Surviving Edits for the Original Against Marcion

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Surviving Edits for the Original Against Marcion

Post by Secret Alias »

I think these pieces were cut and moved to different places in the narrative to fit with the eventual shape of the Gospel of Luke.

STEP 1: Baarda's Reconstruction of the scene from the Marcionite gospel:
He entered the synagogue as was his custom, on the Sabbath day ... and had begun to teach ... he entered Bethsaida among the Jews. It does not indicate that they said anything to him other than, Physician, heal yourself. ... they stood up and they led Him out [from] the town and brought Him by the side of the hill [on which their town was built,] in order to cast Him down [When?] they cast Him down from the height into the depth [and?] he did not fall and was not hurt/harmed... through their midst He passed [and?] He flew [in the air?] and He descended [from above] to Kapharnaum
STEP 2: Two Pieces that Belong Together Separated at the Birth of Luke (the Nazareth Synagogue ch. 8 and the Question About John the Baptist ch. 38)
Piece 1: Here, as I for the first time ob- serve that hands were laid upon him, I am called upon to say something definite about his corporal substance; that he who admitted of contact, contact even full of violence, in being seized and captured and dragged even to the brow of the hill, cannot be thought of as a phantasm. It is true that he slipped away through the midst of them, but this was when he had experienced their violence, and had afterwards been let go: for, as often happens, the crowd gave way, or was even broken up: there is no question of its being deceived by invisibility, for this, if it had been such, would never have submitted to contact at all. "Touch or be touched nothing but body may, is a worthy sentence even of this world's philosophy.d In fine, he did himself before long touch others, and by laying his hands upon them—hands evidently meant to be felt—conveyed the benefits of healing, benefits no less true, no less free from pretence, than the hands by which they were conveyed.

Piece 2: Christ knew the baptism of John, whence it was. Why then did he ask the question, as though he did not know? He did know that the pharisees would not answer him. Why then did he ask, to no purpose? Was it not that he might judge them out of their own mouth, or even out of their own heart? So take this episode to bear on the justification of the Creator, and on Christ's agreement with him, and ask yourself what the consequence would have been if the pharisees had returned an answer to his question. Suppose they had answered that John's baptism was from men: they would at once have been stoned to death. Some anti-marcionite Marcion would have stood up and said, 'See a god supremely good, a god the opposite of the Creator's doings! well aware that men were going to fall headlong, he himself put them on the edge of a precipice. For this is how they treat of the Creator, in his law about the tree. But suppose John's baptism was from heaven. And why, Christ says, did ye not believe him ? So then he whose wish it was that John should be believed, who was expected to blame them for not believing him, belonged to that God whose sacrament John was the minister of. At all events, when they refused to answer what they thought, and he replied in like terms, Neither do I tell you by what power I do these things, he returned evil for evil.
STEP 3: TERTULLIAN'S MENTION ABOUT THE FIRST MENTION OF JOHN THE BAPTIST (ch 11):
From what direction does John make his appearance? Christ unexpected: John also unexpected. With Marcion all things are like that: with the Creator they have their own compact order. The rest about John later, since it is best to answer each separate point as it arises. At present I shall make it my purpose to show both that John is in accord with Christ and Christ in accord with John, the Creator's Christ with the Creator's prophet, that so the heretic may be put to shame at having to no advantage made John's work of no advantage. For if John's work had been utterly without effect when, as Isaiah says, he cried aloud in the wilderness as preparer of the ways of the Lord by the demanding and commending of repentance, and if he had not along with the others baptized Christ himself, no one could have challenged Christ's disciples for eating and drinking, or referred them to the example of John's disciples who were assidous in fasting and prayer: because if any opposition had stood between Christ and John, and between the followers of each, there could have been no demand for imitation, and the force of the challenge would have been lost. For no one could think it strange and no one be put to grief if the rival preachings of hostile divinities were also discordant in their rules of conduct, having begun by being discordant in the authorities imposing the rules. Consequently Christ belonged to John and John to Christ, and both to the Creator, both concerned with the law and the prophets, as preachers and teachers. Otherwise Christ would have repudiated John's rules, as pertaining to a different god, and would have commended his disciples for quite rightly following different practices, having been brought into the service of a different divinity of opposite character. As things are, by submissively offering the explanation that the sons of the bridegroom could not fast so long as the bridegroom was with them, and by promising that they would afterwards fast when the bridegroom had been taken from them, he did not commend the disciples, but rather found excuses for them, as though the rebuke was not without cause, nor did he repudiate John's rule of conduct but rather gave it approval: for the present he allowed it to John's circumstances, for the future approving it for circumstances of his own. Otherwise he would have repudiated it, and commended its opponents, if the rule which then existed had not been a rule of his own
How are these passages reconciled? On the one hand, Tertullian:

