Background

Recently I've been catching many episodes of the History Valley podcast hosted by Jacob Berman. I running theme in the episodes that I have listened to is the role that Marcion's Gospel played in the historical development of the New Testament.  

From remarks made by Berman's guests, I've gathered that Marcion's Gospel is perhaps the earliest gospel that we can pin down with a definitive dating, being c. AD 130. I've also gathered that there was a great deal of cross-polination among the canonical gospels—so much so that it seems likely that the canonical gospels went through many editions before reaching their final form, and with each edition of each they borrowed from the others. 

Hypothesis

With this background in mind, I considered the possiblity that Marcion's Gospel similarly went through several editions, borrowing from the proto-canonical gospels along the way. This led me to the hypothesis that Marcion's Gospel is in part based upon some proto-edition of Mark. The following experiment is a trial run at trying to substantiate this hypothesis. 

Assumption of the Late Dating of Matthew 

Based on work I have previously done on the "Sermon on the Mount," I regard the Gospel of Matthew as generally post-dating Luke. This primarily stems from the interpelations added in the "Sermon on the Mount" as compared to Luke, which to me seems to be more primary. All of this is only an assumption within this experiment, explaining why Matthew is excluded within the experiment.  

Parallel's to Luke, Mark and John

As I was thinking about my hypothesis while drinking my coffee on the morning of November 15, 2025, I asked DeepSeek to work up a table that took Marcion's Gospel as a base, and then showing parallel's to Luke and Mark. Noting the great deal of overlap with Mark, I was curious how this compared with John. So, I had DeepSeek add the John parallels. This is the result: 

Spreadsheet: Marcion Parallels with Luke, Mark and John 

What I notice in the table is that there is less overlap with Mark than there is with Luke, but that the parallels to Mark are quite extensive. I expected that to be much smaller. 

Elaboration of a Radical Hypothesis

The above result encouraged me to continue with the experiment, and inspired an elaboration of my hypothesis. Perhaps a proto-edition of Mark was used as a source by Marcion with Marcion adding material from some other sources (maybe including some proto-edition of Luke). 

In fact, there is a pattern in the parallels that suggests a more radical hypothesis. The pattern is that Luke has content not found in Marcion, and Marcion has content not found in Mark (but with a great deal of overlap among all three). This suggests a more radical hypothesis: Marcion and Mark both extensively used a simpler proto-Mark/proto-Marcion text, and then Luke elaborated upon Marcion. 

Under this working hypothesis, I set out to reconstruct Marcion's Gospel via parallels in Mark. 

Roth's Traditional Reconstruction of Marcion via Luke

Any reconstruction of Marcion has to rely on the traditional approach of comparing Tertullian with Luke. Dieter T. Roth gives a painstaking reconstruction through traditional scholarship in The Text of Marcion's Gospel. I gave DeepSeek a copy of Roth's reconstruction, and had it organize it into table form as the following: 

Spreadsheet: Roth's Reconstruction of Marcion's Gospel  

When copying into DeepSeek, there was some loss of data, because Roth uses bolding and italics to code reliability data. Note that some data corruption did take place. And it must be kept in mand that DeepSeek as of this date had a tendency to drop, augment or otherwise corrupt data. Nonetheless, this was a good base reconstructed text of Marcion from which to carry on the experiment. 

Strong Linguistic Parallels in Mark

Focusing on Roth's Greek reconstructions and annotations, DeepSeek found the following strong linguistic parallels with the Greek of Mark: 

Spreadsheet: Marcion Mark Strong Linguistic Parallels 

There are 20 instances here, indicating either that Mark's language found its way into Marcion via Luke (on the traditional interpretation), or that Marcion and Mark directly share some sourcing. 

