[330:2] _Ib_. iii. 14. 2.
[331:1] Cf. _Adv. Haer._ iv. 13. 1.
[332:1] The varieties of reading in this verse are exhibited in full by Dr. Westcott, _On the Canon_, p. 120, notes 4 and 5.
[336:1] Matt. v. 28 is omitted as too ambiguous and confusing, though it is especially important for the point in question as showing that Tertullian himself had a variety of MSS. before him.
[336:2] St. Matthew"s Gospel is wanting in this MS. to xxv. 6; two leaves are also lost, from John vi. 50 to viii. 52.
[346:1] _Strom_. ii. 20.
[347:1] In a volume ent.i.tled _The Authorship and Historical Character of the Fourth Gospel_, Macmillan, 1872. I may say with reference to this book--a "firstling" of theological study-- that I am inclined now to think that I exaggerated somewhat the importance of minute details as an evidence of the work of an eye-witness. The whole of the arguments, however, summarised on pp. 287-293 seem to me to be still perfectly valid and sound, and the greater part of them--notably that which relates to the Messianic expectations--is quite untouched by "Supernatural Religion."
[348:1] It is instructive to compare the canons elaborately drawn up by Mr. M"Clellan (_N.T._ i. 375-389) with those tacitly a.s.sumed in "Supernatural Religion." The inference in the one case seems to be "possible, therefore true," in the other, "not probable, or not confirmed, therefore false." Surely neither of these tallies with experience.
[352:1] This, perhaps, is one that is apt to be overlooked. In order to be quite sure that the process of a.n.a.lysis is complete it must be supplemented and verified by the reversed process of synthesis. If a compound has been resolved into its elements, we cannot be sure that it has been resolved into _all_ its elements until the original compound has been produced by their recombination. Where this second reverse process fails, the inference is that some unknown element which was originally present has escaped in the a.n.a.lysis. The a.n.a.lysis may be true as far as it goes, but it is incomplete. The causes are "verae causae," but they are not all the causes in operation. So it seems to be with the a.n.a.lysis of the vital organism. We may be said to know entirely what air and water are because the chemist can produce them, but we only know very imperfectly the nature of life and will and conscience, because when the physiological a.n.a.lysis has been carried as far as it will go there still remains a large unknown element. Within this element may very well reside those distinctive properties which make man (as the moralist is _obliged_ to a.s.sume that he is) a responsible and religious being. The hypotheses which lie at the root of morals and religion are derived from another source than physiology, but physiology does not exclude them, and will not do so until it gives a far more verifiably complete account of human nature than it does at present.
[354:1] Mr. Browning has expressed this with his usual incisiveness and penetration:--
"I hear you recommend, I might at least Eliminate, decra.s.sify my faith ...
Still, when you bid me purify the same, To such a process I discern no end, Clearing off one excrescence to see two; There"s ever a next in size, now grown as big, That meets the knife: I cut and cut again!
First cut the liquefaction, what comes last But Fichte"s clever cut at G.o.d himself?"
But also, on the other hand:--
"Where"s The gain? how can we guard our unbelief?
Just when we are safest, there"s a sunset-touch, A fancy from a flower-bell, some one"s death, A chorus ending from Euripides,-- And that"s enough for fifty hopes and fears, As old and new at once as Nature"s self, To rap and knock and enter in our soul ...
All we have gained then by our unbelief Is a life of doubt diversified by faith, For one of faith diversified by doubt: We called the chess-board white,--we call it black."
_Bishop Blongram"s Apology_.
[359:1] As to the defects of the present edition, see Tischendorf, Prolegomena to _Vetus Testamentum Graece juxta LXX Interpretes_, p. liii: "Eae vero (collationes) quemadmodum in editis habentur non modo universae graviter differunt inter se fide atque accuratione, sed ad ipsos princ.i.p.ales testes tam negligenter tamque male factae sunt ut etiam atque etiam dolendum sit tantos numos rara liberalitate per Angliam suppeditatos criticae sacrae parum profuisse." Similarly Credner, in regard to the use of the Codex Alexandrinus, _Beitrage_, ii. 16: "Wahrhaft unbegreiflich und unverzeihlich ist es, da.s.s die Herausgeber der kostbaren Kritischen Ausgabe der LXX, welcher zu Oxford vor wenigen Jahren vollendet und von Holmes und Parsons besorgt worden ist, statt cine sorgfaltige Vergleichung des in London aufbewahrten Cod. Alex. zu veranstalten, sich lediglich auf die Ausgabe von Grabe beschrankt haben, dessen Kritik vielfach nicht einmal verstanden worden ist."
APPENDIX.
SUPPLEMENTAL NOTE ON THE RECONSTRUCTION OF MARCION"S GOSPEL.
If the reader should happen to possess the work of Ronsch, Das Neue Testament Tertullian"s, to which allusion has frequently been made above, and will simply glance over the pages, noting the references, from Luke iv. 16 to the end of the Gospel, I do not think he will need any other proof of the sufficiency of the grounds for the reconstruction of Marcion"s Gospel, so as at least to admit of a decision as to whether it was our present St. Luke or not.
