# The New Testament in the original Greek - Introduction and Appendix (1882)/Part IV

PART IV
NATURE AND DETAILS OF THIS EDITION
A. 375—377. Aim and limitations of this edition
375. The common purpose of all critical editions of ancient books, to present their text in comparative purity, is subject to various subordinate modifications. Our own aim, like that of Tischendorf and Tregelles, has been to obtain at once the closest possible approximation to the apostolic text itself. The facts of textual history already recounted, as testified by versions and patristic quotations, shew that it is no longer possible to speak of "the text of the fourth century", since most of the important variations were in existence before the middle of the fourth century, and many can be traced back to the second century. Nor again, in dealing with so various and complex a body of documentary attestation, is there any real advantage in attempting, with Lachmann, to allow the distributions of a very small number of the most ancient existing documents to construct for themselves a provisional text by the application of uniform rules, and in deferring to a separate and later process the use of critical judgement upon readings. What is thus gained in facility of execution is lost in insecurity of result: and while we have been led to a much slower and more complex mode of procedure by the need of obtaining impersonal and, if the word may be forgiven, ​inductive criteria of texts, documents, and readings, we have at the same time found it alike undesirable and impossible to take any intermediate text, rather than that of the autographs themselves, as the pattern to be reproduced with the utmost exactness which the evidence permits.
376. Two qualifications of this primary aim have however been imposed upon us, the one by the imperfection of the evidence, the other by the nature of the edition. Numerous variations occur in which the evidence has not appeared to us decisive in favour of one reading against the other or the others; and accordingly we have felt bound to sacrifice the simplicity of a single text to the duty of giving expression to all definite doubt. In this respect we have followed Griesbach, Lachmann, and Tregelles: and it is a satisfaction to observe that Tischendorf's latest edition, by a few scattered brackets in the text and occasional expressions of hesitation in the notes, shewed signs of a willingness to allow the present impossibility of arriving every where at uniformly certain conclusions. Secondly, it did not on the whole seem expedient, in a manual text of the New Testament intended for popular use, to give admission to any readings unattested by documentary evidence, or to give the place of honour to any readings which receive no direct support from primary documents. Since then the insertion of any modern conjectures would have been incompatible with our purpose, we have been content to affix a special mark to places where doubts were felt as to the genuineness of the transmitted readings, reserving all further suggestions for the Appendix: and again, by an obvious extension of the same principle, the very few and unimportant readings which have both ​an inferior attestation and some specially strong internal probability have not been elevated above a secondary place, but treated as ordinary alternative readings. Thus the text of this edition, in that larger sense of the word 'text' which includes the margin, rests exclusively on direct ancient authority, and its primary text rests exclusively on direct ancient authority of the highest kind.
Β. 378—392. Textual notation
378. The notation employed for expressing these diversities of probability or authority will need a little explanation in detail. We have been anxious to avoid excessive refinement and complexity of notation: but, as variations or readings of which we felt bound to take notice are of three classes, which must on no account be confounded, we have been obliged to use corresponding means of distinction. Moreover every various reading belonging to any of these classes must by the nature of the case be either an omission of a word or words which stand in the rival text, or an insertion of a word or words absent from the rival text, or a substitution of a word or words for another word or other words employed in the rival text, or of an order of words for another order found in the rival text; and clearness requires that each of these three forms of variation should as a rule have its own mode of expression.
379. The first class consists of variations giving rise to alternative readings in the proper sense; that is, variations in which both readings have some good ancient authority, and each has a reasonable probability of being the true reading of the autograph. To these the fundamental and simplest notation belongs. A secondary reading consisting in the omission of words retained in the primary reading is marked by simple brackets [ ] in the text, enclosing the omitted word or words. A secondary reading consisting in the insertion of a word or words omitted in the primary reading is printed in the margin without any accompanying marks, the place of insertion being indicated by the symbol $^⊤$ in the text. ​A secondary reading consisting in the substitution of other words for the words of the primary reading is printed in the margin without any accompanying marks, the words of the primary reading being enclosed between the symbols ⌜⌝ in the text. Where there are two or more secondary readings, they are separated by v. in the margin; unless they differ from each other merely by the omission or addition of words, in which case they are distinguished from each other by brackets in the margin, enclosing part or the whole of the longer reading. Occasionally one of two secondary readings differs from the primary reading by omission only, so that it can be expressed by simple brackets in the text, while the other stands as a substitution in the margin. Changes of punctuation have sometimes rendered it necessary to express a possible omission by a marginal reading rather than by brackets (Luke x 41, 42; John iii 31, 32; Rom. iii 12). Changes of accent have sometimes been likewise allowed to affect the form of alternative readings; but only when this could be done without inconvenience. A few alternative readings and punctuations are examined in the Appendix: they are indicated by Ap. attached to the marginal readings. Where there is likely to be any confusion of marginal readings answering to different but closely adjoining places in the text, they are divided by a short vertical line.
