Has anyone compiled a list of readings shared by Marcion's Evangelion with Mark and/or Matthew but not in Luke?

[Ken Olson]

Ben Smith's compilation of Luke-Evangelion overlaps together with the witnesses that attest to the Marcionite readings marks Marcionite readings that differ from the known text of Luke in blue boldface underline.

Words or phrases attested as present in Marcion but either absent from or rendered differently in canonical Luke, according to Roth, are underlined in blue boldface (being, virtually by definition, specifically attested as present in the Marcionite text). If the underlined words are replacing Lucan material (that is, if the underlined words are differently rendered in Luke and not merely absent), that replaced (or differently rendered) Lucan material is given first in blue italics, as described above, and then the Marcionite material is given in brackets immediately thereafter.

viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1765

I am wondering if anyone has compiled a list of Marcionite readings that differ from Luke, but agree with Mark and/or Matthew, or presented the text of the Evangelion with the Mark/Matthew agreements against Luke particularly marked.

I am aware of Peter Kirby's Markan Marcion: A Contrary Synopsis:

viewtopic.php?f=7&t=10810&hilit=marcion+synopsis

As far as I can tell, though, this does not particularly mark the Evngelion-(Mark or Matthew) agreements so that they can be seen at a glance. (If I'm wrong about that, please correct me).

Best,

Ken

[Peter Kirby]

AFAIK it currently doesn't exist.

It is a goal of my synopsis and I can update you.

[Ken Olson]

AFAIK it currently doesn't exist.

It is a goal of my synopsis and I can update you.

Thanks.

[MrMacSon]

I am wondering if anyone has compiled a list of Marcionite readings that differ from Luke, but agree with Mark and/or Matthew; or presented the text of the Evangelion with the Mark/Matthew agreements against Luke particularly marked.

Klinghardt's The Oldest Gospel and the Formation of the Canonical Gospels, 2020/1, has §11, 'The Literary Relation between *Ev and Mark,' pp.199-237;¹ and §12, 'Matthew as Compilation of Mark and *Ev,' pp.238-280.²


1 I think Klinghardt's introduction statements (and brief commentary) on pp.199-200 are poor: conceptually, at least. But the substance of his subsequent discussion of specific passages seems, to me, at least, to be very thorough and good.


2 I'm not sure if this is helpful at all: most of it seems to be 'Matthean-Lukan agreement against Mark,' so it probalby doesn't meet your criteria of (i) Marcionite readings that differ from Luke, but agree with Mark and/or Matthew, or (ii) the text of the Evangelion with the Mark/Matthew agreements against Luke particularly marked.

• (In the introduction, he refers to §10.1 for "[t]he methodological requirements for a valid explanation of [the] Matthean-Lukan double traditions regarding *Ev.")

In "2. The Matthean-Lukan ‘Minor Agreements’" there's the subsection, "b. Matthew edits Mark; Luke follows Matthew against *Ev and Mark."

In "3. The Redaction of the Double Tradition Material in Matthew and Luke," there's subsection "a. The Matthean integration of *Ev into Mark".

And there's "4. The Composition of the Matthean Prehistory: Flagging a Problem ," which begins:

One last aspect of Matthew emerging in dependency of Mark and *Ev can only be hinted at in spite of its content-related significance. If Matthew is dependent not only on Mark (assumed by most models of the tradition history) but also on *Ev, and if Luke and Matthew are not independent of each other but the former utilizing the latter, the assessment of tradition history’s influences on the beginning of the Matthean account has sweeping consequences.

a. The Matthean prehistory and its Lukan redaction
*Ev succinctly introduces Jesus into the account by having him ‘go down to Capharnaum’ (*3,1a; *4,31-37). Mark characterizes Jesus through the witness of John the Baptist and through the heavenly voice heard at the baptism (Mark 1,7-11) before Jesus is elevated as protagonist ...

(not that helpful, if at all)

b. The difference between Nazareth and Bethlehem
The point of departure common to Matthew and Luke is the difference between Bethlehem as Jesus’ place of birth and Nazareth as his place of origin. That Jesus came from Nazareth was prescribed by *Ev: after *4,16, Jesus came to Nazara (!), and that place is subsequently identified as his πατρίς (*4,23). Mark picked up this reference, he narrated the rejection of Jesus in his πατρίς (Mark 6,1-6) but left out the failed assault (*4,29f). Mark moved its counterpart together with the resolve of the Pharisees and Herodians to kill Jesus (*4,16-30) to the beginning of his account (Mark 3,1-6). The conclusion, that Jesus originated from ἀπὸ Ναζαρὲτ τῆς Γαλιλαίας (Mark 1,9), was easily drawn by Mark.

Matthew and Luke have followed Mark in that. However, since they give an account of the birth of Jesus in Bethlehem (Luke) or reference it (Matthew), the difference between the place of origin and birth is in need of a narrative compensation ...

Nazareth being prescribed as the place of origin by *Ev (and Mark) raises a crucial question. From where came the common knowledge of Jesus’ Bethlehemite birth, which forced Matthew and Luke equally to engage in such varying compensation maneuvers? Matt 2,5f provides the answer with the ‘formula quotation’ from Mic 5,1 ...

Deep in c. Jesus’ sonship of David there's

The critical position toward the son-of-David identification in *20,41-44 || Mark 12,35-37 (and toward the meaning of the Bethlehemite birth for overcoming it) is still quite recognizable in John who plays with its pretexts. Even if John has Nathanael ask, ‘Can anything good come out of Nazareth?’ (John 1,46), the knowledge of the Bethlehemite birth is always assumed, as clearly indicated by Philip’s reference to ‘Jesus son of Joseph of Nazareth’ (John 1,45) – based on knowledge of Matt 1f and Luke 2, respectively. The problem is then taken up in John 7,41f. When the crowd’s awareness arises that Jesus is the Christ (7,41a), others in the crowd point to Jesus’ Galilean origin; and they maintain scripture’s proclamation that Christ would come from the seed of David and from Bethlehem – ‘the village where David lived’. This brings together all elements, which Matt 2,5f first introduced into the debate on Jesus’ identity with the ‘formula quotation’ from Mic 5,1. The Johannine reception without knowledge of the Matthean story of Jesus’ birth is simply inconceivable.

