The majority of our information regarding the contents of what is generally known as Marcion’s Gospel of the Lord, or The Evangelion (here Ev) comes from Tertullian and Epiphanius, but both authors generally only comment on differences between Luke and Ev, or where text in Ev can be used to refute Marcion himself (Note: It is not here assumed that aEv, i.e. the author of Ev, was Marcion). However, there is much that can be gleaned by comparing Ev with the synoptic gospels, both in terms of what parallels do or do not exist, and what variants there are where parallels do exist. As this author has written previously on Marcion and Ev this web page gathers together information from a number of existing pages in order to highlight both the commonalities and the differences between Ev and the Synoptic Gospels, beginning with the following from Marcion's Gospel and the Synoptic Problem:
As we know that textually Ev is in all essential details 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) 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 solution of 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 could be 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.
In order to try to resolve these issues, on the assumption of Markan priority the following examines the relationships between Ev and each of the synoptic gospels in turn. Note: In the extracts below from other text by this author "aMarcion" refers to the author of Ev, while aEv (as above) is used in other text by the author. It is NOT simply assumed that Marcion wrote the gospel attributed to him.
In Is Marcion's Gospel Based on Mark? this author writes:
With the exception of the text of the Great Omission (which both Luke and Ev lack), Ev basically contains the great majority of the text of Mark, together with only some of the non-Markan text that we also see in Luke. The material in Luke that is not in Ev is mainly Sondergut (or Special) Luke material, plus a little Double Tradition, and therefore is not in Mark either. According to Epiphanius overall Marcion deliberately removed 266.5 verses from Luke, 88% of which had no parallel in Mark, and 70% of which contained text unique to Luke. To put this another way, the great majority of the text that aMarcion is accused of cutting out of Luke is text that has no parallel in Mark, and is also primarily Lukan Sondergut, i.e. text that (assuming Markan priority) had been created by aLuke (the author of Luke) before aMarcion later removed it!
On the assumption that aEv edited Luke, why did he apparently try so hard to preserve material originating in Mark, while cutting out so much of the material that originated in Luke, the gospel on which he supposedly based his own? Although we can hypothesize reasons why aMarcion might have removed primarily non-Markan text from Luke when creating Ev, such editing (so making Ev look more like an expanded version of Mark than a shorter version of Luke) is very hard to defend. Instead, if Ev preceded both Matthew and Luke then the lack of this text in Ev is easily and naturally explained as later additions by either aMatthew (the author of Matthew) or aLuke. However, there are also a few passages in Mark that Tertullian and/or Epiphanius indicated were not in Ev. If Ev is essentially an expanded version of Mark, then why did aMarcion not include these passages from his primary source?
The links immediately below contain analyses of some of the text common to Mark, Matthew, and Luke that is not in Ev, that if Ev followed Luke would have had to have been removed by aEv:
John the Baptist: Mark 1:2-11, 14a
The Leper and the Lord: Mark 1:40
His mother and his brothers: Mark 3:31a
The 3rd Passion Prediction: Mark 10:32-34
Entering Jerusalem: Mark 11:1-17
The Vineyard and the Husbandmen: Mark 12:1-11
The Resurrection of the Dead: Mark 12:26-27
The Great Commandment: Mark 12:28-29
The Abomination of Desolation: Mark 13:14-19
Note: Although Mk 1:15-20 is a close parallel of Mt 4:17b-22, Mk 1:15 has no parallel in Luke and the parallel to Mk 1:16-20 at Lk 5:1, 9-11 is significantly different. Because Tertullian refers to Jesus talking to “Peter, when he trembled at the very large draught of the fishes,” it appears that Ev contained the version of this passage that we see in Lk 5:1-11. In addition, Mk 1:22-39, 41-45, and almost all of Mk 2-3 have parallels in both Matthew and Luke.
