Various Readings of Both Moscow Manuscripts for the Four Gospels

of this Gospel, the scribes easily permitted into the text. “My feet” (13, 9). So some books, and “To the woman” (John 8, 3). “Towards” (i) “him” many books do not recognize, just as the Vulgate and Syriac do not. ^A “To the beginning,” and thus the Vulgate. “My” is an interpolation. But enough of this Commentary; it is, I believe, the most recent of all those currently existing in Greek.

VARIANT READINGS OF BOTH MOSCOW CODICES TO THE FOUR GOSPELS

I had indeed intended to publish the complete text of the four Gospels, as it is read in the Moscow codices of Euthymius, together with his Commentary. However, the bookseller was my advisor in suggesting that I should set forth the variant readings separately, and only briefly note the text before the individual scholia. Since this could be done without harm to the readers, I readily complied. I had examined the Moscow codices of Euthymius twice: once for the edition of John Gregory (Oxford, 1703, folio), and once for Bengel (Tübingen, 1734, quarto). Regarding this work, however, just as I did in my own edition of the New Testament, I look only to Gregory’s edition. For the benefit of readers, however, it should be noted that Gregory reproduced the Oxford edition of John Fell (1675, octavo). Fell’s edition, in turn, was reprinted by August Hermann Francke (Leipzig, 1702, octavo). From many examples, however, I have learned that Wetstein also followed either Fell’s or Gregory’s edition. All these editions are, to use the common term, the *textus receptus*—that is, they do not follow only Erasmus or Beza, but have a mixed text from the larger Stephanus edition of 1550 (folio) and the last edition of Beza of 1598 (folio), with some singular readings inserted, about which, however, the first editor of the *textus receptus* did not warn his readers. In general, I advise this: the Euthymius codex marked B in my New Testament edition is superior; the one I call N in the New Testament is inferior ^B.

To the Gospel of Matthew

Cap. I. V. 1. 2. *Abraam* (a). From the custom of the Greeks, who usually add a smooth breathing before the *beta*. So also verse 17 and Cap. III, 9. ^C Chrysostom, as I have shown in my edition, interchanged this with *emblepon*, *emblepsas* or *epiblepein*. “To crave her” (*epithymesai autēs*)—*epithymesai autēn* (b). ^C “Should be cast” (*blēthē*)—*blēthēnai* (a). So also verse 30.

Cap. VI. V. 2. “Amen for I say” (b). Soon, verse 24, *mamōnā*. V. 25. “And what shall you drink?” — *or what shall you drink?* Soon, “shall you be clothed.” ^C “Ask” (*aiteite*)—in the margin, *zēteite* by the same hand. The scribe had indeed added the capital letter *delta* a little later. Therefore, the *tau* was also written over a rasura of the letter *ēta*. Chrysostom has *aiteite* in two Moscow codices. Homily VIII on the Epistle to the Hebrews.

Cap. VII. V. 4. “That not” (*hina mē*)—*that not* (b). The Vulgate is in the text. But in the margin, *or that not*.

Cap. VIII. V. 1. “For this” (*houtos gar*)—*thus for* (*houtōs gar*) (a, b). For many codices, as I have noted elsewhere, write *houtōs* for *houtō* even before a consonant. Hence, sometimes *houtos* has been rashly made from *houtōs*. *Houtos* in this place seems to have been brought in by Chrysostom, whom see: Vol. VII, p. 291 ^B; Vol. VIII, p. 451 [E]. Perhaps Origen had already introduced it, whose note I have added. Whenever one varies, I have noted it by (a) or (b).

(a) When each codex agrees, I have noted no (a) or (b).

interpretation has perished. In several codices it will be found ^A thus, if anyone considers the right reading. 14. "Narrow is the gate," explains Euthymius and Theophylact, p. 40 C. In Chrysostom, Vol. XI, p. 492 F, "hoti" (that) is indeed edited, but that place demands... See what I have noted at 1 Thess. 5:8, in my edition of the New Testament. In Symmachus, Isa. 52, 7... "fair," etc. 15. "Beware" [the Greek [δὲ] is absent]. 24. "To a prudent man," "to a man." [The phrase] "They stumbled" [replaces] "they fell." (a) This word is variously vexed, because the Greeks do not say "proskoptein" in this way. Therefore others have "proserrhizan," others "prosekrousan." Ch. VIII, v. 5. "To Him having entered," [is replaced by] "to Him having entered." "To Jesus" is from the ecclesiastical lection, Sunday 4. ... "of Abraham," by the others it is omitted. The interpretation also removes the Vulgate reading. The corruption comes from Chrysostom, who, Vol. VII, p. 209 C, has "into the bosoms." But he is deceived by a similar place which he discusses there, Luke 16:22, 23. Again likewise ibid. p. 361 D. But ibid. p. 315 C he merely omits "in the kingdom of the heavens." Ch. IX, v. 1. "And, having entered into the ship," "Jesus," after "ship" adds (a); it has that insertion before "into," by the same hand (b). 9. "And having arisen" [is replaced by] "But he having arisen." 5. "The sins" [is replaced by] "the sins." 9. "And having arisen" [is replaced by] "But he having arisen." 17. "Both" [is replaced by] "both." 18. "Ruler of those entering." 35. "Distressed" [is replaced by] "distressed," as sheep. Ch. X, v. 1. "To cast them out" (b). V. 3. "Lebbaeus," (a) both.

In this place these words also render the seat of the text suspect. For some codices have it before "cleanse the lepers," others have it after. Here, therefore, since the authority of Euthymius and Theophylact carries much weight against Chrysostom, along with other approved codices. Cyril also, who depends now on Origen, now on Chrysostom, inserts these, Vol. I, Glaphyra, p. 426 D: "Heal the sick, cast out demons, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead freely," etc. Item, Vol. II, p. 862 C: "Heal the sick, cast out demons, raise the dead." And expressly, Vol. ... part 1, p. ... "Christ gave to the holy apostles authority over unclean spirits, so that (v. 1) they might cast them out, and heal every disease and every infirmity among the people. And furthermore, exceeding these, and being able to trample down [one should add: of death], He commanded, speaking most becomingly: 'Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out demons.'" Ibid., p. 619 D: "Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse the lepers, cast out demons." P. ... against Nestorius: "Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse the lepers," etc. 10. "Nor two tunics" [is replaced by] "nor." 14. "Of feet" [is replaced by] "of the feet." 18. "Governors" [the [δὲ] is absent] (a). 19. "How or what you shall speak" [is replaced by] "how or what you shall speak." 21. "But brother" [the [δὲ] is absent] (a). 24. "His teacher." 25. "Of the household." 27. "Which you have heard." 28. "And do not be afraid," from the killers, continue: "cannot." 29. "Of your Father," immediately both add: "who is in heaven." Ch. XI, v. 2. "And John having heard" [is replaced by] "John having heard" (b). "But John having heard" (a). 4. "Do you see and hear?" 8. "King" [is replaced by] "King." 12. "Of the Baptist" [they omit]. 16. "To children" [is replaced by] "to children" [they omit] "in the marketplace," for "in the markets." 21. "Bethsaida." Ch. XII, v. 3. "And Jesus said to them." [They omit] "He," and "he hungered." 6. "Greater than the temple is." 8. "And of the Sabbath" [is absent]. 11. "Who is of you." [They omit] "if falls" (a). 12. "Differs a man." 15. "Healthy," [replaced by] "his hand healthy." 18. "Which" [is omitted] (a). 20. "His judgment." 21. "And in his name." 22. "Deaf and blind" (a). 28. "By the Spirit of God [I cast out]." 29. "His house [he might] plunder." 31. "To the latter, to men," is "to them." 32. "And if." "In this age," [replaced by] "in the now age." 42. "Solomon," [they omit] the verse. 44. "I shall return" [replaced by] "I shall return" (b). [They omit] "and having come" (a). 45. "Seven other." 49. "His, hand" [is omitted]. 50. "My and brother." Ch. XIII, v. 5. "To sow." 14. "Even those." [The [ἐπ'] is absent]. [They omit] "and you shall hear if you see" (a). 15. "Understanding" [is replaced by] "understand" (a). [They omit] "if they turn," overlooking the passage which they were purposely interpreting. And thus they often err.

23. "Gathering" [is replaced by] "gathering" (a). 26. "Fruit" [is replaced by] "fruits" (b). 27. "Has tares." 28. "Shall we gather them up."

"And [they] omit" (a). ^A Likewise both [omit] "to them and the wheat." "With" and "with," elsewhere they are also confused. Originally, therefore, it was written incorrectly "therefore to grow together," then it was recalled, "to grow together," having also preserved the "therefore." This is learned from the variations at this place. Presumably from my own edition. "These into bundles" [is replaced by] "these into bundles" (a). "These into bundles" (b). Thus John 15, 6.

Cap. XIV, V. 3. "In the prison." ... 14. "He felt compassion for them." The larger Stephanian [edition], as Wetstein correctly admonishes, for the printed "on them" had through error exhibited "on them" [accusative]. Therefore Beza corrected this and made it "on them." Yet "on them" is not lacking in authority. For so Chrysostom, Vol. VII, p. 504 D, with the Moscow codices consenting, except for codex γ, which has "on them" twice. Namely, once in the cited passage, once before the homily. For this codex alone before homily XLIX, verses 13 and 14, has it, while the rest exhibit only verse 15. I gave warning about this in my edition of the New Testament on Matthew, p. 480. The Moscow codices of the New Testament also have "on them" ^B. And indeed, "to be moved with compassion" is often added in the New Testament to "upon someone." But here [it is to be] approved by the authority of the codices "on them." 19. "And taking" [is replaced by] "and" [omitted (a)]. 22. "His," after "disciples," (a). 27. "Afraid" [is replaced by] "afraid" (a). So also written above, by (b). 28. "Answered and Peter," [he] said to him, "Lord," (a). Likewise both. Soon, "Order me" (a). 36. "They will be."

Cap. XV, V. 4. "Thy father" [they omit] "thy." ^C ... "Whoever" [is replaced by] "who if": rea, O, manifest error. For some time later that letter was painted, like the other initials (a). Soon "to eat" is missing (b).

Another reading [is inserted] by means of an added mark (a). Cap. XVI, V. 3. "Morning" [is replaced by] "of the morning." ... "them." Mill also noted this variety from the Baroccian codex. There was no need for Hentenius to indicate it also from an Hispanic codex. For it is learned from the commentary that he had read it thus. That this Appendix should be excluded, anyone can see. And among Euthymius the matter can easily be disposed of, provided these things are joined to the preceding interpretation, and the beginning of the text is held to be "an evil generation." But that is strange, that two Colbertini have it also, and the Ethiopic version. I proposed a conjecture about this place in my edition of the New Testament, which is confirmed by a similar place, Luke 15, 56, from the things which I indicated from codex d.

Cap. XVII, V. 2. "Became white" (a). ... 14. "Elijah" with a soft breathing. Indeed the same [as] above 11, 14. 20. "Jesus Christ" [they omit] "Jesus." 28. "Standing" [is replaced by] "standing." ^D Cap. XVII, V. 2. "Were white" (a). 5. "Hear" [is replaced by] "hear" (a). 4. "Moses" [is replaced by] "Moses" (a). Paul before, Peter [omits] "Moses." [He adds] "Elijah" with a soft breathing, as is customary. Ver. 12 "Elijah" (b). And so consistently this codex. 14. "Falling at his feet." 20. "If [they] have" (a). 25. "Shall be raised" (a). 27. "Coming" [is replaced by] "coming" (a).

Cap. XVIII, V. 4. "He will humble" (b). Thus again both: ver. 13. "His and thine" (a).

Cap. XIX, V. 5. "His father." ... Origen and Chrysostom. Therefore both snatched "except" from Matthew 19, 32. See Origen Vol. III, p. 647 C, Chrysostom Vol. VII, p. 622 B. Erasmus indeed introduced "if." Yet in the scholia of the Moscow codices it is read at this place thus: "Not giving permission to dissolve the marriage, except only (others: just) to the one who has caught his wife committing adultery." [To] the 11 codices which I call a, d, e, Erasmus learned the judgment from Origen and Chrysostom. For below John XIII, 10, instead of "the feet," both introduced "if not the feet." See Orig. Vol. IV, p. 411 D; Chrysost. Vol. VIII, p. 416 a. "To pass through" [is replaced by] "to enter," as also soon. In the scholia, however, they differ.

Cap. XX, V. 2. "Having agreed" [is replaced by] "and having agreed." "My vineyard" (a). ... negligence in the interpretation. "Thy" [omits] (b). ... [by] the fault of the scribe at the beginning of the leaf [they] are omitted (a).

Cap. XXI, V. 1. "Drew near" (a). Soon "Bethphage" (a, b). 2. "An ass tied" (b). 5. "He is sending." 7. "He sat." 8. "They spread their garments." 11. "Jesus" [is] inserted (a). 12. "Buying and selling" (b). 14. "Lame" and "blind." 19. "Of it, he came" (b). 22. "Whatever." 25. "Therefore" is absent (a). 28. "What [is] to you?" is absent (a).

32. "John." ^A 55. "I may deny" (a). 55. "Then." 57. "Likewise also all." 46. "The crowd" the crowd. 58. "Jesus" for them. Cap. XXII. V. 4. "It has been prepared." 48. "If however." 7. "Having heard, etc." and having 50. "Unto Jesus." heard, the king was enraged. 52. "They shall perish" [shall die]. Chrysostom’s 9. "As many as." codices, as I have already noted at this 13. "Cast." place, vary on these two words. 16. "Face of a man." 'Απολοῦνται is also exhibited in vol. VIII, 20. "And the inscription." p. 491 B. Theophylact in the text and in 31. "He said to him," he said to him. the interpretation has ἀποθανοῦνται, p. 167 A. 39. "The same" ^B same (a). 56. "His disciples." 46. "Was able." 59. "They were putting him to death." Cap. XXIII. V. 5. "As many as" (b). 65. No variant is noted here, nor indeed ^C by those among the Fathers who have collected variant readings. But yet Cyril, vol. III, p. 496 A, has περ- 14. "Yours." ἔρρηξε τὴν ἐσθῆτα, and, saying: "He has blasphemed." Those who compiled the catenae transferred this observation of Cyril in its entirety to Acts XIV, 14. See Œcumen. vol. I, p. 118 D.

Verse 14 is read before verse 13. Therefore, 67. "They spat" (a). at verse 15, they hold the narrative regarding 71. "To those there, them—" both (there). the adulteress in John, and furthermore Soon, "Nazarene" (a). Chrysostom, after verse 15, immediately 74. "To curse." passes to verse 23 (vol. VII, p. 708 B. C.). 75. "And he" is omitted. He does not touch upon this passage with Cap. XXVII. 6. "Cordones." a single word. Perhaps he passed over it 26. "Scourged." in silence because it seemed to conflict with 33. "Golgotha." Soon, "which is interpreted." Matt. V. 38. "That it might be fulfilled" and "the lot" are absent. 41. "And [of the] elders and Pharisees." 42. "We believe in him" (b). "We believe" (a). 43. "Now" is omitted. 44. "They were reviling him." 46. "Lama sabachthani." 49. "Let us see" (a).

In the edition of the New Testament, I have already noted that Chrysostom mentions here John XIX, 34. Likewise soon, vol. VII, p. 826, near the end, instead of Matthew’s words, he explains Luke XXIII, 47, 48. And thus he frequently inserts the words of other evangelists. Here, however, I am less surprised, because those words of John were formerly read in the ecclesiastical lection of Matt. XXVII, 1-38 et seqq. And Chrysostom himself makes mention of this ecclesiastical lection in vol. VII, p. 818 C. Furthermore, the fact that Montfaucon published ἤνοιξεν, that is contrary to the Moscow codices, which have ἔνυξεν. Yet he himself notes ἔνυξεν from other codices.

Genis, vol. III, p. 841 D.: "Who dwells in him." But it should be accepted thus, with tenses confused by Hebraism, even if κατοικήσαντι is read. 20.

Cap. XXIV. V. 1. After ἱεροῦ is read: ὡς θαυμα- στάς, at which words the next scholium terminates. Therefore they are marked with dots, as being to be removed (b). 2. "As, not, not" (or rather, "that not") — "not" is absent.

66 ...coming upon the clouds of heaven." 2. "All these things." 33. "Is eating and drinking" (a). "Is eating and drinking" (b). Cap. XXV. V. 2. "And the five"— 'and' is absent. 27. "Having come, I"— 'I' is omitted (a). Cap. XXVI. V. 4. "By craft they might seize." Instead of 'having blessed.'

35. "I may deny" (a). ^D "Likewise also all." Cap. XXIII. V. 1. "Observing" (b).

Ad Evangelium Marci. Cap. I. V. 5. "They were going out." Cap. II. 8. "Thus they reason among themselves" (b). "Your sins have been forgiven." Verse 10 and 11 is omitted (a).

