[Out of thirty-eight copies of the Bohairic version the _pericope de adultera_ is read in fifteen, but in three forms which will be printed in the Oxford edition.

In the remaining twenty-three, it is left out.] How is it intelligible that this passage is thus found in nearly half the copies--except on the hypothesis that they formed an integral part of the Memphitic version?
They might have been easily omitted: but how could they have been inserted?
Once more.

The Ethiopic version (fifth century),--the Palestinian Syriac (which is referred to the fifth century),--the Georgian (probably fifth or sixth century),--to say nothing of the Slavonic, Arabic and Persian versions, which are of later date,--all contain the portion of narrative in dispute.

The Armenian version also (fourth-fifth century) originally contained it; though it survives at present in only a few copies.

Add that it is found in Cod.