380. The second class of notation is required for places in which there is some reason to suspect corruption in the transmitted text, if there is no variation, or in all the transmitted texts, if there is more than one reading (§§ 365—368). Under this head it has been found convenient to include a few places in which the reading ​that appears to be genuine is not absolutely unattested, but has only insignificant authority (§§ 360, 367). Such suspicion of primitive corruption is universally indicated by an obelus (†) in the margin or small obeli ($^{††}$) in the text, and further explained by a note in the Appendix. The typical notation consists of Ap.† in the margin, the extreme limits of the doubtful words in the text being marked by ⌜⌝. In a single instance (Apoc. xiii 16) the reading suspected to be genuine has been prefixed to Ap.† on account of the peculiar nature of the evidence. We have not however thought it necessary to banish to the Appendix, or even the margin, a few unquestionably genuine readings which are shown by documentary and transcriptional evidence to have been in all probability successful ancient emendations made in the process of transcription, and not to have been transmitted continuously from the autograph (§ 88). Such true readings, being at once conjectural and traditional, have been placed in the text between small obeli ($^{††}$), the best attested reading being however retained in the margin with Ap. added, and an account of the evidence being given in the Appendix.
381. Both the preceding classes of notation refer exclusively to places in which in our opinion there is substantial ground for doubting which of two or more extant readings is genuine, or in which no extant reading—in a few cases no adequately attested extant reading—can be confidently accepted as genuine. The third class of notation on the other hand deals exclusively with readings which we believe to be certainly foreign to the original text of the New Testament in the strictest sense, and therefore to have no title to rank as alternative ​readings, but which have in various degrees sufficient interest to deserve some sort of notice.
382. For ordinary readings of this kind the Appendix is the fitting repository. In the Gospels and Acts however there are a considerable number of readings that have no strict claim to a place except in the Appendix, and yet plead strongly for a more immediate association with the true text. To have allowed them to be confounded with true alternative readings would have practically been a deliberate adulteration of the New Testament: but we have thought that on the whole historical truth would be best served by allowing them some kind of accessory recognition, and thus we have been forced to adopt additional modes of notation with peculiar symbols. None can feel more strongly than ourselves that it might at first sight appear the duty of faithful critics to remove completely from the text any words or passages which they believe not to have originally formed part of the work in which they occur. But there are circumstances connected with the text of the New Testament which have withheld us from adopting this obvious mode of proceeding.
383. The first difficulty arises from the absence of any sure criterion for distinguishing Western omissions due to incorrupt transmission, that is, Western non-interpolations, from Western omissions proper, that is, due only to capricious simplification (§ 240): whoever honestly makes the attempt will find his own judgement vacillate from time to time. On the whole it has seemed best that nothing should at present be omitted from the text itself on Western authority exclusively. Those Western omissions therefore which we can confidently accept as, properly speaking, non-interpolations are ​marked by double brackets ⟦ ⟧; while those about which there is a reasonable doubt are marked by simple brackets [ ], that is, they are not distinguished from ordinary cases of ambiguous evidence. Western omissions evidently arbitrary are of course neglected. The omission of the singular addition to Matt. xxvii 49 has been treated as a Western non-interpolation, as its early attestation was Western, though its adoption by the Syrian text has given it a wide range of apparent documentary authority. The last three chapters of St Luke's Gospel (xxii 19 f; xxiv 3, 6, 12, 36, 40, 51, 52) supply all the other examples.
