Luke 16

For a side-by-side English translation of the text of Marcion's Gospel of the Lord and Luke 16, see Luke Chapter 16

Luke 16:1-8 – The Unjust Steward

At the beginning of his chapter 33, Tertullian refers in general terms to the parable in Mcg [Marcion's Gospel] 16:1-8 as:

... the example of that steward who, when removed from his office, relieves his lord's debtors by lessening their debts with a view to their recompensing him with their help

Although Tertullian does not actually quote from Mcg 16:1-8, there is no reason to doubt that in Mcg these verses were the same as in his copy of Luke. This is reinforced by Epiphanius not commenting on these verses, meaning that he saw nothing of note here either. We can therefore assume that these verses were present in Marcion, and unchanged from what we see in Luke.

Luke 16:9-14 – Serving Two Masters

And I say unto you, Make to yourselves friends of the mammon of unrighteousness; that, when ye fail, they may receive you into eternal habitations. [16:9]  He that is faithful in that which is least is faithful also in much: and he that is unjust in the least is unjust also in much. [16:10]  If therefore ye have not been faithful in the unrighteous mammon, who will commit to your trust the true [riches]? [16:11]  And if ye have not been faithful in that which is another man's, who shall give you that which is your own? [16:12]  No servant can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon. [16:13]  And the Pharisees also, who were covetous, heard all these things: and they derided him. [16:14]

In Latin Christianity: Its Founder, Tertullian Philip Schaff writes:

What the two masters are who, He says, cannot be served, [16:13] on the ground that while one is pleased the other must needs be displeased, He Himself makes clear, when He mentions God and mammon. Then, if you have no interpreter by you, you may learn again from Himself what He would have understood by mammon. For when advising us to provide for ourselves the help of friends in worldly affairs, after the example of that steward who, when removed from his office, relieves his lord's debtors by lessening their debts with a view to their recompensing him with their help [16:1-8], He said, "And I say unto you, Make to yourselves friends of the mammon of unrighteousness," [16:9] that is to say, of money, even as the steward had done. Now we are all of us aware that money is the instigator of unrighteousness, and the lord of the whole world. Therefore, when he saw the covetousness of the Pharisees doing servile worship to it, He hurled this sentence against them, "Ye cannot serve God and mammon." [16:13] Then the Pharisees, who were covetous of riches, derided Him [16:14], when they understood that by mammon He meant money.

Epiphanius does not comment on these verses, but after referring to the parable in Mcg 16:1-8 Tertullian quotes from or refers to Mcg 16:9a and 16:11-14. He does not mention Mcg 16:9b-10, and appears to know a different version of Lk 16:12:

And if ye have not been faithful in that which is another man's, who will give to you that which is mine? [16:12]

Sense comments on Tertullian’s text:

The latter, however, is varied from our received text, viz., "Who shall give you that which is mine?" instead of 'your own ' in our text. As he repeats the words 'that which is mine' twice, it must be taken as the original text.

The earliest form of this text will be found in the writing called the Second Epistle of Clement (ch. 8), "For the Lord saith in the Gospel, if ye kept not that which is little, who shall give you that which is great? For I say unto you that he which is faithful in the least, is faithful also in much." This appears to me to be a quotation from a collection of Adgia, from which Clement of Rome probably also quoted (First Epistle, ch. 13), and which was also probably the source of the collection of moral precepts in the Didache… Irenaeus quotes the verse thus: "If ye have not been faithful in that which is little, who will give you that which is great?" (n. xxxiv. 3).

Tertullian also reports what appears to be a preferable reading of Lk 16:13:

… What the two masters are who, He says, cannot be served, on the ground that while one is pleased the other must needs be displeased, … He Himself makes clear, when He mentions God and mammon. [16:13]. Ye cannot serve God and mammon. [16:13]

Because Epiphanius does not note any differences here, it is possible that Tertullian's copy of Marcion contained text slightly different to that of Epiphanius, as perhaps seen in 1 Clement.

Luke 16:15-17 – One Tittle of What?

And he said unto them, Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God. [16:15]  The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it. [16:16]  And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail. [16:17]

Tertullian quotes from all three of these verses. He does not mention Mcg 16:16b “and every man presseth into it,” and has “the Lord's words” in Mcg 16:17b instead of “the law.” Epiphanius quotes from Mcg 16:16, without stating that he saw anything different: “The Law and the prophets were until John, and every man presseth into it.” (Scholion 43) These verses were therefore in Mcg, and neither Tertullian nor Epiphanius give any indication that they varied from their copies of Luke. However, they appear to conflict over the text of Mcg 16:16:

The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached. (Tertullian)

The law and the prophets were until John, and every man presseth into it. (Epiphanius)

As we know that Epiphanius does not always quote in full, and between them Tertullian and Epiphanius quote the whole of Mcg 16:16, it is likely that they both saw this verse as we see it in Luke. However, the same may not be true of Mcg 16:17. In The Lost and Hostile Gospels (26. Luke, xvi. 17) Baring Gould states his belief  that Luke was altered after Marcion, writing:

"One tittle of my words shall not fall," in place of, "One tittle of the Law shall not fall." As has been already remarked, the reading in St. Luke is evidently corrupt, altered deliberately by the party of conciliation. Marcion's is the genuine text.

This difference could be seen as an assimilation to Mt 5:18:

For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

Whether Baring Gould’s explanation is correct or not, it is likely that Mcg read as Tertullian indicates, matching what we still see in Lk 21:33: “Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away.” With this reading Mcg 16:16-17 is more understandable: The OT law ended with John, but Jesus’ words will not fail until the end of heaven and earth. Sense points out that Epiphanius’ lack of comment meant that the verse had not been changed at the time that he saw it:

Epiphanius has no remark upon the text of this passage; and hence it is very obvious that this interpolation, i.e., the substitution of 'law' for 'words of the Lord,' [or ‘my words’] was not in all codices in his days of the Canonical Gospel.

Luke 16:18 – Committing Adultery

Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery. [16:18]

Tertullian quotes this verse exactly as we see it in Luke, making it clear that it was unchanged in Mcg. However, although Lk 16:18a has an almost exact parallel at Mark 10:11, the parallels at both Mt 5:32 and 19:9 contain an additional clause that is not in Mark, Mcg, or Luke:

But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to … [Mt 5:32a]

And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, … [Mt 19:9]

In Mark, Luke, and Mcg it is stated that it is the man who divorces his wife and re-marries who commits adultery. In Matthew instead divorce by the husband causes the wife to commit adultery, except in the case of fornication by the wife. Klinghardt uses this point as part of his argument that Mcg predates Luke:

The restrictive clause of fornication in Jesus’ teaching about adultery and re-marriage (Matt. 19:9b: μὴ ἐπὶ πορνείᾳ) is absent not only in Luke (16:18) but also in Mcn: the whole chapter is attested by Tertullian who gives special attention to *16:16-18 (4.33.7, 9; 4.34.1). Tertullian states in particular that Marcion did not hand down “the other gospel and its truth” (4.34.2) because Tertullian needs the clause of fornication for his argument, but does not find it in Mcn: in spite of his own intentions, he must resort to Matthew in this case in order to refute Marcion.

Luke 16:19-31 – The Rich Man and Lazarus

There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day: [16:19]  And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores, [16:20]  And desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man's table: moreover the dogs came and licked his sores. [16:21]  And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried. [16:22]  And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom. [16:23]  And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame. [16:24]  But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented. [16:25]  And besides all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence. [16:26]  Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father's house: [16:27]  For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment. [16:28]  Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them. [16:29]  And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent. [16:30]  And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead. [16:31]

Tertullian comments on the “parable of the rich man tormented in hell, and the poor man resting in Abraham's bosom,” showing that he saw this passage in Mcg. However, he provides little detail, quoting from or otherwise mentioning only Mcg 16:22-23, 26, and 29.  Epiphanius mentions the following:

The material about the rich man, and Lazarus the beggar’s being carried by the angels into Abraham’s bosom. (Scholion 44) [16:19-22]

“But now he is comforted,” again meaning Lazarus. (Scholion 45) [16:25]

 Abraham said, “They have Moses and the prophets, let them hear them, for neither will they hear him who is risen from the dead.” (Scholion 46) [16:29, 31b]

Also, later, in Elenchus 56 (a) he states that this parable was in Mcg, and in Elenchus 56 (b) he refers to Mcg 16:24:

But if a finger is dipped in water after departure from this life and a tongue is cooled with water – as the rich man said to Abraham on Lazarus’ account [16:24] – and there is gnashing of teeth and wailing, this is a sign of a resurrection of bodies, even if the oaf falsifies the Lord’s true sayings about the resurrection of the dead.

Between them Tertullian and Epiphanius refer to most of the verses in this passage, and neither give any indication that what they saw differed from what they expected. It is possible that Epiphanius is referring to a shorter version of Mcg 16:29-31, although he may simply be not quoting the verses in full, as he is known to do in other places. However, there are several different readings for v. 16:31b, and so it is possible that Epiphanius saw a difference here.

Next Chapter: Luke 17, 4:27