From Ernest Evans on Adv. Marcion IV: Appendix 2: In ch. 13 he omits vv.1-5 [of the Galilaeans murdered by Pilate, and those killed by the tower of Siloam]: for verse 28 he reads, When ye shall see all the just in the kingdom of God, and yourselves cast out and bound without, there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth: omitting vv. 29-35 [they shall come from east and west: go and tell that fox: O Jerusalem, Jerusalem].
There were present at that season some that told him of the Galilaeans, whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices. [13:1] And Jesus answering said unto them, Suppose ye that these Galilaeans were sinners above all the Galilaeans, because they suffered such things? [13:2] I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish. [13:3] Or those eighteen, upon whom the tower in Siloam fell, and slew them, think ye that they were sinners above all men that dwelt in Jerusalem? [13:4] I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish. [13:5]
Epiphanius noted the following:
There was falsification of “There came some that told him of the Galilaeans whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices” until the mention of the eighteen who died in the tower at Siloam, and of “Except ye repent < and so forth >, until the parable of the fig tree of which the cultivator said, “I am digging about it and dunging it, and if it bear no fruit, cut it down.” (Scholion 38)
The bandit caused the removal of all this to conceal the truth from himself, because of the Lord’s agreement with Pilate who had rightly condemned such persons, and because the men at Siloam died rightly, since they were sinners and God punished them in this way. (Elenchus 38)
From the above it is certain that Ev 13:1-5 did not exist, and because Tertullian does not mention any of this text either he did not expect to see it, or that there was nothing here regarding Jesus on which he could comment.
He spake also this parable; A certain man had a fig tree planted in his vineyard; and he came and sought fruit thereon, and found none. [13:6] Then said he unto the dresser of his vineyard, Behold, these three years I come seeking fruit on this fig tree, and find none: cut it down: why cumbereth it the ground? [13:7] And he answering said unto him, Lord, let it alone this year also, till I shall dig about it, and dung it: [13:8] And if it bear fruit, well: and if not, then after that thou shalt cut it down. [13:9]
In a similar fashion to Ev 13:1-5, Epiphanius states that Ev 13:6-9 did not exist, and as Tertullian makes no mention of this text either he did not expect to see it, or he had no comment to make. Sense expands on this:
There can be no doubt, however, that the Gospel in Tertullian's hand varied from that in the hands of Irenaeus towards the close of the second century; because while it is clear from Tertullian that the parable of the fig tree was absent in his Gospel, it is equally clear from Irenaeus that it existed in his Gospel, for he mentions it in his list of the contents peculiar to Luke's Gospel (Ad Her., in. xiv. 3), and again in iv. xxxvi. 8, where he quotes verse 7. The only explanation possible to account for these facts is that the parable of the fig tree in the vineyard was an addition or interpolation in the copy used by Irenaeus, which was the second edition, while Tertullian used the first edition.
Sense here seems to assume that if Tertullian saw this parable in Ev then he would be required to comment on it, whereas in reality there is nothing in here on which Tertullian would be expected to comment given that he was looking for differences between Luke's Jesus and Marcion's Jesus. It is simply NOT "clear from Tertullian that the parable of the fig tree was absent in his Gospel."
There are two known variants in Lk 13:7. The NET has this note:
Several witnesses (Ì75 A L Θ Ψ 070 Ë13 33 579 892 al lat co) have “therefore” (οὖν, oun) here [Before “cut it down”]. This conjunction has the effect of strengthening the logical connection with the preceding statement but also of reducing the rhetorical power and urgency of the imperative. In light of the slightly greater internal probability of adding a conjunction to an otherwise asyndetic sentence, as well as significant external support for the omission (א B D W Ë1 Ï), the shorter reading appears to be more likely as the original wording here. NA27 puts the conjunction in brackets, indicating some doubts as to its authenticity.
Also, Bruce Metzger notes the following addition in some mss:
… according to the commonly received text, the owner commands the vinedresser, 'Cut it down; why should it use up the ground?' In codex Bezae, however, both the Greek and Latin prefix the order with, 'Bring the axe,' φέρε τὴν ἀξίνην, adfers securem. The answer of the vinedresser (vs. 8), suggesting a delay 'till I shall dig about it and dung it', gains immeasurably in colloquial vividness in codex Bezae and several old Latin witnesses: 'I will throw on a basket of dung', βάλω κόφινον κοπρίων, mittam qualum (=squalum) stercoris (d), or cophinum stercoris (old Latin a b c ƒ ƒƒ2 i l q). (The Early Versions of the New Testament, page 324).
Although there are passages at Mt 21:18-22 and Mk 11:19-24 that refer to a fig tree, these should not be regarded as parallels to Lk 13:6-9. For all the reasons given above (Epiphanius’ statement, Tertullian’s silence, the existence of variants, and lack of parallels) Lk 13:6-9, like Lk 13:1-5, are possibly later additions to Luke that Tertullian did not see, but more likely Tertullian had nothing to say because here there is no action by or comment from Jesus in these verses except the recitation of a parable.
