should stand the test so well as they do.  Epiphanius especially often shows the most painstaking care and minuteness of detail.  He has reproduced the manuscript of Marcion’s Gospel that he had before him, even to its clerical errors [Endnote 210:1].  He and Tertullian are writing quite independently, and yet they confirm each other in a remarkable manner.  ’If we compare the two witnesses,’ says Volkmar, ’we find the most satisfactory (sicher-stellendste) coincidence in their statements, entirely independent as they are, as well in regard to that which Marcion has in common with Luke, as in regard to very many of the points in which his text differed from the canonical.  And this applies not only to simple omissions which Epiphanius expressly notes and Tertullian confirms by passing over what would otherwise have told against Marcion, but also to the minor variations of the text which Tertullian either happens to name or indicate by his translation, while they are confirmed by the direct statement of [the other] opponent who is equally bent on finding such differences’ [Endnote 211:1].  Out of all the points on which they can be compared, there is a real divergence only in two.  Of these, one Volkmar attributes to an oversight on the part of Epiphanius, and the other to a clerical omission in his manuscript [Endnote 211:2].  When we consider the cumbrousness of ancient MSS., the absence of divisions in the text, and the consequent difficulty of making exact references, this must needs be taken for a remarkable result.  And the very fact that we have two—­or, including Irenaeus, even three—­independent authorities, makes the text of Marcion’s Gospel, so far as those authorities are available, or, in other words, for the greater part of it, instead of being uncertain among quite the most certain of all the achievements of modern criticism [Endnote 211:3].

This is seen practically—­to apply a simple test—­in the large amount of agreement between critics of the most various schools as to the real contents of the Gospel.  Our author indeed speaks much of the ‘disagreement.’  But by what standard does he judge?  Or, has he ever estimated its extent?  Putting aside merely verbal differences, the total number of whole verses affected will be represented in the following table:—­

iv. 16-30:  doubt as to exact extent of omissions affecting about
       half the verses.

       38, 39:  omitted according to Hahn; retained according to
       Hilgenfeld and Volkmar.

vii. 29-35:  omitted, Hahn and Ritschl; retained, Hilgenfeld and Volkmar.

x. 12-15:  ditto ditto.

xiii. 6-10:  omitted, Volkmar; retained, Hilgenfeld and Rettig.

xvii. 5-10:  omitted, Ritschl; retained, Volkmar and Hilgenfeld.

       14-19:  doubt as to exact omissions.

xix. 47, 48:  omitted, Hilgenfeld and Volkmar; retained, Hahn and
       Anger.