384. The second consideration which has led to the adoption of an accessory notation for certain noteworthy rejected readings is of a different kind. It has been already pointed out (§§ 173, 239) that some of the early Western interpolations must have been introduced at a period when various forms of evangelic tradition, written or oral, were still current. There is accordingly no improbability in the supposition that early interpolations have sometimes preserved a record of words or facts not otherwise known to us. From a literary point of view such fragmentary and, as it were, casual records are entirely extraneous to the Gospels, considered as individual writings of individual authors. From a historical, and, it may be added, from a theological point of view their authority, by its very nature variable and indefinite, must always be inferior to that of the true texts of the known and canonical books; but as embodiments of ancient tradition they have a secondary value of their own which, in some cases at least, would render their unqualified exclusion from the Bible a serious loss. A rule that would for instance banish altogether from the printed ​Gospels such a sentence as the first part of Luke xxiii 34 condemns itself, though the concurrence of the best texts, Latin and Egyptian as well as Greek, shews the sentence to be a later insertion. Yet single sayings or details cannot be effectually preserved for use except as parts of a continuous text: and there is no serious violation of the integrity of the proper evangelic texts in allowing them to yield a lodgement to these stray relics surviving from the apostolic or subapostolic age, provided that the accessory character of the insertions is clearly marked. Double brackets ⟦ ⟧ have therefore been adopted not only for the eight interpolations omitted by Western documents and by no other extant Pre-Syrian evidence, but also for five interpolations omitted on authority other than Western, where the omitted words appeared to be derived from an external written or unwritten source, and had likewise exceptional claims to retention in the body of the text (Matt. xvi 2 f.; Luke xxii 43 f.; xxiii 34), or as separate portions of it (Mark xvi 9—20; John vii 53—viii 11).
385. In addition to the specially important interpolations thus printed in the same type as the true text but with double brackets, there are many Western additions and substitutions which stand on a somewhat different footing from ordinary rejected readings; not to speak of the very few which, being possibly genuine, there was no need to separate from ordinary alternative readings. It was not so easy to decide whether any notice should be taken of any others. The influence of extraneous records or traditions of one kind or another is clearly perceptible in some cases, and its presence may with more or less probability be suspected in others. On the other hand the great mass of these readings can have no other source ​than paraphrastic or assimilative impulses of an ordinary kind. On the whole it seemed advisable to place in the margin between peculiar marks ⊣ ⊢ a certain number of Western interpolations and substitutions containing some apparently fresh or distinctive matter, such as might probably or possibly come from an extraneous source or which is otherwise of more than average interest, but having no sufficient intrinsic claim to any form of incorporation with the New Testament. We wish it accordingly to be distinctly understood that readings so marked are in our judgement outside the pale of probability as regards the original texts, and that it is only necessities of space which compel us unwillingly to intermix them with true alternative readings. Except in so far as they are all Western, they form an indefinite class, connected on the one side by intermediate examples (as Luke ix 54f.; xxiv 42) with the doubly bracketed readings, and on the other including readings which might with equal propriety have been noticed only in the Appendix (see § 386), or even passed over altogether. From the nature of the case the line was hard to draw, and perhaps some inconsistencies may be found, too much, rather than too little, having doubtless been here and there included; but for the present a provisional course has much to recommend it. Ultimately the readings enclosed within ⊣ ⊢ may probably be omitted with advantage. The Epistles and Apocalypse contain no Western readings which have any distinct title to be so marked. The paraphrastic change to which such books are liable differs much from the variation in the record of facts and sayings which easily invades books historical in form, more especially if other somewhat similar writings or traditions are current by their side.
​386. There remain, lastly, a considerable number of readings which had no sufficient claim to stand on the Greek page, but which for one reason or another are interesting enough to deserve mention. They are accordingly noticed in the Appendix, as well as the other readings having some peculiar notation. It did not appear necessary to define by marks their precise place in the text: but the line to which each belongs is indicated in the margin by Ap. unaccompanied by any other word or symbol. This class of rejected readings, which includes many Western readings along with many others of various origin, is of course, like the preceding, limited only by selection, and might without impropriety have been either enlarged or diminished.
