After mentioning Ev 13:28 at the end of his chapter 30, Tertullian begins chapter 31 by referring to Ev 14:12-14, without having mentioned the intervening verses in any way. As Epiphanius also does not mention these verses, and they have no parallels in either Mark or Matthew, it is possible that Ev 14:1-11 did not exist. However, as these verses exist in both P45 and P75, and Tertullian does refer to the dinner or supper invitation in Ev 14:12, it is instead more likely that they were the same in Ev, and hence that Tertullian and Epiphanius simply had no comment to make.
Tertullian refers to Ev 14:12-24 in sufficient detail to make it plain that he saw these verses, except that he does not refer explicitly to Ev 14:15 or provide any details of the excuses in Ev 14:18b-21, both of which are due to Tertullian being interested only in the portrayal of Jesus in Ev. The lack of comment from Epiphanius and the parallel at Mt 22:1-13 confirms that these verses (with the possible exception of Ev 14:15, which has no parallel in Matthew, and is also not present in ms 1071) were present in Ev.
And there went great multitudes with him: and he turned, and said unto them, [14:25] If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple. [14:26] And whosoever doth not bear his cross, and come after me, cannot be my disciple. [14:27]
Neither Tertullian nor Epiphanius mentions Ev 14:25-27 in their respective narratives, indicating that neither saw anything of note in Ev. However, Lk 14:26-27 have parallels in Mt 10:37-38, and Tertullian appears to refer to Ev 14:26 when commenting on Ev 8:20-21, as he there writes:
If, therefore, He made them "His mother and His brethren" who were not so, how could He deny them these relationships who really had them? Surely only on the condition of their deserts, and not by any disavowal of His near relatives; teaching them by His own actual example, that "whosoever preferred father or mother or brethren to the Word of God, was not a disciple worthy of Him."
Lk 14:27 forms a doublet with Lk 9:32b (see Take up your cross (Doublets in both Matthew and Luke)) and “is omitted in several Greek manuscripts (including 544), the SSyr, and the vulgate” (BeDuhn), and therefore it is conceivable that Ev 14:27 did not exist. However, in Panarium 31, Against the Valentinians 15:1, Epiphanius writes:
“He who doth not bear his cross and follow me, cannot be my disciple,” and <again> “Take up thy cross and follow me.”
This indicates that he knew Ev 14:27, so making it likely that this verse was present, and that Epiphanius simply had no comment to make.
These verses have no parallels in either Matthew or Mark. but do exist in both P45 and P75, so were most likely known to both Tertullian and Epiphanius. As neither Tertullian nor Epiphanius comment on these verses it is likely that they were also present in Ev.
Salt is good: but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be seasoned? [14:34] It is neither fit for the land, not yet for the dunghill; but men cast it out. He that hath ears to hear, let him hear. [14:35]
Neither Tertullian nor Epiphanius refer to these verses, about which the NET notes:
The difficulty of this saying is understanding how salt could lose its flavor since its chemical properties cannot change. It is thus often assumed that Jesus was referring to chemically impure salt, perhaps a natural salt which, when exposed to the elements, had all the genuine salt leached out, leaving only the sediment or impurities behind. Others have suggested the background of the saying is the use of salt blocks by Arab bakers to line the floor of their ovens: Under the intense heat these blocks would eventually crystallize and undergo a change in chemical composition, finally being thrown out as unserviceable.
A saying in the Talmud (b. Bekhorot 8b) attributed to R. Joshua ben Chananja (ca. a.d. 90), when asked the question “When salt loses its flavor, how can it be made salty again?” is said to have replied, “By salting it with the afterbirth of a mule.” He was then asked, “Then does the mule (being sterile) bear young?” to which he replied: “Can salt lose its flavor?” The point appears to be, both are impossible. The saying, while admittedly late, suggests that culturally the loss of flavor by salt was regarded as an impossibility. Genuine salt can never lose its flavor. In this case the saying by Jesus here may be similar to Matt 19:24, where it is likewise impossible for the camel to go through the eye of a sewing needle.
As these verses have parallels at Mt 5:13 and Mk 9:49-50, we should assume that they were present in Ev.
Next Chapter: Luke 15