Luke Chapter 16, Against Marcion and the Necessarily Non-Lukan Gospel of 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

Luke Chapter 16, Against Marcion and the Necessarily Non-Lukan Gospel of Marcion

Post by Secret Alias »

Ever since I became acquainted with Christianity I thought chapter 16 of Luke is among the worst written chapters in the history of literature. I see absolutely no continuity at all in its contents. It, like many of the Pauline letters, seems to leap from unrelated idea to unrelated idea.
The Parable of the Shrewd Manager
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.’”
This chapter reminds me of an episode of Chopped. There are four totally unrelated "things" here:
A. The Parable of the Shrewd Manager
B. “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. It is easier for heaven and earth to disappear than for the least stroke of a pen to drop out of the Law.
C. “Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery, and the man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.
D. Rich Man and Lazarus
How can anyone have written a chapter of material like this and called the book an "orderly account"? What possible connection can these four things have with one another?

But here is the strange part - Against Marcion actually connects B, C and D. Against Marcion says that "he knows" why the text is in this order? It all has to do with John the Baptist. Is this a coincidence? This sort of logic is common in Against Marcion. I will counter that it wasn't that Tertullian had special knowledge of Against Marcion but that Luke was actually created from arguments laid out in Against Marcion.
Last edited by Secret Alias on Sat Jun 03, 2023 4:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Luke Chapter 16 and Against Marcion

Post by Secret Alias »

Here is the commentary from chapter 33 and 34 of Against Marcion the one which scholars have to accept as being an extensive argument on the part of Tertullian to justify the absolutely disjointed narrative of Luke chapter 16:
He was waiting, I suspect, until he should learn all these things from the Creator. So he learned them, right down to the time of John, and then after that came forth to announce the kingdom of God, saying, The law and the prophets were until John, since which time the kingdom of God is announced. As though we too did not know that John has been set as a sort of dividing-line between old things and new, a line at which Judaism
should cease and Christianity should begin—not however that by the action of any alien power there came about this cessation of the law and the prophets, and the inception of that gospel in which is the kingdom of God, Christ himself. For if, as I have proved, it was the Creator who prophesied that old things would pass away and new things take their place; and if John is set forth as the forerunner who prepares the ways of that Lord who will bring in the gospel and proclaim the kingdom of God, and from the fact that John is now come, this must be that Christ who was to come after John as forerunner; and if old things have come to an end, and new things have begun, with John as the point of division: then that which conforms to the Creator's ordinance will not be so unexpected as to amount to proof that the kingdom of God takes its origin from every imaginable source except the sunset of the law and the prophets upon John, and the daybreak that came after. So then let heaven and earth pass away,d as have the law and the prophets, more quickly than one tittle of the words of the Lord :2 for Isaiah says, The word of our God abideth for ever. For Christ, who is the Word and Spirit of the Creator, had in Isaiah so long before prophesied of John as the voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord,f and as one who was to come for this end, that the sequence of law and prophets should from that time cease—by being fulfilled, not by being destroyed—and that the kingdom of God should be proclaimed by Christ: which is why he appended the statement that it would be easier for the heavenly bodies than for his words to pass away, so affirming that this too which he had spoken of John had not passed into abeyance.

