{113}
"Master, what shall I do to inherit life?" The omission of this word is supposed to have been made in order to make the pa.s.sage refer back to the G.o.d of the Old Testament, who promises merely long life on earth for keeping the commandments, whilst it is only in the Gospel that _eternal_ life is promised.(1) But in the corresponding pa.s.sage, xviii. 18,(2) the [------] is retained, and the question of the ruler is: "Good master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?" It has been argued that the introduction of the one thing still lacking (verse 22) after the keeping of the law and the injunction to sell all and give to the poor, changes the context, and justifies the use there of _eternal_ life as the reward for fulfilment of the higher commandment.(3) This reasoning, however, seems to us without grounds, and merely an ingenious attempt to account for an embarra.s.sing fact. In reality the very same context occurs in the other pa.s.sage, for, explaining the meaning of the word "neighbour,"
love to whom is enjoined as part of the way to obtain "life," Jesus inculcates the very same duty as in xviii. 22, of distributing to the poor (cf. x. 28--37). There seems, therefore, no reasonable motive for omitting the word from the one pa.s.sage whilst retaining it in the other.(4)
The pa.s.sage in Luke xi. 29--32, from the concluding words of verse 29, "but the sign of the prophet Jonah"
{114}
was not found in Marcion"s Gospel.(1) This omission is accounted for on the ground that such a respectful reference to the Old Testament was quite contrary to the system of Marcion.(2) Verses 49--51 of the same chapter, containing the saying of the "Wisdom of G.o.d," regarding the sending of the prophets that the Jews might slay them, and their blood be required of that generation, were also omitted.(3) The reason given for this omission is, that the words of the G.o.d of the Old Testament are too respectfully quoted and adopted to suit the views of the Heretic.(4) The words in verses 31--32, "And a greater than Solomon--than Jonah is here," might well have been allowed to remain in the text, for the superiority of Christ over the kings and prophets of the Old Testament which is a.s.serted directly suits and supports the system of Marcion. How much less, however, is the omission of these pa.s.sages to be explained upon any intelligent dogmatic principle, when we find in Marcion"s text the pa.s.sage in which Jesus justifies his conduct on the Sabbath by the example of David (vi. 3--4),(5) and that in which he a.s.sures the disciples of the greatness of their reward in heaven for the persecutions they were to endure:
{115}
"For behold your reward is great in heaven: for after the same manner did their fathers unto the prophets" (vi. 23).(1) As we have seen, Jesus is also allowed to quote an Old Testament prophecy (vii. 27) as fulfilled in the coming of John to prepare the way for himself. The questions which Jesus puts to the Scribes (xx. 41--44) regarding the Christ being David"s son, with the quotation from Ps. ex. 1, which Marcion is stated to have retained,(2) equally refute the supposition as to his motive for "omitting" xi. 29 ff. It has been argued with regard to the last pa.s.sage that Jesus merely uses the words of the Old Testament to meet his own theory,(3) but the dilemma in which Jesus places the Scribes is clearly not the real object of his question: its aim is a suggestion of the true character of the Christ. But amongst his other sins with regard to Luke"s Gospel, Marcion is also accused of interpolating it. And in what way? Why the Heresiarch, who is so averse to all references to the Old Testament that he is supposed to erase them, actually, amongst his few interpolations, adds a reference to the Old Testament. Between xvii. 14 and 15 (some critics say in verse 18) Marcion introduced the verse which is found in Luke iv. 27: "And many lepers were in Israel in the time of Elisha the prophet; and none of them was cleansed saving Naaman, the Syrian."(4) Now is it conceivable that a man who inserts, as it is said, references to the
{116}
Old Testament into his text so gratuitously, can have been so inconsistent as to have omitted these pa.s.sages because they contain similar references? We must say that the whole of the reasoning regarding these pa.s.sages omitted and retained, and the fine distinctions which are drawn between them, are anything but convincing. A general theory being adopted, nothing is more easy than to harmonise everything with it in this way; nothing is more easy than to a.s.sign some reason, good or bad, apparently in accordance with the foregone conclusion, why one pa.s.sage was retained, and why another was omitted, but in almost every case the reasoning might with equal propriety be reversed if the pa.s.sages were so, and the retention of the omitted pa.s.sage as well as the omission of that retained be quite as reasonably justified. The critics who have examined Marcion"s Gospel do not trouble themselves to inquire if the general connection of the text be improved by the absence of pa.s.sages supposed to be omitted, but simply try whether the supposed omissions are explainable on the ground of a dogmatic tendency in Marcion. In fact, the argument throughout is based upon foregone conclusions, and rarely upon any solid grounds whatever. The retention of such pa.s.sages as we have quoted above renders the omission of the other for dogmatic reasons quite purposeless.(1)
The pa.s.sage, xii. 6, 7, which argues that as the sparrows are not forgotten before G.o.d, and the hairs of our head are numbered, the disciples need not fear, was not found in Mansion"s Gospel.(2) The supposed omission
{117}
is explained on the ground that, according to Marcion"s system, G.o.d does not interest himself about such trifles as sparrows and the hairs of our head, but merely about souls.(1) That such reasoning is arbitrary, however, is apparent from the fact, that Marcion"s text had verse 24 of the same chapter:(2) "Consider the ravens," &c., &c., and "G.o.d feedeth them:" &c., and also v. 28,(3) "But if G.o.d so clothe the gra.s.s," &c., &c., "how much more will he clothe you, O! ye of little faith?" As no one ventures to argue that Marcion limited the providence of G.o.d to the ravens, and to the gra.s.s, but excluded the sparrows and the hair, no dogmatic reason can be a.s.signed for the omission of the one, whilst the other is retained.(4)
The first nine verses of ch. xiii. were likewise absent from Marcion"s text,(5) wherein Jesus declares that like the Galilaeans, whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices (v. 1, 2), and the eighteen upon whom the tower in Siloam fell (v. 4), "except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish," (v. 3 and 5), and then recites the parable of the unfruitful fig-tree (v. 6--9), which the master of the vineyard orders to be cut down (v. 7), but then spares for a season (v. 8, 9). The theory advanced to account for the a.s.serted "omission" of these
{118}
verses is that they could not be reconciled with Marcion"s system, according to which the good G.o.d never positively punishes the wicked, but merely leaves them to punish themselves in that, by not accepting the proffered grace, they have no part in the blessedness of Christians.(1) In his earlier work, Volkmar distinctly admitted that the whole of this pa.s.sage might be omitted without prejudice to the text of Luke, and that he could not state any ground, in connection with Marcion"s system, which rendered its omission either necessary or even conceivable. He then decided that the pa.s.sage was not contained at all in the version of Luke, which Marcion possessed, but was inserted at a later period in our Codices.(2) It was only on his second attempt to account for all omissions on dogmatic grounds that he argued as above.
In like manner Hilgenfeld also, with Rettig, considered that the pa.s.sage did not form part of the original Luke, so that here again Marcion"s text was free from a very abrupt pa.s.sage, not belonging to the more pure and primitive Gospel.(3) Baur recognizes not only that there is no dogmatic ground to explain the omission, but on the contrary, that the pa.s.sage fully agrees with the system of Marcion.(4) The total insufficiency of the argument to explain the omission, however, is apparent from the numerous pa.s.sages, which were allowed to remain in the text, which still more clearly outraged this part of Marcion"s system.
In the parable of the great supper, xiv. 15--24, the Lord is angry (v.
21), and declares that none of those who were
{119}
bidden should taste of his supper (v. 24). In xii. 5, Jesus warns his own disciples: "Fear him, which after he hath killed hath power to cast into h.e.l.l; yea, I say unto you: fear him." It is not permissible to argue that Marcion here understands the G.o.d of the Old Testament, the Creator, for he would thus represent his Christ as forewarning his own disciples to fear the power of that very Demiurge, whose reign he had come to terminate. Then again, in the parable of the wise steward, and the foolish servants, xii. 41 ff, he declares (v. 46), that the lord of the foolish servant "will cut him in sunder, and will appoint him his portion with the unbelievers," and (vs. 47, 48) that the servants shall be beaten with stripes, in proportion to their fault. In the parable of the n.o.bleman who goes to a far country and leaves the ten pounds with his servants, xix. 11 ff, the lord orders his enemies, who would not that he should reign over them, to be brought and slain before him (v.