387. The examination of individual readings in detail is reserved for the Appendix. In a few cases however a short explanation of the course adopted seems to be required here. First in importance is the very early supplement by which the mutilated or unfinished close of St Mark's Gospel was completed. This remarkable passage on the one hand may be classed among the interpolations mentioned at the end of § 384 as deserving of preservation for their own sake in spite of their omission by Non-Western documents. On the other it is placed on a peculiar footing by the existence of a second ancient supplement, preserved in five languages, sometimes appearing as a substitute, sometimes as a duplicate. This less known alternative supplement, which is very short, contains no distinctive matter, and was doubtless composed merely to round off the abrupt ending of the Gospel as it stood with ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ for its last words. In style it is unlike the ordinary narratives of the Evangelists, but comparable to the four introductory ​verses of St Luke's Gospel. The current supplement (xvi 9—20) was evidently an independently written succinct narrative beginning with the Resurrection and ending with the Ascension, probably forming part of some lost evangelic record, and appropriated entire, as supplying at once a needed close to St Mark's words and a striking addition to the history, although the first line started from the same point as the beginning of the sixteenth chapter. The two supplements are thus of very unequal interest; but as independent attempts to fill up a gap they stand on equal terms, and may easily be of equal antiquity as regards introduction into copies of St Mark's Gospel; so that we have felt bound to print them both within ⟦ ⟧ in the same type. Moreover, as we cannot believe that, whatever may be the cause of the present abrupt termination of the Gospel at v. 8, it was intended by the Evangelist to end at this point, we have judged it right to mark the presumed defect by asterisks, and to suggest the probability that not the book and paragraph only but also the last sentence is incomplete.
388. The Section on the Woman taken in Adultery (John vii 53—viii 11) likewise required an exceptional treatment. No interpolation is more clearly Western, though it is not Western of the earliest type. Not only is it passed over in silence in every Greek commentary of which we have any knowledge, down to that of Theophylact inclusive (Cent. XI—XII); but with the exception of a reference in the Apostolic Constitutions (? Cent. IV), and a statement by an obscure Nicon (Cent. X or later) that it was expunged by the Armenians, not the slightest allusion to it has yet been discovered in the whole of Greek theology before the twelfth century. The ​earliest Greek MSS containing it, except the Western Codex Bezae, are of the eighth century. It is absent from the better MSS of all the Oriental versions except the Æthiopic, and apparently from the earliest form of the Old Latin. In the West it was well known in the fourth century, and doubtless long before. It has no right to a place in the text of the Four Gospels: yet it is evidently from an ancient source, and it could not now without serious loss be entirely banished from the New Testament. No accompanying marks would prevent it from fatally interrupting the course of St John's Gospel if it were retained in the text. As it forms an independent narrative, it seems to stand best alone at the end of the Gospels with double brackets to shew its inferior authority, and a marginal reference within ⊣ ⊢ at John vii 52. As there is no evidence for its existence in ancient times except in Western texts, we have printed it as nearly as possible in accordance with Western documents, using the text of D as the primary authority, but taking account likewise of the Latin evidence and of such later Greek MSS as appear to have preserved some readings of cognate origin. The text thus obtained is perhaps not pure, but it is at least purer than any which can be formed on a basis supplied chiefly by the MSS of the Greek East.
389. The short Section on the Man working on the Sabbath bears a curious analogy to the preceding, and is not unlikely to come from the same source. As however it is at present known only from the Codex Bezae, in which it replaces Luke vi 5, transposed to the end of the next incident, we have with some hesitation relegated it to the Appendix.
390. The double interpolation in John ν 3, 4 has been for other reasons consigned to the same receptacle. ​Both its elements, the clause ἐκδεχομένων τὴν τῶν ὑδάτων κίνησιν and the scholium or explanatory note respecting the angel, are unquestionably very ancient: but no good Greek document contains both, while each of them separately is condemned by decisive evidence. In internal character it bears little resemblance to any of the readings which have been allowed to stand in the margin between the symbols ⊣ ⊢; and it has no claim to any kind of association with the true text.
