Luke 7

For a side-by-side English translation of the text of Marcion's Gospel of the Lord and Luke 7, see Luke Chapter 7

Summary:

This chapter of Marcion's Gospel [Mcg] is very similar to Luke 7.

Details:

Luke 7:1 – The Entry into Capernaum

Now when he had ended all his sayings in the audience of the people, he entered into Capernaum. [7:1]

This verse is not mentioned by either Tertullian or Epiphanius. However, it has a parallel at Mt 8:5a, and is likely to have been in Mcg.

Luke 7:2-10 – The Centurion’s Servant

When Jesus heard these things, he marvelled at him, and turned him about, and said unto the people that followed him, I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel. [7:9]

At the beginning of his chapter 18 Tertullian shows that he knows this passage, but refers directly to none of it apart from the end of Mcg 7:9:

Likewise, when extolling the centurion's faith, how incredible a thing it is, that He should confess that He had "found so great a faith not even in Israel," to whom Israel's faith was in no way interesting!

Epiphanius also notes the final part of Mcg 7:9, and, like Tertullian, does not suggest that there was a difference at this point:

I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel. (Scholion 7)

Both Tertullian and Epiphanius are simply using this quote to indicate that the centurion’s faith could not be faith in Marcion’s god, and not to suggest any difference in Mcg.

Luke 7:11-17 – The Widow’s Son

And there came a fear on all: and they glorified God, saying, That a great prophet is risen up among us; and, That God hath visited his people. [7:16]

Tertullian refers to the raising of the widow’s son in general terms only: “He raised also the widow's son from death,” [7:12-15] except for a near quote from Lk 7:16: "A great prophet is risen up among us, and God has visited His people." As Tertullian makes no other comment, and Epiphanius does not mention these verses at all, it is reasonable to assume that neither saw any difference between Mcg and Luke in these verses.

Luke 7:18-28 – Concerning John the Baptist (1)

And the disciples of John told him of all these things. [7:18]  And John calling unto him two of his disciples sent them to Jesus, saying, Art thou he that should come? or look we for another? [7:19]  When the men were come unto him, they said, John Baptist hath sent us unto thee, saying, Art thou he that should come? or look we for another? [7:20]  And in that same hour he cured many of their infirmities and plagues, and of evil spirits; and unto many that were blind he gave sight. [7:21]  Then Jesus answering said unto them, Go your way, and tell John what things ye have seen and heard; how that the blind see, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, to the poor the gospel is preached. [7:22]  And blessed is he, whosoever shall not be offended in me. [7:23]

And when the messengers of John were departed, he began to speak unto the people concerning John. What went ye out into the wilderness for to see? A reed shaken with the wind? [7:24]  But what went ye out for to see? A man clothed in soft raiment? Behold, they which are gorgeously apparelled, and live delicately, are in kings' courts. [7:25]  But what went ye out for to see? A prophet? Yea, I say unto you, and much more than a prophet. [7:26]  This is he, of whom it is written, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee. [7:27]  For I say unto you, Among those that are born of women there is not a greater prophet than John the Baptist: but he that is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he. [7:28]

In his Chapter 18 Tertullian quotes from or makes clear references to almost all of Mcg 7:18-28, without indicating that anything differed from what he expected, and so most reconstructions of Mcg include all this text. However, Tertullian does not quote from or otherwise mention Mcg 7:21, which has no parallel in either Mark or Matthew, even though it involves actions (but not speech) by Jesus. Epiphanius notes only the following regarding these verses:

’Blessed is he who shall not be offended in me,’ is altered. For he had it as though with reference to John. [7:23] (Scholion 8)

Unfortunately, the point that Epiphanius is making is not clear, since he does not provide specific text. However, Tertullian confirms that there was a difference here, as he comments:

But John is offended when he hears of the miracles of Christ, as of an alien god…  Now John was quite sure that there was no other God but the Creator, even as a Jew, especially as a prophet. Whatever doubt he felt was evidently rather entertained about Him whom he knew indeed to exist but knew not whether He were the very Christ.

