Once upon a time in the shadowy uncharted world that is earliest Christianity, there was a 'first gospel.' This 'first gospel' isn't something that most or even many scholars agree upon. It is at best an idea which has even been reduced down to a letter by some - Q. Yet our approach will be very different than those who have gone before us. Above all else, we will assume that the truth lies in tradition - that is, that somewhere buried in the annals of history one of the earliest Christian sects happens to have preserved the 'first gospel' and was ultimately chastised as a 'heresy' when it refused to budge from that established position.It is still the same sentiment which he follows up in the passage in which [Paul] puts the recompense above the sufferings: "for we know" he says, "that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens" (2 Cor 5:1) in other words, owing to the fact that our flesh is undergoing dissolution through its sufferings, we shall be provided with a home in heaven. He remembered the award in the Gospel: "Blessed are they who are persecuted for righteousness' sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven." (Matt 5:10) [Tertullian De resurrectione mortuorum 41.2]
In other words this lost 'first gospel' existed long before our familiar Mark, Matthew, Luke and John were ever developed. Indeed our 'fourfold gospel' was specifically created to demolish the claims of those who claimed exactly they had one, true word of Jesus Christ. Now, whether or not they liked it, the various Christian communities would have to accept more than one gospel. The one true gospel, it was now argued could only be found in the 'bundling' of four individual text. It is almost impossible to imagine how anyone came to believe that '4 = 1.' But then again the Christian godhead seems to have been similarly developed from deliberately faulty mathematical skills (i.e. '3 = 1').
It is extremely unfortunate that almost all of our information about this gospel comes from hostile sources. When I say 'hostile' I mean of course - really, really hostile sources. In fact if we want to know anything about the earliest groups and beliefs of earliest Christianity there is no other way - we simply find ourselves forced to use bat-shit crazy hostile source material, so much so that it makes it difficult to believe almost anything that is said about anything they tell us.
Indeed it is utterly amazing to see how almost everything in our earliest Church sources seem to develop in mythical terms. According to our Catholic sources the Devil himself is supposed to have inspired the alleged author of this 'first gospel' to have 'falsified' its narrative. Yes that's right. The story of the 'first gospel' not only involves semi-historical figures like 'Marcion' (a name we will keep coming back to over and over again over the course of this investigation) but also demons and angels, gods and devils, actively working to preserve and destroy the original truth established by Jesus and the apostles.
Marcion, we are told by these hostile sources, was a wealthy ship owner from Pontus, a port city on the Black Sea in modern Turkey. Like all heretics, he had an insatiable sexual appetite. While he pretended to promote the strongest ascetic values he also - it is alleged - seduced virgins and tried to bribe the Roman Church. We should not put a lot of faith into these slanderous stories no - I would argue - even take for granted that there was a historical 'Marcion' or any association with Pontus. These can all be explained as exaggerations built upon slander founded upon corruptions of misunderstandings.
In due course I will present to you my theory on the development of all these misrepresentations of the truth. It is enough to reinforce for the moment the most certain of truths - namely that before our four gospels were ever mentioned by anyone, the gospel of Marcion had come to define Christianity at least in 'official Roman circles.' What this means is that even though we can't actually find a copy of the gospel of Marcion anywhere in the world, we can piece together its general shape by the reactions that survive of Christians with an opposing point of view.
Indeed we will eventually argue that our four canonical gospels - Matthew, Mark, Luke and John - were very much developed from these original anti-Marcionite treatise from the middle to late second century. It would seem that the editor of our New Testament canon - Irenaeus of Lyons - had very little imagination. He did little more than sift through the things people wrote in previous generations and adapt them to accord with his new dogmatic interests.
And what were Irenaeus's most profound theological interests? Without a doubt it can be said that Irenaeus wanted to redefine Christianity to make it accord with the monarchical interests of the cult of the Emperor. Above all else for Irenaeus, there could only be but one all power God who was both Lord of the Jews and Christians. Yet we learn from our earliest Jewish sources that Christianity originally developed from an understanding that there were two powers in heaven. The first gospel was profoundly rooted in this same theological and cosmological understanding. It's deliberate dividing into four was clearly done to imitate the oneness of the universe (i.e. it was made after a world which was already understood to have four regions viz. 'north, east, west and south')
The truth of the matter is before Irenaeus none of the alleged early members of this 'great' or 'catholic Church' ever knew about our 'according to Matthew,' 'according to Mark,' 'according to Luke' or 'according to John.' To be certain they can be demonstrated to have cited generally similar passages which scholars assume to be references to our familiar 'canonical four' Yet this is where the parallels end. The facts remain that whenever cautious people actually examine our oldest source material - Justin Martyr, the letters of Clement - they recognize that these Church Fathers are actually making what are commonly called 'harmonized' gospel references.
