attempt to rid the Apostle’s text of all supposed corruptions with no regard to any sort of critical material whatever, but depending simply and solely on his own instinctive sense of what was genuinely Christian and apostolic, was the undertaking of a giant, as Irenæus calls Marcion. And his disciples, in a blind veneration of his authority, seem to have exceeded the intention of the master and editor, “just as many Lutherans at the present day look upon Luther’s translation, with all its faults, as the very word of God, and hardly capable of improvement.” In the Appendices to his second volume Zahn has gone still more carefully into the questions relating to the criticism of the text.[212] His main conclusions will hardly be contested. Among these are the following:— [Sidenote: Marcion and the Western Text.] 1. That Marcion based his Gospel on that of Luke, although his text displays various elements belonging to Matthew and Mark; 2. That this mixture is found in those passages wherein the ecclesiastical texts, and especially the Western, exhibit the same or similar features; 3. That Marcion’s text shows[213] none of those small “apocryphal additions” which we find combined with the contents of our Gospels in Justin and Tatian. Zahn also calls attention frequently to the different manuscripts which still exhibit a text agreeing with that credited to Marcion, and which are precisely the Western witnesses, the Old Latin manuscripts, and D of the Greek.[214] Compare, _e.g._, on Luke v. 14, 34, 39; vi. 25 f., 31, 37; viii. 45; ix. 6, 16, 22; x. 22, 25; xi. 20, 41; xii. 14, 31, 58 f.; xviii. 35; xx. 36; xxi. 27, 30; xxiv. 6, 26, 37. But there are also passages where Marcion parts company with D and its associates—_e.g._, vi. 22, 26, 29; xi. 4. In Paul, too, the number of passages displaying agreement between Marcion and D_{2} G_{2} preponderates: Gal. ii. 5; iii. 14_b_; v. 1, 14, 24; 1 Cor. i. 18; 2 Cor. v. 4; 1 Thess. iv. 16; Eph. i. 9, 13; iii. 10; iv. 6; v. 28 ff. The agreement between Marcion’s text and that of the minuscule 157 was previously emphasised by Zahn—_e.g._, in Luke xvi. 12, where the reading τὸ ἐμόν instead of τὸ ὑμέτερον (ἡμέτερον B L) is supported as yet by this Greek manuscript alone and three old Latin (e i l), and in xxi. 30, where only one other of the minuscules collated by Scrivener supports D 157 in reading προβάλωσιν τὸν καρπὸν αὐτῶν.[215] In Luke xxiv. 26, D and Marcion are our only witnesses for the reading ὅτι instead of οὐχί. How is this to be explained? Zahn, _e.g._, holds that it is a mere coincidence that Marcion’s reading, “prophetas suos,”[216] in 1 Thess. ii. 15 agrees with τοὺς ἰδίους προφήτας read by D_{2} E_{2} K_{2} L_{2}, _i.e._, the representatives of the Antiochean recension, with which Marcion elsewhere very seldom agrees, seeing he founds throughout upon a Western text. In the great majority of cases the explanation seems to be simple enough.