Time will show whether I am right in my conjecture that ἐβαρύνατε in iii. 14 is due to an error in translation. In illustration of the interchange of λαοῦ and κόσμου in ii. 47, I have cited in _Philologica Sacra_, p. 39, a number of instances of the confusion of עם or עמא with עלם or עלמא, to which I would now add Daniel viii. 19, Sirach xlv. 7; xlvii. 4; Matt. i. 21 (in the Curetonian Syriac). Compare also Eusebius, _Eccles. Hist._, iv. 15, 26; _History of Mary_, ix. 17; xiv. 11 (ed. Budge). Whether the change in the passage in question is really to be explained in this way, or by the supposition of an “anti-Judaic tendency,” as Corssen prefers (_Göttinger gelehrte Anzeigen_, 1896, vi. 444), may be left an open question for the present. I would just point to one thing in favour of my view, and in answer to what Zahn says in his _Einleitung_, ii. 423. He says there: “Linguistic considerations are against the supposition that a pure Greek like Luke, the physician of Antioch, was able to read a Hebrew book. For a thousand Jews (Syrians and Copts) who were able at that time to read, write, and speak Greek, there would be at most a single Greek possessed of a corresponding knowledge of Hebrew or Aramaic. And I confess that I have hitherto sought in vain for this rara avis.” Quite true, but how do we know that the physician of Antioch was a pure Greek? All the Prologues to the Gospels unanimously call him “natione Syrus.” I have pointed out in my _Philologica Sacra_, p. 13, what is very generally admitted, that in the New Testament Ἕλληνες denotes simply the “heathen,” whether they speak Greek or not.[278] The woman mentioned in Mark vii. 26 was a Ἑλληνὶς Συρο-Φοινίκισσα τὸ γένος, and in the same way Luke was a Ἕλλην of Antioch (Acts xi. 20), but Σύρος τὸ γένος. He is one of the thousand who could read, write, and speak Greek, though he was not above making such a mistake in translation when using a Hebrew or Aramaic book as I think he certainly does in Luke xi. 41, and as I am inclined to think he does in Acts iii. 14, till I find a better explanation of the reading ἐβαρύνατε than has yet been given.[279] I am glad to see from Zahn that more than seventy years ago, in his dissertation entitled _De Codice Cantabrigiensi_ (1827), p. 16, Schultz suggested that the text of D may perhaps be derived from a Syriac version. According to what I have said above on Tatian, this view must certainly be admitted as possible, and I see that it has been revived by Chase.