The Great Omission: Mark 6:45-8:26 is a large section of Mark none of which has a parallel in Luke, but roughly half of which has parallels at Mt 14:22-16:12, 9:26-30. Because neither Tertullian nor Epiphanius refer to any of these verses in their comments on Ev it is safe to say that they saw no differences here between Ev and Luke, i.e. that Ev also had no parallel to Mk 6:45-8:26, but what this implies depends on the assumed synoptic hypothesis. The most common view regarding Ev is that it is a ‘cut down’ version of Luke, and if so then on the Farrer hypothesis aEv could have known both Matthew and Luke. As neither Luke nor Ev contain any parallel to Mt 14:22-16:12, 9:26-30 then on these assumptions it would appear that aLuke deliberately created the Great Omission, and if aEv knew Matthew then he also chose not to include any of the Matthean parallels. On this hypothesis Ev really is almost exactly a ‘cut down’ copy of Luke which, as pointed out by both Tertullian and Epiphanius, does not support what they believed Marcion (the person) was attempting to show, which was that Jesus Christ was the son of the New Testament God - not the creator god (the Demiurge) of the Old Testament.
If instead aLuke knew Ev then the most likely scenario is that the verses of the Great Omission were 'excluded' simply because they were not in Ev (whether or not aLuke knew Matthew). Certainly either aLuke or aEv knew the gospel of the other, because the chances of them independently excluding the same long section of contiguous text are essentially zero, so raising the question of why Ev did not include any of the corresponding parallels from either Mark or Matthew. Although various rationales have been put forward as to why aLuke did not include these verses in Luke (e.g. because they went against his Gentile missions), those same arguments cannot be levied against aEv because we do not know whether Marcion himself was aEv (He did not claim that he was), or if so what he was trying to achieve when writing ‘his’ gospel. If either or both authors of Ev and Luke had access to a copy of Mark that contained Mk 6:45-8:26 then the probability that both could independently omit exactly the same text, with the same oddities at the ‘join’ (e.g. ‘Bethsaida,’ see Luke 9:10 Bethsaida) is also essentially zero.
Even if aEv and aLuke both saw a copy of Mark essentially the same as we do then the probability of them independently creating exactly the same ‘Great Omission’ is also essentially zero. Either they saw different ‘versions’ of Mark (e.g. one of them saw what we see as Mark while the other saw something in which some of all of what we see as Mk 6:45-8:26 was not present), or one of them excluded the text from Mark, while the other followed the text closely. However, that would still not explain why aEv did not include a version of what Marcion (if he was the author) saw in Mk 1:1-15, 26-31: i.e. everything that introduces John, Jesus and his relationship with both God and Satan.
Instead, we simply get that: “In the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar, he/God came down to the Galilean city of Capernaum” followed by the Lukan version of Jesus by the sea of Galilee and the healing of the leper that follows. Because Ev contains the great majority of the text we see in Luke 5 why does it contain almost none of Luke 3-4, even though a significant portion is material that aLuke had (presumably) originally obtained from Mark? If Ev is a ‘cut down’ version of Luke this almost total exclusion of the ‘introduction’ of Jesus from Mk 1:1-15, 26-31 would seem to make no sense on the assumption that aEv knew Mark. In other words, it is not possible for both Ev and Luke to have independently depended on what we see as Mark.
Is Marcion's Gospel Based on Mark? ends with the following conclusion:
The above analysis leads to some obvious questions: Why would aEv use as his 'base text' a gospel (Luke) from which he felt the need to remove so much text, when there already existed a shorter gospel (Mark) in which the great majority of the text that he wanted to remove simply did not exist? Then, assuming aEv did in fact edit Luke, how was he able to arrange that nearly 90% of the text that he did remove was actually text that had no parallel in Mark? And finally, having gone to all that trouble, why also did he (according to the evidence of both Tertullian and Epiphanius) still leave in Ev so much of the text of Luke that went against his position that both were able to refute him just from what he left? Why did he (apparently) remove the wrong text from Luke?
