John iii. 36.  Manebit (=[Greek:  menei], for [Greek:  menei]).  So b, e, g, Syr.  Pst., Memph., Aeth., Iren., Cypr.; against a, c, d, f, ff, Syrr.  Crt. and Hcl., etc.

John v. 3, 4.  The famous paragraph which describes the moving of the waters of the pool of Bethesda was found in Tertullian’s MS. It is also found in the mass of MSS., in the Old Latin and Vulgate, in Syrr.  Pst. and Jer., and in some MSS. of Memph.  It is omitted in [Hebrew:  Aleph symbol], B, C, D (v. 4), f, l, Syr.  Crt., Theb., Memph. (most MSS.).  Tertullian gives the name of the pool as Bethsaida with B, Vulg., c, Syr.  Hcl., Memph.  Most of the authorities read [Greek:  baethesda]. [Greek:  baethzatha, baezatha], Berzeta, Belzatha, and Betzeta are also found.

John v. 43.  Recepistis, perf. for pres. ([Greek:  lambanete]).  So a, b, Iren., Vigil., Ambr., Jer.

John vi. 39.  Non perdam ex eo quicquam.  Here ‘quicquam’ is an addition (=[Greek:  maeden]), found in D, a, b, ff, Syr.  Crt.

John vi. 51.  Et panis quem ego dedero pro salute mundi, caro mea est.  This almost exactly corresponds with the reading of [Hebrew:  Aleph], [Greek:  ho artos hon ego doso huper taes tou kosmou zoaes, hae sarx mou estin].  Similarly, but with inversion of the last two clauses ([Greek:  hae sarx mou estin huper taes tou kosmou zoaes]), B, C, D and T, 33, Vulg., a, b, c, e, m, Syr.  Crt., Theb., Aeth., Orig., Cypr.  The received text is [Greek:  kai ho artos [de] dae ego doso, hae sarx mou estin aen ego doso huper taes tou kosmou zoaes], after E, G, H, K, M, S, etc.

John xii. 30.  Venit (= [Greek:  aelthen] for [Greek:  gegonen]), with D (Tregelles), [also a, b, l, n (?), Vulg. (fuld.), Hil., Victorin.; Roensch].

The instances that have been here given are all, or nearly all, false readings on the part of Tertullian.  It is, of course, only as such that they are in point for the present enquiry.  Some few of those mentioned have been admitted into the text by certain modern editors.  Thus, on Matt. v. 4, 5 Tertullian’s reading finds support in Westcott and Hort:  and M’Clellan, against Tischendorf and Tregelles. [This instance perhaps should not be pressed.  I leave it standing, because it shows interesting relations between Tertullian and the various forms of the Old Latin.] The passage omitted in John v. 3, 4 is argued for strenuously by Mr. M’Clellan, with more hesitation by Dr. Scrivener, and in ‘Supernatural Religion’ (sixth edition), against Tregelles, Tischendorf, Milligan, Lightfoot, Westcott and Hort.  In the same passage Bethsaida is read by Lachmann (margin) and by Westcott and Hort.  In John vi. 51 the reading of Tertullian and the Sinaitic Codex is defended by Tischendorf; the approximate reading of B, C, D, &c. is admitted by Lachmann, Tregelles, Milligan, Westcott and Hort, and the received text has an apologist in Mr. M’Clellan (with Tholuck and Wordsworth).  On these points then it should be borne in mind that Tertullian may present the true reading; on all the others he is pretty certainly wrong.