John Gill has this comment:

And blessed is he, whosoever shall not be offended in me. The Arabic version renders it, "blessed is he that doubts not of me". The Persic and Ethiopic versions both add to the text, the former rendering the words thus, "blessed is he that is not brought into offence and doubt concerning me"; and the latter thus, "blessed are they who do not deny me, and are not offended in me": particular regard is had to the disciples of John, who both doubted of Christ as the Messiah, and were offended at his popularity and success;

Perhaps the most likely difference at this point is a change from “he, whosoever” to “he, if he,” so referring to John. Epiphanius next notes:

He it is of whom it is written, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face [7:27a] (Scholion 9)

He that is less in the kingdom is greater than he. [7:28] (Elenchus 8)

He is not noting a change here, but instead pointing out that Jesus knows who John is. Some reconstructions omit Mcg 7:27b: “which shall prepare thy way before thee,” because Epiphanius only mentions Mcg 7:27a. However, Tertullian quotes the whole of this verse apart from the last two words, so reading:

Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way;

Ecce ego mitto angelum meum ante faciem tuam, qui praeparabit viam tuam;

This shorter variant is also present in D, it(a, aur, d, l, r1), and it is therefore most likely that Epiphanius saw this variant in Mcg.

In Mt 11:4 Jesus tells John’s disciples to report back to John a list of things they have heard and seen, but without indicating whether they had just witnessed anything new. In Luke the addition of Lk 7:21 provides evidence that John’s disciples witnessed many healings, etc. almost immediately after they arrived. Because this clarifying verse is unique to Luke and is not mentioned by Tertullian, it is possible that it was not in Mcg, and possibly was also not originally in Luke.

Luke 7:29-35 – Concerning John the Baptist (2)

And all the people that heard him, and the publicans, justified God, being baptized with the baptism of John. [7:29]  But the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the counsel of God against themselves, being not baptized of him. [7:30]  And the Lord said, Whereunto then shall I liken the men of this generation? and to what are they like? [7:31]  They are like unto children sitting in the marketplace, and calling one to another, and saying, We have piped unto you, and ye have not danced; we have mourned to you, and ye did not weep. [7:32]  For John the Baptist came neither eating bread nor drinking wine; and ye say, He hath a devil. [7:33]  The Son of man is come eating and drinking; and ye say, Behold a gluttonous man, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners! [7:34]  But wisdom is justified of all her children. [7:35]

Neither Tertullian nor Epiphanius make any reference to Mcg 7:29-35, in which the people react and Jesus responds. On this basis we have no real insight into whether these verses were included in Mcg or not, but some reconstructions omit them. According to Baring-Gould:

That verses 29-32 should have been purposely excluded, it is impossible to suppose, as they favored Marcion's tenets. It has been argued that the rest of the verses, 33-35, were cut out by Marcion because in verse 34 it is said, ‘The Son of Man is come eating and drinking; and ye say. Behold a gluttonous man and a winebibber.’ But the ‘Gospel of the Lord’ contained Luke v. 33: ‘Why do the disciples of John fast often, and make long prayers, and likewise the disciples of the Pharisees; but thine eat and drink;’ and the example of Christ going to the feast prepared by Levi is retained (v. 29).

Because Tertullian refers to almost all of Mcg 7:18-28, and Epiphanius notes Mcg 7:23, 27, it is possible that if Mcg 7:29-35 did not exist then one or the other would have pointed this out, unless they also did not see these verses in Luke. However, as these verses are present in P45 (P75 is fragmentary here) and there is a parallel passage at Mt 11:1-19, we should assume that Mcg did in fact contain these verses, and that Tertullian and Epiphanius did not mention them simply because they here found no variation between Mcg and Luke.

Luke 7:36-38 and 44-46 – The Alabaster Box of Ointment (1)

And one of the Pharisees desired him that he would eat with him. And he went into the Pharisee's house, and sat down to meat. [7:36]  And, behold, a woman in the city, which was a sinner, when she knew that Jesus sat at meat in the Pharisee's house, brought an alabaster box of ointment, [7:37]  And stood at his feet behind him weeping, and began to wash his feet with tears, and did wipe them with the hairs of her head, and kissed his feet, and anointed them with the ointment. [7:38]

After the woman anoints Jesus, he delivers to his host a short parable about two debtors in Lk 7:39-43, following which the story of the woman continues:

And he turned to the woman, and said unto Simon, Seest thou this woman? I entered into thine house: thou gavest me no water for my feet; but she hath washed my feet with tears, and wiped them with the hairs of her head. [7:44]  Thou gavest me no kiss: but this woman since the time I came in hath not ceased to kiss my feet. [7:45]  My head with oil thou didst not anoint: but this woman hath anointed my feet with ointment. [7:46]

Tertullian notes only the following regarding these verses:

We have already spoken of the forgiveness of sins. The behavior of "the woman which was a sinner," when she covered the Lord's feet with her kisses, bathed them with her tears, wiped them with the hairs of her head, anointed them with ointment, [7:37-38] produced an evidence that what she handled was not an empty phantom, but a really solid body, and that her repentance as a sinner deserved forgiveness according to the mind of the Creator, who is accustomed to prefer mercy to sacrifice.

