The Evangelion (Luke 19–21)

Notes and Apparatus

[p. 209*] Cap. XIX, 1–10. Tertullian IV, 37: “Consequitur et Zacchei domus salutem” (v. 9) [“there follows also the salvation of Zacchaeus’s household”] ... “Zaccheus, etsi allophylus, fortasse tamen aliqua notitia scripturarum ex commercio Iudaico adflatus; plus est autem, ‹si› et ignorans Esaiam praecepta eius impleverat” (v. 8) [“Zacchaeus, although a foreigner, had perhaps nonetheless been touched by some knowledge of the scriptures through contact with Jews; but it is more remarkable still if, even without knowing Isaiah, he fulfilled his precepts”] ... “hoc cum maxime agebat, exceptum domo sua pascens dominum” (v. 6) [“this he was doing most of all, welcoming the Lord into his house and entertaining him”] ... “in omnia misericordiae opera dimidium substantiae offerens, dissolvens violentiorum contractuum obnexus et dimittens conflictatos in laxamentum et omnem conscriptionem iniquam dissipans dicendo: ‘et si cui quid per calumniam eripui, quadruplum reddo’” (v. 8) [“offering half his substance to every work of mercy, releasing those bound by harsher contracts, granting relief to the oppressed, and dissolving every unjust bond by saying: ‘and if I have taken anything from anyone by false accusation, I restore it fourfold’”]. itaque dominus: “‘hodie’, inquit, ‘salus huic domui’” (v. 9) [“and so the Lord: ‘today,’ he says, ‘salvation to this house’”] ... “venit enim filius hominis salvum facere quod periit” (v. 10) [“‘for the Son of Man came to save what was lost’”] — 8: elsewhere ἀποδ. τετραπλοῦν [reversed order] — 9: “itaque dominus” is Tertullian’s own free citation (> εἶπεν δὲ πρὸς αὐτὸν ὁ Ἰησοῦς, “and Jesus said to him”) — the excision of 9b follows from the fact that Tertullian, on the basis of M.’s text, regards Zacchaeus as a Gentile — 10: ζητῆσαι καί [“and to seek”] before σῶσαι [“to save”] is missing; was this intentional?

11–27. Tertullian IV, 37: “Servorum quoque parabola, qui secundum rationem feneratae pecuniae dominicae diiudicantur, iudicem ostendit deum, non tantum onerantem verum et auferentem, quod quis videatur habuisse” (26) [“The parable, too, of the servants, who are judged according to the account of their master’s invested money, shows God as a judge, one who not only loads [with gifts] but also takes away what someone might seem to have”] ... “austerum, tollentem quod non posuerit et metentem quod non severit” (21, 22) [“‘a hard man, taking up what he did not lay down and reaping what he did not sow’”] — 26: ὃ δοκεῖ ἔχειν [“what he seems to have”] with some witnesses, also Syriac cu (following Luke 8:18) > ὃ ἔχει [“what he has”]. Tertullian also alludes to this parable at IV, 39, p. 556.

[p. 210*] 29–46. Epiphanius, Scholion 53: Παρέκοψε τὸ κεφάλαιον τὸ περὶ τῆς ὄνου καὶ Βηθφαγὴ καὶ τὸ περὶ τῆς πόλεως καὶ τοῦ ἱεροῦ, ὅτι γεγραμμένον ἦν “ὁ οἶκός μου οἶκος προσευχῆς κληθήσεται, καὶ ποιεῖτε αὐτὸν σπήλαιον λῃστῶν” [“he cut out the chapter concerning the donkey and Bethphage, and that concerning the city and the temple, because it was written: ‘my house shall be called a house of prayer, and you make it a den of thieves’”].

