xvii. 11. “In all likelihood μέσον, without the preposition, as given by D, is the original form. This was variously replaced by ἀναμέσον (Ferrar Group), which is not amiss, by διὰ μέσου (A X, etc.), which is not so good, and by διὰ μέσον (א B L), which is very bad.” Zahn, _Einleitung_, ii. 391. Compare, also (for μέσον), Jülicher, _Gleichnisreden Jesu_, ii. 516. xvii. 21. Marcion inserts ἰδοὺ before ἐκεῖ, which Zahn holds to be original. Syr^{sin} reads “here it is, or there it is,” and therefore apparently omits the first ἰδοὺ as well. See Lewis, _Some Pages_. Wordsworth and White omit Tischendorf’s g^{1. 2} from the authorities given by him in support of the omission of the second _ecce_. xviii. 20. On the alterations made on the text here by the followers of Marcion, see Zahn, _GK._, i. 616, ii. 484. xviii. 25. The evidence in support of the readings τρήματος and βελόνης is very strong (א B D L). The choice of the terms τρῆμα for τρύπημα or τρυμαλιά, and βελόνη for ῥαφίς, betrays the language of the physician. See _The Expositor’s Greek Testament_, _Acts of the Apostles_, Introduction, pp. 9-11; Zahn, _Einleitung_, ii. 427 f., 435 f. xx. 35. With reference to this verse, Tertullian makes the following charge against the Marcionites: Nacti enim scripturae textum ita in legendo decurrerunt: “quos autem dignatus est deus illius aevi”; “illius aevi” “deo” adjungunt ... cum sic legi oporteat, “quos autem dignatus est,” ut facta hic distinctione post “deum” ad sequentia pertineat “illius aevi,” etc. Zahn insists, as against Ritschl, Hilgenfeld, and Volkmar, that this requires not only the insertion of ὑπὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ after καταξιωθέντες, but also the active voice instead of the passive, as though the Marcionites had read οὓς δὲ κατηξίωσεν ὁ Θεὸς τοῦ αἰῶνος ἐκείνου, τυχεῖν καὶ τῆς ἀναστάσεως. A similar change of construction occurs in Matt. xxv. 41, where it is quite certain that τὸ ἡτοιμασμένον is a correction of the stronger expression ὃ ἡτοίμασεν ὁ πατήρ μου, found in D, 1, 22, ten Old Latin manuscripts, and the earliest Fathers. xxi. 30. The insertion of τὸν καρπὸν αὐτῶν may be but a trifling addition, intended to facilitate the sense (Zahn, _GK._, i. 682), at the same time it is an interesting question how it comes to be in D, 157, 572 (see above, p. 211). Wordsworth and White say that D here is “ex Latinis forsan correctus.” Syr^{sin} agrees with Syr^{cu} in inserting the words. xxii. 16. For πληρωθῇ D reads καινὸν βρωθῇ. On this see my _Philologica Sacra_, p. 38, where it is suggested that these two readings are due to the confusion of כלה and אכל. This occurs several times in the Old Testament—_e.g._ 2 Chron. xxx. 22, where ויאבלו is represented in the LXX by συνετέλεσαν. But even apart from the question of a Hebrew foundation for the variant, I am inclined to regard καινὸν βρωθῇ as the original, and πληρωθῇ as the correction.