This is seen practically--to apply a simple test--in the large amount of agreement between critics of the most various schools as to the real contents of the Gospel. Our author indeed speaks much of the 'disagreement.' But by what standard does he judge? Or, has he ever estimated its extent? Putting aside merely verbal differences, the total number of whole verses affected will be represented in the following table:--

iv. 16-30: doubt as to exact extent of omissions affecting about half the verses.

38, 39: omitted according to Hahn; retained according to Hilgenfeld and Volkmar.

vii. 29-35: omitted, Hahn and Ritschl; retained, Hilgenfeld and Volkmar.

x. 12-15: ditto ditto.

xiii. 6-10: omitted, Volkmar; retained, Hilgenfeld and Rettig.

xvii. 5-10: omitted, Ritschl; retained, Volkmar and Hilgenfeld.

14-19: doubt as to exact omissions.

xix. 47, 48: omitted, Hilgenfeld and Volkmar; retained, Hahn and Anger.

xxii. 17, 18: doubtful.

23-27: omitted, Ritschl; retained, Hilgenfeld and Volkmar.

43, 44: ditto ditto.

xxiii. 39-42: ditto ditto.

47-49: omitted, Hahn; retained, Ritschl, Hilgenfeld, Volkmar.

xxiv. 47-53: uncertain [Endnote 212:1].

This would give, as a maximum estimate of variation, some 55 verses out of about 804, or, in other words, about seven per cent.

But such an estimate would be in fact much too high, as there can be no doubt that the earlier researches of Hahn and Ritschl ought to be corrected by those of Hilgenfeld and Volkmar; and the difference between these two critics is quite insignificant.

Taking the severest view that it is possible to take, no one will maintain that the differences between the critics are such as to affect the main issue, so that upon one hypothesis one theory would hold good, and upon another hypothesis another. It is a mere question of detail.

We may, then, reconstruct the Gospel used by Marcion with very considerable confidence that we have its real contents before us.

In order to avoid any suspicion I will take the outline given in 'Supernatural Religion' (ii. p. 127), adding only the pa.s.sage St. Luke vii. 29-35, which, according to the author's statement (a mistaken one, however) [Endnote 213:1], is 'generally agreed' to have been wanting in Marcion's Gospel. In that Gospel, then, the following portions of our present St. Luke were omitted:--

Chaps. i. and ii, including the prologue, the Nativity, and the birth of John the Baptist.

Chap. iii (with the exception of ver. 1), containing the baptism of our Lord, the preaching of St. John, and the genealogy.

iv. 1-13, 17-20, 24: the Temptation, the reading from Isaiah.

vii. 29-35: the gluttonous man.

xi. 29-32, 49-51: the sign of Jonas, and the blood of the prophets.

xiii. 1-9, 29-35: the slain Galileans, the fig-tree, Herod, Jerusalem.

xv. 11-32: the prodigal son.

xvii. 5-10: the servant at meat.

xviii. 31-34: announcement of the Pa.s.sion.

xix. 29-48: the Triumphal Entry, woes of Jerusalem, cleansing of the Temple.

xx. 9-18, 37, 38: the wicked husbandmen; the G.o.d of Abraham.

xxi. 1-4, 18, 21, 22: the widow's mite; 'a hair of your head;'

flight of the Church.

xxii. 16-18, 28-30, 35-38, 49-51: the fruit of the vine, 'eat at my table,' 'buy a sword,' the high-priest's servant.

xxiv. 47-53: the last commission, the Ascension.

Here we have another remarkable phenomenon. The Gospel stands to our Synoptic entirely in the relation of _defect_. We may say entirely, for the additions are so insignificant--some thirty words in all, and those for the most part supported by other authority--that for practical purposes they need not be reckoned.

With the exception of these thirty words inserted, and some, also slight, alterations of phrase, Marcion's Gospel presents simply an _abridgment_ of our St. Luke.

Does not this almost at once exclude the idea that they can be independent works? If it does not, then let us compare the two in detail. There is some disturbance and re-arrangement in the first chapter of Marcion's Gospel, though the substance is that of the third Synoptic; but from this point onwards the two move step by step together but for the omissions and a single transposition (iv. 27 to xvii. 18). Out of fifty-three sections peculiar to St.