Even allowing for the possibility that aEv might have wanted to simply exclude from Luke everything prior to the start of Jesus’ preaching, we are still left with the fact that nearly three-quarters of the other 110 verses that Epiphanius states that aEv had removed from Luke have no parallel in Mark. To have achieved this by selectively cutting text out of Luke, as Marcion is accused of doing, would have required him to have had a very detailed synopsis comparing Mark with Luke, as the chances of him being able to achieve the result described by Tertullian and Epiphanius without careful selection of the Lukan verses not in Ev based on their presence in or absence from Mark, are very slim indeed.
In Marcion's Gospel and Matthew this author tackles the question: Does Matthew Depend on Ev, or Ev on Matthew? After identifying the: “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” (See Matthew in Marcion's Gospel?), the text notes what little both Tertullian and Epiphanius write regarding Luke 1-4 (very little of which is present in Ev), and then adds:
After Luke 4 Tertullian continues in the same manner as before, commenting on his interpretation of text in Luke that he believes aMarcion 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 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 all (if we believe Tertullian and Epiphanius) of the text of Luke that was either not in Ev, or was different.
As has been previously noted (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 problem of alternating primitivity, with Ev being earlier than Matthew, and Matthew being earlier than Luke.
After a short discussion on The Sermon on the Mount and The Great Omission there then follows an analysis of “a number of other places where differences between Matthew and Luke are best explained as a result either 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.
[Christ] the Son of God – Luke 4:41b
The Mote in the Eye – Luke 6:41-42
Who is my mother, and who are my brothers? - Luke 8.21
Commanding the Winds and Water – Luke 8:25
Houses, Villages, Towns, and Cities – Luke 9:4-6
The Third Day, or After Three Days? – Luke 9:22
Faithless, or Faithless and Perverse? – Luke 9:41
Did God Hide “These Things” Deliberately? – Luke 10:21
Blessed are Your Eyes (and Ears?) – Luke 10:23b-24
Good Gifts or The Holy Spirit? – Luke 11:13
Does This Generation Receive a Sign? – Luke 11:29-32
Watching out for the Thief in the Night? – Luke 12:39
Heaven and Earth, and the Law and Prophets? – Luke 16:17
The Order of the Commandments – Luke 18:20
Whence Was the Baptism of John? – Luke 20:4
Denying the Resurrection? – Luke 20:27
Chief Priests or Captains? – Luke 22:4a
Deliver or Betray? – Luke 22:4b
Preaching Among all Nations – Luke 24:47
The above analyses of these verses concludes:
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 preceded Matthew, then, as suggested by Klinghardt, regarding its synoptic explanatory power Ev 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) allows aLuke’s changes to be much more believable. However, if this additional source is 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 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.
Much of the text of Ev is not quoted or otherwise specifically identified by either Tertullian or Epiphanius. However, we can be guided by what both wrote at the end of their respective analyses of the contents of Ev, with both (on their joint assumptions that Marcion edited Luke) stating that Marcion excluded Luke 1 and 2 completely, together with large portions of Luke 3 and 4. For example Epiphanius wrote:
At the very beginning he excised everything Luke had originally composed—his “inasmuch as many have taken in hand,” and so forth, and the material about Elizabeth and the angel’s annunciation to the Virgin Mary, John and Zacharias and the birth at Bethlehem; the genealogy and the story of the baptism. All this he cut out and turned his back on, and made this the beginning of the Gospel, “In the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar,” and so on.
This is specific: Ev had no parallels to Lk 1 and 2, beginning with what we see as Lk 3:1a directly followed by Lk 4:31a, so reading: "In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Jesus came down to the Galilean city of Capernaum,". However, Epiphanius continues:
He starts from there then and yet, again, does not go on in order. He falsifies some things, as I said, he adds others helter-skelter, not going straight on but disingenuously wandering all over the material.
