the Nestle-Aland symbol for the majority of manuscripts, M, is usually redundantly followed by Tischendorf’s al. pler. (alii pler- ique, ‘most other manuscripts’). It is still worth checking the witness apparatus to confirm the extent of lacunae, especially in VL 3, where a reconstruction may be silently adopted in the schema and critical apparatus (e.g. Mark 5:12; contrast 5:21 and 26). Typographical errors are few, which is always reassuring in a critical edition. The schema for Mark 4:31 and 5:13 would have benefited from additional omission marks, while holerun in 4:32 should be holerum. VL 17 has been overlooked in the critical apparatus for Mark 6:10. In the first half of Mark 5:13, the variants to text-type D should probably be moved to text-type I. The vertical alignment of Latin and Greek forms is often complicated: at Mark 6:2, omnes and multi would be better placed underneath polloi  , with the omission marks removed. The critical apparatus on page 291 anticipates the schema which begins on the following page and it is not clear where protinus and mox should be added (if at all). Even if possit is the reading of VL 4 in Mark 4:32, there seems little justification for including this error as a subform of the main text-type. In conclusion, Haelewyck’s edition continues to represent a welcome improvement on Ju ¨ licher’s Itala, giving a much clearer demonstration of the historical development of the Latin tradition of Mark. May fascicles continue to appear with the same impressive regularity and consistently high quality of presentation. doi:10.1093/jts/flw037 H. A. G. HOUGHTON Advance Access publication 5 April 2016 Institute for Textual Scholarship and Electronic Editing, University of Birmingham H.A.G.Houghton@bham.ac.uk The Portrayals of the Pharisees in the Gospels and Acts. By MARY MARSHALL. Pp. 265. (Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments, 254.) Go ¨ttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2015. ISBN 978 3 525 53615 5. E89.99. IN this revised 2009 University of Oxford doctoral thesis written under the direction of Christopher Tuckett, Mary Marshall at- tempts to examine ‘the Pharisees of Mark, Matthew, Luke, Acts, REVIEWS 229 ß The Author 2016. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com at Pitts Theology Library, Emory University on December 14, 2016 http://jts.oxfordjournals.org/ Downloaded from