A gloss little suspected, which--not without a pang of regret--I proceed to submit to hostile scrutiny, is the expression 'daily' ([Greek: kath' hemeran]) in St. Luke ix. 23. Found in the Peshitto and in Cureton's Syriac,--but only in some Copies of the Harkleian version[362]: found in most Copies of the Vulgate,--but largely disallowed by copies of the Old Latin[363]: found also in Ephraem Syrus[364],--but clearly not recognized by Origen[365]: found again in [Symbol: Aleph]AB and six other uncials,--but not found in CDE and ten others: the expression referred to cannot, at all events, plead for its own retention in the text higher antiquity than can be pleaded for its exclusion. Cyril, (if in such a matter the Syriac translation of his Commentary on St. Luke may be trusted,) is clearly an authority for reading [Greek: kath' hemeran] in St. Luke ix. 23[366]; but then he elsewhere twice quotes St. Luke ix. 23 in Greek without it[367]. Timotheus of Antioch, of the fifth century, omits the phrase[368]. Jerome again, although he suffered '_quotidie_' to stand in the Vulgate, yet, when for his own purposes he quotes the place in St. Luke[369],--ignores the word. All this is calculated to inspire grave distrust. On the other hand, [Greek: kath' hemeran] enjoys the support of the two Egyptian Versions,--of the Gothic,--of the Armenian,--of the Ethiopic. And this, in the present state of our knowledge, must be allowed to be a weighty piece of evidence in its favour. But the case assumes an entirely different aspect the instant it is discovered that out of the cursive copies only eight are found to contain [Greek: kath hemeran] in St. Luke ix. 23[370]. How is it to be explained that nine manuscripts out of every ten in existence should have forgotten how to transmit such a remarkable message, had it ever been really so committed to writing by the Evangelist? The omission (says Tischendorf) is explained by the parallel places[371]. Utterly incredible, I reply; as no one ought to have known better than Tischendorf himself. We now scrutinize the problem more closely; and discover that the very _locus_ of the phrase is a matter of uncertainty. Cyril once makes it part of St. Matt. x. 38[372]. Chrysostom twice connects it with St. Matt. xvi. 24[373]. Jerome, evidently regarding the phrase as a curiosity, informs us that 'juxta antiqua exemplaria' it was met with in St. Luke xiv. 27[374]. All this is in a high degree unsatisfactory. We suspect that we ourselves enjoy some slight familiarity with the 'antiqua exemplaria' referred to by the Critic; and we freely avow that we have learned to reckon them among the least reputable of our acquaintance. Are they not represented by those Evangelia, of which several copies are extant, that profess to have been 'transcribed from, and collated with, ancient copies at Jerusalem'? These uniformly exhibit [Greek: kath hemeran] in St. Luke ix. 23[375].