If you have not already done so, it is recommended that you read the previous page: Marcion's Gospel and the Synoptic Problem before this one.
It has been noted previously (Matthew in Marcion?) that there are a number of places where Tertullian (mainly) or Epiphanius comment on text either in Ev, or that they suggest should have been in Ev, that we do not see in Luke, but instead see in Matthew. In the case of Tertullian, Roth ascribes this to his familiarity with Matthew:
For those passages in Luke that have Matthean parallels, Tertullian demonstrates a general tendency to cite or refer to the Matthean version. This tendency is exhibited in two ways. First, Tertullian reveals his greater familiarity with Matthew through errors that he commits. Luke 12:51 [see Luke 12] was already discussed above, and Tertullian’s memory error there is attributable to his familiarity with the Matthean phrasing.
Another telling error occurs in Tertullian’s discussion of the beatitude found in Luke 6:20. Though Tertullian in his first citation correctly writes dei regnum (Marc. 4.14.1) when he shortly thereafter interpolates Isa 61:1–3 with Luke 6:20–22 he slips into the Matthean regnum caelorum (Marc. 4.14.13). Second, apart from errors, in multiply-cited passages numerous instances reveal Tertullian’s tendency to offer the Matthean passage in references outside of Adversus Marcionem. A few examples of this occurrence are found in Luke 6:20 (Matt 5:3), 6:22 (Matt 5:11), and 12:8 (Matt 10:32).
The custom of citing from Matthew affects the analysis of Tertullian’s testimony to Marcion’s text in two ways. First, when Tertullian incontrovertibly attests a Lukan reading, there is a greater likelihood, though far from certainty, that the phrasing is arising from Marcion’s text. Conversely, when Tertullian attests a Matthean reading for Marcion’s text, though a harmonization to Matthew’s Gospel may have been present in Marcion’s text, the possibility of the phrasing being due to Tertullian’s greater familiarity with Matthew must always be kept in mind.
Although Roth is of course correct in that Tertullian cites or refers to text that we see in Matthew, the point that he misses is that although to say that Tertullian is actually citing or referring to Matthew itself may be a valid position to take if Ev was an edited version of canonical Luke, there are other possibilities, such as canonical Luke being a later, expanded, version of Ev. In particular, if Ev pre-dates canonical Luke (i.e. Ev is an early version of Luke), then it could also pre-date Matthew. In this case some of the text in Matthew may have originated in Ev, with both reflecting the wording reported by Tertullian, and with what we see in canonical Luke being an edited version of the Ev/Matthew original. It is clear that Roth does not allow for this when he writes: “a harmonization to Matthew’s Gospel may have been present in Marcion’s text,” but does not recognize the possibility that: 'a harmonization to Marcion’s Gospel may have been present in Matthew’s text.'
Given the above, it is necessary to understand as much as possible regarding the wording of passages in Ev (or rather, the words as reported by Tertullian, Epiphanius, Irenaeus, etc.) in comparison to all three of the synoptic gospels instead of just to Luke. However, as has been previously noted, the content and style of Epiphanius’ comments on what parts of Luke 1-4 were in Ev (see Marcion's Gospel up to Luke 5:13) are very different to his comments on Luke 5-24, and so any examination of the relationships between Marcion and any of the synoptics must take this into account.
From both Tertullian and Epiphanius we know that very little of Luke 1-4 existed in Ev, and examination shows that of the text that was present, none was in both Matthew and Luke but not Mark, i.e. there was no Double Tradition material in the beginning of Ev. In addition, the only Triple Tradition material was Lk 4:31a, 32, 38b, 39, 16c, 22, 28, 40b, 41a, 44, so being the only material in Luke 1-4 common to Mark, Matthew, and Ev. Although this may appear to be uninteresting from the synoptic point of view, it means that:
There is nothing in this portion of Ev for which the only known source is Matthew, i.e. nothing here that depends on Matthew;
Ev cannot have been the source of any of the Double Tradition material in Luke 1-4;
If Ev was earlier than Luke, it could have been the source of some of the Sondergut Luke material in Luke 1-4;
If Luke came before Ev (the traditional view), then Marcion cut all the Double Tradition material out of Luke 1-4.
