It is precisely such a text that is presented by the Old Latin Codex f, which, we find accordingly, shows a maximum of difference from Tertullian.

A still more systematic revision, though executed--if we are to judge from the instances brought to our notice--with somewhat more reserve, is seen in Jerome's Vulgate.
It seems unnecessary to dilate upon this point.

I will only venture to repeat the statement which I made at starting; that if the whole of the Christian literature for the first three quarters of the second century could be blotted out, and Irenaeus and Tertullian alone remained, as well as the later manuscripts with which to compare them, there would still be ample proof that the latest of our Gospels cannot overstep the bounds of the first century.

The abundant indications of internal evidence are thus confirmed, and the age and date of the Synoptic Gospels, I think we may say, within approximate limits, established.
But we must not forget that there is a double challenge to be met.
The first part of it--that which relates to the evidence for the existence of the Gospels--has been answered.

It remains to consider how far the external evidence for the Gospels goes to prove their authenticity.