At the beginning of his chapter 30 (having mentioned nothing regarding Lk 13:1-9) Tertullian briefly mentions this passage:
When the question was again raised concerning a cure performed on the Sabbath day [13:12-14], how did He discuss it: "Does not each of you on the Sabbath loose his ass or his ox from the stall, and lead him away to watering?" [13:15] When, therefore, He did a work according to the condition prescribed by the law, He affirmed, instead of breaking, the law, which commanded that no work should be done, except what might be done for any living being; and if for any one, then how much more for a human life? [13:15-16]
Epiphanius notes just this part of Ev 13:16: “this woman, being a daughter of Abraham, whom Satan hath bound” (Scholion 39)
Although Tertullian only refers directly to small parts of this passage, Epiphanius does not indicate that anything was missing or changed. In the absence of any other evidence we should assume that in Ev these verses were as we see them in Luke.
Then said he, Unto what is the kingdom of God like? and whereunto shall I liken it? [13:18] It is like a grain of mustard seed, which a man took, and cast into his garden; [13:19a] and it grew, and waxed a great tree; and the fowls of the air lodged in the branches of it. [13:19b]
This passage has parallels in both Mark and Matthew:
And he said, Whereunto shall we liken the kingdom of God? or with what comparison shall we compare it? [Mk 4:30] It is like a grain of mustard seed, which, when it is sown in the earth, is less than all the seeds that be in the earth: [Mk 4:31] But when it is sown, it groweth up, and becometh greater than all herbs, and shooteth out great branches; so that the fowls of the air may lodge under the shadow of it. [Mk 4:32]
Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is like to a grain of mustard seed, which a man took, and sowed in his field: [Mt 13:31] Which indeed is the least of all seeds: but when it is grown, it is the greatest among herbs, and becometh a tree, so that the birds of the air come and lodge in the branches thereof. [Mt 13:32]
Luke appears to ‘mix and match’ from both, omitting Mk 4:31b-32a / Mt 13:32a, having “kingdom of God” in common with Mark, and “which a man took” and the birds lodging in the branches in common with Matthew. Tertullian refers to parts of both verses:
In the case of the parables, it is allowed that I everywhere require a congruity. "The kingdom of God," says He, "is like a grain of mustard-seed which a man took and cast into his garden." [13:18-19a]
We cannot be sure whether Tertullian saw what we see in Luke, or some slight variation. In particular, as he does not refer to Ev 13:19b, we do not know whether he knew the ending. However, his later comment indicates that it is the 'casting into the garden' that is his point. Because Epiphanius does not comment on these verses Ev here was the same as, or very close to, what we see in Luke.
And again he said, Whereunto shall I liken the kingdom of God? [13:20] It is like unto leaven, which a woman took and hid in three measures of meal, till the whole was leavened. [13:21]
Tertullian refers to both verses:
With regard, indeed, to the following similitude, I have my fears lest it should somehow presage the kingdom of the rival god! For He compared it, not to the unleavened bread which the Creator is more familiar with, but to leaven. [13:20-21] Now this is a capital conjecture for men who are begging for arguments.
Because Epiphanius has no comment and Tertullian only comments to connect these verses with "the oven, or, if you please, the furnace of hell" we should assume that they were present in Ev as we see them in Luke.
And he went through the cities and villages, teaching, and making a journey toward Jerusalem. [13:22]
Neither Tertullian nor Epiphanius refer to this verse, so they provide no direct evidence for its presence or absence in Ev. The NET notes that this is one of a number of related verses in Luke:
This is the first of several travel notes in Luke’s Jerusalem journey section of chapters 9-19; other notes appear at 17:11; 18:31; 19:28, 41.
As Tertullian appears uninterested in Jesus’ travel details, and this verse has parallels at both Mt 9:35 and Mk 6:6b, it can be assumed to have been in Ev.
Then one said unto him, Lord, are they few that be saved? And he said unto them, [13:23] Strive to enter in at the strait gate: for many, I say unto you, will seek to enter in, and shall not be able. [13:24]
Neither Tertullian nor Epiphanius refer to either of these verses, from which we assume that neither saw any differences of note here. The verses have no parallel in Mark, but do have a loose (and longer) parallel at Mt 7:13-14.
When once the master of the house is risen up, and hath shut to the door, and ye begin to stand without, and to knock at the door, saying, Lord, Lord, open unto us; and he shall answer and say unto you, I know you not whence ye are: [13:25] Then shall ye begin to say, We have eaten and drunk in thy presence, and thou hast taught in our streets. [13:26] But he shall say, I tell you, I know you not whence ye are; depart from me, all ye workers of iniquity. [13:27]
Tertullian quotes from or refers to each of Ev 13:25-27:
In the present passage, for instance, He says, "When once the master of the house is risen up;" [13:25] but in what sense except that in which Isaiah said, "When He arises to shake terribly the earth?" [Isa 2:19] "And has shut to the door," [13:25] thereby shutting out the wicked, of course; and when these knock, He will answer, "I know you not whence you are;" [13:25] and when they recount how they "have eaten and drunk” in His presence, [13:26] He will further say to them, "Depart from me, all you workers of iniquity;" [13:27b]
He omits “at the door” following “knock” as does D, but has: “I know you not whence ye are,” from Lk 13:17, which D has as: ”I never saw you.” Despite these slight differences, as Epiphanius does not refer to these verses it is likely that in Ev they were essentially the same as we see them in Luke.
