xi. 29, 30), yet εἰς Ἱερουσαλήμ (which in its present order surely cannot

be joined with πληρώσαντες) is the reading of Westcott and Hort’s text (ἐξ and the fatal obelus [Glyph: dagger] being in their margin) after אBHLP, 61, four of Matthaei’s copies, Codd. 2, 4, 14, 24, 26, 34, 64, 78, 80, 95, 224, and perhaps twenty other cursives, but besides these only the margin of the Harkleian, the Roman Ethiopic, the Polyglott Arabic, some copies of the Slavonic and of Chrysostom, with Theophylact and Erasmus’ first two editions, who says in his notes “ita legunt Graeci,” i.e. his Codd. 2, 4. A few which substitute “Antioch” for “Jerusalem” (28, 38, 66 _marg._, 67**, 97 _marg._, Apost. 5) are witnesses for εἰς, but not so those which, reading ἐξ or ἀπό, add with the Complutensian εἰς Ἀντιόχειαν (E, 7, 14**, 27, 29, 32, 42, 57, 69, 98 _marg._, 100, 105, 106, 111, 126**, 182, 183, 186, 220, 221, the Sahidic, Peshitto, and Erpenius’ Arabic): Cod. 76 has εἰς Ἀντιόχειαν ἀπὸ Ἱερουσαλήμ. C is defective here, and the only three remaining uncials are divided between ἐξ (A, 13, 27, 29, 69, 214, Apost. 54, Chrysostom sometimes) and ἀπό (DE, 15, 18, 36, 40, 68, 73, 76, 81, 93, 98, 100, 105, 106, 111, 113, 180, 183, 184, a copy of Chrysostom, and the Vulgate _ab_). The two Egyptian, the Peshitto, the Philoxenian text, the Armenian and Pell Platt’s Ethiopic have “from,” the only possible sense, in spite of אB. Tischendorf in his N. T. Vaticanum 1867 alleges that in that codex “litterae εισ ιερου primâ ut videtur manu rescriptae. Videtur primum απο pro εισ scriptum fuisse.” But since he did not repeat the statement three years later in his eighth edition, he may have come to feel doubtful about it. Dr. Hort conjectures that the original order was τὴν εἰς Ἱερουσαλὴμ πληρώσαντες διακονίαν.

Acts xvii. 28. Here Westcott and Hort place ὑμᾶς in their text, ἡμᾶς in the margin. For ἡμᾶς we find only B, 33, 68, 95, 96, 105, 137, and rather wonder than otherwise that the itacism is not met with in more cursives than six. The Bohairic has been cited in error on the same side. It needs not a word to explain that the stress of St. Paul’s argument rests on ὑμᾶς. To the Athenians he quotes not the Hebrew Scriptures, but the poets of whom they were proud. Compare Luke xvi. 12, above.

An itacism not quite so gross in ch. xx. 10 μὴ θορυβεῖσθαι (B*, 185, 224*) is likewise honoured with a place in Westcott and Hort’s margin. In Matt.