OF THE GOSPEL OF LUKE — Heresy IIII (De Lucae Evangelio haeresis IIII)
To withdraw from the Gospel of Luke certain things added by falsifiers; and to restore certain things subtracted by the same.
ASSERTORES HVIVS HAERESEOS [The Assertors of this Heresy]
This is the heresy of Cerdon, of Marcion, and of the Anabaptists; in which indeed Marcion and Cerdon so differ from Cerinthus, Merinthus, and Carpocrates, that as those cast away the Gospel of Luke entirely, so these — the other Gospels being rejected wholly — receive the Gospel of Luke alone. For so Irenaeus in book 1, Tertullian in the book On Heresies, Philastrius in the Catalogue, and Epiphanius relate of them. 1 But Marcion and Cerdon, though they profess this Gospel alone, yet do not accept it entire, but everywhere adulterated, mutilated, amputated — having neither beginning, nor middle, nor end — most like a garment gnawed by moths. Whose depravations, additions, subtractions, and other vices of this kind Epiphanius, in a very long digression which he calls the Pavement (Pavimentum), most broadly 2
(printed p. 593)
has set out, confuting in it whatever things had been adulterated and changed by Marcion. That digression, reduced into a compendium more briefly and more distinctly, we have judged should be inserted in this place — not indeed because it much matters to know depravations of Marcion of this sort, but so that the studious of the divine letters may understand, from the confutations of Epiphanius which we have set beside each depravation of Marcion according to the order of the numbers, by what way and with what craft adulterated and corrupted scriptures may be detected [as distinct] from the sincere and uncontaminated ones, and by what arguments depravers of the scriptures of this kind — very like to the Marcionists and the Anabaptists — may be refuted. And they are these, which are here subjoined through the order of the chapters of the gospel:
THE PLACES DEPRAVED BY MARCION IN LUKE (Loca a Marcione in Luca depravata)
1. In the first chapter of Luke he straightway rejected the proem at the beginning, together with those things which are contained in the whole first and second chapter: of Zacharias and Elisabeth, of the conception of John the Baptist, of the nativity of Mary, of Christ’s nativity in Bethlehem, of the circumcision of Christ and his presentation in the temple, and his finding in the temple in the midst of the Doctors. All these he cut away, the beginning of the gospel being made from the exordium of the third chapter: 3 “In the fifteenth year of the empire of Tiberius Caesar”; and according to the series of the gospel he so persevered as far as the beginning of the eighth chapter, with few and almost no words changed.
2. In the eighth chapter he has not: “And there came to him his mother and his brethren,” and, “My mother and my brethren are they who hear the word of God, and do it.”
3. In the tenth chapter, where it is said, “I confess to thee, Lord, Father of heaven and earth,” he has neither “Father” nor “of earth.”
4. In the eleventh chapter the history of Jonas, Ninive, the Queen of Saba, and Solomon is rejected.
5. Likewise concerning the same [chapter]: the judgment of God being passed over, he has “the vocation [calling] of God.”
6. In the same place he has not “therefore said the Wisdom of God, I will send to them prophets,” nor [the words] concerning the blood of Zacharias, of Abel, and of the prophets.
7. In the twelfth he has not: “Are not five sparrows sold for two farthings, and not one of them is set in oblivion before God?”
8. In the same place, for “I will confess him before the Angels of God,” he reads “before God.”
9. In the same place he has not: “God clothes the grass, which is cast into the oven.”
10. In the same place, for “your Father,” he reads “Father,” “your” being cast away.
11. In the same place, for “the second and third watch,” he has “the evening watch.”
12. From the thirteenth chapter he cut away that: “There came certain men, telling him of the Galilaeans, whose blood Pilate mingled with their sacrifices,” as far as where he says, “of the ten and eight, upon whom the tower fell in Siloa.”
