[217:1] S.  R. ii. 142 sq.

[217:2] This admission does not damage the credit of Tertullian and Epiphanius as witnesses; because what we want from them is a statement of the facts; the construction which they put upon the facts is a matter of no importance.

[217:3] The omission in 2 Cor. iv. 13 must be due to Marcion (Epiph. 321 c.); so probably an insertion in 1 Cor. ix. 8.

[218:1] Tert. Adv.  Marc. v. 16:  ’Haec si Marcion de industria erasit,’ &c.  V. 14:  ’Salio et hic amplissimum abruptum intercisae scripturae.’  V. 3:  ’Ostenditur quid supra haeretica industria eraserit, mentionem scilicet Abrahae,’ &c.  Cf.  Bleek, Einleitung, p. 136; Hilgenfeld, Evv.  Justin’s, &c., p. 473.

[219:1] ’Anno xv.  Tiberii Christus Jesus de coelo manare dignatus est’ (Tert. Adv.  Marc. i. 19).

[220:1] I give mainly the explanations of Volkmar, who, it should be remembered, is the very reverse of an apologist, indicating the points where they seem least satisfactory.

[220:2] It is highly probable that many of the points mentioned by Tertullian and Epiphanius as ‘adulterations’ were simply various readings in Marcion’s Codex; such would be v. 14, x. 25, xvii. 2, and xxiii. 2, which are directly supported by other authority:  xi. 2 and xii. 28 would probably belong to this class.  So perhaps the insertion of iv. 27 in the history of the Samaritan leper.  The phenomenon of a transposition of verses from one part of a Gospel to another is not an infrequent one in early MSS.

[223:1] Die Synoptischen Evangelien, 1863, pp. 302 sqq.

[224:1] Where a reference is given thus in brackets, it is confirmatory, from the part of the Gospel retained by Marcion.

[229:1] An analysis of the words which are only found in St. Luke, or very rarely found elsewhere, gives the following results.—­The number of words found only in the portion of the Gospel retained by Marcion and in the Acts is 231; that of words found in these retained portions and not besides in the Gospels or the two other Synoptics is 58; and both these classes together for the portions omitted in Marcion’s Gospel reach a total of 62, which is decidedly under the proportion that might have been expected.  The list is diminished by a number of words which are found only in the omitted and retained portions, furnishing evidence, as above, that both proceed from the same hand.

[231:1] This list has been made from the valuable work of Roensch, Das Neue Testament Tertullian’s, 1871, and the critical editions, compared with the text of Marcion’s Gospel as given by Hilgenfeld and Volkmar.

[231:2] It might be thought that Tertullian was giving his own text and not that of Marcion’s Gospel, but this supposition is excluded both by the confirmation which he receives from Epiphanius, and also by the fact, which is generally admitted (see S.R. ii. p. 100), that he had not the canonical Luke, but only Marcion’s Gospel before him.