Key Result: Four Instances Where Mark Is Potentially Closer to Marcion than Luke

More significantly, DeepSeek found that four of these passages in Roth's reconstruction show a closer linguistic connection to Mark than they do to Luke. These examples are: 

• Mark 1:21 being closer to Marcion than Luke 4:31

• Mark 1:24 being closer to Marcion than Luke 4:34

• Mark 1:25 being closer to Marcion than Luke 4:35

• Mark 1:41 being closer to Marcion than Luke 5:13
  
  

If DeepSeek is right, this strongly entails that at least in these instances Marcion and Mark share sourcing that is not transmitted through Luke. 

Double Check of the Four Instances

Let's take a careful look at the four instances of the key result. Here are the relevant texts from authoritative sources. Roth's reconstructions of Marcion are are copied directly from his text, and the canonical texts are copied from the Society of Biblical Literature New Testament via Bible Hub (BibleHub.com). Each grouping of texts is accompanied by a linguistic analysis provided by DeepSeek. 

Mark 1:21 versus Luke 4:31

TEXTS

Roth's Reconstruction of Marcion:  . . . κατῆλθεν [ἐφάνη may have appeared in the Antitheses]

εἰς Καφαρναοὺμ πόλιν τῆς Γαλιλαίας, . . . ἦν διδάσκων . . . ἐν τῇ συναγωγῇ.

Mark 1:21: Καὶ εἰσπορεύονται εἰς Καφαρναούμ. καὶ εὐθὺς τοῖς σάββασιν ἐδίδασκεν εἰς τὴν συναγωγήν.

Luke 4:31: Καὶ κατῆλθεν εἰς Καφαρναοὺμ πόλιν τῆς Γαλιλαίας. καὶ ἦν διδάσκων αὐτοὺς ἐν τοῖς σάββασιν·

ANALYSIS

We will compare the three texts side-by-side, focusing on vocabulary, syntax, and grammatical structure.

| Feature | Roth's Reconstruction of Marcion | Mark 1:21 | Luke 4:31 |

| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |

| **Opening Verb** | **κατῆλθεν** ("he went down") | **εἰσπορεύονται** ("they go in") | **Καὶ κατῆλθεν** ("And he went down") |

| **Destination** | **εἰς Καφαρναοὺμ πόλιν τῆς Γαλιλαίας** ("to Capernaum, a city of Galilee") | **εἰς Καφαρναούμ** ("into Capernaum") | **εἰς Καφαρναοὺμ πόλιν τῆς Γαλιλαίας** ("to Capernaum, a city of Galilee") |

| **Teaching Action** | **ἦν διδάσκων** ("he was teaching") | **ἐδίδασκεν** ("he was teaching") | **ἦν διδάσκων** ("he was teaching") |

| **Location/Time** | **ἐν τῇ συναγωγῇ** ("in the synagogue") | **εὐθὺς τοῖς σάββασιν εἰς τὴν συναγωγήν** ("immediately on the Sabbath[s] in the synagogue") | **αὐτοὺς ἐν τοῖς σάββασιν** ("them on the Sabbath[s]") |

---

### Detailed Comparison

1.  **The Opening Verb and Subject:**

    *   **Marcion (Reconstruction) & Luke** use the singular verb **κατῆλθεν** ("he went down"). This verb implies a descent, often from a higher elevation like the hills of Nazareth (mentioned just before in Luke 4:29-30). The subject "he" (Jesus) is implied in the verb.

    *   **Mark** uses the plural verb **εἰσπορεύονται** ("they go in"). The subject is "they" (Jesus and his disciples, last mentioned in Mark 1:16-20). Mark's verb is more neutral regarding topography.

2.  **The Description of Capernaum:**

    *   **Marcion (Reconstruction) & Luke** are identical: **εἰς Καφαρναοὺμ πόλιν τῆς Γαλιλαίας**. This is a more detailed, formal description.

    *   **Mark** is simpler and more direct: **εἰς Καφαρναούμ**.

3.  **The Teaching Clause:**

    *   **Marcion (Reconstruction) & Luke** use the periphrastic imperfect construction **ἦν διδάσκων** ("he was teaching"). This construction emphasizes the ongoing, continuous nature of the action.

