[61] It is clearly unsafe to draw any inference from the mere omission of [Greek: ede] in ver. 35, by those Fathers who do not shew how they would have began ver. 36--as Eusebius (see below, note 2), Theodoret (i. 1398: ii. 233), and Hilary (78. 443. 941. 1041). [62] i. 219: iii. 158: iv. 248, 250 _bis_, 251 _bis_, 252, 253, 255 _bis_, 256, 257. Also iv. 440 note, which = cat^{ox} iv. 21. [63] _dem._ 440. But not _in cs._ 426: _theoph._ 262, 275. [64] vii. 488, 662: ix. 32. [65] i. 397. 98. (Palladius) 611: iii. 57. So also in iv. 199, [Greek: etoimos ede pros to pisteuein]. [66] Ambrose, ii. 279, has '_Et qui metit_.' Iren.^{int} substitutes '_nam_' for '_et_,' and omits '_jam_.' Jerome 9 times introduces '_jam_' before '_albae sunt_.' So Aug. (iii.^2 417): but elsewhere (iv. 639: v. 531) he omits the word altogether. [67] 'Hic' is not recognized in Ambrose. _Append._ ii. 367. [68] The Fathers render us very little help here. Ps.-Chrys. twice (viii. 34: x. 838) has [Greek: ego de ode]: once (viii. 153) not. John Damascene (ii. 579) is without the [Greek: ode]. [69] i. 76: vi. 16 (_not_ vi. 484). [70] iii.^{2} 259 (_not_ v. 511). [71] p. 405. [72] [The prodigal was prepared to say this; but his father's kindness stopped him:--a feature in the account which the Codexes in question ignore.] [73] iii. 687. But in i. 228 and 259 he recognizes [Greek: theou]. [74] _Ap._ Mai vii. 135. [75] Praep. xiii. 6,--[Greek: monou tou henos] (vol. ii. 294). [76] Same word occurs in St. Mark iv. 37. [77] iii. 101. [78] Falconer's Dissertation on St. Paul's Voyage, pp. 16 and 12. [79] Let the learned Vercellone be heard on behalf of Codex B: 'Antequam manum de tabula amoveamus, e re fore videtur, si, ipso codice Vaticano inspecto, duos injectos scrupulos eximamus. Cl. Tischendorfius in nuperrima sua editione scribit (Proleg. p. cclxxv), Maium ad Act. xxvii. 14, codici Vaticano tribuisse a prima manu [Greek: euraklydon]; nos vero [Greek: eurakydon]; atque subjungit, "_utrumque, ut videtur, male_." At, quidquid "videri" possit, certum nobis exploratumque est Vaticanum codicem primo habuisse [Greek: eurakydon], prout expressum fuit tum in tabella qua Maius Birchianas lectiones notavit, tum in altera qua nos errata corrigenda recensuimus.'--Praefatio to Mai's 2nd ed. of the Cod. Vaticanus, 1859 (8vo), p. v. Sec. vi. [Any one may now see this in the photographed copy.] [80] _Ap._ Galland. x. 225. [81] Remark that some vicious sections evidently owed their origin to the copyist _knowing more of Latin than of Greek_. True, that the compounds euronotus euroauster exist in Latin. _That is the reason why_ the Latin translator (not understanding the word) rendered it _Euroaquilo_: instead of writing _Euraquilo_. I have no doubt that it was some Latin copyist who began the mischief. Like the man who wrote [Greek: ep' auto to phoro] for [Greek: ep' autophoro]. Readings of Euroclydon