27). Then, how very much there was in the Epistles of Paul, which he upheld, of a still more contradictory character. There is no dogmatic reason for such inconsistency.(1)
Marcion is accused of having falsified xiii. 28 in the following manner: "There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth, when ye shall see _all the just_ [------] in the kingdom of G.o.d, but you yourselves being thrust, _and bound_ [------] without." The subst.i.tution of "all the just" for "Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and all the prophets," is one of those variations which the supporter of the dogmatic theory greedily lays hold of, as bearing evident tokens of falsification in anti-judaistic interest.(2) But Marcion had in his Gospel
{120}
the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, xvi. 19--31, where the beggar is carried up into Abraham"s bosom.(1) And again, there was the account of the Transfiguration, ix. 28--36, in which Moses and Elias are seen in converse with Jesus.(2) The alteration of the one pa.s.sage for dogmatic reasons, whilst the parable of Lazarus is retained, would have been useless. Hilgenfeld, however, in agreement with Baur and Ritschl, has shown that Marcion"s reading [------] is evidently the contrast to the [------] of the preceding verse, and is superior to the canonical version, which was either altered after Matth. viii. 12, or with the anti-Marcionitish object of bringing the rejected Patriarchs into recognition.(3) The whole theory in this case again goes into thin air, and it is consequently weakened in every other.
Marcion"s Gospel did not contain the parable of the Prodigal Son, xv.
11--23.(4) The omission of this pa.s.sage,
{121}
which is universally recognized as in the purest Paulinian spirit, is accounted for partly on the ground that a portion of it (v. 22--32) was repugnant to the ascetic discipline of Marcion, to whom the killing of the fatted calf, the feasting, dancing and merry-making, must have been obnoxious, and, partly because, understanding under the similitude of the elder son the Jews, and of the younger son the Gentiles, the ident.i.ty of the G.o.d of the Jews and of the Christians would be recognized.(1) There is, however, the very greatest doubt admitted as to the interpretation which Marcion would be likely to put upon this parable, and certainly the representation which it gives of the Gentiles, not only as received completely on a par with the Jews, but as only having been lost for a time, and found again, is thoroughly in harmony with the teaching of Paul, who was held by Marcion to be the only true Apostle. It could not, therefore, have been repugnant to him.
Any points of disagreement could very easily have been explained away, as his critics are so fond of a.s.serting to be his practice in other pa.s.sages.(3) As to the supposed dislike of Marcion for the festive character of the parable, what object could he have had for omitting this, when he retained the parable of the
{122}
great supper, xiv. 15--24; the feast in the house of Levi, v. 27--32; the statements of Jesus eating with the Pharisees, vii. 36, xv. 2?
If Marcion had any objection to such matters, he had still greater to marriage, and yet Jesus justifies his disciples for eating and drinking by the similitude of a marriage feast, himself being the bridegroom: v. 34, 35, "Can ye make the sons of the bridechamber fast, while the bridegroom is with them? But the days will come when the bridegroom shall be taken away from them: then will they fast in those days." And he bids his disciples to be ready "like men that wait for their lord, when he shall return from the wedding," (xii. 36), and makes another parable on a wedding feast (xiv. 7--10). Leaving these pa.s.sages, it is impossible to see any dogmatic reason for excluding the others.(1)
The omission of a pa.s.sage in every way so suitable to Marcion"s system as the parable of the vineyard, xx. 9--16, is equally unintelligible upon the dogmatic theory.
Marcion is accused of falsifying xvi. 17, by altering [------],(2) making the pa.s.sage read: "But it is easier for heaven and earth to pa.s.s, than for one t.i.ttle of my words to fail." The words in the canonical Gospel, it is argued, were too repugnant to him to be allowed to remain unaltered, representing as they do the permanency of "the Law" to which he was opposed.(3) Upon this hypothesis, why did he leave
{123}
x. 25 f. (especially v. 26) and xviii. 18 ff, in which the keeping of the law is made essential to life? or xvii. 14, where Jesus bids the lepers conform to the requirements of the law? or xvi. 29, where the answer is given to the rich man pleading for his relatives: "They have Moses and the prophets, let them hear them"?(l) Hilgenfeld, however, with others, points out that it has been fully proved that the reading in Marcion"s text is not an arbitrary alteration at all, but the original expression, and that the version in Luke xvi. 17, on the contrary, is a variation of the original introduced to give the pa.s.sage an anti-Marcionitish tendency.(2) Here, again, it is clear that the supposed falsification is rather a falsification on the part of the editor of the third canonical Gospel.(3)
One more ill.u.s.tration may be given. Marcion is accused of omitting from xix. 9 the words: "forasmuch as he also is a son of Abraham," [------]
leaving merely:
"And Jesus said unto him: This day is salvation come to this house."4 Marcion"s system, it is said, could not tolerate the phrase which was erased.(5) It was one, however, eminently in the spirit of his Apostle Paul, and in his favourite Epistle to the Galatians he retained the very parallel
{124}
pa.s.sage iii. 7, "Ye know, therefore, that they which are of faith, these are the sons of Abraham."(1) How could he, therefore, find any difficulty in such words addressed to the repentant Zacchaeus, who had just believed in the mission of Christ? Moreover, why should he have erased the words here, and left them standing in xiii. 16, in regard to the woman healed of the "spirit of infirmity:" "and ought not this woman, _being a daughter of Abraham_, whom Satan hath bound, lo! these eighteen years, to be loosed from this bond on the Sabbath day?" No reasoning can explain away the substantial ident.i.ty of the two phrases.
