MARCION. [Endnote 204:1]
Of the various chapters in the controversy with which we are
dealing, that which relates to the heretic Marcion is one of the
most interesting and important; important, because of the
comparative fixity of the data on which the question turns;
interesting, because of the peculiar nature of the problem to be
dealt with.
We may cut down the preliminary disquisitions as to the life and
doctrines of Marcion, which have, indeed, a certain bearing upon
the point at issue, but will be found given with sufficient
fulness in 'Supernatural Religion,' or in any of the authorities.
As in most other points relating to this period, there is some
confusion in the chronological data, but these range within a
comparatively limited area. The most important evidence is that of
Justin, who, writing as a contemporary (about 147 A.D.) [Endnote
205:1], says that at that time Marcion had 'in every nation of men
caused many to blaspheme' [Endnote 205:2]; and again speaks of the
wide spread of his doctrines ([Greek: ho polloi peisthentes,
k.t.l.]) [Endnote 205:3]. Taking these statements along with
others in Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Epiphanius, modern critics
seem to be agreed that Marcion settled in Rome and began to teach
his peculiar doctrines about 139-142 A.D. This is the date
assigned in 'Supernatural Religion' [Endnote 205:4]. Volkmar gives
138 A.D. [Endnote 205:5] Tischendorf, on the apologetic side,
would throw back the date as far as 130, but this depends upon the
date assigned by him to Justin's 'Apology,' and conflicts too much
with the other testimony.
It is also agreed that Marcion himself did actually use a certain
Gospel that is attributed to him. The exact contents and character
of that Gospel are not quite so clear, and its relation to the
Synoptic Gospels, and especially to our third Synoptic, which
bears the name of St. Luke, is the point that we have to
determine.
The Church writers, Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Epiphanius, without
exception, describe Marcion's Gospel as a mutilated or amputated
version of St. Luke. They contrast his treatment of the
evangelical tradition with that pursued by his fellow-Gnostic,
Valentinus [Endnote 205:6]. Valentinus sought to prove his tenets
by wresting the interpretation of the Apostolic writings; Marcion
went more boldly to work, and, having first selected his Gospel,
our third Synoptic, cut out the passages both in it and in ten
Epistles of St. Paul, admitted by him to be genuine, which seemed
to conflict with his own system. He is also said to have made
additions, but these were in any case exceedingly slight.
The statement of the Church writers should hardly, perhaps, be put
aside quite so summarily as is sometimes done. The life of
Irenaeus overlapped that of Marcion considerably, and there seems
to have been somewhat frequent communication between the Church at
Lyons, where he was first presbyter and afterwards bishop, and
that of Rome, where Marcion was settled; but Irenaeus [Endnote
206:1], as well as Tertullian and Epiphanius, alludes to the
mutilation of St. Luke's Gospel by Marcion as a notorious fact.
Too much stress, however, must not be laid upon this, because the
Catholic writers were certainly apt to assume that their own view
was the only one tenable.
The modern controversy is more important, though it has to go back
to the ancient for its data. The question in debate may be stated
thus. Did Marcion, as the Church writers say, really mutilate our
so-called St. Luke (the name is not of importance, but we may use
it as standing for our third Synoptic in its present shape)? Or,
is it not possible that the converse may be true, and that
Marcion's Gospel was the original and ours an interpolated
version? The importance of this may, indeed, be exaggerated,
because Marcion's Gospel is at any rate evidence for the existence
at his date in a collected form of so much of the third Gospel
(rather more than two-thirds) as he received. Still the issue is
not inconsiderable: for, upon the second hypothesis, if the editor
of our present Gospel made use of that which was in the possession
of Marcion, his date may be--though it does not follow that it
certainly would be--thrown into the middle of the second century,
or even beyond, if the other external evidence would permit;
whereas, upon the first hypothesis, the Synoptic Gospel would be
proved to be current as early as 140 A.D.; and there will be room
for considerations which may tend to date it much earlier. There
will still be the third possibility that Marcion's Gospel may be
altogether independent of our present Synoptic, and that it may
represent a parallel recension of the evangelical tradition. This
would leave the date of the canonical Gospel undetermined.
It is a fact worth noting that the controversy, at least in its
later and more important stages, had been fought, and, to all
appearance, fought out, within the Tübingen school itself.