i. acts as if the initial "Jewish house of worship" scene was at Nazareth (along with all the orthodox baggage that Nazareth "proves" i.e. that Jesus was known by all at his "hometown," his family was known, they were all enrolled in the genealogies)
ii. the initial quotation of Isaiah immediately after the descent into Capernaum was removed i.e.
3 In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar—when Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea, Herod tetrarch of Galilee, his brother Philip tetrarch of Iturea and Traconitis, and Lysanias tetrarch of Abilene— 2 during the high-priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas, the word of God came to John son of Zechariah in the wilderness. 3 He went into all the country around the Jordan, preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. 4 As it is written in the book of the words of Isaiah the prophet:

“A voice of one calling in the wilderness,
‘Prepare the way for the Lord,
make straight paths for him.
5 Every valley shall be filled in,
every mountain and hill made low.
The crooked roads shall become straight,
the rough ways smooth.
6 And all people will see God’s salvation.’”


7 John said to the crowds coming out to be baptized by him,
iii. this confirms Luke's claims that his gospel had an "orderly account" and Marcion's corruption of Luke made his text "disorderly"
iv. we should see that iii is an adaptation of Papias's original logic about the superiority of Matthew to Mark because of the "dominical logoi" where the citation of Isaiah "grounds" the correct narrative where John is the voice crying in the wilderness viz. the necessary precursor for Jesus
v. yet can we go one step further and assume that ANOTHER "original passage" about John the Baptist - one that actually appeared in the Marcionite gospel but not the orthodox - was removed?
vi I submit that the questions about John's baptism at the very end of the gospel doesn't make any sense. If you accept Luke as being anything but the fake gospel I think it is you have to believe that a year into his ministry and months after John the Baptist's death almost at the moment Jesus is about to crucified the question about John's authority comes up:
Luke 20 One day as Jesus was teaching the people in the temple courts and proclaiming the good news, the chief priests and the teachers of the law, together with the elders, came up to him. 2 “Tell us by what authority you are doing these things,” they said. “Who gave you this authority?”

3 He replied, “I will also ask you a question. Tell me: 4 John’s baptism—was it from heaven, or of human origin?”

5 They discussed it among themselves and said, “If we say, ‘From heaven,’ he will ask, ‘Why didn’t you believe him?’ 6 But if we say, ‘Of human origin,’ all the people will stone us, because they are persuaded that John was a prophet.”

7 So they answered, “We don’t know where it was from.”

8 Jesus said, “Neither will I tell you by what authority I am doing these things.”
I don't know about you but when I see that the editor inserts himself and we are told what the Jews were thinking IN THEIR MINDS (how did the gospel author know what the Jews were thinking?) this is a clear sign of later redaction.

My suggestion is that Against Marcion and the allusion to the supernatural Jesus incident where Jesus can fly and pass through crowds which remains because of sloppy editing on the part of Irenaeus or Tertullian makes clear that rather than the dominical logoi of Isaiah the first John mention in the Marcionite gospel was this question of authority. Clearly, and against the use of Isaiah in the Catholic gospels, the Marcionite gospel put forward that Jesus came from a god higher than the "Jewish god" and John didn't know about Jesus's Father.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Surviving Edits for the Original Against Marcion

Post by Secret Alias »

My suggestion for reconstruction of the Marcionite gospel:
He entered the synagogue as was his custom, on the Sabbath day ... and had begun to teach ... at Bethsaida among the Jews ... HE DECLARED THE ANTITHESES MATT 5:17 - 47 ... they were amazed at his teachings and wondered by what authority he taught ... they stood up and they led Him out [from] the town and brought Him by the side of the hill [on which their town was built,] in order to cast Him down [When?]
Tell us by what authority you are doing these things,” they said. “Who gave you this authority?”

