^{page 139 note 1} The Four Gospels, 4the ed. (London, 1951), ch iv.Google Scholar

^{page 139 note 2} Recent Developments in the Textual Criticism of the Greek Bible (London, 1933), p. 46.Google Scholar

^{page 140 note 1} Westcott, B. F. and Hort, F. J. A., The New Testament in the Orginal Creek, Introduction and Appendix (Cambridge and London, 1882), ‘Introduction’, pp. 202–3.Google Scholar

^{page 141 note 1} A critical edition gives us confidence, but is not infallible. Its strongest guarantee is its apparatus, and reference must be made to the footnotes to examine the evidence in every instance. A simple example may be taken from Heikel's GCS edition of Eusebius' Tritennatsrede an Constantin (Eusebius Werke, 1, [page] 321, [line] 20). In a citation of John i. 3–4, a later scribe ‘corrected’ to read . The modern editor accepted the emendation, which implies a punctuation different from that usually adopted by Eusebius. The apparatus shows the longer reading to be the editor's error and not an exception to Eusebius' regular form.Google Scholar

^{page 141 note 2} Klostermann, Erich, GCS, Eusebius Werke, iv, 3. I, 3, 30; 6. 20.Google Scholar

^{page 142 note 1} Alterations of the Words of Jesus as Qjsoted in the Literature of the Second Century (Cambridge, Mass., 1952), p. 14.Google Scholar

^{page 143 note 1} See Bebb, J. M., ‘The Evidence of the Early Versions and Patristic Quotations on the Text of the New Testament’, Studia Biblica et Ecclesiastica, ii (1890), 216.Google Scholar

^{page 143 note 2} So Stevenson, J., Studies in Eusebius (Cambridge, 1929), p. 33. interprets Contra Marceltum, 30. 5.Google Scholar

^{page 143 note 3} Wallace-Hadrill, D. S., ‘An Analysis of Some Quotations from the First Gospel in Eusebius’ Demonstratio Euangelica’, Journal of Theological Studies, n.s. 1 (1950), 168–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 144 note 1} See Gregory, C. R., Textkritik des Neuen Testamentes (Leipzig, 1902), II, 753–4.Google Scholar

^{page 144 note 2} Clement's reading now has the support of ¹³ (OP 657).Google Scholar

^{page 144 note 3} ‘The Eusebian Form of the Text Matth. 28. 19’, Zeitshrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft, 11 (1901), 275–88.Google Scholar

^{page 144 note 4} ‘Three Early Doctrinal Modifications of the Text of the Gospels’, 1 (1902–1903), 96–113.Google Scholar

^{page 144 note 5} Ibid. p. 113.

^{page 144 note 6} ‘Critique Textuelle et Citations Patristiques’, LVII (1950), 388–408: ‘Lectio Brevior, Potior’, LVIII (1951), 161–8. See also the extensive use of the testimony of Fathers byGoogle ScholarWinter, Paul, ‘Matthew XI 27 and Luke X 22 from the First to the Fifth Century’, Novum Testamentum, 1 (1956), 112–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 145 note 1} See Metzger, Bruce M., ‘The Caesarean Text of the Gospels’, Jouinal of Biblical Literature, lxiv (1945), 457–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 145 note 2} ‘Some Recent Discoveries’, Religion in Life, V (1936), 92.Google Scholar

^{page 145 note 3} Ibid. pp. 89–102.

^{page 145 note 4} ‘Texto cesariense o pre-cesariense?’, Biblica, xvi (1935), 369–415.Google Scholar

^{page 146 note 1} ‘The Chester Beatty Papyrus and the Caesarean Text’, Journal of Theological Studies, XL (1939), 55.Google Scholar

^{page 146 note 2} An Introduaion to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament (Eng. tr., Miller, B. V., St Louis (1937)), pp. 116–21.Google Scholar

^{page 146 note 3} ‘Mark 6 and 11 in ⁴⁵ and in the Caesarean Text’, Journal of Biblical Literature, lxxiv (1955), 262–71;Google Scholar and more extensively in A Critical Survey and Evaluation of the Earliest Greek Manuscripts of the new Testament (Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Duke University, 1949).Google Scholar

^{page 146 note 4} See ‘Eusebius' Text of John in the “Writings against Marcellus”’, Journal of Biblical Literature, lxxv (1956), 137–42;Google Scholar‘The Eusebian Text of Matthew’’, Novum Testamentum, 1 (1956), 233–45;CrossRefGoogle ScholarThe New Testament Text of Eusebius of Caesarea (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Duke University, 1954). Much of the material in this article was taken from the latter source.Google Scholar

^{page 147 note 1} ‘The Biblical Text of Clement of Alexandria’, Texts and Studies, vol. v, no. v (Cambridge, 1899).Google Scholar

^{page 147 note 2} A partial reconstruction of the text of Eusebius was attempted in my The New Testament Text of Eusebius of Caesarea, pp. 169–360.Google Scholar