_Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons_ (Erlangen): I. Band, _Das N. T. vor Origenes_, 1 and 2 Hälfte, 1888-89; II. Band, _Urkunden und Belege zum ersten und dritten Band_, 1890-92. It is to be hoped that the third volume will not be long in making its appearance. Along with this we must take his _Forschungen zur Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons und der altkirchlichen Literatur_, of which six volumes have been published (1881-1900). Meanwhile Zahn’s _Einleitung in das Neue Testament_ (Leipzig, I., 1898; II., 1899, 2nd ed., 1900) cannot be too strongly recommended. It contains a great deal of valuable material for the criticism of the text. Needless to say, textual criticism is the basis on which all sound exegesis rests. Footnote 191: A small selection will be found in Preuschen, _Analecta_, pp. 152-157. Footnote 192: Here again, unfortunately, we have no collection of notices referring to the history of the text as distinguished from that of the canon. Footnote 193: Jülicher, _loc. cit._, from Sozomen, _Hist. Eccl._, i. 11. On the Latin form _grabattum_, see W.-W., Index, p. 756, σκίμπους occurs as early as Clem. Al. _Paed._, 1, 2, 6. In the parallels to Mark ii. 6, Matthew has κλίνη (ix. 6), and Luke κλινίδιον (v. 24). _Cf._ the passage cited by Lagarde (_De Novo Test._, 20 = _Ges. Abh._, 118) from Lucian’s _Philopseudes_, 11; ὁ Μίδας αὐτὸς ἀράμενος τὸν σκίμποδα ἐφ’ οὗ ἐκεκόμιστο ᾤχετο εἰς ἀγρὸν ἀπιών. Footnote 194: Τὴν σήμερον οὖν Κυριακὴν ἡμέραν διηγάγομεν, ἐν ᾗ ἀνέγνωμεν ὑμῶν τὴν ἐπιστολήν· ἣν ἕξομεν ἀεί ποτε ἀναγινώσκοντες νουθετεῖσθαι, ὡς καὶ τὴν προτέραν ἡμῖν διὰ Κλήμεντος γραφεῖσαν. Footnote 195: _Cf._ Matt. xiii. 27, δοῦλοι τοῦ οἰκοδεσπότου, and also the superscriptions of the N. T. Epistles, particularly those of Paul, where δοῦλος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ is varied by ἀπόστολος Ἰ. Χ. Footnote 196: “is reserved”—Syr. Footnote 197: “but”—Syr. Footnote 198: This reading is confirmed by the Syriac as against ὑπ’ αὐτοῦ read by Christophorson and Savil. Footnote 199: The passage is a conspicuous example of the importance of punctuation. Bengel punctuates ἅγιον, κληθήσεται υἱὸς Θεοῦ, and Westcott and Hort ἅγιον κληθήσεται, υἱὸς Θεοῦ. Weiss is accordingly not quite right in citing Bengel along with Bleek and Hoffman as supporting the view of Tertullian (see Bengel’s _Gnomon_). It will be difficult to prove that Tertullian’s construction is impossible “on account of the position of κληθήσεται.” Westcott and Hort surely know Greek, and Tertullian knew it better than any of us. Footnote 200: