Christian Texts and History • Re: Couchoud's 'Is Marcion's Gospel One of the Synoptics?'

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]