On the literature of the subject, _cf._ Zahn, _GK._ i. 585-718, _Das N. T. Marcions_; ii. 409-529, _Marcions N. T._ All other works are superseded by this, but mention may still be made of A. Hahn, _Das Evangelium Marcions in seiner ursprünglichen Gestalt_ (1823); Thilo, _Codex Apocryphus Novi Testamenti_ (1832: for this work Hahn attempted to restore the text of Marcion, pp. 401-486); A. Ritschl, _Das Evangelium Marcions und das kanonische Evangelium des Lucas_ (1846); Hilgenfeld, in the _Z. f. hist. Theol._, 1855, pp. 426-484; Sanday, _The Gospels in the Second Century_, c. viii. Footnote 206: The proof passages will be found in Zahn, _GK._ i. 620, 626, 663: machaera non stilo: erubescat spongia Marcionis (Tert., v. 4, p. 282. Is it permissible to infer from this that minium was already used in manuscripts of the Bible at that time?—_cf._ Augustine, _Con. Jul._, iii. 13: ipsum libri tui argumentum erubescendo convertatur in minium): non miror si syllabas subtrahit, quum paginas totas plerumque subducet. Quis tam comesor mus Ponticus quam qui evangelia corrosit (_con. Marc._, i. 1): tuum apostoli codicem licet sit undique circumrosus (Adamantius). Footnote 207: See the passage from Tertullian (cotidie reformant illud (_sc._ evangelium), prout a nobis cotidie revincuntur), and from Adamantius (_Pseudo-Origenes_, de la Rue, i. 887 = Lat. in _Caspari Anecdota_, i. 57) in Zahn, _GK._ i. 613. Footnote 208: _Cf._ also _GK._ p. 681. Footnote 209: _Cf._ Westcott, _Canon_, Pt. I. c. iv. § 9, Marcion: “Some of the omissions can be explained at once by his peculiar doctrines, but others are unlike arbitrary corrections, and must be considered as various readings of the greatest interest, dating as they do to a time anterior to all other authorities in our possession” (p. 315). See also note at the end of the paragraph, where certain readings peculiar to Marcion are cited. Footnote 210: _Cf._ also _ibid._, p. 684, and see below, p. 313. Footnote 211: _Cf._ also _ibid._, p. 682: “I repeat that readings which are proved to be earlier than Marcion by their simultaneous occurrence in his text and that of the several Catholic witnesses deserve greater consideration both in the Gospels and Epistles than has generally been accorded them. It is much more important to ascertain whether a certain reading has the support of Marcion than to observe that it occurs in this or that uncial manuscript. In spite of this, however, the critical notes in our commentaries hardly ever refer to Marcion, not to speak of their doing so systematically.” Footnote 212: Pp. 409-449, on the criticism of the sources; pp. 449-529, the restoration of the text. On p. 449 f. he gives his verdict on the earlier works of Hilgenfeld, Volkmar, and van Manen in this direction. Footnote 213: Zahn interjects “as yet.” Footnote 214: