11. Luke, 22. 16 to 18. The paschal supper has been the cause of much controversy in all ages of the church, and was the occasion of the first exercise of a general jurisdiction by the church of Rome. Without entering into the controversy, suffice it to say, if, as there is reason to believe, this passage in 22d Luke is an interpolation upon Marcion, the question becomes much simplified. The supper described in that chapter appears to have been an ordinary meal, having been eaten the evening before the crucifixion; and yet, in verses 15 to 18, it is referred to as the passover.

12. Luke, 22. 28 to 30. This is a literal application of certain prophecies to Jesus; an application such as the Jews were constantly making, but such as he himself would scarcely have made, in the form here presented.

13. Luke, 22. 35 to 38. Here for the first time, Jesus is made to allude to his coming end. And when his disciples told him there were two swords, he said, "It is enough."

14. Luke, 22. 49 to 51.

These are all of the more extended passages in Luke, which are not in Marcion's Gospel. This analysis, equally with the one in a former chapter, affords strong evidence that Marcion was first writ

ten.

There are other considerations, indicating a late origin to this gospel.

1. It is expressly stated, in the introduction, that many gospels had been written before this

one:

"Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order, a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us, even as they who from the beginning were eye-witnesses and ministers of the word, delivered unto us; it seemed good to me, also," etc., [Translated by the author.]

It is the universal conclusion, that the author of

Luke does not here refer to any of the canonical gospels.'

The fact that the other three of those gospels are impliedly excluded by the language used in Luke, raises a strong implication, that they were not then written. Why would the author refer to many unauthorized gospels, and make no allusion to three which were received as authority? It is an opinion quite generally entertained, that several gospels are referred to in Luke, which are known to have been written in the second century.

Origen considered that the gospel of the Egyptians and the Gospel of the Twelve Apostles, (of the Hebrews) were among the number.2

Jerome extends the list as follows:

"The evangelist Luke declares that there were many who wrote gospels, when he says, 'forasmuch as many,' etc. (c. 1, v. 1), which being published by various authors, gave rise to several heresies. They were such as that according to the Egyptians, and Thomas, and Matthias, and Bartholomew, that of the Twelve Apostles, and Basilides, and Apelles, and others which it would be tedious to enumerate."-[Hieron, Præf. in Comm. in Matth.

The Gospel of Basilides was written about A. D. 125, and that of Apelles, about 160. Of course, then, according to Jerome, Luke was after 160.

Epiphanius says, in expounding Luke, 1. 1,

(1.) Origen, Homil. in Luc. 1. 1; Ambrose, Com. on Luke. 1; Augustine, de Cons. Ev. 1. 4, c. 8; Eusebius, Ecc. Hist. 3. 24. Erasmus in Luc. 1. 1; Bellarm. de Mat. Sacr. 1. 1, c. 16; Grotius, in Luc. 1. 1; Father Simon, Crit. Hist. of N. T. par. 1, ch. 3; Jones vol. 1, p. 25: Stowe's Hist. of the Bible, p. 142.

(2.) Homily in Luc. 1. 1.

"Saying: 'Forasmuch as many have taken in hand,' by which he would intimate that there have been many undertakers of the like work. Among them, I suppose, were Cerinthus, Merinthus, and others." (See also Epi. Hær. 51. 7.)

Cerinthus flourished and wrote about A. D. 145, which Epiphanius thinks was before Luke.

Venerable Bede (A. D. 734) agrees with Jerome, that the Gospels of Basilides and Apelles were among those referred to in Luke.'

Erasmus thought the Acts of Pilate, or Gospel of Nicodemus, was among the number.2

Jones includes the Gospel of Marcion.3

All these writers, in thus dating the Gospel of Luke subsequent to those here named, impliedly renounce the theory of its apostolic origin.

2. The discrepancies betweeen this gospel and that according to Matthew, have already been pointed out. These differences indicate a late origin for one or both of these gospels, and involve in confusion every thing connected with the early history of Christ.

It is impossible, in the present state of the inquiry, to name the author of this gospel.

Westcott thinks it circulated mostly about Alexandria and Antioch, when first published.

4

(1.) Bede's Works, London, 1844, vol. 10, p. 273.

(2.) Annot. in Luc. 1. 1.

(3.) Jones, vol. 3, Vindication, p. 26

(4.) Canon, p. 68. Note.

It may have been written at or near Antioch. In that case, the person to whom it was addressed, was probably none other than Theophilus, the writer, who afterward, about A. D. 180, became Bishop of Antioch.

Basnage thinks Luke was the first of the canonical gospels,' and there are many reasons for believing he was correct in that opinion.

Michaelis did not consider it inspired; nor does the author of this, or of either of the canonical gospels, lay any claim to inspiration.

(1.) Ann. 60, num. 31.

(2.) Vol. 1, p. 95.

CHAPTER XXIX.

THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK.

Mark is the shortest of the four gospels. Its brevity is due partly to the omission of the biography of Christ, which is contained in Luke and Matthew.

It was probably constructed from the Gospel of Peter, as a basis, with many changes, and the incorporation of new material.

If the analysis of Luke be applied to Mark, the following will be the result:

The first seven manuscripts are wanting.

MS. No. 8, Luke, 4. 16 to 30, is omitted in Mark entirely, in place of which is inserted the calling of the apostles; Mark, 1. 16 to 20.

The previous account of the preaching of John, Mark, 1. 1 to 8, is so much different from that in Luke, that it is plain it was not from the same manuscript.

No. 9, Luke, 4. 31 to 44, is closely followed in Mark, (1. 21 to 39.) There is just sufficient expansion of language to justify the presumption that the same manuscript was used; or possibly here, as well as in a few other places, the Gospel of Luke itself.