Luke x. 1. This case is interesting, as being one wherein B (not א) is at variance with the very express evidence of the earliest ecclesiastical writers, while it makes the number of these disciples, not seventy, but seventy-two(313). With B are DM, also R (“ita enim certè omnino videtur,” Tisch., Monum. sacra inedita, vol. ii. Proleg. p. xviii), in the prefixed table of τίτλοι (Vol. I. p. 57, _n_), its text being lost, Codd. 1, 42, _a c e g_1.2? _l_, the Vulgate, Curetonian Syriac, and Armenian. Lachmann with Westcott and Hort insert δύο, but within brackets, for the evidence against it is overwhelming both in number and in weight: namely, Codd. אACEGHKLSUVXΓΔΛΞΠ, all other cursives, _b f g_ of the Old Latin, the Bohairic, the three other Syriac, the Gothic, and Ethiopic versions. Luke xiv. 5. Here again we have a strong conviction that א, though now in the minority, is more correct than B, supported as the latter is by a dense array of witnesses of every age and country. In the clause τίνος ὑμῶν ὄνος ἢ βοῦς of the Received text all the critical editors substitute υἱὸς for ὄνος, which introduces a bathos so tasteless as to be almost ludicrous(314). Yet υἱὸς is found with or without ὁ before it in AB (_hiant_ CF)EGHMSUVΓΔΛ, in no less than 125 cursive copies already cited by name(315) (also υἱὸς ὑμῶν Evst. 259), in _e f g_, the Sahidic, Peshitto and Harkleian(316) Syriac versions: Cod. 508 and the Curetonian combine both forms υἱὸς ἢ βοῦς ἢ ὄνος, and Cod. 215 has υἱὸς ἢ ὄνος without βοῦς. Add to these Cyril of Alexandria (whose words are cited in catenas, as in the scholia to X, 253, 259), Titus of Bostra the commentator, Euthymius, and Theophylact. For ὄνος are אKLXΠ, 1, 33, 66 _secundâ manu_, 69 (ὄρος), 71, 207 _sec. man._, 211, 213, 407, 413, 492, 509, 512, 549, 550, 555, 556, 569, 570, 599, 602, and doubtless others not cited: also the text of X, 253, 259 in spite of the annexed commentary; of the versions _a b c i l_ of the Old Latin, the Vulgate, Bohairic, Jerusalem Syriac, Armenian, and Ethiopic (_bos eius aut asinus_), though the Slavonic codices and Persic of the Polyglott make for υἱός. Cod. 52 (_sic_) and the Arabic of the Polyglott omit ὄνος ἤ, while D has πρόβατον (_ovis d_) for ὄνος (comp. Matt. xii. 11), and 557 exhibits βοῦς ἢ ὄνος. ΥΣ or ΟΙΣ mistaken as the contraction for ΥΙΟΣ is a mere guess, and we are safest here in clinging to common sense against a preponderance of outward evidence. Luke xv. 21. Here by adding from ver. 19 ποίησόν με ὡς ἕνα τῶν μισθίων σου (placed in the text by Westcott and Hort within brackets) the great codices אBD, with UX, 33, 512, 543, 558, 571, a catena, and four manuscripts of the Vulgate (_bodl. gat. mm. tol._), manage to keep out of sight that delicate touch of true nature which Augustine points out, that the son never carried out his purpose of offering himself for a hireling, “quod post osculum patris generosissime jam dedignatur.”