174 Antonio Piñero 12. MILLER, J., “(Mis)Understanding Wescott and Hort”, RestQ 41 (1999) 155-162. 13. NICKLAS, T., “Eine Skizze zu Codex Coridethi (Q 038)”, NT 42 (2000) 316-327. This art. is a presentation of this codex under the fol- lowing headings: description and date; this codex as a part of NT textual history; christological tendencies? The a. concludes with the consideration that this codex deserves a more comprehensive study. Several texts (Mt 27:16-18; Mk 8:11-21; Jn 1:18-28) are used to exemplify the theses. 14. PRINZING, G. - A. SCHMIDT, Das Lemberger Evangeliar: Eine wieder- entdeckte armenische Bilderhandschrift des 12. Jahrhunderts (Sprachen und Kulturen des christlichen Orients 2). Wiesbaden (Reichert) 1997, 186 pp. 29 Tafeln. 15. RIUS-CAMPS, J., “Les variants de la recensió occidental de l’evangeli de Marc (IV) (Mc 1,40-2,17)”, RCatalT 23 (1998) 401-419. In this installment the a. offers a text-critical study of all variant read- ings of the Western text from Mc 1:40 to 2:17. The art. presents in a double column the text of B03 and D05 (in Catalan trans- lation). 16. ROBINSON, J.M. - Ch. HEIL, “Noch einmal: Der Schreibfehler in Q 12,27”, ZNW 92 (2001) 113-122. This art. is a response to J. Schröter’s (ZNW 90 [1999] 265-272) criticism to the positions supported by the authors in a former art. (See NTPhilBull 22,33). They defend again their position (a textual reading of this papy- rus reflects the earlier text of Q 12:27 altered by later scribes), but admit that “Aufgrund von a* und P.Oxy. 655 der Text von Mt und Lk nicht geändert werden soll”. 17. ROBINSON, J.M., “A Written Greek Sayings Cluster Older than Q: A Vestige”, HTR 92 (1999) 61-77. “A scribal error has turned up in Q! This has wide-ranging implications… If there is a scribal error in Q (12:27: P.Oxy. reads ου ξαινει [original text] corrupted in αυξανει = Lk 12:27]), Q was indeed a written Greek text, behind which stood an older written Greek text as Vorlage”. 18. RODRÍGUEZ-CARMONA, A., “La fecha del evangelio de Mateo”, RazF 241 (2000) 203-209. The a. discusses the chronology of Matthew’s Gospel as defended by C.P. Thiede and M. d’Ancona in the book Eyewitness to Jesus (1995) = ca. AD 50. The a. describes the book, considers all arguments and dismisses them as not enough convincing. The a. retains the scholar’s date of Matthew’s gospel and a later date for P64. 19. SCHREIBER, S., “Eine neue varia lectio zu Hebr 3,4b?”, BZ 44 (2000) 252-253. The a. reflects on the proposed reconstruction (by A.