After noting either in specific or general terms what was different, or omitted, at the beginning of Ev, Epiphanius then uses his scholia to identify specific individual differences between the rest of Ev and Luke. Although the first specific difference he notes is at Ev 5:14 (i.e. the parallel to Lk 5:14 in Ev), he does not identify any omissions in Ev until v. 8:19. From then on in almost all cases he identifies specific verses or phrases that he believed were omitted from Luke by Marcion by stating, for example, “He did not have,” or “He falsified,” followed by a description of the omitted text, ending his comparison of Ev and Luke with this statement:
This is the publication of the treatise against Marcion based on the remains of the Gospel he preserves, which I have composed on his account and which, in my opinion, is adequate to expose his deceit.
Tertullian has many similar comments on specific pieces of text, many the same as those reported by Epiphanius, that the author (Marcion according to them) in fact did not remove, to the detriment of their own arguments against him. None of the information provided by Tertullian regarding the early part of Ev contradicts Epiphanius, although what he does or does not write is very different. He agrees that Ev began with v. 3:1a, then makes no mention of the baptism and the genealogy (which Epiphanius states were not in Ev), or the temptation (vv. 4:1-14), about which Epiphanius has no specific comment. Tertullian then refers to vv. 2:1-8, 13, and 22-38 (from Luke), making it plain that he did know Lk 1-2 and that Ev contained nothing from these chapters. Following Tertullian's reference to v. 3:1a the order of his comments confirms Epiphanius’ statement that Ev did not keep to the order that we see in Luke, with the most notable difference being that Capernaum comes before Nazareth, as it also does in both Mark and Matthew. By piecing together the comments from both Tertullian and Epiphanius we know that Ev contained only 10% of the verses we see in Luke 1-4, and began as follows: In the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar, [3:1a] he/Jesus came down to Capernaum, a city of Galilee, and taught them on the sabbath days. [4:31], with the next comment on specific text in Ev we have from either Tertullian or Epiphanius beinmg from Epiphanius regarding Lk 5:14.
Like Epiphanius, Tertullian concludes by suggesting that Marcion failed in his task (a task which, it should be noted, Marcion himself did not claim he was undertaking) of promoting a gospel to support his theology:
I have, I think, fulfilled my promise. I have set before you Jesus as the Christ of the prophets in his doctrines, his judgements, his affections, his feelings, his miracles, his sufferings, as also in his resurrection, none other than the Christ of the Creator. And so again, when sending forth his apostles to preach to all the nations, he fulfilled the psalm by his instruction that their sound must go out into all the world and their words unto the ends of the earth. I am sorry for you, Marcion: your labour has been in vain. Even in your gospel Christ Jesus is mine.
However, it appears that it was not enough for Tertullian to point out all the places in Ev that refuted Marcion's own theology or Christology, or that Marcion had simply failed in his supposed task. Instead, Tertullian also supplies an extraordinary explanation as to why Marcion (on the assumption that he had edited Luke) left so many pieces of text in his gospel that refuted himself by writing:
Now Marcion was unwilling to expunge from his Gospel some statements which even made against him – I suspect, on purpose, to have it in his power from the passages which he did not suppress, when he could have done so, either to deny that he had expunged anything, or else to justify his suppressions, if he made any.
In other words, Marcion deliberately did a ‘bad job’ so that he could claim that he was not the one who made the changes! As both Tertullian and Epiphanius found so many ‘mistakes’ in aEv’s editing it seems strange that they did not consider that their initial assumption, i.e. that Marcion had edited what they knew as Luke, might have been wrong and that instead Ev might have actually been (or at least been based on) earlier source material. However, there is no such hint in Epiphanius’ writings that he might have ever thought this a possibility, and instead he states:
But I shall come to his writings, or rather, to his tamperings. This man has only Luke as a Gospel, mutilated at the beginning because of the Savior’s conception and his incarnation. But this person who harmed himself <rather> than the Gospel did not cut just the beginning off. He also cut off many words of the truth both at the end and in the middle, and he has added other things besides, beyond what had been written. And he uses only this (Gospel) canon, the Gospel according to Luke.
