Roth Doesn't Have a Clue How "Marcionite" Luke 20:35 Read

Introduction

In Against Marcion, Tertullian’s treatment of Luke 20:35 has generated substantial debate among scholars, particularly concerning how the text might have read in the Marcionite gospel. Roth’s attempt to reconstruct the Marcionite text falls short due to several fundamental issues, and it's crucial to examine why his approach is flawed.

Tertullian’s Citation and Interpretation

Tertullian repeatedly references Luke 20:35 in his arguments against Marcion, claiming that Marcion’s gospel retained words that could be repunctuated to support heretical interpretations. However, the exact Greek phrasing that Marcion used remains a mystery, as scholars struggle to reverse-engineer the text from Tertullian’s Latin citations.

Harnack’s Reconstruction

Harnack proposed a reconstruction of Marcion’s Luke 20:35, suggesting: οὓς δὲ κατηξίωσεν ὁ θεὸς τοῦ αἰῶνος ἐκείνου τυχεῖν (καὶ?) τῆς ἀναστάσεως τῆς ἐκ νεκρῶν. This construction is an attempt to capture the nuances of Marcion’s alleged modifications. However, Braun and Tsutsui point out the difficulties in interpreting possessione and other elements in the Latin text, which further complicates understanding the Greek original.

Key Issues in Roth’s Approach

Roth attempts to navigate the complexities of the Latin text and its possible Greek counterparts but falls short in several areas:

1. Conjunctions and Sentence Structure:

   • Tertullian’s use of conjunctions such as vero, autem, and the absence of conjunctions indicates variability that complicates straightforward reconstruction. Roth fails to account for these nuances adequately.

2. Passive Participles and External Subjects:

   • Tertullian’s consistent use of dignatus sit/est deus suggests that Marcion did not use the substantive passive participle seen in the canonical Luke. Roth’s approach does not fully reconcile this aspect with the need for an external subject in the Marcionite reading.

3. Future Indicatives and Tenses:

   • Roth’s treatment of future forms of γαμέω in various references by Tertullian overlooks the possibility that Marcion’s text might have differed in tense usage. The emphasis on future indicatives suggests a deviation from the present tense forms found in the canonical Luke, which Roth does not sufficiently address.

Alternative Perspectives

A more plausible construction that aligns with Tertullian’s citations might be:

• οὓς [δὲ] κατηξίωσεν ὁ θεὸς τοῦ αἰῶνος ἐκείνου τῆς κληρονομίας καὶ τῆς ἀναστάσεως.

This reading allows for both Marcion’s and Tertullian’s interpretations and aligns better with the Latin text provided by Tertullian.

The Diatessaron and Ephrem’s Commentary

The Diatessaron and Ephrem’s commentary provide additional context for understanding how early Christian texts treated this passage. The Diatessaron reads:

"Is it not for this that ye have erred, because ye know not the scriptures, nor the power of God? And the sons of this world take wives, and the women become the men's; but those that have become worthy of that world, and the resurrection from among the dead, do not take wives, and the women also do not become the men's."

Ephrem comments similarly, emphasizing the eschatological transformation and angelic likeness of those worthy of the resurrection. These perspectives highlight the broader interpretative traditions that surround Luke 20:35 and underscore the challenges in pinpointing Marcion’s exact wording.

Conclusion

Roth's attempt to reconstruct Marcion's Luke 20:35 fails to account for the nuances and complexities inherent in Tertullian's citations and the broader textual tradition. A more nuanced approach, considering the variations in Tertullian’s Latin and the alternative readings provided by the Diatessaron and Ephrem, provides a clearer picture of how this passage might have been understood in Marcion's gospel. It is essential to recognize these complexities rather than relying on oversimplified reconstructions that do not fully capture the intricacies of early Christian textual transmission.