^A to the snares, v, 27, 28, and they themselves, unwillingly, entangle Origen in the crime of either negligence or fraud. Such is the falsehood. It betrays itself. Origen’s observation, I think, pertained only to this: that no one should think that a certain Levi was one of the apostles. But this is achieved if Levi, in Mark II, 14 and Luke V, 27, is taken as a different person, not as Matthew (Matt. IX, 9). Therefore, Origen, oblivious of Luke, for the moment, as an argument was adding: "According to some of the copies." But what is achieved if here, in Mark II, 14, in these interpolated codices, instead of Levi, Jacob is read? To be sure, then we shall have three tax-collectors [(c)] and three sons of Alphaeus. It will be necessary, therefore, that either the three evangelists spoke of three persons, or that James and Levi, or Levi and Matthew, are taken as one person. We are, therefore, revolving into the same difficulty. For it has still only been asked whether Matthew and Levi are the same person, or two? Now it must also be asked whether James and Levi are one or two persons. But Levi, by Origen's decree, was not an apostle. Either, therefore, James was not an apostle either, or three ^B tax-collectors are reported in the Gospels, all sons of Alphaeus. But Origen, as in a hundred other places, so also here infatuated the scholiasts, whose words also to this place, because they combined the interpretations of different authors, are so obscure and inconsistent with one another that no one can discern a convenient meaning. The scholia are read in my edition of the New Testament. The lowest scribes, as I have already noted regarding this place in my edition of the New Testament, corrupted this place from the scholia. But Origen imposed upon the scholiasts. He therefore writes against Celsus, vol. I, p. 376 D, as follows: "Let it be granted that also the tax-collector Levi followed Jesus, but he was not of the number of his apostles, unless according to some of the copies of the Gospel according to Mark." Here it must first be noted that 'Lebes' is put for 'Levis'. For it cannot be taken for Lebbaeus or Thaddaeus. For Lebbaeus is nowhere called a tax-collector, but Levi. Now, because Origen had said, "according to some of the copies of the Gospel according to Mark," the interpolators concluded from this that elsewhere in the Gospel of Mark it was read differently for Levi, and unless it were read differently in this way, it had to be corrected differently. But Origen's passage can be adapted to two places in Mark. For on account of "Levi the tax-collector" following, it can be referred to Mark II, 14. But on account of the addition, "of the number of the apostles," it could also be drawn to Mark III, 16–18, where there is a catalogue of the apostles. It seemed probable to the interpolators that Origen had spoken of the former passage. But when "son of Alphaeus" was read here, and below in chapter III, 18, they found the same addition to the name of James, they corrected James for Levi. I do not wish here to inquire what credibility Origen deserves when he mentions "some copies." I only point out that, if he looked at the first passage, he was little attentive. For neither does Mark only narrate that Levi approached Christ, but Luke also (V, 27 ff.) with almost the same words as Mark. Nothing can be brought forward to excuse Origen, unless, perhaps, his most desperate defender has said that even Luke’s text in all books, chapter V, v. 27, 28, is corrupted twice, and that there also "James" must be interpolated twice. Therefore, the first passage of Mark cannot be corrected by the authority of Luke. Let us see about the latter passage of Mark. But here it could very easily be corrupted, if, to be sure, in III, 18, instead of "Matthew" or "James," "son of Alphaeus" were written as "Levi." In this one way could Origen’s observation be consistent. ^C But here, while the interpolators fear the authority of Matthew (X, 3), Luke (VI, 15), and Acts (I, 13), they fall into Luke ^D (c) And yet the scholiasts to this place do not grant us even two tax-collectors. For they propose this question: "Someone will say that there were two tax-collectors from the twelve, Matthew and James son of Alphaeus, which is not true; for he is one and the same." But this is utterly stupid, unless for "James" is written "Levi." If, in fact, Matthew and James of Alphaeus are one person, but Levi was not at all an apostle, only eleven apostles are numbered. This place of the scholiasts was also edited in this way by Wetstein ad h. l., just as we see from the four Moscow codices. Photius, in Possinus ad h. l., is more liberal. For he numbers two tax-collectors among the twelve, Matthew and James. From where, however, is this implied to him? But the whole scholium, as it is edited by Possinus, p. 50, is absurd. But so that I may warn you entirely regarding Photius: that Photius who wrote the Bibliotheca was, although he had many detractors, a man of most abundant learning. But the other Photius, whose scholia, mostly very long and very inept, are read in the Catenae, was either not a person at all, and the name of Photius was feigned, or he was an ignoble and most inept monk. For those to whom the unpublished scholia of that Photius are not at hand, as they are to me, let them approach the Pseudo-Oecumenius, and read there as many scholia noted under the name of Photius as they please. Truly, as I foresee, they will agree with my assessment. For he drew everything from others—water, vinegar, and wine—and he rendered all things very similar to the bilge of his own turbid eloquence. Concerning James, whom Chrysostom makes a tax-collector, see the note below; he is deceived by Origen’s observation.

^A His own: "he said," is omitted along with the interpretation. b. 15. Into a boat. a. 19. "When I broke the five loaves," a. 21. "And he says," a. 22. Bethsaida. a. 24. "That I see trees walking about," a. 25. "He looked," a. 31. And of the chief priests. Mos. [Moscow Codex], and of the scribes. 34. "Whosoever will," a. 35. "His own soul," a. Cap. IX. V. 2. Him, before James and John, they omit. 3. Were. a. Mos. fuller. 6. What he says. Chrysostom, vol. VII, p. 569 B. The evangelist Mark, because "he knew not what he said, for they were afraid" (also noted: they were terrified); but Luke, after saying, "Let us make three tabernacles," added: "Not knowing what he says" [Luke IX, 33]. 9. Tell no man. Mos., unless when, both. 20. Seeing him. b. 23. "If you can," omitted. a. 24. "Believe — unbelief." Chrysostom expressly attributes this to [the evangelist], Vol. VIII, p. 204 C, where, however, it is not found. 34. They discussed [with] some, it is noted. Whence? From Chrysostom, Vol. VII, p. 587 B. But Mark says that they did not ask, but "they discussed among themselves." Origen also expressly attributes [it] to the Vulgate text of Mark, Vol. III, p. 596 C. 55. "If any man desires to be first, the same shall be last of all," and "servant of all." In the name, the "in" is omitted by b. C. His reward: "his" is omitted by a. Or Gomoris: Gomoris. a. And to Gomoris, the other "p." having been removed by a cancellation. b. 15. "As," is absent. 16. "Herod," is omitted. 17. In prison is lacking. 18. Wife of Philip his brother. 20. "Holy," sacred. But [the textual witness reads] having heard, [meaning] upon hearing. 22. "If he wills," if, is omitted by a. 27. Having sent, is omitted by b. 29. In a tomb. 30. And all that, is omitted. 31. And when they went away. Mos., in time. 33. [The words] "and coming together, they gathered themselves to him" are absent. Hentenius also omitted them. Therefore, it does not appear that he found them in his own codex. 34. Jesus saw. 37. Buy. 38. "Go and," and is omitted. 41. He blessed, he announced. a. 44. "As," is omitted. 45. Bethsaida. b. Dismiss. 49. A phantasm, a phantom. 52. Their heart. a. 53. Gennesaret. Cap. VII. V. 2. Eating bread. 4. They are washed, they are sprinkled. 5. The scribes and the Pharisees. a. 12. Twice in the same verse, the same [is written]. 19. Cleansing. a. 21. The house, [the word] "the" is omitted. 26. A Syrophoenician woman. Mos. cast out. 32. Stammering. See, in two letters. Cap. VIII. V. 2. By day. a. B. Loaves and having given thanks. 7. To set before, and verse 9, he dismissed. a. Him. b. Cap. X. V. 2. The Pharisees, the is omitted. They questioned. They were questioning. a. D. And for the sake of the Gospel. Cap. XI. V. 1. Bethphage.