He refers to most of the details of the story, except for the box and Jesus’ comments to Simon. Epiphanius reports the following:

And entering into the Pharisee’s house he reclined at table. [7:36]  And the woman which was a sinner, [7:37]  standing at his feet behind him, washed his feet with her tears, and wiped and kissed them. [7:38] (Scholion 10)

She hath washed my feet with her tears, and wiped and kissed them. [7:44, 45] (Scholion 11)

Like Tertullian, Epiphanius uses these quotes to note that Jesus must have had a body, and neither he nor Tertullian suggest that Marcion had made any changes to the text of these verses. Also, neither mention the box, and Epiphanius does not mention the anointing. Although Tertullian does refer to the anointing, the Latin original of his text shows that he does not actually mention what part of Jesus’ body was anointed: 

… ut cum pedes domini osculis figeret, lacrimis inundaret, crinibus detergeret, unguento perduceret,

The Greek of Lk 7:38 also has no specific location for the anointing, and in a number of ‘Western’ mss (D, W, 079, it (b, c, d, q), arm, geo) the last words of Lk 7:46 are omitted, so that it reads “this woman hath anointed me with ointment,” without specifying which part of Jesus was anointed.

Additionally, a version of Lk 7:36-46 appears in ‘A Treatise Against the Heretic Novatian by an Anonymous Bishop,’ which was written around 255 AD, and appears in ‘The Ante-Nicene Fathers: Translations of the Writings of the Fathers down to AD 325 Vol 1.’ This treatise quotes from or alludes to verses from “the Gospel” [it is clear from the text that this is Luke], and in this version Jesus’ feet are not anointed with oil, but instead are just wiped and kissed:

Moreover, this is proved in the Gospel, where is described that woman who was a sinner, who came to the house of a certain Pharisee whither the Lord had been bidden with His disciples, and she brought a vessel of ointment, [7:37]  and stood at the Lord's feet, and washed His feet with her tears, and wiped them with her hair, and pressed kisses upon them; [7:38]

Willker makes the following observations regarding Jesus’ feet:

Konrad Weiss argues that omission and word-order variants are an indication of a secondary addition. He notes that in verse 38 there is no explicit object … we do not have an anointment of the feet anymore but a normal anointment of Jesus (probably head). In this respect then the omission of D et al. in verse 46 is only consequential.

It is more logical that she wiped her tears from his feet with her hair, but you cannot dry oil. An anointment of the guest’s feet is historically unknown (Petronius: "Inauditus mos!").

From the above it seems likely that Jesus’ feet were not originally anointed with oil in Mcg 7:38, but that they were kissed (Epiphanius and the anonymous Bishop), and that Jesus was anointed without the location being specified.

The woman with the alabaster box of ointment makes an appearance in both Matthew and Mark -- but in a different story, at Mt 26:6-13 and Mk 14:3-9 respectively. In these two almost identical passages (which do not include the parable of the two debtors), she poured the oil out of the box onto Jesus’ head to anoint him prior to his burial. The box also appears in John:

(It was that Mary which anointed the Lord with ointment, and wiped his feet with her hair, whose brother Lazarus was sick.) [Jn 11:2]   Then took Mary a pound of ointment of spikenard, very costly, and anointed the feet of Jesus, and wiped his feet with her hair: and the house was filled with the odor of the ointment. [Jn 12:3]

It is only in Jn 12:3 that Jesus’ feet are anointed. In both Matthew and Mark his head is anointed with ointment and also (we assume, as the location of the anointing is not specified) in Jn 11:2. Willker continues:

It is possible that the Anointment story in Mk 14:3-9 is basically the same story. Here, too, Jesus' head is anointed. The parallels in Jn are inconsistent:

11:2 Mary was the one who anointed the Lord with perfume and wiped his feet with her hair;

12:3 Mary … anointed Jesus' feet, and wiped them with her hair.

