Luke 20

For a side-by-side English translation of the text of Marcion's Gospel of the Lord and Luke 20, see Luke Chapter 20

Summary:

From Ernest Evans on Adv. Marcion IV: Appendix 2: He omits 20:9-18 [the parable of the wicked husbandmen] and vv. 37-8 [with the mention of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob].

Details:

Luke 20:1-8 – By what authority?

And it came to pass, that on one of those days, as he taught the people in the temple, and preached the gospel, the chief priests and the scribes came upon him with the elders, [20:1]  And spake unto him, saying, Tell us, by what authority doest thou these things? or who is he that gave thee this authority? [20:2]  And he answered and said unto them, I will also ask you one thing; and answer me: [20:3]  The baptism of John, was it from heaven, or of men? [20:4]  And they reasoned with themselves, saying, If we shall say, From heaven; he will say, Why then believed ye him not? [20:5]  But and if we say, Of men; all the people will stone us: for they be persuaded that John was a prophet. [20:6]  And they answered, that they could not tell whence it was. [20:7]  And Jesus said unto them, Neither tell I you by what authority I do these things. [20:8]

In Elenchus 53 (d), Epiphanius states:

But for his refutation out of his own mouth, Marcion says, “It came to pass on one of those days, as he taught in the temple, they sought to lay hands on him and they were afraid,” as we read in next paragraph, 54.

He confirms this reading in Scholion 54, where he writes:

And they sought to lay hands on him and they were afraid.

This appears to be a combination of what we see as Lk 20:1a and 19b:

And it came to pass, that on one of those days, as he taught the people in the temple, [20:1a] … [they] sought to lay hands on him; and they feared the people: [20:19b]

Willker points out that in a number of mss (G, S, V, Y, Γ, Δ, Ω, 047, 565, 700, 1342, and 1424) “τον αον” (the people) is omitted from Lk 20:19, changing the reading from “they feared the people” to “they were afraid.” He concludes that this is “probably an accidental omission,” which is a reasonable opinion if the only evidence is a number of late (mainly 9th century) mss.  However, Epiphanius (writing in the 4th century) provides evidence that this shorter variant was in Marcion's gospel [Mcg], and (because he does not note this as a difference) also in his copy of Luke as well. This early evidence makes it much less likely that this is “an accidental omission,” but instead that it may have been the original text, was later assimilated to Mk 12:12 or Mt 21:46, and survived in just a very small number of mss copies or families.

 From this we might reasonably infer that Epiphanius did not see in Mcg what we see as the intervening text in Lk 20:1b-19a, and this is partly confirmed by Scholion 55, in which Epiphanius notes (see below) that Lk 20:9-18 were not in Mcg. However, he does not mention Lk 20:1b-8, so we assume that he saw no differences here. Tertullian does not mention Mcg 20:1-2, although he does refer to Mcg 20:3-8 in sufficient detail for us to be certain that he saw these verses (and, by inference, Mcg 20:2) essentially as we see them in Luke:

Christ knew "the baptism of John, whence it was." [20:4, 7] Then why did He ask them, as if He knew not? [20:3-4] He knew that the Pharisees would not give Him an answer… Suppose their answer to have been, that John's baptism was "of men," they would have been immediately stoned to death. [20:6]… But John's baptism was "from heaven." [20:4] "Why, therefore," asks Christ, "did ye not believe him?" [20:5]… But, at any rate, when He actually met their refusal to say what they thought, with such reprisals as, "Neither tell I you by what authority I do these things," [20:8] He returned evil for evil!

Given what is reported by both Tertullian and Epiphanius, it seems likely that Mcg 20:1-8 were essentially as we see them in Luke, except that Mcg 20:1 read as follows:

And it came to pass, on one of those days, as he taught the in the temple, they sought to lay hands on him; and they were afraid.

As mentioned above, this only makes sense on the assumption that there is a preceding verse that specifies who “they” are, and here Mcg 19:47 performs this function. Later, when the parable in Lk 20:9-18 was added, Mcg 20:1 was split and Lk 20:1b and 19a as we know them were created.

