Boletín de Filología Neotestamentaria 173 6. BOISMARD, M.É., L’énigme de la lettre aux Éphésiens (Études Bibli- ques). Paris (Gabalda) 1999, 189 pp. In this book the a. contends that the core of this letter is Pauline. It is a baptismal liturgy expanded by a later writer with extracts from Colossians. Rom 16:3-15 belongs to this Ephesian letter. See book review by J.K. Elliott in NT 42 (2000) 207-208; by J.N. Aletti in RechSR 89 (2001) 121-124. 7. ELLIOTT, J.K., A Bibliography of Greek New Testament Manuscripts (SNTSMS 109). Cambridge (Univ. Press) 22000, XXV + 287 pp. This second edition (See NTPhilBull 5,16) includes new material published since 1989 and some other complements to the first edition. See book review by D.C. Parker in NT 43 (2000) 89-91. 8. FOSTER, P., “A Tale of Two Sons: But Which One Did the Far, Far Better Thing? A Study of Matt 21.28:32”, NTS 47 (2001) 26-37. “The parable of the two sons occur in three variant textual forms. Despite the tendency of commentators to follow the Nestle- Aland text, which is based on the Synaiticus textual form, the strong support in the tradition for each type of variant reading requires the textual question to be reassessed. It is argued that although the Synaiticus reading represents the pre-Matthean form of the parable, it was Matthew, and not a later scribe, who changed the order of the sons in order to privilege the second Son. This aligns with the evangelists concern to depict the re- jection and replacement of the Jewish scholarship. Yet, although the Vaticanus reading reflects the authentic Matthean form of the parable, the earlier Synaiticus form resurfaced and intruded itself into the MSS tradition”. 9. JUCKEL, A., “Die Bedeutung des Ms Vat. syr. 268 für die Evangelien- Überlieferung der Harklensis”, OrChr 83 (1999) 245-281. 10. KRAUS, T.J., “‘Slow Writers - βραδέως γράφοντες: What, How Much and How Did they Write?”, Eranos 97 (1999) 86-97. This art. first explains the concept of βραδέως γράφοντες clumsy, irregular in upright, separately uncials. Then it comments S. Hunger’s char- acterization of 7Q5 (Mk 6:52-53) as a product of a ‘slow writer’. The conclusion is that this idea raises questions on the nature of that Qumran text. 11. LOBA MKOLE, J.C., “Disclosure of the Messianic Secret in Mk 14:62? A text Critical Response”, Neotestamentica 33 (1999) 113-123. In Mk 14:62 the a. favors the shorter reading (ἐγώ εἰμι) of external and internal considerations. In this case, the centurion in 15:39 repeats what Jesus has already said at 14:62.