean text [in this transposition] — οὐδέ [“nor,” in v. 43b] (so in Hippolytus) with A C D and most of the Itala codices, Vulgate > οὐδὲ πάλιν [“nor again”].

45. Tertullian IV, 17: “nec Marcion aliquid boni de thesauro Cerdonis malo protulit” [“nor did Marcion bring forth anything good from the evil treasure of Cerdo”]. Adamantius, Dial. I, 28 does not belong here, since the saying there is cited after Matthew (only προφέρει [“brings forth”] derives from Luke).

46. Tertullian IV, 17: “‘Quid ‹me› vocatis’ (manuscripts: vocas) ‘“Domine, domine”,’ et non facitis quae dico’” [“‘why do you call ‹me›’ (mss: ‘call’) ‘“Lord, Lord,” and do not do what I say’”]. That Tertullian read “me” is shown by the exposition that follows; that “vocatis” [2nd person plural] is to be read follows from “facitis” [2nd person plural].

Chapter VII, [verse] 9. Tertullian IV, 18: “Proinde ‹in› extollenda fide centurionis incredibile, si is professus est talem se fidem nec in Israele invenisse, ad quem non pertinebat fides Israelis” [“Accordingly, in exalting the centurion’s faith [it would be] incredible if he had professed to have found such faith not even in Israel — [Christ] to whom the faith of Israel did not pertain”]. Epiphanius, Scholion 7, as above (but τοιαύτην in the Refutatio, which is however immaterial, since it is required by the context; it therefore coincides, by mere accident, with “talem” in Tertullian, which he really did read in M.; for he repeats it three more times; it is otherwise unattested). Tertullian, however, also read οὐδέποτε, as in D; for in one repetition he writes: “talem fidem nec in Israele umquam fuisse” [“that such faith had never existed even in Israel”]. The transposition of οὐδ. ἐν τ. Ἰσραήλ [“not … in Israel”] (Tertullian and Epiphanius) is also found in D e, which place it even after εὗρον [“I found”], where Tertullian too may have found it. The text in Epiphanius is thus already brought back closer to the canonical [text]. — In the repetition, Epiphanius does not reproduce a δέ after λέγω [“I say”], and it may have arisen only through a slip at its first introduction.

11ff. Tertullian, the same passage: “Resuscitavit et mortuum filium viduae” [“he also raised up the dead son of a widow”] — 16: “Magnus prophetes prodiit in nobis et respexit deus populum suum” [“a great prophet has arisen among us, and God has looked upon his people”] — prodiit [“has arisen”], otherwise unattested > ἠγέρθη [“has been raised”]; M. wished to forestall a misunderstanding, and at the same time, as elsewhere, to avoid the passive voice being used of Jesus. That ὅτι after καί is missing in Tertullian is immaterial. On 16a there is found in him also a slight allusion: “in tanto documento mortui resuscitati creatorem adhuc orantes” [“in so great a proof of the dead man’s having been raised, still praying to the Creator”] (= ἐδόξαζον τὸν θεόν, “they glorified God”).

18–28. Tertullian IV, 18 (v. 19): “‘Tu es qui venis, an alium exspectamus?’” [“‘Are you he who is to come, or shall we look for another?’”]. In Adamantius, Dial. I, 26, v. 19 is cited after Matthew. Tertullian IV, 18 gives, as a remark of M.’s: “‘Scandalizatur Iohannes auditis virtutibus Christi ut alterius’” [“‘John is scandalized, on hearing of the mighty works of Christ, as [being the works] of another [God]’”]; however, Tertullian has probably formulated this sentence freely, resting as it does on Matthew 11:3. 22: Esnik (Schmid, p. 176): “Heal their lepers, revive their dead, restore sight to their blind, and perform great healings among them for nothing.”

