There is another question in connection with the Western text which has been even more neglected than the former—viz. the amount of importance to be attached to it in the case of the Pauline Epistles. What about Eusebius’s reference to Tatian’s work on these Epistles? I frankly confess that not till the printing of this work was begun did I become aware, mainly from Zahn’s _Einleitung_, how many problems are here waiting to be solved, and for this reason as well as others I must for the present forbear making any attempt in this direction. Here I can only indicate a few of the most general rules of textual criticism, and thereafter adduce a number of New Testament passages which are of interest from a critical point of view. [Sidenote: Rules of criticism.] (_k_) =General Rules of Textual Criticism.=—In its essence the task of the textual critic resembles that of the physician, who must first of all make a correct diagnosis of the disease before attempting its cure. Manifestly the first thing to do is to observe the injuries and the dangers to which a text transmitted by handwriting is liable to be exposed. A correct treatment must be preceded by a correct diagnosis. The injuries which a text receives will vary according as it is multiplied by =Dictation= or by =Copying=. The fifty Bibles which Eusebius prepared at once for Constantine would be written to dictation. In the early times of the Church, copying, as has been already mentioned, would doubtless be the more usual method of multiplication. Here, however, we must make a single exception in the case of Paul, who for the most part did not write his Epistles with his own hand. He evidently dictated them. He certainly did not have them simply written out from his own rough draft. [Sidenote: Illegibility.] (1) In the case of copying, errors originate first of all, though not most frequently, in a word or group of letters being =illegible=, or in their being read for some psychological reason otherwise than as they were intended. However attentive the copyist may be, he may still be in doubt as to the way in which a word or passage should be read, and may decide wrongly. Proper names, _e.g._, are often very doubtful.[249] More frequently however the mistake will be due to inattention. The context may lead the copyist to expect a certain word; he sees one like it, and inserts the former in its place. [Sidenote: Homoioteleuton.]