CHAPTER XXVIII.

THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO LUKE.

There is good reason to believe that Luke was the first of the canonical gospels. This is rendered probable, partly by internal evidence, (it is compiled from the oldest manuscripts), and partly by the necessity that would exist, of having the first gospel one which would counteract the influence of Marcion. This could best be done through a gospel which, while differing from his, would not vary from it so much as to be repulsive to his followers.

Besides, Marcion, who was a man of learning, had, with much care, compiled the most ancient gospel manuscripts which he could obtain, and the church authorities were under the necessity of using, to a considerable extent, the same materials.

According to Schleiermacher, Luke consists of a compilation of at least 33 different manuscripts; as follows:

No 32, consisting, also, of two or more, blended.

Some of these divisions may be too artificial, and may have been established to maintain some supposed unity of purpose in the gospel historian; but the analysis itself appears to be founded in fact, and is, in the main, pursued in a scientific man

ner.

If, now, the same process be applied to the Gospel of Marcion, it will be found to consist of a compilation of 26 manuscripts.

An analysis of the two gospels develops the fact that every manuscript, after the first eight of Luke, appears in both gospels.

This circumstance favors the theory, that one of these gospels was used in the construction of the other. Which was probably the model?

Not only is Marcion much the shorter, but its narratives are simpler and more natural than those of Luke.

The subject may be illustrated by reference to some of the more important and extensive differences between the two gospels.

The first three chapters of Luke were not in Marcion. The first part of the fourth chapter of Luke which appears in Marcion, is that commencing at verse 16. "And he came to Nazareth." This, in Marcion, comes in its regular order, after the ministry at Capernaum; while in Luke, Jesus here refers to his doings at Capernaum, though his visit there is not stated until afterward.

We find the whole of the fourth chapter of Luke in Marcion, substantially, except the first 15 verses. But these 15 verses, together with the preceding chapter, none of which was in Marcion, constitute altogether, according to Schleiermacher, a single manuscript. The German critic was writing without any reference to Marcion. This coincidence may therefore be considered confirmatory, at the same time, of the theory of Schleiermacher, and of the priority of Marcion.

In closing the fourth chapter, the author of Luke having arranged sufficient preliminary matter, we may suppose that he now took up the Gospel of Marcion, which he found to be a compilation of manuscripts carefully collected, and made it from this point onward, the basis of the Gospel according to Luke.

Let us see how, upon this supposition, he proceeded with his work.

The style is much the same in the additional matter, as in that which is common to both gospels. Changes and additions are found here and there, some having been made for dogmatic reasons; others apparently for no other purpose than to compose a new gospel.

The first addition of much importance, is Luke, ch. 7, vv. 29 to 35. This contains a saying of Christ, in which is a reference to John the Baptist. V.34; "The Son of Man is come, eating and drinking,” etc. This Hahn supposed was omitted by Marcion, because the representation of Jesus eating and drinking, etc., was opposed to Marcion's view of the spiritual and ethereal nature of Christ's person. But in the very next verse of Marcion's Gospel, Jesus is represented as going into a Pharisee's house, and sitting down to meat. Whatever reason existed for adding these verses in Luke, we can see no reason for omitting them in Marcion.

2. The next place where there is a difference of several verses entire, is Luke, 11, vv. 6, 7 and 8. This is a mere amplification of v. 5, which, in a condensed form, is in Marcion.

3. Luke, 11. 30, 31 and 32.-These verses relate to Jonas, whose name had been inserted in the 29th verse. In Marcion the reading is, "This is an evil generation; they seek a sign, no sign shall be given it." In Luke, “no sign shall be given it, but the sign of Jonas the prophet." The following three verses explain in what manner the preaching of Jonas might be regarded as a sign. It is a continuation of the idea, and the whole passage must stand or fall together.

4. Luke, 11. 49, 50, 51.-This consists of a quotation from an apocryphal book, called "The Wisdom of God." The quotation is of a suspicious character. It contains the statement concerning Zacharias, who perished between the altar and the temple; a statement which, as repeated in Matthew, (23. 35), with the addition of the words "Son of Barachias," has caused commentators so much trouble.2

(1.) Das Evangel. Mar. p. 147.

(2.) See Chapter on The Gospel according to Matthew.

Marcion has no allusion to Zacharias, and contains, no doubt, the more ancient form of this passage. Much of the trouble comes from interpolations.

The interpolation in Luke, led to the worse interpolation in Matthew.

5. Luke, 13. 1 to 10, contains the legend concerning Pilate mingling the blood of the Galileans with their sacrifices; also reference to those slain by the falling of the town of Siloam; also the parable of the unfruitful fig-tree. None of it in Marcion.

6. Luke, 13. 29 to 35. This passage is doubtless an interpolation. The portions of it are much disconnected, and the words "Go ye and tell that fox," referring to Herod, can scarcely be accepted as the language of Jesus.

7. One of the most extensive differences is in the parable of the prodigal son, Luke 15. 11 to 32; no part of which is in Marcion. It is essentially Pauline in spirit, as has been well remarked.3

There is no reason why so beautiful an illustration of his own views, should have been omitted by Marcion.

8. Luke, 18. 31 to 34.-Jesus predicts to the twelve, his suffering, his death and resurrection. The prediction had already been recorded, (Marcion 6. 22; Luke, 9. 22), and there is no reason why it should be repeated. This entire passage in the 18th chapter, is probably an interpolation.

9. The last twenty verses of the 19th Luke, are entirely wanting in Marcion. The riding upon an ass's colt, is an awkward episode, and was probably inserted to set forth the fulfillment of the prophecy in Zech. 9. 9. Then follows the prediction concerning the destruction of Jerusalem. The other reference, in less explicit language, to the same event, (Luke 13. 34, 35), is also wanting in Marcion. There is no certainty that the prediction was ever uttered by Christ himself. Justin Martyr, who would have found this prophecy so pertinent to enforce his argument, made no allusion to it. The remainder of this passage appears to have been written to illustrate the fulfillment of the prophecy in Jeremiah 7. 11.

10. Luke, 20. 9 to 18. The parable of the vineyard.

This is essentially Pauline in spirit, and has a manifest application to the preaching of the gospel to the Gentiles, after it had been rejected by the Jews. There is no reason why Marcion should have omitted it.

(3.) Hahn, Das Evang. Mar. p. 182; Olshausen, Can. Ev. p. 208.