If Ev was created by Marcion (the author of Ev) editing Luke, the last point above would credit him with very detailed knowledge of the parallels in the synoptics, with a bias heavily in favor of him keeping text with parallels in Mark, and removing much text unique to Luke. This is also despite the fact that, according to Tertullian, Marcion included in Ev non-Lukan material from Matthew, but never Mark. Although this is not impossible, it is highly unlikely that Marcion would have had the knowledge to select text on this basis, and so this instead supports the view that Ev predates Luke (as the Conclusions of this analysis suggests), and also possibly Matthew (see also Is Marcion's Gospel Based on Mark?).
After Luke 4 Tertullian continues in the same manner as before, commenting on his interpretation of text in Luke that he believes Marcion left in Ev by mistake, sometimes quoting text that varies from the generally accepted text of Luke (but that in places matches known variants), and, very rarely, identifying text that he expected to see in Ev, but didn’t. In contrast, Epiphanius wrote 78 scholia which collectively identify 110 specific verses from the text he knew in Luke 5-24 that were not in Ev (see Epiphanius: Omissions After Luke 5:13), a small number of other differences (see Epiphanius: Differences After Luke 5:13), and (like Tertullian) many places where, assuming that Marcion used and edited Luke, he [Marcion] left in place text he should have removed. We can therefore use this information to identify a significant amount of the text that was in Ev, and a great deal of (if we believe Tertullian and Epiphanius) the text of Luke that was either not in Ev, or was different.
As has been noted elsewhere (see Tertullian: Omissions and Differences), in Luke 5-24 Tertullian only identifies a handful of places at which Ev and Luke differ, so we can reasonably assume that any other quotes from Tertullian regarding these chapters record what he saw in both Ev and his copy of Luke. Therefore, we can use these quotes to investigate the parallel (Double Tradition) text that is in Matthew as well. Where text was not in Ev (or was different) we can use Epiphanius’ scholia, in which he not only quotes some portions of text common to Luke and Ev, but also identifies text that he saw in Luke that was not in Ev. We can then note which scholia refer to Double Tradition material, and in each case identify the directionality of the text. If we often find that text in Ev => Matthew, but that where text in Luke is not in Ev then Matthew => Luke, then this is a strong indication not only that Ev pre-dates Luke, but that the existence of both Ev and Luke solves the issue of alternating primitivity, with Ev being earlier than Matthew, and Matthew being earlier than Luke. In this case Ev can be considered to be an early version of Luke, or at the very least closely related to this Early Luke.
The Sermon on the Mount - Matthew 5-7
One of the most well-known passages in the New Testament is the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew. Very little of this passage has any parallel in Mark, and some has no parallel in Luke. However, much of it is Double Tradition material, and hence it is reasonable to ask whether the original version of this text came from Matthew or Luke. One of the arguments advanced against any potential synoptic solution that has Luke dependent on Matthew is that it is difficult to understand why the author of Luke (aLuke) would ‘break up’ the Sermon on the Mount, while if Matthew is dependent on Luke it is much easier to imagine the author of Matthew (aMatthew) gathering up the materials from Luke and re-ordering them into a coherent whole. Some synoptic theories get round this problem by including Q, a common source used by both aMatthew and aLuke that each dealt with in their own way. R. H. Fuller comments:
Matthew has tidily collected the Q material into great blocks. Luke, we must then suppose, has broken up this tidy arrangement and scattered the Q material without rhyme or reason all over his gospel -- a case of unscrambling the egg with a vengeance!
However, according to Mark Goodacre:
Luke does not like excessively long discourses, and he cuts them down by omitting some parts and redistributing the rest. One can see this clearly from Luke's treatment of Mark 4.1-34, some of which remains (Sower; Lamp, Luke 8); some of which is omitted (Seed Growing Secretly) and some of which is redistributed (Mustard Seed, Luke 13.18-19). In the Sermon Luke cuts much of the uncongenial, specifically Jewish material (on oaths, almsgiving and fasting, for example) and he redistributes other parts to ideal locations. 'Ask, Seek, Knock' (Matt. 7.7-12 // Luke 11.9-13) reappears most appropriately in a section on prayer (Luke 11.1-13) and 'Consider the Lilies' (Matt. 6.25-34 // Luke 12.22-34) follows perfectly from the Rich Fool (Luke 12.13-21).
Goodacre contends that aLuke simply had different priorities to aMatthew:
It is no longer acceptable to say that Luke's ordering of double tradition material is artistically inferior to Matthew's. The argument is based on a faulty premise compounded by a dubious value judgement informed by assumptions that need no longer (arguably should no longer) be ours.
Nevertheless, taken in isolation, and given the narrative inconsistencies that are still present in Luke even though aLuke states that he had put everything 'in order,' it is far easier to imagine aMatthew gathering together material from various different places in Luke into the Sermon on the Mount and his other major discourses (Mt 10, 13, 18, and 24-25), than aLuke taking these same discourses in Matthew, splitting them up, re-arranging some of the material, and omitting the rest. For this reason, synoptic theories that involve an additional source for at least some of the Double Tradition material, or that allow for transfer of information from a version of Luke => Matthew as well as from Matthew => Luke, are preferable to those that do not.
The text of Luke (and Ev) does not contain any equivalent to the contents of Mk 6:45-8:26 (known as The Great Omission), and this applies even to the verses that have parallels in Matthew. However, if Luke were following Matthew at this point he would have been able to include passages such as Peter walking on the water, which includes the Sondergut Matthew verses Mt 14:28-31. In The Marcionite Gospel and the Synoptic Problem: A New Suggestion, Klinghardt comments:
The Lukan parallel for the next example, Matt. 14:28-31, would be part of the passage that, in the terminology of the 2DH, is known as the “great omission”, i.e. the text of Mark 6:45-8:26 which has no counterpart in Luke and would be expected to appear between Luke 9:17 and 9:18. As expected, Tertullian confirms that Mcn [=Ev] had both verses in immediate succession (Tert. 4.21.4, 6).
As noted in the analysis in Marcion’s Gospel, Compared Verse by Verse With Luke, in addition to the Great Omission, Klinghardt identifies several places in the synoptic gospels in which Luke differs from the parallel text in Matthew, where this is best explained as being the result of Ev pre-dating Matthew. For example, in addition to the Great Omission (above) he notes the following Triple Tradition passages in which this is the case:
Lk 6:4-5: Who is Lord of the Sabbath? See the discussion of Lk 6:5 in the verse-by-verse analysis of Luke 6
Lk 8:9-10: The meaning of the Parable of the Sower. See the discussion of Lk 8:9-15 in the verse-by-verse analysis of Luke 8
Lk 16:18: Committing adultery. See the discussion of Lk 16:18 in the verse-by-verse analysis of Luke 16
Lk 18:20: The commandments. See the discussion of Lk 18:20-22 in the verse-by-verse analysis of Luke 18
Klinghardt also identifies the following Double Tradition passages in Luke that have the same text in Mcn [=Ev], and “where Luke seems to have a more primitive text than Matthew:”
Lk 6:20b: ... it seems improbable that Luke rendered the Matthean οἱ πτωχοὶ τῷ πνεύματι (5:3) in οἱ πτωχοί (6:20b). However, Luke did not render Matthew’s text at all but simply used Mcn, as Tertullian attests.
Lk 6:22: Similarly, the last Matthean beatitude … sounds like an unspecific generalization, if compared to the Lukan version … Again, an influence from the Lukan version to the Matthean is as unlikely as unnecessary: Tertullian attests the Lukan version for Mcn already.
Lk 11:2-4: The same is true for the Lord’s prayer where the Matthean version (6:9-13) is longer than Luke’s version with only five requests … Since a textual influence from Mcn on some medieval manuscripts is only imaginable if it was mediated through bible manuscripts, this textual problem further corroborates the priority of Mcn.
Lk 11:20: According to Matt. 12:28 the expulsion of the demons is the work of the spirit, whereas Luke ascribes it to the “finger of God”. Fortunately, Tertullian provides enough text to prove that Mcn had the “finger of God” as well.
As in these instances Mcn/Ev = Luke, Klinghardt is in effect saying that in these four cases it is Ev that is earlier than Matthew, and Luke follows mainly the text of Ev, not Matthew.
