viii. 57. According to the authority cited in the _ThLz._, 1899, p. 176, the first hand of Codex B is supposed to have written εορακεσε: “the final ε has been erased, and the ε preceding it changed into α.” I have examined the photograph of B in the Stuttgart Library, and can find no trace of an ε ever having stood after σ. The blank space of the size of two letters is meant to divide the sentences. It is the case, however, though neither Tischendorf, Fabiani, nor the pamphlet of 1881 mentions it, that the first hand wrote εορακες, which was then made into εωρακας by means of a stroke drawn through the ο. The matter is not insignificant in view of what is said in Westcott and Hort’s _Notes on Orthography_, Appendix, p. 168. Burkitt supposes that εορακεσε was the reading of the ancestor of א B (_Texts and Studies_, vol. v. 5. p. ix).[276] xii. 7. τετήρηκεν, without ἵνα, has the support of a comparatively large number of manuscripts. Peerlkamp and De Koe read ἵνα τί ... τετήρηκεν; Zahn (_Einl._, ii. 518) has no doubt that the correct reading is ἵνα ... τηρήσῃ, and that it was replaced by τετήρηκεv (without ἵνα) on the ground that this Mary was not among the women who came to the sepulchre to anoint the body of Jesus. He says that the true text presupposes that Mary would like to use the remainder of the ointment to anoint the body of Jesus after his death, and that the words of Jesus were intended to prevent Mary and the disciples afterwards following the suggestion of Judas. xiii. 2. The change of a single letter here is important from a harmonistic point of view. א* B L read δείπνου γινομένου, _i.e._, “during supper,” but א^c A D have δείπνου γενομένου, which means “after supper.” Compare Zahn, _Einleitung_, ii. 520. xiii. 34. On the form in which this saying was cited by the Marcionites, see Zahn, _GK._ i. 678. xviii. 12 ff. The Sinai-Syriac, probably following Tatian, gives the following arrangement of the verses—viz., 12, 13, 24, 14, 15, 19-23, 16-18, 25-28. On this see Zahn, _Einl._, ii. 521. Spitta would arrange the verses, 12, 13, 19-23, 24, 14, 15-18, 25_b_, 27, 28. See Zahn, _Einl._, ii. 558. It does sometimes happen that a leaf of a manuscript is misplaced, but it is hard to account for such transpositions as these. Compare the _Journal of Theological Studies_, October 1900, p. 141 f. xix. 5. Though not properly connected with the criticism of the text, the question may be asked here, by way of a contribution to a subject much discussed of late, whether the expression ἰδοὺ ὁ ἄνθρωπος may not be connected with בר נשא. Compare ὁ ἄνθρωπος and ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου in Mark ii. 27, 28. In this passage of John, B omits the article before ἄνθρωπος, reading ἰδοὺ ἄνθρωπος simply. See the _Expository Times_, November 1899, p. 62 ff., “The Name Son of Man and the Messianic Consciousness of Jesus,” where Schmiedel’s article with the same title in the _Protestantische Monatshefte_ is noticed.