Chapter IV. The principle of assessment

[p. 55]

Chapter IV. The Principle of the Assessment of the Gospel of Marcion

The investigation just concluded has shown that the one source for the reconstruction of the Marcionite Gospel, namely the statements of Epiphanius, is not complete, and that the other, namely Tertullian’s citations, does not prove directly to be a secure support. We therefore have so little firm material on which we could carry a hypothesis through, that we must rather first establish the remains of the Gospel in Tertullian by setting up a hypothesis. For since Tertullian may have passed over a series of sections of Luke both because they were not found in Marcion and because they were of no use to him for refuting Marcion, a different judgment about a section will be able to be reached according as one regards it with a view to whether Marcion could tolerate it, or whether it bears marks of a later origin. For this reason alone it is necessary to state the fixed point from which the Gospel is to be regarded. Since, however, we are moving solely in the field of internal criticism, and neither of the two hypotheses

[p. 56]

has a historical point of support ahead of the other, no positive and thoroughly sufficient proof can yet be given at this point for the hypothesis which appears to us to be the right one. Only its possibility can be justified, and that in a negative way. It will be able to reach its full confirmation only at the close of the whole investigation, once it has been carried through with consistency upon the material before us. For it is precisely the inconsistency of method proper to Hahn’s hypothesis that establishes the right to set over against it, in turn, the view of Semler and Eichhorn, that the Gospel used by Marcion was an independent one, and older than the canonical Luke. Whether Eichhorn’s other assumption, namely that Marcion’s Gospel was a source writing of the canonical Luke, may at once be identified with this, can emerge only from the further and more exact investigation. Yet we must start also from the possibility of Eichhorn’s second assumption, since the original character of the shorter writing [Ursprünglichkeit: its belonging to the original text] will be demonstrable only in this way: that, in those sections of Luke which it lacks, traces are found of a later revision by a second hand. The more precise determination of the relationship of the two is, however, reserved entirely for the further investigation. The marks by which revisions make themselves known are, in most cases, offenses against the connection with the sections between which, or into which, something else, something foreign, has been inserted. For a reviser who does not reproduce the whole anew, but only introduces slight alterations and augmentations, can scarcely escape the danger of tearing apart the connection of pieces which had hitherto been well ordered, or of placing side by side pieces which contradict one another. In the Gospel literature itself there are examples of this claim in the Gospel of Mark in its relationship to Matthew and Luke, from which Mark drew.

[p. 57]

When it says in Mark 9:5, 6, in the transfiguration narrative: καὶ ἀποκριθεὶς ὁ Πέτρος λέγει τῷ Ἰησοῦ· ῥαββὶ, καλόν ἐστιν ἡμᾶς ὧδε εἶναι. καὶ ποιήσωμεν τρεῖς σκηνὰς κ. τ. λ. οὐ γὰρ ἤδει τί λαλήσῃ. ἦσαν γὰρ ἔκφοβοι [And Peter answered and says to Jesus: Rabbi, it is good that we are here. And let us make three tents, and so on (κ. τ. λ.). For he did not know what he should say. For they were terrified], this explanation is not fitting in this place. The terror at the appearance of the men of the Old Testament will surely not have prompted Peter to an expression of his pleasure in it. It is evident that that sentence has rather been relocated by the reviser to that place from Matthew 17:6 (ἐφοβήθησαν σφόδρα [they were greatly afraid], namely at the voice from heaven, for which there was also reason). In Mark 12:34, after a thoroughly friendly conversation between Jesus and a scribe about the greatest commandment, there stands the remark: καὶ οὐδεὶς οὐκέτι ἐτόλμα αὐτὸν ἐπερωτῆσαι [and no one any longer dared to question him], for which there was no ground in the preceding conversation, especially since Jesus had said to the man immediately before: οὐ μακρὰν εἶ ἀπὸ τῆς βασιλείας τοῦ θεοῦ [you are not far from the kingdom of God]. It is to be explained, rather, from the fact that Mark inserted that section on the greatest commandment, which is absent from Luke, into the series of Luke’s narratives, immediately after the story of the dismissal of the Sadducees (Luke 20:20–39; Mark 12:13–27), and did so in such a way that he placed Luke’s concluding remark at 20:40, οὐκέτι δὲ ἐτόλμων ἐπερωτᾶν αὐτὸν οὐδέν [and they no longer dared to question him at all], only after his own insertion. To be sure, if Mark had left the notice in its place, it would have stood in contradiction with the verse that now follows, namely that a Pharisee nevertheless put a question to him again, the question about the greatest commandment (Mark 12:28); but at the close of the conversation which attaches itself to that question the remark stands with just as little skill. These cases are clear indications that Mark used the reports of the two evangelists in his own way and revised them.¹ Accordingly, the sections

