proving, or being supposed to prove, the
absence of the corresponding passage in Marcion's Gospel. It is
argued, very justly, that such an inference is sometimes
precarious. Again, in quoting longer passages, Epiphanius is in
the habit of abridging or putting an &c. ([Greek: kai ta hexaes--
kai ta loipa]), instead of quoting the whole. This does not give a
complete guarantee for the intermediate portions, and leaves some
uncertainty as to where the passage ends. Generally it is true
that the object of the Fathers is not critical but dogmatic, to
refute Marcion's system out of his own Gospel. But when all
deductions have been made on these grounds, there are still ample
materials for reconstructing that Gospel with such an amount of
accuracy at least as can leave no doubt as to its character. The
wonder is that we are able to do so, and that the statements of
the Fathers 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,