The Evangelion (Luke 24)

Notes and Apparatus

44. Tertullian, same passage: “Ecce autem et elementa concutiuntur” [“‘behold, the elements too are shaken’”] ... “habes et horae sextae significationem” [“‘you have also the significance of the sixth hour’”], further an allusion to the darkness “super terram” [“over the earth”] and (45) the eclipse of the sun (compare also Epiphanius, Scholion 71: Καὶ ἐσκοτίσθη ὁ ἥλιος, “and the sun was darkened”), “scissum est et templi velum” [“‘and the veil of the temple also was torn’”] — ἐσκοτίσθη ὁ ἥλιος [“the sun was darkened”] with A D etc., Itala, Vulgate, etc. > τ. ἡλίου ἐκλιπόντος [“the sun having failed”].

46. Tertullian, same passage: “Vociferatur ad patrem, ut et moriens ultima voce prophetas adimpleret. hoc dicto expiravit. quis? spiritum semetipsum an caro spiritum?” [“‘he cries out to the Father, so that, even in dying, he might fulfill the prophets with his final utterance. Having said this, he breathed his last. Who? Was it the spirit that gave up itself, or the flesh that gave up the spirit?’”]. Epiphanius, Scholion 73: “καὶ φωνήσας φωνῇ μεγάλῃ ἐξέπνευσεν” [“‘and crying with a loud voice he breathed his last’”]. This could be an abridgment, but it is also quite possible that later Marcionites omitted Jesus’s saying, because it had become awkward for them (see Tertullian’s polemic) — Dial. V, 12 (preceded certainly by a saying taken from M.’s Gospel, see on Luke 24:25f): “καὶ φωνήσας μεγάλῃ φωνῇ” (Rufinus: “voce magna”) “ὁ Ἰησοῦς εἶπε· Πάτερ, εἰς χεῖράς σου παραθήσομαι” (Rufinus: “commendo”) “τὸ πνεῦμά μου, καὶ ἐξέπνευσε” [“‘and Jesus, crying with a loud voice, said: Father, into your hands I will commit my spirit, and he breathed his last’”]. This text is original; for μεγάλῃ φωνῇ [“with a loud voice”] with D > φ. μ. [reversed order], and καί [“and”] with a, Syriac cu > τοῦτο δὲ εἰπών [“and having said this”]. So later Marcionites will have read it. — On v. 44, 45, see Eznik (Schmid, p. 177): “But the Lord of created things grew angry, and in his wrath tore his garment (!) and the curtain of his temple; he darkened his sun and clothed his world in black, and sat down mourning to lament”.

50–56. Tertullian, same passage: “Nihil de Pilato postulatum, nihil de patibulo detractum, nihil sidone involutum, nihil sepulcro novo conditum ... sed scilicet Ioseph corpus fuisse noverat, quod tota pietate tractavit, ille Ioseph, qui non consenserat in scelere Iudaeis” [“‘nothing was requested of Pilate, nothing taken down from the gibbet, nothing wrapped in linen, nothing laid in a new tomb ... but of course Joseph knew that it was a body, which he handled with complete devotion — that Joseph who had not consented to the crime of the Jews’”] ... (Tertullian IV, 43): “oportuerat etiam sepultorem domini prophetari ac iam tunc merito benedici, si nec mulierum illarum officium praeterit prophetia, quae ante lucem convenerunt ad sepulcrum” (24:1) cum odorum paratura” (23:56) [“‘it was fitting also that the Lord’s burier be prophesied, and even then rightly blessed — since the prophecy did not even pass over the duty of those women, who came before daylight to the tomb, with their prepared spices’”]. Epiphanius, Scholion 74 (on v. 50, 53): “Καὶ ἰδοὺ ἀνὴρ ὀνόματι Ἰωσήφ, καθελὼν τὸ” [“‘and behold, a man named Joseph, having taken down the...’”] [p. 219*] (concluding note 51–53 from p. 218*): —σῶμα ἐνετύλιξε σινδόνι καὶ ἔθηκεν ἐν μνήματι λαξευτῷ” [“body, wrapped it in a linen cloth, and laid it in a tomb hewn out of rock”]. Scholion 75 on v. 56: “Καὶ ὑποστρέψασαι αἱ γυναῖκες ... ἡσύχασαν τὸ σάββατον κατὰ τὸν νόμον” [“‘and the women, returning, ... rested on the sabbath according to the Law’”]. — 53: τὸ σῶμα [“the body”] with D (adding τ. Ἰησοῦ, “of Jesus”) > αὐτό [“it”], the placement of which (before or after ἐνετύλιξε) fluctuates — ἔθηκεν [“he laid”] with 12 minuscules and e > ἔθηκεν αὐτόν (αὐτό) [“he laid him (it)”] — 56: Epiphanius, as Tertullian shows, has abridged; the word order does not come into consideration — κατὰ τὸν νόμον [“according to the Law”] alone > κατὰ τὴν ἐντολήν [“according to the commandment”], probably a deliberate correction, to prevent a misunderstanding; in D these words are missing.

