3. Evan. 33 (which, because it exhibits an ancient text of a type like B, has been styled [with grim irony] 'the Queen of the Cursives') is more brilliant here than usual; exhibiting St. Mark's clause (4) thus,—και γαρ 'η λαλια σου δηλον σε 'ομοιαζει.
4. In C (and the Harkleian) the process of Assimilation is as conspicuous as in D, for St. Mark's third clause (3) is imported bodily into St. Matthew's Gospel. C further omits from St. Mark clause (4).
5. In the Vercelli Codex (a) however, the converse process is conspicuous. St. Mark's Gospel has been assimilated to St. Matthew's by the unauthorized insertion into clause (1) of και συ (which by the way is also found in M), and (in concert with the Gothic and Evann. 73, 131, 142*) by the entire suppression of clause (3).
6. Cod. L goes beyond all. [True to the craze of omission], it further obliterates as well from St. Matthew's Gospel as from St. Mark's all trace of clause (4).
7. [Symbol: Aleph] and B alone of Codexes, though in agreement with the Vulgate and the Egyptian version, do but eliminate the final clause (4) of St. Mark's Gospel. But note, lastly, that—
8. Cod. A, together with the Syriac versions, the Gothic, and the whole body of the cursives, recognizes none of these irregularities: but exhibits the commonly received text with entire fidelity.
On a survey of the premisses, will any candid person seriously contend that και 'η λαλια σου 'ομιαζει is no part of the genuine text of St. Mark xiv. 70? The words are found in what are virtually the most ancient authorities extant: the Syriac versions (besides the Gothic and Cod. A), the Old Latin (besides Cod. D)—retain them;—those in their usual place,—these, in their unusual. Idle it clearly is in the face of such evidence to pretend that St. Mark cannot have written the words in question[226]. It is too late to insist that a man cannot have lost his watch when his watch is proved to have been in his own pocket at eight in the morning, and is found in another man's pocket at nine. As for C and L, their handling of the Text hereabouts clearly disqualifies them from being cited in evidence. They are condemned under the note of Context. Adverse testimony is borne by B and [Symbol: Aleph]: and by them only. They omit the words in dispute,—the ordinary habit of theirs, and most easily accounted for. But how is the punctual insertion of the words in every other known copy to be explained? In the meantime, it remains to be stated,—and with this I shall take leave of the discussion,—that hereabouts 'we have a set of passages which bear clear marks of wilful and critical correction, thoroughly carried out in Cod. [Symbol: Aleph], and only partially in Cod. B and some of its compeers; the object being so far to assimilate the narrative of Peter's denials with those of the other Evangelists, as to suppress the fact, vouched for by St. Mark only, that the cock crowed twice[227].' That incident shall be treated of separately. Can those principles stand, which in the face of the foregoing statement, and the evidence which preceded it, justify the disturbance of the text in St. Mark xiv. 70?
[We now pass on to a kindred cause of adulteration of the text of the New Testament.]
FOOTNOTES:
[184] This paper bears the date 1877: but I have thought best to keep the words with this caution to the reader.