[144:2] Tregelles, writing on the ‘Ancient Syriac Versions’ in Smith’s Dictionary, iii. p. 1635 a, says that ’these words might be a Greek rendering of Matt. xiii. 16 as they stand’ in the Curetonian text.

[145:1] Or rather perhaps 155, 156; see p. 82 above.

[146:1] H.E. iii. 39.

[147:1] In Mr. M’Clellan’s recent Harmony I notice only two deviations from the order in St. Mark, ii. 15-22, vi. 17-29.  In Mr. Fuller’s Harmony (the Harmony itself and not the Table of Contents, in which there are several oversights) there seem to be two, Mark vi. 17-20, xiv. 3-9; in Dr. Robinson’s English Harmony three, ii. 15-22, vi. 17-20, xiv. 22-72 (considerable variation).  Of these passages vi. 17-20 (the imprisonment of the Baptist) is the only one the place of which all three writers agree in changing. [Dr. Lightfoot, in Cont.  Rev., Aug. 1875, p. 394, appeals to Anger and Tischendorf in proof of the contrary proposition, that the order of Mark cannot be maintained.  But Tischendorf’s Harmony is based on the assumption that St. Luke’s use of [Greek:  kathexaes] pledges him to a chronological order, and Anger adopts Griesbach’s hypothesis that Mark is a compilation from Matthew and Luke.  The remarks in the text turn, not upon precarious harmonistic results, but upon a simple comparison of the three Gospels.]

[149:1] Perhaps I should explain that this was made by underlining the points of resemblance between the Gospels in different coloured pencil and reckoning up the results at the end of each section.

[153:1] This subject has been carefully worked out since Credner by Bleek and De Wette.  The results will be found in Holtzmann, Synopt.  Ev. p. 259 sqq.

[154:1] Cf.  Holtzmann, Die Synoptischen Evangelien, p. 255 sq.; Ebrard, The Gospel History (Engl. trans.), p. 247; Bleek, Synoptische Erklarung der drei ersten Evangelien, i. p. 367.  The theory rests upon an acute observation, and has much plausibility.

[155:1] On the Canon, p. 181, n. 2. [That the word will bear this sense appears still more decidedly from Dr. Lightfoot’s recent investigations, in view of which the two sentences that follow should perhaps be cancelled; see Cont.  Rev., Aug. 1875, p. 399 sqq.]

[159:1] [It will be seen that the arguments above hardly touch those of Dr. Lightfoot in the Contemporary Review for August and October:  neither do Dr. Lightfoot’s arguments seem very much to affect them.  The method of the one is chiefly external, that of the other almost entirely internal.  I can only for the present leave what I had written; but I do not for a moment suppose that the subject is fathomed even from the particular standpoint that I have taken.]

[162:1] The lists given in Supernatural Religion (ii. p. 2) seem to be correct so far as I am able to check them.  In the second edition of his work on the Origin of the Old Catholic Church, Ritschl modified his previous opinion so far as to admit that the indications were divided, sometimes on the one side, sometimes on the other (p. 451, n. 1).  There is a seasonable warning in Reuss (Gesch. h.  S. N. T. p. 254) that the Tuebingen critics here, as elsewhere, are apt to exaggerate the polemical aspect of the writing.