391. In some of the best documents a modified form of St John's statement (xix 34) about the piercing of our Lord's side is inserted in St Matthew's text after xxvii 49, although our Lord's death follows in the next verse. If the words are an interpolation, as seems on the whole most probable, their attestation involves no special anomaly, not being essentially different from that of the interpolations in Luke xxii and xxiv which are found in the best documents but omitted by the Western (§§ 240 f., 383). The superficial difference of attestation would seem to be chiefly if not wholly due to the accident that here the Syrian revisers preferred the shorter Western text. On this supposition the fortunate circumstance that their habitual love of completeness met with some counteraction, probably from a sense of the confusion arising out of the misplacement of the incident, has saved the texts of later times from a corruption which they might easily have inherited, and would doubtless have held fast. Apart however from the possibility that the words did belong to the genuine text of the first Gospel in its present form (see § 368), we should not have been justified in excluding them entirely from our text so long as we retained similar interpolations; and we have therefore inserted them, like the rest, in double brackets.
​392. Besides the three classes of notation already explained, a peculiar type has been found necessary for the words ἐν Ἐφέσῳ in Eph. i 1. If there were here, as usual, a simple issue of genuineness or spuriousness, the words would have to be condemned. But the very probable view that the epistle traditionally entitled ΠΡΟΣ ΕΦΕΣΙΟΥΣ was addressed to a plurality of churches has naturally given rise to a supposition that the words are not so much spurious as local, filling up an intentional gap in the text rightly for Ephesian readers, but intended to be replaced by ἐν and another name for readers belonging to other churches addressed. In expression of this view we have retained the words with a change of type in preference to leaving a blank space; as we see no reason to doubt that at least one primary recipient of the epistle was Ephesus, from which great centre it would naturally be forwarded to the churches of other cities of Western Asia Minor. We have thought it safer however to enclose ἐν Ἐφέσῳ in ordinary brackets, as Origen is perhaps right, notwithstanding the fanciful interpretation with which he encumbers his construction, in taking the words τοῖς ἁγίοις τοῖς οὖσιν καὶ πιστοῖς ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ to run on continuously, so that no place would be left for a local address.
C. 393—404. Orthography
393. A short explanation remains to be given respecting the Orthography adopted, and also the various typographical details or other external arrangements, some purely formal, some closely related to sense, by which the contents of ancient MSS are presented in a shape adapted for ready use and understanding. An editor of the New Testament is often driven to wish that it were possible to evade the necessity of choosing between one mode of spelling and another. Much time would be saved by ​adopting a conventional spelling, such as stands in the Received Text; and the many points of orthography in which there is little hope of arriving at approximate certainty in the present state of knowledge throw some serious discouragement on the attempt to reproduce the autographs in this as well as in more important respects. Yet it is not seemly, when the text of the New Testament is being scrupulously elaborated word by word, that it should be disfigured many times in every page by a slovenly neglect of philological truth. The abandonment of all restoration of the original forms of words is also liable to obliterate interesting and perhaps important facts, affinities of authorship and the like being sometimes indicated by marks trivial in themselves. No strictly middle course is satisfactory: for, though not a few ancient spellings are placed above doubt by the consent of all or nearly all the better uncials, there is every gradation of attestation between these and spellings of highly questionable authority. We have therefore thought it best to aim at approximating as nearly as we could to the spelling of the autographs by means of documentary evidence; with this qualification, that we have acquiesced in the common orthography in two or three points, not perhaps quite free from doubt, in which the better attested forms would by their prominence cause excessive strangeness in a popular text. Under the head of spelling it is convenient to include most variations of inflexion.
394. Much of the spelling in the current editions of Greek classical authors is really arbitrary, depending at least as much on modern critical tradition as on ancient evidence, whether of MSS of the book edited or of MSS of other books or of statements of Greek grammarians. Indeed to a great extent this artificiality of spelling is inevitable for want of MSS of any considerable antiquity. In the Greek Bible however, and especially in most books of the New Testament, there is a tolerable supply of available resources, so that criticism can occupy a position not unlike that which it holds with respect to Latin writings preserved in fairly ancient MSS.
