How is all this discrepancy to be accounted for?
The Evangelist proceeds,--'Peter saith unto Him ([Greek: Legei auto ho Petros]), Of strangers.' These four words C retains, but continues--'Now when he had said, Of strangers' ([Greek: Eipontos de autou, apo ton allotrion]);--which unauthorized clause, all but the word [Greek: autou], is found also in [Symbol: Aleph], but in no other uncial.

On the other hand, for [Greek: Legei auto ho Petros], [Symbol: Aleph] (alone of uncials) substitutes [Greek: Ho de ephe]: and B (also alone of uncials) substitutes [Greek: Eipontos de],--and then proceeds exactly like the received text: while D merely omits [Greek: ho Petros].

Again I ask,--How is all this discrepancy to be explained[180]?
As already hinted, I suspect that it was occasioned in the first instance by the prevalence of harmonized Gospel narratives.

In no more loyal way can I account for the perplexing phenomenon already described, which is of perpetual recurrence in such documents as Codexes B[Symbol: Aleph]D, Cureton's Syriac, and copies of the Old Latin version.

It is well known that at a very remote period some eminent persons occupied themselves in constructing such exhibitions of the Evangelical history: and further, that these productions enjoyed great favour, and were in general use.