[p. 58]

of Luke which have been missing from Marcion’s Gospel are to be examined with a view to whether they fit well into the connection, or whether they do not rather bear the stamp of deriving from a second reviser. For we presuppose that order and harmony are to be credited to the presentation of a first original composer, and not, as Eichhorn thinks, awkwardness and unintelligibility. This canon, which he set up for the sake of his hypothesis of an original Gospel, is supported by no historical grounds, and probably no longer needs refutation.

On that presupposition of ours, that if Marcion’s Gospel is more original than Luke it is distinguished from Luke by better coherence, the question must also be decided which of the sections passed over by Tertullian really belonged to the Marcionite Gospel, and which did not. We must of course content ourselves, in this place, with designating only those of these sections which in our opinion stood in Marcion’s Gospel. Those which were missing from it will be discussed further below, where all the divergences are assessed. For this reason the complete proof, and the justification of the assumption which cannot at present be fully established, will be found only in the further course of the investigation.

The following pieces, passed over by Tertullian, probably belonged to Marcion’s Gospel, because they are necessary in the connection of the whole and offered Tertullian no occasion for combating Marcion.

Luke 4:36, 37. καὶ ἐγένετο θάμβος ἐπὶ πάντας καὶ συνελάλουν πρὸς ἀλλήλους λέγοντες· τίς ὁ λόγος οὗτος; ὅτι ἐν ἐξουσίᾳ καὶ δυνάμει ἐπιτάσσει τοῖς ἀκαθάρτοις πνεύμασι, καὶ ἐξέρχονται. καὶ ἐξεπορεύετο ἦχος περὶ αὐτοῦ εἰς πάντα τόπον τοῦ περιχώρου. [And amazement came upon all, and they spoke with one another, saying: What is this word? For with authority and power he commands the unclean spirits, and they come out. And a report went out about him into every place of the surrounding region.] The verses have no dogmatic

[p. 59]

significance, and for that reason Tertullian passes over them (chapter 7, p. 202). They are necessary, however, because in the story of Jesus’ appearance in Nazareth (4:16–30), which in Marcion’s Gospel followed the account of the healing of the demoniac (4:31–35), it is presupposed that that miracle in Capernaum had caused a general stir in the surrounding region. (Compare v. 23: ὅσα ἠκούσαμεν γενόμενα εἰς Καπερναούμ κ. τ. λ. [whatever we have heard as having happened in Capernaum, and so on].)²

Luke 6:32, 33: καὶ εἰ ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἀγαπῶντας ὑμᾶς, ποία ὑμῖν χάρις ἐστι; καὶ γὰρ οἱ ἁμαρτωλοὶ τοὺς ἀγαπῶντας αὐτοὺς ἀγαπῶσι. καὶ ἐὰν ἀγαθοποιῆτε τοὺς ἀγαθοποιοῦντας ὑμᾶς, ποία ὑμῖν χάρις ἔσται· καὶ γὰρ οἱ ἁμαρτωλοὶ τὸ αὐτὸ ποιοῦσι [And if you love those who love you, what thanks is there for you? For the sinners also love those who love them. And if you do good to those who do good to you, what thanks shall there be for you: for the sinners also do the same], is probably passed over (chapter 16, pp. 247–249) only because the thought of these verses is repeated in the following 34th verse as well, and Tertullian uses that verse for his purpose. And the repetition of a thought with a slight change of form is too much in the spirit of the whole Sermon on the Mount for the verses not to be original.

