Couchoud's 'Is Marcion's Gospel One of the Synoptics?'

[Ken Olson]

The Hibbert Journal also published a reply to Couchoud by Alfred Loisy. It is well worth a read, but unfortunately I have not been able to find it freely available anywhere on the interwebs.

Alfred Loisy, 'Marcion's Gospel. A Reply', Hibbert Journal 34 (1936) 378-387.

Best,

Ken

[Giuseppe]

The Couchoud's reply to the Loisy's reply is published in appendix here.

https://www.mythicistpapers.com/Couchoud_Creation_2.pdf

[MrMacSon]

Let us turn to other examples:—
Marcion records two incidents which, appearing at first sight to be analogous, are, in reality, fundamentally different. In the first a lawyer asks Jesus what must be done to obtain life, and Jesus tells him to obey the Law. By "life" however, is meant "life on earth," longevity, which is promised by Jewish law, and the Law does not lie.

In the second, a man asks, 'what must he do to obtain eternal life.' He says he has kept all the commandments of the Law. This time it is not terrestrial, but celestial life which is meant. The young man must do more, he must give up his riches, a much harder thing to do. In Luke both questions refer to eternal life (x. 25; xviii. 18), and the two replies of Jesus, one about the Law, and the other about the riches, cannot be reconciled. In my opinion, it is more probable that Marcion's version is the original.

Here is yet another divergence.
Marcion records Jesus as saying: "It is easier for heaven and earth to pass than one tittle of my words to fail," while Luke gives " ... than one tittle of the Law to fail" (xvi. 17). Marcion's version is supported by a common passage: " Heaven and earth shall pass away but my words shall not pass away" (xxi. 33).

The first quotation from Luke would appear to be a hasty correction, introducing the Law quite irrelevantly.

The same criticism must be made of the following variation.

Marcion gives "Who is my mother? who are my brethren? if not those who hear my words, and do them?"

Luke has "... who hear the Word of God, and do it" (viii. 21).

There again, the phrase "my words" fits better into the context, and is more probably the original text, whereas the phrase, "the Word of God" seems to be a correction made like the other, through the influence of the Old Testament.

One finds in Marcion:
"Whosoever shall confess me before men, him shall I confess before God; but he that denieth me before men shall be denied before God,"

whereas in Luke,
"... him shall the Son of Man confess before the angels of God ... shall be denied before the angels of God" (xii. 8).

[Also]
In Marcion, "there is joy in the presence of God over one sinner who repenteth," [yet] in Luke: "There is joy in the presence of the angels of God ..." (xv. 10).

One cannot but feel that Luke's rendering is a correction due to a theological scruple.

[MrMacSon]

In a passage on Martyrdom, Marcion writes: "Ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake, but in your patience possess ye your souls," but Luke gives: "... for my name's sake, but there shall not be a hair of your head perish. In your patience, etc. ..." (xxi. 17).

The sentence about the hair must surely have been an addition, introduced in the nature of a promise to reassure faint-hearted martyrs; more especially since a similar allusion to hair is made again, in order to mitigate another fear-inspiring text.


[Elsewhere] Marcion has the rendering,
"Fear him which, after he hath killed you, hath power to cast into hell; yea, I say unto you, fear him,"

while Luke adds a sentence peculiar to his gospel,
"... even the very hairs of your head are all numbered; fear not, therefore ..." (xii. 07).


In both cases, the words peculiar to Luke are really inconsistent with the context.

Marcion also writes:
"This generation (or, this people) is evil; they seek a sign, but there shall no sign be given it."

Luke has:
"... but there shall no sign be given, but the sign of Jonas the prophet" (xi. 29).

And he infers in two verses peculiar to his gospel, that the sign of Jonas is that of the general resurrection. Here indeed are clear indications of the original text being revised.

I could give other instances, but they would take too long to enumerate.
I have reached the conclusion that a methodical and thorough comparison of the gospels of Marcion and Luke would show that the former is the original, and the latter a corrected and considerably amplified version of the former.

