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 passage to which the few opening words are joined, and which constitute 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 assigns to Mark.(3) Verses 16—24, which immediately follow, also form a complete and isolated passage assigned 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.
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, assigned 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 mass 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 circumstances, is well illustrated 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—
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 assumed that Marcion altered a Gospel to suit his own particular system, but as one of his most orthodox critics, while asserting 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.
