Luke. Apart altogether from the question how the numerous and decided peculiarities of Codex D are to be explained, we find a great many problems connected with the text of Luke’s Gospel. On the supposed title see Zahn, _Einl._, ii. 383. i. 26. In place of the definite indication of time, Blass follows certain Latin authorities, especially the Latin Irenæus, in giving: in ipso (or, eodem) autem tempore, ἐν αὐτῷ δὲ τῷ καιρῷ. Zahn points out (_Einl._, ii. 354) that this is the customary formula for the beginning of a pericope in the Lectionaries, and that while no doubt in the later Greek system the pericope of the Annunciation began with verse 24, 26 is the more appropriate beginning. He adds that in any case the origin of this formula is evident, and that Cod. D, which here parts company with the Latin witnesses, gives other indications besides this of the influence of a pericope-system. See the Introduction to Scrivener’s edition of the Codex, p. li. i. 46. On the reading _Elisabeth_, see above, p. 238. i. 63. The β text inserted the words ἐλύθη ἡ γλῶσσα αὐτοῦ before καὶ ἐθαύμασαν πάντες, by way of explaining the astonishment of the people. Zahn thinks this an absurd misplacement, seeing that the mention of Zechariah’s speaking does not come till the following verse, and the people could not know that his tongue was loosed till they heard him speak. Syr^{sin} accordingly corrects this by putting the mention of the astonishment after that of the speaking, in which it is followed by Blass. ii. 4, 5. In the β text Blass adopts the reading αὐτοὺς, and transposes the clause διὰ τὸ εἶναι αὐτοὺς ἐξ οἴκου καὶ πατριᾶς Δαυείδ to the end of verse 5. This arrangement is also exhibited by D. Syr^{sin} reads “both.” One Old Latin manuscript has _essent_, but as it exhibits the clause in the usual place, Zahn thinks that _essent_ is manifestly a clerical error for _esset_. The Syriac, he points out, is derived from Tatian. See _Einl._, ii. 355; _Forsch._, i. 118; _GK._, ii. 561; Vetter, _Der dritte Korintherbrief_ (1894), 25. ii. 7. One Latin manuscript (e) has _obvolverunt_ and _collocaverunt_, which may be compared with _essent_ in verse 4. Zahn thinks that the plural here is due to the reflection that the mother does not usually herself attend to a new-born infant.