3 He replied, “I will also ask you a question. Tell me: John’s baptism—was it from heaven, or of human origin?”

5 They discussed it among themselves and said, “If we say, ‘From heaven,’ he will ask, ‘Why didn’t you believe him?’ 6 But if we say, ‘Of human origin,’ all the people will stone us, because they are persuaded that John was a prophet.”

7 So they answered, “We don’t know where it was from.”

8 Jesus said, “Neither will I tell you by what authority I am doing these things.”
well aware that men were going to fall headlong, he himself put them on the edge of a precipice and they attempted to cast Him down from the height into the depth but he through their midst He passed [and?] He flew [in the air?] and He descended [from above]
The second appearance of John then is the question with respect to Jesus's disciples not fasting on the Sabbath like John the Baptist and the Pharisees.

The question from Tertullian looks like a sincere question or sincere accusation implying that the Marcionites cut the reference to Isaiah and the introduction of John the Baptist and the baptism of Jesus scene when in fact the orthodox edited the first mention of John the Baptist out of the Marcionite gospel and put it all the way back to chapter 20 of Luke.

It should be noted again that I think "Bethsaida" is a reference to the pool at the temple (where John presumably baptized with the demons Solomon bottled up in the water). Just as John preserves Jesus's original appearance at Jerusalem at the beginning of the Marcionite gospel, Luke pushes details back to the "last visit to Jerusalem" at the end of Jesus's year long ministry.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Surviving Edits for the Original Against Marcion

Post by Secret Alias »

Irenaeus on the followers of Mark and their interpretation of this passage:
Moreover, by His not replying to those who said to Him, "By what power doest Thou this?"(4) but by a question on His own side, put them to utter confusion; by His thus not replying, according to their interpretation, He showed the unutterable nature of the Father.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Surviving Edits for the Original Against Marcion

Post by Secret Alias »

The next scene where John appears. Remember the original group of Jews tried to kill Jesus but died trying (attempting to push him over the cliffs of Jerusalem passing through his body and plunging into the abyss). Now John takes issue with Jesus. Tertullian writes in chapter 18:
But John is offended when he hears of Christ's miracles— because, <you suggest>, he belongs to the other <god>. I however shall first explain his reason for offence, so that I may the more easily show up the offence of the heretic. When the Lord of hosts himself was by the Word and Spirit of the Father working and preaching upon earth, it was necessary that that apportionment of the Holy Spirit which, after the manner of what was measured out to the prophets, had in John had the function of preparing the ways of the Lord, should now depart from John, having been drawn back again into the Lord, as into its all-inclusive headspring.1 And so John, being now an ordinary man, one of the multitude, was offended, as indeed a man might be: not because he was hoping for, or thinking of, a different Christ—for he had no ground for such a hope—since he was teaching and doing nothing new. No man can have doubts about one who he knows does not exist, and of whom therefore he entertains neither hopes nor understanding. John however, both as Jew and as prophet, was quite sure that no one is God except the Creator. Evidently it is easier to think that his doubts were concerned with one whose existence he was convinced of, but was not sure whether this was he. So it is in this fear that John asks, Is it thou who earnest, or do we look for another?—a simple inquiry whether he whom he was looking for had come. Is it thou who contest—that is, who art to come: or do we look for another—that is, is there another whom we are expecting, if thou art not he whose coming we expect? For he had hopes—and all were thinking on those lines—arising out of the similarity of the evidences, that possibly for the meanwhile a prophet had been sent, and that it was a different one from him, a greater one, the Lord himself, whose coming was expected. And in fact that John's being offended consisted in this, that he was not sure whether that same one had come whom they were expecting, that one whom they ought to have recognized by the works prophesied of him, appears from the fact that the Lord returned answer to John that it was by those same works that he ought to be recognized. And since it is agreed that these were prophesied with respect to the Creator's Christ—as I have proved in regard to each of them—it is worse than ridiculous that he should have sent back the answer that a Christ not the Creator's was the interpretation of those signs by which he was the rather urging his recognition as the Christ of the Creator. It is even more ridiculous if a Christ who is not John's bears witness to John, giving assurance that he is a prophet, yea even more, a sort of angel, affirming that it is even written of him, Behold I send my angel before thy face, who shall prepare thy way:a for in kindly fashion he recalls the prophecy to the former mind of John who is now offended, so that by thus assuring John his precursor that he has really come he may extinguish the doubt involved in that question, Is it thou who earnest, or do we look for another? For as the precursor had now completed his task, and the Lord's way was prepared, he himself must be understood to be the one for whom the precursor had done service. Greater indeed is he than all that are born of women: but the reason why he is less than the least in the kingdom of God is not that there is a kingdom of one of the gods in which every least person is greater than John, and a John of another god who is greater than all born of women. For whether it is that he speaks of some particular least person because of humility, or that he speaks of himself because he was taken to be less than John, in that all men were pouring out into the wilderness to John rather than to Christ—What went ye out into the wilderness to see?—in either case it has reference to the Creator, first that it is his John who is greater than men born of women, and again that it is either Christ or every least person who is to be greater than John in that kingdom which no less is the Creator's, and is even now greater than that great prophet because he has not been offended at Christ—for this it was that made John little.
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8026
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Surviving Edits for the Original Against Marcion

