{82}
the Hebrews and our first Synoptic.(1) The Fathers, whose uncritical and, in such matters, prejudiced character led them to denounce every variation from their actual texts as a mere falsification, and without argument to a.s.sume the exclusive authenticity and originality of our Gospels, which towards the beginning of the third century had acquired wide circulation in the Church, vehemently stigmatized Marcion as an audacious adulterator of the Gospel, and affirmed his evangelical work to be merely a mutilated and falsified version of the "Gospel according to Luke."(2)
This view continued to prevail, almost without question or examination, till towards the end of the eighteenth century, when Biblical criticism began to exhibit the earnestness and activity which have ever since more or less characterized it. Semler first abandoned the prevalent tradition, and, after a.n.a.lyzing the evidence, he concluded that Marcion"s Gospel and Luke"s were different versions of an earlier work,(3) and that the so-called heretical Gospel was one of the numerous Gospels from amongst which the Canonical had been selected by the Church.(4) Griesbach about the same time also rejected the ruling opinion, and denied the close relationship usually a.s.serted to exist between the two Gospels.(5) Loffler(6) and Corrodi(7) strongly supported Sender"s
{83}
conclusion, that Marcion was no mere falsifier of Luke"s Gospel, and J.
E. C. Schmidt(1) went still further, and a.s.serted that Marcion"s Gospel was the genuine Luke, and our actual Gospel a later version of it with alterations and additions. Eichhorn,(2) after a fuller and more exhaustive examination, adopted similar views; he repudiated the statements of Tertullian regarding Marcion"s Gospel as utterly untrustworthy, a.s.serting that he had not that work itself before him at all, and he maintained that Marcion"s Gospel was the more original text and one of the sources of Luke. Bolten,(3) Bertholdt,(4) Schleiermacher,(5) and D. Schulz(6) likewise maintained that Marcion"s Gospel was by no means a mutilated version of Luke, but, on the contrary, an independent original Gospel A similar conclusion was arrived at by Gieseler,(7) but later, after Hahn"s criticism, he abandoned it, and adopted the opinion that Marcion"s Gospel was constructed out of Luke.(8)
On the other hand, the traditional view was maintained by Storr,(9) Arneth,(10) Hug,(11) Neander,(12) and Gratz,(13) although with little originality of investigation or argument; and
{84}
Paulus(1) sought to reconcile both views by admitting that Marcion had before him the Gospel of Luke, but denying that he mutilated it, arguing that Tertullian did not base his arguments on the actual Gospel of Marcion, but upon his work, the "Ant.i.theses." Hahn,(2) however, undertook a more exhaustive examination of the problem, attempting to reconstruct the text of Marcion"s Gospel(3) from the statements of Tertullian and Epiphanius, and he came to the conclusion that the work was a mere version, with omissions and alterations made by the Heresiarch in the interest of his system, of the third Canonical Gospel.
Olshausen(4) arrived at the same result, and with more or less of modification but no detailed argument, similar opinions were expressed by Credner,(5) De Wette,(6) and others.(7)
Not satisfied, however, with the method and results of
{85}
Hahn and Olshausen, whose examination, although more minute than any previously undertaken, still left much to be desired, Ritschl(l) made a further thorough investigation of the character of Mansion"s Gospel, and decided that it was in no case a mutilated version of Luke, but, on the contrary, an original and independent work, from which the Canonical Gospel was produced by the introduction of anti-Marcionitish pa.s.sages and readings. Baur(2) strongly enunciated similar views, and maintained that the whole error lay in the mistake of the Fathers, who had, with characteristic a.s.sumption, a.s.serted the earlier and shorter Gospel of Marcion to be an abbreviation of the later Canonical Gospel, instead of recognizing the latter as a mere extension of the former. Schwegler(3) had already, in a remarkable criticism of Marcion"s Gospel declared it to be an independent and original work, and in no sense a mutilated Luke, but, on the contrary, probably the source of that Gospel.
Kostlin,(4) while stating that the theory that Marcion"s Gospel was an earlier work and the basis of that ascribed to Luke was not very probable, affirmed that much of the Marcionitish text was more original than the Canonical, and that both Gospels must be considered versions of the same original, although Luke"s was the later and more corrupt.