Luke 8:40–42a, 49–56, the story of the raising of the daughter of Jairus, is not mentioned, although the narrative standing between the two parts, the healing of the woman with a flow of blood, is cited (chapter 20, p. 265). The two narratives appear, however, to belong together originally. At least there is no mark of the contrary, and Tertullian could pass over the raising all the more readily because shortly before (chapter 18, p. 255) he had treated the quite similar case of the raising of the young man at Nain, and here would only have had to repeat himself, which, as he often remarks, he seeks to avoid.

Luke 9:49, 50, Jesus’ answer to the report of John that a stranger was casting out demons in his name, is passed over in silence (chapter 23, pp. 280–282). It had a dogmatic

[p. 60]

interest neither for Marcion nor for Tertullian, and it belongs as certainly to the original connection as, in the whole of the ninth chapter, a series of characteristic traits of the disciples of Jesus are, as it appears, intentionally brought together.

Luke 10:29–42, the parable of the merciful Samaritan, which is also passed over (chapter 25, pp. 293, 294), attaches itself to the preceding conversation in so necessary and natural a way (v. 29: ὁ δὲ θέλων δικαιοῦν ἑαυτὸν εἶπε πρὸς τὸν Ἰησοῦν· καὶ τίς ἐστί μου πλησίον. ὑπολαβὼν δὲ ὁ Ἰησοῦς εἶπεν [But he, wishing to justify himself, said to Jesus: And who is my neighbor? And Jesus took it up and said]) that there can be no doubt of the original character of this narrative in this place; and it gave no occasion for founding a dogmatic objection against Marcion.

Luke 12:50: Βάπτισμα δὲ ἔχω βαπτισθῆναι, καὶ πῶς συνέχομαι ἕως οὗ τελεσθῇ [But I have a baptism to be baptized with, and how I am constrained until it is accomplished] is passed over (chapter 29, p. 313), yet the sentence cannot have been missing, because it is cited by Epiphanius from the mouth of the Marcionites (p. 304 D), even though in a somewhat different form: βάπτισμα ἔχω βαπτισθῆναι. καὶ τί θέλω εἰ ἤδη τετέλεκα αὐτό [I have a baptism to be baptized with. And what do I wish, if I have already accomplished it?].

Luke 14:1–11, the invitation to a banquet of a Pharisee, the healing of a man with dropsy, and the discourses on the modesty to be shown at banquets, are passed over (chapter 31, p. 317). The last are entirely presupposed in the discourses communicated by Tertullian from the 12th verse on, although it is surprising that Tertullian does not take the mention of the γάμοι [wedding feasts], which occurs in v. 8, as an occasion for polemic against Marcion. He could pass over the healing in silence, because he would otherwise have repeated himself. Verse 15, ἀκούσας δέ τις τῶν συνανακειμένων ταῦτα εἶπεν αὐτῷ· μακάριος ὃς φάγεται ἄρτον ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ τοῦ θεοῦ [And someone of those reclining together, having heard these things, said to him: Blessed is he who shall eat bread in the kingdom of God], even if it is not touched on by Tertullian, is altogether necessary as the introduction to the following parable.

Luke 14:25–35 contains various sayings of Jesus which are not precisely connected, and which could give occasion for no dogmatic debate. For that reason Tertullian appears to have passed the section over (chapter 31, p. 320).

[p. 61]

Moreover, v. 26 is cited by Epiphanius in Refutation 70.

Luke 18:15–17, on the precedence of children in the kingdom of God, Tertullian has probably passed over only because he would otherwise have had to repeat the remarks he had already presented at Luke 9:46 f. Moreover, v. 16 is also cited by the Marcionite in the dialogus de recta fide [Dialogue on the Right Faith], section 1, p. 714 C.

Luke 18:28–30 contains Peter’s statement, closely connected with the conversation reported shortly before about the duties of a disciple of Jesus, that he and his companions had left everything for Jesus’ sake, and the promise given by Jesus in reply. For that reason the section will probably not have been missing, but will have been passed over by Tertullian only because it was of no use to him for his purpose (chapter 36, p. 340).

Luke 20:45–47 contains rebuking words of Jesus against the scribes, which form the fitting close of a section in which it is reported that various questions were used by Pharisees and Sadducees alike in the attempt to drive Jesus into a corner. With regard to these two classes, the expression γραμματεῖς [scribes] in v. 46 seems also to have been chosen. If, for that reason, these verses bear the stamp of original character, Tertullian could well have passed over them because the inferences to be drawn from them against Marcion had already been stated in the discourse of rebuke against the Pharisees contained in Luke 11.

