What business has '_Aquilo_' here?
Next, if the wind did bear the name of 'Euro-aquilo,' why is it introduced in this marked way ([Greek: anemos typhonikos, ho kaloumenos]) as if it were a kind of curiosity?
Such a name would utterly miss the point, which is the violence of the wind as expressed in the term Euroclydon.

But above all, if St.Luke wrote [Greek: EURAK]-, how has it come to pass that every copyist but three has written [Greek: EUROK]-?
The testimony of B is memorable.

The original scribe wrote [Greek: EURAKUDON][79]: the _secunda mantis_ has corrected this into [Greek: EURYKLUDON],--which is also the reading of Euthalius[80].

The essential circumstance is, that _not_ [Greek: ULON] but [Greek: UDON] has all along been the last half of the word in Codex B[81].
In St.John iv.

15, on the authority of [Symbol: Aleph]B, Tischendorf adopts [Greek: dierchesthai] (in place of the uncompounded verb), assigning as his reason, that 'If St.John had written [Greek: erchesthai], no one would ever have substituted [Greek: dierchesthai] for it.' But to construct the text of Scripture on such considerations, is to build a lighthouse on a quicksand.