Olshausen and Hahn, the two orthodox critics who were most
prominently engaged in it, after a time retired and left the field
entirely to the Tübingen writers.
The earlier critics who impugned the traditional view appear to
have leaned rather to the theory that Marcion's Gospel and the
canonical Luke are, more or less, independent offshoots from the
common ground-stock of the evangelical narratives. Ritschl, and
after him Baur and Schwegler, adopted more decidedly the view that
the canonical Gospel was constructed out of Marcion's by
interpolations directed against that heretic's teaching. The
reaction came from a quarter whence it would not quite naturally
have been expected--from one whose name we have already seen
associated with some daring theories, Volkmar, Professor of
Theology at Zürich. With him was allied the more sober-minded,
laborious investigator, Hilgenfeld. Both these writers returned to
the charge once and again. Volkmar's original paper was
supplemented by an elaborate volume in 1852, and Hilgenfeld, in
like manner, has reasserted his conclusions. Baur and Ritschl
professed themselves convinced by the arguments brought forward,
and retracted or greatly modified their views. So far as I am
aware, Schwegler is the only writer whose opinion still stands as
it was at first expressed; but for some years before his death,
which occurred in 1857, he had left the theological field.
Without at all prejudging the question on this score, it is
difficult not to feel a certain presumption in favour of a
conclusion which has been reached after such elaborate argument,
especially where, as here, there could be no suspicion of a merely
apologetic tendency on either side. Are we, then, to think that
our English critic has shown cause for reopening the discussion?
There is room to doubt whether he would quite maintain as much as
this himself. He has gone over the old ground, and reproduced the
old arguments; but these arguments already lay before Hilgenfeld
and Volkmar in their elaborate researches, and simply as a matter
of scale the chapter in 'Supernatural Religion' can hardly profess
to compete with these.
Supposing, for the moment, that the author has proved the points
that he sets himself to prove, to what will this amount? He will
have shown (a) that the patristic statement that Marcion mutilated
St. Luke is not to be accepted at once without further question;
(b) that we cannot depend with perfect accuracy upon the details
of his Gospel, as reconstructed from the statements of Tertullian
and Epiphanius; (c) that it is difficult to explain the whole of
Marcion's alleged omissions, on purely, dogmatic grounds--assuming
the consistency of his method.
With the exception of the first, I do not think these points are
proved to any important extent; but, even if they were, it would
still, I believe, be possible to show that Marcion's Gospel was
based upon our third Synoptic by arguments which hardly cross or
touch them at all.
But, before we proceed further, it is well that we should have
some idea as to the contents of the Marcionitic Gospel. And here
we are brought into collision with the second of the propositions
just enunciated. Are we able to reconstruct that Gospel from the
materials available to us with any tolerable or sufficient
approach to accuracy? I believe no one who has gone into the
question carefully would deny that we can. Here it is necessary to
define and guard our statements, so that they may cover exactly as
much ground as they ought and no more.
Our author quotes largely, especially from Volkmar, to show that
the evidence of Tertullian and Epiphanius is not to be relied
upon. When we refer to the chapter in which Volkmar deals with
this subject [Endnote 209:1]--a chapter which is an admirable
specimen of the closeness and thoroughness of German research--we
do indeed find some such expressions, but to quote them alone
would give an entirely erroneous impression of the conclusion to
which the writer comes. He does not say that the statements of
Tertullian and Epiphanius are untrustworthy, simply and
absolutely, but only that they need to be applied with caution
_on certain points_. Such a point is especially the silence
of these writers as proving, or being supposed to prove, the
absence of the corresponding passage in Marcion's Gospel. It is
argued, very justly, that such an inference is sometimes
precarious. Again, in quoting longer passages, Epiphanius is in
the habit of abridging or putting an &c. ([Greek: kai ta hexaes--
kai ta loipa]), instead of quoting the whole. This does not give a
complete guarantee for the intermediate portions, and leaves some
uncertainty as to where the passage ends. Generally it is true
that the object of the Fathers is not critical but dogmatic, to
refute Marcion's system out of his own Gospel. But when all
deductions have been made on these grounds, there are still ample
materials for reconstructing that Gospel with such an amount of
accuracy at least as can leave no doubt as to its character. The
wonder is that we are able to do so, and that the statements of
the Fathers should stand the test so well as they do. Epiphanius
especially often shows the most painstaking care and minuteness of
detail. He has reproduced the manuscript of Marcion's Gospel that
he had before him, even to its clerical errors [Endnote 210:1]. He
and Tertullian are writing quite independently, and yet they
confirm each other in a remarkable manner. 'If we compare the two
witnesses,' says Volkmar, 'we find the most satisfactory (sicher-
stellendste) coincidence in their statements, entirely independent
as they are, as well in regard to that which Marcion has in common
with Luke, as in regard to very many of the points in which his
text differed from the canonical. And this applies not only to
simple omissions which Epiphanius expressly notes and Tertullian
confirms by passing over what would otherwise have told against
Marcion, but also to the minor variations of the text which
Tertullian either happens to name or indicate by his translation,
while they are confirmed by the direct statement of [the other]
opponent who is equally bent on finding such differences' [Endnote
211:1]. Out of all the points on which they can be compared, there
is a real divergence only in two. Of these, one Volkmar attributes
to an oversight on the part of Epiphanius, and the other to a
clerical omission in his manuscript [Endnote 211:2]. When we
consider the cumbrousness of ancient MSS., the absence of
divisions in the text, and the consequent difficulty of making
exact references, this must needs be taken for a remarkable
result. And the very fact that we have two--or, including
Irenaeus, even three--independent authorities, makes the text of
Marcion's Gospel, so far as those authorities are available, or,
in other words, for the greater part of it, instead of being
uncertain among quite the most certain of all the achievements of
modern criticism [Endnote 211:3].
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 passage
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 Passion.
xix. 29-48: the Triumphal Entry, woes of Jerusalem, cleansing of
the Temple.
xx. 9-18, 37, 38: the wicked husbandmen; the God 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 documents 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
document 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 document,
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 repetition 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 manuscripts 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 asserted 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 document 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 document previously existing? or, have we reason for
thinking that he would be scrupulous in keeping such a document
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 passage 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 manuscript 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
passages 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 passages 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 hitherto 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 assigned 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 passage 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 Passion (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 Tübingen criticism. How can
it be thought that an Englishman, or a German, trained under and
surrounded by the circumstances 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 shell 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 assumed 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 pass 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 pass 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 analysis 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
Titus). Of the places where it is used by St. Luke, one is the
omitted passage, 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 passages, 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'
haemeran], once in the other Gospels, thirteen times in Luke and
Acts xix. 47; [Greek: kat' etos], ii. 41; [Greek: kata] with
peculiar genitive of place, iv. 14 (xxiii. 5) [Endnote 224:1].
Protasis introduced by [Greek: kai hote], ii. 21, 22, 42, [Greek:
kai hos], ii. 39, xv. 25, xix. 41. Uses of [Greek: egeneto],
especially with [Greek: en to] and infinitive, twice in Mark, in
Luke twenty-two times, i. 8, ii. 6, iii. 21, xxiv. 51; [Greek: en
to] with the infinitive, three times in St. Matthew, once in St.
Mark, thirty-seven times in St. Luke, including i. 8, 21, ii. 6,
27, 43, iii. 21. Adverbs: [Greek: exaes] and [Greek: kathexaes],
ten times in the third Gospel and the Acts alone in the New
Testament, i. 3; [Greek: achri], twenty times in the third Gospel
and Acts, only once in the other Gospels, i. 20, iv. 13; [Greek:
exaiphnaes], four times in the Gospel and Acts, once besides in
the New Testament, ii. 13; [Greek: parachraema], seventeen times
in the Gospel and Acts, twice in the rest of the New Testament, i.
64; [Greek: en meso], thirteen times in the Gospel and Acts, five
times in the other Synoptics, ii. 46, xxi. 21. Fondness for
optative in indirect constructions, i. 29, 62, iii. 15, xv. 26.
Peculiar combination of participles, ii. 36 ([Greek: probebaekuia
zaesasa]), iii. 23 ([Greek: archomenos on]), iv. 20 ([Greek:
ptuxas apodous]), very frequent. [Greek: Einai], with participle
for finite verb (forty-eight times in all), i. 7, 10, 20, 21, 22,
ii. 8, 26, 33, 51, iii. 23, iv. 16 ([Greek: aen tethrammenos],
omitted by Marcion), iv. 17, 20, xv. 24, 32, xviii. 34, xix. 47,
xx. 17, xxiv. 53. Construction of [Greek: pros] with accusative
after [Greek: eipein, lalein, apokrinesthai], frequent in Luke,
rare in the rest of the New Testament, i. 13, 18, 19, 28, 34, 55,
61, 73, ii. 15, 18, 34, 48, 49, iii. 12, 13, 14, iv. 4, xiii. 7,
34, xv. 22, xviii. 31, xix. 33, 39, xx. 9, 14, 19. This is thrown
into marked relief by the contrast with the other Synoptics; the
only two places where Matthew appears to have the construction are
both ambiguous, iii. 15 (doubtful reading, probably [Greek:
auto]), and xxvii. 14 ([Greek: apekrithae auto pros oude hen
rhaema]). No other evangelist speaks so much of [Greek: Pneuma
hagion], i. 15, 35, 41, 67, ii. 25, 66, iii. 16, 22, iv. 1 (found
also in Marcion's reading of xi. 2). Peculiar use of pronouns:
Luke has the combination [Greek: kai autos] twenty-eight times,
Matthew only twice (one false reading), Mark four or perhaps five
times, i. 17, 22, ii. 28, iii. 23, xv. 14; [Greek: kai autoi] Mark
has not at all, Matthew twice, Luke thirteen times, including ii.
50, xviii. 34, xxiv. 52.
We now come to the test supplied by the vocabulary. The following
are some of the words peculiar to St. Luke, or found in his
writings with marked and characteristic frequency, which occur in
those parts of our present Gospel that were wanting in Marcion's
recension: [Greek: anestaen, anastas] occur three times in St.
Matthew, twice in St. John, four times in the writings of St.
Paul, twenty-six times in the third Gospel and thirty-five times
in the Acts, and are found in i. 39, xv. 18, 20; [Greek:
antilegein] appears in ii. 34, five times in the rest of the
Gospel and the Acts, and only four times together in the rest of
the New Testament; [Greek: hapas] occurs twenty times in the
Gospel, sixteen times in the Acts, only ten times in the rest of
the New Testament, but in ii. 39, iii. 16, 21, iv. 6, xv. 13, xix.
37, 48, xxi. 4 (bis); three of these are, however, doubtful
readings. [Greek: aphesis ton amartion], ten times in the Gospel
and Acts, seven times in the rest of the New Testament, i. 77,
iii. 3. [Greek: dei], Dr. Holtzmann says, 'is found more often in
St. Luke than in all the other writers of the New Testament put
together.' This does not appear to be strictly true; it is,
however, found nineteen times in the Gospel and twenty-five times
in the Acts to twenty-four times in the three other Gospels; it
occurs in ii. 49, xiii. 33, xv. 32, xxii. 37. [Greek: dechesthai],
twenty-four times in the Gospel and Acts, twenty-six times in the
rest of the New Testament, six times in St. Matthew, three in St.
Mark, ii. 28, xxii. 17. [Greek: diatassein], nine times in the
Gospel and Acts, seven times in the rest of the New Testament
(Matthew once), iii. 13, xvii. 9, 10. [Greek: dierchesthai] occurs
thirty-two times in the Gospel and Acts, twice in each of the
other Synoptics, and eight times in the rest of the New Testament,
and is found in ii. 15, 35. [Greek: dioti], i. 13, ii. 7 (xxi. 28,
and Acts, not besides in the Gospels). [Greek: ean], xxii. 51
(once besides in the Gospel, eight times in the Acts, and three
times in the rest of the New Testament). [Greek: ethos], i. 9, ii.
42, eight times besides in St. Luke's writings and only twice in
the rest of the New Testament. [Greek: enantion], five times in
St. Luke's writings, once besides, i. 8. [Greek: enopion],
correcting the readings, twenty times in the Gospel, fourteen
times in the Acts, not at all in the other Synoptists, once in St.
John, four times in chap. i, iv. 7, xv. 18, 21 (this will be
noticed as a very remarkable instance of the extent to which the
diction of the third Evangelist impressed itself upon his
writings). [Greek: epibibazein], xix. 35 (and twice, only by St.
Luke). [Greek: epipiptein], i. 12, xv. 20 (eight times in the Acts
and three times in the rest of the New Testament). [Greek: ai
eraemoi], only in St. Luke, i. 80, and twice. [Greek: etos]
(fifteen times in the Gospel, eleven times in the Acts, three
times in the other Synoptics and three times in St. John), four
times in chap. ii, iii. 1, 23, xiii, 7, 8, xv. 29. [Greek:
thaumazein epi tini], Gospel and Acts five times (only besides in
Mark xii. 17), ii. 33. [Greek: ikanos] in the sense of 'much,'
'many,' seven times in the Gospel, eighteen times in the Acts, and
only three times besides in the New Testament, iii. 16, xx. 9
(compare xxii. 38). [Greek: kathoti] (like [Greek: kathexaes]
above), is only found in St. Luke's writings, i. 7, and five times
in the rest of the Gospel and the Acts. [Greek: latreuein], 'in
Luke, much oftener than in other parts of the New Testament,' i.
74, ii. 37, iv. 8, and five times in the Acts. [Greek: limos], six
times in the Gospel and Acts, six times in the rest of the New
Testament, xv. 14, 17. [Greek: maen] (month), i. 24, 26, 36, 56
(iv. 25), alone in the Gospels, in the Acts five times. [Greek:
oikos] for 'family,' i. 27, 33, 69, ii. 4, and three times besides
in the Gospel, nine times in the Acts. [Greek: plaethos]
(especially in the form [Greek: pan to plaethos]), twenty-five
times in St. Luke's writings, seven times in the rest of the New
Testament, 1. 19, ii. 13, xix. 37. [Greek: plaesai, plaesthaenai],
twenty-two times in St. Luke's writings, only three times besides
in the New Testament, i. 15, 23, 41, 57, 67, ii. 6, 21, 22, xxi.
22. [Greek: prosdokan], eleven times in the Gospel and Acts, five
times in the rest of the New Testament (Matthew twice and 2
Peter), i. 21, iii. 15. [Greek: skaptein], only in Luke three
times, xiii. 8. [Greek: speudein], except in 2 Peter iii. 12, only
in St. Luke's writings, ii. 16. [Greek: sullambanein], ten times
in the Gospel and Acts, five times in the rest of the New
Testament, i. 24, 31, 36, ii. 21. [Greek: sumballein], only in
Lucan writings, six times, ii. 19. [Greek: sunechein], nine times
in the Gospel and Acts, three times besides in the New Testament,
xix. 43. [Greek: sotaeria], in chap. i. three times, in the rest
of the Gospel and Acts seven times, not in the other Synoptic
Gospels. [Greek: hupostrephein], twenty-two times in the Gospel,
eleven times in the Acts, and only five times in the rest of the
New Testament (three of which are doubtful readings), i. 56, ii.
20, 39, 43, 45, iv. 1, (14), xxiv. 52. [Greek: hupsistos] occurs
nine times in the Gospel and Acts, four times in the rest of the
New Testament, i. 32, 35, 76, ii. 14, xix. 38. [Greek: hupsos] is
also found in i. 78, xxiv. 49. [Greek: charis] is found, among the
Synoptics, only in St. Luke, eight times in the Gospel, seventeen
times in the Acts, i. 30, ii. 40, 52, xvii. 9. [Greek: hosei]
occurs nineteen times in the Gospel and Acts (four doubtful
readings, of which two are probably false), seventeen times in the
rest of the New Testament (ten doubtful readings, of which in the
Synoptic Gospels three are probably false), i. 56, iii. 23.
It should be remembered that the above are only samples from the
whole body of evidence, which would take up a much larger space if
exhibited in full. The total result may be summarised thus.
Accepting the scheme of Marcion's Gospel given some pages back,
which is substantially that of 'Supernatural Religion,' Marcion
will have omitted a total of 309 verses. In those verses there are
found 111 distinct peculiarities of St. Luke's style, numbering in
all 185 separate instances; there are also found 138 words
peculiar to or specially characteristic of the third Evangelist,
with 224 instances. In other words, the verified peculiarities of
St. Luke's style and diction (and how marked many of these are
will have been seen from the examples above) are found in the
portions of the Gospel omitted by Marcion in a proportion
averaging considerably more than one to each verse! [Endnote
229:1] Coming to detail, we find that in the principal omission--
that of the first two chapters, containing 132 verses--there are
47 distinct peculiarities of style, with 105 instances; and 82
characteristic words, with 144 instances. In the 23 verses of
chap. iii. omitted by Marcion (for the genealogy need not be
reckoned), the instances are 18 and 14, making a total of 32. In
18 verses omitted from chap. iv. the instances are 13 and 8 = 21.