Epiphanius did not see anything other than Ev being a ‘mutilated’ version of Luke, and so not surprisingly he gives no hint that Luke itself shows signs that at some point it was shorter than he (Epiphanius) saw it, in particular that Luke may have once begun at v. 3:1 (See Luke Chapters 1 and 2), as does Ev. On the basis of the methodology described in Reconstructing Marcion's Gospel, then as stated in Marcion's Gospel up to Luke 5:13:
From both Tertullian and Epiphanius we know that the greatest differences between Ev and Luke occur in the first four chapters, with Ev containing nothing corresponding to Luke 1-2, little of Luke 3-4, and with significant differences in those parts of Luke 3-4 that are present in Ev. From Lk 5:14 onwards Epiphanius provides details of individual differences or omissions that he sees in Ev in comparison with Luke, but, in contrast his comments on the early parts of the gospel suggest some difficulty with identifying what had been removed. Epiphanius begins in straightforward fashion, with some specifics:
At the very beginning he excised everything Luke had originally composed—his “inasmuch as many have taken in hand,” and so forth, and the material about Elizabeth and the angel’s annunciation to the Virgin Mary, John and Zacharias and the birth at Bethlehem; the genealogy and the story of the baptism. All this he cut out and turned his back on, and made this the beginning of the Gospel, “In the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar,” and so on.
This tells us that Epiphanius knew the contents of Luke 1-3, that Ev contained nothing from Luke 1-2, and that it began with v. 3:1a “and so on.” However, he then becomes very vague over the contents of the next part of the gospel, stating just that:
He starts from there then and yet, again, does not go on in order. He falsifies some things, as I said, he adds others helter-skelter, not going straight on but disingenuously wandering all over the material.
Ernest Evans largely concurs, as in Appendix 2 of ‘Tertullian: Adversus Marcionem - MARCION'S TREATMENT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT,’ he notes Tertullian’s omissions from Luke, beginning as follows:
Omitting chapters I and 2, and most of 3 and 4 [the nativity, the baptism and temptation, with the genealogy, and all reference to Bethlehem and Nazareth], Marcion's gospel begins with 3:1, In the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar, and 4:31, God descended into Capernaum, a city of Galilee.
This author largely agrees, writing:
He (Tertullian) agrees that Ev began with v. 3:1a, then makes no mention of the baptism and the genealogy (which Epiphanius states were not in Ev), or the temptation (vv. 4:1-14) about which Epiphanius has no specific comment. However, comments in chapter 2 of Tertullian’s “On the flesh of Christ” confirm that Marcion’s Christ was ‘un-announced,’ i.e. that there was nothing in Ev prior to v. 3:1a:
Tertullian then refers to or generally discusses (note the difference in order):
Events in Capernaum [Lk 4:32-35]
The synagogue in Nazareth [Lk 4:16, 22-24, 28-30]
Curing the sick [Lk 4:40-41]
A desert place [Lk 4:42-43]
Preaching in Galilee [Lk 4:44]
Overall Ev contained nothing from Luke 1-2, ½ a verse (3.1a) from Luke 3, and 27.5 verses from Luke 4. In total only 14% of the verses in Luke 1-4 are present in Ev. Following this there is no mention by either Tertullian or Epiphanius of any omissions of Lukan text in Ev until chapter 8, with Evans writing the following, taken mainly from Epiphanius:
Thereafter the narrative continues until in ch. 8 he omits verse 19 [the statement that Christ's mother and brethren were present], but retains vv. 20, 21 [the announcement of their alleged arrival].
In ch. 9 [8 - sic] he omits [all reference to Jairus], but retains the episode of the woman with an issue.
In 10:21 he omits [Father], along with and of earth.
In 11:29-32 he omits [the reference to Jonah]. At 11:42 he reads vocation instead of judgement, klh~sin for kri/sin: he omits also 11:49-51 [the reference to the Wisdom of God].
