(3.) I pass over other literary arguments which hardly admit of this form of expression—­such as the improbability that the Preface or Prologue was not part of the original Gospel, but a later accretion; or, again, from Marcion’s treatment of the Synoptic matter in the third Gospel, both points which might be otherwise worth dilating upon.  I pass over these, and come at once, without further delay, to the one point which seems to me really to decide the character of Marcion’s Gospel and its relation to the Synoptic.  The argument to which I allude is that from style and diction.  True the English mind is apt to receive literary arguments of that kind with suspicion, and very justly so long as they rest upon a mere vague subjective ipse dixit; but here the question can be reduced to one of definite figures and of weighing and measuring.  Bruder’s Concordance is a dismal-looking volume—­a mere index of words, and nothing more.  But it has an eloquence of its own for the scientific investigator.  It is strange how clearly many points stand out when this test comes to be applied, which before had been vague and obscure.  This is especially the case in regard to the Synoptic Gospels; for, in the first place, the vocabulary of the writers is very limited and similar phrases have constant tendency to recur, and, in the second place, the critic has the immense advantage of being enabled to compare their treatment of the same common matter, so that he can readily ascertain what are the characteristic modifications introduced by each.  Dr. Holtzmann, following Zeller and Lekebusch, has made a full and careful analysis of the style and vocabulary of St. Luke [Endnote 223:1], but of course without reference to the particular omissions of Marcion.  Let us then, with the help of Bruder, apply Holtzmann’s results to these omissions, with a view to see whether there is evidence that they are by the same hand as the rest of the Gospel.

It would be beyond the proportions of the present enquiry to exhibit all the evidence in full.  I shall, therefore, not transcribe the whole of my notes, but merely give a few samples of the sort of evidence producible, along with a brief summary of the general results.

Taking first certain points by which the style of the third Evangelist is distinguished from that of the first in their treatment of common matter, Dr. Holtzmann observes, that where Matthew has [Greek:  grammateus], Luke has in six places the word [Greek:  nomikos], which is only found three times besides in the New Testament (once in St. Mark, and twice in the Epistle to Titus).  Of the places where it is used by St. Luke, one is the omitted passage, vii. 30.  In citations where Matthew has [Greek:  to rhaethen] (14 times; not at all in Luke), Luke prefers the perfect form [Greek:  to eiraemenon], so in ii. 24 (Acts twice); compare [Greek:  eiraetai], iv. 21.  Where Matthew has [Greek:  arti] (7 times), Luke has always [Greek:  nun], never [Greek:  arti]:  [Greek:  nun] is used in the following passages, omitted by Marcion:  i. 48, ii. 29, xix. 42, xxii. 18, 36.  With Matthew the word [Greek:  eleos] is masculine, with Luke neuter, so five times in ch. i. and in x. 37, which was retained by Marcion.