¹ Except the Homilies on Matthew, which Migne took from Field's edition of 1889.

² Or Lk. 4, 34. Cf. below and also Mk. 1, 24 as quoted in vols. IX and X.

³ Cf. above and in vols. IX and X.

⁴ The use of κραββατον is Markan.

⁵ This quotation occurs frequently in Chrysostom's works, but no further reference to it is made here except when it occurs in some special context.

⁶ This quotation appears again in exactly the same form in vol. VIII, p. 160; P.G. 59, p. 164). If it were not for this repetition it could be regarded as a reference, not a quotation.

⁷ The parallels in Matthew and Luke are identical.

⁸ Cf. Mk. 10, 40 below and in vols. VIII and IX.

⁹ This is equally inaccurate as a paraphrase of the parallel in either Matthew or Luke, but seems to be intended as a quotation.

¹⁰ Cf. above

¹¹ Cf. Mt. 20, 28.

¹² Cf. Mt. 9, 2; and Mk. 2, 5 in vols. V, VIII, and XII.

¹³ Cf. Mt. 7, 2.

¹⁴ Cf. Mk. 6, 18 in vols. Ill, XI, and XII.

¹⁵ Cf. Mk. 1, 4 in vol. VII.

¹⁶ Cf. Mk. 6, 18 in vols. II, XI, and XII.

¹⁷ Or Lk. 18, 26. Repeated in P.G. 58, p. 589.

¹⁸ Cf. Mk. 1, 41 etc. and 4, 39 etc. in vol. VIII; also Mk. 5, 8 in vols. I, VIII, and IX. This consistency in otherwise unknown readings is remarkable.

¹⁹ Cf. Mt. 9, 2 and Lk. 5, 20; also Mk. 2, 5 in vols. II, VIII, and XII.

²⁰ Cf. Mt. 14, 2.

²¹ Cf. Mt. 9,10 and Mk. 2,10 in vol. VIII.

²² Chrysostora continues: ως των κατα ομοιωσιν λεγομενων παραβολης ουσης και γαρ λεγων, ομοια εστιν η βασιλεια του θεου υστερον επεϕερε, δια τουτο εν παραβολαις αυτοις λαλω. This is distinctly Matthaean, rather than Markan, in wording.

²³ A homily of doubtful authenticity.

²⁴ Cf. Mt. 21, 27.

²⁵ Cf. Mk. 1, 4 in vol. Ill.

²⁶ Chrysostom is here discussing Mt. S, 13 and either does not know or rejects the text of D lat syr arm in the Markan parallel, which also omits ευθεως.

²⁷ The text under discussion is Matthew, hence this refers to Mark, since Luke is not parallel.

²⁸ Cf, Mk. 6, 28 in vol. XII.

²⁹ This support is worthless, since the Peshitto would need no such phrase.

³⁰ Cf. Mt. 19, 17 and Lk. 18, 19.

³¹ Cf. Mk. 14, 59: και ουδε ουτως ιση ην η μαρτυρια αυτων. The context does not show which is intended.

³² Some MSS. read ταβιθα, a variant found in D lat and a few minn; cf. Mk. 5, 41 in vol. I.

³³ Cf. Mk. 2, 5 in vols. II, V, and XII.

³⁴ Cf. Mk. 5, 8 in vols. 1 and IX and Mk. 9, 25 in vols. V and VIII.

³⁵ This list of illustrations of the point which Chrysostom is making continues with more quotations, taken from the other gospels.

³⁶ Cf. Mt. 9, 6 and Lk. 5, 24, also Mk. 2, 10 in vol. VI.

³⁷ Cf. Mk. 9, 25 below and in vol. V, and Mk. 5, 8 in vols. I, VIII, and IX.

³⁸ Cf. above, and preceding note.

³⁹ This is the form found in Isaiah but in no known manuscript of Mark. Here Chrysostom is thinking, however, of the New Testament; and in all the many times he repeats this verse he never departs from this exact wording.

⁴⁰ This is a mistake, since the passage oceurs only in Mark.

⁴¹ Cf. Mk. 10, 39–40 in vol. I, and Mk. 10, 40 in vol. IX; also Mt. 20, 23.

⁴² Cf. Mk. 1, 24 in vols. I and X, especially the latter.

⁴³ Cf. Mk. 9, 45 in vols. VIII and X.

⁴⁴ Cf. Mk. 10, 28–40 and Mk. 10, 40 in vol. VI11.

⁴⁵ Cf. Mk. 1, 24 in vols. I and IX.

⁴⁶ Cf. Mk. 9, 44 in vols. VIII and IX.

⁴⁷ This quotation occurs again in the same form in vol. XII; P.G. 68, p. 137; cf. also Mk. 6, 18 in vols. II, III, and XII.

⁴⁸ Cf. Mk. 2, 5 in vols. II, V, and VIII.

⁴⁹ Cf. Mk. 6, 18 in vols. II, III, and XI.

⁵⁰ Cf. Mk. 6, 23 in vol. VII.

⁵¹ See Migne, P.G. 56, p. 429.

⁵² Something is wrong with this quotation. Except for one word, αντου, it is identical with the text of Matthew, but this particular word is crucial. Matthew's divergence from Mark lies in the mention of both the ass and her colt, hence αυτων. In a text so imperfectly edited as is Chrysostom's it is probable that αυτου is wrong. The Latin translator in Migne's Fatrologia clearly thought so, for he renders aurov χρειαν by ‘his opus.’

⁵³ Light could probably be thrown on this point by a careful reading of the commentaries and the collation of the lemmata in a few of the oldest manuscripts of Chrys-ostom. But since this concerns only the gospels of Matthew and John it does not enter the province of this article.

⁵⁴ Note that it would be possible to say that the recurrence of K^a showed that Chrysostom's text was similar to one of the ancestors of that group. But this amounts to no more than saying that one of the elements in the text of Chrysostom, as in the K^a-text, was a manuscript of the type of A. There is little trace of the other elements of the K^a-text. This second way of stating the matter lays a much fairer emphasis, since it does not force the decision as to whether the K^a-text was or was not in existence in Chrysostom's time — a problem as yet unsolved and which this study in no way helps.