In ch. 12 he retains verse 5, whom ye shall fear, making it refer to the Creator, but omits vv. 6 and 7 [five sparrows and the hairs of your head], and in verse 8 reads before God instead of before the angels of God: he omits verse 28 [the grass in the field], and in vv. 30 and 32 reads the Father [omitting your]: and in verse 38 reads at the evening watch.
In ch. 13 he omits vv.1-5 [of the Galilaeans murdered by Pilate, and those killed by the tower of Siloam]: for verse 28 he reads, When ye shall see all the just in the kingdom of God, and yourselves cast out and bound without, there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth: omitting vv. 29-35 [they shall come from east and west: go and tell that fox: O Jerusalem, Jerusalem].
In ch. 15 he omits vv. 11-32 [the prodigal son] but retains the lost coin and the lost sheep.
At 17:10 he omits [say, We are unprofitable servants etc.], and in vv. 11-19 he reads, There met him ten men that were lepers and he sent them away saying, Shew yourselves to the priest, inserting here apparently 4:27, Then were many lepers in Israel etc.
At 18:19 he reads God the Father, and at verse 20, I know the commandments: he omits vv. 31-3 [Behold we go up etc.].
In ch. 19 he omits vv. 28-46 [the journey to Jerusalem, the triumphal entry, and If thou hadst known etc.].
He omits 20:9-18 [the parable of the wicked husbandmen] and vv. 37-8 [with the mention of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob].
In ch. 21 he omits vv. 1-17 [with the reference to the temple treasury, the widow's two mites, and the question When shall these things be?, with most of our Lord's answer], but retains verse 18, a hair of your head, omitting vv. 21-2 [Then let them that are in Judaea etc.].
In ch. 22 he omits verse 16 [I will not again eat etc.] and vv. 35-8 [When I sent you out, and Here are two swords etc.] as well as vv. 39-51 [Gethsemane: the arrest: the high priest's servant].
In ch. 23 he adds to verse 2, and destroying the law and the prophets and perverting women and children: and omits verse 43 [Today shall thou be with me].
At 24: 25 he reads, to believe all that I have spoken to you, omitting vv. 26-7 [and beginning at Moses etc.]: he also omits vv. 32-6 [and they said one to another etc.] and vv. 44-6 [These are the words etc.]: he retains verse 47, and that repentance should be preached etc., but omits vv. 48-53 [And behold I send the promise . . . returned to Jerusalem . . . blessing God].
The above agrees closely with this author’s slightly more conservative list of 24 omissions in Specific ‘Omissions by Marcion’ in Luke 5:14ff, as Identified by Epiphanius, but there the relevant comments from Tertullian are also taken into account, with it being noted that “Tertullian does not contradict Epiphanius regarding any of these ‘omissions.’” Following this list this author notes:
Seven of the above pieces of text identified by Epiphanius as being not present in Ev have parallels in both Mark and Matthew, and seven others have no parallel in Mark. Eleven have no parallel in either Mark or Matthew, while four more have some text with no parallels. Overall, 15 of the 24 omissions (62.5%) are in text some or all of which is only in Luke, while only four are in text present in all three synoptic gospels. This leads to the question of why, if Marcion edited Luke, would he have created his gospel by mainly removing text unique to Luke (and adding virtually nothing), when it would perhaps have been more sensible to use a shorter gospel as the basis of his text?
In Tertullian's Evidence vs. Epiphanius this author then points out that:
Although Tertullian and Epiphanius differ in the way that they comment on the beginning of Ev, they are not inconsistent with each other in terms of what text of Luke was or was not present. They leave us in no doubt that Ev began with what we see as Lk 3:1a, and in total contained only 10% of the verses from the first four chapters of Luke. In the rest of Luke Tertullian then notes only four places (counting the Nazareth instances as one) at which Ev did not contain text that we see in Luke, and three more where he appears to have seen text in Luke that we see in Matthew instead…
In total, Tertullian specifically reports that 192.5 verses (plus short pieces of text in seven other places) of Luke were not present in Ev, while Epiphanius reports 302.5 omitted verses. Both saw a great deal of difference between Luke 1-4 and the equivalent text in Ev. However, while Tertullian did not comment on specific differences between the rest of Ev and what he saw in Luke 5-24, Epiphanius noted 110 verses in Luke 5-24 that Ev did not have. We do not know how much of this may reflect differences between the copies of Luke seen Tertullian and Epiphanius.