What this means is that the passages which are references from 'the gospel' inevitably betray signs of being 'a little bit Luke' and 'a little bit Matthew' or 'a little bit Mark' and 'a little bit Luke.' The fact that the tradition associated with these earliest Christian sources are explicitly identified as having used a 'gospel harmony' doesn't change the minds of scholars. This terminology 'harmonized' to them necessarily means 'they took two or three of our gospels' which 'always existed' and 'mixed them together.'
As I already noted earlier, when we take a careful look at all the early references - not just those handpicked by the unconscious advocates of the existing quaternion - it becomes plainly obvious that not only the earliest Church Fathers but their 'enemies' the Marcionites both used single, long gospels with passages readily identified from our 'according to Matthew,' 'Mark,' 'Luke' and 'John.'
Why does any of this matter? It matters because every little bit of information about the first Christians helps us let in some light to dispel the greater darkness of their origins. I believe that the 'first gospel' was a longer 'harmonized gospel' according to Mark. I believe that this text that was known to Papias, Justin Martyr and Clement of Alexandria and its continued existence caused an irrevocable 'split' in the early Church until Irenaeus 'brought peace' once more.
I pass on to show how Mark's gospel is in places adulterated: and this shall form the basis of my order of approach. I lay it down to begin with that the instrument of the gospel has the apostles for its author, and that this task of promulgating the gospel was imposed upon them by our Lord himself. Since, however, there are also some who associated with apostles they are yet not alone, but appear with apostles and after apostles; because the preaching of disciples might be open to the suspicion of an affectation of glory, if there did not accompany the authority of the masters, which means that of Christ, for it was that which made the apostles their masters.In my opinion, this reconstruction of the original text of Justin (i.e. before the subsequent corruptions of Irenaeus and Tertullian) is an important step toward understanding how our fourfold gospel was actually developed - i.e. according to anti-Markan treatises that effectively set the limit and boundary for the eventual establishment of Matthew, Luke and ultimately canonical Mark. We shall discuss more of this later but for the moment it is enough to say that both Luke and Matthew are identified as things that 'Mark' (= Marcion) cut from his gospel. The basic building blocks of this story however are again Papias and Clement's insinuations about Mark developing his text from a pre-existent text written in the name of Peter and the apostles.
Mark, you must know, attaches to his gospel no author's name,—as though he to whom it was no crime to overturn the whole body, might not assume permission to invent a title for it as well. At this point I might have made a stand, arguing that no recognition is due to a work which cannot lift up its head, which makes no show of courage, which gives no promise of credibility by having a fully descriptive title and the requisite indication of the author's name. But I prefer to join issue on all points, nor am I leaving unmentioned anything that can be taken as being in my favour.
Now Mark was not an apostle but an apostolic, not a master but a disciple in any case less than his master, and assuredly even more of lesser account as being the follower of a later apostle, Peter, to be sure: so that even if Mark had introduced his gospel under the name of Peter in person, that one single instrument would not be adequate for our faith, if destitute of the support of its predecessors.
So that even if Mark had introduced his gospel under the name of Peter in person, that one single document would not be adequate for our faith, if destitute of support from proceeding authorities. He rebukes even the apostles themselves for not walking uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, and accuses also certain false apostles of perverting the gospel of Christ. When Mark complains that apostles are suspected - for their prevarication and dissimulation - of having even depraved the gospel, he thereby accuses Christ, by accusing those whom Christ chose.
So we must pull away at the rope of contention, swaying with equal effort to the one side or the other. I say that mine is true: Mark makes that claim for his. I say that Mark is falsified: Mark says the same of mine. Who shall decide between us? Only such a reckoning of dates, as will assume that authority belongs to that which is found to be older, and will prejudge as corrupt that which is convicted of having come later.