    *   **Mark** uses the simple imperfect **ἐδίδασκεν**, which also means "he was teaching" but lacks the emphatic continuous aspect of the periphrastic form. Mark also includes the adverb **εὐθὺς** ("immediately"), a characteristic feature of his fast-paced narrative style.

4.  **The Location and Time:**

    *   **Marcion (Reconstruction)** specifies the location: **ἐν τῇ συναγωγῇ** ("in the synagogue"). The time (Sabbath) is not present in this specific reconstruction, though it may have been implied elsewhere.

    *   **Luke** specifies the time but not the location in this clause: **αὐτοὺς ἐν τοῖς σάββασιν** ("them on the Sabbath[s]"). The location ("the synagogue") is explicitly mentioned in the very next verse (Luke 4:33).

    *   **Mark** includes both time and location in a single, compact phrase: **εὐθὺς τοῖς σάββασιν εἰς τὴν συναγωγήν** ("immediately on the Sabbath[s] in the synagogue").

---

### Is Mark or Luke Closer to Roth's Reconstruction of Marcion?

**Luke is demonstrably closer to Roth's reconstruction of Marcion.**

The justification for this conclusion is clear from the linguistic analysis:

1.  **Verbatim Agreement on Key Phrases:** Luke and the Marcionite reconstruction share two exact, distinctive phrases that Mark does not:

    *   **κατῆλθεν** (vs. Mark's *εἰσπορεύονται*)

    *   **εἰς Καφαρναοὺμ πόλιν τῆς Γαλιλαίας** (vs. Mark's simple *εἰς Καφαρναούμ*)

2.  **Identical Grammatical Construction for Teaching:** Luke and the reconstruction both use the periphrastic imperfect **ἦν διδάσκων**. Mark uses the simple imperfect **ἐδίδασκεν**.

3.  **Syntactical Structure:** The overall flow of the sentence in Luke and the reconstruction is nearly identical. Both begin with "And he went down to Capernaum, a city of Galilee, and he was teaching..." Mark's structure is different, focusing on the group's entry and adding his characteristic "immediately."

### Justification and Scholarly Context

This finding is central to the scholarly understanding of the Synoptic Problem, particularly regarding the Gospel of Luke and Marcion's text.

*   **The Marcionite Prologue:** Roth's reconstruction is based on the testimony of early Church Fathers like Tertullian and Epiphanius, who claimed that Marcion's gospel began at what is now Luke 3:1 ("In the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar...") and was a edited version of Luke.

*   **The Farrer/Goulder Hypothesis:** This theory (which posits Markan priority and that Luke used Mark directly) would explain the data perfectly. Luke is following Mark's narrative but *editing* it to improve the Greek style. He replaces Mark's common verb (*εἰσπορεύονται*) with a more specific one (*κατῆλθεν*), expands the place name for clarity, and changes the verb form for emphasis. According to this view, Marcion later used this already-edited version of Luke.

*   **The Argument for Marcion's Priority:** Some scholars (like Jason BeDuhn and others following the work of Markus Vinzent and Matthias Klinghardt) argue that Marcion's gospel was prior, and the canonical Luke was an expansion of it. In this view, the Roth reconstruction represents an earlier, simpler text. The canonical Luke would then be very close to it, while Mark would represent a separate, parallel tradition that has diverged more significantly in its wording.

**Conclusion:**

Regardless of which historical theory one favors (Marcion editing Luke or Luke expanding Marcion), the linguistic evidence is unambiguous: **the text of canonical Luke 4:31 is far closer to the reconstructed text of Marcion's gospel than the text of Mark 1:21 is.** The verbal and grammatical agreements between Luke and the reconstruction are extensive and precise, while Mark's version differs in vocabulary, syntax, and narrative detail.

