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

[Giuseppe]

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

I have made it clear here:

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

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

[RandyHelzerman]

In the examples I have so far looked at, at no time has he considered that the Lucan version agrees with Mark or Matthew against Marcion. I think it is a good idea to read it with your Gospel Parallels by your side so you can compare the Lucan text with Mark and Matthew.

Recall, Marcion's gospel -- or the quotes thereof from the church fathers--is the *earliest* witness have to Luke. And therefore also to Mark. And surely, the canonical gospels have been subject to much harmonization over the 1800 or so years of transmission us.

[Ken Olson]

II.

......< omitted>
"In order to reach an incontrovertible conclusion, one must obviously begin by comparing those parts of the gospel common to both Luke and Marcion with the sections peculiar to each. It is almost invariably the sections peculiar to Luke which come under discussion, as those peculiar to Marcion consist solely—with the exception of two incidents...—of occasional isolated words."

The very next section of Couchoud's article:

This has in itself a certain striking significance. When an author wishes to re-model a text so as to conform to a given doctrine it is not often that he can accomplish his task with nothing but a pair of scissors to help him. It is much easier for him to use the glue-pot and stick additions into the text which he is at perfect liberty to compose for his own purpose. But this is a mere assumption.

Let us begin with the two incidents peculiar to Marcion, that is, those which are not found in Luke. Are they consistent with the main part of the gospel?

The arrogant and much-resented request of the sons of Zebedee (the account of which shows these two apostles in a somewhat unfavourable light), has an exact parallel in an incident common to both Luke (ix. 52-55) and Marcion, where Zebedee's sons ask Jesus for permission to bring down fire from Heaven on the inhospitable Samaritan village, and receive from Jesus a severe rebuke. These two rebukes to James and John are both written in the same style and spirit. It is, therefore, very unlikely that Marcion made an addition.

The washing of feet is not found in Luke, but, curiously enough, the text common to Marcion and Luke contains an allusion to it. Actually, Jesus says (Luke xxii. 26-27 D.): "He that is chief let him be as he that doth serve, for whether is greater, he that sits at meat or he that serves ? ... But I am amongst you as he that serves."

From this it would appear that Luke has omitted the episode but retained the moral. There is, therefore, no evidence even here of any addition by Marcion.

Loisy's response to Couchoud concerning the two pericopes of material which are not attested in Luke:

Loisy - Reply - Bottom 379.png (199.88 KiB) Viewed 177 times

Loisy - Reply - Top 380.png (157.34 KiB) Viewed 177 times

Loisy's argument against Couchoud, to put it simply, is that the attestation for attributing these two pericopes to Marcion is insufficient.

Do any of the recent reconstructions of Marcion, such as Jason BeDuhn's, or Dieter Roth's, or Matthias Klinghardt's, include them? I can't recall that they do, but perhaps I overlooked something. Can anyone point to a reconstruction of the text of Marcion in the most recent generation of scholarship that does consider these pericopes to have been in the Marcion's Evangelion?

Best,

Ken

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

[MrMacSon]

Loisy's response to Couchoud concerning the two pericopes of material which are not attested in Luke:

Loisy - Reply - Bottom 379.png

Loisy - Reply - Top 380.png

Loisy's argument against Couchoud, to put it simply, is that the attestation for attributing these two pericopes to Marcion is insufficient.

Do any of the recent reconstructions of Marcion, such as Jason BeDuhn's, or Dieter Roth's, or Matthias Klinghardt's, include them? I can't recall that they do, but perhaps I overlooked something. Can anyone point to a reconstruction of the text of Marcion in the most recent generation of scholarship that does consider these pericopes to have been in the Marcion's Evangelion?

Best,
Ken

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

Couchoud only uses these two pericopes to say there is no evidence of addition by Marcion, as highlighted. The point and the use of them is one of the lesser of Couchoud's points in this article.

... When an author wishes to re-model a text so as to conform to a given doctrine it is not often that he can accomplish his task with nothing but a pair of scissors to help him. It is much easier for him to use the glue-pot and stick additions into the text which he is at perfect liberty to compose for his own purpose. But this is a mere assumption.

Let us begin with the two incidents peculiar to Marcion, that is, those [in] which [additions] are not found in Luke. Are they consistent with the main part of the gospel?

The arrogant and much-resented request of the sons of Zebedee (the account of which shows these two apostles in a somewhat unfavourable light), has an exact parallel in an incident common to both Luke (ix. 52-55) and Marcion, where Zebedee's sons ask Jesus for permission to bring down fire from Heaven on the inhospitable Samaritan village, and receive from Jesus a severe rebuke. These two rebukes to James and John are both written in the same style and spirit. It is, therefore, very unlikely that Marcion made an addition.