In another longer passage--the parable of the prodigal son--the
instances are 8 of the first class and 20 of the second. In 20
verses omitted from chap. xix. the instances are 11 and 6; and in
11 verses omitted from chap. xx, 9 and 8. Of all the isolated
fragments that Marcion had ejected from his Gospel, there are only
four--iv. 24, xi. 49-51, xx. 37, 38, xxii. 28-30, nine verses in
all--in which no peculiarities have been noticed. And yet even
here the traces of authorship are not wanting. It happens
strangely enough that in a list of parallel passages given by Dr.
Holtzmann to illustrate the affinities of thought between St. Luke
and St. Paul, two of these very passages--xi. 49 and xx. 38--
occur. I had intended to pursue the investigation through these
resemblances, but it seems superfluous to carry it further.
It is difficult to see what appeal can be made against evidence
such as this. A certain allowance should indeed be made for
possible errors of computation, and some of the points may have
been wrongly entered, though care has been taken to put down
nothing that was not verified by its preponderating presence in
the Lucan writings, and especially by its presence in that portion
of the Gospel which Marcion undoubtedly received. But as a rule
the method applies itself mechanically, and when every deduction
has been made, there will still remain a mass of evidence that it
does not seem too much to describe as overwhelming.
(4.) We may assume, then, that there is definite proof that the
Gospel used by Marcion presupposes our present St. Luke, in its
complete form, as it has been handed down to us. But when once
this assumption has been made, another set of considerations comes
in, which also carry with them an important inference. If
Marcion's Gospel was an extract from a manuscript containing our
present St. Luke, then not only is it certain that that Gospel was
already in existence, but there is further evidence to show that
it must have been in existence for some time. The argument in this
case is drawn from another branch of Biblical science to which we
have already had occasion to appeal--text-criticism. Marcion's
Gospel, it is known, presents certain readings which differ both
from the received and other texts. Some of these are thought by
Volkmar and Hilgenfeld to be more original and to have a better
right to stand in the text than those which are at present found
there. These critics, however, base their opinion for the most
part on internal grounds, and the readings defended by them are
not as a rule those which are supported by other manuscript
authority. It is to this second class rather that I refer as
bearing upon the age of the canonical Gospel. The most important
various readings of the existence of which we have proof in
Marcion's Gospel are as follows [Endnote 231:1]:--
v. 14. The received (and best) text is [Greek: eis marturion
autois]. Marcion, according to the express statement of Epiphanius
(312 B), read [Greek: hina ae morturion touto humin], which is
confirmed by Tertullian, who gives (_Marc._ iv. 8) 'Ut sit
vobis in testimonium.' The same or a similar reading is found in
D, [Greek: hina eis marturion ae humin touto], 'ut sit in
testimonium vobis hoc,' d; 'ut sit in testimonium (--monia, ff)
hoc vobis,' a (Codex Vercellensis), b (Codex Veronensis), c (Codex
Colbertinus), ff (Codex Corbeiensis), l (Codex Rhedigerianus), of
the Old Latin [Endnote 231:2].
v. 39 was _probably_ omitted by Marcion (this is inferred
from the silence of Tertullian by Hilgenfeld, p. 403, and Rönsch,
p. 634). The verse is also omitted in D, a, b, c, d, e, ff.
x. 22. Marcion's reading of this verse corresponded with that of
other Gnostics, but has no extant manuscript authority. We have
touched upon it elsewhere.
x. 25. [Greek: zoaen aionion], Marcion omitted [Greek: aionion]
(Tert. _Adv. Marc._ iv. 25); so also the Old Latin Codex g'2
(San Germanensis).
xi. 2. Marcion read [Greek: eltheto to hagion pneuma sou eph'
haemas] (or an equivalent; see Rönsch, p. 640) either for the
clause [Greek: hagiasthaeto to onoma sou] or for [Greek:
genaethaeto to thelaema sou], which is omitted in B, L, 1, Vulg.,
ff, Syr. Crt. There is a curious stray [Greek: eph' haemas] in D
which may conceivably be a trace of Marcion's reading.
xii. 14. Marcion (and probably Tertullian) read [Greek: kritaen]
(or [Greek: dikastaen]) only for [Greek: kritaen ae meristaen]; so
D, a ('ut videtur,' Tregelles), c, Syr. Crt.
