jewish-christian gospels and syriac gospel traditions Lawyer’s Question in Luke :– (cf. Matt :–; Mark :–
) that contains a similar opening phrase (cf. Luke : and :):
“Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?” (Luke : omits only
the adjective “good”). In both instances, Luke’s phrasing differs from that
of Mark. Since the Rich Man’s Question and the Lawyer’s Question deal
with the same theme and, in Luke, have similar phrases, it is easy to
understand that a scribe may have used these passages together. This
hypothesis also finds support in Eusebius’ canon tables that give both
Luke :– and :– as parallels for the story about the rich man
(cf. Matt :– and Mark :–).^18
Second, Jesus’ exhortation to sell everything and divide it among the
poor is phrased similarly in Luke and in Origen’s passage. Both exhort
the rich man to sell “everything” that he has (π%ντα =σα >6εις;omnia
quae possidesin theGospel of the Hebrews)againstMatthew’s“your
possessions”and Mark’s “what you own.” Luke’sδι%δςis also a bit closer
to the Latin “divide” in Origen’s commentary than the plain “give” of
Matthew and Mark. The fact that there are only four occurrences of the
verbδιαδδωμιintheNewTestamentandthreeofthemaretobefound
in Lukan writings (Luke :; :; Acts :; John :) speaks for
Luke’s editing.
On the basis of the Two Document Hypothesis, all the above character-
istics of Luke are to be regarded as the result of Luke’s editing of the story
about the rich man. In addition, Origen’s passage uses Lukan phrases that
are editorial elsewhere in the gospel.
The words that Jesus uses when he reminds the man of what there
is written in the law resemble Luke’s wording in the Lawyer’s Question
(Luke :–). Origen’s passage reads: “dixit ad eumdominus:quo-
mododicis...quoniamscriptum est in lege.” Th e ph r a s ing c om e s n ot ably
close to Luke : in the Vulgate: “dixit ad eum:in legequidscriptum
est quomodolegis”^19 Luke’s wording differs from Mark and Matthew, and
is to be regarded as editorial.^20
(^18) For the Eusebian canon tables, see, for instance, Nestle–Aland, –.
(^19) For the sake of comparison, I have given here the Latin text where the word order
is similar to Origen’s passage. The Greek reads: δ" ε:πεν πρ.ς α7τ!ν.ν τ?4 ν!μ?ω τ
γ γραπται; π4ς ναγιν σκεις;It is hard to say whether the difference between the word
order of the Greek and Latin is purely language related or indicates a possible variant
reading behind Origen’s passage and Luke :. Greek editions that were available to me
did not give any variants for the position ofν τ?4 ν!μ?ωin Luke :. Syriac translations
that otherwise share many readings with Origen’s passage (see the discussion below) here
follow the Greek word order.
(^20) Clearly, Luke :– is a bit problematic for the Two Document Hypothesis,