The GOSPEL OF MARCION

and The GOSPEL OF LUKE

COMPARED

From

The History of the Christian Religion to the Year Two-Hundred

by Charles B. Waite

(Chicago, C.V. Waite & Co., 1900). Pp.287-303.

MARCION AND LUKE.

The question of priority, as between these gospels, is one of the most interesting connected with the history of early Christian literature.

From the commencement of the third, down to the beginning of the present century, it has been fashionable to accuse Marcion of corrupting the Gospel of Luke; the emphatic and oft-repeated assertions of Tertullian and Epiphanius to that effect, having been deemed sufficient authority.

Bishop Marsh was one of the first to do Marcion justice. He said there was no proof that Marcion used Luke's Gospel at all [Notes to Michaelis, vol.3, pt. 2, p. 160].

Since then, many of the most intelligent German critics have come to the same conclusion.

Baring-Gould also says: "Marcion was too conscientious and earnest a man, wilfully to corrupt a gospel "[Lost and Hostile Gospels, p.241].

This author thinks that the Church of Sinope, where Marcion formerly resided, had been furnished by Paul with a collection of the records of the life and teaching of Christ; that Marcion thus obtained his gospel, and brought it to Rome [Ibid.].

Again: "Marcion's Gospel contained a different arrangement of the narrative, from the canonical Luke, and was without many passages which it is not possible to believe he wilfully excluded,"[Ibid p. 242].

He afterward speaks of differences of arrangement, which are unaccountable on the theory that Marcion corrupted Luke, and says that Marcion's Gospel was without several passages which apparently favor his views.[Ibid, p.243; referring to Luke 11.51; 13.30, 34, and 29 to I6].

Canon Westcott is equally explicit in acquitting Marcion from the accusation made against him by the early fathers of the church. He says: "Tertullian and Epiphanius agree in affirming that Marcion altered the text of the books which he received, to suit his own views; and they quote many various readings in support of the assertion. Those which they cite from the epistles, are certainly insufficient to prove the point; and on the contrary, they go to show that Marcion preserved without alteration, the text which he found in his manuscript. Of the seven readings noticed by Epiphanius, (in the epistles), only two are unsupported by other authority: and it is altogether unlikely that Marcion changed other passages, when, as Epiphanius himself shows, he left untouched those which are most directly opposed to his system."

-[History of the Canon, p.284].

It is one of the most hopeful signs of the times, that men, even in religious matters, can vindicate the character of an adversary, after it has been aspersed for fifteen hundred years.

Some writers still persist in repeating the old slander. But the more candid and intelligent opinion of Westcott and Baring-Gould, is supported by Semler, Griesbach, Loeffler, Schmidt, Schleiermacher, Hahn, and many others.

These writers, perceiving how little reliance is to be placed upon the statements of the fathers, in matters of critical exegesis, or of authorship, or upon their assertions concerning the heretics, have examined carefully the text of Marcion, and findmg the statements of Tertullian and Epiphamus unsupported by internal evidence, have rejected them altogether.

WHICH WAS FIRST WRITTEN ?

Let us now see if we cannot ascertain with reasonable certainty which was first written; the Gospel of Luke or the Gospel of Marcion. The question of priority, in this case, is closely connected with that of brevity.

The first three chapters of Luke were entirely wanting in Marcion, except the opening clause in the third chapter, which was the commencement of the Gospel of Marcion: "In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar." The balance of the first chapter of Marcion is contained with some variations in the fourth of Luke. About half that chapter is wanting entirely, in Marcion.

After passing this, the different chapters of the two gospels correspond, the 2d of Marcion with the 5th of Luke, the 3d of Marcion with the 6th of Luke, and so on.

The Gospel of Luke is the most copious throughout. The number of verses in Luke in excess of those in Marcion, is as follows: In chapter 7, seven verses: in ch. 8, one; in ch. 11, ten; in ch. 12, three; in ch. 13, seventeen; in ch. 14, five; in ch. 15, twenty-two; in ch. 18, four; in ch. 19, twenty; in ch. 20, twelve; in ch. 21, three; in ch. 22, thirteen; in ch. 23, one, and in ch. 24, four: total 122 verses. To this add the excess of 23 verses in the 4th chapter of Luke, and we have altogether 145 verses, or more than three average chapters. Add the first three chapters of Luke, which are entirely wanting in Marcion, and the result is, more than six chapters, or more than one-fourth of the entire Gospel of Luke, wanting in Marcion.

But this is not all. In a number of places, the verses of Marcion are shorter. Then, again, two or more verses of Luke are contained, in substance, in one of Marcion, and in one place, nine verses of Luke in two of Marcion.

THE LAW OF ACCRETION.*

[* accretion = accumulation, build-up, i.e., words or sentences added later].