Post by Peter Kirby »

Secret Alias wrote: Fri Jun 02, 2023 4:25 pm iii. this confirms Luke's claims that his gospel had an "orderly account"
This is a great point. Nobody thinks gMarcion had the prologue. But the typical approach to the text of gMarcion has no stretch of verses transposed longer than about fifteen only. This is hardly comprehensible for an author who set out to correct the order of his predecessor(s).
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Surviving Edits for the Original Against Marcion

Post by Secret Alias »

The point I am trying to make is that in the same way the orthodox texts (i.e. Mark, Matthew and Luke( TOGETHER reinforce Jesus's "alliance" with John the Marcionite text has John ignorant of Jesus's Father (God, the Most High God):
But John is offended when he hears of Christ's miracles— because, <you suggest>, he belongs to the other <god>. I however shall first explain his reason for offence, so that I may the more easily show up the offence of the heretic. When the Lord of hosts himself was by the Word and Spirit of the Father working and preaching upon earth, it was necessary that that apportionment of the Holy Spirit which, after the manner of what was measured out to the prophets, had in John had the function of preparing the ways of the Lord, should now depart from John, having been drawn back again into the Lord, as into its all-inclusive headspring.1 And so John, being now an ordinary man, one of the multitude, was offended, as indeed a man might be: not because he was hoping for, or thinking of, a different Christ—for he had no ground for such a hope—since he was teaching and doing nothing new. No man can have doubts about one who he knows does not exist, and of whom therefore he entertains neither hopes nor understanding. John however, both as Jew and as prophet, was quite sure that no one is God except the Creator. Evidently it is easier to think that his doubts were concerned with one whose existence he was convinced of, but was not sure whether this was he. So it is in this fear that John asks, Is it thou who earnest, or do we look for another?—a simple inquiry whether he whom he was looking for had come. Is it thou who contest—that is, who art to come: or do we look for another—that is, is there another whom we are expecting, if thou art not he whose coming we expect? For he had hopes—and all were thinking on those lines—arising out of the similarity of the evidences, that possibly for the meanwhile a prophet had been sent, and that it was a different one from him, a greater one, the Lord himself, whose coming was expected. And in fact that John's being offended consisted in this, that he was not sure whether that same one had come whom they were expecting, that one whom they ought to have recognized by the works prophesied of him, appears from the fact that the Lord returned answer to John that it was by those same works that he ought to be recognized. And since it is agreed that these were prophesied with respect to the Creator's Christ—as I have proved in regard to each of them—it is worse than ridiculous that he should have sent back the answer that a Christ not the Creator's was the interpretation of those signs by which he was the rather urging his recognition as the Christ of the Creator. It is even more ridiculous if a Christ who is not John's bears witness to John, giving assurance that he is a prophet, yea even more, a sort of angel, affirming that it is even written of him, Behold I send my angel before thy face, who shall prepare thy way:a for in kindly fashion he recalls the prophecy to the former mind of John who is now offended, so that by thus assuring John his precursor that he has really come he may extinguish the doubt involved in that question, Is it thou who earnest, or do we look for another? For as the precursor had now completed his task, and the Lord's way was prepared, he himself must be understood to be the one for whom the precursor had done service. Greater indeed is he than all that are born of women: but the reason why he is less than the least in the kingdom of God is not that there is a kingdom of one of the gods in which every least person is greater than John, and a John of another god who is greater than all born of women. For whether it is that he speaks of some particular least person because of humility, or that he speaks of himself because he was taken to be less than John, in that all men were pouring out into the wilderness to John rather than to Christ—What went ye out into the wilderness to see?—in either case it has reference to the Creator, first that it is his John who is greater than men born of women, and again that it is either Christ or every least person who is to be greater than John in that kingdom which no less is the Creator's, and is even now greater than that great prophet because he has not been offended at Christ—for this it was that made John little.
So let's take this one at time. First:
But John is offended when he hears of Christ's miracles— because, <you suggest>, he belongs to the other <god>
As I have noted Celsus is the first to bring up this Marcionite idea although it may be that he learned of it from an orthodox text like Irenaeus. But what I want us to consider is how could the Marcionites or Marcion have argued for this if they were using a gospel which derived from Mark. Again, if canonical Mark was the originator of all gospels (as moderns contend) then there would have been AT THE VERY BEGINNING that reference from Isaiah followed by the POSITIVE reference(s) to John the Baptist followed by the baptism of Jesus by John. I've just argued that the first reference in the Marcionite gospel was the question of Jews to Jesus about his authority (i.e. which power did he come from) followed by the relationship with John. I've noted that it was ultimately taken from the beginning of the gospel where it was in the Marcionite text to almost the end because it was the original reason for the crowds trying to kill Jesus by pushing him off the cliff. In other words, because Jesus wouldn't answer the question it was presumed he was a god other than Yahweh. But as that assertion is controversial I want to consider the implications of Mark being the text behind the gospel of Marcion. We'd have to suppose that (a) Mark's appeal to "dominical logoi" i.e. Isaiah to prove that John was the messenger who heralded Jesus AND THAT THIS RELATIONSHIP FULFILLED PROPHESY was first and that (b) Marcion's "excision" of the passage was to obscure the "correct" text.

