xi. 19. Schlottman and Lagarde explain the variation between ἔργα and τέκνα as a confusion of the Aramaic עַבְדָּא (_servant_: παῖς) and עְַבָדָא (_work_). See Zahn, _Einl._, ii. 311 f., and compare also Salmon, _Some Thoughts etc._, p. 121 f. It is still to be shown, however, that τέκνα is ever used as the equivalent of עַבְדָּא. Hilgenfeld (_ZfwTh._, 42. 4, p. 629) refers to 4 Esdras vii. 64 (134), where the Latin and the first Arabic version read “quasi suis _operibus_,” the Ethiopic “quasi _filiis_ suis,” and the Syriac “quia _servi_ eius sumus.” xii. 36. See on xviii. 7. xiii. 35. διὰ Ἠσαΐου τοῦ προφήτου is now attested only by א*, two members of the Ferrar group, and some other minuscules, but Eusebius and Jerome found it in several manuscripts, and it was used still earlier by Porphyrius as a proof of Matthew’s ignorance. It is certainly, therefore, genuine, although it is omitted by Syr^{sin}, Syr^{cu}, by the “accurate” manuscripts according to Eusebius,[266] and by the “vulgata editio” according to Jerome. The conjecture of the latter, that Ἀσάφ was the original reading, which was changed to Ἠσαΐου by some unintelligent copyist and then dropped as incorrect, only serves to show what sort of ideas he had with regard to textual criticism. The assertion of the _Breviarium in Psalmos_, p. 59 f., that all the old manuscripts read “in Asaph propheta” is pure fiction. Compare Ἰερεμίου in Matt. xxvii. 9, where one would expect Ζαχαρίου, and where we find that Ἰερεμίου is omitted by some witnesses and replaced in others by Ζαχαρίου or “Esaiam.” “Esaiam” has also crept into the Vulgate manuscript rus (W-W’s R). On the insertion, omission, and interchange of such names, see W-H’s discussion of this passage, and the “Supplementary Note” by Burkitt on Syr^{sin} in the edition of 1896, p. 143. For an interesting exchange of names (Jonah and Nahum), see Tobit, xiv. 8. Asaph is called ὁ προφήτης in 2 Chron. xxix. 30. Compare Zahn, _Einl._, ii. 313 f. Weiss^9 would omit the word on the ground of insufficient testimony as being simply introduced from iii. 3, iv. 14, viii. 17, and xii. 17. xiv. 3. Zahn (_Einl._, ii. 309) thinks it extremely improbable that D and certain important Latin witnesses should have removed the (wrong) name, Philip, from this passage on the ground of their better knowledge, while allowing it to stand without exception in Mark vi. 17. He believes rather that they have preserved the original text, and that Φιλίππου is here an interpolation from the passage in Mark. Weiss^9, on the other hand, sees no reason why it should be either bracketed or omitted. The possibility of its being inserted is shown by the fact that it also crept into six or seven manuscripts of Jerome, collated by W-W. This is one of the passages where Tischendorf in his seventh edition frankly preferred Codex D to all the other Greek witnesses.