These results, however, did not satisfy Volkmar,(5) who entered afresh upon a searching examination of the whole subject, and concluded that whilst, on the one hand, the
{86}
Gospel of Marcion was not a mere falsified and mutilated form of the Canonical Gospel, neither was it, on the other, an earlier work, and still less the original Gospel of Luke, but merely a Gnostic compilation from what, so far as we are concerned, may be called the oldest codex of Luke"s Gospel, which itself is nothing more than a similar Pauline edition of the original Gospel. Volkmar"s a.n.a.lysis, together with the arguments of Hilgenfeld, succeeded in convincing Ritschl,{1} who withdrew from his previous opinions, and, with those critics, merely maintained some of Marcion"s readings to be more original than those of Luke,{2} and generally defended Marcion from the aspersions of the Fathers, on the ground that his procedure with regard to Luke"s Gospel was precisely that of the Canonical Evangelists to each other;{3} Luke himself being clearly dependent both on Mark and Matthew.{4} Baur was likewise induced by Volkmar"s and Hilgenfeld"s arguments to modify his views;{5} but although for the first time he admitted that Marcion had altered the original of his Gospel frequently for dogmatic reasons, he still maintained that there was an older form of the Gospel without the earlier chapters, from which both Marcion and Luke directly constructed their Gospels;--both of them stood in the same line in regard to the original; both altered it; the one abbreviated, the other extended it.{6} Encouraged by this success, but not yet satisfied, Volkmar immediately undertook a further and more exhaustive examination of the text of Marcion, in the hope of finally settling the
{87}
discussion, and he again, but with greater emphasis, confirmed his previous results.(1) In the meantime Hilgenfeld(2) had seriously attacked the problem, and, like Hahn and Volkmar, had sought to reconstruct the text of Marcion, and, whilst admitting many more original and genuine readings in the text of Marcion, he had also decided that his Gospel was dependent on Luke, although he further concluded that the text of Luke had subsequently gone through another, though slight, manipulation before it a.s.sumed its present form. These conclusions he again fully confirmed after a renewed investigation of the subject.(3)
This brief sketch of the controversy which has so long occupied the attention of critics will at least show the uncertainty of the data upon which any decision is to be based. We have not attempted to give more than the barest outlines, but it will appear as we go on that most of those who decide against the general independence of Mansion"s Gospel, at the same time admit his partial originality and the superiority of some of his readings over those of the third Synoptic, and justify his treatment of Luke as a procedure common to the Evangelists, and warranted not only by their example but by the fact that no Gospels had in his time emerged from the position of private doc.u.ments in limited circulation.
Marcion"s Gospel not being any longer extant, it is important to establish clearly the nature of our knowledge regarding it, and the exact value of the data from which various attempts have been made to reconstruct the text. It is manifest that the evidential force of any deductions from a reconstructed text is almost wholly
{88}
dependent on the accuracy and sufficiency of the materials from which that text is derived.
The princ.i.p.al sources of our information regarding Marcion"s Gospel are the works of his most bitter denouncers Tertullian and Epiphanius, who, however, it must be borne in mind, wrote long after his time,--the work of Tertullian against Marcion having been composed about A.D. 208,(1) and that of Epiphanius a century later. We may likewise merely mention here the "_Dialogus de recta in deum fide_," commonly attributed to Origen, although it cannot have been composed earlier than the middle of the fourth century.(3) The first three sections are directed against the Marcionites, but only deal with a late form of their doctrines.(3) As Volkmar admits that the author clearly had only a general acquaintance with the "Ant.i.theses," and princ.i.p.al proof pa.s.sages of the Marcionites, but, although he certainly possessed the Epistles, had not the Gospel of Marcion itself,(4) we need not now more particularly consider it.
We are, therefore, dependent upon the "dogmatic and partly blind and unjust adversaries"(5) of Marcion for our only knowledge of the text they stigmatize; and when the character of polemical discussion in the early centuries of our era is considered, it is certain that great caution must be exercised, and not too much weight attached to the statements of opponents who regarded a heretic with abhorrence, and attacked him with an acrimony which carried them far beyond the limits of fairness and truth. Their religious controversy bristles with
{89}
misstatements, and is turbid with pious abuse. Tertullian was a master of this style, and the vehement vituperation with which he opens(1) and often interlards his work against "the impious and sacrilegious Marcion"
offers anything but a guarantee of fair and legitimate criticism.