In addition to The Sermon on the Mount, The Great Omission, and the above instances noted by Klinghardt, there are a number of other places where differences between Matthew and Luke are best explained as a result of Matthew depending on Ev, or as Ev and Matthew agreeing against Luke. In many of these places Luke has variants that are typically described as “assimilation to Matthew,” or something similar. This is basically saying that someone thought that Luke should look more like Matthew, but without providing a reason why this should be the case, and several examples below show that having Ev preceding Matthew provides a much more robust explanation for the differences. More detail regarding each of the following can be found in the appropriate sub-page of Marcion’s Gospel, Compared Verse by Verse With Luke, as noted below.
In all three synoptic gospels Jesus casts out devils (at Mk 1:34, Mt 8:16, and Lk 4:41 respectively). In Mark and Matthew the devils do not speak, while in Luke they cry out, “saying, Thou art [Christ] the Son of God.“ The NET notes that:
Most mss (A Q Θ Ψ 0102 Ë1,13 Ï) read “the Christ, the Son of God.” But the earliest and best mss, along with several other witnesses (א B C D L W Ξ 33 579 700 1241 2542 lat sa), lack “the Christ” here.
As there appears to be no reason for an omission, the variant without ‘Christ’ is most likely original. According to Tertullian: “wicked spirits (just in the manner of our former example [Lk 4:41]) used to go forth with a testimony, exclaiming, "Thou art the Son of God,"” suggesting that Ev contained the shorter variant seen in many earlier mss, including the Old Latin. See also Lk 4:40-44.
Picking Corn on the Sabbath – Luke 6:1
Tertullian mentions that the disciples had been hungry, as we see in Mt 12:1 but in neither Mark nor Luke, but does not refer to them eating, agreeing with Mk 2:23 but not Matthew or Luke. These two differences are very unlikely to have been created by aMarcion, suggesting that the form of Lk 6:1 in Ev is an intermediate variant, somewhere between that in Mark and that in Matthew. See also Luke 6.
Separating You From Their Company – Luke 6:22
Lk 6:22 contains text that is not seen in the parallel at Mt 5:11: “and when they shall separate you from their company.” Based on what Tertullian writes neither Ev nor his copy of Luke contained these words. As there appears to be no reason for aMarcion to have removed this text, it is likely that this variant in Ev preceded what we see in Luke, and may therefore have also preceded Matthew. See also Luke 6.
Neighbours and Enemies – Luke 6:27-28
In the Double Tradition passage at Mt 5:44 and Lk 6:27-28 Jesus indicates that people should love their enemies, and then expands on this in the next few phrases. However, there are two variants in Matthew, one shorter than that in Luke, and the other containing the same text, but in a different order. It is hard to explain why aMarcion would edit Luke to what we see in Ev, but equally hard to explain aLuke editing Ev. However, if aMatthew edited Ev, and aLuke then edited Matthew, it is much easier to explain how the longer variant in Matthew could arise by assimilation. See also Luke 6.
Tertullian refers to Lk 6:41 and 42b, but not Lk 6:41a, as does Thomas 26. Together with the fact that Lk 6:42b begins with various different conjuctions, or with no conjunction at all in some mss, this suggests that Lk 6:42a (which basically just re-frames Lk 6:41) is an interpolation. In other words, Lk 6:41 was added to Luke, not removed from it by aMarcion. See also Luke 6.
One of the unusual things about Tertullian’s commentary on Marcion is that he quotes (or otherwise refers to) items of text in Ev (and in some cases may have been in his copy of Luke) that we only see in Matthew (See Matthew in Marcion?). This is usually dismissed as Tertullian (incorrectly) remembering text being in Ev that was actually in Matthew, or, instead, that when he quotes what we assume is Ev, he really is quoting Matthew. However, Epiphanius confirms Tertullian’s claim that Jesus’ question from Mt 12:48/Mk 3:33: ”Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?” was present in Ev, in the middle of what we see as Lk 8:21. If Tertullian really is quoting from or referring to Ev (as is definitely the case in the instance just mentioned), then it is very hard to explain why aMarcion would have added these small pieces of text from Matthew into Ev. However, if Ev preceded both Matthew and what we see as Luke then it would not be at all unreasonable for Ev to have contained text that we see in Matthew but not Luke, by virtue of aMatthew having chosen to include some pieces of this text from Ev that the final author/editor of Luke chose not to. See also Luke 8.