But, <you allege>, Christ forbids divorce: his words are, Whosoever sendeth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth one that is sent away by her husband, is no less an adulterer. So as to forbid divorce on this side as well, he makes unlawful the marriage of a divorced woman. Moses however permits divorce, in Deuteronomy: If any man hath taken a wife, and hath dwelt with her, and it come to pass that she find not favour with him because some unseemly thing hath been found in her, he shall write a bill of divorcement and give it into her hand and send her away from his house.a You notice the contrast between law and gospel, between Moses and Christ? To be sure I do. For you have not accepted that other gospel, of equal truth, and of the same Christ, in which while forbidding divorce he answers a particular question concerning it: Moses because of the hardness of your heart commanded to give a bill of divorcement, but from the beginning it was not sob—because in fact he who made them male and female had said The two of them shall become one flesh.c What therefore God has joined together shall a man presume to put asunder? So by this answer he did two things: he set a guard upon Moses' regulation, as his own, and set in its proper context the Creator's ordinance, being the Creator's Christ. But seeing I have undertaken to confute you from those documents which you have accepted, I will meet you on this ground, as though <this> Christ were mine. When he forbids divorce, while yet claiming as his father him who has joined together the male and the female, must he not rather have defended than abolished Moses' regulation? But now, let us suppose that this Christ is yours, giving opposite teaching to Moses and the Creator—provided that if I prove it was not opposite, I may claim him as mine. I maintain that he has here issued his prohibition of divorce under a certain condition—if any man sends away his wife with the intention of taking another. His words are, Whosoever sendeth away his wife and marrieth another hath committed adultery, and whosoever marrieth one sent away by her husband is no less an adulterer—<marrying> a woman sent away <is forbidden> for the same reason for which her husband is not allowed to send her away, so that another may be taken: marrying a woman unlawfully sent away is like marrying one not sent away, and the man who does this is an adulterer. So the marriage not properly dissolved remains a marriage: and for her to marry while the marriage remains, is adultery. Thus if it was under these conditions that he prohibited sending away a wife, this was not a total prohibition: and this that he has not totally prohibited he has permitted under other conditions, where the reason for the prohibition is absent. Thus his teaching is not in opposition to Moses, for he in some form retains his regulation—I do not yet say he confirms it. If however you deny that divorce is in any way permitted by Christ, how comes it that you yourself make separation between married people? For you neither allow the conjunction of male and female, nor do you admit to the sacrament of baptism and the eucharist persons married elsewhere, unless they have made conspiracy between themselves against the fruit of matrimony, and so against the Creator himself. In any case, what in your view does a husband do if his wife has committed adultery? Will he keep her? But, you know, your own apostle does not permit the members of Christ to be joined to a harlot.d It appears then that divorce, when justified, has Christ's authority. Next also Moses receives support from him, for he prohibits divorce under the same heading as Christ does—unless there be found in the woman some unseemly thing. For in Matthew's gospel Christ says, Whosoever shall send away his wife, saving for the cause of adultery, causeth her to commit adultery: e and the man who marries one sent away by her husband is no less declared an adulterer. But except for the cause of adultery, neither does the Creator put asunder that which he himself has joined together: for Moses again in another place makes the rule that the man who had married after violence committed, could not send away his wife at any time.f But if a marriage enforced in consequence of violence is to be permanent, how much more shall one contracted willingly and by agreement? This too has the authority of prophecy, Thou shalt not send away the wife of thy youth.g Thus you find Christ by himself treading at every point in the Creator's footsteps, whether in permitting divorce or in forbidding it. You will find him also, in whichever direction you will, taking forethought regarding marriage: while he will not have it dissolved, he forbids separation: and while he will not have it continue under stain he permits divorce. You to your shame refuse to join together those whom your own Christ has joined. To your shame you put them asunder without that just cause for which your Christ also would have them put asunder. It is my next duty to show you also from what source the Lord derived this judgement, and for what purpose he intended it. So it will become more fully evident that he had no intention of suppressing Moses' ruling by this sudden introduction of the subject of divorce: for in fact there was no sudden introduction, since it had its origin in the aforesaid mention of John. John rebuked Herod because contrary to the law he had married the wife of his deceased brother, who had a daughter by her. The law does not allow this, or give any command of this sort, except when the brother has died childless, so that seed may be raised up to him by his own brother, of his own wife. So John had been cast into prison by that same Herod, and afterwards put to death. So our Lord, having made mention of John, and in effect of what led to his death, did under the figure of adultery and unlawful marriage make this attack upon Herod, when he pronounced an adulterer even one who has married a woman sent away by her husband. In this way he could pass sterner censure upon Herod's godlessness, who had married a woman sent away by her husband by death, which is a sort of divorce, even though this was his brother, who had a daughter by her—on which account his action was illicit, suggested by lust and not by the law—and therefore had put to death that prophet who censured his breaking of the law. The observations I have made here will be of service also for the narrative that follows, of the rich man in pain in hell and the poor man at rest in Abraham's bosom. For that too, as far as the surface of scripture goes, is set before us abruptly, though as concerns the purport of its meaning it too is linked with the reference to the ill usage of John and his disapproval of Herod's unlawful marriage: for it delineates the latter end of both, Herod in torment, and John comforted, so that even while alive Herod might hear it said, They have there Moses and the prophets, let them hear them.
So taken at face value COMPLETELY OUT OF THE BLUE Tertullian decides to defend the integrity of chapter 16. But is there another possibility here, one which continues in what I have already noted is a tendency of the gospel of Luke to take passages from earlier in the gospel and move them to later portions of the narrative?
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Luke Chapter 16 and Against Marcion

