Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

The chief problem raised by Marcion's gospel is not that of its reconstruction but that of determining the significance of its close affinity with Luke's. Which served as a basis for the other?

"Is Marcion's gospel (as Tertullian in the third, and Epiphanius in the fifth century both affirm), drawn from that of Luke, with certain omissions and variations due to Marcion's heretical beliefs? Alternatively, is Luke's merely an edition of Marcion's corrected and amplified in accordance with the orthodoxy of the Roman Church, as Christian Baur thought in 1847?
......<paragraph omitted>
"In order to reach an incontrovertible conclusion, one must obviously begin by comparing those parts of the gospel common to both Luke and Marcion with the sections peculiar to each. It is almost invariably the sections peculiar to Luke which come under discussion, as those peculiar to Marcion consist solely—with the exception of two incidents...—of occasional isolated words. ..."


"... by including Marcion's among the gospels known as the Synoptics, the need for the evangelical 'source' which has been postulated by all critics in the last half century [until 1936], under the letter 'Q',^a is thus abolished ..."

---

1. "the evangelical writing common both to Matthew and Luke, but which is not found in Mark"

"... [Q's] contents must instead be attributed partly to Marcion and partly to Matthew. The passages common to Matthew and Luke are not homogeneous; they are divided into two groups, each with widely divergent philological characteristics.

"The first group contain[s] the majority of passages...which, in Matthew as in Luke, are derived from Marcion's gospel; Luke, as was his wont, transcribing them almost word for word, making only a few small alterations on points of doctrine. Matthew, in the literal sense of the word, rethought them from the Jewish standpoint, giving them the wording of Hebrew poetry. These passages, therefore, have two characteristics: (1) They occur in Marcion's gospels; and (2) they are handed down to us in two versions clearly differing from each other.

"The second group comprises those passages not found in Marcion. Of these, Matthew is the chief author. He composed them with great care, making them scan, and, without forcing, giving them that Hebraic symmetry so dear to him. Luke borrowed them from [Matthew], and, as usual, transcribed them almost literally. They have, therefore, these characteristics: (1) They are not found in Marcion; (2) they possess a very marked Hebraic turn of expression; and (3) they have come down to us in two [canoncial gospels, ie. Matthew and Luke, but they are] so similar that they appear to be but one."

"The problem of the Synoptics will not be resolved as long as only three gospels are numbered among the Synoptics, Mark, Matthew and Luke. There must be four: Mark, Matthew, Luke and Marcion.

"As a result, the date of the composition of the Synoptic Gospels must be placed roughly between A.D. 135 and 145. Marcion went to Rome in A.D. 138, but probably his gospel preceded him there.¹ He died in A.D. 144 as Barnikol proved² ... It is easier to understand the last of the Synoptic Gospels, Luke's, being written after Marcion's death, than during his lifetime ..."

---

1. Jerome tells us (Epis. 133, 4) that Marcion had sent one of the women of his church to Rome before him.
2. E. Barnikol : Die Entstehung der Kirche irn zweiten Jahrhundert and die Zeit. Marcions, Kiel, 1933.

"The date A.D. 135 to 145 agrees better with two indications drawn from the Gospels themselves: (1) The literal fulfilment of Daniel's prophecy: "The abomination of desolation (ie. a heathen altar) standing in the Holy Place," to which both Mark (xiii.14) and Matthew (xxiv.15) allude, only occurred (after Antiochus Epiphanius' times) during the reign of Hadrian in 135 A.D., when the altar and statue of Jupiter Capitolinus, as well as those of the Emperor, were erected on the site of the Temple, and when the name Jerusalem was changed to that of Aelia Capitolina. (2) The Parable of the Vineyard as recorded by Mark (xii.1-11) is apparently intended to correct the analogous parable of Hermas (Sim. V.)¹ which cannot be dated earlier than 120 A.D."

---

1. See The HIBBERT JOURNAL: Quels livres Marc a-t-it lus? April, 1932.
   
   (In previously citing this article, Couchoud noted,
   "The Parable of the Wicked Husbandmen is...peculiar to Mark, who makes of it a vehicle to express his own particular belief in Jesus as the well-beloved Son, Heir of God his Father, probably as an answer to a parable of Hermas. It has leapt straight from the pages of Mark into those of Luke, but does not appear in Marcion's, although it is in accordance with Paul's teaching, and Marcion would have had more reason to include it in his gospel than to leave it out." [p.272, top]

This has in itself a certain striking significance. When an author wishes to re-model a text so as to conform to a given doctrine it is not often that he can accomplish his task with nothing but a pair of scissors to help him. It is much easier for him to use the glue-pot and stick additions into the text which he is at perfect liberty to compose for his own purpose. But this is a mere assumption.

Let us begin with the two incidents peculiar to Marcion, that is, those which are not found in Luke. Are they consistent with the main part of the gospel?

The arrogant and much-resented request of the sons of Zebedee (the account of which shows these two apostles in a somewhat unfavourable light), has an exact parallel in an incident common to both Luke (ix. 52-55) and Marcion, where Zebedee's sons ask Jesus for permission to bring down fire from Heaven on the inhospitable Samaritan village, and receive from Jesus a severe rebuke. These two rebukes to James and John are both written in the same style and spirit. It is, therefore, very unlikely that Marcion made an addition.

The washing of feet is not found in Luke, but, curiously enough, the text common to Marcion and Luke contains an allusion to it. Actually, Jesus says (Luke xxii. 26-27 D.): "He that is chief let him be as he that doth serve, for whether is greater, he that sits at meat or he that serves ? ... But I am amongst you as he that serves."

From this it would appear that Luke has omitted the episode but retained the moral. There is, therefore, no evidence even here of any addition by Marcion.

Let us now consider some of the sections peculiar to Luke. Let us see if they are equally consistent with the main part of the gospel.

By far the largest, and the one which best lends itself to examination, is the whole romantic and delightful beginning of Luke's gospel.

Marcion begins with these impressive words:

"In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, during the government of Pontius Pilate, Jesus Christ, Son of God, descended from Heaven, and appeared at Capernaum, a town of Galilee."

In Luke the names Tiberius and Pilate are followed by those of the three tetrarchs, Herod, Philip, and Lysanias, and the high priest Annas (iii. 1) while the fifteenth year of Tiberius' reign marks the beginning not of Jesus' ministry, but of John the Baptist's.

Above all, the first appearance [in G.Luke] of Jesus in public, which took place at Nazareth, not at Capernaum, is preceded by a long, elaborate history of the miraculous births of both John and Jesus, and Jesus' boyhood, baptism, and temptations (i-iv. 15).

This fine narrative, the painters' paradise, is in a distinctive style: pseudo-Biblical, brim-full of allusions and quotations from the Scriptures, interspersed with verses from the Psalms, which are themselves treasures of biblical poetry. This style, with its somewhat artificial charm, is not found again in the main part of the gospel, save in a few short, isolated passages which are precisely those also absent from Marcion's rendering.

Moreover, the characters are not shown in the same light here as in the other part of the gospel. John the Baptist is treated almost as Jesus' equal — as a great prophet, sent from God, filled with the Holy Ghost, the mediator of salvation; his halo almost merges with that of Jesus — whereas in the main part of the gospel, Jesus himself praises John, only to add that, "he that is least in the Kingdom of Heaven is greater than he" (vii. 28) — a very different attitude [to the first few chapters of G.Luke].

Mary is honoured as the Virgin who conceived by an act of God, and as the Mother who kept in her heart the secret of the birth and boyhood of Jesus; whereas elsewhere in the gospel, Jesus himself says that his mother and brethren are all those who 'hear the Word of God' (vii.21) — there, again, the attitude is entirely different.

Jesus himself is represented as the national Messiah of the Jews who "shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever" (i.33), whereas in the main part of the gospel, he is the Christ of Paul's teaching, who suffers and dies in order to save mankind — a further difference in the representation [between early Luke and the rest of Luke].

It is hard indeed not to feel the contrast between the first chapter of Luke and the rest of the gospel. It is, therefore, more likely that this lengthy narrative peculiar to Luke has not been omitted by Marcion, but is an addition made by Luke himself.

According to Marcion, Jesus began his ministry at Capernaum; according to Luke, at Nazareth; but, by a curious oversight, Luke, who had thitherto made no mention of Capernaum, describes how Jesus imagines the men of Nazareth saying to Him, "Whatsoever we have heard done in Capernaum, do also here in thy [πατρίδι/country/hometown/fatherland]" (iv. 23).

Now [as noted], up till then, nothing [is said to have] happened in Capernaum. This negligence on the part of Luke clearly indicates that the order, Capernaum before Nazareth, as found in Marcion, is the original one.

This negligence on the part of Luke clearly indicates that the order, Capernaum before Nazareth, as found in Marcion, is the original one.