There shall be the weeping and gnashing of teeth, when ye shall see Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and all the prophets, in the kingdom of God, and you yourselves thrust out. [13:28] And they shall come from the east, and from the west, and from the north, and from the south, and shall sit down in the kingdom of God. [13:29] And, behold, there are last which shall be first, and there are first which shall be last. [13:30]
Tertullian quotes a shorter form of Ev 13:28, referring to the righteous being kept (detained - detineri) out. He does not quote from or refer to Ev 13: 29-30, and so gives no indication that these verses in Ev differed from those in his copy of Luke:
... there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth." [13:28a] … when they shall behold the righteous entering the kingdom of God, but themselves detained without. [13:28b]
Epiphanius reports the same variants in Ev 13:28, but he also notes this as a difference from Luke:
Again, he falsified, "Then shall ye see Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and all the prophets, in the kingdom of God.” In place of this he put, “When ye see all the righteous in the kingdom of God, and yourselves thrust” -- but he put “kept” -- “out.” There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. (Scholion 40)
It is unclear whether Epiphanius saw “There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth” at the beginning or end of Ev 13:28. He continues by indicating that what we know as Lk 13:29-30 did not exist in Ev, except that he appears not to know of: “and from the north, and from the south” in Lk 13:29:
Again, he falsified: “They shall come from the east, and from the west, and shall sit down in the kingdom,” [13:29] “The last shall be first,” [13:30] (Scholion 41a)
Although Lk 13:28-29 have no parallels in Mark, they do have parallels in Matthew, while Lk 13:30 has a parallel in both:
And I say unto you, That many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven. [Mt 8:11] But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. [Mt 8:12]
But many that are first shall be last; and the last first. [Mk 10:31]
But many that are first shall be last; and the last shall be first. [Mt 19:30]
It is notable that the text in Mt 8:11-12 is significantly different to that in Luke, in particular having an order equivalent to Lk 13:29a, 28b, 29b, 28c, 28a (ending with: “There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth”), and not having: “and from the north, and from the south.” Epiphanius also has this omission, and his quote: “The last shall be first” appears to match Mt 19:30 more closely than Lk 13:30. However, as Epiphanius tends to quote from just the beginning of a passage when noting an omission, it is perhaps more likely that this latter instead is a slight mis-quote of Lk 13:30.
It is clear from both Tertullian and Epiphanius that Ev 13:28 differed from Lk 13:28, in particular referring to “the righteous” being “kept out,” and that Ev 13:29-30 did not exist. However, as Tertullian does not note any difference it appears that this is what he expected to see, suggesting that this is how his copy of Luke read.
The sameday there came certain of the Pharisees, saying unto him, Get thee out, and depart hence: for Herod will kill thee. [13:31] And he said unto them, Go ye, and tell that fox, Behold, I cast out devils, and I do cures today and tomorrow, and the third day I shall be perfected. [13:32] Nevertheless I must walk today, and tomorrow, and the day following: for it cannot be that a prophet perish out of Jerusalem. [13:33] O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, which killest the prophets, and stonest them that are sent unto thee; how often would I have gathered thy children together, as a hen doth gather her brood under her wings, and ye would not! [13:34] Behold, your house is left unto you desolate: and verily I say unto you, Ye shall not see me, until the time come when ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord. [13:35]
Tertullian has no comment on any of these verses, but Epiphanius clearly tells us that they were not in Ev:
[Again he falsified] “The Pharisees come saying, Get thee out and depart, for Herod will kill thee,” Also, “He said, go ye and tell that fox,” till the words, “It cannot be that a prophet perish out of Jerusalem,” and “Jerusalem, Jerusalem, which killest the prophets and stonest them that are sent,” “Often would I have gathered, as a hen, thy children,” “Your house is left unto you desolate,” and “Ye shall not see me until ye shall say, Blessed.” (Scholion 41b)
Epiphanius quotes: “Your house is left unto you desolate,” showing that he knew the addition “desolate,” as found in Bezae and other Western mss, but not in P45, P75 and the Alexandrian mss in general.
As previously stated, Lardner comments that Marcion would not have omitted verses such as Lk 13:34, because: “These contain strong denunciations of the Jews by Jesus Christ.” In other words, they could not have been present in whatever Marcion used as the basis of Ev. The lack of comment by Tertullian suggests that vv. 13:31-35 were not in his copy of Luke either.
Next Chapter: Luke 14