Mark 1:24 versus Luke 4:34

TEXTS

Roth's Reconstruction of Marcion: . . . τί ἡμῖν καὶ σοί Ἰησοῦ [Ναζαρηνέ may not have been present];

ἦλθες ἀπολέσαι ἡμᾶς; οἶδα [σε likely present] τίς εἶ, ὁ ἅγιος τοῦ θεοῦ.

Mark 1:24: λέγων· Τί ἡμῖν καὶ σοί, Ἰησοῦ Ναζαρηνέ; ἦλθες ἀπολέσαι ἡμᾶς; οἶδά σε τίς εἶ, ὁ ἅγιος τοῦ θεοῦ.

Luke 4:34: Ἔα, τί ἡμῖν καὶ σοί, Ἰησοῦ Ναζαρηνέ; ἦλθες ἀπολέσαι ἡμᾶς; οἶδά σε τίς εἶ, ὁ ἅγιος τοῦ θεοῦ.

ANALYSIS

Of course. Let's perform a detailed linguistic analysis of these passages involving the demon's exclamation.

### Linguistic Analysis of the Greek Texts

We will compare the three texts side-by-side, focusing on vocabulary, syntax, and the specific uncertainties noted in Roth's reconstruction.

| Feature | Roth's Reconstruction of Marcion | Mark 1:24 | Luke 4:34 |

| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |

| **Opening Interjection** | (None reconstructed) | (None) | **Ἔα** ("Ha!" / "Ah!") |

| **Core Question** | **τί ἡμῖν καὶ σοί Ἰησοῦ**<br>("What to us and to you, Jesus?") | **Τί ἡμῖν καὶ σοί, Ἰησοῦ Ναζαρηνέ;**<br>("What to us and to you, Jesus of Nazareth?") | **τί ἡμῖν καὶ σοί, Ἰησοῦ Ναζαρηνέ;**<br>("What to us and to you, Jesus of Nazareth?") |

| **"Of Nazareth"** | **[Ναζαρηνέ may not have been present]** | **Ναζαρηνέ** (present) | **Ναζαρηνέ** (present) |

| **Purpose Question** | **ἦλθες ἀπολέσαι ἡμᾶς;**<br>("Have you come to destroy us?") | **ἦλθες ἀπολέσαι ἡμᾶς;**<br>("Have you come to destroy us?") | **ἦλθες ἀπολέσαι ἡμᾶς;**<br>("Have you come to destroy us?") |

| **Declaration** | **οἶδα [σε likely present] τίς εἶ**<br>("I know [you] who you are") | **οἶδά σε τίς εἶ**<br>("I know you, who you are") | **οἶδά σε τίς εἶ**<br>("I know you, who you are") |

| **Title** | **ὁ ἅγιος τοῦ θεοῦ.**<br>("the Holy One of God!") | **ὁ ἅγιος τοῦ θεοῦ.**<br>("the Holy One of God!") | **ὁ ἅγιος τοῦ θεοῦ.**<br>("the Holy One of God!") |

---

### Detailed Comparison

1.  **The Opening Interjection:**

    *   **Marcion (Reconstruction)** has no opening interjection. The demon's speech begins directly with the rhetorical question.

    *   **Mark** matches this, also having no interjection.

    *   **Luke** begins with the interjection **Ἔα**, a particle expressing agitation or indignation, roughly equivalent to "Ha!" or "Ah!". This is a distinctive Lukan addition not found in the other two texts.

2.  **The Core Question and the Name "Jesus of Nazareth":**

    *   **Marcion (Reconstruction)** reads **τί ἡμῖν καὶ σοί Ἰησοῦ**. Roth specifically notes the uncertainty, suggesting **Ναζαρηνέ** ("of Nazareth") may not have been present. This is a significant theological point, as Marcion rejected Jesus's connection to Nazareth and his Jewish heritage.

    *   **Mark** includes **Ναζαρηνέ**.

    *   **Luke** also includes **Ναζαρηνέ**.