Cap. XXIV. On this chapter, see Epiphanius’s remark (Haer. 42, 9), that M. also “cut out much of the end (of the Gospel)” (compare also ch. 11).

1. Tertullian IV, 43: “Ante lucem convenerunt ad sepulcrum cum odorum paratura” (see above) .. 3: “corpore autem non invento” [“‘the body, however, not being found’”] ... 4: “sed et duo ibidem angeli apparuerunt” [“‘but two angels also appeared there’”].

4f. Epiphanius, Scholion 76: “Εἶπαν οἱ ἐν ἐσθῆτι λαμπρᾷ· τί ζητεῖτε τὸν ζῶντα μετὰ τῶν νεκρῶν; 6 ἠγέρθη, μνήσθητε ὅσα ἐλάλησεν ἔτι ὢν μεθ’ ὑμῶν, 7 ὅτι δεῖ τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου παθεῖν καὶ παραδοθῆναι” [“‘those in bright clothing said: why do you seek the living among the dead? 6: he is risen; remember all that he told you while he was still with you, 7: that the Son of Man must suffer and be delivered up’”].

4. “In recogitatu mulierum illarum volutata inter dolorem praesentis destitutionis, qua percussae sibi videbantur a domino, et spem resurrectionis ipsius, qua restitutuiri se arbitrabantur” [“‘tossed about, in the renewed reflection of those women, between the grief of their present abandonment — by which they seemed to themselves to have been struck down by the Lord — and the hope of his own resurrection, by which they supposed they would be restored’”] (but did Tertullian read something with M. here that does not stand in the canonical Luke? Hardly!).

6f. “Angeli ad mulieres: ‘Rememoramini, quae locutus sit vobis in Galilaea dicens, quod oportet tradi filium hominis et crucifigi et tertia die resurgere’” [“‘the angels to the women: “remember what he told you in Galilee, saying that the Son of Man must be delivered up, and crucified, and rise on the third day”’”] — 4: “angeli” [“angels”] is probably due to Tertullian himself (> ἄνδρες, “men”) — λαμπρᾷ [“bright,” perhaps arbitrary] > ἀστραπτούσῃ [“flashing”] — 6: ὅσα [“all that”] with D c d, Syriac cu > ὡς [“as”] — the ἔτι ὤν [“while still”] missing in Tertullian after ὑμῖν is perhaps accidentally passed over by him — 7: παραδοθῆναι [“to be delivered up”] with a > παραδ. εἰς χεῖρας ἀνθρώπων (ἁμαρτωλῶν) [“to be delivered up into the hands of men (sinners)”].

9–11. Tertullian, same passage: “Revertentes quoque a sepulcro mulieres .... incredulitas discipulorum perseverabat” [“‘the women also, returning from the tomb .... the disciples’ unbelief persisted’”], see also below on v. 25.

[p. 220*] 13–21. Tertullian, same passage: “Nam cum duo ex illis iter agerent et dominus eis adhaesisset, non comparens quod ipse esset, etiam dissimulans de conscientia rei gestae, ‘Nos autem putabamus’, inquiunt, ‘ipsum esse redemptorem Israhelis’” (v. 21) [“‘for when two of them were making the journey, and the Lord had joined them, not making it apparent that it was he himself, but even concealing his knowledge of what had happened: “but we were thinking,” they say, “that he was the redeemer of Israel”’”]; the last two words are repeated shortly after — 21: ἐνομίζομεν [“we were thinking”] alone > ἠλπίζομεν [“we were hoping”] — ὁ λυτρωτής τ. Ἰσρ. [“the redeemer of Israel”] is only probable; perhaps the traditional Lukan reading ὁ μέλλων λυτροῦσθαι τὸν Ἰσραήλ [“he who was to redeem Israel”] stood nonetheless.

25ff. Epiphanius, Scholion 77: Παρέκοψε τὸ εἰρημένον πρὸς Κλέοπαν καὶ τὸν ἄλλον, ὅτε συνήντησεν αὐτοῖς, τό· “ὦ ἀνόητοι καὶ βραδεῖς τοῦ πιστεύειν πᾶσιν, οἷς ἐλάλησαν οἱ προφῆται· οὐχὶ ταῦτα ἔδει παθεῖν” [“he cut out what was said to Cleopas and the other one, when he met them: ‘O foolish ones, and slow to believe all that the prophets have spoken; was it not necessary to suffer these things?’”]; καὶ ἀντὶ τοῦ “ἐφ’ οἷς ἐλάλησαν οἱ προφῆται” ἐποίησεν “ἐφ’ οἷς ἐλάλησα ὑμῖν” [“and instead of ‘all that the prophets have spoken’ he made it ‘all that I spoke to you’”]. ἐλέγχεται δὲ ὅτι· “ὅτε ἔκλασε τὸν ἄρτον, ἠνεῴχθησαν αὐτῶν οἱ ὀφθαλμοὶ καὶ ἐπέγνωσαν αὐτόν” (30f) [“but he is refuted by the fact that: ‘when he broke the bread, their eyes were opened, and they recognized him’ (30f)”]. Tertullian IV, 43: “Plane invectus est in illos: ‘O insensati, et tardi corde in non credendo omnibus, quae locutus est ad vos’, quaenam locutus?” [“‘plainly he inveighed against them: “O senseless ones, and slow of heart in not believing all that he spoke to you” — but what had he spoken?’”] and: “Igitur increpuit illos ut de sola passione scandalizatos et ut dubios de fide resurrectionis adnuntiatae sibi a feminis, per quas non crediderant ipsum fuisse” etc. [“‘he rebuked them, therefore, as having been scandalized only by the Passion, and as doubtful of belief in the resurrection announced to them by the women, through whom they had not believed it to be he himself’”], etc. Epiphanius fails to agree with Tertullian only on a superficial reading; even according to him, M. altered no more than according to Tertullian; his ἐλάλησα [“I spoke”] is probably a later Marcionite reading alongside M.’s own ἐλάλησεν [“he spoke”], and is supported by Dial. V, 12, where the verse (with ἐλάλησα) is found as above and continues with the words: ὅτι ἔδει ταῦτα παθεῖν τὸν Χριστόν [“that the Christ had to suffer these things”] — 26: ὅτι [“that”] with D > οὐχί [“was it not”] — ἔδει ταῦτα [“these things were necessary”] alone > τ. ἔ. [reversed order]. Rufinus probably renders it rather freely as “Nonne ita scriptum est, pati Christum et sic introire in gloriam suam?” [“‘is it not so written, that the Christ should suffer and so enter into his glory?’”] Tertullian attests v. 26 indirectly (since by an oversight he confuses v. 25 with v. 6) — 30f: ἠνεῴχθησαν αὐτῶν [“their eyes were opened”] alone > διηνοίχθησαν [intensified compound, word order irrelevant], ἠνύγησαν [itacistic spelling of the passive] D.

