vi. 5. Zahn is of opinion that the narrative of the man working on the Sabbath is taken from the same source as Mark xvi. 9 ff., and the pericope adulteræ, John vii. 53-viii. 11—viz. from Papias, and that it may be historically true. See his _Einleitung_, ii. 355. Westcott and Hort insert it among their “Noteworthy Rejected Readings,” and Resch puts it among the “Logia Jesu.” The Sinai-Syriac is defective here. For a long time it was thought that D and Stephen’s β were different manuscripts, and they are here cited by Mill as “duo codices vetustissimi.” This was shown to be a mistake by Bengel. Grotius also speaks of “nonnulli codices,” and, according to Mill, thought the words were “adjecta ab aliquo Marcionita.” The narrative seems to have remained quite unknown during the thousand years that elapsed between its relation by D and its publication by Stephen in 1550. According to Scrivener’s edition of Codex Bezae, p. 435, none of the ten or twelve later hands that worked upon the manuscript down to the twelfth century and even later, seem to have touched the page on which this narrative stands (205_b_). It would seem, therefore, that no copy was ever made of this manuscript either. How much would have been lost had it also disappeared entirely? vi. 10. Whether ὡς καὶ ἡ ἄλλη is genuine or not is of no material consequence so far as the exposition of the passage is concerned, but it is important in connection with the question of the relationship of Luke to the other Synoptics. The words are wanting in Mark iii. 5, but occur in Matt. xii. 13. See Zahn, _Einl._, ii. 420. vi. 31. Zahn is not sure if Marcion’s text contained the Golden Rule in this passage in the negative form. _GK._, i. 680; ii. 462. vii. 27. Zahn thinks that ἔμπροσθέν σου should perhaps be omitted here (_Einl._, ii. 316). viii. 43. The words ἰατροῖς προσαναλώσασα ὅλον τὸν βίον are omitted in B D. Zahn holds it to be an “unworthy insinuation” to suppose that Luke, being himself a physician, toned down the expressions used by Mark as reflecting on the credit of his profession. The words are more likely to be a gloss from Mark. See _Einleitung_, ii. 437. ix. 1. This verse is written three times over in codex Ξ. This cannot be a mistake. It might have been written twice by inadvertence, but not three times. The reason lies in the fact related—viz., the conferring of the power over evil spirits. ix. 16. The reading εὐλόγησεν ἐπ’ αὐτοὺς crept into the Vulgate manuscript called G by Wordsworth and White from the Old Latin. It is now attested also by Syr^{sin}. See Lewis, _Some Pages_, _in loco_. Zahn thinks it is deserving of special attention (_GK._, i. 682). In this he is quite right. ix. 18. Marcion here had τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου. See Zahn, _GK._, i. 686.