xii. 38. Marcion had [Greek: tae hesperinae phulakae] for [Greek:
en tae deutera phulakae kai en tae tritae phulakae]. So b: D, c,
e, ff, i, Iren. 334, Syr. Crt., combine the two readings in
various ways.
xvi. 12. Marcion read [Greek: emon] for [Greek: humeteron]. So e
(Palatinus), i (Vindobonensis), l (Rhedigerianus). [Greek:
haemeteron] B. L, Origen.
xvii. 2. Marcion inserted the words [Greek: ouk egennaethae ae]
(Tert. iv. 35), 'ne nasceretur aut,' a, b, c, ff, i, l.
xviii. 19. Here again Marcion had a variation which is unsupported
by manuscript authority, but has to some extent a parallel in the
Clementine Homilies, Justin, &c.
xxi. 18. was omitted by Marcion (Epiph. 316 B), and is also
omitted in the Curetonian Syriac.
xxi. 27. Tertullian (iv. 39) gives the reading of Marcion as 'cum
plurima virtute' = [Greek: meta dunameos pollaes [kai doxaes]],
for [Greek: meta dun. k. dox. pollaes]; so D ([Greek: en dun.
pol.]), and approximately Vulg., a, c, e, f, ff, Syr. Crt., Syr.
Pst.
xxiii. 2. Marcion read [Greek: diastrephonta to ethnos kai
katalionta ton nomon kai tous prophaetas kai keleuonta phorous mae
dounai kai anastrephonta tas gunaikas kai ta tekna] (Epiph., 316
D), where [Greek: kataluonta ton nomon kai tous prophaetas] and
[Greek: anastrephonta tas gunaikas kai ta tekna] are additions to
the text, and [Greek: keleuonta phorous mae dounai] is a
variation. Of the two additions the first finds support in b, (c),
e, (ff), i, l; the second is inserted, with some variation, by c
and e in verse 5.
We may thus tabulate the relation of Marcion to these various
authorities. The brackets indicate that the agreement is only
approximate. Marcion agrees with--
D, d, v. 14, v. 39; xii. 14, (xii. 28), (xxi. 27).
a (Verc.), v. 14, v. 39, xii. 14 (apparently), xvii. 2, (xxi. 27).
b (Ver.), v. 14, v. 39. xii. 38, xvii. 2, (xxiii. 2).
c (Colb.), v. 14, v. 39, xii. 14, (xii. 38), xvii. 2, (xxi. 27),
(xxiii. 2), (xxiii. 2).
e (Pal.), v. 39, (xii. 38), xvi. 12, (xxi. 27), xxiii. 2, (xxiii.
2).
ff (Corb.), v. 14, v. 39, (xii. 38), xvii. 2, (xxi. 27), (xxiii.
2).
g'2 (Germ.), x. 25.
i (Vind.), (xii. 38), xvi. 12, xvii. 2, xxiii. 2.
l (Rhed.), v. 14, xvi. 12, xvii. 2, xiii. 2.
Syr. Crt., xii. 14, (xii. 38), xxi. 18, (xxi. 27).
It is worth noticing that xxii. 19 b, 20 (which is omitted in D,
a, b, c, ff, i, l) appears to have been found in Marcion's Gospel,
as in the Vulgate, c, and f (see Rönsch, p. 239). [Greek: apo tou
mnaemeiou] in xxiv. 9 is also found (Rönsch, p. 246), though
omitted by D, a, b, c, e, ff, l. There is no evidence to show
whether the additions in ix. 55, xxiii. 34, and xxii. 43, 44 were
present in Marcion's Gospel or not.
It will be observed that the readings given above have all what is
called a 'Western' character. The Curetonian Syriac is well known
to have Western affinities [Endnote 233:1]. Codd. a, b, c, and the
fragment of i which extends from Luke x. 6 to xxiii. 10, represent
the most primitive type of the Old Latin version; e, ff, and I
give a more mixed text. As we should expect, the revised Latin
text of Cod. f has no representation in Marcion's Gospel [Endnote
233:2].