To the last sentence above it must be added that Tertullian was not attempting to note specific text differences, but instead to note whether in Ev Jesus was portrayed as being the same as Jesus in Luke, and hence did not record other differences between Ev and Luke, with Tertullian only noting as having been omitted by Marcion approximately 2/3 of what was so noted by Epiphanius. However, nowhere does Tertullian state that he intended to note every omission by Marcion, whereas Epiphanius states that he did exactly that. While it can be argued that Tertullian saw different 'versions' of Ev, the evidence strongly suggests that Tertullian simply never intended to note all the Lukan verses not present in Ev, but instead was just commenting on specific points regarding the portrayal of Jesus in Ev.
The ‘big picture’ is that Ev does not contain large portions of text that we see at the beginning of all three of the synoptic gospels, reverses the order of Capernaum and Nazareth when compared with Luke, and excludes more than 100 later verses that we see in Luke 10-24, the majority of which are not in either Mark or Matthew. The only text in Ev that is not in Luke is approximately 10 verses that today we see only in Matthew:
Of the 214 verses in Luke 1-4 only 30.5 (14%) are present in Ev;
Of the 256 verses in Luke 5-9 all but one (99.6%) are present in Ev;
Of the 416 verses in Luke 10-19 80 (19%) are not present in Ev;
Of the 265 verses in Luke 20-24 26 (10%) are not present in Ev.
Overall slightly more than 26% of the verses in Luke are not present in Ev, with the 'missing' text heavily concentrated in text not present in either Mark or Matthew, i.e. being largely Lukan Sondergut.
The following table lists the omissions in Ev when compared with Luke, according to the specific comments from Tertullian and/or Epiphanius, and how these verses appear to us in terms of their parallels in all three synoptic gospels:
Note: The presence of Lk 3:1bc is uncertain, possibly being covered by the comment “and so on” by Epiphanius.
Prior to Jesus standing by the lake of Gennesaret all we know of Jesus from Ev is what happened in Capernaum and Nazareth (in that order), and that “he preached in the synagogues of Galilee.” However, Ev then includes all the preaching and healings in Luke 5-8, and everything from Luke 9: the sending of the twelve, the feeding of the five thousand, Peter’s confession, the transfiguration, the healing of the boy, and the discipleship lessons. As Tertullian and Epiphanius together refer to Lk / Ev 9:31-32, 52, 54-55, 60-62 (all of which have no parallels in Mark or Matthew) there is no evidence here that aEv (if he knew Luke) ‘selectively’ omitted portions of text that he knew were only in Luke.
Luke 10-18 include the Lukan travel narrative. In comparison (while not suggesting that aEv actually removed text) Ev omits the Good Samaritan (Luke 10), most of the warning about seeking signs and half the warning against Pharisaism (Luke 11), the sparrows and the grass (Luke 12), Jesus’ call to repentance, first and last, the lament over Jerusalem (Luke 13), the parable of the lost son (Luke 15), small portions from two pericopes from Luke 17, and Jesus foretelling his death from Luke 18.
Tertullian and/or Epiphanius refer to multiple verses from these chapters that we only see in Luke, for example Lk 13:14-16, while Epiphanius states that the preceding verses (Lk 13:1-9) had no parallel in Ev. If Marcion was omitting verses from Luke (as is the majority view) then he was not just removing verses unique to Luke, as for example shown by the lack of Lk 13:29-35 in Ev, with Lk 13:29-30, 34-35 having parallels in Matthew while Lk 13:31-33 do not.
