he wise_."(191)

And with this, I shall conclude my remarks on these two famous Codices. I
humbly record my deliberate conviction that when the Science of Textual
Criticism, which is at present only in its infancy, comes to be better
understood; (and a careful collation of every existing Codex of the New
Testament is one indispensable preliminary to its being ever placed on a
trustworthy basis;) a very different estimate will be formed of the
importance of not a few of those readings which at present are received
with unquestioning submission, chiefly on the authority of Codex B and
Codex {~HEBREW LETTER ALEF~}. On the other hand, it is perfectly certain that no future
collations, no future discoveries, will ever make it credible that the
last Twelve Verses of S. Mark's Gospel are a spurious supplement to the
Evangelical Narrative; or that the words {~GREEK SMALL LETTER EPSILON WITH PSILI~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER NU~} {~GREEK CAPITAL LETTER EPSILON WITH PSILI~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER PHI~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER EPSILON WITH OXIA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER SIGMA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER OMEGA WITH YPOGEGRAMMENI~} are an unauthorized
interpolation of the inspired Text.

And thus much concerning Codex B and Codex {~HEBREW LETTER ALEF~}.

I would gladly have proceeded at once to the discussion of the "Internal
Evidence," but that the external testimony commonly appealed to is not yet
fully disposed of. There remain to be considered certain ancient "Scholia"
and "Notes," and indeed whatever else results from the critical inspection
of ancient MSS., whether uncial or cursive: and all this may reasonably
claim one entire Chapter to itself.

CHAPTER VIII.

THE PURPORT OF ANCIENT SCHOLIA, AND NOTES IN MSS. ON THE SUBJECT OF THESE
VERSES, SHEWN TO BE THE REVERSE OF WHAT IS COMMONLY SUPPOSED.

Later Editors of the New Testament the victims of their
predecessors' inaccuracies.--Birch's unfortunate mistake (p.
117).--Scholz' serious blunders (p. 119 and pp. 120-1).--Griesbach's
sweeping misstatement (pp. 121-2).--The grave misapprehension which
has resulted from all this inaccuracy of detail (pp. 122-3); Codex
L (p. 123).--Ammonius not the author of the so-called "Ammonian"
Sections (p. 125).--Epiphanius (p. 132).--"Caesarius," a
misnomer.--"The Catenae," misrepresented (p. 133).

In the present Chapter, I propose to pass under review whatever manuscript
testimony still