[Giuseppe]

More precisely, Couchoud replies to Loisy as to the Marcion/Luke question in the following way (p. 442-443):

I will try to show that, to the four canonical Gospels, there must be added the Gospel of Marcion, now lost but almost completely reconstituted from quotations. M. Loisy assigns it “an intermediary rank between the fixing of the synoptic type and the diffusion of the fourth Gospel (137). That is not saying enough. In my judgment the Gospel of Luke is a revision of Marcion's made in the interests of Catholic orthodoxy. I will cite only two indications of this, because they are recognized by M. Loisy. In the text of Marcion the first clause of the Lord's Prayer runs as follows: “Father, let thy holy Spirit come upon us and purify us.” This reading, says M. Loisy, is guaranteed as authentic by the context to which it directly refers (xi. 13: “....how much more will the heavenly Father give the holy Spirit to them that ask him”). Luke reads: “Father, hallowed be thy name “—clearly a correction of Marcion made after Matthew. To escape the obvious conclusion, M. Loisy imagines a precanonical recension of Luke which Marcion must have copied. This recension is a hypothesis; the text of Marcion a reality. Why imagine an unknown text when a known text is there to explain the matter?157 M. Loisy also recognizes an addition to the body of the Gospel in the stories of the infancy. In Marcion they are absent. To invent in the interests of argument an older version of Luke in which these stories were not to be found is merely another device for escaping the conclusion that Marcion was prior to Luke.

(my bold)

Hence Loisy concedes that the birth stories are anti-marcionite. Once a such concession has been made, the use of the Occam's Razor by Couchoud is a logical step.

[MrMacSon]

More precisely, Couchoud replies to Loisy as to the Marcion/Luke question in the following way (p. 442-443):

I will try to show that, to the four canonical Gospels, there must be added the Gospel of Marcion, now lost but almost completely reconstituted from quotations. M. Loisy assigns it “an intermediary rank between the fixing of the synoptic type and the diffusion of the fourth Gospel (137). That is not saying enough. In my judgment the Gospel of Luke is a revision of Marcion's made in the interests of Catholic orthodoxy. I will cite only two indications of this, because they are recognized by M. Loisy. In the text of Marcion the first clause of the Lord's Prayer runs as follows: “Father, let thy holy Spirit come upon us and purify us.” This reading, says M. Loisy, is guaranteed as authentic by the context to which it directly refers (xi. 13: “....how much more will the heavenly Father give the holy Spirit to them that ask him”). Luke reads: “Father, hallowed be thy name “—clearly a correction of Marcion made after Matthew. To escape the obvious conclusion, M. Loisy imagines a precanonical recension of Luke which Marcion must have copied. This recension is a hypothesis; the text of Marcion a reality. Why imagine an unknown text when a known text is there to explain the matter? M. Loisy also recognizes an addition to the body of the Gospel in the stories of the infancy. In Marcion they are absent. To invent in the interests of argument an older version of Luke in which these stories were not to be found is merely another device for escaping the conclusion that Marcion was prior to Luke.

(my bold)

https://www.mythicistpapers.com/Couchoud_Creation_2.pdf

Couchoud noted in the paper in the OP, 'Is Marcion's Gospel One of the Synoptics?':

... Streeter and later Taylor both conclude solely from their study of canonical texts (and with no thought at all of Marcion) that behind Luke's Gospel there must have been some source other than Mark; and one more comprehensive than the source usually known as "Q." They call it "Proto-Luke." In their opinion Luke drew from both Proto-Luke and Mark. Those passages taken directly from Mark are clearly secondary, as though they had been fitted into the main story. On the other hand, those which come from Proto-Luke seem to have furnished the original design.

I am not trying to prove that Marcion's gospel agrees in every respect with the reconstruction of Proto-Luke that Streeter and Taylor have attempted to make. But it is noteworthy that many of the passages in Luke which they consider to be second-hand - that is, taken direct, and often word by word, from Mark - are precisely those [absent] from Marcion ...

[Ken Olson]

More precisely, Couchoud replies to Loisy as to the Marcion/Luke question in the following way (p. 442-443):

I will try to show that, to the four canonical Gospels, there must be added the Gospel of Marcion, now lost but almost completely reconstituted from quotations. M. Loisy assigns it “an intermediary rank between the fixing of the synoptic type and the diffusion of the fourth Gospel (137). That is not saying enough. In my judgment the Gospel of Luke is a revision of Marcion's made in the interests of Catholic orthodoxy. I will cite only two indications of this, because they are recognized by M. Loisy. In the text of Marcion the first clause of the Lord's Prayer runs as follows: “Father, let thy holy Spirit come upon us and purify us.” This reading, says M. Loisy, is guaranteed as authentic by the context to which it directly refers (xi. 13: “....how much more will the heavenly Father give the holy Spirit to them that ask him”). Luke reads: “Father, hallowed be thy name “—clearly a correction of Marcion made after Matthew. To escape the obvious conclusion, M. Loisy imagines a precanonical recension of Luke which Marcion must have copied. This recension is a hypothesis; the text of Marcion a reality. Why imagine an unknown text when a known text is there to explain the matter?157 M. Loisy also recognizes an addition to the body of the Gospel in the stories of the infancy. In Marcion they are absent. To invent in the interests of argument an older version of Luke in which these stories were not to be found is merely another device for escaping the conclusion that Marcion was prior to Luke.