Luke--from iv. 16 onwards--all but eight were found also in Marcion's Gospel. They are found, too, in precisely the same order. Curious and intricate as is the mosaic work of the third Gospel, all the intricacies of its pattern are reproduced in the Gospel of Marcion. Where Luke makes an insertion in the groundstock of the narrative, there Marcion makes an insertion also; where Luke omits part of the narrative, Marcion does the same. Among the doc.u.ments peculiar to St. Luke are some of a very marked and individual character, which seem to have come from some private source of information. Such, for instance, would be the doc.u.ment viii. 1-3, which introduces names so entirely unknown to the rest of the evangelical tradition as Joanna and Susanna [Endnote 215:1]. A trace of the same, or an allied doc.u.ment, appears in chap. xxiv, where we have again the name Joanna, and afterwards that of the obscure disciple Cleopas. Again, the mention of Martha and Mary is common only to St. Luke and the fourth Gospel. Zacchaeus is peculiar to St. Luke. Yet, not only does each of the sections relating to these personages re-appear in Marcion's Gospel, but it re-appears precisely at the same place. A marked peculiarity in St. Luke's Gospel is the 'great intercalation' of discourses, ix. 51 to xviii. 14, evidently inserted without regard to chronological order. Yet this peculiarity, too, is faithfully reproduced in the Gospel of Marcion with the same disregard of chronology--the only change being the omission of about forty-one verses from a total of three hundred and eighty. When Luke has the other two Synoptics against him, as in the insertions Matt. xiv. 3-12, Mark vi. 17-29, and again Matt. xx. 20-28, Mark x. 35-45, and Matt. xxi. 20-22, Mark xi. 20-26, Marcion has them against him too. Where the third Synoptist breaks off from his companions (Luke ix. 17, 18) and leaves a gap, Marcion leaves one too. It has been noticed as characteristic of St. Luke that, where he has recorded a similar incident before, he omits what might seem to be a repet.i.tion of it: this characteristic is exactly reflected in Marcion, and that in regard to the very same incidents. Then, wherever the patristic statements give us the opportunity of comparing Marcion's text with the Synoptic--and this they do very largely indeed--the two are found to coincide with no greater variation than would be found between any two not directly related ma.n.u.scripts of the same text. It would be easy to multiply these points, and to carry them to any degree of detail; if more precise and particular evidence is needed it shall be forthcoming, but in the meantime I think it may be a.s.serted with confidence that two alternatives only are possible. Either Marcion's Gospel is an abridgment of our present St. Luke, or else our present St. Luke is an expansion by interpolation of Marcion's Gospel, or of a doc.u.ment co-extensive with it. No third hypothesis is tenable.

It remains, then, to enquire which of these two Gospels had the priority--Marcion's or Luke's; which is to stand first, both in order of time and of authenticity. This, too, is a point that there are ample data for determining.

(1.) And, first, let us consider what presumption is raised by any other part of Marcion's procedure. Is it likely that he would have cut down a doc.u.ment previously existing? or, have we reason for thinking that he would be scrupulous in keeping such a doc.u.ment intact?

The author of 'Supernatural Religion' himself makes use of this very argument; but I cannot help suspecting that his application of it has slipped in through an oversight or misapprehension. When first I came across the argument as employed by him, I was struck by it at once as important if only it was sound. But, upon examination, not only does it vanish into thin air as an argument in support of the thesis he is maintaining, but there remains in its place a positive argument that tells directly and strongly against that thesis. A pa.s.sage is quoted from Canon Westcott, in which it is stated that while Tertullian and Epiphanius accuse Marcion of altering the text of the books which he received, so far as his treatment of the Epistles is concerned this is not borne out by the facts, out of seven readings noticed by Epiphanius two only being unsupported by other authority. It is argued from this that Marcion 'equally preserved without alteration the text which he found in his ma.n.u.script of the Gospel.' 'We have no reason to believe the accusation of the Fathers in regard to the Gospel--which we cannot fully test-- better founded than that in regard to the Epistles, which we can test, and find unfounded' [Endnote 217:1]. No doubt the premisses of this argument are true, and so also is the conclusion, strictly as it stands. It is true that the Fathers accuse Marcion of tampering with the text in various places, both in the Epistles and in the Gospels where the allegation can be tested, and where it is found that the supposed perversion is simply a difference of reading, proved to be such by its presence in other authorities [Endnote 217:2]. But what is this to the point? It is not contended that Marcion altered to any considerable extent (though he did slightly even in the Epistles [Endnote 217:3]) the text _which he retained_, but that he mutilated and cut out whole pa.s.sages from that text. He can be proved to have done this in regard to the Epistles, and therefore it is fair to infer that he dealt in the same way with the Gospel. This is the amended form in which the argument ought to stand. It is certain that Marcion made a large excision before Rom. xi. 33, and another after Rom. viii.