Luke 21:1–4, Jesus’ word about the widow’s offering, stands so torn off, and without connection, that nothing can really be decided as to whether Tertullian would have had to mention it if he found it, or not. We cannot assent to Hahn’s view (p. 200) that Marcion would have had to strike it out because the offering was brought to the creator of the world, since Jesus does not approve of offering in and of itself [printed: an uud für sich], and Marcion could well have had expedients for justifying Jesus’ tacit approval, as he did at Jesus’ direction

[p. 62]

to the healed leper to present to the priests the offering that was due (Luke 5:12–14).³ [Corrected in Ritschl’s errata: printed “wie er es bei der Aufforderung” at the foot of p. 61; “that,” which belongs in that clause, stood in the first line of p. 62 and is struck.] For this reason I hold it to be more probable that Marcion may have read the verses.

Luke 23:27–31, where the women’s participation in Jesus’ fate, and his answer to them, is reported, Tertullian has not mentioned (chapter 42, p. 363). One could conclude from this that it did not stand in Marcion’s Gospel, because Tertullian could just as well have found an Old Testament parallel for this section also, as he did for the other circumstances of Jesus’ trial and crucifixion,⁴ in order to refute Marcion, if the section lay before him in Marcion’s Gospel at all. Yet in the further course of the narrative there are some hints which plainly presuppose this section. For the

[p. 63]

people that accompanied Jesus to the crucifixion, among whom the women did not conceal their sympathy for him (v. 27: ἠκολούθει δὲ αὐτῷ πολὺ πλῆθος τοῦ λαοῦ καὶ γυναικῶν· αἳ καὶ ἐκόπτοντο καὶ ἐθρήνουν αὐτόν [And a great multitude of the people followed him, and of women, who also were beating their breasts and lamenting him]), is mentioned again several times afterward, and in the manner of the section in question, namely that the multitude did not take part in the mockeries of the priests, but showed repentance (vv. 35, 48). For this reason the section will probably not have been missing in Marcion.

The passage Luke 23:47–49, which Tertullian likewise does not touch on (chapter 42, p. 365), Marcion had no occasion to strike out, although Hahn asserts the contrary (p. 214). For the centurion’s confession, ὄντως ὁ ἄνθρωπος οὗτος δίκαιος ἦν [Truly this man was righteous], had after all no dogmatic value, and by the γνωστοί [acquaintances] of Jesus no relatives were meant, after all. But that Tertullian had no reason to single the passage out is clear when we see how he gathers together all the individual circumstances of Jesus’ execution and burial, in order to hold them up to Marcion as testimonies to the real corporeality of Jesus.⁵ He could well skip the fairly indifferent verses there, which for that reason were probably not missing in Marcion’s copy.

[p. 64]

Thus, of the sections of Luke not mentioned by Tertullian, about which the statements of Epiphanius do not at once give the sure and definite decision, only the following remain. They have probably been missing from Marcion’s Gospel, and they will show themselves by sure signs to be later insertions:

Luke 4:38, 39, the healing of Peter’s mother-in-law.

Luke 7:29–35 [Corrected in Ritschl’s errata: printed 20], a piece from the discourse about John the Baptist.

Luke 9:31, a verse from the transfiguration narrative.

Luke 10:12–15, the woe upon the cities of Chorazin and Bethsaida.

Luke 11:42, the words ταῦτα ἔδει ποιῆσαι, κακεῖνα μὴ ἀφιέναι [these things it was necessary to do, and not to leave those things undone].

Luke 12:33, 34, an exhortation to voluntary poverty.

Luke 19:9, the words καθὼς καὶ αὐτὸς υἱὸς Ἀβραάμ ἐστιν [inasmuch as he too is a son of Abraham].

Luke 22:43, 44, the mention of the angel and of the drops of blood in Gethsemane.

Luke 24:27, the words καὶ ἀρξάμενος ἀπὸ Μωϋσέως καὶ ἀπὸ πάντων τῶν προφητῶν, διηρμήνευεν αὐτοῖς ἐν πάσαις γραφαῖς τὰ περὶ αὐτοῦ [and beginning from Moses and from all the prophets, he interpreted to them in all scriptures the things concerning himself].⁶

In turning back from this establishment of the value of Tertullian’s citations from Marcion’s Gospel to our starting point, namely that that Gospel is to be regarded as independent of Luke, indeed perhaps even as its original stock [Grundstamm], it is necessary to justify this hypothesis provisionally over against Hahn’s, in that we

[p. 65]

demonstrate in it that it is untenable in itself. For Hahn’s hypothesis does not suffice for the explanation of all the differences between the two Gospels. Hahn promises, in the case of all the passages which were missing in Marcion’s Gospel writing by comparison with Luke, to demonstrate an offense which Marcion had to take on account of his system. We must therefore be surprised that he not seldom explains an alleged mutilation by moral points of view, and several times knows no reason at all to give. (For example, Luke 9:40; 10:22; 13:31 ff., and others. At the individual passages Hahn’s reasons will be discussed specifically.) Besides this, Schwegler has rightly objected against Hahn that if Marcion helped himself by violent exegesis at many passages which contradict his system most strongly, no pressing reason lay before him to strike out the others, which were by no means insurmountable.⁷ Marcion’s whole thought and life was consistent to the point of harshness. Are we not to credit him with consistency in the treatment of Scripture as well? He would therefore either have had to purify it so far that no word of it could be brought up against him, so that he was also relieved of the violent mode of explanation, or he will have made it into a testimony for himself by this means alone. For this reason a hypothesis which traces Marcion’s method in the treatment of Scripture back to one consistently applied means will be more in keeping with his spirit than if one credits him with having applied now the one means and now the other. It is true that we know Marcion’s exegesis nowhere near completely, since Tertullian sees fit only in the fewest cases to communicate that man’s remarks; and indeed, in the case of some sections which have contradicted Marcion’s Gnosis in the most striking way, and which Tertullian holds up to him almost in triumph, we do not know how he defended himself. To this belongs, for example, the section in which Jesus promises eternal life to the one who keeps the Old

[p. 66]

Testament commandments (Luke 18:18–27; in Tertullian, chapter 36, p. 338 seq.). One may all the less confidently assert that Marcion could not tolerate this or that passage because it would contradict him too directly. One section about which much has been said back and forth in this manner is the story of the prodigal son. The rationalist critics, who preferred to see in Marcion the pure Paulinist, could not wonder enough that he should have cast out this narrative, conceived so entirely in a Pauline spirit. Olshausen and Hahn have exerted everything in order to discover quite a number of reasons why it had to be offensive to him. Hahn’s chief reason is that Marcion had to abhor the life depicted in such sensuous terms in that narrative, a life presented not even in parabolic form, but as pure history.⁸ Against this it is to be recalled that if the rest of the story nevertheless had to appeal to him, he had, after all, only to alter the latter part. Why, then, do we not read the part of the narrative from vv. 11–21 and then some short and fitting close? And why, then, was it not also open to Marcion to interpret the festivities in the last part of the section symbolically and allegorically? The reason Hahn gives against this, that where a parable was not expressly indicated as such Marcion kept only to the literal sense, has, so far as I see, nowhere a point of support, especially since Marcion interpreted allegorically the verse λέγω γὰρ ὑμῖν, ὅτι οὐδεὶς τῶν ἀνδρῶν ἐκείνων τῶν κεκλημένων γεύσεταί μου τοῦ δείπνου [For I say to you that none of those men who were invited shall taste of my supper] (Luke 14:24), which forms the close of the narrative of the banquet (Luke 14:15–22), which is not designated as a parable. Tertullian states this in the words: Interea qui coenae istius vocationem in coeleste convivium interpretaris spiritalis saturitatis et jucunditatis [Meanwhile you, who interpret the invitation of this supper as a heavenly banquet of spiritual fullness and delight] (chapter 31, p. 321). There is the further point that in Marcion’s Gospel it is said in many places