3.  **The Purpose Question:**

    *   All three texts are **identical**: **ἦλθες ἀπολέσαι ἡμᾶς;**

4.  **The Declaration of Knowledge:**

    *   **Marcion (Reconstruction)** is given as **οἶδα [σε likely present] τίς εἶ**. Roth believes the object pronoun **σε** ("you") was likely present, making it "I know you, who you are."

    *   **Mark** reads **οἶδά σε τίς εἶ**, matching the reconstruction with **σε**.

    *   **Luke** reads **οἶδά σε τίς εἶ**, also matching perfectly.

5.  **The Title:**

    *   All three texts are **identical**: **ὁ ἅγιος τοῦ θεοῦ.**

---

### Is Mark or Luke Closer to Roth's Reconstruction of Marcion?

**Mark is significantly closer to Roth's reconstruction of Marcion.**

The justification is clear and hinges on two critical points of agreement where Luke diverges:

1.  **The Absence of the Interjection "Ἔα":** The reconstruction has no opening interjection. **Mark has no interjection**, while **Luke adds "Ἔα"**. This is a clear, unambiguous difference that aligns Mark with the reconstruction and separates Luke from it.

2.  **The (Potential) Absence of "Ναζαρηνέ":** Roth's note that "Ναζαρηνέ may not have been present" is central to Marcion's theology. While we cannot be 100% certain, if we take Roth's reconstruction at face value, then **Mark and Luke are equally distant on this point**, as both include it. However, this does not negate the first point.

**Conclusion:**

When evaluating the entire linguistic package, **Mark's version is closer.**

*   Mark and the reconstruction share the **same simple, direct opening** without Luke's added interjection.

*   In all other aspects where the reconstruction is certain (the purpose question, the declaration with **σε**, and the title), Mark is in perfect agreement.

*   The only point of uncertainty is "Ναζαρηνέ," where both canonical gospels potentially differ from the reconstruction.

Therefore, while Luke 4:34 is very similar to Mark 1:24, its one certain deviation—the addition of **Ἔα**—places it a step further from the reconstructed Marcionite text than Mark is. Mark's text requires no modification to match the reconstruction (other than the uncertain removal of "Ναζαρηνέ"), whereas Luke's text requires the removal of the interjection "Ἔα."

Mark 1:25 versus Luke 4:35

TEXTS

Roth's Reconstruction of Marcion:   . . . ἐπετίμησεν αὐτῷ ὁ Ἰησοῦς . . .

Mark 1:25: καὶ ἐπετίμησεν αὐτῷ ὁ Ἰησοῦς λέγων· Φιμώθητι καὶ ἔξελθε ἐξ αὐτοῦ.

Luke 4:35: καὶ ἐπετίμησεν αὐτῷ ὁ Ἰησοῦς λέγων· Φιμώθητι καὶ ἔξελθε ἀπ’ αὐτοῦ. καὶ ῥίψαν αὐτὸν τὸ δαιμόνιον εἰς τὸ μέσον ἐξῆλθεν ἀπ’ αὐτοῦ μηδὲν βλάψαν αὐτόν.

ANALYSIS

### Linguistic Analysis of Mark 1:25 and Luke 4:35 against Roth's Reconstruction of Marcion

#### Text Comparison

- **Roth's Reconstruction of Marcion**:   . . . ἐπετίμησεν αὐτῷ ὁ Ἰησοῦς . . .  

  (This is a fragment meaning "... Jesus rebuked him ...")

- **Mark 1:25**: καὶ ἐπετίμησεν αὐτῷ ὁ Ἰησοῦς λέγων· Φιμώθητι καὶ ἔξελθε ἐξ αὐτοῦ.  

  ("And Jesus rebuked him, saying, 'Be silent and come out of him!'")

