(2.) In examining the internal evidence from the nature and structure of Marcion’s Gospel, it has hitherto been the custom to lay most stress upon its dogmatic character.  The controversy in Germany has turned chiefly on this.  The critics have set themselves to show that the variations in Marcion’s Gospel either could or could not be explained as omissions dictated by the exigencies of his dogmatic system.  This was a task which suited well the subtlety and inventiveness of the German mind, and it has been handled with all the usual minuteness and elaboration.  The result has been that not only have Volkmar and Hilgenfeld proved their point to their own satisfaction, but they also convinced Ritschl and partially Baur; and generally we may say that in Germany it seems to be agreed at the present time that the hypothesis of a mutilated Luke suits the dogmatic argument better than that of later Judaising interpolations.

I have no wish to disparage the results of these labours, which are carried out with the splendid thoroughness that one so much admires.  Looking at the subject as impartially as I can, I am inclined to think that the case is made out in the main.  The single instance of the perverted sense assigned to [Greek:  kataelthen] in iv. 31 must needs go a long way.  Marcion evidently intends the word to be taken in a transcendental sense of the emanation and descent to earth of the Aeon Christus [Endnote 219:1].  It is impossible to think that this sense is more original than the plain historical use of the word by St. Luke, or to mistake the dogmatic motive in the heretical recension.  There is also an evident reason for the omission of the first chapters which relate the human birth of Christ, which Marcion denied, and one somewhat less evident, though highly probable, for the omission of the account of the Baptist’s ministry, John being regarded as the finisher of the Old Testament dispensation—­the work of the Demiurge.  This omission is not quite consistently carried out, as the passage vii. 24-28 is retained—­probably because ver. 28 itself seemed to contain a sufficient qualification.  The genealogy, as well as viii. 19, was naturally omitted for the same reason as the Nativity.  The narrative of the Baptism Marcion could not admit, because it supplied the foundation for that very Ebionism to which his own system was diametrically opposed.  The Temptation, x. 21 (’Lord ... of earth’), xxii. 18 (’the fruit of the vine’), xxii. 30 (’eat and drink at my table’), and the Ascension, may have been omitted because they contained matter that seemed too anthropomorphic or derogatory to the Divine Nature.  On the other hand, xi. 29-32 (Jonah and Solomon), xi. 49-51 (prophets and apostles), xiii. 1 sqq. (the fig-tree, as the Jewish people?), xiii. 31-35 (the prophet in Jerusalem), the prodigal son (perhaps?), the wicked husbandmen (more probably), the triumphal entry (as the fulfilment of prophecy), the announcement of the Passion (also as such), xxi.