Chrysostom proceeds,—“In order to make out that THE SPIRIT is a creature, they read Ὁ γέγονε, ἐν αὐτῳ ζωὴ ἦν; by which means, the Evangelist’s language is made unintelligible.” (_Opp._ viii. 40.)—This punctuation is nevertheless adopted by Tregelles,—but not by Tischendorf. The Peshito, Epiphanius (quoted in Pearson’s note, referred to _infrà_), Cyprian, Jerome and the Vulgate divide the sentence as we do.—See by all means on this subject Pearson’s _note_ (_z_), ART. viii, (ii. p. 262 ed. Burton). Also Routh’s _Opusc._ i. 88-9. 189 It may not be altogether useless that I should follow this famous Critic of the text of the N. T. over the ground which he has himself chosen. He challenges attention for the four following readings of the Codex Sinaiticus:— (1.) S. JOHN i. 4: εν αυτω ζωη εστιν.—(2.) S. MATTH. xiii. 35: το ρηθεν δια ησαιου του προφετου.—(3.) S. JOHN xiii. 10: ο λελουμενος ουχ εχι χρειαν νιψασθαι.—(4.) S. JOHN vi. 51: αν τις φαγη εκ του εμου αρυου, ζησει εις τον αιωνα;—ο αρτος ον εγω δωσω υπερ της του κοσμου ζωης η σαρξ μου εστιν. (And this, Dr. Teschendorf asserts to be “indubitably correct.”) On inspection, these four readings prove to be exactly what might have been anticipated from the announcement that they are almost the private property of the single Codex א. The last three are absolutely worthless. They stand self-condemned. To examine is to reject them: the second (of which Jerome says something _very_ different from what Tisch. pretends) and fourth being only two more of those unskilful attempts at critical emendation of the inspired Text, of which this Codex contains so many sorry specimens: the third being clearly nothing else but the result of the carelessness of the transcriber. Misled by the like ending (ὁμοιοτέλευτον) he has _dropped a line_: thus:— ΟΥΧ ΕΧΙ ΧΡΕΙΑΝ [ΕΙ ΜΗ ΤΟΥΣ ΠΟΔΑΣ] ΝΙ ΨΑΣΘΑΙ ΑΛΛΑ ΕΣΤΙΝ The first, I have discussed briefly in the foregoing footnote (p) p. 110. 190 Scrivener’s _Introduction_, p. 386. The whole Chapter deserves careful study. 191 Deut. xvi. 19. _ 192 Printed Text_, p. 254. 193 Viz. Codd. L, 1, 22, 24, 34, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 108, 129, 137, 138, 143, 181, 186, 196, 199, 206, 209, 210, 221, 222. 194 Wetstein quoted 14 Codices in all: but Griesbach makes no use of his reference to Reg. 2868, 1880, and 2282 (leg. 2242?) which = Evan. 15, 19, 299 (?) respectively. _ 195 Variae Lectiones_, &c. (1801, p. 225-6.)—He cites Codd. Vatt. 358, 756, 757, 1229 (= our 129, 137, 138, 143): Cod. Zelada (= 181): Laur. vi. 18, 34 (= 186, 195): Ven. 27 (= 210): Vind. Lamb. 38, 89, Kol. 4 (= 221, 222, 108): Cod. iv. (_leg._ 5 ?) S. Mariæ Bened. Flor. (= 199): Codd. Ven. 6, 10 (= 206, 209.) _ 196 Nov. Test._ vol. i. p. 199.