Kiemelt bejegyzés

1. The snowball Trinity versus the Father Almighty

The snowball Trinity versus the Father Almighty Who is the real God? A tri nity of persons (The Trinity) or just one person, the F at h...

Tuesday, 11 December 2012

18. Lazarus and the Rich Man: A literal, historical event or an extra-Biblical source?

Lazarus and the Rich Man: A literal, historical event or an extra-Biblical source?

Lazarus and the Rich Man a real story?

Lazarus and the Rich Man: A literal, historical event or an extra-Biblical source? According to Wikipedia "Some Christians view the story of Lazarus and the Rich Man as an actual event which was related by Jesus to his followers;[9] this was generally the view of the medieval Church. According to this view, this story is not a parable but literal biography. Supporters of this view point to the amount of detail in the story. For example, in no other parable does Jesus give a character's personal name, but refers to the characters as "a certain man", "a sower", etc."
But another view holds that the story was not told by Lord Jesus, because this story is in contradiction with the Old Testament statement about Abraham (Psalms 146:4, Isaiah 63:16, Daniel 12:2), with his own words (John 3:13, John 5:28,29) and of his followers words (Acts 2:34, Hebrews 11:39). 
Proponents of this view suggest that it is significant that only the Gospel of Luke mentions Jesus telling the story, but the original is lost, so is not certain if it exist in the autograph text. Also, about Lazarus virtues we read nothing, just he was sick and poor. It is interesting that Jewish Ebionite communities believe in afterlife and consider this kind of man a virtuous. This story could be an Ebionite story put later in the Gospel of Luke in some manner like The Pericope Adulterae in the Gospel of John. 
See, for the comparison:
According to Dr. F. H. A. Scrivener: 
"In the second century we have seen too many instances of attempts to tamper with the text of Scripture, some merely injudicious, others positively dishonest". He states that "it is no less true to fact than paradoxical in sound, that the worst corruptions to which the New Testament has ever been subjected, originated within 100 years after it was composed: and that Irenaeus and the African Fathers, and the whole Western, with a portion of the Syrian Church" (used altered manuscripts) (F. H. A. Scrivener, Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament).
According to G.D. Kilpatrick (Atticism and the Text of the Greek New Testament, at 125-131): 
"Deliberate changes in all text types appear to antedate A.D. 200... as distinct from errors... all categories of deliberate alteration... are present in both groups. Tatian is the last author to make deliberate changes. The vast majority of deliberate changes were older then A.D. 200. They came into being in the period A.D. 50-200."

Deleted information
Deleted view from

Why and who deleted this information?
"A fourth view holds that the story was not told by Jesus. Proponents of this view suggest that it is significant that only the Gospel of Luke mentions Jesus telling the story"

How the scholars seeing this:
"Some hold that the story, in its entirety, can be attributed to Jesus (Bauckham 1991,
45; Marshall, 634; Blomberg, 203-5; Jeremias 1972, 186; Fitzmyer 1985, 1127; Hock, Vol. 4, 266-7) while others consider it as a pre-Christian tale attributed to Jesus (Bultmann 1963, 203), later Apocryphal
interpolation (the entire story, Cairus 2006, 35-45) or Lucan redaction (Drury, 159-60)."
"The story seems abrupt in its present place (Reiling
and Swellengrebel, 569-70). Aecio Cairus argues for,
while excluding 16:19-31, a smooth transition from 16:18
to 17:1 (Cairus, 43). He sees vv. 19-31 as an interruption of the flow and that 17:1-2 belongs “to the same condemnation of Pharisaic doctrine introduced in 16:15-17” (Marshall, 632)." 
Daniel Berchie, Samson Dakio, Luke 16:19-31: Intermediate State of the Soul

About Luke 16:19-31 II century interpolation

Supporters of the endless torment in the so called hell fire 

A few of the more famous figures of church who have given whole-hearted support to the traditional doctrine include: Tertullian, Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, Martin Luther, John Calvin, Jonathan Edwards, John Wesley, George Whitefield, Charles Haddon Spurgeon, and Dwight L. Moody. The Westminster Confession of Faith was very clear in its affirming of hell as eternal punishment: "but the wicked who know not God, and obey not the gospel of Jesus Christ, shall be cast into eternal torments, and be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power" (Grudem 1196).