13. Likewise from the same chapter he cut off: “When you shall see Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and all the prophets, in the kingdom of God”; and for this he put: “When you shall see all the just in the kingdom of God, and you yourselves cast out” — he made it — “held out of doors: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”
14. Likewise he cut away: “They shall come from the East and the West,” and what remains of that chapter as far as the end.
15. From the fifteenth chapter he cut off the whole parable of the prodigal son.
16. In the seventeenth chapter he amputated that: “Say: we are unprofitable servants.”
17. In the eighteenth chapter, where it is said, “None is good but God alone,” he added “the Father”; and for “thou knowest the commandments (Mandata nosti),” he made “I know (novi).”
18. Likewise he amputated: “When Jesus had taken the twelve, he said: Behold, we go up to Jerusalem, and all things shall be consummated which were written through the prophets concerning the son of man; for he shall be delivered up, and shall be killed, and the third day he shall rise again.”
19. In the nineteenth chapter he cut away the history of the Ass and Bethphage, and of the destruction of the city and of the temple, as far as the end of the chapter.
20. From the twentieth chapter he cast away the parable of the vineyard let out to husbandmen.
21. Likewise, in the same place, he amputated this: “But that the dead rise again, Moses also showed, saying: the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.”
22. From the twenty-first chapter he cut away: “Then let those who are in Judaea flee to the mountains,” and the rest, as far as, “that the things which have been said may be fulfilled.”
23. From the twenty-second chapter he drew off that: “For I say to you, I will not eat it hereafter, until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God.”
24. Likewise that: “When I sent you without purse, and scrip, and shoes, was anything wanting to you?”; and this which is written: “that which is written must yet be accomplished [in me], namely: And he was reckoned with the wicked.”
25. Likewise he cut off the deed of Peter amputating the ear of the servant.
26. From the twenty-third chapter, to that which it says — “We have found this man perverting the nation” — he added, “and destroying the law and the Prophets”; and after that, “forbidding tribute to be given to Caesar,” he set in besides, “and turning away the women and children.”
27. Likewise that: “This day thou shalt be with me in paradise.”
28. From the twenty-fourth chapter he changed what was said to the disciples: “O foolish and slow of heart to believe all the things which the prophets have spoken — ought not Christ to have suffered these things?”; and for that which it says, “which the Prophets have spoken,” he made, “which I have spoken to you.” These are the things which Marcion corrupted out of the gospel of Luke, the rest remaining with him entire and without any depravation.
But the Anabaptists of our time — they too babble something or other against this gospel of Luke: namely, that it has fallen away from its ancient sincerity, and now stands otherwise than it once stood — moved by certain frivolous indications, scarcely worthy to be related, of which:
1. The first is: that whereas Moses numbers ten generations from the deluge, or from Noe, as far as Abraham, 4 yet in the third chapter of this gospel eleven generations — the generation of Cainan being added — are related from the deluge to Abraham. Which indeed is to be believed to have happened not by the fault of the evangelist, but by the vice of a falsifier.
2. The second is taken from a certain testimony of Epiphanius, who, in the first book, in the forty-second heresy, speaking of those words which are contained 5
(printed p. 594)
in the twentieth chapter of this gospel — namely, “But that the dead rise again, Moses also showed beside the bush, when he says: the Lord God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob; for God is not the God of the dead but of the living: for all live to him” — says that in the codices of the Catholic church these words are replicated twice in the same chapter. Yet these words are now read only once, in our vulgate edition, Greek as well as Latin: from which it appears that those words were subtracted either by Marcion himself — as Epiphanius charges upon him — or by some other corrupter. And the same Epiphanius, in the book which he entitled Ancoratus, commemorating that place of Luke in the nineteenth chapter, “Jesus, seeing the city, wept over it,” 6 hands down that that word, “wept over it,” was removed from the text by catholics, as being doubtful and not agreeing well.