37f. Tertullian IV, 43: “Haesitantibus eis, ne phantasma esset, immo phantasma credentibus: ‘Quid turbati estis? et quid cogitationes subeunt in corda” [“‘while they hesitated, wondering whether it was a ghost — indeed, believing it to be a ghost: “why are you troubled? and why do doubts arise in your hearts...”’”] [p. 221*] (concluding Tertullian citation from p. 220*): “...vestra? videte manus meas et pedes, quia ipse ego sum, quoniam spiritus ossa non habet, sicut me habentem videtis” [“‘...your hearts? see my hands and feet, that it is I myself, since a spirit does not have bones, as you see me having’”]. Compare De carne Christi 5: “Aspicite, dicens quod ego sum, quia spiritus ossa non habet sicut me habentem videtis” [“‘“look,” he says, “that it is I, since a spirit does not have bones as you see me having”’”]. Tertullian is astonished that M. retained this, and sees in it a special cunning, meant to win credibility for his other falsifications; here, he says, M. gave it a false interpretation instead — 37: φάντασμα [“ghost/apparition”] with D and Apelles > πνεῦμα [“spirit”] (ἐδόκουν πνεῦμα θεωρεῖν, “they thought they saw a spirit”); see Dial. V, 12: ... δοκοῦσιν φαντασίαν εἶναι [“they think it is an apparition”].

38. Epiphanius, Scholion 78: “Τί τεταραγμένοι ἐστέ; ἴδετε τὰς χεῖράς μου καὶ τοὺς πόδας μου, ὅτι πνεῦμα ὀστέα οὐκ ἔχει, καθὼς ἐμὲ θεωρεῖτε ἔχοντα” (39) [“‘why are you troubled? see my hands and my feet, that a spirit does not have bones, as you see me having’ (39)”]. Dial. V, 12: “Τί τεταραγμένοι” etc. [“‘why are you troubled?’”], essentially as above — ἵνα τί [“why”] alone > διατί [“why,” different word]; whether M. read καρδία in the singular (with B D, Itala) or the plural is uncertain.

39. The excision of ψηλαφήσατε etc. [“handle me,” etc.] is attested by the three witnesses (με καὶ ἴδετε, “me and see,” is also missing in D, Itala, except c) — σάρκας [“flesh”] as missing is attested by Tertullian and Epiphanius > the Dialogue has it — 40: is missing with D, Itala, Syriac cu; the words (καὶ τοῦτο εἰπὼν ἐπέδειξεν αὐτοῖς τὰς χεῖρας καὶ τοὺς πόδας, “and having said this, he showed them his hands and feet”) are, however, in Harnack’s judgment, Lukan, imitated from John 20:20, and struck out by M.

41. Tertullian, same passage: “Atquin adhuc eis non credentibus propterea cibum desideravit, ut se ostenderet etiam dentes habere” [“‘and yet, since they still did not believe, he asked for food for that very reason, that he might show that he also had teeth’”]. Zahn thinks that 42, 43 were missing, since Tertullian does not speak of actual eating. But what could v. 41 mean on its own? On this point: the Marcionites, according to Eznik (Schmid, p. 195), say: “Christ, after his resurrection, ate fish and not meat; for which reason we too eat fish and not meat.”

47. Tertullian, same passage: “... siquidem et apostolos mittens ad praedicandum universis nationibus” [“‘seeing that he also sent the apostles to preach to all nations’”] — ἀρξάμενον ἀπὸ Ἱερουσαλήμ [“beginning from Jerusalem”] M. can hardly have let stand. M.’s Gospel probably closed with the words: κηρυχθῆναι ... ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν εἰς πάντα τὰ ἔθνη [“...to be preached... forgiveness of sins to all nations”]. To let what follows stand was impossible for him, and excisions at the end are expressly attested by Epiphanius (see above, at the beginning of the chapter).