Attention may be directed in passing to the interesting way in which the witnesses are distributed. Thus we have in verse 51, for the omission of καὶ ἀνεφερ. εἰς τ. οὐρ. א* D Syr^{sin} a b d e ff l*, Aug. ½; verse 52, omit προσκυν· αὐτόν, D Syr^{sin} a b d e ff l, Aug. 1/1; verse 53, αἰνοῦντες for εὐλογοῦντες D a b d e ff l r (Aug.); (Syr^{sin} here has מברכין, not משבחין which represents αἰνοῦντες in Luke ii. 13, 20, xix. 37, and, therefore, must have read εὐλογοῦντες in this passage). Now I ask, is it right to accept the testimony of D and its associates in verse 52, only to reject it in verse 53? And what amount of weight is added to the testimony of D by the addition of that of א*? Schiller says in _Tell_: “The strong is mightiest alone: united e’en the weak are strong”—how far are both these notions true in textual criticism? Footnote 243: So Graefe, but it is not apparent whether the καὶ that belongs to this reading is to be supplied before it or after. Evidently he intends to read αἰν. καὶ εὐλογ. with the great majority of witnesses, and not εὐλογ. καὶ αἰν. with the Ethiopic version. See _Th. St. Kr._, 1898, i. 136 f. The passage is regarded by Westcott and Hort as a good example of “conflation,” § 146. Footnote 244: See now _Textkritik der vier Evangelien_, pp. 48, 181. Footnote 245: Αἰνεῖν is not given in Cremer’s _Dictionary_ among the synonyms of εὐλογεῖν, and is only cited on p. 610 with the reading αἰνοῦντες καὶ εὐλογοῦντες from this passage. Footnote 246: See Hilgenfeld, _Das Apostel-Concil nach seinem ursprünglichen Wortlaute_ in the _ZfwTh._, 42 (1899), 1, 138-149. Footnote 247: Harnack, _Das Aposteldecret_ (Acta xv. 29) _und die Blass’sche Hypothese_, Berlin, 1899. From the _Sitzungsberichte der preuss. Akad. der Wiss._ Noticed in the _Expository Times_ for June 1899, p. 395 f. See also the _Berliner philologische Wochenschrift_ of the 13th May 1899. Footnote 248: See critical note in the _Expositor’s Greek Testament_ (Knowling), _in loco_. Footnote 249: _Cf._ the passage of Hermas cited above, p. 47. Footnote 250: A good example is seen in Ezek. xvi. 3. In the Sixtine edition of 1586 a new page (692) occurs in the middle of the sentence διαμαρτυρον τη Ιερουσαλημ τας ανομιας αυτης ταδε λεγει κυριος τη Ιερουσαλημ, with the result that the eight words from the first Ιερουσαλημ to the second are printed twice by a recessive homoioteleuton, while in Codex 62 they have dropped out altogether owing to a forward error of the same sort. The former mistake is tacitly corrected in all reprints, but the latter could not be detected from the context alone without other testimony. Compare also Mark ix. 10 in codex T of the Vulgate and ff of the Old Latin. In the former the passage from _resurrexit_ to _resurrexit_ is repeated, in the latter it is omitted. Footnote 251: