meizon], which is obviously the true reading and may on no account suffer molestation.
'But,'-- I shall perhaps be asked,--'although Patristic and manuscript evidence are wanting for the reading [Greek: o dedoke moi ...
meizon],--is it not a significant circumstance that three translations of such high antiquity as the Latin, the Bohairic, and the Gothic, should concur in supporting it?
and does it not inspire extraordinary confidence in B to find that B alone of MSS.

agrees with them ?' To which I answer,--It makes me, on the contrary, more and more distrustful of the Latin, the Bohairic and the Gothic versions to find them exclusively siding with Cod.

B on such an occasion as the present.

It is obviously not more 'significant' that the Latin, the Bohairic, and the Gothic, should here conspire with--than that the Syriac, the Sahidic, and the Ethiopic, should here combine against B.On the other hand, how utterly insignificant is the testimony of B when opposed to all the uncials, all the cursives, and all the Greek fathers who quote the place.

So far from inspiring me with confidence in B, the present indication of the fatal sympathy of that Codex with the corrupt copies from which confessedly many of the Old Latin were executed, confirms me in my habitual distrust of it.