Topics: Marcion's Gospel and Matthew Is Marcion's Gospel Based on Mark? The Synoptic Gospels and Marcion
It may be helpful to familiarize yourself with the Conclusions of the analysis of Marcion's Gospel of the Lord [The Evangelion, here Ev] on this site before continuing with this page.
As described in The Synoptic Problem, much of the text of the gospels of Mark, Matthew, and Luke is very similar, and in some places identical, in either two or all three of these gospels, and for this reason they are collectively referred to as the Synoptic (or ‘seeing together’) Gospels, or just the ‘synoptics.’ Ev is obviously related to the synoptics, appearing to be a shorter version of Luke, and the generally accepted explanation for this is that Marcion (the supposed author of Ev) edited Luke, removing text that did not suit his theology. However, there is no known evidence (save for the acknowledged biased opinions of Tertullian, Epiphanius, and others) that Marcion actually created 'his' gospel, and there is nothing in the content of either Ev or Luke that could not instead be explained by Luke being a version of Ev, expanded largely in the same way that Matthew and Luke could be thought of as 'expanded' versions of Mark. If so, then it is conceivable that if Ev is earlier than Luke, then it either is, or is based on, something that is also earlier than Matthew. Consequently, if we compare the text of Ev with that of Luke only, and make decisions regarding its origin on that basis, we are ignoring the parallel (i.e. obviously closely related, but not necessarily identical) text in Mark and Matthew, and so it is important to compare Ev with the other synoptics as well.
There is currently (2025) no agreed solution to the synoptic problem, and perhaps the most significant issue on which agreement has not yet been reached is that in some places the text of Matthew appears to pre-date that in Luke, while in others text in Luke appears to pre-date text in Matthew. Of the two possible solutions that can be considered to be the 'front-runners,' one (the Mark-Q hypothesis) requires the use of a hypothetical additional source (usually known as Q) to solve both this and other issues regarding Matthew and Luke. However, as Ev is an additional known (not hypothetical) source that is clearly related to Luke it is worth investigating whether the text of Ev could provide all the 'explanatory power' for which Q was originally hypothesized, and so effectively replace Q in synoptic solutions.
As we know that textually Ev is basically an old, shorter, form of Luke it is important to know whether or not the text in Ev is more primitive than (i.e. pre-dates) the parallel text in either Matthew or Luke itself. If Luke is more primitive than Ev then it is likely that Ev is an edited version of Luke. However, if Ev is more primitive than Luke then there are a number of possibilities, depending on the relationship between Ev and Matthew. If Matthew is more primitive than Ev then it is unlikely that Ev can add anything to the synoptic problem apart from being a source for some of the Lukan sondergut. However, if Matthew is not more primitive than Ev we need to look at the agreements (or disagreements) among Ev, Matthew, and Luke: If Ev is more primitive than Matthew we have added to the evidence that Ev is earlier than Luke. This is also the case in places where Ev and Matthew have the same text, and both are more primitive than Luke. In both these latter cases Ev could be a source for Matthew as well as for Luke.
When investigating the synoptic problem some ‘sections’ of text in the synoptics are given particular names, based on how the synoptics overlap, or do not. Although these names are not universal, they are common enough that they will be used here as well:
Triple Tradition: Material common to all three synoptics, i.e. in Mark, Matthew, and Luke;
Double Tradition: Material common to Matthew and Luke, but not in Mark;
Sondergut Luke: Material unique to Luke;
Sondergut Matthew: Material unique to Matthew.
For these purposes one additional grouping may also be useful, and this is the material common to Mark and Luke but not Matthew, which will be termed the Mark/Luke Double Tradition.
In order to investigate the relationships between Mark, Matthew, Luke, and Ev we need to look at all the Triple and Double Tradition material (everything common to Matthew and Luke). Additionally, although neither Sondergut Luke nor the Mark/Luke 'double tradition' text contain anything from Matthew (by definition), it may also turn out that this material can provide extra information. Because neither Tertullian nor Epiphanius mention the complete text of either Luke or Ev we cannot conclusively identify all the Triple and Double Tradition material that they saw, and even in those places where we can the text they provie may not contain direct quotes. In addition, much of the Triple and Double Tradition material does not show any clear signs of directionality, and as a result we may be very limited in our ability to determine the directionality between text in Ev and in the synoptics. Nevertheless, it is worth trying. For example:
If Ev predates Luke then it might also predate Matthew. If so, then investigating the directionalities among text in Matthew, Luke, and Ev may tell us their chronological order.
If Marcion edited Luke, why would he have excluded so much Double Tradition text, i.e. text in Matthew and Luke that was never in Mark, so making his text closer to that in Mark? Why not just start with Mark, and add to that instead?
For a full discussion of these and other related issues see Marcion's Gospel and Matthew and Is Marcion's Gospel Based on Mark? respectively, the general conclusions of which are given below.
In the pages referred to above the results of the analyses of the relationships between Ev and both Mark and Matthew are clear: There are many places where:
Ev has a demonstrably earlier or more 'primitive' reading than Matthew; or
Ev appears to be the source of a reading in Matthew that is not in Luke; or
aLuke (the author of Luke) appears to have conflated readings from both Ev and Matthew.
There is also the rather stunning fact that, with the exception of one name (Bethany), everything that is generally believed (on the basis of Markan priority) to be material that aLuke took from Mark he could have equally have taken from Ev instead, and perhaps he may never have actually seen Mark itself. These points all provide support for the view that not only is Ev earlier than Luke, but that it is also earlier than Matthew, and that both aMatthew and aLuke knew and used either Ev or perhaps a very similar Greek document from which Ev (perhaps an Old Latin translation) was developed.
The evidence points to Ev having been created by combining something consisting largely of edited versions (close to the Lukan parallels) of verses in Mark (excluding The Great Omission) with some parts of the text that we refer to as Sondergut Luke. It appears that the only synoptic gospel on which Ev could depend is Mark, and that Ev could be considered to be an ‘intermediate’ form, part way between Mark and what we see today as Luke. Despite the prevailing opinion that Ev is a later, edited version of Luke, in all respects the known text of Ev instead meets the criteria for an early version of Luke. This strongly suggests that Ev is at least very closely related to a pre-Matthew version of Luke as described in Mark-Ev: A New Synoptic Hypothesis.