[p. 178*] (continuing note 18–28 from p. 177*): —Epiphanius, Scholion 8 on Luke 7:23: Παρηλλαγμένον τό· “Μακάριος ὃς οὐ μὴ σκανδαλισθῇ ἐν ἐμοί” [“this is altered: ‘Blessed is he who is not offended in me’”]. εἶχε γὰρ ὡς πρὸς Ἰωάννην [“for he had it as [addressed] to John”] (Holl rightly [observes]: “Epiphanius means only that M. interpreted the word perversely [as against Zahn]; in the Refutatio he no longer understood his own remark”) — μακάριος [“blessed”] without ἐστιν [“is”] is otherwise unattested — οὐ [“not”] is otherwise unattested > ἐάν [“if”]. — 24, 26: Tertullian IV, 18: “si et testimonium Iohanni perhibet . . . quid existis videre in solitudinem?” [“if he also bears testimony to John . . . what did you go out to see in the wilderness?”] (the word order is unusual) “propheten eum confirmans, immo et supra ut angelum” [“confirming him [to be] a prophet, indeed even more, as an angel”], 27: “ingerens etiam scriptum super illo: Ecce ego mitto angelum meum ante faciem tuam, qui praeparet (= ‘praeparabit’) viam tuam” [“bringing forward, moreover, the scripture concerning him: ‘Behold, I send my messenger before your face, who shall prepare (i.e. ‘will prepare’) your way’”]. (Whether M. read ἔμπροσθέν σου [“before you”] is doubtful, since Tertullian does not offer it, and it is also missing in D a l.) Epiphanius, Scholion 9, from αὐτός [“this”] down to σου [“your,” the first occurrence]. Dial. II, 18 [gives] the whole of v. 27 (but οὗτος [“this one”] for αὐτός; the latter is otherwise unattested) — “ego” [“I”] is missing in Epiphanius and Adamantius (with ℵ D, Itala, Vulgate). — 28: Tertullian IV, 18: “praecursor . . . maior is quidem omnibus natis mulierum, sed non ideo subiectus ei, qui minor fuerit in regno dei quasi alterius sit dei regnum, in quo modicus quis maior erit Iohanne, alterius Iohannes, qui omnibus natis mulierum maior sit . . . . Creatori competit et Iohannem ipsius esse, maiorem natis mulierum, et Christum vel quemque modicum, qui maior Iohanne futurus sit in regno, aeque creatoris, et qui sit maior tanto propheta” [“the forerunner . . . is indeed greater than all those born of women, but he is not therefore subject to him who shall be lesser in the kingdom of God, as if the kingdom of God belonged to another — [a kingdom] in which one who is little shall be greater than John, [as if there were] another[‘s] John, who is greater than all those born of women . . . . It belongs to the Creator that John too is his, greater than those born of women, and [that] the Christ — or whoever the little one is who is destined to be greater than John in the kingdom — [belongs] likewise to the Creator, and [is] the one who is greater than so great a prophet”]. Accordingly, M. offered not merely “omnibus” [“all”], but also μείζων πάντων τῶν γεννητῶν γυναικῶν προφήτης Ἰωάννης ἐστίν [“among those born of women, John is a greater prophet than all”]. Thus it becomes clear that he [John] is not greater than one who is not born of a woman; for he is set in comparison only with those who are born. This text is otherwise unattested.

36–50: In Epiphanius (Scholia 10 and 11), v. 36b, 38, 44b (partly abridged?); in Tertullian, v. 50b; otherwise the following report: “Diximus de remissa [p. 179*] (continuing note 36–50 from p. 178*): —peccatorum. illius autem peccatricis feminae argumentum eo pertinebit, ut cum pedes domini osculis figeret, lacrimis inundaret, crinibus detergeret, unguento perduceret, solidi corporis veritatem . . . tractaverit. Peccatricis paenitentia meruit veniam . . . Ab eo audit: ‘Fides tua te salvam fecit.’” [“...of sinners; but the argument from that sinful woman will bear on this point — that when she fixed her kisses on the Lord’s feet, drenched them with her tears, wiped them with her hair, and anointed them with ointment, she was dealing with . . . the reality of a solid body. The sinful woman’s repentance earned her pardon . . . from him she hears: ‘Your faith has saved you.’”]

Cap. VIII, 2, 3. Tertullian IV, 19: “Quod divites Christo mulieres adhaerebant, quae et de facultatibus suis ministrabant ei, inter quas et uxor regis procuratoris” [“That women of wealth clung to Christ, who also ministered to him from their possessions, among whom was also the wife of the king’s steward”] — καί [“and”] with D and numerous Itala manuscripts > missing — αὐτῷ [“to him”] with ℵ A L a b l g > αὐτοῖς [“to them”] — αὐτῶν [“their”] with ℵ* D > αὐταῖς [“for them,” fem.] — from “regis” [“king’s”] it probably follows that Tertullian read Ἡρώδου [“of Herod”]; no weight is to be placed here on his word order.

