[203:2] Ibid. iii. 12. 12.

[204:1] The corresponding chapter to this in ‘Supernatural Religion’ has been considerably altered, and indeed in part rewritten, in the sixth edition.  The author very kindly sent me a copy of this after the appearance of my article in the Fortnightly Review, and I at once made use of it for the part of the work on which I was engaged; but I regret that my attention was not directed, as it should have been, to the changes in this chapter until it was too late to take quite sufficient account of them.  The argument, however, I think I may say, is not materially affected.  Several criticisms which I had been led to make in the Fortnightly I now find had been anticipated, and these have been cancelled or a note added in the present work; I have also appended to the volume a supplemental note of greater length on the reconstruction of Marcion’s text, the only point on which I believe there is really very much room for doubt.

[205:1] See above, p. 89.

[205:2] Apol. i. 26.

[205:3] Ibid. i. 58.

[205:4] ii. p. 80.

[205:5] Der Ursprung, p. 89.

[205:6] Cf.  Tertullian, De Praescript.  Haeret. c. 38.

[206:1] Adv.  Haer. iv. 27. 2; 12. 12.

[209:1] Das Ev.  Marcion’s, pp. 28-54. [Volkmar’s view is stated less inadequately in the sixth edition of S.  R., but still not quite adequately.  Perhaps it could hardly be otherwise where arguments that were originally adduced in favour of one conclusion are employed to support its opposite.]

[210:1] [Greek:  oida] for [Greek:  oidas] in Luke xiv. 20.  Cf.  Volkmar, p. 46.

[211:1] Das Ev.  Marcion’s, p. 45.

[211:2] Ibid. pp. 46-48.

[211:3] ’We have, in fact, no guarantee of the accuracy or trustworthiness of any of their statements’ (S.R. ii. p. 100).  We have just the remarkable coincidence spoken of above.  It does not prove that Tertullian did not faithfully reproduce the text of Marcion to show, which is the real drift of the argument on the preceding page (S.R. ii. p. 99), that he had not the canonical Gospel before him; rather it removes the suspicion that he might have confused the text of Marcion’s Gospel with the canonical.

[212:1] This table has been constructed from that of De Wette, Einleitung, pp. 123-132, compared with the works of Volkmar and Hilgenfeld.

[213:1]:  S.R. ii. p. 110, n. 3.  The statement is mistaken in regard to Volkmar and Hilgenfeld.  Both these writers would make Marcion retain this passage.  It happens rather oddly that this is one of the sections on which the philological evidence for St. Luke’s authorship is least abundant (see below).

[215:1] There is direct evidence for the presence in Marcion’s Gospel of the passages relating to the personages here named, except Martha and Mary; see Tert.  Adv.  Marc. iv. 19, 37, 43.