Luke iv. 44. The wonderful variation Ἰουδαίας is brought into the text of Hort and Westcott, the true reading Γαλιλαίας being banished to their margin. Their change is upheld by a strong phalanx indeed: אNBCLQR, 1, 21, 71, Evst. 222, 259 and some twenty other cursives (Evan. 503 and two Lectionaries read αὐτῶν instead of either), the Bohairic and the text of the Harkleian: authorities enough to prove anything not in itself impossible, as Ἰουδαίας is in this place. Not only is Galilee the scene of the events recorded immediately before and after the present verse, but the passage is manifestly parallel to Mark i. 39. The three Synoptic Gospels are broadly distinguished from that of St. John by their silence respecting the Lord’s ministry in Judaea before He went up to the last passover. Yet Alford _in loco_, while admitting that “our narrative is thus brought into the more startling discrepancy with that of St. Mark, in which unquestionably the same portion of the sacred history is related,” most strangely adds, “Still these are considerations which must not weigh in the least degree with the critic. It is his province simply to track out what is the sacred text, not what, in his own feeble and partial judgement, _it ought to have been_.” Luke vi. 48. It is surprising how a gloss so frigid as διὰ τὸ καλῶς οἰκοδομῆσθαι αὐτήν could have been accepted by Tischendorf, Tregelles, Westcott and Hort, in the room of τεθελεμίωτο γὰρ ἐπὶ τὴν πέτραν, chiefly, it may be presumed, because the latter is the expression of St. Matthew (ch. vii. 25). Yet such is the reading of אBLΞ, of the two best cursives 33, 157, of the Bohairic (with some variation in its copies), of the margin of the Harkleian, and of Cyril of Alexandria. The Ethiopic preserves both forms. As the present οἰκοδόμοῦντι early in the verse involves a plain contradiction when compared with the perfect οἰκοδομῆσθαι at the end, Tregelles changes the latter into οἰκοδομεῖσθαι on the feeble authority of the third hand of B, of 33, and possibly of 157. Luke viii. 40. For αὐτόν after προσδοκῶντες we find τὸν θεόν in א only. Of course the variation is quite wrong, but it is hard to see the pertinency of Dr. Vance Smith’s hint (_Theological Review_, July, 1875) “that it cannot have got in by accident.”