4–15. Tertullian, same passage, 4: “de parabolis” [“concerning parables”] — 8: “qui habet aures audiat” [“he who has ears, let him hear”]: that is the wording of Matthew, wholly unattested in Luke; Luke [reads]: ὁ ἔχων ὦτα ἀκούειν ἀκουέτω [“he who has ears to hear, let him hear”].

16. Tertullian, same passage: “Lucernam negat abscondi solere . . . 17 omnia de occulto in apertum repromittit” [“he denies that a lamp is usually hidden . . . he promises that everything will come from hiddenness into the open”] — 18: “videte quomodo audiatis” [“see how you hear”] — οὖν [“therefore”] is missing, with a b c ff² l q syr-cur (the textual change that Zahn assumes here does not hold) — “ei qui habet dabitur; ab eo autem, qui non habet, etiam quod habere se putat auferetur ei” [“to him who has, it will be given; but from him who does not have, even what he thinks he has will be taken from him”]. One need not assume that Tertullian read otherwise than as given above; only his “autem” [“however”] is otherwise unattested.

19–21. Tertullian, same passage: “Venimus ad constantissimum argumentum omnium qui domini nativitatem in controversiam deferunt. ‘Ipse’, inquiunt, ‘contestatur se non esse natum dicendo: Quae mihi mater et qui mihi fratres’, nisi qui audiunt verba mea et faciunt ea” [“We come now to the most steadfast argument of all who bring the Lord’s nativity into controversy. ‘He himself,’ they say, ‘testifies that he was not born, by saying: Who is my mother and who are my brothers — except those who hear my words and do them’”]. Since Tertullian passes over v. 19, and Epiphanius, Scholion 12, remarks: Οὐκ εἶχεν “ἡ μήτηρ αὐτοῦ καὶ οἱ ἀδελφοὶ αὐτοῦ”, ἀλλὰ μόνον “ἡ μήτηρ σου καὶ οἱ ἀδελφοί σου” [“he (M.) did not have ‘his mother and his brothers,’ but only ‘your mother and your brothers’”], v. 19 was therefore missing, but v. 20 was found. The reshaping of v. 20f. follows with certainty from Tertullian’s repetitions here and in De carne 7. The strong influence of Matthew is just as evident as the substitution of the words of Christ for the words of God (Luke had written: μήτηρ μου καὶ ἀδελφοί μου [p. 180*] (continuing note 19–21 from p. 179*): —οὗτοί εἰσιν οἱ τὸν λόγον τοῦ θεοῦ ἀκούοντες καὶ ποιοῦντες [“these are they who hear the word of God and do it”] — he [Luke] thus does not know the abrupt question). Jerome too, on Matthew 12:49f, remarks: “Iuxta Marcionem (Iesus) matrem negavit, ut natus de phantasmate putaretur” [“According to Marcion, he denied his mother, so that he might be thought to have been born of a phantom”].

22–25. Tertullian IV, 20: “Quis autem iste est, qui ventis et mari imperat?” [“But who is this, who commands the winds and the sea?”] ... “agnorant substantiae auctorem suum, quae famulis quoque eius obaudire consueverant” [“the substances [i.e. the elements] recognized their own author, [they] which were also accustomed to obey his servants”] (25); “praedicatio marinae expeditionis” [“the recounting of the sea-voyage”] ... “transfretat” (22) [“he crosses over”] ... “undae freti” (23) [“waves of the strait”] ... “ad minas eius eliditur mare” [“at his threats the sea is beaten down”] ... “cum ventis, quibus inquietabatur” (24) [“together with the winds, by which it was disturbed”]. Epiphanius, Scholion 13: Πλεόντων αὐτῶν ἀφύπνωσεν. ὁ δὲ ἐγερθεὶς ἐπετίμησε τῷ ἀνέμῳ καὶ τῇ θαλάσσῃ (23. 24) [“as they sailed, he fell asleep. But having arisen, he rebuked the wind and the sea”] — 24: ἐγερθείς [“having arisen”] with A D etc., Matthew > διεγερθείς [“having awakened”] — θαλάσσῃ [“the sea”] with Matthew and Mark > τ. κλύδωνι τ. ὕδατος [“the surge of the water”] — 25: Tertullian [has] “autem” [“but/however”], though that is of no consequence (likewise the word order immediately following) — θαλάσσῃ [“the sea”] with Matthew and Mark (unattested for Luke).