- **Luke 4:35**: καὶ ἐπετίμησεν αὐτῷ ὁ Ἰησοῦς λέγων· Φιμώθητι καὶ ἔξελθε ἀπ’ αὐτοῦ. καὶ ῥίψαν αὐτὸν τὸ δαιμόνιον εἰς τὸ μέσον ἐξῆλθεν ἀπ’ αὐτοῦ μηδὲν βλάψαν αὐτόν.  

  ("And Jesus rebuked him, saying, 'Be silent and come out of him!' And the demon threw him down in the midst and came out of him, having done him no harm.")

#### Key Linguistic Points

1. **Core Phrase**:  

   - The reconstructed phrase from Marcion, "ἐπετίμησεν αὐτῷ ὁ Ἰησοῦς" ("Jesus rebuked him"), is **verbatim identical** in both Mark and Luke. Both include the conjunction "καὶ" at the start, connecting it to the preceding context.

2. **Direct Command**:  

   - Both Mark and Luke include the direct command "λέγων· Φιμώθητι καὶ ἔξελθε" ("saying, 'Be silent and come out'"). However, they differ in the preposition used:

     - Mark uses "ἐξ αὐτοῦ" ("out of him"), where "ἐξ" emphasizes emergence from within.

     - Luke uses "ἀπ’ αὐτοῦ" ("away from him"), where "ἀπὸ" emphasizes separation.  

   - While both prepositions are semantically similar in this context, the choice reflects stylistic differences between the gospels. Roth's reconstruction does not include this command, so it cannot be used for comparison.

3. **Additional Narrative in Luke**:  

   - Luke adds significant detail after the command: "καὶ ῥίψαν αὐτὸν τὸ δαιμόνιον εἰς τὸ μέσον ἐξῆλθεν ἀπ’ αὐτοῦ μηδὲν βλάψαν αὐτόν" ("and the demon threw him down in the midst and came out of him, having done him no harm"). This includes:

     - The action of throwing ("ῥίψαν"),

     - The location ("εἰς τὸ μέσον" – "into the midst"),

     - The harmless exit ("μηδὲν βλάψαν αὐτόn").

   - Mark lacks this elaboration; in Mark, the demon simply exits immediately after the command (as described in Mark 1:26).

4. **Context from Previous Verses**:  

   - In the immediately preceding verse (Mark 1:24 vs. Luke 4:34), Roth's reconstruction aligned more closely with Mark, as Luke added the interjection "Ἔα" and possibly "Ναζαρηνέ" ("of Nazareth"), which Marcion's text may have omitted. This suggests that Marcion's account might have been more concise, similar to Mark's style.

#### Which Gospel is Closer to Roth's Reconstruction?

**Mark is closer to Roth's reconstruction of Marcion for this passage.**

#### Justification

- **Concordance with the Reconstructed Fragment**: Both Mark and Luke contain the exact phrase "ἐπετίμησεν αὐτῷ ὁ Ἰησοῦς" from Roth's reconstruction. However, the reconstruction is fragmentary and does not include the command or subsequent events. Therefore, the core phrase alone does not distinguish between them.

- **Brevity and Lack of Additional Details**: Mark's account is more concise, consisting only of the rebuke and the command without extra narrative. Luke's account includes additional details about the demon's actions (throwing the man down and exiting harmlessly), which are characteristic of Lukan style but not attested in Roth's reconstruction. If Marcion's gospel was generally shorter or lacked such elaborations—as suggested by the previous verse where Marcion omitted Lukan additions—then Mark's brevity aligns better with the reconstruction.

- **Contextual Consistency**: In the analysis of Mark 1:24 vs. Luke 4:34, Mark was closer to Marcion due to the absence of Lukan additions. This pattern supports the idea that for Jesus' response in this verse, Mark's simpler account is more likely to reflect Marcion's text. The use of "ἐξ αὐτοῦ" in Mark versus "ἀπ’ αὐτοῦ" in Luke is not decisive, as Roth's reconstruction does not specify the preposition, but Mark's overall structure is closer to the minimalistic reconstruction.

