98. Oxf. Bodl. E. D. Clarke 5 [xii], 8-½ × 6, ff. 222 (25), _pict._, κεφ. _t._, κεφ., τίτλ., _Am._, _lect._, _subscr._, στίχ., brought by Clarke from the East. It was collated in a few places for Scholz, who substituted it here for Cod. R (_see_ p. 139) of Griesbach. 99. Lipsiensis, Bibliothec. Paul, [xvi], 8-¼ × 7-1/8, ff. 22 (22, 23), Matthaei’s 18, contains Matt. iv. 8-v. 27; vi. 2-xv. 30; Luke i. 1-13; _Carp._, κεφ. _t._, κεφ., τίτλ., _Am._, _Eus._, _lect._, _syn._ (Matthaei, Greg.). Wetstein’s 99 is our 155. 100. Paul. L. B. de Eubeswald [x], 4to, 9-¼ × 7-1/8, ff. 374, κεφ., τίτλ., _Am._, _Eus._, _lect._ (_syn._, _men._, ἀναγν. later), vellum, _mut._ John xxi. 25; _pict._, κεφ. _t._, _Eus. t._, and in a later hand many corrections with scholia, _chart._ J. C. Wagenseil used it in Hungary for John viii. 6. Now in the University of Pesth, but in the fifteenth century belonging to Bp. Jo. Pannonius. Edited at Pesth in 1860 “cum interpretatione Hungaria” by S. Markfi. 101. Uffenbach. 3 [xvi], 12mo, _chart._, St. John στιχήρης. So near the Basle (that is, we suppose, Erasmus’) edition, that Bengel scarcely ever cites it. With two others (Paul. M. and Acts 45) it was lent by Z. C. Uffenbach, Consul of Frankfort-on-the-Main, to Wetstein in 1717, and afterwards to Bengel. (Gregory would omit it.) 102. Bibliothecae Medicae, an unknown manuscript with many rare readings, extracted by Wetstein at Amsterdam for Matt. xxiv-Mark viii. 1, from the margin of a copy of Plantin’s N. T. 1591, in the library of J. Le Long. Canon Westcott is convinced that the manuscript from which these readings were derived is none other than Cod. B itself, and Dr. Gregory agrees with him. In St. Matthew’s Gospel he finds the two authorities agree seventy times and differ only five times, always in a manner to be easily accounted for: in St. Mark they agree in eighty-four out of the eighty-five citations, the remaining one (ch. ii. 22) being hardly an exception. Westcott, New Test., Smith’s “Dictionary of the Bible.” Hort’s Cod. 102 is wscr (Evan. 507), to be described hereafter. 103. Regius 196 [xi], fol., once Cardinal Mazarin’s, seems the same manuscript as that from which Emericus Bigot gave extracts for Curcellaeus’ N. T. 1658 (Scholz). Burgon supposes some mistake here, as he finds Reg. 196 to be a copy of Theophylact’s commentary on SS. Matthew and Mark, written over an older manuscript [viii or ix]. Perhaps the same as 14 or 278 (Greg.). 104. Hieronymi Vignerii [x], from which also Bigot extracted readings, which Wetstein obtained through J. Drieberg in 1744, and published. Perhaps 697 (Greg.).