The washing of feet is not found in Luke, but, curiously enough, the text common to Marcion and Luke contains an allusion to it. Actually, Jesus says (Luke xxii. 26-27 D.): "He that is chief let him be as he that doth serve, for whether is greater, he that sits at meat or he that serves ? ... But I am amongst you as he that serves."

From this it would appear that Luke has omitted the episode but retained the moral. There is, therefore, no evidence even here of any addition by Marcion.

On the first pericope, I think Loisy is misrepresenting Couchoud, ie. Couchoud does not claim that it "proves Marcion's gospel was independent' of Luke":

Loisy - Reply - Top 380.png (157.34 KiB) Viewed 153 times

It's not clear what Loisy's point is there wrt Marcion and the second pericope (other than a Luke versus Matthew and Luke difference).

Here -

Loisy - Reply - bottom 379 (lesser).png (383.86 KiB) Viewed 153 times

- Loisy's claims that "Marcion himself suggested this gloss in the Antitheses" or that "he inserted the anecdote with the gloss added in the Evangelion" also misrepresent and miss Couchoud's point [of there being no evidence that Marcion added to Luke]; a point somewhat at odds with the general charge that Marcion removed from Luke, but Couchoud was making the point that it is more common to add, rather than remove.

And it seems Loisy thought that Origen thought Marcion alluded to the sons of Zebedee pericope.

[MrMacSon]

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 for no reason, doctrinal or otherwise, that can be discovered.

For instance, take the account of the Purification of the Temple as recorded by Luke. According to Taylor (p. 95), this account is only a servile abstract of Mark's (out of twenty-five words, twenty-two of Luke's occur in Mark). Epiphanius (42 sc. 53) rightly commented on the absence of this particular passage from Marcion's gospel. Luke would therefore appear to have amplified Marcion by inserting this passage from Mark.

The Parable of the Wicked Husbandmen is treated in the same way. This parable is peculiar to Mark, who makes it a vehicle to express...Jesus as the well-beloved Son, Heir of God his Father, probably as an answer to a parable of Hermas. It has leapt straight from the pages of Mark into those of Luke, but does not appear in Marcion's [gospel], although it is in accordance with Paul's teaching, and Marcion would have had more reason to include it in his gospel than to leave it out.

Whenever the Oxford commentators say "St Luke had Proto-Luke for his principal, and St Mark for his supplementary source," the reply is simply this: "As his principal source St Luke used Marcion's gospel, and St Mark's as his supplementary one."

[Giuseppe]

These two points about washing of feets, request of first seats by Zebedeides are already dealt by Loisy in his History and myth about Jesus Christ, but I would be interested to the Loisy's concession that the birth story in Luke postdates *Ev. If true, that concession would place Occam's Razor directly on the side by Couchoud, as implied here.

[Giuseppe]

Ken, can you share the entire Loisy's article? Thank you in advance for any answer.

[Ken Olson]

Loisy's response to Couchoud concerning the two pericopes of material which are not attested in Luke:

Loisy - Reply - Bottom 379.png

Loisy - Reply - Top 380.png

Loisy's argument against Couchoud, to put it simply, is that the attestation for attributing these two pericopes to Marcion is insufficient.

Do any of the recent reconstructions of Marcion, such as Jason BeDuhn's, or Dieter Roth's, or Matthias Klinghardt's, include them? I can't recall that they do, but perhaps I overlooked something. Can anyone point to a reconstruction of the text of Marcion in the most recent generation of scholarship that does consider these pericopes to have been in the Marcion's Evangelion?

Best,
Ken

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

Couchoud only uses these two pericopes to say there is no evidence of addition by Marcion, as highlighted. The point and the use of them is one of the lesser of Couchoud's points in this article.

Couchoud's claim that there is no evidence that Marcion added the two non-Lukan pericopes he attributes to the Evangelion is not the only use he makes of them. He is making an argument against Harnack's reconstruction of the Evangelion, starting in the last paragraph on p. 265:

Couchoud 265.png (148.17 KiB) Viewed 103 times

Couchoud 266.png (204.01 KiB) Viewed 103 times

facts as those just quoted. The problem must be reconsidered from the beginning. [Couchoud p. 267]

... When an author wishes to re-model a text so as to conform to a given doctrine it is not often that he can accomplish his task with nothing but a pair of scissors to help him. It is much easier for him to use the glue-pot and stick additions into the text which he is at perfect liberty to compose for his own purpose. But this is a mere assumption.