In Mk 4:41 and Mt 8:47 Jesus’ disciples question why “even the wind and the sea obey him,” whereas Tertullian quotes: “He commands even the winds and water” instead. In Lk 8:25 most mss have: “he commandeth even the winds and water, and they obey him,” but P75, B, and 700 omit “and they obey him,” following Tertullian. There is no reason for either Tertullian or aMarcion to have omitted the last clause. Instead, the otherwise hard to explain shorter variant of Lk 8:25 simply follows the text of Ev, and the majority text reading is a conflation of Ev and Mark/Matthew See also Luke 8.
The Woman with the Issue of Blood - Luke 8:42b-48
This story in Luke has a very similar parallel at Mk 5:25-34, and a much shorter one at Mt 9:20-22. Several mss of Luke also have shorter variants of the story, omitting various details from Lk 8:43-45. Neither Tertullian nor Epiphanius refer to these omitted details, and so appear to have seen a similar shorter variant in Ev. As significant support for the shorter variant exists in other mss (including P75, B and Bezae), it is unlikely that aMarcion omitted anything here, but instead just used the text he had in front of him. A likely scenario for these otherwise difficult variants in Luke is that aMatthew based his shorter version on that in Ev, and that this was also the initial version in Luke, but later assimilation from Mark resulted in the longer Byzantine variant. See also Luke 8.
The KJV mentions houses (oikian) in Lk 9:4, cities/town (tēs poleōs) in Lk 9:5, and towns/villages (tas kōmas) in Lk 9:6. The parallel at Mt 10:11a has cities/towns (an polin) and towns/villages ‘(ē kōmēn’ - omitted in D, f1, 700, it(a, b, d, ff1, h, k), Sy-S), and that house or that city/town (tēs oikias ē tēs poleōs ekeinēs) in Mt 10:14. In contrast, Tertullian does not refer to Lk 6:4 or 6:6, and in Lk 9:5 mentions no specific place, similar to the parallel at Mk 6:10a, which just has house, and 6:11a, 12, which also mention no specific place.
We see a difference in size or importance of the places referred to: Mark and Ev refer to people in houses in ‘generic’ places, while Matthew and Luke refer to houses in places of various sizes (with Matthew having a variant not present in either Mark or Luke). On this basis it appears that Ev had a more primitive form of this passage than either Matthew or Luke, being close to that seen in Mark instead. See also Luke 9.
Both Mk 8:31 and Ev state that Jesus will be raised “after three days,” while Matthew and Luke have “the third day.” It would be odd for aMarcion to edit the words in Luke to the earlier form from Mark, while not unusual for Luke to use the later wording from Matthew. See also Luke 9.
Beloved or Chosen? – Luke 9:35
In both Mark and Matthew, the voice from the cloud says: “my beloved son.” Most mss of Luke (A, C*, D, P, R, W, X, ΛGr, Y, f13, 33, 157, 565, 700, 1424, Maj, it(a, aur, d, ff2, l), vgmss, Sy-C, Sy-P, Sy-H, Sy-Pal, goth) also have this reading, although P45, P75, 01, B, L, Q, X, f1, 579, 892, 1241, 1342, pc, Lat(b, c, e, f, q, r1, vg), Sy-S, Sy-Hmg, Co, arabMS have “my chosen one” instead. “My beloved son” is considered to be a later assimilation to Mark or Matthew, but both Tertullian and Epiphanius report this reading in Ev. As it is unlikely that aMarcion would assimilate Ev to either Mark or Matthew, it appears that “my beloved son” is the original reading in Luke. See also Luke 9.
In Scholion 19 Epiphanius quotes Jesus as answering: “O faithless generation.” Both Matthew and Luke have “O faithless and perverse generation,” while Mk 9:19 has just “O faithless generation,” except in P45, W, f13, which have both, and so appear to have been assimilated to either Matthew or Luke. Here Ev naturally follows Mark, rather than Luke having been unnecessarily edited by aMarcion to remove the words. See also Luke 9.
