We are far removed, truly, from the confidence displayed by Tischendorf in the treatise he published shortly before his death in 1873 in answer to the question, “Have we the genuine text of the Evangelical and Apostolical writings?” All the more urgently, therefore, do we need fresh studies in textual criticism, and their appearance in Germany is the more gratifying on that account. The _Markus-Studien_ of Dr. H. P. Chajes (Berlin, 1899), however, are quite beside the point. They are purely imaginary, having neither substance nor method. i. 1. On the title, see above; Zahn, _Einl._, ii. 220 ff., 235; Swete, _in loco_; and on this last, S. D. F. Salmond, in the _Critical Review_, April 1899, 206 f.: “We do not see, however, why Professor Swete should regard the opening verses as probably not a part of the original work. One might say the same of the whole paragraph with which the Gospel opens, or, for that matter, the whole chapter. The documentary evidence is substantially the same in each case, and the internal considerations are much too indeterminate.” It may be pointed out, as remotely analogous to this, that before Matt. i. 18 the margin of harl (Z in W-W) contains a note in a hand of the ninth or tenth century to the effect, “genealogia hucusque: incipit evangelium secundum Matthaeum,” while Y has the words “incipit evangelium secundum Matthaeum” in the text, and eight manuscripts begin verse 18 with capital or red letters. Compare Scrivener, I. c. iii., on the divisions of the text in B and other manuscripts. For the way in which the opening sentences are to be construed, reference must be made to the commentaries. It may be said here, however, that parallels may be cited from the New Testament for each of the three possible constructions. These are (1) Ἀρχὴ ..., καθὼς ... αὐτοῦ, ἐγένετο; (2) Ἀρχὴ ... Καθὼς ... αὐτοῦ. Ἐγένετο; (3) Ἀρχὴ ... Καθὼς ... αὐτοῦ, ἐγένετο. For (1) and (2) compare Luke iii. 1 ff., and for (3) 1 Tim. i. 1 ff. Origen favours the first construction (_Contra Celsum_, ii. 4; vol. i. p. 131). As regards the text it need only be said that καὶ is read before ἐγένετο (v. 4) by א^1, and that δὲ is found after it, not only in the Coptic, but also in Syr^{hier}. i. 2. Origen here read ἐγὼ and ἔμπροσθέν σου (i. 131). But the former should be omitted with B D etc., and the latter with all the good authorities. It follows that Matt. xi. 10 is not taken from Mark i. 2 (Zahn, _Einl._, ii. 316, 332). One can see how important the so-called “lower” criticism may be for the “higher.” i. 11; ix. 7. See on “Punctuation” above, p. 52. i. 29. “B here has ἐξελθὼν ἦλθεν, and D b c e q Pesh. have substantially the same. This is not an improvement, because it excludes Peter and Andrew. The reading of Syr^{sin} is peculiar, ‘and He went out of the synagogue and came into the house of Simon Cephas (Andrew and James and John were with him), and the mother-in-law etc.’” See Zahn, _Einl._, ii. 252, and below on ix. 14.