They all were wrong. Is no endless torment in the Bible. See the explanation on this topic in the book of Edward William Fudge: The Fire That Consumes

"Names in the so called story of the Rich Man and Lazarus: Phineas, Phinees, Neues, Nineue and Eleazar
Pascha Computus, he is referred to as Phineas, 26 in Priscillian (A.D. 385) it is Phinees, and in a marginal note to the versified Bible of Peter of Riga it is Amonofis.27 In the Bodmer Papyrus (P75), the oldest Greek text of the Lukan Gospel, he is named Neuēs.28 Neuēs itself is unintelligible; thus the name is suggested to be a scribal error for, Nineuēs. 29 or a shortened form of, 30 This is also found in the ancient Sahidic version (II century) as Nineuē Fitzmyer states this is an unusual personal name; (Nineveh).31"
Tertullian named the beggar Eleazar
"But when the world rejoices, let us grieve; and when the world afterward grieves, we shall rejoice. Thus, too, Eleazar in Hades, (attaining refreshment in Abraham's bosom) and the rich man, (on the other hand, set in the torment of fire) compensate, by an answerable retribution, their alternate vicissitudes of evil and good."
"On Idolatry" (chapter 13, verse 9)
It was probably horror vacui that prompted more than one copyist to provide a name for the anonymous Rich Man. In Egypt the tradition that his name was Nineveh is incorporated in the Sahidic version, and seems to be reflected also in P, which reads πλούσιος ὀνόματι Νευης (probably a scribal error for Νινευης). During the third and fourth centuries a tradition was current in the West that the Rich Man’s name was Phineas. The pseudo-Cyprianic treatise De pascha computus, which was written in the year 242/3 in Africa or in Rome, declares (ch. 17): Omnibus peccatoribus a deo ignis est praeparatus, in cuius flamma uri ille Finaeus dives ab ipso dei filio est demonstratus (“Fire has been prepared by God for all sinners, in the flame of which, as was indicated by the Son of God himself, that rich man Phineas is burned”). The same tradition is repeated toward the close of the fourth century in the last of the eleven anonymous treatises that are customarily assigned to Priscillian, a wealthy, highly educated layman who became the founder of a gnosticizing sect in southern Spain. Here the name is spelled Finees (in the only manuscript extant of Tract ix the name is spelled Fineet with the t stroked out and surmounted by s). The reason that the name Phineas was given to the Rich Man may be because in the Old Testament (Nu 25.7, 11) Eleazar [compare Lazarus] and Phinehas are associated. A note in the margin of a thirteenth century manuscript of the poem “Aurora,” a versified Bible written in the twelfth century by Peter of Riga, states Amonofis dicitur esse nomen divitis (“The name of the Rich Man is said to be Amonofis [i. e. Amenophis]”). 
Metzger, B. M., & United Bible Societies. (1994). A textual commentary on the Greek New Testament, second edition a companion volume to the United Bible Societies' Greek New Testament (4th rev. ed.) (140). London; New York: United Bible Societies.

We die or not we die?
Three books written in this matter:

For who knows Romanian, I will send you via e.mail (

Book 1
Murim sau nu murim? Ce spun Dumnezeu şi Satan, în cea mai veche controversă?
About the body, spirit, soul, life, first death, resurrection, trial and second death


Chapter I - About the body
Chapter II - About the spirit
Chapter III - About the soul
Chapter IV - About the life
Chapter V - About the first death
Chapter VI - About the resurrection
Chapter VII - About the trial
Chapter VIII - About the second death
Chapter IX - Misinterpreted texts

Book 2 
A făcut parte predica "Bogatul nemilostiv şi săracul Lazăr" din Evanghelia după Luca?

Book 3
Cum a fost dus de nas imparatul Saul de femeia din En-Dor?

Notes in Hungarian:
"A negyedik nézet szerint a történetetet nem mondta Jézus. Hívei ezzel a nézettel arra utalnak, hogy jelentős az, hogy csak a Lukács evangéliuma említi, hogy Jézus mondja a történetet"

"Néhányan úgy tartják, hogy a történet a maga teljességében, Jézusnak tulajdonítható,  (Bauckham 1991 45; Marshall, 634; Blomberg, 203-5; Jeremias 1972 186; Fitzmyer 1985 1127; Hock, Vol. 4, 266-7), míg mások úgy vélik, hogy ez egy kereszténység előtti mese, amit Jézusnak tulajdonítottak (Bultmann 1963, 203.), későbbi Apokrif-interpoláció (az egész történetet, Cairus 2006. 35-45), illetve Lukacs csinalmany (Drury, 159-60). ""A történet úgy tűnik, törésben jelenik jelenlegi helyén (Reiling és Swellengrebel, 569-70). Aécio Cairus azzal érvel, hogy kizárja 16:19-31 zökkenőmentes átmenetét 16:18-tól 17:1-ig (Cairus, 43). Azt látja hogy a 19-31 verssorozat megszakítja a folyamatot 17:1-2-ig, mivel ez ugyanoda tartozik "ugyanabba az ítéletbe amit a farizeusi tan ellen van bevezetett a 16: 5-17-ben" (Marshall, 632). " Daniel Berchie, Samson Dakio, Lukács 16: 19-31: Intermediate State of the Soul

No comments:

Post a Comment