Upon what principle of dogmatic interest, then, can Marcion have erased the one while he retained the other?(2)
We have taken a very few pa.s.sages for ill.u.s.tration, and treated them very briefly, but it may roundly be said that there is scarcely a single variation of Marcion"s text regarding which similar reasons are not given, and which do not present similar anomalies in consequence of what has elsewhere been retained.(3) As we have already stated, much that is really contradictory to Marcion"s system was found in his text, and much which either is not opposed or is favourable to it is omitted
{125}
and cannot be set down to arbitrary alteration. Moreover, it has never been shown that the supposed alterations were made by Marcion himself,(1) and till this is done the pith of the whole theory is wanting. There is no principle of intelligent motive which can account for the anomalies presented by Marcion"s Gospel, considered as a version of Luke mutilated and falsified in the interest of his system. The contrast of what is retained with that which is omitted reduces the hypothesis _ad absurdum_. Marcion was too able a man to do his work so imperfectly, if he had proposed to a.s.similate the Gospel of Luke to his own views. As it is avowedly necessary to explain away by false and forced interpretations requiring intricate definitions(2) very much of what was allowed to remain in his text, it is inconceivable that he should not have cut the Gordian knot with the same unscrupulous knife with which it is a.s.serted he excised the rest The ingenuity of most able and learned critics endeavouring to discover whether a motive in the interest of his system cannot be conceived for every alteration is, notwithstanding the evident scope afforded by the procedure, often foiled. Yet a more elastic hypothesis could not possibly have been advanced, and that the text obstinately refuses to fit into it, is even more than could have been expected. Marcion is like a prisoner at the bar without witnesses, who is treated from the first as guilty, attacked by able and pa.s.sionate adversaries who warp every possible circ.u.mstance against him, and yet who cannot be convicted. The foregone conclusion by which every supposed omission from his Gospel is explained, is, as we have shown, almost in
{126}
every case contradicted by pa.s.sages which have been allowed to remain, and this is rendered more significant by the fact, which is generally admitted, that Marcion"s text contains many readings which are manifestly superior to, and more original than, the form in which the pa.s.sages stand in our third Synoptic.(1) The only one of these to which we shall refer is the interesting variation from the pa.s.sage in Luke xi.
2, in the subst.i.tution of a prayer for the Holy Spirit for the "hallowed be thy name,"--[------]. The former is recognized to be the true original reading. This phrase is evidently referred to in v. 13. We are, therefore, indebted to Marcion for the correct version of "the Lord"s Prayer."(2)
There can be no doubt that Marcion"s Gospelbore great a.n.a.logy to our Luke, although it was very considerably shorter. It is, however, unnecessary to repeat that there were many Gospels in the second century which, although nearly related to those which have become canonical, were independent works, and the most favourable interpretation which can be given of the relationship between our three Synoptics leaves them very much in a line with Marcion"s work. His Gospel was chiefly distinguished
{127}
by a shorter text,(1) but besides large and important omissions there are a few additions,(2) and very many variations of text. The whole of the first two chapters of Luke, as well as all the third, was wanting, with the exception of part of the first verse of the third chapter, which, joined to iv. 31, formed the commencement of the Gospel. Of chapter iv. verses 1--13, 17--20 and 24 were likewise probably absent.
Some of the other more important omissions are xi. 29--32, 49--51, xiii.
1--9, 29--35, xv. 11--32, xvii. 5--10 (probably), xviii. 31--34, xix.
29--48, xx. 9--19, 37--38, xxi. 1--4, 18, 21--22> xxii. 16--18, 28--30, 35--38, 49--51, and there is great doubt about the concluding verses of xxiv. from 44 to the end, but it may have terminated with v. 49. It is not certain whether the order was the same as Luke,(3) but there are instances of decided variation, especially at the opening. As the peculiarities of the opening variations have had an important effect in inclining some critics towards the acceptance of the mutilation hypothesis,(4) it may be well for us briefly to examine the more important amongst them.
Marcion"s Gospel is generally said to have commenced thus: "In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, Jesus came down to Capernaum, a city of Galilee."(5)
{128}