The third indication is deduced from certain words of Jerome — that he, in the second book against the Pelagians, seems to signify that the history of the angel appearing in the garden for Christ’s consolation, which is had in the 22nd chapter of Luke, was not in the ancient exemplars of the church. For Jerome says in that book: “In certain codices, Greek as well as Latin, there is found, Luke writing: There appeared to him an angel from heaven, comforting him” — no doubt, the Lord the Savior. Which words, had they been in all the exemplars of the church, Jerome need not have said that those words are read in certain codices, but in all. And Hilary, in book X On the Trinity, affirms much more openly that not only the consolation of the Angel, but also the history of Christ sweating blood, is not had in the gospel — in these words: “Nor indeed must we be ignorant that in very many codices, both Greek and Latin, nothing is found written of the angel coming, or of the bloody sweat. It being therefore in doubt whether this be wanting in the various books or superfluous, this remains uncertain to us from the diversity of the books.” By these most trifling conjectures the fanatical Anabaptists are led.
Before we meet them, it remains that we see in what manner it can be shown that the aforesaid places of Marcion were falsified by him — so that from the confutation of these, the other falsifiers of the scriptures may be convicted concerning the corruption of any codex whatever. And that this may be done more conveniently, we shall set down certain rules, exceedingly necessary for the discerning of falsifiers, which we have briefly collected, scattered as they were through the many and long confutations of Epiphanius. And they are these:
Rules whereby sincere scriptures may be detected from the adulterated scriptures of heretics, and the latter refuted (Regulae, quibus syncerae scripturae ab adulteratis haereticorum scripturis deprehendantur, ac redarguantur)
1. RULE. If any things exist in the codices of the heretics beyond those which are in the catholic codices, and those very things fight either with the antecedent or with the subsequent words preserved in the heretics’ codices, it is necessary that they were added or altered by the heretics.
Expositio [Exposition]. As in that place of Luke, chapter 24: “O foolish and slow of heart to believe all things which the prophets have spoken” — in which Marcion’s exemplar, for that which we read, “which the prophets have spoken,” has: “which I have spoken to you.” It manifestly appears that it was altered by falsifiers, from the repugnance of the words to what precedes and follows: in which it is said that Christ did not offer himself to be recognized by the disciples on the way until he had arrived in Emmaus. Christ therefore could not say, “which I have spoken to you,” since neither had he yet revealed himself to them, nor did they recognize him for Christ except in the breaking of bread — as Marcion’s own codex attests.
2. RULE — the converse of the foregoing. If certain of the things which our codices have are lacking in the exemplars of the heretics, and they follow necessarily upon the preceding, or [connect] with the subsequent — so that without them the later things cannot be knit to the earlier — the consequence is that they were drawn away by the heretics. Or if the things that are lacking have the same sense or the same argument [as the retained context], let the judgment be the same.
Expositio. As when Marcion drew off from his exemplar, out of the 12th chapter of Luke, those words: “Are not five sparrows sold for two farthings, and not one of them is in oblivion before God?” — he is refuted from the antecedents and consequents preserved in his own codex. For if he concedes the antecedents — that God has care of all things — and the sequents — that the hairs of our head are numbered — he is compelled also to confess that the sparrows fall under divine providence, which is of the same argument.
3. RULE. If anything in the codices of the heretics either abounds that favors their dogmas, or is lacking that fights against the same, it appears that it was either superadded by the heretics as propitious to their dogmas, or drawn away as contrary and hostile to the same.
Expositio. As when in Marcion’s codex, in the 13th chapter of Luke, that is not found: “when you shall see all the prophets in the kingdom of God” — it is plain that this was drawn off by Marcion, because it stands against him, who reprobates all the patriarchs and prophets. Similarly, when there is found added in Marcion that [saying] concerning Christ, namely, “destroying the law and the prophets,” it appears that this was done by that impostor in support of this same error of his.
4. RULE. If, a collation of exemplars being made, the codices of the heretics are found in no wise to agree with the codices of the catholic church, it appears that the codices of the heretics are not sincere.