From Luke 19 the whole of the triumphal entry to Jerusalem is not in Ev, from Luke 20 neither the parable of the husbandmen and teaching in the temple are present, and in Luke 22 not eating “until it be fulfilled” and the reference to equipment (including swords) from the end of the last supper are not present. Jesus saying “Today shall thou be with me in paradise” is omitted from Luke 23, and “O fools …” and “Ought not Christ …” from Luke 24 are also not in Ev.
On the assumption that Ev is an edited version of Luke then aEv removed large portions of text with no obvious rationale behind it. If aEv also knew both Mark and Matthew then it is conceivable that he removed the Lukan birth narrative because he saw the different version in Matthew, and the same could apply to the genealogy. Also, he could have excluded much of the material prior to Luke 5 because it was not in all three synoptic gospels, but if that was the case why would he later include other material with no parallel in Mark, and some of the material unique to Luke? Also, why did he feel it necessary to reverse the order of Nazareth and Capernaum in Luke so that it matched the order (but not the placement) of Capernaum and Nazareth in Mark and Matthew?
As stated in the overall conclusions of this author’s investigation into the text of Ev: “Like Epiphanius, Tertullian concludes by stating that aEv has failed in his task (a task which, it should be noted, Marcion did not claim he was undertaking) of promoting a gospel to support his theology,” in the following way:
Now Marcion was unwilling to expunge from his Gospel some statements which even made against him – I suspect, on purpose, to have it in his power from the passages which he did not suppress, when he could have done so, either to deny that he had expunged anything, or else to justify his suppressions, if he made any.
Tertullian apparently did not consider the possibility that Ev might not have been a ‘cut-down’ version of Luke, and consequently he could only see that Marcion’s ‘failure’ to omit text that he ‘should have’ omitted as being deliberate misdirection by Marcion, rather than the possibility that Ev simply did not follow Luke, and that it may not have even been written by Marcion.
If Ev is instead earlier than Luke then most of the differences between the two can be seen as additions by aLuke. Certainly, all the text we see only in Luke could be an addition to Ev by aLuke, and any other text not in Ev but with a parallel in Matthew but not Mark could possibly have also been added by aLuke, e.g. if aLuke knew Matthew or had access to another source that contained text that we see in Matthew.
The small number of verses that we only see in Matthew but according to Tertullian were in Marcion are not likely to have been individually added by aEv to text he got from Luke. However, if Ev preceded both Luke and Matthew those verses could easily have been seen by Tertullian in Ev but also be used by aMatthew, while simply being not used by aLuke, with the reverse applying to the larger quantity of text in Ev that we see in Luke but not in Matthew.
Overall 78% of the verses in Luke that are not in Ev are unique to Luke. Even when Luke 1 and 2 are excluded (as per Mark) nearly 61% of the Lukan verses not in Ev are unique to Luke. It should be clear from this alone that if Ev is based on Luke then aEv appears to have gone to a great deal of trouble to exclude mainly verses that aLuke had previously added to what he saw in Mark (or possibly Matthew). Of course, this also implies that aEv was able to identify those verses unique to Luke from his knowledge of both Mark and Matthew, because without that knowledge it would appear almost impossible for him to have achieved this observed result. Of course, why he would remove so much of the Lukan text is another matter.
Whether Ev came before or after Matthew and/or Luke, there is still the issue of the great difference between the beginning of Ev and the beginnings of the synoptic gospels. It is tempting to suggest that because of the lack of birth narrative and genealogy that Ev followed Mark, but that does not explain the lack in Ev of the temptation, the reading in Capernaum, Jesus in Simon’s house, and then the inclusion of virtually all of Lk 5-9 (but possibly not 5:15-17). Consequently, it seems much more reasonable to suppose that Mark and Ev are independent, and both were used by Matthew and Luke. Whether Matthew and Luke would then have been independent or not is a different question, but independence does not appear to be a necessary part of such a hypothesis.