There are various slightly differing readings of this. Epiphanius gives the opening words, [------].1 Tertullian has: Anno quintodecimo princ.i.p.atus Tiberiani.... de-scendisse in civitatem Galilsaeae Capharnaum."(2) The [-------]s of Epiphanius has permitted the conjecture that there might have been an additional indication of the time, such as "Pontius Pilate being governor of Judaea,"(3) but this has not been generally adopted.(4) It is not necessary for us to discuss the sense in which the "came down" [------] was interpreted, since it is the word used in Luke. Marcion"s Gospel then proceeds with iv. 31: "and taught them on the sabbath days, (v. 32), and they were exceedingly astonished at his teaching, for his word was power." Then follow vs.
33--39 containing the healing of the man with an unclean spirit,(5) and of Simon"s wife"s mother, with the important omission of the expression "of Nazareth" (Naj.a.pipc)6 after "Jesus" in the cry of the possessed (v.
34). The vs. 16--307 immediately _follow_ iv. 39, with important
{129}
omissions and variations. In iv. 16, where Jesus comes to Nazareth, the words "where he had been brought up" are omitted, as is also the concluding phrase "and stood up to read."(1) Verses 17--19, in which Jesus reads from Isaiah, are altogether wanting.(2) Volkmar omits the whole of v. 20, Hilgenfeld only the first half down to the sitting down, retaining the rest; Hahn retains from "and he sat down" to the end.(3) Of v. 21 only: "He began to speak to them" is retained.(4) From v.
22 the concluding phrase: "And said: Is not this Joseph"s son" is omitted,(5) as are also the words "in thy country" from v. 23.(6) Verse 24, containing the proverb: "A prophet has no honour" is wholly omitted,(7) but the best critics differ regarding the two following verses 25--26; they are omitted according to Hahn, Ritschl and De Wette,(8) but retained by Volkmar and Hilgenfeld.(9) Verse 27,
{130}
referring to the leprosy of Naaman, which, it will be remembered, is interpolated at xvii. 14, is omitted here by most critics, but retained by Vojkmar.(1) Verses 28--30 come next,(2) and the four verses iv.
40--44, which then immediately follow, complete the chapter. This brief a.n.a.lysis, with the accompanying notes, ill.u.s.trates the uncertainty of the text, and, throughout the whole Gospel, conjecture similarly plays the larger part. We do not propose to criticise minutely the various conclusions arrived at as to the state of the text, but must emphatically remark that where there is so little certainty there cannot be any safe ground for delicate deductions regarding motives and sequences of matter. Nothing is more certain than that, if we criticise and compare the Synoptics on the same principle, we meet with the most startling results and the most irreconcileable difficulties.(3) The opening of Marcion"s Gospel is more free from abruptness and crudity than that of Luke.
It is not necessary to show that the first three chapters of Luke present very many differences from the other Synoptics. Mark omits them altogether, and they do not even agree with the account in Matthew. Some of the oldest Gospels of which we have any knowledge, such as the Gospel according to the Hebrews, are said not to have had the narrative of the first two chapters at all,(4) and there is much more than doubt as to their originality. The mere omission of the history of
{131}
the infancy, &c., from Mark, however, renders it unnecessary to show that the absence of these chapters from Marcion"s Gospel has the strongest support and justification. Now Luke"s account of the early events and geography of the Gospel history is briefly as follows: Nazareth is the permanent dwelling-place of Joseph and Mary,(1) but on account of the census they travel to Bethlehem, where Jesus is born;(2) and after visiting Jerusalem to present him at the Temple,(3) they return "to their own city Nazareth."(4) After the baptism and temptation Jesus comes to Nazareth "where he had been brought up,"(5) and in the course of his address to the people he says: "Ye will surely say unto me this proverb: Physician heal thyself: whatsoever we have heard done in Capernaum do also here in thy country."(6) No mention, however, has before this been made of Capernaum, and no account has been given of any works done there; but, on the contrary, after escaping from the angry mob at Nazareth, Jesus goes for the first time to Capernaum, which, on being thus first mentioned, is particularized as "a city of Galilee,"(7) where he heals a man who had an unclean spirit, in the synagogue, who addresses him as "Jesus of Nazareth;"(8) and the fame of him goes throughout the country.(9) He cures Simon"s wife"s mother of a fever(10) and when the sun is set they bring the sick and he heals them.(11)
The account in Matthew contradicts this in many points, some of which had better be indicated here. Jesus is born in Bethlehem, which is the ordinary
{132}
dwelling-place of the family;(1) his parents fly thence with him into Egypt,(2) and on their return, they dwell "in a city called Nazareth; that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets: He shall be called a Nazarene."(3) After John"s imprisonment, Jesus leaves Nazareth, and goes to dwell in Capernaum.(4) From that time he begins to preach.(5) Here then, he commences his public career in Capernaum.
