I suspect that if we ever obtain access to a specimen of those connected Gospel narratives called Diatessarons, which are known to have existed anciently in the Church, we shall be furnished with a clue to a problem which at present is shrouded in obscurity,--and concerning the solution of which, with such instruments of criticism as we at present possess, we can do little else but conjecture. I allude to those many occasions on which the oldest documents extant, in narrating some incident which really presents no special difficulty, are observed to diverge into hopeless variety of expression. An example of the thing referred to will best explain my meaning. Take then the incident of our Lord's paying tribute,--set down in St. Matt. xvii. 25, 26. The received text exhibits,--'And when he [Peter] had entered ([Greek: hote eiselthen]) into the house, Jesus was beforehand with him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? Of whom do earthly kings take toll or tribute? of their sons or of strangers?' Here, for [Greek: hote eiselthen], Codex B (but no other uncial) substitutes [Greek: elthonta]: Codex [Symbol: Aleph] (but no other) [Greek: eiselthonta]: Codex D (but no other) [Greek: eiselthonti]: Codex C (but no other) [Greek: hote elthon]: while a fifth lost copy certainly contained [Greek: eiselthonton]; and a sixth, [Greek: elthonton auton]. A very fair specimen this, be it remarked in passing, of the _concordia discors_ which prevails in the most ancient uncial copies[179]. How is all this discrepancy to be accounted for? The Evangelist proceeds,--'Peter saith unto Him ([Greek: Legei auto ho Petros]), Of strangers.' These four words C retains, but continues--'Now when he had said, Of strangers' ([Greek: Eipontos de autou, apo ton allotrion]);--which unauthorized clause, all but the word [Greek: autou], is found also in [Symbol: Aleph], but in no other uncial. On the other hand, for [Greek: Legei auto ho Petros], [Symbol: Aleph] (alone of uncials) substitutes [Greek: Ho de ephe]: and B (also alone of uncials) substitutes [Greek: Eipontos de],--and then proceeds exactly like the received text: while D merely omits [Greek: ho Petros]. Again I ask,--How is all this discrepancy to be explained[180]?