These textual phenomena are highly interesting, but at the same
time an exact analysis of them is difficult. No simple hypothesis
will account for them. There can be no doubt that Marcion's
readings are, in the technical sense, false; they are a deviation
from the type of the pure and unadulterated text. At a certain
point, evidently of the remotest antiquity, in the history of
transcription, there was a branching off which gave rise to those
varieties of reading which, though they are not confined to
Western manuscripts, still, from their preponderance in these, are
called by the general name of 'Western.' But when we come to
consider the relations among those Western documents themselves,
no regular descent or filiation seems traceable. Certain broad
lines indeed we can mark off as between the earlier and later
forms of the Old Latin, though even here the outline is in places
confused; but at what point are we to insert that most remarkable
document of antiquity, the Curetonian Syriac? For instance, there
are cases (e.g. xvii. 2, xxiii. 2) where Marcion and the Old Latin
are opposed to the Old Syriac, where the latter has undoubtedly
preserved the correct reading. To judge from these alone, we
should naturally conclude that the Syriac was simply an older and
purer type than Marcion's Gospel and the Latin. But then again, on
the other hand, there are cases (such as the omission of xxi. 18)
where Marcion and the Syriac are combined, and the Old Latin
adheres to the truer type. This will tend to show that, even at
that early period, there must have been some comparison and
correction--a _con_vergence as well as a _di_vergence--
of manuscripts, and not always a mere reproduction of the
particular copy which the scribe had before him; at the same time
it will also show that Marcion's Gospel, so far from being an
original document, has behind it a deep historical background, and
stands at the head of a series of copies which have already passed
through a number of hands, and been exposed to a proportionate
amount of corruption. Our author is inclined to lay stress upon
the 'slow multiplication and dissemination of MSS.' Perhaps he may
somewhat exaggerate this, as antiquarians give us a surprising
account of the case and rapidity with which books were produced by
the aid of slave-labour [Endnote 235:1]. But even at Rome the
publishing trade upon this large scale was a novelty dating back
no further than to Atticus, the friend of Cicero, and we should
naturally expect that among the Christians--a poor and widely
scattered body, whose tenets would cut them off from the use of
such public machinery--the multiplication of MSS. would be slower
and more attended with difficulty. But the slower it was the more
certainly do such phenomena as these of Marcion's text throw back
the origin of the prototype from which that text was derived. In
the year 140 A.D. Marcion possesses a Gospel which is already in
an advanced stage of transcription--which has not only undergone
those changes which in some regions the text underwent before it
was translated into Latin, but has undergone other changes
besides. Some of its peculiarities are not those of the earliest
form of the Latin version, but of that version in what may be
called its second stage (e.g. xvi. 12). It has also affinities to
another version kindred to the Latin and occupying a similar place
to the Old Latin among the Churches of Syria. These circumstances
together point to an antiquity fully as great as any that an
orthodox critic would claim.
It should not be thought that because such indications are
indirect they are therefore any the less certain. There is perhaps
hardly a single uncanonical Christian document that is admittedly
and indubitably older than Marcion; so that direct evidence there
is naturally none. But neither is there any direct evidence for
the antiquity of man or of the earth. The geologist judges by the
fossils which he finds embedded in the strata as relics of an
extinct age; so here, in the Gospel of Marcion, do we find relics
which to the initiated eye carry with them their own story.
Nor, on the other hand, can it rightly be argued that because the
history of these remains is not wholly to be recovered, therefore
no inference from them is possible. In the earlier stages of a
science like palaeontology it might have been argued in just the
same way that the difficulties and confusion in the classification
invalidated the science along with its one main inference
altogether. Yet we can see that such an argument would have been
mistaken. There will probably be some points in every science
which will never be cleared up to the end of time. The affirmation
of the antiquity of Marcion's Gospel rests upon the simple axiom
that every event must have a cause, and that in order to produce
complicated phenomena the interaction of complicated causes is
necessary. Such an assumption involves time, and I think it is a
safe proposition to assert that, in order to bring the text of
Marcion's Gospel into the state in which we find it, there must
have been a long previous history, and the manuscripts through
which it was conveyed must have parted far from the parent stem.
The only way in which the inference drawn from the text of
Marcion's Gospel can be really met would be by showing that the
text of the Latin and Syriac translations is older and more
original than that which is universally adopted by text-critics. I
should hardly suppose that the author of 'Supernatural Religion'
will be prepared to maintain this. If he does, the subject can
then be argued. In the meantime, these two arguments, the literary
and the textual--for the others are but subsidiary--must, I think,
be held to prove the high antiquity of our present Gospel.