37.' This is not criticism but dictation,--imagination, not argument.

Men who so write forget that they are assuming the very point which they are called upon to prove.
Now it happens that all the Uncials but six and an immense majority of the Cursive copies contain the words before us:--that besides these, the Old Latin, the Syriac, the Vulgate, the Gothic and the Bohairic versions, all concur in exhibiting them:--that the same words are expressly recognized by the Sectional System of Eusebius;--having a section ([Greek: sis] / [Greek: e] i.e.216/8) to themselves--which is the weightiest sanction that Father had it in his power to give to words of Scripture.

So are they also recognized by the Syriac sectional system (260/8), which is diverse from that of Eusebius and independent of it.
What then is to be set against such a weight of ancient evidence?
The fact that the following six Codexes are without this 28th verse, [Symbol: Aleph]ABCDX, together with the Sahidic and Lewis.

The notorious Codex k (Bobiensis) is the only other ancient testimony producible; to which Tischendorf adds 'about forty-five cursive copies.' Will it be seriously pretended that this evidence for omitting ver.

28 from St.
Mark's Gospel can compete with the evidence for retaining it?
Let it not be once more insinuated that we set numbers before antiquity.
Codex D is of the sixth century; Cod.