Let us begin with the two incidents peculiar to Marcion, that is, those [in] which [additions] are not found in Luke. Are they consistent with the main part of the gospel?

The arrogant and much-resented request of the sons of Zebedee (the account of which shows these two apostles in a somewhat unfavourable light), has an exact parallel in an incident common to both Luke (ix. 52-55) and Marcion, where Zebedee's sons ask Jesus for permission to bring down fire from Heaven on the inhospitable Samaritan village, and receive from Jesus a severe rebuke. These two rebukes to James and John are both written in the same style and spirit. It is, therefore, very unlikely that Marcion made an addition.

The washing of feet is not found in Luke, but, curiously enough, the text common to Marcion and Luke contains an allusion to it. Actually, Jesus says (Luke xxii. 26-27 D.): "He that is chief let him be as he that doth serve, for whether is greater, he that sits at meat or he that serves ? ... But I am amongst you as he that serves."

From this it would appear that Luke has omitted the episode but retained the moral. There is, therefore, no evidence even here of any addition by Marcion.

On the first pericope, I think Loisy is misrepresenting Couchoud, ie. Couchoud does not claim that it "proves Marcion's gospel was independent' of Luke":

There is an implied argument in Couchoud's claim that the two pericopes are not additions by Marcion:

Premise 1: The two pericopes are in the text of the Evangelion

Premise 2: The two pericopes are not in the text of Luke

Premise 3: The two pericopes are not additions by Marcion

Conclusion: It follows that Luke must have omitted the two pericopes from his source (since Marcion did not add them) and Marcion therefore has the earlier form of the text.

Couchoud rejects premise 1. It cannot be shown that the two pericopes were in the Evangelion.

[I am discussing Couchoud's points (2) and (3) from page 266, but have reserved discussion of Couchoud's point (1) for another post on Marcion and Matt 5.17]

It's not clear what Loisy's point is there wrt Marcion and the second pericope (other than a Luke versus Matthew and Luke difference).

It is clear if you read what Couchoud wrote about the pericope on p. 266 (2): 'the Washing of the Feet is only found in John, not in Luke'. Couchoud is claiming there is a pericope which is shared by the Evangelion and John which is not in Luke. Loisy is saying that Couchoud does not have sufficient evidence to say there was such a pericope in the Evangelion.

- Loisy's claims that "Marcion himself suggested this gloss in the Antitheses" or that "he inserted the anecdote with the gloss added in the Evangelion" also misrepresent and miss Couchoud's point [of there being no evidence that Marcion added to Luke]; a point somewhat at odds with the general charge that Marcion removed from Luke, but Couchoud was making the point that it is more common to add, rather than remove.

Loisy is not misrepresenting Couchoud's point. He is saying that Couchoud's implication that Luke removed material from his source (which Couchoud takes to be the Evangelion or something very much like it) would require first that he show that the material was in the Evangelion in the first place, and the arguments he makes for that are insufficient (See my next comment below about the distinction between Marcion and Marcionites).

The point about the plausibility of writing or editing a gospel primarily by removing and reinterpreting material rather than adding new material is indeed a big issue and requires discussion, but is not relevant to Loisy's criticism of Couchoud here.

And it seems Loisy thought that Origen thought Marcion alluded to the sons of Zebedee pericope.

No, you missed the distinction between what Marcion himself may have written in the Evangelion and what later Marcionites may have written about Marcion.

Andrew Criddle and Peter Kirby have discussed the point here:

viewtopic.php?p=170465#p170465

Best,

Ken

NB: I would draw a distinction between the Evangelion's use of non-Lukan pericopes and the Evangelion's possible use of non-Lukan readings within Lukan pericopes. It does not appear to me that Couchoud and Loisy are making that distinction clearly.

[Ken Olson]

Ken, can you share the entire Loisy's article? Thank you in advance for any answer.

No, I believe it's still under copyright. But if what you are interested in is what Loisy says about the birth narratives in the article, here it is:

Loisy 380 bottom.png (108.03 KiB) Viewed 94 times

Loisy 381 top.png (99.02 KiB) Viewed 94 times

Best,

Ken

[Giuseppe]

Thank you!

It seems that the reason given by Loisy to reject the birth stories:

It follows that the third Gospel in its original state did not contain the birth stories.

...is not mere anti-marcionite polemic, but the fact that according to Loisy the production of the gospels was not “a single operation accomplished in a space of ten years”, but a gradual collection of further episodes.

If it wasn't for that detail, Loisy would sound as a mere assertor of the priority of all Luke over *Ev.