26–39. Tertullian IV, 20: “Invenis in uno homine multitudinem daemonum legionem se professam . . . cuius autem dei filium Iesum legio testata est? sine dubio cuius tormenta et abyssum noverant et timebant . . . non depeterent ab alio, veniam scil. abyssi creatoris. denique impetraverunt . . . ipse quem adcognoverunt daemones, Iesum, iudicis et ultoris dei filium” [“You find, in a single man, a multitude of demons professing themselves a legion . . . but of what God did the legion testify Jesus to be the son? Without doubt, of him whose torments and whose abyss they knew and feared . . . they would not have sought pardon — namely, [pardon] from the abyss — from another, the Creator[‘s abyss]. So finally they obtained it . . . [and] the very one whom the demons recognized, Jesus, [they recognized as] the son of the God of judgment and vengeance”]. Adamantius, Dial. I, 17: Πῶς πυνθάνεται ὁ Χριστὸς παρὰ τοῦ ἀρχιδαίμονος λέγων· τί σοί ἐστιν ὄνομα; ὁ δέ, φησίν, εἶπε· λεγεών [“How does Christ inquire of the chief demon, saying, ‘What is your name?’ And he, it says, said, ‘Legion’”] — 28: τοῦ ὑψίστου [“of the Most High”] was probably missing, because otherwise Tertullian could not have asked the question above as he did — 30: ἐστιν ὄνομα [“is [your] name”] with many witnesses > ὄνομά ἐστιν [reversed order] ℵ B D and the Itala. — Did Marcion strike out the story of the swine? Probably, since it must have been offensive to him, and since Tertullian simply says: “denique impetraverunt” [“so finally they obtained it”].

42–46. Epiphanius, Scholion 14 (from 42b–46, ἀπ’ ἐμοῦ [“from me”]), but certainly in an abridged form. Tertullian IV, 20: “Tangitur a femina, quae sanguine fluitabat, et nescivit a qua; ‘quis me’, inquit, ‘tetigit’. etiam excusantibus discipulis perseverat in ignorantiae voce: ‘tetigit me aliquis’, idque de argumento ad- [p. 181*] —firmat: ‘sensi enim virtutem ex me profectam’” [“he is touched by a woman who was flowing with blood, and did not know by whom; ‘who,’ he says, ‘touched me?’ Even when the disciples try to excuse [the question], he persists in the words of one who does not know: ‘someone touched me’ — and he affirms this from the further argument: ‘for I perceived power going out from me’”] ... “fides tua te salvam fecit” [“your faith has saved you”]: brought in afterward: “tangitur vestimentum eius” [“his garment is touched”] — 44: τοῦ ἱματίου [“the garment”] with D a ff² l > τοῦ κρασπέδου τοῦ ἱματίου [“the fringe/hem of the garment”] — 45: τίς μου ἥψατο [“who touched me”] with D a c q, Origen (with Mark: τίς μου ἥψατο τῶν ἱματίων, “who touched my garments?”) > τίς ὁ ἁψάμενός μου [“who is the one who touched me”] — οἱ μαθηταί [“the disciples”] with Mark (unattested in Luke) > ὁ Πέτρος καὶ οἱ σὺν αὐτῷ [“Peter and those with him”] (Tertullian’s “excusare” [“to excuse”] likewise agrees more with Mark 5:31) — 46: καὶ γὰρ ἔγνων [“for indeed I perceived”] (elsewhere ἐγὼ γὰρ ἔγνων, “for I perceived”) is found only in Epiphanius; the ἐγώ [“I”] unanimously attested for Luke is missing in Tertullian and Epiphanius — ἐξελθοῦσαν [“having gone out”] with many witnesses and Mark > ἐξεληλυθυῖαν with ℵ B L; the word order in Tertullian here, and at v. 48, is of no significance.