xtend operations from the eight which form Dr. Hort's total to
thirty-two.

A. In St. Matthew we have (1) i. 25, [Greek: autes ton prototokon] and
[Greek: ton Huion]; (2) v. 22, [Greek: eike] and [Greek: to adelpho
autou]; (3) ix. 13, [Greek: eis metanoian]; (4) x. 3, [Greek: Lebbaios]
and [Greek: Thaddaios]; (5) xii. 22, [Greek: typhlon kai] and [Greek:
kophon]; (6) xv. 5, [Greek: ton patera autou] and [Greek: (he) ten
metera autou], (7) xviii. 35, [Greek: apo ton kardion hymon] and [Greek:
ta paraptomata auton]; and (8) xxvi. 3, [Greek: hoi presbyteroi (kai)
hoi Grammateis]. I have had some difficulty in making up the number. Of
those selected as well as I could, seven are cases of single omission or
of one pure omission apiece, though their structure presents a
possibility of two members for Conflation; whilst the Western element
comes in sparsely or appears in favour of both the omission and the
retention; and, thirdly, in some cases, as in (2) and (3), the support
is not only Western, but universal. Consequently, all but (4) are
excluded. Of (4) Dr. Hort remarks, (Notes on Select Readings, p. 11)
that it is 'a case of Conflation of the true and the chief Western
Texts,' and accordingly it does not come within the charmed circle.

B. From St. Mark we get, (1) i. 1, [Greek: Huiou tou Theou] and [Greek:
Iesou Christou]; (2) i. 2, [Greek: emprosthen sou] and [Greek: pro
prosopou sou] (cp. ix. 38); (3) iii. 15, [Greek: therapeuein tas nosous
(kai)] and [Greek: ekballein ta daimonia]; (4) xiii. 33, [Greek:
agrypneite] and [Greek: (kai) proseuchesthe]. All these instances turn
out to be cases of the omission of only one of the parallel expressions.
The omission in the first is due mainly to Origen (_see_ Traditional
Text, Appendix IV): in the three last there is Western evidence on both
sides.

C. St. Luke yields us, (1) ii. 5, [Greek: gynaiki] and [Greek:
memnesteumene]; (2) iv. 4, [Greek: epi panti rhemati Theou], or [Greek:
ep' arto mono]; (3) viii. 54, [Greek: ekbalon exo pantas (kai)], or
[Greek: kratesas tes cheiros autes]; xi. 4, [Greek: (alla) rhysai hemas
apo tou ponerou], or [Greek: me eisenenkes hemas eis peirasmon]. In all
these cases, examination discloses that they are examples of pure
omission of only one of the alternatives. The only evidence against this
is the solitary rejection of [Greek: memnesteumene] by the Lewis Codex.

D. We now come to St. John. See (1) iii. 15, [Greek: me apoletai], or
[Greek