Expositio. Than this last rule, among catholics and the pious, none can be more certain and more safe; and it alone can suffice to confirm a sincere and pious mind. Nevertheless, because the heretics contemn the codices of the catholic church with the same facility with which they contemn the church herself, therefore against them one must proceed also by the three preceding rules. We shall set about, therefore, according to the aforesaid rules, to refute the impostures of Marcion according to the assigned series of the numbers.
CONFVTATIO [The Confutation]
First, from the third rule it is openly known that the two first chapters of Luke were cut away on purpose:
(printed p. 595)
because in them the authority of the old law is confirmed — namely, in Zacharias, Elisabeth, John the Baptist, the circumcision of Christ, the purification of Mary, and the bringing of the boy into the temple — all which things destroy the dogma of Marcion, who denies the Law and the Prophets.
The second place is refuted from the second rule: because, since he has conceded the genealogy of Christ’s progenitors, he is compelled also to concede that Christ had a mother on earth, and could also have brethren. But Marcion seems to have scraped away (abrasisse) these words because he thought some absurdity was contained in them — which is not so. For although Christ, in the words immediately following, may seem to be displeased with those who had announced that his mother and brethren stood without, yet he said this not as denying his mother and brethren according to the flesh, but as turning aside the unseasonable speech of him who said this while so great a crowd stood around, poured out toward his saving doctrine, and he himself was occupied about preaching and healings. For he who said, “Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without,” seemed to call Jesus away from the business he had undertaken. 7
Thirdly, when he casts away that word “Father,” he is confuted by the same rule: because immediately below he has: “even so, Father, for so it was well-pleasing before thee.” And when he cut off that word, “of earth,” he is convicted from the third rule: because he denies that God, the Father of Christ, is the founder of heaven and earth.
The fourth, fifth, and sixth places are detected as falsified from the third rule: inasmuch as they confirm the authority of the Old Testament, reprobated by Marcion.
The seventh is refuted from the second rule: because in the antecedents and consequents he confesses that divine providence is extended even over the hairs of our head.
The eighth, ninth, and tenth places are refuted from the fourth rule: because it is not so read in the exemplars of the catholic church.
The eleventh place is refuted from the first rule: for the watches are not of the day but of the night, having their progress from evening to morning, and not from morning to evening.
The twelfth is reprobated from the third rule: because Christ, consenting to the judgment of Pilate, shows himself to be the judge of all — which Marcion denies.
The thirteenth and fourteenth places are confuted from the third rule: for they destroy Marcion’s dogma, [being] contrary to the law and the prophets.
The fifteenth place is refuted from the fourth rule: because that parable is read in the codices of the catholic church.
The sixteenth place is reconvicted from the second rule: because it teaches the rule of humility, lest the faithful, through elation of mind, lose the reward of their works; and such rules are read everywhere in Marcion’s own gospel codex.
The seventeenth is argued from the fourth rule.
The eighteenth is refuted from the second rule: because from the consequents of his own codex he admits that Christ was crucified; he is compelled therefore to confess that it is not false which we have in our exemplars — that Christ, going up to Jerusalem, foretold to his disciples his passion and death.
The nineteenth is overturned from the third rule: because Christ there, against the dogma of Marcion, approves the temple and the worship of the old law, saying: “My house shall be called the house of prayer.”
The twentieth is cast down from the third rule: because Christ in the parable of the Vineyard attests that the fathers of the Hebrews were the church of God, and cites the testimony of the psalms out of the Old Testament — all which things subvert Marcion’s dogma concerning the Old Testament.
The twenty-first is convicted from the third rule: because it favors the patriarchs of the Old Testament, reprobated by Marcion.
The twenty-second is driven off from the third rule: because it favors the prophets, whom Marcion denies.
The twenty-third is confuted from the second rule: because a little below, in Marcion’s own text, there is read: “I dispose to you, that you may eat and drink at my table.”
The twenty-fourth is detected from the third rule: because it is against his dogma concerning the reprobation of the Old Testament.