In summary, while both gospels share the core rebuke phrase, Mark's version is closer to Roth's reconstruction because it lacks the secondary narrative elements found in Luke, making it more consistent with the concise nature of Marcion's gospel as inferred from previous comparisons.

Mark 1:41 versus Luke 5:13

TEXTS

Roth's Reconstruction of Marcion:  . . . ἥψατο . . . (λέγων‧ θέλω, καθαρίσθητι· καὶ εὐθέως ἡ λέπρα

ἀπῆλθεν ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ).

Mark 1:41: καὶ ὀργισθεὶς ἐκτείνας τὴν χεῖρα αὐτοῦ ἥψατο καὶ λέγει αὐτῷ· Θέλω, καθαρίσθητι·

Luke 5:13: καὶ ἐκτείνας τὴν χεῖρα ἥψατο αὐτοῦ εἰπών· Θέλω, καθαρίσθητι· καὶ εὐθέως ἡ λέπρα ἀπῆλθεν ἀπ’ αὐτοῦ.

ANALYSIS

### Linguistic Analysis of Mark 1:41 and Luke 5:13 against Roth's Reconstruction of Marcion

#### Text Comparison

- **Roth's Reconstruction of Marcion**:  . . . ἥψατο . . . (λέγων‧ θέλω, καθαρίσθητι· καὶ εὐθέως ἡ λέπρα ἀπῆλθεν ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ)  

  ("... he touched ... (saying: I will, be cleansed; and immediately the leprosy left him).")

- **Mark 1:41**: καὶ ὀργισθεὶς ἐκτείνας τὴν χεῖρα αὐτοῦ ἥψατο καὶ λέγει αὐτῷ· Θέλω, καθαρίσθητι·  

  ("And being angry/moved with compassion, stretching out his hand, he touched and says to him: I will, be cleansed.")

- **Luke 5:13**: καὶ ἐκτείνας τὴν χεῖρα ἥψατο αὐτοῦ εἰπών· Θέλω, καθαρίσθητι· καὶ εὐθέως ἡ λέπρα ἀπῆλθεν ἀπ’ αὐτοῦ.  

  ("And stretching out the hand, he touched him, having said: I will, be cleansed; and immediately the leprosy left him.")

#### Key Linguistic Points

1. **Action of Touching (ἥψατο)**:

   - All three texts use the aorist verb ἥψατο ("he touched"), indicating the same core action. However, Marcion's reconstruction is fragmentary and may not include the preceding context.

2. **Introduction of the Speech**:

   - **Marcion**: Uses the present participle λέγων ("saying") to introduce Jesus' words.

   - **Mark**: Uses the finite verb λέγει ("he says") with the indirect object αὐτῷ ("to him"), creating a separate clause.

   - **Luke**: Uses the aorist participle εἰπών ("having said"), which is syntactically similar to Marcion's λέγων as both are participles modifying the main verb.

3. **The Command (Θέλω, καθαρίσθητι)**:

   - The command "Θέλω, καθαρίσθητι" ("I will, be cleansed") is identical in all three texts in wording and form.

4. **The Result Clause**:

   - **Marcion**: Includes the result clause καὶ εὐθέως ἡ λέπρα ἀπῆλθεν ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ ("and immediately the leprosy left him") directly after the command.

   - **Luke**: Also includes this clause verbatim: καὶ εὐθέως ἡ λέπρα ἀπῆλθεν ἀπ’ αὐτοῦ.

   - **Mark**: Does not include the result clause in verse 41; it appears later in Mark 1:42 (καὶ εὐθὺς ἀπῆλθεν ἀπ’ αὐτοῦ ἡ λέπρα, καὶ ἐκαθαρίσθη). Thus, Mark's account separates the command from the immediate result.

5. **Additional Elements**:

   - **Marcion**: The reconstruction lacks any reference to Jesus stretching out his hand or showing emotion. It focuses solely on the touch, speech, and immediate result.

