I strongly suspect that the introduction of the name of 'Pyrrhus' into Acts xx. 4 as the patronymic of 'Sopater of Beraea,' is to be accounted for in this way. A very early gloss it certainly is, for it appears in the Old Latin: yet, the Peshitto knows nothing of it, and the Harkleian rejects it from the text, though not from the margin. Origen and the Bohairic recognize it, but not Chrysostom nor the Ethiopic. I suspect that some foolish critic of the primitive age invented [Greek: Pyrou] (or [Greek: Pyrrou]) out of [Greek: Beroiaios] (or [Greek: Berroiaios]) which follows. The Latin form of this was 'Pyrus[438],' 'Pyrrhus,' or 'Pirrus[439].' In the Sahidic version he is called the 'son of Berus' ([Greek: huios Berou]),--which confirms me in my conjecture. But indeed, if it was with some _Beraean_ that the gloss originated,--and what more likely?--it becomes an interesting circumstance that the inhabitants of that part of Macedonia are known to have confused the _p_ and _b_ sounds[440].... This entire matter is unimportant in itself, but the letter of Scripture cannot be too carefully guarded: and let me invite the reader to consider,--If St. Luke actually wrote [Greek: Sopatros Pyrrou Beroiaios], why at the present day should five copies out of six record nothing of that second word? FOOTNOTES: [353] See The Traditional Text, pp. 51-52. [354] St. Mark vi. 33. See The Traditional Text, p. 80. [355] iii. 3 e: 4 b and c: 442 a: 481 b. Note, that the [Greek: rhesis] in which the first three of these quotations occur seems to have been obtained by De la Rue from a Catena on St. Luke in the Mazarine Library (see his Monitum, iii. 1). A large portion of it (viz. from p. 3, line 25, to p. 4, line 29) is ascribed to 'I. Geometra in Proverbia' in the Catena in Luc. of Corderius, p. 217. [356] ii. 345. [357] ii. 242. [358] The Latin is _edissere_ or _dissere_, _enarra_ or _narra_, both here and in xv. 15. [359] iv. 254 a. [360] In St. Matthew xiii. 36 the Peshitto Syriac has [Syriac letters] 'declare to us' and in St. Matthew xv. 15 the very same words, there being _no_ various reading in either of these two passages. The inference is, that the translators had the same Greek word in each place, especially considering that in the only other place where, besides St. Matt. xiii. 36, v. 1., [Greek: diasaphein] occurs, viz. St. Matt. xviii. 31, they render [Greek: diesaphesan] by [Syriac letters]--they made known. Since [Greek: phrazein] only occurs in St. Matt. xiii. 36 and xv. 15, we cannot generalize about the Peshitto rendering of this verb. Conversely, [Syriac letters] is used as the rendering of other Greek words besides [Greek: phrazein], e.g. of [Greek: epiluein], St. Mark iv. 34; of [Greek: diermeneuein], St. Luke xxiv. 27; of [Greek: dianoigein], St. Luke xxiv. 32 and Acts xvii. 3.