Cap. XX, 1, 4. Tertullian IV, 38: “Sciebat Christus, baptisma Iohannis unde esset, et cur quasi nesciens interrogabat? sciebat non responsuros sibi Pharisaeos ... puta illos renuntiasse humanum Iohannis baptisma: statim lapidibus elisi fuissent” (v. 6) [“Christ knew where John’s baptism came from; why then did he ask as if not knowing? He knew that the Pharisees would not answer him ... suppose they had declared John’s baptism to be merely human: they would immediately have been stoned to death”] ... “sed de caelis fuit baptisma Iohannis, et ‘quare’, inquit Christus, ‘non credidistis ei?’” (v. 5) [“but John’s baptism was from heaven, and ‘why then,’ said Christ, ‘did you not believe him?’”] ... “et ego non dico vobis, in qua virtute haec facio” (v. 8) [“‘and I will not tell you either, by what power I do these things’”] — 1: Φαρισαῖοι [“the Pharisees”] alone > οἱ ἱερεῖς καὶ οἱ γραμματεῖς σὺν τοῖς πρεσβυτέροις [“the priests and the scribes with the elders”] — 5: ἐξ οὐρανῶν [“from heavens,” plural] alone > ἐξ οὐρανοῦ [singular].

9–18. Epiphanius, Scholion 55: Πάλιν ἀπέκοψε τὰ περὶ τοῦ ἀμπελῶνος τοῦ ἐκδεδομένου γεωργοῖς καὶ τό· “τί οὖν ἐστι τό· λίθον ὃν ἀπεδοκίμασαν οἱ οἰκοδομοῦντες” [“again he cut out the material about the vineyard let out to farmers, and the saying: ‘what then is this: the stone which the builders rejected’”].

19. Epiphanius, Scholion 54, as above; the omissions “οἱ γραμματεῖς καὶ οἱ ἀρχιερεῖς” [“the scribes and the chief priests”] and “τὸν λαόν· ἔγνωσαν γὰρ ὅτι πρὸς αὐτοὺς εἶπεν τὴν παραβολὴν ταύτην” [“the people; for they knew that he had spoken this parable against them”] are explained by the fact that he inserts “Φαρισαῖοι” [“Pharisees”] at v. 1 (the repetition was unnecessary) and had struck out the parable.

20–26. Tertullian IV, 38: “Reddite quae Caesaris Caesari et quae sunt dei deo” (25) [“‘render the things that are Caesar’s to Caesar, and the things that are God’s to God’”].

27–40. Tertullian IV, 38: “Sadducaei de resurrectione habentes interrogationem proposuerant domino ex lege materiam mulieris, quae septem fratribus ex ordine defunctis secundum praeceptum legale nupsisset, cuius viri deputanda esset in resurrectione” [“The Sadducees, holding a question about the resurrection, had put to the Lord, from the Law, the case of a woman who, according to the legal precept, had married seven brothers in succession as each died — whose wife she was to be reckoned in the resurrection”] ... “respondit igitur ‘huius quidem aevi filios nubere (34), quos vero dignatus sit deus illius aevi possessione et [p. 211*] resurrectione a mortuis neque nubere neque nubi’ (35), quia nec morituri iam sint, cum similes angelorum sint dei, resurrectionis filii facti” (36) [“he answered, therefore: ‘the children of this age indeed marry (34), but those whom God has deemed worthy of the possession of that age and of the resurrection from the dead neither marry nor are given in marriage’ (35), since they are no longer going to die, being like the angels of God, having become children of the resurrection (36)”] ... “ex abundanti nunc et post praescriptionem retractabo adversus argumentationes cohaerentes. nacti enim scripturae textum: ‘quos autem dignatus est deus illius aevi’ ita in legendo decurrunt, ‹ut ‘illis aevi’› ‘deo’ adiungant, quo alium deum faciant illius aevi, cum sic legi oportet: ‘quos autem dignatus est deus’, ut facta hic distinctione post ‘deum’ ad sequentia pertineat ‘illius aevi’, i.e. quos dignatus sit deus illius aevi possessione et resurrectione” (35) [“now, over and above, and after my formal objection, I will take up again the argument against their connected reasonings. For having got hold of the scripture text ‘but those whom God of that age has deemed worthy,’ they run on in reading in such a way as to attach ‘of that age’ to ‘God,’ thereby making him a different god of that age, whereas it ought to be read thus: ‘but those whom God has deemed worthy,’ so that, a pause being made here after ‘God,’ ‘of that age’ belongs to what follows — that is, whom God has deemed worthy of the possession and resurrection of that age”]; “non enim de deo, sed de statu illius aevi consulebatur, cuius uxor futura esset post resurrectionem in illo aevo” (33) [“for the question put was not about God, but about the condition of that age — whose wife she would be after the resurrection, in that age”]. “sic et de ipsis nuptiis responsum subvertunt, ut ‘filii huius aevi nubunt et nubuntur’” (34) [“thus too they distort the answer concerning marriage itself, reading it as ‘the children of this age marry and are given in marriage’”] ... “magister”, inquiunt, “bene dixisti” (39) [“‘teacher,’ they say, ‘you have spoken well’”].