^A 53. This verse is had twice subsequently, and the same interpretation. b. Cap. XII. V. 1. And he built a tower] these things have been deleted. On the erasure it still appears, “and he placed a fence.” a. 2. They kill] they killed. a. 3. They beat] they beat. b. He dried up. a. *Casting out* they killed. 20. The Seven, then] *then* omitted. 21. And the second] *seed* is absent. a. 23. In the then] *then* is absent. b. Soon likewise, they were having her. 25. They are given in marriage] they are given in marriage. 26. I am the God of Abraham. 27. The God of the living] *God* is absent. 28. The first of all. Soon, verse 29, that the first commandment of all. Immediately, the God of you. Thus both. 31. Like to it. 32. You have said] you said. 35. The sacrifices. 35. Is the son of David. a. 36. In the Spirit. Soon, says the Lord. 37. The much] is absent. a. 43. More than all] more than these. b. Cap. XIII. V. 2. And Jesus] but Jesus. 4. All these things. 7. Shall speak. 14. Is in a place where it ought not. a. 21. Do not believe. 23. To you all. b. 28. Shall sprout. 30. All these things. 31. Shall pass away. b. 32. And the hour] the hour. 33. For, before *then*, is absent. Cap. XIV. V. 1. They sought. b. Soon likewise verse 2, nor, that lest. 3. The alabaster flask. h. It is said that *to* is [used], as stands in Aristophanes. Eustathius noted this concerning the matter in his commentary on the *Iliad* v, p. 946, verse 53, Roman edition. 5. The poor] *to the poor* is absent. a. 6. In me] on me. b. 8. What she had] she had, my body. 9. Amen I say. Soon, wherever. 10. Before *Judas*, is omitted. 12. We shall prepare. 15. Upper room. Soon *to make ready* is omitted. 17. From the beginning of this verse to chapter 14, verse 54, "toward the light" have fallen out along with the interpretation. b. 19. And having blessed. a. 22. And blessed. a. 25. That, before *cup*, is absent. 27. Amen I say. Soon likewise, of the fruit. 27. I note here in passing a defect that I have noticed in the edition of the New Testament, which could also have happened [here]. It was written: That you all shall be scandalized. In me in this night. That it is written, etc. A leap [in transcription] therefore occurred. Things omitted certainly make the verse in many codices. Others then added again, "in me."

^B 58. That we heard from him. Both. Verse 55 begins b. 60. In the midst. 65. From another to the suprascript. a. 68. Went out] went out is absent. 72. The judgment, and said. Cap. XV. V. 15. Barabbas] *the* is omitted. a. 17. Weaving a crown of thorns. a. 18. Hail, King. 20. And they lead him. 22. To Golgotha. 24. They divide. 28. They omit this whole verse. 30. Come down. 31. And, after *likewise*, is omitted. 34. Lama sabachthani. First, after *God*, is absent. 40. There was also Mary, and is absent. 42. Preparation] before *Preparation* is absent. a. 46. Wrapped] wrapped. But there is no grammatical reason for this. Thucydides, Polybius, and Heliodorus, Synesius, and others have it. At the door. a. 47. Mary of Joses.

Cap. XVI. V. 1. Of James. Shall anoint Jesus. 9. I have treated the first part of this Gospel extensively in my New Testament edition on Mark, pages 266 ff. Now I only add that verse 20 is also cited by Nestorius against the orthodox, in this way: "For they went out," he says, "and preached the Word everywhere, the Lord working with them, and confirming the Word, by the following miracles." See Cyril against Nestorius, vol. VI, p. 46. Cyril himself repeats it in the same place in his own words: "Using the power from him, the divine disciples both preached and performed the divine signs." 11. The whole is absent. a. 13. Nor did they believe them. a. 14. Later to those reclining. a. 18. Shall harm them.

Ad Evangelium Lucae Cap. I. V. 1. In us] *in* is absent. a. 10. Of the people. 15. Of the Lord] is absent. 17. In the power of Elijah. A form indeed Hebrew, for which among the LXX also there is *Elou*. 28. With you. For *against you* is an error in the edition. Gregor. 32. For he shall be. 33. The house] *house* is absent. a. In the margin it is. b. 36. In her old age. Thus Psalm 91, 15 and elsewhere. 37. With God] *with* is omitted. a. 42. Great the] great is omitted. a. 44. The babe leaped in gladness. 50. To generation and generation. 55. To Abraham. Constantly, as I noted. 80. In the deserts.

Cap. II. V. 12. In a manger. 20. Returned. 21. The child] him. b. Soon, "him in the crib." a. 22. Of Moses. 25. Was the Holy Spirit. 28. Received him. a. 37. And a widow. The *Other* alone—which I marvel at—in the Vindobona codices finds it so. 40. Was in it. 46. And hearing] *and* is absent.

Cap. III. V. 1. Ituraea. a. Mosch. Abilene. ^A Both codices.

2. Of the high priest. b.

10. Was baptizing. a.

18. He preached the gospel to the people.

19. Of Philip.

22. In thee. a.

23. Pilate.

24. Matthat] Mattath.

25. Amos: Amon. b. Continuously the same, Nahum. b.

26. Mattath] Nathath. Mosch. Semei. Also Ioda.

27. Joannan.

29. Matthat] Mattath. b.

30. Jonas] Joannan. b.

31. Nathan] Nathan.

34. Tharra.

35. Saruch] Seruch. Esrom] Heber. Sala] Salan. b.

Cap. IV. V. 2. He ate nothing] *nothing* is absent in a. And then *saying* is missing in both. And *and* before *man* they exclude.

7. Before me. b. Inserted in a. And Mosch in both *all* instead of *everything*.

8. Go, Satan, behind me. a.

9. Thou art the Son.

10. For it is written] *for* is absent. a.

11. And that is omitted.

18. To preach the gospel.

23. Capernaum. a. And both omit, *in thy country*.

26. Sarepta] Sarephtha. b.

28. Hearing.

29. To the brow.

To cast down headlong. a.

35. In the midst.

38. The mother-in-law] is omitted.

41. Crying out, instead of *calling*.

42. Seeking him.

Cap. V. V. 6. A multitude of fishes. In a quite recent hand *path* is added. See below in Luke.

49, 4. Mosch, that they might carry. a. One cannot judge this place from the ancient versions. They rendered *Peias* in whatever way they could, for the sake of clarity. *Dia* (through) Erasmus seems to have introduced. That could easily come to anyone's mind. Yet *Dia poias* (by what way) is found in Cyril, I. IV, p. 255 A, who changes more things here.

21. He alone is God] *is God* is absent. a.

24. That you may see.

28. Leave all things. b.

29. O, before Lēui, is omitted.

30. With the tax collectors. a.

31. In which the bridegroom is with them.

35. And *moreover* is missing. a. They agree with the one from the one.

Cap. VI. V. 7. They were watching him] *him* is absent.

He did so] *thus* is absent in a. For homilists frequently seize and contrive such things as they can treat more copiously. *All* certainly urges vehemently, naming Luke specifically, Chrysostom, vol. VII, p. 192. A. B. He repeats in the same way, vol. VIII, p. ^B.

35. Sons of the Most High.

Cap. VII. V. 2. He was about to. 6. That he might enter under the roof.

7. But *by* and *if* are absent. Chrysostom, examining Luke and Matthew, passes over these in silence. See vol. VII, p. 315. D. *Since also Luke*, and p. 316. C. Moreover, these are so far from being repugnant to Chrysostom's interpretation that he himself seems to have had them before his eyes. See p. 316. B. *that he willed himself*, etc., and ibid. C. *Do not think that I did not come because of sloth*. Nor are they contrary to Euthymius's explanation, neither here nor in Matthew. Theophylactus keeps these in the context, yet he does not touch upon them verbatim in his interpretation.

9. Was with her] *he was* is absent.

11. In the next.

12. And that] *that* is absent.

21. Many blind] a. And both omit *the* before *seeing*.

24. Saying to the crowds about.

28. Prophet is omitted.

Kingdom of God] in place of *of God* there is a space, and an erasure appears. b.

31. And said the Lord] *is absent*.

34. A friend of tax collectors.

36. That some one] *is absent*. a.

Cap. VIII. V. 3. Susanna. Mosch, were ministering to them. ^C

8. Into the earth.

12. Those hearing. a.

18. And *also* is absent. And then, *whosoever has*.

21. Those doing it] *it* is absent.

22. And they went] he went. a. And they were there. a.

29. He commanded. b. He commanded. a.

32. He permitted them. a.

42. As years] *as* they omit.

45. And those of his] these things, which by some are changed, by others are entirely omitted, ^D comparing Luke with Matthew, Chrysostom speaks explicitly, vol. VII, p. 359 A.

46. Known] known. a.

48. And Jesus said.

51. John and James.

Cap. IX. V. 1. His disciples] are absent.

