All this, singular to relate, was completely misunderstood by the critics of the two first centuries. Not only did they identify the incident recorded in St. John xx. 11, 12 with St. Mark xv. 5 and St. Luke xxiv. 3, 4, from which, as we have seen, the first-named Evangelist is careful to distinguish it;--not only did they further identify both places with St. Matt, xxviii. 2, 3[174], from which they are clearly separate;--but they considered themselves at liberty to tamper with the inspired text in order to bring it into harmony with their own convictions. Some of them accordingly altered [Greek: pros to mnemeion] into [Greek: pros to mnemeio] (which is just as ambiguous in Greek as '_at_ the sepulchre' in English[175]), and [Greek: exo] they boldly erased. It is thus that Codex A exhibits the text. But in fact this depravation must have begun at a very remote period and prevailed to an extraordinary extent: for it disfigures the best copies of the Old Latin, (the Syriac being doubtful): a memorable circumstance truly, and in a high degree suggestive. Codex B, to be sure, reads [Greek: heistekei pros to mnemeio, exo klaiousa],--merely transposing (with many other authorities) the last two words. But then Codex B substitutes [Greek: elthousai] for [Greek: eiselthousai] in St. Mark xvi. 5, in order that the second Evangelist may not seem to contradict St. Matt, xxviii. 2, 3. So that, according to this view of the matter, the Angelic appearance was outside the sepulchre[176]. Codex [Symbol: Aleph], on the contrary, is thorough. Not content with omitting [Greek: exo],--(as in the next verse it leaves out [Greek: duo], in order to prevent St. John xx. 12 from seeming to contradict St. Matt. xxviii. 2, 3, and St. Mark xvi. 5),--it stands alone in reading [Greek: EN to mnemeio]. (C and D are lost here.) When will men learn that these 'old uncials' are _ignes fatui_,--not beacon lights; and admit that the texts which they exhibit are not only inconsistent but corrupt?