The twenty-fifth is rejected from the fourth rule: because the catholic codices have it.
The twenty-sixth is exploded from the third rule: for he set this beside [the text] because it favored his dogma of the reprobation of the law.
The twenty-seventh is confuted from the fourth rule.
The twenty-eighth is argued from the first rule: because if Christ had not yet revealed himself to his disciples, how can he say, “which I have spoken to you”?
Let these things be said against Marcion. Now, passing to those petty indications of the Anabaptists, we answer briefly: that from one or two places — and those changed only as to the words, and not as to the sense — it must not be concluded that the gospel of Luke which the church now holds embraces anything of falsity or of perverse alteration. For what does it harm either faith or morals, if the words cited by Epiphanius are related either once only, or twice, in the same chapter? Surely nothing: for the same testimony of Christ, expressed once, has the same force and efficacy as if it were repeated twice, and thrice, and even a thousand times. Nor is it any wonder if our exemplar has once what in the codex of Epiphanius was read twice; for it is possible that it so stood in the codex of Epiphanius, and in certain others also, as he himself relates — which perhaps was not had in other Greek codices. It is credible, moreover, that those fathers to whom the office of revising the scriptures (recognoscendi scripturas) was committed by the catholic church judged that this place had not been written down twice by the evangelist, but had been repeated once and again through the imprudence and carelessness of a copyist (as very often happens); and accordingly that they removed this place set down the second time, as superfluous, so that thereafter it should be read only once in this chapter. Similarly, of that place also concerning the weeping of Christ, the same Epiphanius attests that it was not taken away from all the codices by catholics, but was always retained in the corrected exemplars; and by the divine Irenaeus, in the books against he-
(printed p. 596)
resies, [that place] is cited — although some unskilled catholics rashly (inconsulto) drew it out of certain codices, being ignorant of the end and force of that word.
But as regards the other indication, we answer that although in certain codices the words of the angelic consolation were not present, and Jerome and Hilary, or some other one of the fathers, was uncertain about them, yet the truth of this history is not now on that account to be doubted. For we know that the canonical scriptures are not only those of which the fathers never doubted, but those also concerning which there was once controversy in the churches, and which afterward — the matter being more diligently examined — were received by the common authority of the whole church. Of which number is the present history; which, though it was once somewhat doubted of among the ancients, at length was received by the unanimous assent of all the churches, and those rejecting it were condemned with anathema — as may be seen in Athanasius, book 6 On the Beatitude of the Son of God, where among the rest this anathematism also is read: “If anyone shall deny that the true man whom the Son of God assumed sweated blood, anathema to him.” And Epiphanius brings in and expounds this whole history against the heretics in the book Ancoratus.
Finally, to that concerning the added generation of Cainan, we say that the evangelist himself added it out of the edition of the Seventy, although it was not had in the Hebrew truth. But why he did this, it is better reverently to admire than anxiously to inquire — after the example of Bede, writing in the preface of the Acts of the Apostles in this manner: “Most of all (says he) do I marvel, and, on account of the slowness of my wit, stricken with the most vehement stupor, I know not how to search out, for what reason — whereas in the Hebrew truth ten generations are found from the deluge to Abraham — Luke himself, who with the Holy Spirit guiding his pen could in no wise write what is false, preferred to set down in the gospel eleven generations according to the Seventy interpreters, Cainan being added.” But if an admiration of this kind by Bede should not quite satisfy anyone, at least the judgment of Aloysius [Lippomano], bishop of Verona, will not be despised by him; who, writing on this matter in the Catena upon Genesis, says it could have come to pass that Moses, moved by instinct of the divinity, passed over the generation of Cainan — which Luke set down in the gospel, and the Seventy received into the catalogue of the posterity of Sem, Genesis chapter 11 — and for a reason hidden from us passed by the name of Cainan in silence; just as the Evangelist Matthew also wrapped in taciturnity the names of certain men in the Genealogy of our Savior. And let these things about the gospel of Luke be enough.