Both Mt 11:25 and Lk 10:21 read as though God gave “the seventy” powers that he deliberately hid from “the wise and prudent,” while Tertullian’s quote “those things which had been hidden from the wise and prudent” removes the suggestion that this was a deliberate action by God. The wording in Ev seems earlier, and appears very unlikely to have been a change that aMarcion would have made. See also Luke 10.
According to Tertullian, in Ev Jesus blesses “the eyes which see the things which you see,” because “prophets have not seen the things which you see.” Then, in Lk 10:24b Jesus adds that “prophets and kings” have not heard “those things which ye hear.” However, it is only in Mt 13:16b that ears are blessed as well as eyes. This appears to be an example of simple text growth, beginning with Ev having eyes and seeing, Luke adding hearing, and finally Matthew adding ears. See also Luke 10.
Prophets, and Kings or Righteous Men? - Luke 10:24a
Mt 13:17 refers to “prophets and righteous men,” while most mss of Luke refer to “prophets and kings” in Lk 10:24a. However, b, q, r1, vgms have “righteous men” instead of kings (following Matthew), while D, it(a, d, e, ff2, i, l), vgms and Ev have just “prophets,” and 1424 has “prophets and righteous men and kings.” While 1424 is simply a conflation of the other variants, it is hard to explain the others if Luke is following Matthew, because there seems no reason to omit “righteous men,” or to change it to “kings.” However, if Ev preceded Matthew, then D, it, etc. are simply following Ev, with aMatthew adding the righteous men and aLuke instead adding the kings. See also Luke 10.
Bread, Stone, Fish, and Snakes – Luke 11:11
Most mss of Luke have text equivalent to: “What father among you, if your son asks for bread, would give him a stone, or if he asks for a fish, would give him a snake instead of a fish?” for Lk 11:11. However, several mss (P45, P75, B, 1241, pc, ff2, i, l, Sy-S, sa, arm) do not have “for bread, would give him a stone, or if he asks.” It has been suggested that the longer variant is a harmonization to Mt 7:9-10, but there appears to be no reason for the shorter variant to exist in the first place. However, the shorter variant is quoted by Epiphanius, and it appears that this was also seen by Tertullian, and was also in their copies of Luke. As there is no reason for aMarcion to have removed the bread-stone clause, it is clear that the longer variant in Luke came from Matthew, while the original shorter one came from Ev. See also Luke 11.
In Lk 11:13 most mss refer to “the Father” giving “the Holy Spirit,” but in D, it(a2, b, c, d, ff2, i, l, r1) he gives “good gifts” instead. Epiphanius refers to “good gifts” in Lk 11:13, and Matthew gives “good things.” See also Luke 11.
There are four places in the synoptics where Jesus refers to the current generation seeking a sign: In Mk 8:12 they do not receive a sign, but in Mt 12:39 (and again at 16:4) and Lk 11:29 not only is the generation wicked or evil, but they are given the sign of Jonas. However, in Ev the generation is not evil, and they do not receive a sign, therefore being a close parallel to Mark, but not Matthew or Lk. It is much easier to see Ev being derived from Mark here than aMarcion editing Luke to both reverse the meaning of Lk 11:29 and remove Lk 11:30-32. See also Luke 11.
Full of Light? – Luke 11:36
As Lk 11:36 has no parallels, is not present in Bezae, and is not mentioned by Tertullian, it is possible that it was not present in an early version of Luke, and hence also possibly not present in Ev. It should also be noted that Tertullian quotes: “that it may give light to all” (c.f. Mt 5:15), and Lk 11:33 in the Greek ms 579 ends the same way, rather than “that they which come in may see the light” in the majority of mss of Luke. The suggestion that Lk 11:36 may not have been in an early version of Luke, together, with the Matthean ending to Lk 11:33 read by Tertullian and seen in 579, support the idea that Ev is similar to an early version of Luke.
Before God, the Angels of God, or My Father in Heaven? – Luke 12:8-9
Lk 12:8-9 have Jesus confessing or denying people “before the angels of God,” (01*vid, 259 has just “God” in Lk 12:8), while Tertullian has just “God” in both places. The parallel at Mt 10:32-33 has “my Father which is in Heaven” in both places. Although this is a common phrase in Matthew it appears only once in Luke, at Lk 11:2, and even here it is almost certain that Luke originally had just “Father.” In all other parallel places Luke just has either “Father” or “God,” making it most likely that Luke originally had “God” in Lk 12:8-9 (as in Ev, 01*vid, and 259), and that “the angels of God” is a later expansion. See also Luke 12.
