2. (α) But in the next verse of the passage, where the words “on the sabbath” are absolutely required in order to make the Pharisees’ question intelligible to the first readers of St. Matthew, the Curetonian must needs draw on the common knowledge of educated readers by exhibiting the question thus:—“Why are thy disciples doing what is not lawful to do?” Of course the Peshitto is here an “improvement” on the Curetonian, in reading the words “on the Sabbath”; but that does not affect our argument. Would a primitive version, intended for first converts, have left the reader ignorant what the action objected to might be? whether to pluck ears in another man’s field, or to rub out grain on the Sabbath? But a later editor, who revised the text for some purpose (it matters not, at present, for what purpose), might consider the explanatory words superfluous. (β) In like manner in ver. 4, “the bread of the table of the Lord,” a simple phrase, which every one could understand, has become in the Curetonian “face-bread,” an expression which demands knowledge of the earlier Scriptures on the part of the reader, and displays the erudition of the editor, as do his emendations in the list of names in the first chapter of St. Matthew(28). 3. The other passage which we print (St. Mark xvi. 17-29) will illustrate our third criticism. The Curetonian is, “Our Lord Jesus then, after He had _commanded_ His disciples, _was exalted_ to heaven, and sat on the right hand of God.” The simpler Peshitto phrase runs thus, “Jesus our Lord then, after He had _spoken with them, ascended_ to heaven, and sat on the right hand of God.” The two slight touches of improvement in the Curetonian are evident, and belong to that aspect of the record which finds expression in the Creeds, and in the obedience of the Church. A similar touch appears in the Curetonian addition to ver. 17—them that believe _on me_. Again in Matt. v. 32 we read (with all authorities), “Whosoever shall put away his wife, except for the cause of fornication,” &c.; so the Peshitto; but the Curetonian substitutes _adultery_, and thereby sanctions, not the precept delivered by our Lord, but the interpretation almost universally placed upon it. Now either the Curetonian has alone preserved the true text, or the Curetonian is an emended version. The first supposition is unreasonable; the latter is alone suitable to this and to many other passages. Not less curious is the addition in ver. 41, “Whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him _two others_.” The Curetonian (with D and some Latin copies) make our Lord say, “Go _three_ miles.” If we cannot admit that this is the true text, then it is an emendation; for it is no accidental change.