LUKE AND MARCION COMPARED.

Leaving out of view, for the present the wholesale accumulation of matter, aggregating 315 verses, the law of accretion will be well illustrated by those cases where one or more verses in Marcion are found swollen into several in Luke, or where a single passage has additions. They are as follows:

1.

MARCION, ch. 1, v.4. Saying, 'Let us alone; what have we to do with thee, Jesus?

LUKE ch. 4, v.34. Saying, Let (us) alone; what have we to do with thee, Jesus of Nazareth?

The difference is important. According to Matthew, the parents of Jesus, when they returned from Egypt, being warned of God in a dream, turned aside, (they were going to Bethlehem or Jerusalem,) into the parts of Galilee, that a certain prophecy might be fulfilled. The language does not imply that Nazareth was their residence.

The theory of the author of Luke was, that Nazareth was their residence. Accordingly, in this passage, which, though followed in Mark, has no parallel in Matthew; Jesus is addressed as "of Nazareth," a phrase not in Marcion.

II.

A corresponding variation will be found in

These are probably interpolations, made for the purpose of establishing Nazareth as the birth-place of Jesus.

III.

There is no reason why Marcion, who had not rejected the miracles of Christ, should omit the closing sentence. It is more probable that it was added in Luke, to give expression to a very natural inference on the part of the writer, as to the object of the multitude in pressing forward toward Jesus, and seeking to touch him.

There is no parallel in the other gospels.

IV.

V.

JESUS AND THE SINFUL WOMAN.

This touching incident, simply and beautifully told in the sixteen Greek words of Marcion, is spun out, by the author of Luke, into more than three times the number, with no improvement in the story.

The washing of the feet of Jesus, which in Marcion is left as a figurative expression, denoting the great grief of the woman, is stated in Luke as an actual fact. while weeping, "she began to wash his feet with tears." Then, having washed them, she must needs "wipe them with the hairs of her head."

There can be but little doubt, that Marcion was first written, and that the author of Luke drew upon his imagination in filling up the text.

Again, there is a similar variation, in the following reference to the same transaction:

VI.

The use here, by Jesus himself, of the figurative expression, "she hath washed my feet with tears," misled the author of Luke into conceiving, and hence expressing, a literal and complete washing of feet, followed by wiping them in the manner described.

This account is not in the other canonical gospels. It is simply a question between Marcion and Luke.

VII.

JESUS REBUKING THE STORM.

The language of Marcion, as given by Epiphanius, is highly elliptical. It was probably preceded by some sentence having reference to the storm. The text of the synoptics is more copious; especially Mark, in which a pillow is provided for the head of Jesus.

VIII.

HEALING OF THE WOMAN

If these accounts come from a common manuscript, it had passed through many hands, before reaching the author of Luke.

IX, X.

XI, XII, XIII, XlV.

The word aioion, (eternal,) was inserted by the author of Luke, to make more clear the meaning of Marcion.

The argument of Tertullian, (adv. Mar. 4.25), that Marcion struck out aionion, so that the question might be confined to this life, is weak and untenable.

XV, XVI, XVII.

The last passage illustrates, throughout, the prevailing practice of verbal accumulation. The language of Jesus, "I say unto you," becomes, when it reaches the author of Luke, "I say unto you, my friends;" "Be not afraid of them that kill the body," becomes, "Be not afraid of them that kill the body, and after that, have no more that they can do;" etc.

XXI, XXII, XXIII, XXIV, XXV, XXVI.

XXIV, XXVIII, XXIX, XXX.

The account in Marcion, besides being shorter, is the more natural. Being struck from behind, or by a stranger, Jesus was called upon to tell who struck him. It was an impulsive action. But the author of Luke has the Jews deliberately blindfold Jesus, before striking him.

XXXI.

These dying words of Jesus are not in either of the other three canonical gospels. They may have been taken by the author of Luke from the Acts of Pilate, or from a later version of the manuscript used by Marcion.

XXXII.

MARCION, 20.49. And behold, a man named Joseph, taking down the body, wrapped it up, and placed it in a hewn tomb.

LUKE, 23.50 to 53. 50.And behold, (there was) a man named Joseph, a counselor; (and he was) a good man, and a just; 51.(The same had not consented to the counsel and deed of them;) he was of Arimathea, a city of the Jews; who also himself waited for the kingdom of God. 52.This man went unto Pilate, and begged the body of Jesus. 53.And he took it down and wrapped it in linen, and laid it in a sepulcher, that was hewn in stone, wherein never man before was laid.

XXXIII, XXXIV, XXXV, XXXVI.

MARCION, 21.6. He has risen; remember what he said, while yet living.

LUKE, 24.6. He is not here, but is risen; re member how he spake unto you, when he was yet in Galilee.