For in so far as the false is a corruption of the true, to that extent must the truth have preceded that which is false. An object must have been in existence before anything is done to it, as what it is in itself must be prior to any opposition to it. Otherwise how preposterous it would be that when we have proved ours the older, and that Mark's has emerged later, ours should be taken to have been false before it had from the truth material , and Mark's be believed to have suffered hostility from ours before it was even published: and in the end that that which is later should be reckoned more true, even after the publication to the world of all those great works and evidences of the Christian religion which surely could never have been produced except for the truth of the gospel—even before the gospel was true.
So then meanwhile, as concerns the gospel, seeing that the use of it shared between us and Mark becomes an arbiter of the truth, our version of it is to such an extent older than Mark that Mark himself once believed it when in the first warmth of faith he contributed money to the Catholic church, which along with himself was afterwards rejected, when he fell away from our truth into his own heresy. What if the followers of Mark have denied that he held the primitive faith among ourselves, in the face even of his own letter (= Galatians)? What, if they do not acknowledge the letter?
They, at any rate, receive his (Gospel according to the) Antitheses; and more than that, they make ostentatious use of them. Proof out of these is enough for me. For if the Gospel, which is current among us, we shall see whether it be also current with Mark, is the very one which, as Mark argues (i.e. in Galatians) was interpolated by the defenders of Judaism, for the purpose of such a conglomeration with it of the law and the prophets as should enable them out of it to fashion their Christ, surely he could not have so argued about it, unless he had found it (in such a form).
No one censures things before they exist, when he knows not whether they will come to pass. Emendation never precedes the fault. To be sure, an amender of that Gospel, which had been all topsy-turvy from the days of Tiberius first presented himself in Mark alone— so long looked for by Christ, who was all along regretting that he had been in so great a hurry to send out his apostles without the support of Mark! He will not brook delay, since suddenly (without any prophetic announcement) did he bring down Christ from heaven.
Away, says he, with that eternal plaguey taxing of Cæsar, and the scanty inn, and the squalid swaddling-clothes, and the hard stable. We do not care a jot for that multitude of the heavenly host which praised their Lord at night. Let the shepherds take better care of their flock, and let the wise men spare their legs so long a journey; let them keep their gold to themselves. Let Herod, too, mend his manners, so that Jeremiah may not glory over him. Spare also the babe from circumcision, that he may escape the pain thereof; nor let him be brought into the temple, lest he burden his parents with the expense of the offering; nor let him be handed to Simeon, lest the old man be saddened at the point of death. Let that old woman also hold her tongue, lest she should bewitch the child.
After such a fashion as this, I suppose you have had, O Mark, the hardihood of blotting out the original records (of the history) of Christ, that His flesh may lose the proofs of its reality. But, prithee, on what grounds (do you do this)? Show me your authority. If you are a prophet, foretell us a thing; if you are an apostle, open your message in public; if a follower of apostles, side with apostles in thought; if you are only a (private) Christian, believe what has been handed down to us: if, however, you are nothing of all this, then (as I have the best reason to say) cease to live.
For indeed you are already dead, since you are no Christian, because you do not believe that which by being believed makes men Christian—nay, you are the more dead, the more you are not a Christian; having fallen away, after you had been one, by rejecting what you formerly believed, even as you yourself acknowledge in a certain letter of yours, and as your followers do not deny, while our (brethren) can prove it.
Rejecting, therefore, what you once believed, you have completed the act of rejection, by now no longer believing: the fact, however, of your having ceased to believe has not made your rejection of the faith right and proper; nay, rather, by your act of rejection you prove that what you believed previous to the said act was of a different character. What you believed to be of a different character, had been handed down just as you believed it. Now that which had been handed down was true, inasmuch as it had been transmitted by those whose duty it was to hand it down. Therefore, when rejecting that which had been handed down, you rejected that which was true. You had no authority for what you did.
To this end, two pre-Irenaean communities fought over whether 'the gospel of the apostles' - i.e. Peter's gospel - was the true text or that associated 'secretly' with Mark. In the end each of their 'offending' gospels was replaced by a canonical set of four. Throughout this exercise I will use 'Diatessaron' and 'Diatessaronic' even though I am well aware that it is assumed to reinforce the pre-existence of four gospels. In order to make clear that I don't mean 'a gospel made out of the four' I will also use the term 'super gospel' to make clear that these two texts are the source from which the four canonical gospels developed not the other way around. Here then are over one hundred and sixty reasons for assuming that two sources lay beneath all of our latter-day gospels.
