his critical apparatus, and that our commentators have not a single syllable about it, so that our students and preachers know nothing whatever of this form of the words of Jesus. If my edition of the New Testament did no more than bring such things to the notice of those who previously were unacquainted with them, I should consider it had done no small service. But take another illustration from the parable of the Barren Fig Tree. “Cut it down, why cumbereth it the ground,”—that is how our ordinary texts give the commandment of the justly indignant husbandman in Luke xiii. 7: ἔκκοψον αὐτήν· ἱνατί καὶ τὴν γῆν καταργεῖ. Here again, the great majority of our witnesses of every sort exhibit no variation worth mentioning, except that a good many (A L T etc.) insert a very prosy οὖν after the imperative, while B 80 read τὸν τόπον for τὴν γῆν. And in the answer of the vine-dresser (verse 8), “till I shall dig about it and dung it,” there is again no various reading in our ordinary witnesses of all kinds except the insignificant interchange of (βάλω) κόπρια, κοπρίαν, and κόπρον. What a difference do we find here also in the text of D: “bring the axe,” φέρε τὴν ἀξίνην, adfers securem; and, “I will throw in a basket of dung,” βάλω κόφινον κοπρίων, mittam qualum (= squalum) stercoris d, or cophinum stercoris a b c f ff^2 i l q, from which it was taken into the Codex of Marmoutier, a copy of the Alcuinian recension of the Vulgate written in gold.[185] Here again, our editors and commentators for the most part take no notice. “Bring the axe” is omitted by Weiss, father and son, Westcott-Hort, Tregelles, and also by Baljon, while Holtzmann ignores both variants. It stands to reason, of course, that greater vivacity of style is not of itself an actual proof of greater originality. But the whole question is raised as to the principles by which we are to be guided in estimating the comparative value of the witnesses. One might be inclined to regard such peculiarities as due to the caprice of some scribe by whom D or its parent manuscript was written. As a matter of fact, Westcott and Hort, and most recent editors with them, do so regard them, seeing they cite the reading of D neither in Matt. vi. 8 nor in Luke xiii. 7. In the latter passage one might be inclined to take that view of the case, because as yet we have no other testimony to φέρε τὴν ἀξίνην than D d. But it is not so likely in the case of Matt. vi. 8, seeing that here the testimony of D is supported by that of h. To justify our neglect of these witnesses, we should require to prove either that h is derived from D or D from h.[186] So far as my knowledge goes, no one has yet maintained the latter view. The derivation of h from D is an impossibility, for this reason alone that h belongs either to the fourth, or, what is perhaps more likely, to the fifth century (see p. 113).[187] The truth is, rather, that we have in h a second and independent witness to the fact that at a very early date the text of