This is stupid. People have short memories. Why would Papias have argued that Matthew although later than Mark was superior because of its "better order" if Mark was filled with appeals to the dominical logoi like Matthew? Clearly Papias's ur-Mark had less or almost no references to dominical logoi and Matthew had lots. In other words, the appeal to dominical logoi distinguished Matthew from Mark. How then could Marcion have been accused of eliminating dominical logoi appeals from a text that already was criticized for not having or not having as many appeals to dominical logoi that would satisfy a presbyter like Papias? Matthew couldn't have been three steps removed from the gospel of Marcion. It couldn't have been a Goldilocks scenario where Mark was "just right" Matthew "too many" appeals to dominical logoi and then Marcion either editing Mark for even less or a secondary text like Luke for a similar effect. Moreover there are (a) so many appeals to Matthew in Against Marcion and (b) so many appeals to either/or with respect to the gospel where a Luke/Marcion dichotomy doesn't make sense i.e. "We must follow, then, the clue82 of our discussion, meeting every effort of our opponents with reciprocal vigor. I say that my Gospel is the true one; Marcion, that his is. I affirm that Marcion's Gospel is adulterated; Marcion, that mine is. Now what is to settle the point for us, except it be that principle of time, which rules that the authority lies with that which shall be found to be more ancient; and assumes as an elemental truth, that corruption (of doctrine) belongs to the side which shall be convicted of comparative lateness in its origin" that, in my opinion, Marcion's gospel can only be the ur-Mark that Papias had in mind when juxtaposing Matthew.

In other words, the scenario Tertullian tells us from Galatians where Paul gave or found his gospel in the hands of the Jerusalem Church corrupted with "Judaizing" references (i.e. dominical logoi) and did not accept it (Irenaeus changed the text to read that he did accept it).
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Surviving Edits for the Original Against Marcion

Post by Secret Alias »

Luke (ignoring the Birth Narratives)

1. LUKE 3 Isaiah as the dominical logion predicting Jesus heralded by John followed by extended narrative about John heralding Jesus
2. LUKE 5 Questions about fasting and Jesus and John
3 LUKE 7 John's disciples tell John about Jesus, John is scandalized, ambiguous reference to the "little one" in the kingdom superior to John
4. LUKE 7:30 EDITOR'S THUMB ON THE SCALE "because they had not been baptized by John"
5. LUKE 9 Jesus as resurrected John
6. LUKE 11 teaching of Lord's prayer in response to the traditions of John.
7. LUKE 16:16 (CLEAR EDITORIAL DUMP) "The Law and the Prophets were proclaimed until John. Since that time, the good news of the kingdom of God is being preached, and everyone is forcing their way into it."
8. LUKE 20 Question about John and two powers in heaven