9. the Marcionites believed the four 'separated' gospels of the Roman Church were forgeries
12. Tertullian 'knew as a fact' that Marcion was familiar with all four gospels
19. It is easy to distinguish where Tertullian's Adversus Marcionem was falsified
It is perplexing, then, that Tertullian periodically charges Marcion with the excision of material which does not appear in Luke, but is seemingly to be found in Matthew or Mark. In the following pages I will raise a conjecture which may help explain the presence of this feature in AM. Briefly, I will present evidence which suggests that Tertullian's text of Luke may have contained some harmonizations with Matthew and/or Mark. Thus when he saw only Lukan elements in the text of Marcion's Gospel, while his own text also contained Matthean and/or Markan elements, Tertullian assumed that Marcion had omitted the latter material. Before I examine this evidence, however, I will present and assess previous explanations of this aspect of Tertullian's critique of Marcion's Gospel.
- C. T. Ward suggested that Tertullian simply made a mistake. Since Tertullian charged that Marcion removed passages which "were never in Luke, but belonged to Mark or Matthew [he] could not have used Luke's Gospel for comparison while writing'' AM .4 According to Ward, while Tertullian should have used Luke to compare with Marcion's Gospel, he actually employed either Matthew or Mark.
- Some scholars have suggested that Tertullian treated all four Gospels as a single unit. Thus, when he accused Marcion of removing something from "the Gospel," Tertullian meant to imply not just Luke, but also Matthew, Mark, and John. An exchange between W. R. Cassels and B. F. Westcott will serve to make this point clear. In AM 4.7.5 Tertullian censures Marcion for omitting two non-Lukan sayings, one of which corresponds to Matthew 15:24 and the other to Matthew 15:26 and Mark 7:27 — "To your task, Marcion: remove even this from the Gospel, 'I am not sent but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel," and, "It is not
to take away the children's bread and give it to dogs." passage reveals that Tertullian's procedure was "superficial and hasty," and thus "We have, in fact, no guarantee of the accuracy or trustworthiness of any of [his] statements." Westcott replied, "It may be worthwhile to notice that Tertullian does not say that Marcion removed Matt xv. 24,26 from St. Luke. He simply challenges him to take away from the Gospel what was a well-known part of it.
- Others have suggested that Tertullian's memory occasionally failed him and he confused the texts of the Gospels in his mind. A. Harnack is representative of this position. In AM 2.17.1 Tertullian claims that Marcion struck out from his Gospel a statement similar to Matthew 5:45 — "the facts show that [God] sends rain upon both good and evil and makes his sun rise over just and unjust . . . although Marcion has presumed to erase [this] from the Gospel." Harnack comments: "er [Tertullian] bekann sich nicht darauf, dass der Spruch nicht bei Lukas steht."7 II Several objections may be raised with regard to these positions. [David Williams, 'On Tertullian's Text of Luke'.SecCenf 8(1991), p. 195]
Williams dismisses Ward's assertion that Tertullian wasn't using Luke by arguing essentially 'of course he does, the text plainly says so.' Nevertheless as we just saw, the opening words of the treatise as a whole tell us that the material preserved today was rewritten may times over and survived under at least two different historical authors. Williams own solution then is part of the way there to the correct answer but still not exactly right as Gregory notes:
Thus, taking the evidence of Marcion's opponents at face value, there would seem to be no doubt about the fact that Marcion abridged Luke in order to make a Gospel which he considered appropriate. This is what Irenaeus and Tertullian believed, and their presentation is widely accepted. Yet although the references of Irenaeus and Tertullian to Luke identify Marcion's Gospel with one of the four accounts of the ministry of Jesus used by them, it is important to note that the heresiologists' texts of Luke may not have been identical to a modern day critical edition of Luke. There are at least two ways in which this is important.This helps explain a number of important features of the Adversus Marcionem tradition - most notably the Galatians first canon of the Pauline letters. To be certain then, if - as I have suggested - the author of the original material was an eastern (Palutian) Christian like Ephrem, living in the environs of Edessa combating the Marcionite gospel by means of a rival Catholic 'Diatessaron' and then this text was reworked by Irenaeus in order to make it reflective of the existence of Luke and this second text translated into Latin with subsequent minor changes we can at last better explain not only the references of 'Marcion cut things that only appear in Matthew' in Adversus Marcion but also 'Marcion cut things which only appear in Mark' and more importantly the 'Marcion cut things which only appear in John'
First, the evidence of the Gospel citations of Irenaeus and Tertullian suggest that their Gospels reflect the still unstable western tradition. Therefore it is possible both that their versions of Luke may have contained harmonising readings not necessarily associated by modern readers with Luke, or by Marcion with his Gospel, and also that these readings may have been later than the text of Marcion's Gospel and thus not excised by him. For example, there are three instances where Tertullian accuses Marcion of having excised from his Gospel Jesus' statement (known from Matthew, not Luke) that he came not to abolish the Law but to fulfil it (Williams 1991). [Williams] argues that Tertullian's text of Luke may have contained some harmonizations with Matthew and/or Mark, such as Matthew 5:17, which he accuses Marcion of removing from Luke (Against Marcion 4.7. 4; 4.9.15; 4.12.14) and a harmony of Luke 6.35 with Matthew 5.45. [Andrew Gregory The Reception of Luke Acts p. 174]
25. 'Marcion cut Matthew 1:23'
26. 'Marcion cut Matthew 2:1, 11, 16 - 18
27. 'Marcion cut Matthew 2:11'
29. 'Marcion cut Matthew 4:14'
30. 'Marcion cut Matthew 5:17'
32. 'Marcion cut Matthew 8:4'
33. 'Marcion cut Matthew 9:27 - 28'
34. 'Marcion cut Matthew 10:10'
36. 'Marcion cut Matthew 15:24'
37. 'Marcion cut Matthew 15:26'
38. 'Marcion cut even more from this section than merely Matthew 15:24 - 26'
39. 'Marcion cut Matthew 16:17 - 19'
40. 'Marcion cut Matthew 19:3 - 8'
41. 'Marcion cut Matthew 27:35'
- Our surviving Adversus Marcionem Books Four and Five (the books where the information about the Marcionite New Testament canon are principally found) represent a small portion of the original treatise (which necessarily did not merely focus on Luke's gospel and the order of its narrative). The same thing can be seen in Origen's Commentary on John which only mentions the passages from Heracleon which had to do with 'according to John' (it is clear he also made reference to material from 'according to Luke' in other sources). Indeed Origen's Commentary on Matthew was clearly 'boiled down' from a larger commentary on a Diatessaronic-gospel used in Alexandria.
- Since the original author did not develop his arguments against Marcion in relation to Luke but a Diatessaron (likely that used by Justin and Tatian) the 'Marcion corrupted Luke' and the very introduction of 'according to Luke' must have been subsequent to the understanding that Marcion corrupted a Diatessaronic-gospel.
All original reports from individuals who claimed to have seen a Marcionite gospel firsthand (as we see above) attest to the texts ''Diatessaronic' character. The only exception is Irenaeus, whose lost 'Against Marcion' was likely only an adaptation of Justin's original work 'remodeled' to conform to his 'circumcised' Luke claims and moreover his broad meta-thesis regarding four gospels 'corrupted' by four heretical communities. Irenaeus re-worked Against Marcion is likely the second version of Adversus Marcionem (see Adv Marc 1:1 cited above), the ancestor to the adapted form of Tertullian's text in Book Four of Adv Marc on the one hand and Epiphanius's elaborate scholia in the Panarion.
