vii. 33. Codex W^d, published by Harris in facsimile (1896), here exhibits a very peculiar reading which Harnack (_ThLz._, 1891, p. 356) thinks has affinity with Tatian. It reads: ἔπτυσεν εἰς τοὺς δακτύλους αὐτοῦ καὶ ἔβαλεν εἰς τὰ ὦτα τοῦ κωφοῦ καὶ ἥψατο τῆς γλώσσης τοῦ μογιλάλου. This gives us quite another view of the occurrence than most of the authorities do. It seems much more natural certainly to moisten the fingers before putting them in the ears than before touching the tongue. It reads somewhat similarly in Syr^{sin}, which says that “he put his fingers and spat in his ears, and touched his tongue.”[272] This manuscript exhibits other noteworthy readings, which will be found most conveniently in Swete. ix. 14. The singular, ἐλθὼν ... εἶδεν, has the support of D, while Syr^{sin} takes the side of the plural, ἐλθόντες ... εἶδον. Zahn decides for the latter. He explains the plural by saying that the original narrator was evidently one of the three disciples who were with Jesus on the Mount, in all probability Peter, as tradition has it. Peter, of course, in telling the story, used the first person and the plural number, “When we came down from the mountain we saw, etc.” Mark, reporting the words of Peter, turned the first person into the third, retaining the plural number. Zahn explains in the same way the somewhat peculiar expressions in Mark i. 29. Here Peter said, “_we_ (_i.e._ Jesus, Andrew, and himself) came into _our_ house with James and John.” In reporting Peter’s words Mark paraphrases “we” and “our,” and says, “they came into the house of Simon and Andrew with James and John.” See Zahn, _Einl._, ii. 245 f. x. 30. Neither Tischendorf nor Swete observes that in addition to the readings διωγμῶν and διωγμόν the singular διωγμοῦ is exhibited by D. Has the mysterious reading εἰς που in Clem. Alex. (_Quis Dives_) anything to do with this? It is worth remarking that the Vienna Arabic manuscript (Lagarde: Storr) has a note after “post persecutionem” to the effect that this is the “Roman” reading. xiv. 51. καὶ νεανίσκος τις, א B C L; νεανίσκος δέ τις, D; καὶ εἷς τις νεανίσκος, A E etc. This last is rejected by Zahn on the ground that the text has evidently been accommodated to verse 47, under the false impression that another of the disciples is referred to. It is adopted, however, by Tischendorf^8, and supported by Brandt, _Die Evangelische Geschichte_ etc., Leipzig, 1893, p. 23 ff.