No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 09 December 2021
Scholarly work on Luke has often noted the significance of Marcion's Gospel for understanding the textual history of the third canonical Gospel. It is not surprising, therefore, that in the past new insights into Marcion's Gospel have led to revisions in the apparatus of the highly influential Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece, now in its 28th edition. In view of the precedent for continually updating the Nestle-Aland text and apparatus, this article revisits the apparatus to Luke in the light of recent research on Marcion's Gospel in order to highlight problematic references that should be changed or removed in the apparatus of future Nestle-Aland editions.
1 Recent works presenting a Greek reconstruction of the text of Marcion's Gospel include M. Klinghardt, Das älteste Evangelium und die Entstehung der kanonischen Evangelien, 2 vols. (TANZ 60; Tübingen, Francke: 2015, 20202); idem, The Oldest Gospel and the Formation of the Canonical Gospels, 2 vols. (BTS 41; Leuven: Peeters, 2021); Roth, D. T., The Text of Marcion's Gospel (NTTSD 40; Leiden: Brill, 2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Gianotto, C. and Nicolotti, A., Il Vangelo di Marcione (Nuova Universale Einaudi 22; Torino: Giulio Einaudi, 2019)Google Scholar. An English text can be found in BeDuhn, J., The First New Testament: Marcion's Scriptural Canon (Salem: Polebridge, 2013)Google Scholar, and an Italian text in Gramaglia, P. A., Marcione e il Vangelo (di Luca). Un confronto con Matthias Klinghardt (Collana di studi del Centro interdipartimentale di scienze religiose Università di Torino 7; Torino: Accademia University Press, 2017)Google Scholar.
2 J. K. Elliott's observation is indicative of this recognition at the turn of the century: ‘we ought to work more systematically on the writings of Marcion and Irenaeus to learn what they can reveal about the Biblical texts and specifically the New Testament text-types which they were using and quoting’ (‘The New Testament Text in the Second Century: A Challenge for the Twenty-First Century’, NTTRU 8 (2000) 1–14, at 12). For additional references to both NT and Patristic scholars highlighting the importance of work on Marcion's Gospel, see Roth, Marcion's Gospel, 1–3.
3 I initially mentioned this point in the final chapter of my own work on Marcion's Gospel, a chapter in which I offered a few reflections upon avenues for future research (see Roth, Marcion's Gospel, 439).
4 See the forthcoming study by G. S. Paulson on the history of the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece, to be published by the German Bible Society.
5 I have discussed this example previously in Roth, D. T., ‘Marcion and the Early Text of the New Testament’, The Early Text of the New Testament (ed. Hill, C. E. and Kruger, M. J.; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012) 302–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 310–11.
6 See von Harnack, A., Marcion: Das Evangelium vom fremden Gott. Eine Monographie zur Geschichte der Grundlegung der katholischen Kirche (TUGAL 45; Leipzig: J. C. Hinrich, 1921) 220* (cf. 229*)Google Scholar.
7 Both citations are found in A. von Harnack, Marcion: Das Evangelium vom fremden Gott. Eine Monographie zur Geschichte der Grundlegung der katholischen Kirche (TUGAL 45; Leipzig: J. C. Hinrich, 19242) 238* (cf. 247*). As I have observed elsewhere, ‘Luke 5:39, 22:43, 24:12, and 24:40 all involve instances where the Marcionite text is unattested in the sources, but Harnack believed Marcion excised the passages for dogmatic reasons’ (Roth, Marcion's Gospel, 26).
8 See F. Neirynck, ‘Lc. xxiv 12. Les témoins du texte occidental’, Miscellanea Neotestamentica i (ed. T. Baarda, A. F. J. Klijn and W. C. van Unnik; NovTSup 47; Leiden: Brill, 1978) 45–60, at 52.
9 BeDuhn rightly observes that the verse ‘is unattested’ and adds that it is ‘generally thought to be secondary in Luke’ (First New Testament, 195).