Failing this, it may be well to give a brief example of the kind of data available, going back straight to the original authorities themselves.
For this purpose we will take the first chapter that Marcion preserved entire, Luke v, and set forth in full such fragments of it as have come down to us.
We take up the argument of Tertullian at the point where he begins to treat of this chapter.
In the fourth book of the treatise against Marcion Tertullian begins by dealing with the Ant.i.theses (a sort of criticism by Marcion on what he regarded as the Judaising portions of the Canonical Gospel), and then, in general terms, with the actual Gospel which Marcion used. From the general he descends to the particular, and in c.6 Tertullian pledges himself to show in detail, that even in those parts of the Gospel which Marcion retained there was enough to refute his own system.
Marcion"s Gospel began with the descent of Jesus upon Capernaum in the fifteenth year of Tiberias. Tertullian makes points out of this, also from the account of His preaching in the synagogue and of the expulsion of the devil. After this incident Marcion"s Gospel represented our Lord as retiring into solitude. It did this as it would appear in words very similar to those of the Canonical Gospel. I place side by side the language of Tertullian with that of the Vulgate (Codex Fuldensis, as given by Tregelles). I have also compared the translation in the two codd., Vercellensis and Veronensis, of the Old Latin in Bianchini"s edition. It will be remembered however that Tertullian is admitted to have Marcion"s (and _not_ the Canonical) Gospel before him, and he probably translates directly from that.
In solitudinem procedit.... Detentus a turbis: _Oportet me,_ inquit, _el aliis civitatibus_ _annuntiare regnum dei._
Luke v. 42, 43: Ibat in desertum sertum loc.u.m ... et detinebant illum ne discederet ab eis. Quibus ille ait quia, Et aliis civitatibus oportet me evangelizare regnum dei.
His discussion of the fifth chapter Tertullian begins by asking why, out of all possible occupations, Christ should have fixed upon that of fishing, to take from thence His apostles, Simon and the sons of Zebedee. There was a meaning in the act which appears in the reply to Peter, "Thou shalt catch men," where there is a reference to a prophecy of Jeremiah (ch. xvi. 16). By this allusion Jesus sanctioned those very prophecies which Marcion rejected. In the end the fishermen left their boats and followed Him.
De tot generibus operum quid utique ad piscaturam respexit ut, ab illa in apostolos sumeret _Simonem et filios Zebedaei ... _dicens Petro _trepidanti de copiosa indagine piscium: ne time abhinc enum homines eris capiens...._ Denique _relictis naviculis secuti sunt ipsum..._
Luke v. 1-11:[1] Factum est autem c.u.m turbae irruereut in eum et ipse stabat secus stagnum Gennesareth:[2] et vidit duas naves....[3] Ascendens in unam navem quae erat Simonis...[4] dixit ad Simonem, Duc in altum, et laxate retia vestra in capturam.
[6]Et c.u.m hoc fecissent concluserunt piscium mult.i.tudinem copiosam.... [7]Et impleverunt ambas naviculas ita ut mergerentur.
[8]Quod c.u.m videret Simon Petrus, procidit ad genua Jesu....
[9]Stupor enim circ.u.mdederat eum ... [10]similiter autem Jacob.u.m et Johannem filios Zebedaei.... Et ait ad Simonem Jesus, Noli timere, ex hoc jam homines eris capiens. [11]Et subductis ad terram navibus relictis omnibus secuti sunt illum.
For Noli timere &c., cod. a has, Noli timere, jam amodo eris vivificans homines; cod. b, Nol. tim., ex hoc jam eris homines vivificans.
In pa.s.sing to the incident of the leper, Tertullian argues that the prohibition of contact with a leper was figurative, applying really to the contact with sin. But the G.o.dhead is incapable of pollution, and therefore Jesus touched the leper. It would be in vain for Marcion to suggest that this was done in contempt of the law. For, upon his own (Docetic) theory, the body of Jesus was phantasmal, and therefore could not receive pollution: so that there would be no real contact or contempt of the law. Neither, as Marcion maintained, did a comparison with the miracle of Elisha tend to the disparagement of that prophet. True, Christ healed with a word. So also with a word had the Creator made the world.
And, after all, the word of Christ produced no greater result than a river which came from the Creator"s hands. Further, the command of Jesus to the leper when healed, showed His desire that the law should be fulfilled. Nay, He added an explanation which conveyed that He was not come to destroy the law, but Himself to fulfil it.
This He did deliberately, and not from mere indulgence to the man, who, He knew, would wish to do as the law required.
Argumentatur ... _in leprosi purgationem ... Tetigit leprosum_ ...
Et hoc opponit Marcion ... Christum ... verbo solo, et hoc semel functo, curationem statim repraesenta.s.se. Quantam ad gloriae humanae aversionem pertinebat, _vetuit eum divulgare_. Quantum autem ad tutelam legis jussit ordinem impleri. _Vade, ostende te sacerdoti, et offer munus quod praecepit Moyses_.... Itaque adjecit: _ut sit vobis in testimonium_.