[Ken Olson]

This is a post I began a month or so ago. It is a quick and dirty look at the contents of Marcion versus the contents of Mark, Luke, and Matthew. It is not a full synopsis such as Peter Kirby is working on, not a list of material shared by the Evangelion and Mark or Matthew, but not in Luke. Both those things remain a desideratum.

First: This is a list of pericopes in Luke that that he does not share with Mark or Matthew (i.e., the so called L material or Lukan Sondergut), following BeDuhn's edition in The First New Testament (2013):

Chart 1: The Contents of L in Luke:
3.10-14 The Preaching of John the Baptist
4.25-27 Elijah's miracles for Gentiles
M 7.11b-15 Jesus raises the widows son of Nain
M 7.36-47 A sinful woman forgiven
10.30-37a Parable of the Good Samaritan
10.39-42 Mary and Martha
M 11.5b-8 Parable of the persistent friend
M 12.16b-20 Parable of the rich fool
M 12.35-38 Parable of the doorkeeper
13.1b-5 Repent or perish
13.6b-9 Parable of the barren fig tree
M 13.10-17b Healing on the Sabbath
13.31b-32 Warning about Herod
14.2-5 Healing on the Sabbath
M 14, M 8-10; Not M 12-14 Parable of the choice of place at table
14.28-32 Counting the cost
M 15.4-6 Parable of the Lost sheep
M 15.8-9 Parable of the Lost coin
15.11.32 Parable of the lost (prodigal) son
M 16.1b-8 Parable of the dishonest manager
M 16.19-31 Parable of the rich man and Lazarus
17.7-10 Say, "We have done out duty"
M 17.12-1818.2-8a Ten lepers healed, Samaritan thankful
M 18.2-8a Parable of the unjust judge
M 18.10-14a Parable of the Pharisee and the publican
M 19.2-10 Zachaeus repents

26 L pericopes in Luke 3-19
15 attested in Marcion (marked with M)
11 unattested in Marcion

I originally posted the list here:

viewtopic.php?p=121607&sid=60f729450b67 ... 61#p121607

Second: Also unattested for Marcion is the material in Mark 6.45- 8.26 (Luke’s so-called Great Omission of Markan material which would have fallen between Luke 9.17 and 9.18):

Mark
6.45-52
Walking on Water
Thematic doublet of The Stilling of the Storm (Mark 4.35-41); Jesus shows power over wind and wave; the disciples were afraid but should have had faith in him.
6.53-56
Healings at Gennesaret
Summary
7.1-23
What Defiles A Person
Gentile mission delayed until Acts, ruling on what it is permissible to eat in Acts 10.9-16; 11.4-10
7.24-30
Syrophoenician Woman
Gentile mission delayed until Acts; note in the Lukan version of the Centurion’s Boy in Luke 7.1-10, the Centurion is kept off stage and sends a delegation of Jewish elders in Luke 7.3-5.
7.31-37
The Healings of Many Sick People
Summary
8.1-10
Feeding of the Four Thousand
Doublet of the Feeding of the Five Thousand (Mark 6.35-44)
8.11-13
Pharisees Seek A Sign
=Luke 11.29, 12.54-56
8.14-21
Leaven of the Pharisees
=Luke 12.1
8.22-26
Blind Men of Bethsaida

Most of the material in Mark 6.45-8.26 is paralleled in Matt 14.22-16.12, though some (notably Mark 8.22-26) is not.

Luke does have partial parallels to two pericopes in the great omission, as noted under the Pharisees Seek a Sign and the Leaven of the Pharisees.

I originally posted on this here:

viewtopic.php?p=121427#p121427

Third: It is more difficult to list all of Matthew's M material, because, after the infancy material in chapters 1 and 2, it is diffused among (or perhaps I should say integrated with) Matthew's Markan material. Looking only at Matthew's unique parables, however, none of them are attested in the Evangelion:

13.37-50 The Dragnet
13.24-30, 36-43
13.44 Treasure
13.45-46 Pearl
18.23-35 Unmerciful Servant
20.1-16 Laborers in the Vineyard
21.28-32 Man with Two Sons
25.1-13 Wise and Foolish Maidens
25.31-46 Sheep and Goats

[Caveat: on the Farrer theory, some of Luke's parables are considered to be rewritten versions of some of Matthew's 'unique' parables, e.g., Luke's Dishonest Manager is a major recasting of Matthew's Unmerciful Servant, while Luke's prodigal son has elements of the Lost Sheep, Workers in the Vineyard, and Man With Two Sons].

To summarize:

A great deal of Luke's special material is attested in the Evangelion, the common Mark-Matthew material not found in Luke from iMark 6.45-8.36 is also not attested for the Evangelion. Matthew's M parables are not attested in the Evangelion.

The Evangelion has Luke-Mark material, Luke-Matthew (the double tradition or so-called Q material), and a good deal of special Lukan material.

At the pericope level, the Evangelion seems to have Lukan material, but not non-Lukan material. This does not mean that there are no individual verses in the Evangelion with parallels in Mark and or Matthew but not Luke. Nor does it establish the direction of dependence between the Evangelion and Luke.

Best,

Ken

[Peter Kirby]

Maybe there could be a point teased out here about how much coincidence is required for *Ev to be a source for all three synoptics?