10 See more recently the assessment of B. Ehrman who, though viewing the verse as inauthentic, concluded that Neirynck ‘has convincingly shown that Marcion … cannot be cited in support of the Western text here’ (The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture: The Effect of Early Christological Controversies on the Text of the New Testament (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 20112) 298 n. 129). It seems to me that Ehrman's position remains correct despite recent publications suggesting or even definitively concluding that the verse was not present in Marcion's Gospel (e.g. Klinghardt, Das älteste Evangelium, ii.1130; J. M. Lieu, ‘Marcion and the New Testament’, Method & Meaning: Essays on New Testament Interpretation in Honor of Harold W. Attridge (ed. A. B. McGowan and K. H. Richards; SBLRBS 67; Atlanta: SBL, 2011) 399–416, at 413; eadem, Marcion and the Making of a Heretic: God and Scripture in the Second Century (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015) 218; and Smith, D. A., ‘Marcion's Gospel and the Resurrected Jesus of Canonical Luke 24’, ZAC 21 (2017) 41–62, at 50)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
11 The asterisk following the siglum for the manuscript, as noted in the introduction to the Nestle-Aland edition, ‘identifies the original reading when a correction has been made’ (NA27, 54*). The ensuing section of this article briefly explains and discusses the siglum Mcion.
12 See Roth, Marcion's Gospel, 152 n. 312.
13 As pointed out in the conclusion of this article, such a reference occurs in Luke 17.10b.
14 See Roth, Marcion's Gospel, 313–14. The discussion of Luke 6.38 below briefly explains the use of parentheses in the apparatus.
15 Though the major revisions in NA28 involve the Catholic letters, for which the Editio Critica Maior was already available, the ‘Vorwort’/‘Foreword’ also states that a revision of the entire apparatus was undertaken. The website of the Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft notes, concerning the first of two tasks that the NA28 was to accomplish, that ‘the apparatus had to be revised thoroughly to give it more clarity and make it easier to use’ (‘The Novum Testamentum Graece [Nestle-Aland] and its history’, www.academic-bible.com/en/bible-society-and-biblical-studies/scholarly-editions/greek-new-testament/nestle-aland).
16 NA28, 81* (English) 38* (German).
17 For discussion of the sources for Marcion's Gospel, see the overview in Roth, Marcion's Gospel, 46–7 along with the critical analysis in D. T. Roth, ‘The Link between Luke and Marcion's Gospel: Prolegomena and Initial Considerations’, Luke on Jesus, Paul and Christianity: What Did He Really Know? (ed. J. Verheyden and J. Kloppenborg; BTS 29; Leuven: Peeters, 2017) 59–80, at 61–8.
18 Of the 486 verses attested as present in Marcion's Gospel, Tertullian attests 438 (for 328 he is the sole witness). Epiphanius provides data for readings in 114 verses and the Adamantius Dialogue contains seventy-five verses that at least ought to be considered as possibly witnessing Marcion's Gospel. For details of the statistical analysis, see Roth, Marcion's Gospel, 86, 271–2, 355–6. Tables providing an overview of all verses attested as present, verses attested as absent and unattested verses for Marcion's Gospel can be found in Roth, Marcion's Gospel, 49–78.
19 Luke 4.23, 31, 41; 5.14, 24, 34; 6.9, 20, 21, 22, 25, 26, 31, 36, 37, 38; 8.3; 9.35; 10.11, 21, 22, 24, 27; 11.2, 4, 38, 41, 48; 12.1, 5, 14, 27, 39, 51; 16.12, 17, 18; 19.26; 20.36; 21.19; 24.6, 25, 39.
20 Luke 5.14; 6.5, 16; 7.36, 38; 8.46; 9.16, 22, 35; 10.21; 11.11; 12.5, 31; 16.25; 17.10; 22.14; 23.2, 45; 24.6, 25, 39.
21 Luke 4.23, 31; 5.38; 9.1, 2, 6, 22; 12.47; 16.20, 22/3, 25, 31; 24.25.
22 For instance, there are, in my estimation, serious questions concerning the accuracy of many of the attested readings for Marcion's Gospel in the Adamantius Dialogue. Nevertheless, the apparatus for Luke 5.38, for example, correctly presents that which is attested in this source, even if it may be tenuous to view the Adamantius Dialogue as correctly representing the reading in Marcion's Gospel for this verse (see Roth, Marcion's Gospel, 357–8, 359–60). In addition, since Tertullian rarely mentions explicitly that Marcion omitted an element from a verse and, on occasion, abbreviates citations himself, the fact that Tertullian does not include νῦν in his reference to Luke 6.21 or μου in Luke 10.22 does not necessarily indicate that it was not present in Marcion's text (see Roth, Marcion's Gospel, 100, 133). Though one could, therefore, in these instances and others debate whether Tertullian is actually attesting the omission, I have also not pursued such debates here.
