The interpretation of these verses and the textual problem which they involve has long been disputed among critics. With the ordinary text the difficulty begins with the word ἐμβριμησάμενος in vs. 43. It means ‘scolding,’ or ‘rebuking,’ and no reason can be seen for Jesus' adopting this attitude towards the man whom he had just healed. The matter becomes even more complicated if the variant readings in verse 41 be considered. The ordinary texts read σπλαγχνισθείς, ‘having compassion on him,’ but one of the earliest, Codex Bezae, reads ὀργισθείς, ‘being angry with him,’ or perhaps more accurately, ‘being in a passion,’ although nothing in the story explains why Jesus should have been in a passion with the unfortunate leper. With this agree several old Latin codices. It seems probable that ὀργισθείς is the original reading; it certainly is “hard,” and there was no reason why σπλαγχνισθείς should be changed to it, though the reverse change is not difficult to understand. Perhaps the explanation can be found in the punctuation. I suggest that it should be punctuated and translated as follows: ‘And there came to him a leper beseeching him and kneeling and saying to him, If thou wilt, thou canst make me clean; and he [the leper] put out his hand in a passion of rage and touched him. And he [Jesus] said, I will, be thou clean. And immediately the leprosy departed from him and he was clean. And he rebuked him and immediately drove him out.’

Baeck's “Wesen des Judentums” first appeared in 1905, in the notable series issued by the Gesellschaft zur Förderung der Wissenschaft des Judentums, a modest brochure of 167 pages. In the new edition it has grown to nearly double its original size. The conception of the task, general plan of the work, and method of treatment remain unchanged; but within this framework it is largely a new book. Especially the second part, on the Ideas of Judaism, has been completely rewritten and greatly expanded, giving evidence throughout of recurrent occupation with the subject and maturing reflection. The book is written primarily for Jewish readers, but I know of no book to which any one who seriously wants to know what Judaism is to those who know it best can more confidently be sent for an answer. The author gives neither a history nor a theology — still less an apology — but an exposition and an appreciation of the character of the religion, and of its constitutive ideas, under the heads, Faith in God, and Faith in Men (ourselves, others, mankind as a whole), concluding with a chapter on the Maintenance of Judaism. The treatment is marked by philosophic breadth and insight, combined with a fine art of presentation. One whose calling requires him to read many books, and who has suffered more than his due from authors who seem to think that their reputation or the importance of their matter licenses them to write in a prose that neither gods, men, nor publishers ought to tolerate, may be pardoned for emphasizing his appreciation of a volume which he has read not only with profit but with delight.

The textual condition of the Demonstratio Evangelica of Eusebius is unfortunately very defective. The only existing manuscripts appear to be copies of the great Paris codex 469, and the beginning and end of this manuscript are now missing.

The Acts of Phileas and Philoromus are often cited among the more authentic documents which we possess for the persecution of Diocletian. As such they are included in Ruinart's “Acta martyrum sincera” and Knopf's “Ausgewählte Märtyrerakten.” Delehaye classes them with his third group of hagiographic sources, that is, with those accounts which are drawn either from the procès-verbaux or from the reports of eyewitnesses. Harnack, Tillemont, Allard, Le Blant, and Mason are likewise convinced of their historical credibility.

In this edition of The Secrets of Enoch in “Texte und Untersuchungen,” 44, 2, Professor Bonwetsch has provided a new translation of the Slavonic text, with an apparatus criticus of all known materials. He shows that there are two recensions of the text, of which the longer, known as A, is not an expansion of the shorter, and that the shorter, B, is an epitome of the original. Both these recensions are therefore derived from an original Slavonic translation of a lost Greek text, of which no trace remains.