ding alone in his
infatuation. Strange, that the most industrious of modern accumulators
of evidence should not have been aware that by such extravagances he
marred his pretension to critical discernment! Origen and
Epiphanius--the only Fathers who quote the place--both read [Greek:
pygme]. It ought to be universally admitted that it is a mere waste of
time that we should argue out a point like this[361].

Sec. 2.

A gloss little suspected, which--not without a pang of regret--I proceed
to submit to hostile scrutiny, is the expression 'daily' ([Greek: kath'
hemeran]) in St. Luke ix. 23. Found in the Peshitto and in Cureton's
Syriac,--but only in some Copies of the Harkleian version[362]: found in
most Copies of the Vulgate,--but largely disallowed by copies of the Old
Latin[363]: found also in Ephraem Syrus[364],--but clearly not
recognized by Origen[365]: found again in [Symbol: Aleph]AB and six
other uncials,--but not found in CDE and ten others: the expression
referred to cannot, at all events, plead for its own retention in the
text higher antiquity than can be pleaded for its exclusion. Cyril, (if
in such a matter the Syriac translation of his Commentary on St. Luke
may be trusted,) is clearly an authority for reading [Greek: kath'
hemeran] in St. Luke ix. 23[366]; but then he elsewhere twice quotes St.
Luke ix. 23 in Greek without it[367]. Timotheus of Antioch, of the fifth
century, omits the phrase[368]. Jerome again, although he suffered
'_quotidie_' to stand in the Vulgate, yet, when for his own purposes he
quotes the place in St. Luke[369],--ignores the word. All this is
calculated to inspire grave distrust. On the other hand, [Greek: kath'
hemeran] enjoys the support of the two Egyptian Versions,--of the
Gothic,--of the Armenian,--of the Ethiopic. And this, in the present
state of our knowledge, must be allowed to be a weighty piece of
evidence in its favour.

But the case assumes an entirely different aspect the instant it is
discovered that out of the cursive copies only eight are found to
contain [Greek: kath hemeran] in St. Luke ix. 23[370]. How is it to be
explained that nine manuscripts out of every ten in existence should
have forgotten how to transmit such a remarkable message, had it ever
been really so committed to writing by the Evangelist? The omission
(says Tischendorf) is explained by the parallel places[371]. Utterly
incredible, I reply; as no one ought to have known better than
Tischendo