5. Whosoever.

9. Herod] *is absent*.

13. Give to them. a. And both, two fishes. If we should buy.

13. And he prepared *so* are absent. I had suspected in my annotations that these were translated from what I praised in my edition of the New Testament, as being expressed word-for-word from Chrysostom (see vol. VII, p. 537) B., and that the words *daily* appear there also. Cyril adds the same in *On Adoration*, vol. I, p. 597. C, where...

he explains *Departure* clearly, Theophylact, p. 97. E. ^A How diligently the Greek Fathers examined their own manuscripts, and how faithfully and consistently they expressed them, even if we were to grant them hundreds of thousands of manuscripts, is understood from those places which they treated intentionally as interpreters. Whence, therefore, did *demons* come into some manuscripts? Clearly from interpreters and scribes learned in Greek, who can be numbered among the interpreters. And here indeed Chrysostom, as very often elsewhere, seems to have led the scribes into error. For the scholia on this passage, which I have rendered from manuscripts in the edition of the New Testament, are expressed word-for-word from Chrysostom. See vol. VII, p. 299. E. But in that place the passage of Matthew VII, 22, which he was then interpreting, where *demons* is found, demanded *demons*. From that passage this remained in his memory. Therefore he recites it again, ibid. p. 376. C. in the same manner. I add a third passage, vol. VIII, p. 427. C, where he quotes it similarly. Who, he says, among the editors of the New Testament approved the word *demons*? Did you not yourself say in your own edition: "*Demons*, instead of *spirits*, is an explanation"? You rightly warn. We have therefore driven out *demons*, but not yet those hundreds of thousands of Chrysostom’s best manuscripts. My scholia therefore quote this passage in this way. I have noted here the disagreement with different letters. ^B *But* [therefore *in this* is absent] *do not rejoice that the demons* (so manuscripts a. d. β.) *are subject to you; but in this* [So a. d. but g. *but*] *rejoice that your names are written in heaven.* We have already traced Chrysostom in the order in which we quoted him. He reports it first, therefore, as follows: *Do not rejoice that the demons are subject to you, but that your names are written in heaven.* Second: *Do not rejoice that the demons are subject to you, but that your names are written in heaven.* Third: *Do not rejoice that the demons are subject to you, but that your names are written in heaven.* Who desires the more numerous variants of this passage from the hundreds of thousands of manuscripts of Cyril, Basil, and Theodoret, let him approach the places of these quoted here by Wetstein. ^C But let us now examine this passage, which is by no means liable to dogmatic and critical disputes. *But in this* Chrysostom omits three times. Perhaps, therefore, it should be removed? To the counsel of Chrysostom, he says, those words did not pertain which join the discourse in context. Rightly. I add, nor did *in this* pertain to the counsel of the scholiast. Why then did he introduce *in this* a little later in a foreign place? Because scholiasts are little concerned about individual words. But what will become of the word *subject*? For Chrysostom has *subject* twice, and *obey* once. Therefore he also found it so in his manuscripts. He did indeed find it so, he answers, in one of them, but he has *subject* twice. Therefore this must be proven. But the same person has *written* three times, instead of *written*. ^D Add the scholia, which agree in three manuscripts on *written*. Therefore they found at least this in their hundreds of thousands of manuscripts. What if *written* is also found in those passages in Cyril, Basil the Great, and Theodoret? Must it not be that they likewise found it so in their own manuscripts? I deny it, and I utterly deny it. It was more common to say *written*. Those, therefore, who know Greek, they, even without manuscripts, at any time and in any place, whether in Antioch, or Constantinople, or Alexandria, or Caesarea, or Cyri, write in Greek. But in this passage, the reliability of the manuscripts of Wetstein L. and 1. can be estimated, which are held to be primary by Griesbach, and are referred by him to the Alexandrian recension. For from the reading *written* and *written* they made *inscribed* through confusion. What then must be proven here? *Written*. But in this very verse, not because of Chrysostom, but because of the manuscripts of the New Testament, the Erasmian *must be expelled* is rather to be chosen. Regarding Augustine, I still warn, that he wrote *to glory* instead of *to rejoice*. Therefore, instead of *do not*...

boast—rejoice, rather, more *rejoice* is absent—I have discussed these matters a little more copiously for the benefit of those youths who have not yet sworn by the words of their masters. As for [the] Alexandrian and Western [tradition], namely C, D, K, Copt., Arm., Eth., the word *holy* [is found]; I reply [that] a large part of them [derive] from the Latin Vulgate. From where does the Latin Vulgate have it? My Moscow [codex] 10, and the scholia of codices a, d, g, reveal the matter. But who among the editors has proven this? No one has been so foolish yet. But perhaps now they will approve, after the authority of the divine Codex Vaticanus 1209 has been added to the works of Birch. It explicitly names Luke; here [the matter] could have been completely removed. *On the spirit*. *He was handed over to me*] *to me he was handed over*. b. ^B And he explains it rightly from Chrysostom: One ought not spend the time of listening upon a concern for meats. But p. 729 D, touching upon the allegorical interpretation, has *of few*. Veranus imposed Origen upon the scholiasts, the scholiast upon credulous and light-minded men. Chrysostom treats these matters in Vol. VIII, p. 259 B, D, E.

Cap. XI, V. 5. *Shall have*] *he has*. b. I am surprised that this word has not been scrutinized by most scribes. *Him as a friend*. And a little later *so much*, instead of *of as many*. *It shall be opened*. So also verse 10. *If even a fish*] *or even a fish*. *Of the earth*. *Of Solomon*. *Nor under*] or *under*.

Cap. XII, V. 1. *First* [they] refer to the preceding. 47. *Of his Lord*. Things which some in Wetstein omit in this verse, the same Chrysostom also neglects, Vol. VII, p. 322 C, 730 E; Vol. VIII, p. 502 C. ^C Cap. XIII, V. 3. *Repent*. a. 4. *That these* are absent. b. 5. *Likewise*] likewise; Ex Chrysostom, who praises this passage, Vol. VII, p. 808. A plurality of codex variants is understood. But it has it thus: For what do you think, he says, that they alone were sinners there, upon whom the tower fell? I do not say to you, but unless you repent, you too shall likewise perish. He has therefore mixed verses 2, 3, 4, 5. *Amen, I say to you*] *I say to you*. *It shall come when*. a. ^D Cap. XIV, V. 5. *An ass or an ox*, *a son* or *an ox*. Cap. XV, V. 1. *And the sinners*] *and* is absent. a. *He fell on*] *it fell*. *They are* have fallen out. b. Cap. XVI, V. 1. *And he said also*] *and* is absent. a. In the Greek scholia is *xestas*. That, therefore, as to etymology, he rendered as *scraped*. For *xeo* means to scrape. *Now but here*. Cap. XVII, V. 1. *Of not coming*. [Cap. XVIII, V. 5. *And a certain widow*] *certain* is absent. ...Chrysostom’s lection, *of the week*, which is an interpretation. See Vol. VII, p. 352 A. That they fasted on the second and fifth day, the author is Epiphanius, Vol. I, p. 34 B, where there is also, *twice of the Sabbath*.

^A "Ή ἐκεῖνος" | for indeed "ἐκεῖνος" ^B. Another codex a. A more recent hand ^A has inserted *γάρ*, which is not inapposite, but it is clever. For *γ' ἄρ'*. In the present time, *τούτῳ*. Sycomore. Through her* | *δι' ἔμελλε*. In the same way as above V. 19, *ὅτι* is rashly inserted before *abest b*. ^B For *πρὸς ὑμῶν. h.* From this, Luke says he spoke it: "I have remained with you in my trials." But he said these things, showing that they were strengthened by his influence. ^B In my kingdom *absunt*. Soon, they read *καθίσεσθε*. ^B *ἐξητήσατο* | in Chrysostom T. VII, p. 785 D. Variant codices between *ἐξετήσατο* and *ᾐτήσατο*. But as above, p. 791 E. *ἐζήτησε*. Thus perhaps the reading of the Cambridge codex originated. *ἐζητήσατο*. ^B *ἐκλείπῃ* | Chrysostom gives the option between both. For T. VII, p. 785 D has *ἐκλίπῃ*. But T. VIII, p. 429 E, *ἐκλείπῃ*. ^B And into prison. ^B Oil-press. | *Ἀρχιερεῖς* | priests. ^B The people. | And and died. | He saw someone also. | ^B of nations in distress, the sea and waves roaring, men fainting from fear. ^B And he entered | ^B agreed. ^B saying (19) *πωλήσει καὶ ἀγοράσει*. ^B (let him take) | some from *ἀράτω* some from *ἀρεῖ*; let him sell and buy, let him sell and let him buy. ^B He is among the former, Basil the Great. Nay, even among the latter. See Whitby, *Examen Varr. Lect.* p. 182, III, p. 655 A, and Chrysostom, T. VII, p. 797 C. ^B Which are read here, Chrysostom attributes to Matthew, T. VIII, p. 377 D. For he has it thus: "Matthew indeed, from his agony and anxiety and from his sweat, confirms his humanity." Understand: *certify the human*. And having come, he prayed *earnestly*. He dropped clots of sweat. This error is corrected by Theophylact, p. 725 C. Certainly these two verses are read in the ecclesiastical lection between Matth. 26, 39 and 40. In the same way, therefore, Chrysostom erred here, as he brought in Matth. xxvi, 49, as with John xix, 34. ^B From "And when" to "prayed" they omit. But they are explicitly explained at Matth. 26, 44. Looking also to this, Chrysostom T. VII, p. 791 B, has *ἐκτενῶς*. Confer in the same place regarding this whole passage p. 798 C. Theophanes Ceramicus, who treats this passage p. 191, rightly explains: he poured out clots of sweat. ^B "And it came to pass" | *δέ* *abest a*. ^B having arisen, removes *a*. ^B To kiss him | for this sign he had given them: "Whomever I shall kiss, he is the one." ^B of themselves. | *Ήγαγεν* | *ἤγαγον*. ^C Ch. XXIII, V. 1. What I said above regarding Mill's observation on the Alexandrian codex, Mark 15, 28, is confirmed here as well. For here too, with verse 17 omitted, that scribe caused confusion, lest the defect appear, in the canons and the minor sections of Eusebius. For with verse 17 omitted, which was to be marked with Θ and Β, rashly and fraudulently ^D

^A the scribe indicated the words of verse 14: Προσηνέγκατε τὸν λαὸν, and marked them with Θ and I, and the remaining words of the same verse: Καὶ ἰδοὺ — to verse 16, ἀπολύσω, he marked with ΤΘ and Β. But how can the things which are read from the words of verse 14, Καὶ ἰδοὺ, to verse 16, ἀπολύσω, be marked with ΤΘ and Β? For in part they pertain to canon Θ, and in part to canon I. But verse 17 alone, written here in the middle of the context, pertains to canon Β. But let us explain more accurately. Therefore, those words which he marked with ΤΘ and I, are to be referred to canon Θ. For Luke and John alone narrate these things. Therefore, in canon Θ, Luke and John are arranged in this way: Luke: τζ. — Joannes: ρπβ. τζ. — ρας. τζ. — ρh. But it reveals defect and fraud even more that he marked verses 15 and 16 of Luke with ΤΘ and Β. For these are referred to canon I, because Luke alone narrates them. So, on the contrary, verse 17 of Luke, omitted by the scribe, is of canon B, section ΤΘ. For Matthew, Mark, and Luke report these things. Matthew 27, 15. Mark 15, 6. Therefore, here too the Alexandrian codex, willy-nilly, fights for verse 17, but convicts the scribe of error and fraud. Therefore, I approve even more now of Bengel's conjecture, which I had already approved before, having inspected the Alexandrian codex edited by Woide. For he ought to have written, as it is in my... ΤΘ Ἀνάγκην up to Γ. ἑορτὴν ἔνα. ^B 11 Ἀνέκραξαν, etc. A. Therefore it failed from Ἀνά to Ἀνέ. ...gans, and unique in this place. As for the unique reading, it is to be rejected by the authority of the other codices. Τὸν Ἰησοῦν δέ. ^C ...I have already noted. But Chrysostom, vol. VII, p. 839 E, says of this stone: Λίθος ἐπέκειτο μέγας πολλῶν δεόμενος χειρῶν. The Cambridge codex teaches that it was the work of forty hands. For it has in this place: Ὃν μόγις εἴκοσι ἐκύλιον. Cap. XXIV. V. 1. Τῇ μιᾷ δέ. ...both omit it. Ἐν ταύταις ταῖς ἡμέραις. Διηρμήνευεν αὐτούς. Περὶ ἑαυτοῦ, ^D

Ad Evangelium Joannis. Cap. I. V. 14. Πλήρη, for πλήρης, a. Both are in Chrysostom in the Montfaucon edition, vol. VIII, p. 69 D, 70 C. But nothing can be gathered from his interpretation. ...tiori has b in the margin. ... ὁ Ἰησοῦς. ... λέγει, addit καί. λ. Cap. II. V. 5. Λέγει ὑμῖν. a. ...φάγεται με. ...λόγῳ αὐτοῦ, with the rest omitted. But b in the margin by a more recent hand: Γρ. ᾧ εἶπεν ὁ Ἰησοῦς. Μο vers. 23. ἐν τοῖς Ἱεροσολύμοις. Cap. III. V. 2. Πρὸς τὸν Ἰησοῦν] πρὸς αὐτόν. ...μενεί. Cap. IV. V. 3. Πάλιν is missing. ...χάρ. V. 21. See what I have noted in the edition of the New Testament. ... Αὐτοὶ γὰρ is absent a. Cap. V. V. 1. Ἦν ἡ ἑορτή. Ἡ λεγομένη.

λεγομένη. 8. Awake. a. 18. The Jews] is absent from b. 19. From myself. a. Again the same, looks, all these things. b. 24. That even] they omit. 35. To rejoice. 36. Will give. 38. Have not. a. 40. That they might have eternal life. a. 45. Moses. Cap. VI. V. 2. They followed. b. 5. I shall buy. 9. In the group] is absent, a. 10. And the men sat down. 12. They took up. 15. He departed into. 16. Was. a. 14. He came. 19. Having become a boat. 24. They themselves also] is absent. 26. The signs. a. 27. But the food] omits "the food." 28. Shall we do. 29. O, before Jesus] is absent. Again, that ye may believe. 32. The true] are prefixed only to the scholium, and thus read in the midst of the scholia. Therefore, it was omitted by one scribe. 39. In the last] is absent. 45. Taught. If again, hearing, for hearing. 43. Himself, for that one. 51. Chrysost. vol. VIII, p. 271. a. At first he recites the whole verse, then repeats to the words *my flesh is*. Therefore, Origen and Chrysostom gave occasion by omitting not a few words. 54. In the last. 55. Twice true, for truly. 56. From the appendix of the Cambridge codex, which is now confirmed by Birch’s edition; Beza, Mill, and Wetstein remarked it. Origen’s interpretation of this passage has perished. And yet, one who is a bit mindful, *it wanted*, he did not *have power*. Therefore, he begins the homily at once with a great outcry, vol. VIII, p. 283, and sharply disputes about the words, *he did not have power*. What does he say, O blessed John? *He did not have power*, he who was able to do all things whatsoever he willed? He who said, "Whom seek ye?" and cast them backward? etc. But the scribe of him who was receiving the words of the speaker correctly gave *he willed* before that same homily, attested by four Moscow codices, 6. m. 4. 7. Origen’s commentary on this passage has perished. The Vulgate has it, Cyrill. vol. IV, p. 395. C. But yet he explains it almost as Chrysostom does: *It was not a thing of his own will* [for him to be among them], *but rather he shows it as happening out of necessity*, having added the reasons; for *they wanted* [instead of *they were seeking*], he says, *to kill him*. In vain does Mill try to pull the Latin interpreter into different parts, imagining that he ought to have written *he was able* [valebat], not *he wanted* [volebat]. It should have been taught in which places the Latin interpreter rendered the words *to have power*, which occur many times in the Gospel of John, as *he was able* [valere]. From similar passages, Chrysostom by mistake snatches at it, as he is wont to do. Perhaps from Mark 6:5, where it is *he was not able*. In the same homily, verse 2, for *and it was near*, he cites *after these things it was*, and he interprets it as such, p. 283. E. ^B Through Birch’s edition it is now confirmed, as Beza, Mill, and Wetstein remarked. Origen’s interpretation of this passage has perished. However, in vol. I, p. 244, from verse 53 to 58, he cites the words of the text without that appendix. Perhaps those were added for the sake of connection. Chrysostom disputes about the connection, vol. VIII, p. 275. E., and Cyril, vol. IV, p. 366. B. In this whole passage, *body* does not occur, but *flesh*. Yet Chrysostom has, vol. VIII, p. 277. D: *Having said that my body is the life of the world*. But where did he say this? Nowhere did he make *flesh* into *body* himself. Thus [it was] fabricated from verse 51. But that the Syriac has *body* for *flesh* has already been noted by Grotius. Wetstein also noted this from one codex. Whoever has looked correctly to the Syriac versions after this will be surprised that the faulty readings of Chrysostom, just like many of the same man’s interpretations, are expressed there. But from many examples I seem to have learned that the Syriac interpreters had at hand Latin codices, the Lectionaries of the Greeks, and Greek codices with Commentaries. Thus it is ^C easily understood what the crisis is of those who shout: The Syriac interpreter is thus, the Latin interpreter is thus. Therefore it should be read thus. Perhaps the Syrians also had at hand Latin Commentaries and Latin Lectionaries. But I have not yet been able to conduct an examination of this matter. ...seeing him. Cap. VII. V. 1. Willed] *he had power*. Thus both. Anyone understands that Christ’s authority is not harmed by the words, *he did not have power*. Without any doubt, I would approve these words as purer, if the authority of the codices did not stand in the way. The good Chrysostom here suffered something humanly through his eloquence. *The crowd*] *the world*, for they are explained. ...for; after not. 42. And from Bethlehem. Cap. VIII. V. 1. Jesus, however] *and Jesus*. ...him. In adultery.] *in adultery*. Again, *in the midst*. *This woman was caught in the very act of committing adultery*, we found this *in the very act of committing adultery*. ^D This *we found* is recognized also by Ambrose according to Sabatier. To be stoned] *to stone*. Continually: *You, therefore, what do you say concerning her?* Ambrose and Augustine according to Sabatier acknowledge also *concerning her*. ...to them. First — let him cast] *first — let him cast a stone at her*. ...Wetstein and Birch, namely: *Of each one of them their sins*, I think these were added from Jerome. For it has: *namely, of those who were accusing, and of all mortal sins*. But this is an explanation, and a very ingenious and clever one. *Jesus was left alone*] *Jesus was left alone*. b. Thus, but a. has *he was left behind*. Being] *being*. — *Jesus saw her, and said: Woman, where are those accusers of yours, no one has condemned you?*

