No doubt the premisses of this argument are true, and so also is the conclusion, strictly as it stands.

It is true that the Fathers accuse Marcion of tampering with the text in various places, both in the Epistles and in the Gospels where the allegation can be tested, and where it is found that the supposed perversion is simply a difference of reading, proved to be such by its presence in other authorities [Endnote 217:2].

But what is this to the point?
It is not contended that Marcion altered to any considerable extent (though he did slightly even in the Epistles [Endnote 217:3]) the text _which he retained_, but that he mutilated and cut out whole passages from that text.

He can be proved to have done this in regard to the Epistles, and therefore it is fair to infer that he dealt in the same way with the Gospel.

This is the amended form in which the argument ought to stand.