[174:1] _Evangelien_, p. 31.

[174:2] _Das Marcus-evangelium_, p. 282.

[175:1] _Synopt. Ev._ p. 193.

[176:1] _Das Marcus-evangelium_, p. 295.

[178:1] A friend has kindly extracted for me, from Holmes and Parsons, the authorities for the Septuagint text of Deut. vi. 4.

For [Greek: sou] there are 'Const. App. 219, 354, 355; Ignat. Epp.

104, 112; Clem. Al. 68, 718; Chrys. i. 482 et saepe, al.' For _tuus_, 'Iren. (int.), Tert., Cypr., Ambr., Anonym. ap. Aug., Gaud., Brix., Alii Latini.' No authorities for [Greek: humon]. Was the change first introduced into the text of the New Testament?

[178:2] _S. R._ ii. p. 25.

[179:1] _Beitrage_, i. p. 326.

[179:2] _On the Canon_, p. 261, n. 2.

[188:1] _Hom._ 1. _in Lucam_.

[189:1] _H.E._ iv. 7.

[189:2] _Strom._ iv. 12.

[189:3] _S.R._ ii. p. 42.

[189:4] _Ibid._ n. 2; cp. p. 47.

[190:1] _Ref. Omn. Haer._ vii, 27.

[190:2] ii. p. 45.

[191:1] _Ref. Omn. Haer._ vii. 20.

[192:1] _S. R._ ii. p. 49.

[197:1] _Adv. Haer._ i. Pref. 2.

[198:1] ii. p. 59.

[199:1] _S.R._ ii. p. 211 sq.

[200:1] _Strom._ ii. 20; see Westcott, _Canon_, p. 269; Volkmar, _Ursprung_, p. 152.

[203:1] _Adv. Haer._ iii. 11. 7, 9.

[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 antic.i.p.ated, 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 pa.s.sage. 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 pa.s.sages relating to the personages here named, except Martha and Mary; see _Tert. Adv. Marc._ iv. 19, 37, 43.

[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 cla.s.s. 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.