^A 41. *He said to her* | *to her* is absent. *Go* — *sin* | *Go and from now on sin no more*. 12. *Again* — *saying* | *Again, therefore, Jesus spoke to them, saying*. *Will walk*, a. 19. *He answered, I* | *I* is absent. *Neither my Father* omits a. 22. *To kill himself*. a. *If therefore* | *even if therefore*. E. *And therefore*, for the capital letter is missing. He therefore intended *and*, a. 27. *He said* | *He was saying*, a. 30. *Did they believe* | *they believed*, b. 35. *Therefore* | *Amen*. It is consistently thus in John. 36. *Free*, a. 39. *You make* | in Chrysostom [this is] not only in this place, vol. VIII, p. 318 A, but also in vol. VII, p. 469 A. he excludes [it]. 40. *From God* | *from the Father*. Following Chrysostom (vol. VIII, p. 318 B.), as I taught. Cyril, vol. IV, p. 548 C. in the text *of God*. He urges it also in the interpretation on p. 549 B. But in the same place D. compares a similar passage: "What I have heard from the Father". 42. *He said therefore* | *therefore* is absent. *For neither from* | *for* omits a. *When he speaks*, a. 46. *But the truth* | *you do not believe me*. [The words] are absent. a. Namely, a scribe here, as appears below from the Commentary, made a jump from *of sin* to *of sin*. Therefore, this passage, along with part of the interpretation, is excluded. 47. *That from God*. ^B Everyone who has read him knows that he has no authority in these matters. But he who has not yet read him, yet desires to know the truth, let him examine volumes XIX and XX on John. He will therefore certainly find many other things of the sacred context to have been omitted by him. Treating the same passage, Chrysostom, vol. VIII, omits everything from *Jesus* to the end of the verse in silence. Yet it is learned from p. 324 C, 326 B. C. that he had these things before his eyes, from the words *thereupon he flees, he went out from the temple and withdrew for the healing of the blind man, having gone out from the temple*, etc. How often Chrysostom has elsewhere neglected the words of the context is learned from my edition of the New Testament. Cyril, vol. IV, p. 586 C, omits these same things after the example of Origen and Chrysostom, from the words *passing through* to *thus*, and has nothing else there except *hides* or *they go out* in E. Theophylact, p. 691 C, has *passing through the midst of them, and he went thus*, and also interprets it there. They are also interpreted in the Catena of Corderius p. 245, in the Greek. What then here of the Latin interpreter? Namely, he excluded all these things from *passing through* to *thus*. Whose manuscripts, then, did they use? Namely, those much better than ours, of course the Alexandrian. Let Cyril now answer for all. Why then does the same man, in the same volume in his Commentary on John, p. 1031 D, report it thus? *And therefore they wanted to seize him, as the evangelist says* (namely John, whom he interprets), *but having gone out through the midst of them he was going away*. (Some have favored this, but now he adds the explanation consecutively: *The word "thus," he says, instead of "without fear," or "boldly," etc.*) People commonly believe these things in John were fabricated from Luke iv. 30. But anyone can see for himself that Cyril's passage does not agree with Luke. For Luke has *to throw down*, here *to seize*; Luke does not have *thus*, while here he explains it distinctly. But Cyril changed the words *having gone out* and *he was going away* or *he passed by* through oversight. What then? Let us follow the authority of the manuscripts, neglecting the negligence and shallowness of the interpreters. For it is agreed regarding Jerome that he, as he himself says, restores everything to the Greek truth, that is, as I interpret it, to the trifles of Origen and the remaining Greek interpreters. *We say* | *we were saying*. From Chrysostom, who indeed in vol. VIII, p. 521 C, has the vulgate, but in the same place D, *we do not say well that*, etc. Clearly, as above ch. VI, 1. Of course, one thing before the homily, another at the beginning of the homily. *And you dishonor me* | omits a. They are absent in Chrysostom, who also changes other things. But the scribe of the codex of Euthymius, a., here made a jump from *God* to *God*, as appears below from the Commentary. Therefore these [words] perished together with part of the scholia. [He] made [an error] in transcribing the Commentary. For from *he desired* to *he desired* it is defective. This verse, which Chrysostom neglects in his Commentary on John, vol. VIII, p. 523, as he quotes it without variety in vol. VIII, p. 49 B, p. 125 B. Thus, therefore, the scattered limbs of the evangelists must be sought in Chrysostom. *Fifty* | Where are those who corrected the New Testament from the Fathers? Who has recorded the reading of Chrysostom *forty*? See him vol. VIII, p. 324 a. But Theophylact p. 690 E has the vulgate. But which manuscripts Euthymius intended in the Commentary appears by itself. Namely, those of Chrysostom and the scholia, of the sort mine is. Cyril repeats *fifty* in his Commentary, vol. IV, p. 585 C, and vol. II, p. 419 A, and vol. V, part 1, p. 685. I. Severus also has it thus in the Catena of Corderius p. 213. ^C *Passing through* — *thus*. They had no need of this interpretation. Furthermore, it seemed tautological, because of the following: *And passing by he saw*. But more such things occur in John. Let us begin from the great Origen. He therefore in that place where he was deliberately explaining these things, vol. IV, p. 292, end, omits the whole of verse 59, but paraphrases it thus: *After this speech, having lifted stones that they might stone him, Jesus hid himself, and went out from the temple, when passing by he saw the man blind from birth*. Origen, however... Ch. IX, V. 1. *Of birth* | *born*. a. Eustathius argues about this word on hom. p. 1834, verse 22, edit. Rom. Hesiod and others have it. *He saw him sitting*. *At the doors of the temple*. They commonly say that such [a passage] is from the Gospel according to the Hebrews. It becomes credible to me that these things are from the Gospel according to the interpreters. *He put on*... *and* | *He put on my eyes and*. b. *He performed and he put on my eyes and*. a. Whether you want *from*, or *by*, or *out of*. For it has [variations] in vol. VII, p. 566 D, VIII, p. 334 D, etc. *By* or *from* I had already noted from that. *Himself concerning himself*. *But this man did not* | *but* is absent. a. Ch. X, V. 8. *Before me they came* | *before me* are absent. The reading is difficult and obstructed, which the addition *before me* so little facilitates that it implicates it in more difficulties. But *before me*, as I taught, [is]...

