(4.) We may assume, then, that there is definite proof that the Gospel used by Marcion presupposes our present St. Luke, in its complete form, as it has been handed down to us.  But when once this assumption has been made, another set of considerations comes in, which also carry with them an important inference.  If Marcion’s Gospel was an extract from a manuscript containing our present St. Luke, then not only is it certain that that Gospel was already in existence, but there is further evidence to show that it must have been in existence for some time.  The argument in this case is drawn from another branch of Biblical science to which we have already had occasion to appeal—­text-criticism.  Marcion’s Gospel, it is known, presents certain readings which differ both from the received and other texts.  Some of these are thought by Volkmar and Hilgenfeld to be more original and to have a better right to stand in the text than those which are at present found there.  These critics, however, base their opinion for the most part on internal grounds, and the readings defended by them are not as a rule those which are supported by other manuscript authority.  It is to this second class rather that I refer as bearing upon the age of the canonical Gospel.  The most important various readings of the existence of which we have proof in Marcion’s Gospel are as follows [Endnote 231:1]:—­

v. 14.  The received (and best) text is [Greek:  eis marturion autois].  Marcion, according to the express statement of Epiphanius (312 B), read [Greek:  hina ae morturion touto humin], which is confirmed by Tertullian, who gives (Marc. iv. 8) ’Ut sit vobis in testimonium.’  The same or a similar reading is found in D, [Greek:  hina eis marturion ae humin touto], ’ut sit in testimonium vobis hoc,’ d; ’ut sit in testimonium (—­monia, ff) hoc vobis,’ a (Codex Vercellensis), b (Codex Veronensis), c (Codex Colbertinus), ff (Codex Corbeiensis), l (Codex Rhedigerianus), of the Old Latin [Endnote 231:2].

v. 39 was probably omitted by Marcion (this is inferred from the silence of Tertullian by Hilgenfeld, p. 403, and Roensch, p. 634).  The verse is also omitted in D, a, b, c, d, e, ff.

x. 22.  Marcion’s reading of this verse corresponded with that of other Gnostics, but has no extant manuscript authority.  We have touched upon it elsewhere.

x. 25. [Greek:  zoaen aionion], Marcion omitted [Greek:  aionion] (Tert. Adv.  Marc. iv. 25); so also the Old Latin Codex g’2 (San Germanensis).

xi. 2.  Marcion read [Greek:  eltheto to hagion pneuma sou eph’ haemas] (or an equivalent; see Roensch, p. 640) either for the clause [Greek:  hagiasthaeto to onoma sou] or for [Greek:  genaethaeto to thelaema sou], which is omitted in B, L, 1, Vulg., ff, Syr.  Crt.  There is a curious stray [Greek:  eph’ haemas] in D which may conceivably be a trace of Marcion’s reading.

xii. 14.  Marcion (and probably Tertullian) read [Greek:  kritaen] (or [Greek:  dikastaen]) only for [Greek:  kritaen ae meristaen]; so D, a (’ut videtur,’ Tregelles), c, Syr.  Crt.