23 For critical reflection on Klinghardt's approach along with a variety of issues related to reconstructing Marcion's Gospel, see Roth, D. T., ‘Marcion's Gospel and the History of Early Christianity: The Devil Is in the (Reconstructed) Details’, ZAC 21 (2017) 25–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar; idem, ‘The Link between Luke and Marcion's Gospel’, 59–80; and idem, ‘Marcion's Gospel and the Synoptic Problem in Recent Scholarship’, Gospel Interpretation and the Q-Hypothesis (ed. M. Müller and H. Omerzu; LNTS 573; London: T&T Clark, 2018) 267–83.
24 Klinghardt presents ‘wörtlich genau gesicherte Passagen’ in bold and underlined text (Das älteste Evangelium, ii.450). Nicolotti, who is responsible for the Greek text in the volume published in collaboration with Gianotto, indicates that bold text ‘identifica parti del testo sicuramente o molto probabilmente presenti nel Mcn, in quella forma o in una molto simile, perché citate da qualche autore antico, letteralmente o quasi, come facenti parte di quel Vangelo’ (Il Vangelo di Marcione, cxiv–cxv).
25 See the comments on Luke 16.20 above.
26 Nicolotti, Il Vangelo di Marcione, 16.
27 See Harnack, Marcion, 189*; Klinghardt, Das älteste Evangelium, ii.491; and Roth, Marcion's Gospel, 413.
28 The reference is embedded in an argument involving statements by the prophet Isaiah and is found in Tertullian's observations: quoniam cum redintegratione membrorum virium quoque repraesentationem pollicebatur: Exurge, et tolle grabattum tuum, simul et animi vigorem, ad non timendos qui dicturi errant. The Latin text here and throughout is cited from volume iv of Contre Marcion (critical text, ed. C. Moreschini and trans. R. Braun; SC 456; Paris: Cerf, 2001). In every instance, I have compared the critical text and apparatus with Quinti Septimi Florentis Tertulliani Opera (ed. E. Kroymann; CSEL 47; Vienna: F. Tempsky, 1906) 290–650; Quinti Septimi Florentis Tertulliani Opera (rev. edn of the Kroymann text by E. Dekkers; 2 vols.; CCSL 1, 2; Turnhout: Brepols, 1954) i.441–726; and Tertulliani Adversus Marcionem (ed. C. Moreschini; TDSA 35; Milan: Instituto Editoriale Cisalpino, 1971).
29 See Harnack, Marcion, 190*.
30 Tertullian writes: in hunc ergo sensum legis inducere volens illos per manus arefactae restitutionem interrogat: Licetne sabbatis benefacere, an non? In the CCSL (Dekkers) edition, the question is found at the end of Marc. 4.12.10 (i.571).
31 See Nicolotti, Il Vangelo di Marcione, 24 and Klinghardt, Das älteste Evangelium, ii.520, where he notes ‘ɛι/si: om Tert.’
32 Roth, Marcion's Gospel, 196.
33 The entirety of Tertullian's citation of Luke 6.38 reads: date et dabitur vobis. mensuram bonam, pressam ac fluentem dabunt in sinum vestrum. eadem, qua mensi eritis, mensura remetietur vobis.
34 NA28, 79*.
35 See, among several examples, Luke 9.22, where the apparatus references the attestation for the reading μɛθ ημɛρας τρɛις as Mcion(E) since Epiphanius attests μɛτὰ τρɛῖς ἡμέρας (Pan. 42.11.6, 17), or Luke 11.38, where (McionT) references the ‘Western’ reading ηρξατο διακρινομɛνος ɛν ɛαυτω λɛγɛιν δια τι since Tertullian attests retractabat penes se cur (Marc. 4.27.2).
36 In the CCSL (Dekkers) edition, the citation is found at the end of Marc. 4.25.14 (i.614).
37 See D. T. Roth, ‘The Text of the Lord's Prayer in Marcion's Gospel’, ZNW 103 (2012) 47–63, at 54–9.
38 In the CCSL (Dekkers) edition, the question is found at the end of Marc.4.26.3 (i.615).
39 Because of the slight difference in the manuscript's reading, the NA28 apparatus rightly places 162 in parentheses. The fact that Tertullian references a petition for the Holy Spirit in Marcion's Gospel has often led to the postulate that Marcion's text read very similarly to the other witnesses (see e.g. Harnack, Marcion, 207*, and more recently Klinghardt, Das älteste Evangelium, ii.725 and Nicolotti, Il Vangelo di Marcione, 88). Though this supposition is understandable, I remain convinced that my conclusion concerning Harnack's reconstruction applies in all relevant instances: ‘Harnack's reconstruction rightly recognizes that Marcion's text had some type of request for the Spirit in place of the first petition, but moves far beyond what the evidence allows as to the suggested wording of that request’ (Roth, ‘Lord's Prayer’, 57).
