point of importance however is the position of [Greek: ede]:
which is claimed for ver. 35 by the great mass of the copies: as well as
by Origen[62], Eusebius[63], Chrysostom[64], Cyril[65], the Vulgate,
Jerome of course, and the Syriac. The Italic copies are hopelessly
divided here[66]: and Codd. [Symbol: Aleph]BM[Symbol: Pi] do not help
us. But [Greek: ede] is claimed for ver. 36 by CDEL, 33, and by the
Curetonian and Lewis (= [Greek: kai ede ho therizon]): while Codex A is
singular in beginning ver. 36, [Greek: ede kai],--which shews that some
early copyist, with the correct text before him, adopted a vicious
punctuation. For there can be no manner of doubt that the commonly
received text and the usual punctuation is the true one: as, on a
careful review of the evidence, every unprejudiced reader will allow.
But recent critics are for leaving out [Greek: kai] (with [Symbol:
Aleph]BCDL): while Tischendorf, Westcott and Hort, Tregelles (_marg._),
are for putting the full stop after [Greek: pros therismon] and (with
ACDL) making [Greek: ede] begin the next sentence,--which (as Alford
finds out) is clearly inadmissible.

Sec. 2.

Sometimes this affects the translation. Thus, the Revisers propose in
the parable of the prodigal son,--'And I perish _here_ with hunger!' But
why '_here_?' Because I answer, whereas in the earliest copies of St.
Luke the words stood thus,--[Greek: EGODELIMOAPOLLYMAI], some careless
scribe after writing [Greek: EGODE], reduplicated the three last letters
([Greek: ODE]): he mistook them for an independent word. Accordingly in
the Codex Bezae, in R and U and about ten cursives, we encounter [Greek:
ego de ode]. The inventive faculty having thus done its work it remained
to superadd 'transposition,' as was done by [Symbol: Aleph]BL. From
[Greek: ego de ode limo], the sentence has now developed into [Greek:
ego de limo ode]: which approves itself to Griesbach and Schultz, to
Lachmann and Tischendorf and Tregelles, to Alfoid and Westcott and Hort,
and to the Revisers. A very ancient blunder, certainly, [Greek: ego de
ode] is: for it is found in the Latin[67] and the Syriac translations.
It must therefore date from the second century. But it is a blunder
notwithstanding: a blunder against which 16 uncials and the whole body
of the cursives bear emphatic witness[68]. Having detected its origin,
we have next to trace its progress.

The inventors of [Greek: ode] or other scribes quickly saw that this