Epiphanius was, if possible, still more pa.s.sionate and exaggerated in his representations against him.(2) Undue importance must not, therefore, be attributed to their statements.(3)
Not only should there be caution exercised in receiving the representations of one side in a religious discussion, but more particularly is such caution necessary in the case of Tertullian, whose trustworthiness is very far from being above suspicion, and whose inaccuracy is often apparent.(4) "Son christianisme," says Reuss, "est ardent, sincere, profondement ancre dans son ame. L"on voit qu"il en vit. Mais ce christianisme est apre, insolent, brutal, ferrailleur. II est sans onction et sans charite, quelquefois merae sans loyaute, des qu"il se trouve en face d"une opposition quelconque. C"est un soldat qui ne sait que se battre et qui oublie, tout en se battant, qu"il faut aussi respecter son ennemi. Dialecticien subtil et ruse, il excelle h, ridiculiser ses adversaires. L"injure, le sarcasme, un langage qui rappelle parfois en verite le genre de Rabelais, une effronterie d"affirmation dans les moments de faiblesse qui frise et atteint meme la mauvaise foi, voila ses armes. Je sais ce qu"il faut en cela mettre surde compte de l"epoque.... Si, au second siecle,
{90}
tous les partis, sauf quelques gnostiques, sont intolerants, Tertullian Test plus que tout le monde."(1)
The charge of mutilating and interpolating the Gospel of Luke is first brought against Marcion by Irenaeus,(2) and it is repeated with still greater vehemence and fulness by Tertullian,(3) and Epiphanius;(4) but the mere a.s.sertion by Fathers at the end of the second and in the third centuries, that a Gospel different from their own was one of the Canonical Gospels falsified and mutilated, can have no weight whatever in itself in the inquiry as to the real nature of that work.(5) Their arbitrary a.s.sumption of exclusive originality and priority for the four Gospels of the Church led them, without any attempt at argument, to treat every other evangelical work as an offshoot or falsification of these. The arguments by which Tertullian endeavours to establish that the Gospels of Luke and the other Canonical Evangelists were more ancient than that of Marcion(6) show that he had no idea of historical or critical evidence.(7) We are, however, driven back upon such actual data regarding the text and contents of Marcion"s Gospel as are given by the Fathers, as the only basis, in the absence of the Gospel itself, upon which any hypothesis as to its real character can be built. The question therefore is: Are these data sufficiently ample and trustworthy for a decisive judgment
{91}
from internal evidence? if indeed internal evidence in such a case can be decisive at all.
All that we know, then, of Marcion"s Gospel is simply what Tertullian and Epiphanius have stated with regard to it. It is, however, undeniable, and indeed is universally admitted, that their object in dealing with it at all was entirely dogmatic, and not in the least degree critical(1). The spirit of that age was indeed so essentially uncritical(2) that not even the canonical text could waken it into activity. Tertullian very clearly states what his object was in attacking Marcion"s Gospel. After a.s.serting that the whole aim of the Heresiarch was to prove a disagreement between the Old Testament and the New, and that for this purpose he had erased from the Gospel all that was contrary to his opinion, and retained all that he had considered favourable, Tertullian proceeds to examine the pa.s.sages retained,(3) with the view of proving that the Heretic has shown the same "blindness of heresy" both in that which he has erased and in that which he has retained, inasmuch as the pa.s.sages which Marcion has allowed to remain are as opposed to his system, as those which he has omitted. He conducts the controversy in a free and discursive manner, and whilst he appears to go through Marcion"s Gospel with some regularity, it will be apparent, as we proceed, that
{92}
mere conjecture has to play a large part in any attempt to reconstruct, from his data, the actual text of Marcion. Epiphanius explains his aim with equal clearness. He had made a number of extracts from the so-called Gospel of Marcion which seemed to him to refute the heretic, and after giving a detailed and numbered list of these pa.s.sages, which he calls [------], he takes them consecutively and to each adds his "Refutation." His intention is to show how wickedly and disgracefully Marcion has mutilated and falsified the Gospel, and how fruitlessly he has done so, inasmuch as he has stupidly, or by oversight, allowed much to remain in his Gospel by which he may be completely refuted.(1)
As it is impossible within our limits fully to ill.u.s.trate the procedure of the Fathers with regard to Marcion"s Gospel, and the nature and value of the materials they supply, we shall as far as possible quote the declarations of critics, and more especially of Volkmar and Hilgenfeld, who, in the true and enlightened spirit of criticism, impartially state the character of the data available for the understanding of the text.
As these two critics have, by their able and learned investigations, done more than any others to educe and render possible a decision of the problem, their own estimate of the materials upon which a judgment has to be formed is of double value.