40 Independently of my own work, Judith Lieu also noted that ‘NA27 wrongly gives the impression that it [the petition for the Holy Spirit in Marcion's Gospel] replaces the petition for the coming of God's kingdom as in MS 700 and Gregory of Nyssa’ (‘Marcion and the Synoptic Problem’, New Studies in the Synoptic Problem: Oxford Conference, April 2008. Essays in Honour of Christopher M. Tuckett (ed. P. Foster, A. Gregory, J. S. Kloppenborg and J. Verheyden; BETL 239; Leuven: Peeters, 2011) 731–51, at 738 n. 17).
41 The petition ἁγιασθήτω τὸ ὄνομά σου is not attested for Marcion's text.
42 Klinghardt, Das älteste Evangelium, ii.877.
43 Harnack, Marcion, 221*.
44 Nicolotti, Il Vangelo di Marcione, 134: ‘C’è incertezza fra i mss di Epif e Adam tra il meglio attestato ὧδɛ e il sinonimo ὅδɛ.’
45 See the notes in the W. H. van de Sande Bakhuyzen edition Pseudo-Origen: Der Dialog des Adamantius. ΠΕΡΙ ΤΗΣ ΕΙΣ ΘΕΟΝ ΟΡΘΗΣ ΠΙΣΤΕΩΣ (GCS 4; Leipzig: J. C. Hinrich, 1901) 76 and the Holl, K. and Dummer, J. edition Epiphanius ii: Panarion haer. 34–64 (GCS 31; Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1980) 113, 143Google Scholar.
46 See the V. Buchheit edition Tyranni Rufini librorum Adamantii Origenis Adversus haereticos interpretation (STA 1; Munich: Wilhelm Fink, 1966) 35.
47 Harnack, Marcion, 221*.
48 Bakhuyzen, Dialog des Adamantius, 76.
49 Tsutsui, K., Die Auseinandersetzung mit den Markioniten im Adamantios-Dialog: Ein Kommentar zu den Büchern i–ii (PTS 55; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2004) 328CrossRefGoogle Scholar. I also drew attention to this fact in Roth, Marcion's Gospel, 379 n. 141.
50 See Holl and Dummer, Epiphanius ii, 113, 143.
51 T. Zahn, Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons (2 vols.; Erlangen: Andreas Deichert, 1888–92) ii.480.
52 Harnack, Marcion, 221*–2*.
53 Roth, Marcion's Gospel, 322 n. 181.
54 I am thankful to Simon Gathercole, who, in email correspondence in 2016, pointed out an inconsistency in my previous discussion of this verse. In the consideration of Tertullian's testimony, I erroneously presented the deponent verb in quae locutus est ad vos (Marc. 4.43.4) as attesting a Greek passive (οἷς ἐλαλήθη πρὸς ὑμᾶς), whereas, in my discussion of Epiphanius’ testimony and the testimony of the Adamantius Dialogue, I correctly presented the reading attested by Tertullian as οἷς ἐλάλησɛν πρὸς ὑμᾶς. Unfortunately, it is the erroneous reading that also appears in my reconstruction, though with the lowest level of confidence (see Roth, Marcion's Gospel, 268, 344, 392, 435). Similar errors appear in Lieu's suggestion of the translation ‘what was spoken to you’ for Tertullian's text (‘Marcion and the New Testament’, 413 n. 19) and in Nicolotti's statement that Tertullian ‘sembra attestare … ἐλαλάθη [sic] πρὸς ὑμᾶς’ (Il Vangelo di Marcione, 199).
55 See Roth, Marcion's Gospel, 392.
56 See Roth, Marcion's Gospel, 343–4. Klinghardt's reconstruction actually follows Epiphanius’ text (Das älteste Evangelium, ii.1131), which is a reading that the apparatus of NA28 does not even indicate as attested in a source for Marcion's Gospel.
57 For the list of verses that Epiphanius explicitly attests as not being present in Marcion's Gospel, see Roth, Marcion's Gospel, 75–6.