So far, the evidence of mere Antiquity may be supposed to preponderate in favour of εὐδοκίας: though no judicious Critic, it is thought, should hesitate in deciding in favour of εὐδοκία, even upon the evidence already adduced. The advocates of the popular Theory ask,—But why should the four oldest MSS., together with the Latin and the Gothic Versions, conspire in reading εὐδοκίας, if εὐδοκία be right? That question shall be resolved by-and-by. Let them in the mean time tell us, if they can,—How is it credible that, in such a matter as this, every other MS. and every other Version in the world should read εὐδοκία, if εὐδοκία be wrong? But the evidence of Antiquity has not yet been nearly cited. I proceed to set it forth in detail.
It is found then, that whereas εὐδοκίας is read by none, εὐδοκία is read by all the following Fathers:—
(1) Origen, in three places of his writings, [i. 374 D: ii. 714 B: iv. 15 B,—A.D. 240.]
(2) The Apostolical Constitutions, twice, [vii. 47: viii. 12 ad fin.,—IIrd cent.]
(3) Methodius, [Galland. iii. 809 B,—A.D. 290.]
(4) Eusebius, twice, [Dem. Ev. 163 C: 342 B,—A.D. 320.]
(5) Aphraates the Persian, (for whose name [suprà, pp. [26-7]] that of “Jacobus of Nisibis” has been erroneously substituted), twice, [i. 180 and 385,—A.D. 337.]
(6) Titus of Bostra, twice, [in loc., but especially in S. Luc. xix. 29 (Cramer, ii. 141, line 20),—A.D. 350.]
(7) Gregory of Nazianzus, [i. 845 C,—A.D. 360.]
(8) Cyril of Jerusalem, [A.D. 370], as will be found explained below.