Luke v. 12-14: [12] Ecce vir plenus lepra: et videns Jesum ...
rogavit eum dicens, Domine, si vis, potes me mundare. [13] Et extendens manum tetigit illum dicens, Volo, mundare. Et confestim lepra discessit ab illo. [14] Et ipse praecepit illi ut nemini diceret, sed Vade ostende te sacerdoti, et offer pro emundatione tua sicut praecepit Moses, in testimonium illis.
For emundatione in ver. 14, a has purgatione; b as Vulg. Both a and b have the form offers (see Ronsch, It. u. Vulg. p. 294), b the plural sacerdotibus. Both codd. have a variation similar to that of Marcion, ut sit etc.; a inserts hoc.
Next follows the healing of the paralytic, which was done in fulfilment of Is. x.x.xv. 2. The miracle also itself in its details was a special and exact fulfilment of the prophecy contained in the next verse, Is. x.x.xv. 3. That the Messiah should forgive sins had been repeatedly prophesied, e.g. in Is. liii. 12, i. 18, Micah vii. 18. Not only were these prophecies thus actually sanctioned by Christ, but, in forgiving the sins of the paralytic, He was only doing what the Creator or Demiurge had done before Him. In proof of this Tertullian appeals to the examples of the Ninevites, of David and Nathan, of Ahab, of Jonathan the son of Saul, and of the chosen people themselves. Thus Marcion was doubly refuted, because the prerogative of forgiveness was a.s.serted of the Messiah in the prophecies which he rejected and attributed to the Creator whom he denied. In like manner, when Jesus called Himself the "Son of Man," He did so in a real sense, signifying that He was really born of a virgin. This appellation too had been applied to Him by the prophet Daniel. (Dan. vii. 13, iii. 25). But if Jesus claimed to be the Son of Man, if, standing before the Jews as a man, He claimed as man the power of forgiving sins, He thereby showed that He possessed a real human body and not the mere phantasm of which Marcion spoke.
_Curatur_ et _paralyticus_, et quidem in coetu, spectante populo...
c.u.m redintegratione membrorum virium quoque repraesentationem pollicebatur: _Exsurge et tolle grabatum tuum;_--simul et animi vigorem ad non timendos qui dicturi erant: _Qui dimittet peccata nisi solus deus?_... c.u.m Judaei merito retractarent non posse hominem _delicta dimittere_ sed _deum solum_, cur... _respondit, habere eum potestatem dimittendi delicta_, quando et _filium hominis_ nominans hominem nominaret?
Luke v. 17-26: [17] Et factum est in una dierum et ipse sedebat docens.... [18] Et ecce viri portantes in lecto hominem, qui erat paralyticus, et quaerebant eum inferre... [19] et non invenientes qua parte illum inferrent prae turba,... per tegulas...
summiserunt illum c.u.m lecto in medium ante Jesum. [20] Quorum fidem ut vidit, dixit, h.o.m.o, remittuntur tibi peccata tua. [21] Et coeperunt cogitare Scribae et Pharisaei, dicentes, Quis est hic qui loquitur blasphemias? quis potest dimittere peccata nisi solus deus? [22] Ut cognovit autem Jesus cogitationes eorum, respondens dixit ad illos. ... [23] Quid est facilius dicere, Dimittuntur tibi peccata, an dicere, Surge et ambula? [24] Ut autem sciatis quia filius hominis potestatem habet in terra dimittere peccata, ait paralytico, Tibi dico, surge, tolle lectum tuum et vade in domum tuam. [25] Et confestim surgens ... abiit in domum suam.
Grabatum is the reading of a in ver. 25.
Marcion drew an argument from the calling of the publican (Levi)-- one under ban of the law--as if it were done in disparagement of the law. Tertullian reminds him in reply of the calling and confession of Peter, who was a representative of the law. Further, when he said that "the whole need not a physician" Jesus declared that the Jews were whole, the publicans sick.
_Publicanum_ adlectum a domino ... dicendo, _medic.u.m sanis non esse necessarium sed male habentibus_...
Luke v. 27-32: [27] Et post hoc exiit et vidit publicanum ... et ait illi, Sequere me.... [30] Et murmurabant Pharisaei et Scribae eorum... [31] et respondens Jesus dixit ad illos, Non egent qui sani sunt medico sed qui male habent.
The question respecting the disciples of John is turned against Marcion, as a recognition of the Baptist"s mission. If John had not prepared the way for Christ, if he had not actually baptized Him, if, in fact, there was that diversity between the two which Marcion a.s.sumed, no one would ever have thought of inst.i.tuting a comparison between them or the conduct of their disciples. In His reply, "that the children of the bridegroom could not fast," Jesus virtually allowed the practice of the disciples of John, and excused, as only for a time, that of His own disciples. The very name, "bridegroom," was taken from the Old Testament (Ps. xix. 6 sq., Is. lxi. 10, xlix. 18, Cant. iv. 8); and its a.s.sumption by Christ was a sanction of marriage, and showed that Marcion did wrong to condemn the married state.