When it is further found that (besides Ambrose, Jerome, Augustine,) the Vulgate, the Old Egyptian, the Harkleian Syriac and the Gothic versions also contain the words in question; and especially that Chrysostom in four places, Didymus, Epiphanius, Cyril and Theodoret, besides Antiochus, familiarly quote them, it is evident that the testimony of antiquity in their favour is even overwhelming.

Add that in eight uncial MSS.

(beginning with D) the words in dispute form part of the text of St.Luke, and that they are recognized by the great mass of the cursive copies,--( only six out of the twenty which Scrivener has collated being without them,)--and it is plain that at least five tests of genuineness have been fully satisfied.
(2) The third clause ([Greek: ho gar huios tou anthropou ouk elthe psychas anthropon apolesai, alla sosai]) rests on precisely the same solid evidence as the second; except that the testimony of Clemens is no longer available,--but only because his quotation does not extend so far.Cod.D also omits this third clause; which on the other hand is upheld by Tertullian, Cyprian and Ambrose.

Tischendorf suggests that it has surreptitiously found its way into the text from St.Luke xix.

10, or St.Matt, xviii.11.But this is impossible; simply because what is found in those two places is essentially different: namely,--[Greek: elthe gar ho huios tou anthropou zetesai kai][566] [Greek: sosai to apololos].
(3) We are at liberty in the meantime to note how apt an illustration is here afforded of the amount of consensus which subsists between documents of the oldest class.