^A Origen. Chrysostom also scatters the seeds of this corruption (vol. VIII, p. 346 D, 348 D). For in explaining the first verse there, he has: *Here he refers both to those before him and those who will be after him.* In another place, where he interprets the eighth verse, he advises: *He does not speak here about the prophets, as the heretics (the Manichaeans, of course) say.* But there is no need for these circumlocutions. Those, however, who press for *have come* for the sake of the prophets, because *were sent* is not written, have not noticed that *have come* is also said of Christ in verse 10. If they had wished to corrupt the context with any probability, they ought to have added not *before me*, but *not through me*, understanding *as through a door*. For thus it is in verses 1, 2, 9. And in this way this passage must be explained. In Cyril, vol. IV, p. 640 C, *before me* is indeed read in the context before the scholia. But in the same place in the interpretation, E. repeats it without *before me*, nor can it be proven by any means from his interpretation that he approved of it. Theophylact, p. 707—E, acknowledges it neither in the text nor in the scholia, ^B although he repeats that passage twice in his interpretation. I have said more about this passage in my edition of the New Testament. 29. Regarding the reading, *what He has given me greater*, which is an absurd dogmatic correction of the Latin Fathers, lest the authority of the Son be harmed, for this, I say, Mill also cites Cyril. But to this passage there exist only fragments of Cyril from the Catenae, in which I have found nothing. Mill therefore depends, as it seems, on Beza and Zegner at this passage. Nay, Cyril in the *Thesaurus*, vol. V, part 1, p. 326 D, where he cites the passages of John in succession, has: *Who has given to me*. Cap. XI. V. 1. *Of his sister*. 2. ^C In the scholion. It fell out through the fault of the scribes, who ought to have continued the words of the text right up to the scholia. Furthermore, Chrysostom only uses this verse, *he groaned in the spirit*, vol. VIII, p. 376 E.

Cap. XII. V. 2. *Reclining with him*. He who is instructed by scholia reads: *Simon the Iscariot*. Wetstein and Birch note the same from others. Since, therefore, Theophylact had such copies at hand, of the sort that the Moscow one is, he remembers three Simons among the disciples, p. 51—E, 52—A. But John 6, 71 stands in the way.

[...] omit *the* before *Jesus*. *Lord king of Israel*, a. *Lord the king of Israel*, b. *From the dead*, a. 4. *Jesus therefore cried out*.

Cap. XIII. V. 8. *Peter to him*, b. [...] is the only distinction of this passage to be approved. What I had suspected regarding Cyril in Russia, I subsequently understood to be so. Namely, Cyril, vol. IV, p. 742, has it thus: *It was night, when he went out*. Then p. 744 B, about to treat this passage again, having interposed *therefore*, he repeats the above: *When therefore he went out, Jesus says*. In the same way Cyril, p. 797 C, at the beginning of the passage verse 26, interposes *therefore* for the sake of connecting the discourse: *Having dipped therefore*. And so many times. Nevertheless, here too he had Chrysostom and Origen as his guide. For Origen ends vol. IV, p. 443 D: *He went out immediately; it was night*. And again p. 445 E: *When therefore he went out, Jesus says*. Similarly, almost, Chrysostom, vol. VIII, p. 424—A, D: *He went out by night, and it was night, when he went out*. But p. 425 B, after Judas had gone out to betray, he says: *Now*. Theophylact, p. 760 C, in his interpretation repeats: *It was night when he went out*.

Cap. XIV. V. 3. *I will go to prepare a place for you, again*, b. Thus, but *to prepare*, a. ^D *The works themselves* — *themselves* is absent, a. *May love*, only a. The same: *let us do*. *That I said* — Theophylact, citing this verse at Heb. 5, 8, omits *said*. Why? Because Chrysostom omits it at the same passage, vol. XII, p. 84 B. The Vulgate also depends on Chrysostom, as in very many places. Perhaps the author of this omission is Origen. That it can conveniently be absent, anyone senses [...] which was brought in by interpreters, lest the devil be considered the master of this universe. But an uncertain seat also argues [against] that word. Origen, vol. IV, p. [556 C]: *finds nothing in me*. p. 556 C: *The ruler of this world comes, and in me he has nothing*. [...] *has not in me anything*. Chrysostom, vol. VII, p. 206 A: *The ruler of this world comes and in me he has not* (from others is noted: *finds not*) *anything*. So also he repeats in vol. VIII, p. 198 C, 444 D, 446 B, with the words *of this world* however transposed. p. 444 A, where he treats these things according to the order of the commentary, he immediately adds: *Ruler of the world*, etc. Cyril, vol. IV, p. 853 C, does not acknowledge *of this* in the context nor in the interpretation, ibid. E. Theophylact also omits *of this* in his interpretation, p. 776 E.

PREFACE

Cap. XVI, v. 3. *They shall do to you*—*to you* is absent. v. 7. *For if I do not go away*. (Gregory).

Cap. XVII, v. 1. *His eyes*—they omit *his*. 478, C. D. He conflated the seventh and eighth verses into one; he was the author of this reading. He mentions there also another reading, doubtless Origen’s. But he wrote *egnōn* instead of *egnōkan*. He wrote it thus because he had erased *egnōsan* instead of *egnōkan*. My opinion is confirmed also by Theophylact, p. 798 C, who depends entirely on Chrysostom. From the interpretation of Cyril, who has *egnōkan* in the text, nothing is concluded. Nor is anything repeated in the Catena of Corderius. Cyril, Vol. IV, p. 969 D, 971 B, C, D, 972 A, and Theophylact, p. 800 A. From some codices, it is understood that a jump was made from the words in v. 11, *your name*, to the same words in v. 12, *your name*. Thus *hos* (these) crept in from the other place. Chrysostom, Vol. VII, p. 480, confuses everything. *Sanctify*, he has: "Holy Father, keep them in the truth." He therefore confused verse 11 at that time, when he was deliberately interpreting these things. v. 11. *Of them*.

Cap. XVIII, v. 8. *Jesus answered*. The same, Vol. IV, p. 1020 C, first cites the text from *the band therefore* to *for the people*. Here there is no variation, except that in v. 13 *him* is absent, and in v. 14 *to die* instead of *to be destroyed*. Then, however, p. 1021 B: after v. 14, again after the interpretation, he places the text thus: "And they sent him bound to Caiaphas the high priest. And Caiaphas was the one who counseled the Jews that it is expedient that one man should die for the people." And these things he also interprets. They are taken from v. 24. It is remarkable that this is in the margin of the Syriac version. The same is noted from the Syriac Philoxenian by Birch at this place. Similarly, Cyril, below in chap. 19, v. 30, has something added with the Syriac, namely the word *to die*, from chap. 11, v. 50.

Cap. XIX, v. 5. *Then came forth—garment*—are absent in *a*. These in the other codex are read between two scholia which the scribe *a* joined together. Thus he excluded the text. *Charge*—*cause*, *a*.

v. 34. *Pierced*. Nor does Chrysostom recognize *into the praetorium* in Vol. VIII, p. 503 seqq., nor Cyril in Vol. IV, p. 1057 A. For he explains here: "They lead away, as one already about to die, the Author of life." Vol. IV, p. 1069 D, and he interprets it also on p. 1072 C. That scholium, which I had noted in my edition of the New Testament from the Moscow codices, is on p. 1069 E. But these scraps appear to me to come from the ecclesiastical lection, in which before verse 31 one reads Matt. 27, 39-54, which lection perhaps other Evangeliaries terminate at verse 51. Therefore, these things easily coalesced. The lection is for Great Friday, in the evening. Each one. That the lection is absurd is understood from the fact that soon at v. 37 *they shall look upon* is referred here. Eustathius also, at the Iliad 6, 46, explains *enuxe* (pierced): "to pierce, that is, to wound, he says, to prick." But *ēnoixe* (opened) is nevertheless edited in Chrysostom, Vol. VII, p. 623 C, although the Moscow codices and others cited by Montfaucon contradict this. But at this place, Vol. VIII, p. 507 D, and in the Moscow codices and in Montfaucon, *enuxan* (they pierced) is read. Cyril also, Vol. IV, p. 1076 C, approves *enuxen*. For he has *dianuttousin* (they pierce through) in the interpretation. In two faulty codices, Birch notes *ēnoixe*. The Vatican 1209, and others of that kind, abandons the Vulgate at this place. The divine Augustine, in Zegher, talks nonsense. *And immediately*. v. 37. *That you*. v. 38. *Should take away the body of Jesus*.

Cap. XX, v. 4. From *and he came* to *the tomb*—omitted in *a*. v. 11. *At the tomb*, *b*. v. 19. *That Jesus is*. v. 20. *He showed*—*showed*, *a*. v. 25. Twice in this verse *thrust*, *b*. v. 29. *Thomas*—they omit.

Cap. XXI, v. 1. *To his disciples at*, *a*. v. 3. *They went out and went*. Immediately, *they went in*. v. 4. *Jesus*, they omit. v. 17. *He says to him—my sheep*, they omit. v. 21. *Jesus*, *a*. v. 25. *Many other things*—they omit *many*, *a*. *Amen*, they omit.