L. C. id

210 MARCION.
were spoken to rebuke and quiet the indignation with which the other apostles heard that James and John, or their mother on their behalf, had asked Christ to promise them the thrones on His right hand and His left in His kingdom. Luke gives the impression that they were spoken during the Last Supper. There are other similar differences between the Evangelists, some of which those who have constructed “ Har- monies of the Four Gospels ” have found it difficult to adjust. Now it is remarkable that “where Luke has the other two Synoptics against him .. . Marcion has them against him too.”
(5) Further, where Luke breaks off from Matthew and Mark, and leaves a gap in the story, Marcion leaves the same gap.
(6) “It has been noticed as characteristic of St. Luke, that where he has recorded a similar incident before, he omits what might seem to be a repetition of it. This characteristic is exactly reflected in Mar- cion, and that in regard to the very same incidents.”
(7) “Then, wherever the patristic statements give us the opportunity of comparing Marcion’s text with the Synoptic, and this they do very largely indeed, the two are found to coincide with no greater varieties than would be found between any two not directly related manuscripts of the same text.”
The conclusion is irresistible. We must choose between the two alternatives. “Either Marcion’s Gospel is an abridgment of our present St. Luke, or else our present St. Luke is an expansion by inter-
i MARCION. sil Sect Svin a Me ll ie AES Ea el ea LL polation of Marcion’s Gospel, or of a document co- extensive with it. No third hypothesis is tenable.” The two Gospels cannot be independent works.!
But, secondly, if the two Gospels are not indepen- dent of each other, may not Marcion’s represent the original document? In that case the passages con- tained in our Luke are additions by a later hand. The evidence against this hypothesis is conclusive.