iii. 27. The correct explanation of Ῥησά is that given by Plummer in his _Commentary_ on Luke, and quoted by Bacon in Hastings’ _Dictionary of the Bible_, ii. 140. “Rhesa, who appears in Luke, but neither in Matt. nor in 1 Chron., is probably not a name at all, but a title which some Jewish copyist mistook for a name. Zerubbabel Rhesa or Zerubbabel the Prince (רֵאשָׁא) has been made into ‘Zerubbabel (begat) Rhesa.’” The interpretation of Rhesa as “prince” is, however, not new. See Pole’s _Synopsis_: it was not safe to use the proper name Zerubbabel in Babylon, seeing that it meant “ventilatio Babelis,” and the name Sheshbazzar was therefore substituted for it. Sic filii eius Meshullam et Hanania, quia vix ibi tuto aut proprie dici potuerunt Abiud, _i.e._ patris mei est gloria, et Rhesa princeps (Lightfoot, _Horae Hebraicae_). Reuchlin (_Rudimenta_, p. 18) gives the explanation רֶשָׁע (_sic_) qui cognominatur Mesollam. This interpretation, however, lends no real support to Sellin’s theory. iv. 34. The exclamation ἔα, which Zahn (_GK._, i. 682) says is unknown in the New Testament, is omitted by D, eleven Old Latin manuscripts, and also by Marcion. It is supported by a considerable number of witnesses in Mark i. 24. According to Zahn, these witnesses took it from Luke, but of this I am by no means certain. Syr^{sin} omits it in both places. In Luke it is also omitted by four manuscripts of the Vulgate mentioned by Wordsworth and White. iv. 34. Marcion invariably omits Ναζαρηνέ. There is, however, no other authority for its omission. See Zahn, _GK._, i. 685; ii. 456. iv. 44. Ἰουδαίας is the better attested reading, and on account of the improbability of its being invented, should be regarded as the original. See Zahn, _Einleitung_, ii. 373. v. 5. Ἐπιστάτα in the New Testament is peculiar to Luke. In place of it D has διδάσκαλε here, and κύριε in viii. 24. It retains ἐπιστάτα, however, in viii. 45, ix. 33, ix. 49, and xvii. 13. v. 14. The long interpolation at the end of the verse found in D d is derived from Mark i. 45 and ii. 1, though there are slight differences. It is introduced here for harmonistic reasons. Was it taken from Tatian? v. 27. After the name of Levi, D inserts τὸν τοῦ Ἀλφαίου, which, according to Zahn, is not original. See _Einl._, ii. 263. v. 39. Marcion agrees with D in the omission of this verse. Syr^{sin} and Syr^{cu} are, unfortunately, both defective here. To the authorities for its omission should be added r, which Weiss does not mention. On the reasons for the omission of the verse, see Zahn, _GK._, i. 681.