169 The cursive “Cod. No. 67” (or “672”) is improperly quoted as “omitting” (Tisch.) these words. The reference is to a MS. in the Imperial Library at Vienna, (Nessel 302: Lambec. 34, which = our Paul 67), collated by Alter (N.T. 1786, vol. ii. pp. 415-558), who says of it (p. 496),—“_cod. ἐν Ἐφέσῳ punctis notat_.” ... The MS. must have a curious history. H. Treschow describes it in his _Tentamen Descriptionis Codd. aliquot Graece_, &c. Havn. 1773, pp. 62-73.—Also, A. C. Hwiid in his _Libellus Criticus de indole Cod. MS. Graeci N. T. Lambec. xxxiv._ &c. Havn. 1785.—It appears to have been corrected by some Critic,—perhaps from Cod. B itself. 170 So indeed does Cod. א occasionally. See Scrivener’s _Collation_, p. xlix. 171 Scrivener’s _Introduction to Codex Bezae_, p. liv. 172 Scrivener, _Coll. of Cod. Sin._ p. xlv. 173 Eph. vi. 21, 22. 174 Coloss. iv. 7, 16. _ 175 Ubi suprà_. _ 176 Gnomon_, in Ephes. i. 1, _ad init._ 177 See above, pp. 93-6. As for the supposed testimony of Ignatius (_ad Ephes._ c. xii.), see the notes, ed. Jacobson. See also Lardner, vol. ii. 178 Let it be clearly understood by the advocates of this expedient for accounting for the state of the text of Codd. B. and א, that nothing whatever is gained for the credit of those two MSS. by their ingenuity. Even if we grant them all they ask, the Codices in question remain, by their own admission, _defective_.