It is thus possible that originally no anointment of feet happened at all and the D reading in verse 46 is original. The equivocal style in verse 38 and the explicit Jn 12:3 led to the addition of ‘my feet’ in verse 46.”

After the parable the treatise mentioned above continues:

And He added, saying, Seest thou that woman? I entered into thy house, [7:44a]  thou gavest me no kiss; but she hath not ceased to kiss my feet; [7:45]  thou washedst not my feet, but she has washed them with her tears, and wiped them with her hair; [7:44b]  thou didst not anoint my feet with oil, but she hath anointed me.” [7:46]

Here we see a slightly different version of Lk 7:46, in which the woman anoints Jesus but oil is not mentioned, leaving open the question of whether the ‘anointing’ was just with her hair and kisses. Overall, it seems likely that Jesus was originally anointed, but without a location being specified, and with the location (the feet) being added later. Given the evidence of Tertullian, Epiphanius, and the anonymous bishop it is likely that the alabaster box was also not originally mentioned, and that this was also a later addition, perhaps an assimilation to Matthew and Mark. It is therefore likely that Mcg read approximately as follows:

And one of the Pharisees desired him that he would eat with him. And entering into the Pharisees house he reclined at table. [7:36]  And, behold, a woman in the city, which was a sinner, [7:37a]  stood at his feet behind him, and began to wash his feet with tears, and did wipe them with the hairs of her head, and kissed them. [7:38]

And he turned to the woman, and said unto Simon, Seest thou this woman? I entered into thine house: thou gavest me no water for my feet; but she hath washed my feet with tears, and wiped and kissed them. [7:44]  Thou gavest me no kiss: but this woman since the time I came in hath not ceased to kiss my feet. [7:45]   My head with oil thou didst not anoint: but this woman hath anointed me. [7:46]

Although the words are not identical, they are close to those in Luke, except that the alabaster box of ointment is not mentioned, and the woman kisses and wipes Jesus’ feet, but anoints an unspecified part of his body. As there is no theological reason why Marcion would need to omit the box and the feet, this and the existence of the other variants noted above strongly suggest that he did not make any changes to this text.

Luke 7:39-43 – Forgiving the Debtors

These verses ‘split’ the two halves of the story of the woman with the alabaster box of ointment. Although both Tertullian and Epiphanius quote from or otherwise mention both halves of the ‘box of ointment’ story, neither mention the passage regarding the debtors in Lk 7:39-43. However, as parts of Lk 7:39, 42-43 are present in P75 it is likely that this passage, which occurs only in Luke, was known to Epiphanius, and so was present unchanged in Mcg.

Luke 7:47-50 – The Alabaster Box of Ointment (2)

The story concludes as follows:

Wherefore I say unto thee, Her sins, which are many, are forgiven; for she loved much: but to whom little is forgiven, the same loveth little. [7:47]  And he said unto her, Thy sins are forgiven. [7:48]  And they that sat at meat with him began to say within themselves, Who is this that forgiveth sins also? [7:49]  And he said to the woman, Thy faith hath saved thee; go in peace. [7:50]

Epiphanius does not mention any of these verses, while Tertullian has just:

But even if the stimulus of her repentance proceeded from her faith, she heard her justification by faith through her repentance pronounced in the words, ‘Your faith has saved you,’ [7:50] by Him who had declared by Habakkuk, ‘The just shall live by his faith’.

In the treatise by the anonymous bishop the story simply ends with:

Wherefore I say unto thee, Simon, that her sins are forgiven her. [7:47a]

This is very close to Bezae, which simply reads “Wherefore I say unto thee, Her sins, which are many, are forgiven.”

In some reconstructions of Mcg 7:47b, 48, the words:

… for she loved much: but to whom little is forgiven, the same loveth little. And he said unto her, Thy sins are forgiven,

are not present. The omission of Mcg 7:47b is supported by Bezae and the anonymous bishop, but the only support for the omission of Mcg 7:48 is the (negative) evidence from Tertullian. However, if any or all of this text was not present in Mcg then it would appear that Epiphanius did not see such a difference, suggesting it was also not present in his version of Luke.

As Mcg 7:48 in no way affects Marcion’s theology (because in Mcg 7:47a Jesus had already pointed out to Simon that her sins had been forgiven) it is unlikely that this verse was omitted, but it is possible that Mcg 7:47b did not exist (as in Bezae), and that this was also what Epiphanius saw.

Next Chapter: Luke 8