_Neue Jahrbücher für deutsche Theologie_, ii. 3, 3 (1894), pp. 360-363. Compare also von Dobschütz, _lib. cit._, 111. Footnote 183: μάλιστα δὲ παρὰ τοὺς καθ’ ἡμᾶς πάντας διέπρεπε τῇ περὶ τὰ θεῖα λόγια γνησιωτάτῃ σπουδῇ. Euseb., _Eccl. Hist._, viii. 11. Footnote 184: See above, p. 87 ff., on Evan. 473, Act. 246, 419, Evl. 286, and compare Zahn, _ThLbl._, 1899, 181: Would that some one with the time and opportunity to work in the Monasteries of Mount Athos applied himself to the Codex written in the year 800 by the unhappy Empress Maria (Lambros 129, S. Pauli 2). Since the above was written the manuscript has been collated by Von der Goltz. Footnote 185: On κόφινον κοπρίων, see Chase, _Syro-Latin Text_, p. 135 f. It may be observed in passing how variously καταργεῖ is rendered in the different Latin manuscripts—viz. by _evacuat_ in b ff^2 l q, by _detinet_ in ff^{2c} i r, by _intricat_ in e, and by _occupat_ in d and the Vulgate. Footnote 186: The evidence of d in this passage cannot be had, unfortunately, as eight leaves (a quaternio) containing the Greek of Matt. vi. 20-ix. 2, and the Latin of vi. 8-viii. 27, have gone amissing. Footnote 187: Unfortunately h exhibits only the text of Matthew, otherwise I might simply have referred to the list of variants on p. 120. I am not aware if what Wordsworth and White (vol. i. p. xxxii) say of this manuscript is still true: Codex hodie, ut fertur, in bibliotheca Vaticana inveniri non potest. Footnote 188: See Index in Wordsworth and White, p. 751. Footnote 189: At the same time it must be pointed out here that not only in Luke and Acts, but in all the books of the N. T., it is wrong in principle to present the alternative “original or later alteration” or even forgery. The dilemma can be wrongly stated. Blass was not the first to express the opinion, “Lucam bis edidisse Actus.” De Dieu did so before him, and by an examination of those passages of the Gospels in which the original text has been preserved in purely “Western” witnesses Hort (§ 241) was led to suppose that the Western and non-Western texts may have “started respectively from a first and a second edition of the Gospels, both conceivably apostolic.” Similarly Wordsworth and White are unable to explain the origin and propagation of several readings in the manuscripts of the Vulgate otherwise than by supposing that the primitive document itself contained certain variants (corrections) in the passages in question. Footnote 190: