47-53: uncertain [Endnote 212:1].
This would give, as a maximum estimate of variation, some 55 verses out of about 804, or, in other words, about seven per cent.
But such an estimate would be in fact much too high, as there can be no doubt that the earlier researches of Hahn and Ritschl ought to be corrected by those of Hilgenfeld and Volkmar; and the difference between these two critics is quite insignificant.
Taking the severest view that it is possible to take, no one will maintain that the differences between the critics are such as to affect the main issue, so that upon one hypothesis one theory would hold good, and upon another hypothesis another.

It is a mere question of detail.
We may, then, reconstruct the Gospel used by Marcion with very considerable confidence that we have its real contents before us.
In order to avoid any suspicion I will take the outline given in 'Supernatural Religion' (ii.p.

127), adding only the passage St.Luke vii.

29-35, which, according to the author's statement (a mistaken one, however) [Endnote 213:1], is 'generally agreed' to have been wanting in Marcion's Gospel.

In that Gospel, then, the following portions of our present St.Luke were omitted:-- Chaps.i.and ii, including the prologue, the Nativity, and the birth of John the Baptist.
Chap.