Post by Secret Alias »

I've often argued that at the core of Against Marcion - albeit subsequently excised - is the fact that the repeated mention of the "Antitheses" actually refers to the antitheses of Matthew 5:17 - 47. Part of my logic is the fact that Matthew 5:17 is referenced 15 times in the work. Part of my logic is that the material itself (i.e. Matthew 5:17 - 47) is HYPER-MARCIONITE. But also this section in particular, if you look at it with fresh eyes can be connected with material from the earliest parts of the gospel. Let me demonstrate:
He was waiting, I suspect, until he should learn all these things from the Creator. So he learned them, right down to the time of John, and then after that came forth to announce the kingdom of God, saying, The law and the prophets were until John, since which time the kingdom of God is announced. As though we too did not know that John has been set as a sort of dividing-line between old things and new, a line at which Judaism should cease and Christianity should begin—not however that by the action of any alien power there came about this cessation of the law and the prophets, and the inception of that gospel in which is the kingdom of God, Christ himself. For if, as I have proved, it was the Creator who prophesied that old things would pass away and new things take their place; and if John is set forth as the forerunner who prepares the ways of that Lord who will bring in the gospel and proclaim the kingdom of God, and from the fact that John is now come, this must be that Christ who was to come after John as forerunner; and if old things have come to an end, and new things have begun, with John as the point of division: then that which conforms to the Creator's ordinance will not be so unexpected as to amount to proof that the kingdom of God takes its origin from every imaginable source except the sunset of the law and the prophets upon John, and the daybreak that came after. So then let heaven and earth pass away, as have the law and the prophets, more quickly than one tittle of the words of the Lord : for Isaiah says, The word of our God abideth for ever. For Christ, who is the Word and Spirit of the Creator, had in Isaiah so long before prophesied of John as the voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord,f and as one who was to come for this end, that the sequence of law and prophets should from that time cease—by being fulfilled, not by being destroyed—and that the kingdom of God should be proclaimed by Christ: which is why he appended the statement that it would be easier for the heavenly bodies than for his words to pass away, so affirming that this too which he had spoken of John had not passed into abeyance.

But, <you allege>, Christ forbids divorce: his words are, Whosoever sendeth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth one that is sent away by her husband, is no less an adulterer. So as to forbid divorce on this side as well, he makes unlawful the marriage of a divorced woman. Moses however permits divorce, in Deuteronomy: If any man hath taken a wife, and hath dwelt with her, and it come to pass that she find not favour with him because some unseemly thing hath been found in her, he shall write a bill of divorcement and give it into her hand and send her away from his house. You notice the contrast between law and gospel, between Moses and Christ? To be sure I do. For you have not accepted that other gospel, of equal truth, and of the same Christ, in which while forbidding divorce he answers a particular question concerning it: Moses because of the hardness of your heart commanded to give a bill of divorcement, but from the beginning it was not sob—because in fact he who made them male and female had said The two of them shall become one flesh.c What therefore God has joined together shall a man presume to put asunder? So by this answer he did two things: he set a guard upon Moses' regulation, as his own, and set in its proper context the Creator's ordinance, being the Creator's Christ. But seeing I have undertaken to confute you from those documents which you have accepted, I will meet you on this ground, as though <this> Christ were mine. When he forbids divorce, while yet claiming as his father him who has joined together the male and the female, must he not rather have defended than abolished Moses' regulation? But now, let us suppose that this Christ is yours, giving opposite teaching to Moses and the Creator—provided that if I prove it was not opposite, I may claim him as mine. I maintain that he has here issued his prohibition of divorce under a certain condition—if any man sends away his wife with the intention of taking another. His words are, Whosoever sendeth away his wife and marrieth another hath committed adultery, and whosoever marrieth one sent away by her husband is no less an adulterer—<marrying> a woman sent away <is forbidden> for the same reason for which her husband is not allowed to send her away, so that another may be taken: marrying a woman unlawfully sent away is like marrying one not sent away, and the man who does this is an adulterer. So the marriage not properly dissolved remains a marriage: and for her to marry while the marriage remains, is adultery. Thus if it was under these conditions that he prohibited sending away a wife, this was not a total prohibition: and this that he has not totally prohibited he has permitted under other conditions, where the reason for the prohibition is absent. Thus his teaching is not in opposition to Moses, for he in some form retains his regulation—I do not yet say he confirms it. If however you deny that divorce is in any way permitted by Christ, how comes it that you yourself make separation between married people? For you neither allow the conjunction of male and female, nor do you admit to the sacrament of baptism and the eucharist persons married elsewhere, unless they have made conspiracy between themselves against the fruit of matrimony, and so against the Creator himself. In any case, what in your view does a husband do if his wife has committed adultery? Will he keep her? But, you know, your own apostle does not permit the members of Christ to be joined to a harlot.d It appears then that divorce, when justified, has Christ's authority. Next also Moses receives support from him, for he prohibits divorce under the same heading as Christ does—unless there be found in the woman some unseemly thing. For in Matthew's gospel Christ says, Whosoever shall send away his wife, saving for the cause of adultery, causeth her to commit adultery: e and the man who marries one sent away by her husband is no less declared an adulterer. But except for the cause of adultery, neither does the Creator put asunder that which he himself has joined together: for Moses again in another place makes the rule that the man who had married after violence committed, could not send away his wife at any time.f But if a marriage enforced in consequence of violence is to be permanent, how much more shall one contracted willingly and by agreement? This too has the authority of prophecy, Thou shalt not send away the wife of thy youth.g Thus you find Christ by himself treading at every point in the Creator's footsteps, whether in permitting divorce or in forbidding it. You will find him also, in whichever direction you will, taking forethought regarding marriage: while he will not have it dissolved, he forbids separation: and while he will not have it continue under stain he permits divorce. You to your shame refuse to join together those whom your own Christ has joined. To your shame you put them asunder without that just cause for which your Christ also would have them put asunder. It is my next duty to show you also from what source the Lord derived this judgement, and for what purpose he intended it. So it will become more fully evident that he had no intention of suppressing Moses' ruling by this sudden introduction of the subject of divorce: for in fact there was no sudden introduction, since it had its origin in the aforesaid mention of John. John rebuked Herod because contrary to the law he had married the wife of his deceased brother, who had a daughter by her. The law does not allow this, or give any command of this sort, except when the brother has died childless, so that seed may be raised up to him by his own brother, of his own wife. So John had been cast into prison by that same Herod, and afterwards put to death. So our Lord, having made mention of John, and in effect of what led to his death, did under the figure of adultery and unlawful marriage make this attack upon Herod, when he pronounced an adulterer even one who has married a woman sent away by her husband. In this way he could pass sterner censure upon Herod's godlessness, who had married a woman sent away by her husband by death, which is a sort of divorce, even though this was his brother, who had a daughter by her—on which account his action was illicit, suggested by lust and not by the law—and therefore had put to death that prophet who censured his breaking of the law. The observations I have made here will be of service also for the narrative that follows, of the rich man in pain in hell and the poor man at rest in Abraham's bosom. For that too, as far as the surface of scripture goes, is set before us abruptly, though as concerns the purport of its meaning it too is linked with the reference to the ill usage of John and his disapproval of Herod's unlawful marriage: for it delineates the latter end of both, Herod in torment, and John comforted, so that even while alive Herod might hear it said, They have there Moses and the prophets, let them hear them.
right down to the time of John, and then after that came forth to announce the kingdom of God - this is clearly how the orthodox gospels begin i.e. with the arrival of John.

The law and the prophets were until John, since which time the kingdom of God is announced ... inception of that gospel in which is the kingdom of God, Christ himself - this is literally about the introduction of the gospel

and if John is set forth as the forerunner who prepares the ways of that Lord who will bring in the gospel and proclaim the kingdom of God, and from the fact that John is now come, this must be that Christ who was to come after John as forerunner - see above

So then let heaven and earth pass away, as have the law and the prophets, more quickly than one tittle of the words of the Lord - this is literally a variant of Matthew 5:18 the line right after the most cited scripture in Against Marcion

Isaiah so long before prophesied of John as the voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord,f and as one who was to come for this end, that the sequence of law and prophets should from that time cease—by being fulfilled, not by being destroyed—and that the kingdom of God should be proclaimed by Christ: which is why he appended the statement that it would be easier for the heavenly bodies than for his words to pass away all this material comes from the early parts of the gospel. One can even read this as a reference to 5:18 being appended to 5:17