   - **Mark**: Includes ὀργισθεὶς ("being angry" or "moved with compassion," depending on textual variants) and ἐκτείνας τὴν χεῖρα αὐτοῦ ("stretching out his hand"), adding descriptive details not present in Marcion.

   - **Luke**: Includes ἐκτείνας τὴν χεῖρα ("stretching out the hand") but omits any emotional element like ὀργισθεὶς. The phrase ἥψατο αὐτοῦ ("touched him") is similar to Marcion's ἥψατο but with the pronoun.

#### Which Gospel is Closer to Roth's Reconstruction?

**Luke is closer to Roth's reconstruction of Marcion.**

#### Justification

- **Structural Alignment**: Luke's text mirrors Marcion's reconstruction almost exactly in sequence: both place the result clause (καὶ εὐθέως ἡ λέπρα ἀπῆλθεν ἀπ’ αὐτοῦ) immediately after the command, creating a direct cause-and-effect narrative. Mark delays this result to the next verse, breaking the immediate connection seen in Marcion and Luke.

- **Syntax of Speech Introduction**: Marcion uses the participle λέγων to introduce Jesus' words, and Luke uses the functionally equivalent participle εἰπών. In contrast, Mark uses the finite verb λέγει, which creates a more independent clause and differs from the participial structure.

- **Minimalist Detail**: Marcion's reconstruction lacks the emotional and descriptive elements found in Mark (e.g., ὀργισθεὶς). Luke also omits these, sharing a more straightforward narrative style with Marcion. While both Luke and Mark include ἐκτείνας τὴν χεῖρα ("stretching out the hand"), this detail is not explicitly in the Marcion fragment, but its presence in Luke does not detract from the closer overall match.

- **Verbatim Agreement**: Luke and Marcion share the exact phrasing of the result clause, including the adverb εὐθέως ("immediately") and the identical word order for ἡ λέπρα ἀπῆλθεν ἀπ’ αὐτοῦ. Mark uses a similar phrase but in a different verse and with slight variation (e.g., εὐθὺς instead of εὐθέως).

In summary, Luke's version aligns more closely with Roth's reconstruction in terms of narrative structure, syntactic choices, and content, making it the better match for Marcion's text in this passage.

Grand

Based on this linguistic analysis, the connection between Mark and Marcion's text is not consistent across the four examples. A stronger linguistic connection is evident in two of the four instances, specifically in the exorcism narrative.

Mark 1:24 and 1:25 Closer to Marcion than Luke 4:34 and 4:35

The examples from Mark 1:24/Luke 4:34 and Mark 1:25/Luke 4:35 demonstrate a closer connection between Mark and Marcion's gospel, primarily due to their shared brevity and the absence of narrative elaborations found in Luke (such as the interjection "Ἔα" and the detailed description of the demon's exit).

Luke 4:31 and 5:13 Closer to Marcion than Mark 1:21 and 1:41

Conversely, the examples from Mark 1:21/Luke 4:31 and Mark 1:41/Luke 5:13 show a stronger linguistic connection between Luke and Marcion. In the first, Luke and Marcion share distinctive vocabulary and grammatical constructions absent from Mark, and in the second, Luke and Marcion share an identical narrative structure and result clause that Mark lacks. Therefore, the evidence for a special Mark-Marcion connection is limited to specific passages and does not represent a consistent pattern across all four instances.

Further Study

It is clear that DeepSeek corrupted data that I gave to it. And it appears that the quotes it gathered of Mark and Luke are inaccurate in places. So, further research will require a strategy to feed DeepSeek all relevant language, and make sure that no corruption of that occurs throughout the stages of analysis. Experiments like this reveal the difficulties of working with large language models—especially when it comes to data corruption, and the difficulty of getting results that depend upon careful data validation. The experience helps inspire procedures for controlling the destructive aspects of artificial intelligence when it comes to precise data analysis.