In Mark, Jesus comes from Nazareth to be baptized,(6) and after the imprisonment of John, he comes into Galilee preaching.(7) In Capernaum, he heals the man of the unclean spirit, and Simon"s wife"s mother,(8) and then retires to a solitary place,(9) returns after some days to Capernaum(10) without going to Nazareth at all, and it is only at a later period that he comes to his own country, and quotes the proverb regarding a prophet.(11)
It is evident from this comparison, that there is very considerable difference between the three Synoptics, regarding the outset of the career of Jesus, and that there must have been decided elasticity in the tradition, and variety in the early written accounts of this part of the Gospel narrative. Luke alone commits the error of making Jesus appear in the synagogue at Nazareth, and refer to works wrought at Capernaum, before any mention had been made of his having preached or worked wonders there to justify the allusions
3 ii. 33. We need not pause here to point out that there is no such prophecy known in the Old Testament. The reference may very probably bo a singularly mistaken application of the word in Isaiah xi. 1, the Hebrew word for branch being [----] Nazer.
{133}
and the consequent agitation. It is obvious that there has been confusion in the arrangement of the third Synoptic and a transposition of the episodes, clearly pointing to a combination of pa.s.sages from other sources.(1) Now Marcion"s Gospel did not contain these anomalies.
It represented Jesus as first appearing in Capernaum, teaching in the synagogue, and performing mighty works there, and _then_ going to Nazareth, and addressing the people with the natural reference to the previous events at Capernaum, and in this it is not only more consecutive, but also adheres more closely to the other two Synoptics.
That Luke happens to be the only one of our canonical Gospels, which has the words with which Marcion"s Gospel commences, is no proof that these words were original in that work, and not found in several of the writings which existed before the third Synoptic was compiled. Indeed, the close relationship between the first three Gospels is standing testimony to the fact that one Gospel was built upon the basis of others previously existing. This which has been called "the chief prop of the mutilation hypothesis,"(2) has really no solid ground to stand on beyond the accident that only one of three Gospels survives out of many which may have had the phrase. The fact that Marcion"s Gospel really had the words of Luke, moreover, is mere conjecture, inasmuch as Epiphanius, who alone gives the Greek, shows a distinct variation of reading. He has: [------]
1 Cf. Luke iv. 23; Matt. viii. 54; Mark vi. 1--6. We do not go into the question as to the sufficiency of the motives ascribed for the agitation at Nazareth, or the contradiction between the facts narrated as to the attempt to kill Jesus, and the statement of their wonder at his gracious words, v.
22, &o. There is no evidence where the various discrepancies arose, and no certain conclusions can be based upon such arguments.
{134}
[------].(1) Luke reads: [------]. We do not of course lay much stress upon this, but the fact that there is a variation should be noticed.
Critics quietly a.s.sume, because there is a difference, that Epiphanius has abbreviated, but that is by no means sure. In any case, instances could be multiplied to show that if one of our Synoptic Gospels were lost, one of the survivors would in this manner have credit for pa.s.sages which it had in reality either derived from the lost Gospel, or with it drawn from a common original source.
Now starting from the undeniable fact that the Synoptic Gospels are in no case purely original independent works, but are based upon older writings, or upon each other, each Gospel remodelling and adding to already existing materials, as the author of the third Gospel, indeed, very frankly and distinctly indicates,(2) it seems a bold thing to affirm that Marcion"s Gospel must necessarily have been derived from the latter. Ewald has made a minute a.n.a.lysis of the Synoptics a.s.signing the materials of each to what he considers their original source. We do not of course attach any very specific importance to such results, for it is clear that they must to a great extent be arbitrary and incapable of proof, but being effected without any reference to the question before us, it may be interesting to compare Ewald"s conclusions regarding the parallel part of Luke, with the first chapter of Marcion"s Gospel. Ewald details the materials from which our Synoptic Gospels
2 Luke i. 1--4. He professes to write in order the things in which Theophilus had already been instructed, not to tell something new, but merely that he might know the certainty thereof.
{135}
were derived, and the order of their composition as follows, each Synoptic of course making use of the earlier materials: I. the oldest Gospel. II. the collection of Discourses (Spruchsammlung). III. Mark.
IV. the Book of earlier History. V. our present Matthew. VI. the sixth recognizable book. VII. the seventh book. VIII. the eighth book; and IX.
Luke.(1) Now the only part of our third canonical Gospel corresponding with any part of the first chapter of Marcion"s Gospel which Ewald ascribes to the author of our actual Luke is the opening date.(2) The pa.s.sage to which the few opening words are joined, and which const.i.tute the commencement of Marcion"s Gospel, Luke iv. 31--39, is a section commencing with verse 31, and extending to the end of the chapter, thereby including verses 40--44, which Ewald a.s.signs to Mark.(3) Verses 16--24, which immediately follow, also form a complete and isolated pa.s.sage a.s.signed by Ewald, to the "sixth recognizable book."(4) Verses 25--27, also are the whole
2 The verses iv. 14--15, which. Volkmar wished to include, but which all other critics reject (see p. 128, note 7), from Marcion"s text, Ewald likewise identifies as an isolated couple of verses by the author of our Luke inserted between episodes derived from other written sources. Cf.
Ewald, 1. c.
{136}
of another isolated section attributed by Ewald, to the "Book of earlier history," whilst 28--30, in like manner form another complete and isolated episode, a.s.signed by him to the "eighth recognizable book."(1) According to Ewald, therefore, Luke"s Gospel at this place is a mere patchwork of older writings, and if this be in any degree accepted, as in the abstract, indeed, it is by the great ma.s.s of critics, then the Gospel of Marcion might be an arrangement different from Luke of materials not his, but previously existing, and of which, therefore, there is no warrant to limit the use and reproduction to the canonical Gospel.
The course pursued by critics, with regard to Marcion"s Gospel, is necessarily very unsatisfactory. They commence with a definite hypothesis, and try whether all the peculiarities of the text may not be more or less well explained by it. On the other hand, the attempt to settle the question by a comparison of the reconstructed text with Luke"s is equally inconclusive. The determination of priority of composition from internal evidence, where there are no chronological references, must as a general rule be arbitrary, and can rarely be accepted as final. Internal evidence would, indeed, decidedly favour the priority of Marcion"s Gospel. The great uncertainty of the whole system, even when applied under the most favourable circ.u.mstances, is well ill.u.s.trated by the contradictory results at which critics have arrived as to the order of production and dependence on each other of our three Synoptics. Without going into details, we may say that critics who are all agreed upon the mutual dependence of those Gospels have variously arranged them in the following order: I. Matthew--
{137}
Mark--Luke.(1) II. Matthew--Luke--Mark.(3) III. Mark--Matthew--Luke.(3) IV. Mark--Luke--Matthew.(4) V. Luke--Matthew--Mark.(5) VI. All three out of common written sources.(6) Were we to state the various theories still more in detail, we might largely increase the variety of conclusions. These, however, suffice to show the uncertainty of results derived from internal evidence. It is always a.s.sumed that Marcion altered a Gospel to suit his own particular system, but as one of his most orthodox critics, while a.s.serting that Luke"s narrative lay at the basis of his Gospel, admits: "it is not equally clear that all the changes were due to Marcion himself;"(7) and, although he considers that "some of the omissions can be explained by his peculiar doctrines,"
he continues: "others are unlike arbitrary corrections, and must be considered as various readings of the greatest interest, dating as they do from a time anterior to all
1 Of course we only pretend to indicate a few of the critics who adopt each order. So Bengel, Bolton, Ebrard, Grotius, Hengstenberg, Hug, Hilgenfeld, Holtzmann, Mill, Seiler, Townson, Wetstein.
2 So Ammon, Baur, Bleek, Delitzsch, Fritzsche, Gfrorer, Griesbach, Kern, Eostlin, Neudecker, Saunier, Schwarz, Schwegler, Sieffert, Stroth, Theilo, Owon, Paulus, De Wette.
3 So Credner, Ewald, Hitzig, Lachmann, (?) Xteuss, Bitschl, Meyer, Storr, Thiersch.
4 B. Bauer, Hitzig (?) Schnockonburger, Volkmar, Weisse, Wilke.
5 Busching, Eyanson.
6 Bortholdt, Le Clerc, Corrodi, Eichhorn, Gratz, Hanlein, Koppe, Kuinoel, Leasing, Marsh, Michaelis, Niemeyer, Semler, Schleiermacher, Schmidt, Weber. This view was partly shared by many of those mentioned under other orders.
{138}
other authorities in our possession."(1) Now, undoubtedly, the more developed forms of the Gospel narrative were the result of additions, materially influenced by dogmatic and other reasons, made to earlier and more fragmentary works, but it is an argument contrary to general critical experience to affirm that a Gospel, the distinguishing characteristic of which is greater brevity, was produced by omissions in the interest of a system from a longer work.
In the earlier editions of this work, we contended that the theory that Marcion"s Gospel was a mutilated form of our third Synoptic had not been established, and that more probably it was an earlier work, from which our Gospel might have been elaborated. We leave the statement of the case, so far, nearly in its former shape, in order that the true nature of the problem and the varying results and gradual development of critical opinion may be better understood. Since the sixth edition of this work was completed, however, a very able examination of Marcion"s Gospel has been made by Dr. Sanday,(2) which has convinced us that our earlier hypothesis is untenable, that the portions of our third Synoptic excluded from Marcion"s Gospel were really written by the same pen which composed the ma.s.s of the work and, consequently, that our third Synoptic existed in his time, and was substantially in the hands of Marcion. This conviction is mainly the result of the linguistic a.n.a.lysis, sufficiently indicated by Dr. Sanday and, since, exhaustively carried out for ourselves. We still consider the argument based upon the mere dogmatic views of Marcion, which has. .h.i.therto been almost
{139}
exclusively relied on, quite inconclusive by itself, but the linguistic test, applied practically for the first time in this controversy by Dr.
Sanday, must, we think, prove irresistible to all who are familiar with the comparatively limited vocabulary of New Testament writers.
Throughout the omitted sections, peculiarities of language and expression abound which clearly distinguish the general composer of the third Gospel, and it is, consequently, not possible reasonably to maintain that these sections are additions subsequently made by a different hand, which seems to be the only legitimate course open to those who would deny that Marcion"s Gospel originally contained them.
Here, then, we find evidence of the existence of our third Synoptic about the year 140, and it may of course be inferred that it must have been composed at least some time before that date. It is important, however, to estimate aright the facts actually before us and the deductions which may be drawn from them. The testimony of Marcion does not throw any light upon the authorship or origin of the Gospel of which he made use. Its superscription was simply: "The Gospel," or, "The Gospel of the Lord" [------],(1) and no author"s name was attached to it. The Heresiarch did not pretend to have written it himself, nor did he ascribe it to any other person. Tertullian, in fact, reproaches him with its anonymity. "And here
{110}
already I might make a stand," he says at the very opening of his attack on Marcion"s Gospel, "contending that a work should not be recognized which does not hold its front erect... which does not give a pledge of its trustworthiness by the fulness of its t.i.tle, and the due declaration of its author."(1) Not only did Marcion himself not in any way connect the name of Luke with his Gospel, but his followers repudiated the idea that Luke was its author.(2) In establishing the substantial ident.i.ty of Marcion"s Gospel and our third Synoptic, therefore, no advance is made towards establishing the authorship of Luke. The Gospel remains anonymous still. On the other hand we ascertain the important fact that, so far from its having any authoritative or infallible character at that time, Marcion regarded our Synoptic as a work perverted by Jewish influences, and requiring to be freely expurgated in the interests of truth.(3) Amended by very considerable omissions and alterations, Marcion certainly held it in high respect as a record of the teaching of Jesus, but beyond this circ.u.mstance, and the mere fact of its existence in his day, we learn nothing from the evidence of Marcion. It can scarcely be maintained that this does much to authenticate the third Synoptic as a record of miracles and a witness for the reality of Divine Revelation.