46. Tertullian reworked many of Irenaeus's original texts to pass them off as his own
i) Marcion's 'Antitheses' were the original source of Matthew 5:21 - 48
54. Irenaeus implies Marcion knew the gospel 'Antitheses'
55. Tertullian implies Marcion knew the gospel 'Antitheses'
56. the Marcionite in De Recta in Deum Fide cites from the gospel 'Antitheses'
57. the Marcionite in De Recta in Deum Fide cites from the gospel 'Antitheses'
58. the Marcionite and Adamantius debate the meaning of the gospel 'Antitheses' in De Recta in Deum Fide
59. Marcion's teacher Cerdo knew the gospel 'Antitheses' and passed it on to him
60. Marcion was the first to call Matthew 5:21 - 48 'the Antitheses'
61. Matthew and Marcion agree that Jesus's first miracle was performed in Capernaum
62. the gospel of Marcion had a harmonized variant of Matthew 5:3
63. the gospel of Marcion had a harmonized variant of Matthew 5:17
64. the gospel of Marcion had Matthew 5:22
65. the gospel of Marcion had Matthew 5:43, 44
66. the gospel of Marcion had Matthew 5:45
67. the gospel of Marcion had Matthew 6:25
68. the gospel of Marcion had Matthew 7:10
69. the gospel of Marcion had Matthew 7:17
70. the gospel of Marcion had Matthew 7:18 - 20
71. the gospel of Marcion had Matthew 9:16 - 17/Mark 2.21 - 22
72. the gospel of Marcion had Matthew 10:9
73. the gospel of Marcion had Matthew 10:24
74. the gospel of Marcion had Matthew 10:32 - 33
75. the gospel of Marcion had Matthew 10:34 - 35
76. the gospel of Marcion had Matthew 10:37
77. the gospel of Marcion had Matthew 11:2 - 3
78. the gospel of Marcion had Matthew 11:27
79. the gospel of Marcion had Matthew 12:5
80. the gospel of Marcion had Matthew 12:19
81. the gospel of Marcion had Matthew 16:16
82. the gospel of Marcion had Matthew 16:17
83. the gospel of Marcion had a known 'harmonized variant' of Matthew 17:2
84. the gospel of Marcion 'betrays assimilation' to Matthew 18:6
85. the gospel of Marcion had Matthew 19:3 - 8
87. the gospel of Marcion had Matthew 19:12
88. the gospel of Marcion had Matthew 19:13 - 14
90. the gospel of Marcion may have had Matthew 19:21
91. the gospel of Marcion had Matthew 20:20 - 24/Mark 10:35 - 40
92. the gospel of Marcion had Matthew 23:8
95. the gospel of Marcion 'betrays assimilation' to Matthew 26:24
96. the gospel of Marcion had Matthew 28:19
97. Marcion wrote the Gospel of John as John's secretary
98. 'according to Luke' etrays it 'incorporated' material from John
99. Tertullian says that Marcion rejected John's gospel
100. Tertullian assumes contemporaries and John knew (and rejected) Marcion
101. Marcion was 'the elder' later identified as 'John'96. the gospel of Marcion had the Prologue of John (John 1:1 - 21)
102. the gospel of Marcion had John 13:34
103. the gospel of Marcion had John 14:16 - 17
104. the gospel of Marcion had John 15:19
107. the gospel of Marcion had Mark 6:41 - 49
110. many alleged 'falsifications of Luke' are simply known (western) attestations of 'according to Mark' or even Matthew
111. the gospel of Marcion had Mark 2:28
iv) the gospel of Marcion was the 'secret/mystic' of Mark
153. Matthew 2:2
154. Matthew 2:9, 11 - 12
155. Matthew 2:22 - 23
156. Matthew 5:6
157. Matthew 5:10
158. Matthew 5:17
159. Matthew 5:20
160. Matthew 5:22, 27
161. Matthew 5:37
162. Matthew 5:42
163. Matthew 5:43
165. Matthew 5:48
166. Matthew 7:6
167. Matthew 7:13
168. Matthew 7:17, 18
169. Matthew 7:20
170. Matthew 8:11, 12
171. Matthew 9:19
172. Matthew 9:27, 28
173. Matthew 10:5
174. Matthew 10:7
175. Matthew 10:10
196. Matthew 16:18, 19
197. Matthew 17:5
198. Matthew 18:4
199. Matthew 18:15, 16
200. Tertullian argues from Matt 18:17 to correct Marcion's interpretation of the gospel
202. Matthew 19:3, 5 - 9
203. Matthew 19:12
204. Matthew 19:26
205. Matthew 19:30
206. Matthew 20:23
207. Matthew 22:11, 12
208. Matthew 22:29
209. Matthew 22:30
210. Matthew 22:32
211. Matthew 22:35
212. Matthew 22:37, 39
213. Matthew 23:4
214. Matthew 23:27
215. Matthew 24:5
216. Matthew 24:24
217. Luke 21:24 - 36 in a Matthean form
218. Matthew 25:14 - 30
219. Matthew 25:32
220. Matthew 25:41
221. Matthew 26:24
222. Matthew 26:38
224. Matthew 27:3
225. Matthew 27:10
226. Matthew 27:25
227. Matthew 27:37
228. Matthew 28:12, 13
229. Matthew 28:19 - 20
230. Matthew 21:13
233. Matthew 3:9; 7:15, 16
234. Matthew 26:24
235. Matthew 7:23; 8:12; 13:42, 50; 22:13; 24:51; 25:30