X not older than the ninth: and not one of the four Codexes which remain is so old, within perhaps two centuries, as either the Old Latin or the Peshitto versions.

We have Eusebius and Jerome's Vulgate as witnesses on the same side, besides the Gothic version, which represents a Codex probably as old as either.

To these witnesses must be added Victor of Antioch, who commented on St.
Mark's Gospel before either A or C were written[163].
It will be not unreasonably asked by those who have learned to regard whatever is found in B or [Symbol: Aleph] as oracular,--'But is it credible that on a point like this such authorities as [Symbol: Aleph]ABCD should all be in error ?' It is not only credible, I answer, but a circumstance of which we meet with so many undeniable examples that it ceases to be even a matter of surprise.

On the other hand, what is to be thought of the credibility that on a point like this all the ancient versions (except the Sahidic) should have conspired to mislead mankind?
And further, on what intelligible principle is the consent of all the other uncials, and the whole mass of cursives, to be explained, if this verse of Scripture be indeed spurious?
I know that the rejoinder will be as follows:--'Yes, but if the ten words in dispute really are part of the inspired verity, how is their absence from the earliest Codexes to be accounted for ?' Now it happens that for once I am able to assign the reason.

But I do so under protest, for I insist that to point out the source of the mistakes in our oldest Codexes is no part of a critic's business.