Are we able to reconstruct that Gospel from the materials available to us with any tolerable or sufficient approach to accuracy?
I believe no one who has gone into the question carefully would deny that we can.

Here it is necessary to define and guard our statements, so that they may cover exactly as much ground as they ought and no more.
Our author quotes largely, especially from Volkmar, to show that the evidence of Tertullian and Epiphanius is not to be relied upon.

When we refer to the chapter in which Volkmar deals with this subject [Endnote 209:1]--a chapter which is an admirable specimen of the closeness and thoroughness of German research--we do indeed find some such expressions, but to quote them alone would give an entirely erroneous impression of the conclusion to which the writer comes.

He does not say that the statements of Tertullian and Epiphanius are untrustworthy, simply and absolutely, but only that they need to be applied with caution _on certain points_.

Such a point is especially the silence of these writers as proving, or being supposed to prove, the absence of the corresponding passage in Marcion's Gospel.