Luke 20:9-19 – The Vineyard and the Husbandmen

Then began he to speak to the people this parable; A certain man planted a vineyard, and let it forth to husbandmen, and went into a far country for a long time. [20:9]  And at the season he sent a servant to the husbandmen, that they should give him of the fruit of the vineyard: but the husbandmen beat him, and sent him away empty. [20:10]  …  And he beheld them, and said, What is this then that is written, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner? [20:17]  Whosoever shall fall upon that stone shall be broken; but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder. [20:18]  And the chief priests and the scribes the same hour sought to lay hands on him; and they feared the people: for they perceived that he had spoken this parable against them. [20:19]

From Mcg 20:8 Tertullian jumps directly to Mcg 20:25, without any mention of Mcg 20:9-19, while Epiphanius explicitly states that this parable was not present in Mcg:

Again, he excised the material about the vineyard which was let out to husbandmen, [20:9-16] and the verse, “What is this, then, The stone which the builders rejected?” [20:17b] (Scholion 55)

There appears to be no mention here of whether Mcg 20:18 existed, although it would be pointless without Mcg 20:17. However, the Greek of Scholion 55 does not actually contain words for either “material” or “verse,” which have been added in the English for readability. Other words such as ‘bits’ or ‘words’ could equally well be read in place of “material,” and ‘sentence’ or ‘saying’ in place of “verse.” Thus Epiphanius may well be referring to the whole of the saying contained in Lk 20:17b-18, in which case Mcg 20:17a, 18 (which would make no sense without Mcg 20:17b) would not have been present either. In addition, as the parable itself was not present, it follows that Mcg 20:19 (or at least Mcg 20:19c, which refers to the parable) also did not exist.

As has been previously seen, in places where Tertullian and Epiphanius appear to disagree (e.g. where Epiphanius notes text missing in Mcg but Tertullian does not), it is not unusual to find a number of mss variants in the disputed text, as is also the case here, with the NET noting the following:

Lk 20:9: There are several variants here, most of which involve variations in word order that do not affect translation. However, the presence or absence of τις (ti") after ἄνθρωπος (anqrwpo"), which would be translated “a certain man,” does affect translation. The witnesses that have τις include A W Θ Ë13 1241 2542 al sy. Those that lack it include א B C D L Ψ Ë1 33 Ï it... In light of the overwhelming external support for the omission of τις, the shorter reading is preferred.

Lk 20:10: Instead of the future indicative δώσουσιν (dwsousin, “they will give”), most witnesses (C D W Θ Ψ Ë1 Ï) have the aorist subjunctive δῶσιν (dwsin, “they might give”). The aorist subjunctive is expected following ἵνα ({ina, “so that”), so it is almost surely a motivated reading. Further, early and excellent witnesses, as well as a few others (א A B Ë13 33 579 1241 2542 al), have δώσουσιν. It is thus more likely that the future indicative is authentic.

Willker also mentions the variant seen in Lk 20:9, and then reports variants in Lk 20:13 and (as noted above) Lk 20:19.

From Epiphanius’ comments it is clear that this parable was present in his copy of Luke, but Tertullian not mentioning its absence from Mcg suggests that he did not expect to see it, i.e. that it was not present in his Luke. This and the existence of the variants reported above suggest that the parable may have been a later addition to Luke, and that the only part of these verses included in Mcg was the shorter version of Lk 20:19b already noted above.

Luke 20:20-26 – Render Unto God

And they watched him, and sent forth spies, which should feign themselves just men, that they might take hold of his words, that so they might deliver him unto the power and authority of the governor. [20:20]  And they asked him, saying, Master, we know that thou sayest and teachest rightly, neither acceptest thou the person of any, but teachest the way of God truly: [20:21]  Is it lawful for us to give tribute unto Caesar, or no? [20:22]  But he perceived their craftiness, and said unto them, Why tempt ye me? [20:23]  Shew me a penny. Whose image and superscription hath it? They answered and said, Caesar's. [20:24]  And he said unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which be Caesar's, and unto God the things which be God's. [20:25]  And they could not take hold of his words before the people: and they marvelled at his answer, and held their peace. [20:26]

In his chapter 38 Tertullian quotes Mcg 20:25, and refers to the penny (denarius):

"Render unto Caesar the things which be Caesar's, and unto God the things which be God's." [20:25]  What will be "the things which are God's?" [20:25] Such things as are like Caesar's denarius  -- that is to say, His image and similitude. [20:24] That, therefore, which he commands to be "rendered unto God," the Creator, is man, who has been stamped with His image, likeness, name, and substance.

Epiphanius has no comment on this passage, so we assume that it was the same in Mcg as in Luke.

Luke 20:27-39 – Sadducees and the Resurrection

Then came to him certain of the Sadducees, which deny that there is any resurrection; and they asked him, [20:27]  Saying, Master, Moses wrote unto us, If any man's brother die, having a wife, and he die without children, that his brother should take his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother. [20:28]  There were therefore seven brethren: and the first took a wife, and died without children. [20:29]  And the second took her to wife, and he died childless. [20:30]  And the third took her; and in like manner the seven also: and they left no children, and died. [20:31]  Last of all the woman died also. [20:32]  Therefore in the resurrection whose wife of them is she? for seven had her to wife. [20:33]  And Jesus answering said unto them, The children of this world marry, and are given in marriage: [20:34]  But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage: [20:35]  Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection. [20:36]  Now that the dead are raised, even Moses shewed at the bush, when he calleth the Lord the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. [20:37]  For he is not a God of the dead, but of the living: for all live unto him. [20:38]  Then certain of the scribes answering said, Master, thou hast well said. [20:39]

Tertullian spends much of his chapter 38 discussing this passage, quoting from or referring to Mcg 20:27-31, 33-36, and 39. He does not mention that the woman had died (Mcg 20:32), and makes no mention of Mcg 37-38. He appears to see the other verses as we do, except possibly for Mcg 20:30, 35. He notes that the brothers had all died, but states nothing about any of them leaving no children (Mcg 20:29-31), although he perhaps implies it with his reference to “the legal prescription.”

… a certain woman, who, in accordance with the legal prescription, had been married to seven brothers who had died one after the other. [20:28-31]

The NET notes the following variant in Lk 20:30:

Most mss (A W Θ Ψ Ë1,13 33 Ï lat) have the words, “took the wife and this one died childless” after “the second.” But this looks like a clarifying addition, assimilating the text to Mark 12:21. In light of the early and diverse witnesses that lack the expression (א B D L 0266 892 1241 co), the shorter reading should be considered authentic.

Because Tertullian does not mention the second brother it is possible that he saw the earlier, shorter, variant of v. 20:30 in both Mcg and Luke. He also shows no sign of seeing the longer variant of Lk 20:34 found in D, itpt (a, d, r1), vgmss, Sy-S, Sy-C, Sy-Hmg, and sOr. He writes:

The children of this world marry and are given in marriage," whereas D has: 

The children of this world are begotten and beget, marry and are given in marriage:” 

Mcg may therefore have had the shorter variants of both Lk 20:30 and 34. Epiphanius does not mention Mcg 20:35-36, indicating that he did not see anything different in Mcg from what he saw in Luke, while Tertullian quotes them in full as:

But they whom God shall account worthy of the possession of that world and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry nor are given in marriage; [20:35] forasmuch as they cannot die any more, since they become equal to the angels, being made the children of God and of the resurrection. [20:36]

He then writes regarding an apparent difference in Mcg 20:35a:

I shall now proceed, by way of supererogation, and after the rule (I have laid down about questions and answers), to deal with the arguments which have any consistency in them. They procured then a copy of the Scripture, and made short work with its text, by reading it thus: "Those whom the god of that world shall account worthy." They add the phrase "of that world" to the word "god," whereby they make another god "the god of that world;" ...

At first sight Tertullian appears to be suggesting that they (the Sadducees) had a copy of Luke that contained "Those whom the god of that world shall account worthy." However, it then becomes clear that Tertullian is simply indicating that this is the Sadducees interpretation of what he has already quoted as the text of Luke, i.e. “Those whom God shall account worthy…” The reference by Tertullian to “God” (which he does not suggest is a difference between Mcg and his copy of Luke) indicates that he knew a variant of Lk 20:35 that we do not see today. Lk 20:24-35b have partial parallels in both Mark and Matthew, which, immediately before referring to the resurrection, read as follows:

Do ye not therefore err, because ye know not the scriptures, neither the power of God? [Mk 12:24b]

Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God. [Mt 22:29b]

These parallels are very similar to each other, with Jesus referring to “the scriptures” and  “the power of God.” However, in Luke today these references are replaced by something very different:

The children of this world marry, and are given in marriage: [20:34b] But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, [20:35a]

As both Mark and Matthew refer to God before mentioning the resurrection, it would not be unreasonable for there to have also been a reference to God in an early variant of Luke that Tertullian also saw in Mcg. Although we have no mss attestation (either Greek or old Latin) for the inclusion of “God,” the extreme paucity of extant old Latin mss in comparison with those in Greek makes it likely that the variant that Tertullian saw existed in a non-extant old Latin mss, but not in the (presumably) Greek mss seen by Epiphanius. 

In Scholion 56 Epiphanius reports that Mcg 20:37-38 did not exist:

He excised, “Now that the dead are raised, even Moses showed at the bush, in calling the Lord the God of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob. But he is a God of the living, not of the dead.”

In Elenchus 56 he then comments on Marcion’s ‘stupidity’ in removing this text but leaving in place other parables relating to resurrection:

a)  One can be amazed at the lame-brain’s stupidity in not seeing that this testimony is equivalent to Lazarus the beggar’s, and to the parable of those who are not allowed to enter the kingdom. He left the remains of these parables (in place) and did not falsify them; indeed, to his own embarrassment he has left “There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”

b)  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 – 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.

In Scholion 57 Epiphanius then seems to repeat his statement that Mcg 20:37-38 did not exist:

He did not have the following: “Now that the dead are raised, even Moses shewed, saying that the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob is God of the living.” (Scholion 57)

Curiously, Epiphanius then uses Elenchus 57 to report that Luke contained a second copy of this parable, and that this was also not in Mcg:

Since the savior repeated the parable I have inserted it twice, so that I will not be like the tramp, Mcg, and leave any of the scriptures out. <But> the rejoinder to his tampering has been given already, in the elenchus just above.

At issue here is what Epiphanius means by the “parable” (Greek ‘parabole’). We may consider it to be everything that Jesus said in this passage (Lk 20:34-38), but this reply by Jesus does not have the form of what we typically call a parable. Instead, it is more likely that Epiphanius is using ‘parabole’ in the slightly narrower sense of an example, and as Elenchus 57 is related to Scholion 57 it is most likely that the ‘example’ is the text reported in Scholion 57, e.g. a slightly shorter variant of Lk 20:37-38. Sense makes this comment:

The repetition is not to be found in our present text, nor is it alluded to by Tertullian; hence the pious epithet employed by Epiphanius to relieve his conscience ought properly to be applied to somebody else, and not to Marcion. The second repetition probably occurred in verse 39, and was a continuation of the answer of the Sadducees.

In other words, Sense is suggesting that it was the scribes who repeated this ‘parabole’ as part of their answer, perhaps as follows:

Then certain of the scribes answering said, Master, thou hast well said. [20:39]  Now that the dead are raised, even Moses shewed, saying that the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob is God of the living.

Epiphanius mentions the repetition of the “parabole” in his copy of Luke, but states that neither Mcg 20:37-38 nor the repetition were present in Mcg, while Tertullian makes no reference to either. Tertullian’s lack of comment indicates that he saw no differences here, and the reasonable inference is therefore that Tertullian did not see either passage in Mcg, and so also in Luke. Assuming (based on the above) that Tertullian had old Latin texts of both Mcg and Luke, then it appears that neither contained either vv. 20:37-38 or the repetition, while Epiphanius saw in Luke a repetition that was neither in Mcg nor in Luke today. In summary, given the evidence above, the version of this passage in Mcg contained a number of differences, either from what Tertullian and Epiphanius saw in Luke, or from what we see:

On this basis the second half of this passage probably read as follows in Mcg:

And Jesus answering said unto them, The children of this world marry, and are given in marriage: [20:34]  But those whom God shall account worthy of the resurrection from the dead, neither marry nor are given in marriage; [20:35]  Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection. [20:36]  Then certain of the scribes answering said, Master, thou hast well said. [20:39]

Luke 20:40 – No More Questions

And after that they durst not ask him any question at all. [20:40]

Neither Tertullian nor Epiphanius mention this verse, and we would normally take this to mean that the verse was unchanged in Mcg. However, despite the verse having parallels at Mk 12:23b and Mt 22:46, neither of these parallels are located at the same place in the other gospels. In Mark the parallel comes after Mk 12:28-34a (The Great Commandment), while in Matthew it comes after Mt 22:41-45 (David’s son). Therefore, we cannot be certain of the location of this verse in Mcg. Nevertheless, the ‘safe’ option is to assume that the verse was located where we see it in Luke.

Luke 20:41-44 – The Son of David

And he said unto them, How say they that Christ is David's son? [20:41]  And David himself saith in the book of Psalms, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, [20:42]  Till I make thine enemies thy footstool. [20:43]  David therefore calleth him Lord, how is he then his son? [20:44]

At the end of his chapter 38 Tertullian refers to this passage, writing:

If, however, the Scribes thought Christ was David's Son, whereas (David) himself calls Him Lord, [20:41-44] what relation has this to Christ?

Epiphanius does not mention these verses, but as they have parallels in both Mark and Matthew there is no reason to suggest that in Mcg they were different to Luke.

Luke 20:45-47 – Beware the Scribes

Then in the audience of all the people he said unto his disciples, [20:45]  Beware of the scribes, which desire to walk in long robes, and love greetings in the markets, and the highest seats in the synagogues, and the chief rooms at feasts; [20:46]  Which devour widows' houses, and for a shew make long prayers: the same shall receive greater damnation. [20:47]

Neither Tertullian nor Epiphanius mention these verses. As they have parallels in both Mark and Matthew we should assume that they were present in Mcg as in Luke.

Next chapter: Luke 21