i. 18. For Κηφᾶν, as given in our critical editions, Zahn (_Einleitung_, ii. 14) would read Πέτρον. He accounts for the remarkable transition from the name Πέτρος in ii. 7, 8 to Κηφᾶς in ii. 9, 11, 14 very well by saying that Paul in the latter verses is echoing the language used by the Judaizers from Palestine, just as he does in speaking of the Three as στῦλοι. Seeing that Paul persistently employs the name Κηφᾶς in 1 Corinthians, a scribe might have introduced this name, with which he had become familiar, into Galatians i. 18 also, just as Ἰσκαριώτης was carried over from the Synoptics into most manuscripts of John’s Gospel, displacing the title ἀπὸ Καρυώτου. The following table will show the distribution of the Greek manuscripts in support of the readings Κηφᾶς and Πέτρος in Galatians:— Κηφᾶς. Πέτρος. i. 18, א* A B 17, 67**, 71. א^c D E F G K L P. ii. 7, —— omnes. ii. 8, —— omnes. ii. 9, א B C K L P etc. D E F G (A omits). ii. 11, א A B C H P. D E F G K L. ii. 14, א A B C 10, 17, D E F G K L P. 67**, 137. It will be observed that in ii. 9 K L P take the side of א (A) B, while in verse 11 P alone does so, and that D E F G are the only witnesses that are consistent. ii. 5. οἷς οὐδὲ is omitted by D*, by Tertullian, who ascribes the negative to Marcion (_Adv. Marcionem_, v. 3), by certain manuscripts known to Victorinus Afer, who says “in plurimis codicibus et latinis et graecis ista sententia est _Ad horam cessimus subjectioni_,” and by the Latin translator of Irenæus (_Adv. Haereses_, iii. 13, 3). Ambrosiaster calls attention to the discrepancy between the Greek and Latin manuscripts: “Graeci e contra dicunt _Nec ad horam cessimus_,” and similarly Sedulius. Bengel remarked on the proneness of scribes to insert or omit a negative: “Omnino apud Latinos lubrica sub calamo est _non_ particula.... Saepe etiam in graecis aliisque οὐκ omissum.” See Haussleiter, _Forschungen_, iv. 31 ff., who says that the subject is one deserving of special treatment. Bengel refers to the exhaustive discussion “de negationibus quae Pandectis Florentinis recte male additae vel detractae sunt,” but there might be a good deal said on these theological _Sic et Non_ also.