MARCION, 21.7. That it was necessary that the Son of Man should suffer, and be delivered up.

LUKE, 24.7. Saying: The Son of Man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again.

MARCION, 21.37. And he said unto them, why are ye troubled? Behold my hands and my feet, a spirit hath not bones, as ye see me have.

LUKE, 24.38 and 39. 38. And he said unto them, Why are ye troubled? and why do thoughts arise in your hearts? 39. Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I, myself; handle me and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.

THE OTHER SIDE.

We will now give the cases where the text of Marcion is the more copious:

I.

MARCION, 5.20. LUKE, 8.21.

According to Volkmar, (though not in the schedule or scholion of Epiphanius), in this verse, after the words, "And he answered and said unto them," is the question, "Who are my mother and my brethren?" Balance of the Verse, same as in Luke.

Volkmar may have taken some of his Variations from the "Dialogues," etc., attributed to Origen, to which he appears to have given too much attention.

II, III, IV, V, VI.

MARCION, 14.2. (On the authority of Volkmar.) It would be better for him if he had not been born; or if a mill-stone were hanged about his neck, etc. (This may have been the reading of Luke at that time. See Tertullian adv. Marcion, 4.35.)

LUKE, 17.2. It were better for him, that a millstone were hanged about his neck, etc.

MARCION, 17.25. But they who shall be accounted worthy of God, to obtain that world, etc.

LUKE, 20.35. But they who shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, etc.

MARCION, 20.2. And they began to accuse him, saying: We found this fellow perverting the nation, and destroying the law and the prophets, and forbidding to give tribute to Caesar, and turning away the women and children.

LUKE, 23.2. And they began to accuse him saying: We found this (fellow) perverting the nation, and forbidding to give tribute to Caesar, saying that he himself is Christ, a king.

MARCION, 21.5. And as they were afraid, and bowed down their faces to the earth, those in white clothing said to them, etc.

LUKE, 24.5 And as they were afraid, and bowed down (their) faces to the earth, they said unto them, etc.

Here are six cases in Marcion, against thirty-six in Luke; or 35 new words in Marcion, to 660 in Luke. If to these we add 315 verses of Luke which are not in Marcion in any form, we have a ratio of 1 to 230.

The strength of the argument, then, based upon the principle of accretion, would be 230 to 1, that the Gospel of Marcion was first written.

But there is other evidence of priority. The Gospel of Marcion is more simple and natural, not only in the mode of expression, but in the order of arrangement.

In the fourth chapter of Luke, Jesus is represented as being tempted in the wilderness, immediately after his baptism; thence he returned into Galilee, and came to Nazareth; [Luke, 4. 16]; where his public ministry commenced. But though commencing, at Nazareth, he is made to refer [v. 23], to works which he had done at Capernaum; a place to which he goes, afterward ;[v. 31.]

In Marcion, on the contrary, his public ministry commenced at Capernaum; [Marcion, 1. 1]; whence, [v.10], he came to Nazareth, and preached; and here, in the natural order, [v.13], he refers to the works done at Capernaum.

This accords with the Gospel of Matthew, which represents that Jesus did not commence preaching until after he had taken up his residence in Capernaum. [Matt. 4. 13 to 17.] Mark follows Luke.

Matthew and Marcion were probably from a common manuscript.

In the Gospel of John, Jesus is represented as performing his first miracle in Cana of Galilee, after which he went down to Capernaum. [John 2. 11, 12.] This, therefore, is confirmatory of Marcion.

It is probable that in Luke, the manuscripts were put together out of their natural order, and that this disorder was followed in Mark. It was the opinion of Griesbach that the author of Mark had before him the whole of the present Gospel of Luke. Schleiermacher thinks he had some of the manuscripts which comprise the Gospel of Luke [ Schleiermacher on Luke, p.91].

At the same time, the fact that nearly every word of Marcion is in Luke, besides much additional matter, is strongly suggestive of the theory, that the author of Luke had before him, besides other material, the Gospel of Marcion entire. On the supposition that Marcion was last written, it is difficult to conceive why he should have excluded so large a part of the Gospel of Luke, especially as it is now conceded that it was not done for dogmatic purposes. On the other hand, if Luke was written last, the accumulations were in accordance with the spirit of the age, and the practice of the times. Besides, it was necessary to have a gospel different from that of Marcion, who was a heretic. There is no satisfactory evidence that Marcion had seen either of the canonical gospels, or had even heard of them.

The first two chapters of Luke were wanting in the gospels of the first century. They were also wanting in the Gospel of the Hebrews, or Nazarenes, about A. D. 125, as well as in the Gospel of Marcion, A. D. 145. They first appeared in the Protevangelion, about A. D. 125, and were probably not deemed by Marcion, authentic.

dmahar@snet.net

www.Marcionite-Scripture.info