11; he also cut out the 'mentiones Abrahae' from Gal. iii. 7, 14, 16-18 [Endnote 218:1]. I say nothing about his excision of the last two chapters of the Epistle to the Romans, because on that point a controversy might be raised. But the genuineness of these other pa.s.sages is undisputed and indisputable. It cannot be argued here that our text of the Epistle has suffered from later interpolation, and therefore, I repeat, it is so much the more probable that Marcion took from the text of the Gospel than that a later editor added to it.

(2.) In examining the internal evidence from the nature and structure of Marcion's Gospel, it has. .h.i.therto been the custom to lay most stress upon its dogmatic character. The controversy in Germany has turned chiefly on this. The critics have set themselves to show that the variations in Marcion's Gospel either could or could not be explained as omissions dictated by the exigencies of his dogmatic system. This was a task which suited well the subtlety and inventiveness of the German mind, and it has been handled with all the usual minuteness and elaboration. The result has been that not only have Volkmar and Hilgenfeld proved their point to their own satisfaction, but they also convinced Ritschl and partially Baur; and generally we may say that in Germany it seems to be agreed at the present time that the hypothesis of a mutilated Luke suits the dogmatic argument better than that of later Judaising interpolations.

I have no wish to disparage the results of these labours, which are carried out with the splendid thoroughness that one so much admires. Looking at the subject as impartially as I can, I am inclined to think that the case is made out in the main. The single instance of the perverted sense a.s.signed to [Greek: kataelthen] in iv. 31 must needs go a long way. Marcion evidently intends the word to be taken in a transcendental sense of the emanation and descent to earth of the Aeon Christus [Endnote 219:1]. It is impossible to think that this sense is more original than the plain historical use of the word by St. Luke, or to mistake the dogmatic motive in the heretical recension. There is also an evident reason for the omission of the first chapters which relate the human birth of Christ, which Marcion denied, and one somewhat less evident, though highly probable, for the omission of the account of the Baptist's ministry, John being regarded as the finisher of the Old Testament dispensation--the work of the Demiurge. This omission is not quite consistently carried out, as the pa.s.sage vii. 24-28 is retained--probably because ver. 28 itself seemed to contain a sufficient qualification.

The genealogy, as well as viii. 19, was naturally omitted for the same reason as the Nativity. The narrative of the Baptism Marcion could not admit, because it supplied the foundation for that very Ebionism to which his own system was diametrically opposed. The Temptation, x. 21 ('Lord ... of earth'), xxii. 18 ('the fruit of the vine'), xxii. 30 ('eat and drink at my table'), and the Ascension, may have been omitted because they contained matter that seemed too anthropomorphic or derogatory to the Divine Nature. On the other hand, xi. 29-32 (Jonah and Solomon), xi. 49-51 (prophets and apostles), xiii. 1 sqq. (the fig-tree, as the Jewish people?), xiii. 31-35 (the prophet in Jerusalem), the prodigal son (perhaps?), the wicked husbandmen (more probably), the triumphal entry (as the fulfilment of prophecy), the announcement of the Pa.s.sion (also as such), xxi.

21, 22 (the same), and the frequent allusions to the Old Testament Scriptures, seem to have been expunged as recognising or belonging to the kingdom of the Demiurge [Endnote 220:1]. Again, the changes in xiii. 28, xvi. 17, xx. 35, are fully in accordance with Marcion's system [Endnote 220:2]. The reading which Marcion had in xi. 22 is expressly stated to have been common to the Gnostic heretics generally. In some of these instances the dogmatic motive is gross and palpable, in most it seems to have been made out, but some (such as especially xiii. 1-9) are still doubtful, and the method of excision does not appear to have been carried out with complete consistency.

This, indeed, was only to be expected. We are constantly reminded that Tertullian, a man, with all his faults, of enormous literary and general power, did not possess the critical faculty, and no more was that faculty likely to be found in Marcion. It is an anachronism to suppose that he would sit down to his work with that regularity of method and with that subtle appreciation of the affinities of dogma which characterise the modern critic. The Septuagint translators betray an evident desire to soften down the anthropomorphism of the Hebrew; but how easy would it be to convict them of inconsistency, and to show that they left standing expressions as strong as any that they changed! If we judge Marcion's procedure by a standard suited to the age in which he lived, our wonder will be, not that he has shown so little, but so much, consistency and insight.

I think, therefore, that the dogmatic argument, so far as it goes, tells distinctly in favour of the 'mutilation' hypothesis. But at the same time it should not be pressed too far. I should be tempted to say that the almost exclusive and certainly excessive use of arguments derived from the history of dogma was the prime fallacy which lies at the root of the Tubingen criticism. How can it be thought that an Englishman, or a German, trained under and surrounded by the circ.u.mstances of the nineteenth century, should be able to thread all the mazes in the mind of a Gnostic or an Ebionite in the second? It is difficult enough for us to lay down a law for the actions of our own immediate neighbours and friends; how much more difficult to 'cast the sh.e.l.l of habit,' and place ourselves at the point of view of a civilisation and world of thought wholly different from our own, so as not only to explain its apparent aberrations, but to be able to say, positively, 'this must have been so,' 'that must have been otherwise.' Yet such is the strange and extravagant supposition that we are a.s.sumed to make. No doubt the argument from dogma has its place in criticism; but, on the whole, the literary argument is safer, more removed from the influence of subjective impressions, more capable of being cast into a really scientific form.

(3.) I pa.s.s over other literary arguments which hardly admit of this form of expression--such as the improbability that the Preface or Prologue was not part of the original Gospel, but a later accretion; or, again, from Marcion's treatment of the Synoptic matter in the third Gospel, both points which might be otherwise worth dilating upon. I pa.s.s over these, and come at once, without further delay, to the one point which seems to me really to decide the character of Marcion's Gospel and its relation to the Synoptic. The argument to which I allude is that from style and diction. True the English mind is apt to receive literary arguments of that kind with suspicion, and very justly so long as they rest upon a mere vague subjective _ipse dixit_; but here the question can be reduced to one of definite figures and of weighing and measuring. Bruder's Concordance is a dismal- looking volume--a mere index of words, and nothing more. But it has an eloquence of its own for the scientific investigator. It is strange how clearly many points stand out when this test comes to be applied, which before had been vague and obscure. This is especially the case in regard to the Synoptic Gospels; for, in the first place, the vocabulary of the writers is very limited and similar phrases have constant tendency to recur, and, in the second place, the critic has the immense advantage of being enabled to compare their treatment of the same common matter, so that he can readily ascertain what are the characteristic modifications introduced by each. Dr. Holtzmann, following Zeller and Lekebusch, has made a full and careful a.n.a.lysis of the style and vocabulary of St. Luke [Endnote 223:1], but of course without reference to the particular omissions of Marcion. Let us then, with the help of Bruder, apply Holtzmann's results to these omissions, with a view to see whether there is evidence that they are by the same hand as the rest of the Gospel.

It would be beyond the proportions of the present enquiry to exhibit all the evidence in full. I shall, therefore, not transcribe the whole of my notes, but merely give a few samples of the sort of evidence producible, along with a brief summary of the general results.

Taking first certain points by which the style of the third Evangelist is distinguished from that of the first in their treatment of common matter, Dr. Holtzmann observes, that where Matthew has [Greek: grammateus], Luke has in six places the word [Greek: nomikos], which is only found three times besides in the New Testament (once in St. Mark, and twice in the Epistle to t.i.tus). Of the places where it is used by St. Luke, one is the omitted pa.s.sage, vii. 30. In citations where Matthew has [Greek: to rhaethen] (14 times; not at all in Luke), Luke prefers the perfect form [Greek: to eiraemenon], so in ii. 24 (Acts twice); compare [Greek: eiraetai], iv. 21. Where Matthew has [Greek: arti]

(7 times), Luke has always [Greek: nun], never [Greek: arti]: [Greek: nun] is used in the following pa.s.sages, omitted by Marcion: i. 48, ii. 29, xix. 42, xxii. 18, 36. With Matthew the word [Greek: eleos] is masculine, with Luke neuter, so five times in ch. i. and in x. 37, which was retained by Marcion.

Among the peculiarities of style noted by Dr. Holtzmann which recur in the omitted portions the following are perhaps some of the more striking. Peculiar use of [Greek: to] covering a whole phrase, i. 62 [Greek: to ti an theloi kaleisthai], xix. 48, xxii.

37, and five other places. Peculiar attraction of the relative with preceding case of [Greek: pas], iii. 19, xix. 37, and elsewhere. The formula [Greek: elege (eipe) de parabolaen] (not found in the other Synoptics), xiii. 6, xx. 9, 19, and ten times besides. [Greek: Tou] pleonastic with the infinitive, once in Mark, six times in Matthew, twenty-five times in Luke, of which three times in chap. i, twice in chap. ii, iv. 10, xxi. 22.

Peculiar combinations with [Greek: kata, kata to ethos, eiothos, eithismenon], i. 9, ii. 27, 42, and twice. [Greek: Kath'