Speaking Against the Holy Ghost, or Blaspheming? – Luke 12:10
In Mk 3:28-29 Jesus says that “All sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of men, and blasphemies wherewith soever they shall blaspheme: But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness.” Lk 12:10 is slightly different, beginning with Jesus stating that speaking “against the Son of man” will be forgiven, but then, as Mark, that blaspheming “against the Holy Ghost” will not. Matthew appears to conflate Mark and Luke, as although both Mark and Luke refer only to blaspheming against the Holy Ghost, Matthew has both that blasphemy (Mt 12:31) and speaking (Mt 12:32) against the Holy Ghost will not be forgiven, with the latter being redundant.
However, this is easily explained as Matthew conflating Mark and Ev instead of Mark and Luke. Ev 12:10b reads: “shall speak against the Holy Ghost,” so being the source of “speaking against” in Mt 12:32b, while “Blaspheming” in Mt 12:31b is derived from Mk 3:39a. Luke then removes the redundant text from Matthew, leaving just “speaking against” the Son of man, and “blaspheming against” the Holy Ghost. See also Luke 12.
In Lk 12:39 most mss state that “if the goodman of the house had known what hour the thief would come, he would have watched, and not have suffered his house to be broken through.” However, P75, 01*, (D, d), e, i, Sy-S, Sy-C, sa, arm omit “have watched, and,” while Bezae (D, d) also omits “suffered his house to be broken through.” The parallel at Mt 24:43 includes the text of both these omissions. As there seems no reason to remove any of these words, the shorter reading supported by P75 is considered to be original (The other omission in Bezae may simply be the result of a missing line). However, according to Tertullian, the reading seen in P75 is the same as that in Ev. This makes it likely that Ev has the original reading here, and that text has been added in Matthew and most mss of Luke. See also Luke 12.
The Kingdom of God, or of Heaven? – Luke 13:18
In Mark, Luke, and (according to Tertullian) Ev, Jesus compares the “Kingdom of God” to a grain of mustard seed, while Matthew refers to the “Kingdom of Heaven” instead. As neither Mark nor Luke ever use “Kingdom of Heaven,” while Matthew uses both, it is clear that here aMatthew has changed “God” to “Heaven,” while Luke is following Mark, not Matthew. This supports the possibility of Ev preceding Matthew. See also Luke 13.
Tertullian writes (emphasis added): “More easily, therefore, may heaven and earth pass away, as also the law and the prophets, than that one tittle of the Lord's words should fail.” As Luke does not mention the law and prophets passing away, some people believe that Tertullian is referring to Mt 5:17-18. However, he has just quoted almost all of Lk 16:16, so we know he is not referring to Matthew at this point. It seems more likely therefore that Ev contained a parallel to Mt 5:17 between Lk 16:16 and 17, and that aMatthew and aLuke each rendered the text from Ev in slightly different ways. See also Luke 16.
In Lk 18:20b Tertullian gives the order as: "Do not kill, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Honour thy father and thy mother." This is not the order found in either Lk 18:20 or the parallel in Mk 10:19, but that found only in Mt 19:18. It seems very unlikely that aMarcion would change the Lukan order to that in Matthew, but if Ev pre-dates Matthew then aMatthew used the order he saw in Ev, and aLuke used the order he saw in Mark. See also Luke 18.
In Lk 20:4 Jesus asks “The baptism of John, was it from heaven, or of men?” as also in Mark 11:30. However, in Mt 21:25 he asks “The baptism of John, whence was it? from heaven, or of men?” This also appears to be what Tertullian saw, as he has: “Christ knew "the baptism of John, whence it was”” It is very unlikely that aMarcion would change the Lukan form to the Matthean form, so this suggests that aMatthew was here following Ev. See also Luke 20.
In Mk 12:18, Mt 22:23, and (per Tertullian) also in Ev, the Sadducees say there is no resurrection. However, uniquely, in Lk 20:27 they deny the resurrection. It appears that Ev and Matthew are simply following Mark, while aLuke has chosen a different expression. See also Luke 20.