[p. 67]

that Jesus himself attends banquets (Luke 5:29–35; 14:1 f.), that he justifies it when his disciples do not fast, as do those of John (Luke 5:31), and more of the same sort, of which, to be sure, we do not know whether Marcion accepted it without further ado or interpreted the passages according to his own sense. But in the story of the prodigal son Olshausen has found out yet another scruple by which Marcion would have had to be set against it. He recalls, namely, that it does not agree with Marcion’s view if the lost son seeks the unknown good God, since he may only await that God’s revelation.⁹ But how, then, does one know that Marcion had to press the words in this way, and could not set this feature aside as indifferent? And even granting that: could he not, as a skillful interpreter, have read into it the thought that that man’s turning back, and his seeking of the good God, had been effected precisely by that God? All those reasons which are adduced to show that Marcion had to strike out certain passages become problematic through the fact that Marcion otherwise applied his violent exegesis. To every reason on which those theologians support their view, counter-reasons can with the greatest ease be opposed, to the effect that Marcion had no cause to cast away particular sections.

Besides a few violent explanations of Marcion’s which have already been cited in passing, we wish to adduce a few further examples, since in the investigation of the individual sections missing in Marcion we shall come back to the matter again, in order to reject the mutilation hypothesis. In Luke 21 promises and threats for the times of the destruction of Jerusalem and of the parousia of Jesus are brought together. Marcion explained that the threats came from the creator of the world and the promises from the good God, although Jesus, who after all utters the former as well, was supposed to stand toward the creator of the world only in a negative relationship. Tertullian says (chapter 39, p. 353):

[p. 68]

Igitur, cum et haec, quae sunt promissionum, proinde conveniant, sicut et illa, quae sunt concussionum ex consonantia propheticarum et dominicarum pronuntiationum, nullam hic poteris instruere distinctionem, ut concussiones quidem referas ad creatorem, saevitiae scilicet deum, quas nec sinere nedum exspectare deberet deus optimus: promissiones vero deo optimo deputes, quas creator ignorans illum non prophetasset. [Therefore, since these things also, which belong to the promises, likewise agree, just as do those which belong to the shocks, from the consonance of the prophetic and the dominical pronouncements, you will be able to establish no distinction here, so that you refer the shocks indeed to the creator, the god of savagery of course, shocks which the supremely good God ought not to permit, still less to look forward to, but assign the promises to the supremely good God, promises which the creator, not knowing him, would not have prophesied.] Marcion did not interpret the contrast between the βάσανοι [torments] and the κόλπος Ἀβραάμ [bosom of Abraham] in the parable Luke 16:19–31 as misery with the God of the Jews and the highest blessedness with the God of the Christians. He explained, rather, that in both only the different destination for the worshippers of the Old Testament God was indicated. In Tertullian, chapter 34, p. 329: Sed Marcion aliorsum cogit: scilicet ut utramque mercedem creatoris, sive tormenti sive refrigerii apud inferos determinet eis positam, qui legi et prophetis obedierint; christi vero et dei sui caelestem definiat sinum et portum¹⁰ [But Marcion forces it in another direction: namely, so as to determine that both rewards of the creator, whether of torment or of refreshment, have been placed in the underworld for those who have obeyed the law and the prophets, but to define the heavenly bosom and harbor as belonging to Christ and to his own God]. As the tendency of the transfiguration narrative (Luke 9:28 ff.), in which the appearance of the men of the Old Testament must have been offensive to him, Marcion took it that the teaching office hitherto held by them would be transferred to Jesus. Compare Tertullian, chapter 22, p. 273: Hoc scilicet intelligi voluit vox illa de coelo: Hic est filius meus dilectus, hunc audite; id est non Moysen jam et Eliam¹¹ [This, of course, is what he wanted that voice from heaven to be understood to mean: “This is my beloved son, hear him”; that is, no longer Moses and Elijah]. When Jesus (Luke 6:23) rebuked the killing of the prophets of the Old Testament, Marcion evaded the inferences to be drawn from it concerning the relationship of Jesus

[p. 69]

to those, by the remark: Non statim tuebatur, si iniquitatem Judaeorum affirmatam volebat, quod nec cum prophetis suis pie egissent. [It does not follow that he was defending them [the prophets], if he wished the iniquity of the Jews to be affirmed, because they had not dealt piously even with their own prophets.] (Tertullian, chapter 15, p. 237.)