Whosoever sendeth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery - this again a variant of the Antitheses and the actual material from Matthew resurfaces in what follows

You notice the contrast between law and gospel, between Moses and Christ? (Vides diversitatem legis et evangelii, Moysi et Christi?) contradiction = diversus or "antitheses"

' He said to them, 'Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery. '” (Matthew 5:31 - 32)

When he forbids divorce, while yet claiming as his father him who has joined together the male and the female, must he not rather have defended than abolished Moses' regulation? Deut. 22:28, 29. But why is Against Marcion going in this bizarre direction using Matthew against Marcion. The answer has to be that the original text of Against Marcion was fixated on the Antitheses of Matthew.

But now, let us suppose that this Christ is yours, giving opposite teaching to Moses and the Creator—provided that if I prove it was not opposite, I may claim him as mine ( Sed ecce sic tuus sit iste Christus contrarium docens Moysi et creatori, ut, si non contrarium ostendero, meus sit) contrario = antitheses. Why exactly is Against Marcion, which formerly argued from Luke that Christ is mine now arguing from Matthew the same argument? Why would Matthew have been corrupted by Marcion?

His words are, Whosoever sendeth away his wife and marrieth another hath committed adultery, and whosoever marrieth one sent away by her husband is no less an adulterer Matthew 19. Why is this coming up in an argument based on Luke to prove from the portions retained by Marcion that Christ is from the Creator.

. Thus his teaching is not in opposition to Moses (Et iam non contrarium Moysi docet) contrario = antitheses.

But, you know, your own apostle ( tuum apostolum ) does not permit the members of Christ to be joined to a harlot.d It appears then that divorce, when justified, has Christ's authority. This emphasis of "your apostle" could be a vestige of an argument made by someone like Justin who did not accept Paul.

For in Matthew's gospel Christ says, Whosoever shall send away his wife, saving for the cause of adultery, causeth her to commit adultery: Matthew 19

This too has the authority of prophecy, Thou shalt not send away the wife of thy youth.g Thus you find Christ by himself treading at every point in the Creator's footsteps, whether in permitting divorce or in forbidding it. why is there this extended section demonstrating that the Christ of Matthew is in keeping with the Creator in a work supposedly proving from Luke that Christ of the Creator.

So it will become more fully evident that he had no intention of suppressing Moses' ruling by this sudden introduction of the subject of divorce: this is an argument from the Antitheses section of Matthew.

there was no sudden introduction, since it had its origin in the aforesaid mention of John. John rebuked Herod because contrary to the law he had married the wife of his deceased brother, who had a daughter by her. The law does not allow this, or give any command of this sort, except when the brother has died childless, so that seed may be raised up to him by his own brother, of his own wife. So John had been cast into prison by that same Herod, and afterwards put to death. So our Lord, having made mention of John, and in effect of what led to his death, did under the figure of adultery and unlawful marriage make this attack upon Herod, when he pronounced an adulterer even one who has married a woman sent away by her husband. In this way he could pass sterner censure upon Herod's godlessness, who had married a woman sent away by her husband by death, which is a sort of divorce, even though this was his brother, who had a daughter by her—on which account his action was illicit, suggested by lust and not by the law—and therefore had put to death that prophet who censured his breaking of the law. this is the most bizarre argument of all. This is ostensibly a discussion of the "sudden" mention of Luke 16:16 and Luke 16:18. Yet this entire section comes from Matthew not Luke. Luke just throws out the mention of John and divorce. This can't possibly be the justification for including Luke 16:16 and Luke 16:18 in Luke chapter 16 and Luke chapter 16 where it is in Luke! Luke completely ignores the beheading of John because of his accusations of remarriage. This not only doesn't have anything to do with Marcion, it doesn't have anything to do with Luke and certainly can't be used to explain why Luke is arranged the way it is unless the author is claiming that Luke used Matthew or Mark!
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Luke Chapter 16, Against Marcion and the Necessarily Non-Lukan Gospel of Marcion

Post by Secret Alias »

In short:

There is a gospel of Marcion.
Against Marcion came along (in its original form) and addressed it.
Luke was developed out of Against Marcion.
Post Reply