In Mk 14:10 and Mt 26:14 Judas goes to the “chief priests,” while in Lk 22:4 he goes to “the chief priests and captains.” According to Epiphanius Ev has only “the captains.” As there would be no point in aMarcion removing “chief priests and,” this looks like a simple case of aLuke conflating the terms from Mark/Matthew and Ev. See also Luke 22.
In Mk 14:10 and Lk 22:4 Judas discusses how to “betray” Jesus, while in Mt 26:14 he discusses how to “deliver” him. All three gospels immediately after have “betray” (Mk 14:11, Mt 26:16, Lk 22:6). Ev has “deliver,” and again, there appears to be no reason for aMarcion to have made such a trivial change. Instead, this appears to be the origin of “deliver” in Mt 26:14. See also Luke 22.
The Last Supper – Luke 22:17-20
One of the (perhaps) most puzzling passages from this point of view is the Last Supper. This event occurs in all three synoptics (and so overall is a Triple Tradition passage), and the versions in Mark and Matthew are nearly identical. However, there is unique (Sondergut) material in Luke, and the verse order is different. In addition, there are multiple different variants of the text in Luke. These differences are discussed extensively in Luke 22:17-20, which concludes that the original variant in Luke was very similar to the Mark/Matthew text, with no Sondergut Luke material. This appears to fit what Tertullian reports, being similar to the Old Latin (see also the section on Lk 22:17-20 in Lk 22), but is significantly different from the (generally accepted) longer form we see in all the Greek mss for which these verses are extant. However, Epiphanius does not mention these verses, although in Scholion 62 he indicates that Lk 22:15 was present in Ev, while in Scholion 63 he states that Lk 22:16 was not. For this reason it is reasonable to assume that he saw no differences between the version of Lk 22:17-20 in Ev and in his copy of Luke, i.e. that his copy of Luke did not contain the Majority Text variant of these verses. See also Luke 22.
In Mk 14:21, Mt 26:24, and Ev Jesus pronounces a woe on “that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed.” However, Lk 22:22 instead reads: “that man by whom he is betrayed.” As Ev refers to the “Son of man” elsewhere it is unlikely that aMarcion would bother to make such a change. Instead, it appears that Ev and Matthew are simply following Mark, and it is aLuke that removed the second “Son of man” in Lk 22:22 as (perhaps) being simply unnecessary. See also Luke 22.
Tertullian states that Jesus: ‘sent forth His apostles to preach His gospel "among all nations.” This is very similar to the parallel at Mk 16:15, but quite different to Luke 24:47, in which “repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name.” It appears here that Ev derives from Mark, and not the quite different Luke. See also Luke 24.
Despite having a potentially limited ability to determine the directionality of the text in Ev and Matthew the examples above show that there are a significant number of places at which it is possible to do just that, and in many of those places there is evidence that Ev is more 'primitive' (and so earlier) than Matthew. If Ev is indeed an early version of Luke that also preceded Matthew, then, as suggested by Klinghardt, regarding its synoptic explanatory power Ev essentially obviates the need for Q or any other similar document.
Of course, it has been argued (e.g. by Goodacre) that no such document is necessary anyway, and that all the text we see in Luke can be explained as the result of deliberate actions taken by aLuke. Nevertheless, some of aLuke’s supposed manipulations of the text of Matthew (of which the splitting up of the Sermon on the Mount is the most obvious example) do require aLuke to have made what would have been, at best, rather unusual editing decisions.
Consequently, having an additional source (one of the “many … taken in hand” referred to in Lk 1:1-2) allows aLuke’s changes to be much more believable. However, if this additional source was Q then one problem is simply replaced by another, as Q is purely hypothetical, and no trace of it has ever been found. Of course, it could be be said that replacing Q by Ev also simply replaces one problem with another, as, although Ev certainly did exist, it is still generally believed to have been an edited version of Luke. However, the examples given above all provide evidence that, instead, Ev was an early version of what we know as Luke, also preceding Matthew.
Next: Is Marcion's Gospel Based on Mark?
If you have any comments, questions, suggestions, etc. regarding Marcion or my analysis please email me at davidinglis2@comcast.net