from verse 33 to verse 43), _leave off at verse_ 43.

Why may they not leave off where the parable leaves off?
Why should they quote any further?
Verse 44 is nothing to their purpose.

And since the Gospel for Monday morning in Holy Week [verses 18-43], in every known copy of the Lectionary actually ends at verse 43,--why should not their quotation of it end at the same verse?
But, unfortunately for the critic, Origen and Cyril (as we have seen,--the latter expressly,) elsewhere actually quote the verse in dispute.

And how can Tischendorf maintain that Lucifer yields adverse testimony[278]?
That Father quotes _nothing but_ verse 43, which is all he requires for his purpose[279].

Why should he have also quoted verse 44, which he does not require?
As well might it be maintained that Macarius Egyptius[280] and Philo of Carpasus[281] omit verse 44, because (like Lucifer) they only quote verse 43.
I have elsewhere explained what I suspect occasioned the omission of St.
Matt.xxi.44 from a few Western copies of the Gospels[282].
Tischendorf's opinion that this verse is a fabricated imitation of the parallel verse in St.Luke's Gospel[283] (xx.