It is impossible to doubt that [Greek: kai] (in modern critical editions of St. Luke xvii. 37) is indebted for its existence to the same cause. In the phrase [Greek: ekei synachthesontai hoi aetoi] it might have been predicted that the last syllable of [Greek: ekei] would some day be mistaken for the conjunction. And so it has actually come to pass. [Greek: KAI oi aetoi] is met with in many ancient authorities. But [Symbol: Aleph]LB also transposed the clauses, and substituted [Greek: episynachthesontai] for [Greek: synachthesontai]. The self-same casualty, viz. [Greek: kai] elicited out of the insertion of [Greek: ekei] and the transposition of the clauses, is discoverable among the Cursives at St. Matt. xxiv. 28,--the parallel place: where by the way the old uncials distinguish themselves by yet graver eccentricities[82]. How can we as judicious critics ever think of disturbing the text of Scripture on evidence so precarious as this? It is proposed that we should henceforth read St. Matt. xxii. 23 as follows:--'On that day there came to Him Sadducees _saying_ that there is no Resurrection.' A new incident would be in this way introduced into the Gospel narrative: resulting from a novel reading of the passage. Instead of [Greek: hoi legontes], we are invited to read [Greek: legontes], on the authority of [Symbol: Aleph]BDMSZP and several of the Cursives, besides Origen, Methodius, Epiphanius. This is a respectable array. There is nevertheless a vast preponderance of numbers in favour of the usual reading, which is also found in the Old Latin copies and in the Vulgate. But surely the discovery that in the parallel Gospels it is-- [Greek: hoitines legousin anastasin me einai] (St. Mark xii. 18) and [Greek: hoi antilegontes anastasin me einai] (St. Luke xx. 27) may be considered as decisive in a case like the present. Sure I am that it will be so regarded by any one who has paid close attention to the method of the Evangelists. Add that the origin of the mistake is seen, the instant the words are inspected as they must have stood in an uncial copy: [Greek: SADDOUKAIOIOILEGONTES] and really nothing more requires to be said. The second [Greek: OI] was safe to be dropped in a collocation of letters like that. It might also have been anticipated, that there would be found copyists to be confused by the antecedent [Greek: KAI]. Accordingly the Peshitto, Lewis, and Curetonian render the place 'et dicentes;' shewing that they mistook [Greek: KAI OI LEGONTES] for a separate phrase. Sec. 4.