Epiphanius, Scholion 56, 57 (mistakenly written twice) on v. 37f: Ἀπέκοψε τό· “ὅτι δὲ ἐγείρονται οἱ νεκροὶ Μωσῆς ἐμήνυσε ἐπὶ τῆς βάτου, καθὼς λέγει κύριον τὸν θεὸν Ἀβραὰμ καὶ Ἰσαὰκ καὶ Ἰακώβ. θεὸς δέ ἐστι ζώντων καὶ οὐχὶ νεκρῶν” [“he cut out: ‘but that the dead are raised, Moses showed at the bush, when he calls the Lord the God of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob. And he is God, not of the dead, but of the living’”] — 34: ἀποκριθεὶς [“answering,” following Matthew] with many witnesses — 35: οὓς δὲ κατηξ. ὁ θεός [“but those whom God has deemed worthy”] alone and tendentious > οἱ δὲ καταξιωθέντες [“but those deemed worthy,” passive participle] — 36: οὐδέ [“nor,” probably] with A B D > οὔτε [“nor,” different word] — μέλλουσιν [“are about to”] with D e ff² i l q, Cyprian > δύνανται [“are able”] — the translator of M.’s Gospel had, through homoeoteleuton, omitted the words “καὶ υἱοί εἰσιν” [“and are sons”]; or rather, it was already missing in D, 157, the Itala (except f g), Cyprian, and so did not reach Marcion at all. V. 35f is also alluded to at IV, 39, p. 556: “nec morientur in illo regno nec nubent; sed erunt sicut angeli” [“‘nor will they die in that kingdom, nor marry; but they will be like angels’”] — 39: γραμματεῖς [“scribes”] results from Tertullian’s following citation.

41–44. Tertullian IV, 38: “Si autem scribae Christum filium David existimabant, ipse autem David dominum eum appellat, quid hoc ad Christum?” [“But if the scribes reckoned Christ to be the son of David, while David himself calls him Lord, what is this to Christ?”] — evidently under the influence of Matthew; for “existimabant” corresponds to δοκεῖ [“it seems”] — this is found only there, and only there do the scribes say that Christ is the son of David; in Luke, Jesus says: πῶς λέγουσιν τὸν Χριστὸν εἶναι Δαυεὶδ υἱόν [“how do they say that the Christ is David’s son?”]

[p. 212*] Cap. XXI, 5–29. Tertullian IV, 39: “Ipsum decursum scripturae evangelicae ab interrogatione discipulorum” (7) usque ad parobolam fici” (29) [“The very course of the Gospel text, from the disciples’ question (7) down to the parable of the fig tree (29)”] — 7: οἱ μαθηταί [“the disciples,” following Matthew] with D 252mg 122 > missing — 8: same passage: “multos venturos in nomine ipsius ... prohibet eos recipi ... venient illi dicentes: ‘ego sum Christus’” [“‘many will come in his name ... he forbids that they be received ... they will come saying: I am the Christ’”] — ὁ Χριστός [“the Christ,” following Matthew] with 157, Itala, Ambrose > missing — did Tertullian render μὴ πορευθῆτε ὀπίσω αὐτῶν [“do not go after them”] through “prohibet eos recipi” [“he forbids that they be received”], or did he read something else? — 9ff: same passage: “videamus et quae signa temporibus imponat: bella, opinor, et regnum super regnum et gentem super gentem et pestem et fames terraeque motus et formidines et prodigia de caelo” (11) [“let us see, too, what signs he assigns to the times: wars, I suppose, and kingdom against kingdom, and nation against nation, and pestilence, and famines, and earthquakes, and terrors and portents from heaven”], “haec cum adicit etiam ‘oportere fieri’” etc. (9) [“when he adds also that ‘these things must take place,’ etc.”] ... “ante haec autem persecutiones eis praedicat et passiones eventuras” (12) in martyrium utique et in salutem” (13) [“‘but before these things,’ he foretells to them, ‘persecutions and sufferings will come’ (12), certainly for a witness and for salvation (13)”] ... “et hic igitur ipse cogitari vetat, quid responderi oporteat apud tribunalia” (cf. shortly after: “cohibuit praecogitationem”) (14) [“and here, too, he himself forbids that thought be given beforehand as to what should be answered before the tribunals” (cf. shortly after: “he restrained forethought”)] ... “suggessit et sapientiam ipsam” (15) [“he even supplied the wisdom itself”] ... “a proximis quoque persecutiones et nominis, ex odio utique blasphemiam” (16, 17) [“persecutions even from one’s own kin, and, on account of his name, blasphemy indeed out of hatred”] — 10: βασιλ. [“kingdom”] before ἔθνος [“nation”] is otherwise unattested — 11: λοιμ. κ. λιμ. [“pestilences and famines”] with B, Itala, Vulgate, Syriac cu > λιμ. κ. λοιμ. [reversed order] — 12: “passiones” [“sufferings”] is not covered by Luke; but Matthew 10:17: μαστιγώσουσιν ὑμᾶς [“they will scourge you”], Mark 13:9: δαρήσεσθε [“you will be beaten”]; yet the assumption of a Marcionite correction is not necessary here — 13: καὶ σωτηρίαν [“and salvation”] is otherwise unattested, and so is an addition of M.’s — 14: “apud tribunalia” [“before the tribunals”] is not covered by Luke; it derives from Matthew 10:17 (Mark 13:9); here too the same applies as was said on v. 12 — 17: “blasphemiam” [“blasphemy”]: the word need not have stood in the text.

18. Epiphanius, Scholion 58: Πάλιν παρέκοψε τό· “θρὶξ ἐκ τῆς κεφαλῆς ὑμῶν οὐ μὴ ἀπόληται” [“again he cut out: ‘not a hair of your head shall perish’”].

19. Tertullian IV, 39: “‘Sed per tolerantiam’, inquit, ‘salvos facietis vosmetipsos’” [“‘but by endurance,’ he says, ‘you will save yourselves’”] — ὑπομονῇ [“endurance”] alone > ὑπομ. ὑμῶν [“your endurance”] — σώσετε ἑαυτούς [“you will save yourselves”] alone (perhaps influenced by Matthew 24:13?) > κτήσεσθε τὰς ψυχὰς ὑμῶν [“you will gain/possess your souls”] — 20f: same passage: “Sed monstrato dehinc tempore excidii, cum coepisset vallari exercitibus Hierusalem, signa iam ultimi finis enarrat: solis et lunae siderumque prodigia et in terris” [“but then, having shown the time of the destruction, when Jerusalem began to be surrounded by armies, he now recounts the signs of the final end: portents of the sun, moon, and stars, and on earth...”] [p. 213*] “angustias nationum obstupescentium velut a sonitu maris fluctuantis pro expectatione imminentium orbi malorum, quod et ipsae vires caelorum concuti habeant” (25, 26) [“...the distress of nations, stunned as if by the sound of the surging sea, in expectation of the evils impending over the world, since even the very powers of the heavens will be shaken”]. — Verses 21–24 were struck out, see Epiphanius, Scholion 59: Πάλιν παρέκοψε ταῦτα· “τότε οἱ ἐν τῇ Ἰουδαίᾳ φευγέτωσαν εἰς τὰ ὄρη” καὶ ἑξῆς, διὰ τὰ ἐπιφερόμενα ἐν τῷ ῥητῷ· “ἕως πληρωθῇ πάντα τὰ γεγραμμένα” [“again he cut out this: ‘then let those in Judea flee to the mountains,’ and what follows, on account of what is added in the saying: ‘until all that is written is fulfilled’”]. Since Tertullian passes immediately from v. 20 to v. 25, the excision of these four verses is certain. — 25, 26 are evidently rendered freely by Tertullian; hence it cannot be proven that M. made a change here; only αὐταὶ γάρ αἱ δυνάμεις [“for the powers themselves”] (26) > αἱ γὰρ δυνάμεις [“for the powers,” without αὐταί] I believed should be adopted in the reconstruction.