Accordingly, it does not at all surprise me to discover that in both Codices the important word ἐξελθοῦσαι (in S. Matth. xxviii. 8) has been altered into απελθουσαι. I recognise in that substitution of απο for ἔξ the hand of one who was not aware that the women, when addressed by the Angel, were _inside the sepulchre_; but who accepted the belief (it is found to have been as common in ancient as in modern times) that they beheld him “sitting on the stone.”(146)—In consequence of a similar misconception, both Codices are observed to present us with the word “_wine_” instead of “_vinegar_” in S. Matthew’s phrase ὄξος μετὰ χολῆς μεμνγμένον: which results from a mistaken endeavour on the part of some ancient critic to bring S. Matth. xxvii. 34 into harmony with S. Mark xv. 23. The man did not perceive that the cruel insult of the “vinegar and gall” (which the SAVIOUR tasted but would not drink) was quite a distinct thing from the proffered mercy of the “myrrhed wine” which the SAVIOUR put away from Himself altogether. So again, it was in order to bring S. Luke xxiv. 13 into harmony with a supposed fact of geography that Cod. א states that Emmaus, (which Josephus also places at sixty stadia from Jerusalem), was “_an hundred_ and sixty” stadia distant. The history of this interpolation of the text is known. It is because some ancient critic (Origen probably) erroneously assumed that _Nicopolis_ was the place intended. The conjecture met with favour, and there are not wanting scholia to declare that this was the reading of “the accurate” copies,—notwithstanding the physical impossibility which is involved by the statement.(147)—Another geographical misconception under which the scribe of Cod. א is found to have laboured was that Nazareth (S. Luke i. 26) and Capernaum (S. Mark i. 28) were _in Judæa_. Accordingly he has altered the text in both the places referred to, to suit his private notion.(148)—A yet more striking specimen of the preposterous method of the same scribe is supplied by his substitution of Καισαριας for Σαμαρείας in Acts viii. 5,—evidently misled by what he found in viii. 40 and xxi. 8.—Again, it must have been with a view of bringing Revelation into harmony with the (supposed) facts of physical Science that for the highly significant Theological record καὶ ἐσκοτίσθη ὁ ἥλιος at the Crucifixion,(149) has been substituted both in B and א, του ηλιου εκλιποντος,—a statement which (as the ancients were perfectly well aware(150)) introduces into the narrative an astronomical contradiction.—It may be worth adding, that Tischendorf with singular inconsistency admits into his text the astronomical contradiction, while he rejects the geographical impossibility.—And this may suffice concerning the text of Codices B and א.