With regard to Tertullian, Volkmar explains that his desire is totally to annihilate the most dangerous heretic of his time,--first (Books i.--iii.), to overthrow Marcion"s system in general as expounded in his "Ant.i.theses,"--and then (Book iv.) to show that even the Gospel of Marcion
{93}
only contains Catholic doctrine (he concludes, "_Christus Jesus in Evangelio tuo mens est_" c. 43); and therefore he examines the Gospel only so far as may serve to establish his own view and refute that of Marcion. "To show," Volkmar continues, "wherein this Gospel was falsified or mutilated, _i.e._, varied from his own, on the contrary, is in no way his design, for he perceives that Marcion could retort the reproach of interpolation, and in his time proof from internal grounds was hardly possible, so that only exceptionally, where a variation seems to him remarkable, does he specially mention it."(1) On the other hand Volkmar remarks that Tertullian"s Latin rendering of the text of Marcion which lay before him,--which, although certainly free and having chiefly the substance in view, is still in weightier pa.s.sages verbally accurate,--directly indicates important variations in that text. He goes on to argue that the silence of Tertullian may be weighty testimony for the fact that pa.s.sages which exist in Luke, but which he does not mention, were missing in Marcion"s Gospel, but he does so with considerable reservation. "But his silence _alone_," he says, "can only under certain conditions represent with diplomatic certainty an omission in Marcion. It is indeed probable that he would not lightly have pa.s.sed over a pa.s.sage in the Gospel of Marcion which might in any way be contradictory to its system, if one altogether similar had not preceded it, all the more as he frequently drags in by force such proof pa.s.sages from Marcion"s text, and often plainly with but a certain sophistry tries to refute his adversary out of the words of his own Gospel. But it remains always possible that in his eagerness he has
{94}
overlooked much; and besides, he believes that by his replies to particular pa.s.sages he has already sufficiently dealt with many others of a similar kind; indeed, avowedly, he will not willingly repeat himself. A certain conclusion, therefore, can only be deduced from the silence of Tertullian when special circ.u.mstances enter."(l) Volkmar, however, deduces with certainty from the statements of Tertullian that, whilst he wrote, he had not before him the Gospel of Luke, but intentionally laid it aside, and merely referred to the Marcionitish text, and further that, like all the Fathers of the third Century, he preferred the Gospel according to Matthew to the other Synoptics, and was well acquainted with it alone, so that in speaking of the Gospel generally he only has in his memory the sense, and the sense alone of Luke except in so far as it agrees or seems to agree with Matthew.(2)
With regard to the manner in which Tertullian performed the work he had undertaken, Hilgenfeld remarks: "As Tertullian, in going through the Marcionitish Gospel, has only the object of refutation in view, he very rarely states explicitly what is missing in it; and as, on the one hand, we can only venture to conclude from the silence of Tertullian that a pa.s.sage is wanting, when it is altogether inexplicable that he should not have made use of it for the purpose of refutation; so, on the other, we must also know how Marcion used and interpreted the Gospel, and should never lose sight of Tertullian"s refutation and defence."(3)
Hahn substantially expresses the same opinions. He
{95}
says: "Inasmuch as Tertullian goes through the Mar-cionitish text with the view of refuting the heretic out of that which he accepts, and not of critically pointing out all variations, falsifications, and pa.s.sages rejected, he frequently quotes the falsified or altered Marcionitish text without expressly mentioning the variations.(1)... Yet he cannot refrain--although this was not his object--occasionally, from noticing amongst other things any falsifications and omissions which, when he perhaps examined the text of Luke or had a lively recollection of it, struck and too grievously offended him."(2)
Volkmar"s opinion of the procedure of Epiphanius is still more unfavourable. Contrasting it with that of Tertullian, he characterizes it as "more superficial," and he considers that its only merit is its presenting an independent view of Marcion"s Gospel. Further than this, however, he says: "How far we can build upon his statements, whether as regards their completeness or their trustworthiness is not yet made altogether clear."(3) Volk-mar goes on to show how thoroughly Epiphanius intended to do his work, and yet that, although from what he himself leads us to expect, we might hope to find a complete statement of Marcion"s sins, the Father himself disappoints such an expectation by his own admission of incompleteness. He complains generally of his free and misleading method of quotation, such, for instance, as his alteration of the text without explanation; alteration of the same pa.s.sage on different occasions in more than one way; abbreviations, and omissions of parts of quotations; the sudden breaking off of pa.s.sages just commenced with
{96}
the indefinite [------], without any indication how much this may include.(1)
Volkmar, indeed, explains that Epiphanius is only thoroughly trustworthy where, and _so far as_, he wishes to state in his Scholia an omission or variation in Marcion"s text from his own Canonical Gospel, in which case he minutely registers the smallest point, but this is to be clearly distinguished from any charge of falsification brought against Marcion in his Refutations; for only while earlier drawing up his Scholia had he the Mar-cionitish Gospel before him and compared it with Luke; but in the case of the Refutations, on the contrary, which he wrote later, he did not at least again compare the Gospel of Luke. "It is, however, altogether different," continues Volkmar, "as regards the statements of Epiphanius concerning the part of the Gospel of Luke which is preserved in Marcion. Whilst he desires to be _strictly literal_ in the account of the _variations_, and also with two exceptions _is_ so, he so generally adheres _only to the purport_ of the pa.s.sages retained by Marcion, that altogether literal quotations are quite exceptional; _throughout_, however, where pa.s.sages of greater extent are referred to, these are not merely abbreviated, but also are quoted in _very free_ fashion, and nowhere can we reckon that the pa.s.sage in Marcion ran verbally as Epiphanius quotes it."(2) And to this we may add a remark made further on: "We cannot in general rely upon the accuracy of his statements in regard to that which Marcion had in common with Luke."(3) On the other hand Volkmar had previously