AGAINST MARCION

ch 11 "sudden (and disorderly) appearance of John in Luke 5
ch 18 John scandalized by Jesus's miracles in Luke 7
ch 21 Jesus as resurrected John in Luke 9
ch 26 Jesus being asked for prayer like John gave to his disciples
ch 33 lengthy justification of seemingly "disorderly" and sudden reference to John in Luke 16
ch 34 continued efforts by Tertullian to justify the "disorderly" reference to John earlier in Luke 16. Here the discussion of divorce is tied to it. Tertullian says it makes sense to have the reference to John before the discussion of divorce INTIMATING CLEARLY THAT THIS WAS NOT THE ORDER OF THE MARCIONITE GOSPEL NECESSARILY ONLY THAT TERTULLIAN IS FOLLOWING LUKE.
ch 38 the question of whether Jesus and John follow the same power
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Surviving Edits for the Original Against Marcion

Post by Secret Alias »

So here is my other point. There are always these discussion about whether Luke or Marcion came first. But like the Secret Mark debate it's always playing defense for Marcion because we only have Tertullian. But look at chapters 33 and 34 and see that there were controversies about whether the John the Baptist reference in chapter 16 (and chapter 16 as a whole) was disordered.
16 Jesus told his disciples: “There was a rich man whose manager was accused of wasting his possessions. 2 So he called him in and asked him, ‘What is this I hear about you? Give an account of your management, because you cannot be manager any longer.’

3 “The manager said to himself, ‘What shall I do now? My master is taking away my job. I’m not strong enough to dig, and I’m ashamed to beg— 4 I know what I’ll do so that, when I lose my job here, people will welcome me into their houses.’

5 “So he called in each one of his master’s debtors. He asked the first, ‘How much do you owe my master?’

6 “‘Nine hundred gallons[a] of olive oil,’ he replied.

“The manager told him, ‘Take your bill, sit down quickly, and make it four hundred and fifty.’

7 “Then he asked the second, ‘And how much do you owe?’

“‘A thousand bushels of wheat,’ he replied.

“He told him, ‘Take your bill and make it eight hundred.’

8 “The master commended the dishonest manager because he had acted shrewdly. For the people of this world are more shrewd in dealing with their own kind than are the people of the light. 9 I tell you, use worldly wealth to gain friends for yourselves, so that when it is gone, you will be welcomed into eternal dwellings.

10 “Whoever can be trusted with very little can also be trusted with much, and whoever is dishonest with very little will also be dishonest with much. 11 So if you have not been trustworthy in handling worldly wealth, who will trust you with true riches? 12 And if you have not been trustworthy with someone else’s property, who will give you property of your own?

13 “No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money.”

14 The Pharisees, who loved money, heard all this and were sneering at Jesus. 15 He said to them, “You are the ones who justify yourselves in the eyes of others, but God knows your hearts. What people value highly is detestable in God’s sight.

Additional Teachings
16 “The Law and the Prophets were proclaimed until John. Since that time, the good news of the kingdom of God is being preached, and everyone is forcing their way into it. 17 It is easier for heaven and earth to disappear than for the least stroke of a pen to drop out of the Law.

18 “Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery, and the man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.


The Rich Man and Lazarus
19 “There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and lived in luxury every day. 20 At his gate was laid a beggar named Lazarus, covered with sores 21 and longing to eat what fell from the rich man’s table. Even the dogs came and licked his sores.

22 “The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham’s side. The rich man also died and was buried. 23 In Hades, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. 24 So he called to him, ‘Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.’

25 “But Abraham replied, ‘Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony. 26 And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been set in place, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.’

27 “He answered, ‘Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my family, 28 for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.’

29 “Abraham replied, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.’

30 “‘No, father Abraham,’ he said, ‘but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.’

31 “He said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’”


The degree to which Tertullian is forced to defend the "John" reference here demonstrates that the Marcionite gospel was not like this. But scholars don't see it that way.
Post Reply