(my bold)

Hence Loisy concedes that the birth stories are anti-marcionite. Once a such concession has been made, the use of the Occam's Razor by Couchoud is a logical step.

Could you please cite the work of Couchoud from which you are quoting? It is not the article cited and linked in the OP:

Paul-Louis Couchoud (1936) 'Is Marcion's Gospel One of the Synoptics?' The Hibbert Journal Vol. XXXIV, No. 2; pp.265-77

Neither the text you quote nor the page numbers you cite are from that article.

Best,

Ken

[MrMacSon]

It is hardly surprising that an orthodox evangelist should have undertaken the task of re-editing, correcting and completing Marcion's gospel. The anonymous author of the Gospel which we call Luke's, alludes to his predecessors, who were fairly numerous (πολλοί) and he sets himself the task of determining how much can be safely believed (τήν άσψάλειαν). ...

The essential was first to delete every saying which could provide a weapon for heterodox writers, second, to imbue it with a wholesome religious atmosphere, and third, to supplement it with whatever was required by sound religious principles, as well as with the best passages from the other gospels.

Luke's gospel should be considered as the catholic edition of Marcion's. I have endeavoured to show elsewhere^a that a Catholic edition of Paul's Epistles has been substituted in like manner for the Marcionite version, and that the Acts of the Apostles may possibly be the catholic version of a book, the Acts of the Apostle (Paul) originating from, or inspired by, some text of Marcion. By an act of high religious policy, the [orthodox] succeeded in assuring the future of Christianity by setting aside every indication of the uncompromising author Marcion, and by retaining, in annexing it for her own use, that author's New Testament.

---

1. Premiers écrits du Christianisme. Paris: Rieder, 1980.

[Giuseppe]

More precisely, Couchoud replies to Loisy as to the Marcion/Luke question in the following way (p. 442-443):

I will try to show that, to the four canonical Gospels, there must be added the Gospel of Marcion, now lost but almost completely reconstituted from quotations. M. Loisy assigns it “an intermediary rank between the fixing of the synoptic type and the diffusion of the fourth Gospel (137). That is not saying enough. In my judgment the Gospel of Luke is a revision of Marcion's made in the interests of Catholic orthodoxy. I will cite only two indications of this, because they are recognized by M. Loisy. In the text of Marcion the first clause of the Lord's Prayer runs as follows: “Father, let thy holy Spirit come upon us and purify us.” This reading, says M. Loisy, is guaranteed as authentic by the context to which it directly refers (xi. 13: “....how much more will the heavenly Father give the holy Spirit to them that ask him”). Luke reads: “Father, hallowed be thy name “—clearly a correction of Marcion made after Matthew. To escape the obvious conclusion, M. Loisy imagines a precanonical recension of Luke which Marcion must have copied. This recension is a hypothesis; the text of Marcion a reality. Why imagine an unknown text when a known text is there to explain the matter?157 M. Loisy also recognizes an addition to the body of the Gospel in the stories of the infancy. In Marcion they are absent. To invent in the interests of argument an older version of Luke in which these stories were not to be found is merely another device for escaping the conclusion that Marcion was prior to Luke.

(my bold)

Hence Loisy concedes that the birth stories are anti-marcionite. Once a such concession has been made, the use of the Occam's Razor by Couchoud is a logical step.

Could you please cite the work of Couchoud from which you are quoting? It is not the article cited and linked in the OP:

Paul-Louis Couchoud (1936) 'Is Marcion's Gospel One of the Synoptics?' The Hibbert Journal Vol. XXXIV, No. 2; pp.265-77

Neither the text you quote nor the page numbers you cite are from that article.

Best,

Ken

I quote from p. 424:

M. Loisy has devoted two articles in the Hibbert Journal to the criticism of my book, Jésus le Dieu fait homme, here translated into English under the title: The Creation of Christ. He has developed his criticism with much sarcasm in a book of 220 pages: Histoire et Mythe à propos de Jésus-Christ.
To reply in detail I should need a space equally great.

(my bold)

If you like, I can quote Loisy from his Histoire et Mythe à propos de Jésus-Christ. in the part concerning Marcion vs. Luke.

[MrMacSon]

Giuseppe is quoting from this:

Couchoud's reply to the Loisy's reply is published in appendix here.

https://www.mythicistpapers.com/Couchoud_Creation_2.pdf