25 This in fact is how Bengel (N. T. p. 626) accounts for the phenomenon:—“Fieri potuit ut librarius, scripto versu 8, reliquam partem scribere differret, et id exemplar, casu non perfectum, alii quasi perfectum sequerentur, praesertim quum ea pars cum reliquâ historiâ evangelicâ minus congruere videretur.” 26 It is thus that Tischendorf treats S. Luke xxiv. 12, and (in his latest edition) S. John xxi. 25. 27 Chap. III.-VIII., also Chap. X. 28 Chap. IX. 29 Viz. E, L, [viii]: K, M, V, Γ, Δ, Λ (quære), Π (Tisch. _ed._ 8va.) [ix]: G, X, S, U [ix, x]. The following uncials are defective here,—F (ver. 9-19), H (ver. 9-14), I, N, O, P, Q, R, T, W, Y, Z. 30 See Appendix (A), on the true reading of S. Luke ii. 14. 31 Consider how Ignatius (_ad Smyrn._, c. 3) quotes S. Luke xxiv. 39; and how he refers to S. John xii. 3 in his Ep. _ad Ephes._ c. 17. 32 Ἱστορεῖ [sc. Παπίας] ἕτερον παράδοξον περὶ Ἰοῦστον τὸν ἐπικληθέντα Βαρσαβᾶν γεγονὸς,—evidently a slip of the pen for Βαρσαβᾶν τὸν ἐπικληθέντα Ἰοῦστον (see Acts i. 23, quoted by Eusebius immediately afterwards,)—ὡς δηλητήριον φάρμακον ἐμπιόντος καὶ μηδὲν ἀηδὲς διὰ τὴν τοῦ Κυρίου χάριν ὑπομείναντος. Euseb. _Hist. Eccl._ iii. 39. _ 33 Apol._ I. c. 45.—The supposed quotations in c. 9 from the Fragment _De Resurrectione_ (Westcott and others) are clearly references to S. Luke xxiv.,—_not_ to S. Mark xvi. 34 lib. iii. c. x. _ad fin._ (ed. Stieren, i. p. 462). “In fine autem Evangelii ait Marcus, _et quidem Dominus Jesus, postquam locutus est sis, receptus est in caelos, et sedet ad dexteram Dei._” Accordingly, against S. Mark xvi. 19 in Harl. MS. 5647 ( = Evan. 72) occurs the following marginal scholium, which Cramer has already published:—Εἰρηναῖος ὁ τῶν Ἀποστόλων πλησίον, ἐν τῷ πρὸς τὰς αἱρέσεις γ᾽ λόγῳ τοῦτο ἀνήνεγκεν τὸ ῥητον ὡς Μάρκῳ ειρημένον. 35 First published as his by Fabricius (vol. i. 245.) Its authorship has never been disputed. In the enumeration of the works of Hippolytus (inscribed on the chair of his marble effigy in the Lateran Museum at Rome) is read,—ΠΕΡΙ ΧΑΡΙΣΜΑΤΩΝ; and by that name the fragment in question is actually designated in the third chapter of the (so called) “Apostolical Constitutions,” (τὰ μὲν σῦν πρῶτα τοῦ λόγου ἐξεθέμεθα περὶ τῶν Χαρισμάτων, κ.τ.λ.),—in which singular monument of Antiquity the fragment itself is also found. It is in fact nothing else but the first two chapters of the “Apostolical Constitutions;” of which the ivth chapter is also claimed for Hippolytus, (though with evidently far less reason,) and as such appears in the last edition of the Father’s collected works, (_Hippolyti Romani quæ feruntur omnia Græce_, ed. Lagarde, 1858,)—p. 74.