395. The spellings found in good MSS of the New Testament at variance with the MSS of the middle ages and of the Received Text are probably in a few cases the true literary spellings of the time, though not found in printed editions of other books: but for the most part they ​belong to the 'vulgar' or popular form of the Greek language. There has been as yet so little intelligent or accurate study of the later varieties of Greek that we must speak with some reserve: but we believe it is not too much to say that no undoubted peculiarities of a local or strictly dialectic nature are at present known in the New Testament. The often used term 'Alexandrine' is, thus applied, a misnomer. The erroneous usage apparently originated partly in the mere name Codex Alexandrinus, the MS so called having been for a long time the chief accessible document exhibiting these forms, partly in the Alexandrian origin of the Septuagint version, assumed to have supplied the writers of the New Testament with their orthography: the imagined corroboration from the existence of the same forms in Egypt is set aside by their equally certain existence elsewhere. The term 'Hellenistic' is less misleading, but still of doubtful propriety. It was coined to denote the language of Greek-speaking Jews: but, though the only extant books exhibiting in large number these modes of language were written either by Greek-speaking Jews or by Christians who might have derived them from this source, the same modes of language were certainly used freely by heathens in various parts of the Greek world. Another objection to the term 'Hellenistic' is the danger of confusion with the 'Hellenic' or 'Common Dialect', that is, the mixed and variable literary language which prevailed from the time of Alexander except where Attic purity was artificially cultivated; a confusion exemplified in the practice of calling Philo a 'Hellenistic' writer, though he has hardly a better title to the name than Polybius.
396. A large proportion of the peculiar spellings of the New Testament are simply spellings of common life. In most cases either identical or analogous spellings occur frequently in inscriptions written in different countries, by no means always of the more illiterate sort. The Jewish and Christian writings which contain them are of popular character: naturally they shew themselves least where literary ambition or cultivation are most prominent. Many found in inscriptions, in the LXX, and in some Christian apocryphal books are absent from the New Testament. Within the New Testament there is a considerable general uniformity: but differences as to books and writers are likewise discernible, and worthy of being noted; thus these spellings are least frequent with St Paul and the author of ​the Epistle to the Hebrews, who are in other respects the most cultivated writers.
397. A question might here be raised whether there is sufficient ground for assuming that the spellings found in the oldest MSS of the New Testament were also, generally speaking, the spellings of the autographs; whether in short the oldest extant orthography may not have been introduced in the fourth or some earlier century. Versions afford no help towards answering the question; and Fathers not much more, owing to the lateness of the MSS in which nearly all their writings have been preserved; though it is instructive to observe that the better MSS of some patristic writings shew occasional unclassical forms or spellings as used by the authors in their own persons as well as in quotations, while they disappear in inferior MSS. Although however there is a lack of direct evidence, the probabilities of the case are unfavourable to the hypothesis of the introduction of such forms by transcribers of the New Testament. In the fourth and following centuries, and even during a great part of the third, a natural result of the social position of Christians would be a tendency of scribes to root out supposed vulgarisms, as is known to have been the case in the revisions of the Old Latin as regards grammatical forms as well as vocabulary. In this matter the orthography of late MSS has no textual authority. Like their substantive text, it is a degenerate descendant from the orthography of the early Christian empire, and cannot have survived independently from primitive times; so that its testimony to classical spellings is without value, being derived from the literary habits of scribes, not from their fidelity in transmission. Hence, be the spellings of our best MSS right or wrong, they are the most trustworthy within our reach. Even if it be taken as a possible alternative that they originated with the scribes of the second century, we must still either follow our best MSS or rewrite the orthography by blind conjecture. The simpler supposition that in the main they were transmitted from the autographs need not however be questioned. The unclassical forms or spellings of our MSS were certainly current in the apostolic age, as is proved by inscriptions; and they are not out of keeping with the prevalent characteristics of the diction of the New Testament: so that no tangible reason can be given why the apostles and other writers should not have employed them.
​398. Accordingly in orthographical variations we have followed essentially the same principles as in the rest of the text; allowance being made in their application for the much smaller amount of documentary evidence, and for the facility with which all experience shews that accustomed spellings flow from the pens of otherwise careful transcribers. Possibly we may here and there have erred in adopting an unclassical form or spelling. It is still more probable that the writers of the New Testament employed unclassical forms or spellings in many places where no trace of them now exists, and where therefore their present use could not be justified. Yet we have taken much pains as to individual details, and given perhaps only too much time to what are after all trifles, though in not a few cases there was little hope of arriving at more than provisional results without a disproportionate extension of the field of labour. Fortunately in this matter the individual details are of less consequence than the general colouring which they collectively produce, and about the truth of the general colouring here given we have no misgiving. Even in details a liberal indication of alternative readings (see § 403) goes far towards suggesting the probable limits of uncertainty.
399. The course of orthographical change during the centuries known to us from extant MSS coincided approximately with that of verbal or substantive change. But ancient spellings died out much more quickly than ancient substantive readings; so that the proportion of MSS containing them is considerably smaller. The evidence as to some of these spellings is complicated by coincidence with the range of itacism: that is, some of the rival forms differ from each other only by permutation of such vowels, including diphthongs, as are also liable to be exchanged for each other in mere error. Throughout the uncial period, of which alone it is necessary to speak here, some licence as to itacism is always present, and in a few late uncials the licence is gross and extensive: yet the confusion of vowels, especially in the more ancient copies, is found to lie within constant limits, which are rarely transgressed. Thus א shews a remarkable inclination to change ει into ι, and Β to change ι into ει, alike in places where either form is possible and in places where the form actually employed in the MS is completely discredited by the want of any other sufficient evidence or analogy; the converse confusions being very rare in both, and particu​larly in B. Hence Β has to be left virtually out of account as an authority against unclassical forms with ι, and א against unclassical forms with ει; while in the converse cases the value of their evidence remains unimpaired, or rather is enhanced, allowance being made for the possible contingency of irregular permutations here and there. Till the unsifted mass of orthographical peculiarities of a MS has been cleared from the large irrelevant element thus contributed by what are probably mere itacisms, no true estimate can be formed of its proper orthographical character. When this rectification has been made, it becomes clear that the unclassical forms and spellings abound most in the MSS having the most ancient text, and that their occurrence in cursives is almost entirely limited to cursives in which relics of a specially ancient text are independently known to exist.
400. To accept however every ancient spelling differing from the late spellings would be as rash as to accept every Western reading because it is very ancient. Curiously enough, but quite naturally, the Western documents are rich in forms and spellings not found in other documents, and some few are also confined to documents in which the Alexandrian text is very prominent. Here again Β holds a neutral place, having many spellings in common with each class of text. We have as a rule taken only such unclassical spellings as had the support of both classes, or of either alone with B. Even where Β stands alone, we have usually followed it for the text, unless forbidden by some tolerably strong internal or analogical reason to the contrary. But in many cases there is no room for hesitation about the reading, all the best uncials being concordant.
401. The irregularity of the extant orthographical evidence is so great that it would have often been unsatisfactory to decide on the form to be given to a word in any one place without previous comparison of the evidence in all or nearly all places where the same or similar words occur. Most orthographical variations have been carefully tabulated, and the readings decided on consecutively as they stood in the tables, not as they occur scattered among substantive readings. Many of the particulars required were not to be found in the published apparatus critici: but the labour involved in collecting them has not been fruitless. Examination of the columnar tables of attestation, by bringing to light approximate uniformi​ties affecting particular books or writers, or collocations of letters or words, and the like, has often shown that an exceptional smallness or largeness of evidence has been probably due to accident. On the other hand it would be unreasonable to assume that the same writer, even in the same book, always spells a word in the same way. Absolute uniformity belongs only to artificial times; and, after full allowance has been made for anomalies of evidence, the verdict of MSS is decisive against the supposition. Absolute uniformity therefore we have made no attempt to carry out, even within narrow limits; while we have assumed the existence of such a moderate or habitual uniformity in the usage of the writers as would enable us to come to a decision for the text in difficult cases. Many ancient spellings are therefore adopted in individual places on evidence which might be perilously small if they were taken alone, and if substantive readings were in question; but we have printed absolutely nothing without some good documentary authority.
402. In some departments of orthography the evidence is so unsatisfactory that the rejected spellings are but little less probable than those adopted; and thus they should in strictness be accounted alternative readings. But to have printed them in the margin along with the substantive alternatives would have crowded and confused the pages of our text beyond measure, without any corresponding gain. They are therefore reserved for the Appendix, in which a few additional remarks on some special points of orthography, especially on some forms of proper names, may fitly find a place. The alternative readings thus relegated to the Appendix under the head of orthography include not only forms of inflexion, but forms of particles, as ἄν or ἐάν, and variations in the elision or retention of the last vowel of ἀλλά and of such prepositions as end with a vowel. We have ventured to treat in the same manner variations of the indicative or subjunctive after such particles as ἵνα, ἐάν, and ὅταν, and after relatives with ἄν or ἐάν.
403. A word may be interposed here on a topic which in strictness belongs to Part III (compare § 303), but which it is more convenient to notice in connexion with orthography. Attention was called above (§ 399) to the necessity of making allowance for purely itacistic error in considering the properly orthographical testimony of MSS. But there is another more important question con​cerning itacistic error, namely how far its early prevalence invalidates the authority of the better MSS as between substantive readings which differ only by vowels apt to be interchanged. The question cannot be answered with any confidence except by careful comparison of the various places in the New Testament which are affected by it. The results thus obtained are twofold. It becomes clear that in early times scribes were much more prone to make changes which affected vowels only than to make any other changes; and that every extant early document falls in this respect below its habitual standard of trustworthiness. Readings intrinsically improbable have often a surprising amount of attestation; and thus internal evidence attains unusual relative importance. It is no less clear that the several documents retain on the whole their relative character as compared with each other, and that readings unsupported by any high documentary authority have little probability. Where the testimony of early Versions and Fathers is free from uncertainty, it has a special value in variations of this kind by virtue of mere priority of date, as the chances of corruption through such interchange of vowels as is not obviously destructive of sense are considerably more increased by repetition of transcription than the chances of corruption of any other type: but MSS of Versions are in many cases liable to corresponding errors of precisely the same kind, and the interpretations of Fathers are open to other special ambiguities.
404. Probably the commonest permutation is that of ο and ω, chiefly exemplified in the endings -⁠ομεν and -⁠ωμεν, -⁠όμεθα and -⁠ώμεθα. Instances will be found in 1 Cor. xv 49, where we have not ventured to reject either φορέσωμεν or φορέσομεν; and in Rom. ν 1, where the imperative εἰρήνην ἔχωμεν, Standing as it does after a pause in the epistle, yields a probable sense, virtually inclusive of the sense of εἰρήνην ἔχομεν, which has no certain attestation of good quality but that of the 'corrector' of א. Another frequent permutation is that of ε and αι; likewise exemplified in forms of the verb, especially in the infinitive and the second person plural of the imperative. Thus in Luke xiv 17 it is difficult to decide between Ἔρχεσθε and ἔρχεσθαι, or in xix 13 between πραγματεύσασθαι and Πραγματεύσασθε, the infinitive in the latter place being justified by St Luke's manner of passing from oratio obliqua to oratio recta. Gal. iv 18 furnishes one of the few instances in which Β and א have happened to fall into ​the same itacistic error, both reading ζηλοῦσθε where ζηλοῦσθαι alone has any real probability. Examples of another type are the Western καινοφωνίας for κενοφωνίας in 1 Tim. vi 20; 2 Tim. ii 16; and the more perverse confusion by which in Matt. xi 16 the idiomatic τοῖς ἑτέροις, the other 'side' or party in the game played by the children sitting in the marketplace, appears in the Syrian text as τοῖς ἑταίροις with αὐτῶν added. The interchange of e and η may be illustrated by ἦμεν and ἤμην in Acts xi 11, where the best uncials are opposed to the versions; and of ει with η by εἰ and ᾗ in 2 Cor. ii 9: less frequent forms of itacism may be passed over. Lastly, itacism plays at least some part in the common confusion of ἡμεῖς and ὑμεῖς. The prevailing tendency is to introduce ἡμεῖς wrongly, doubtless owing to the natural substitution of a practical for a historical point of view, as is seen to a remarkable extent in 1 Peter: but there are many permutations which cannot be traced to this cause. The peculiarly subtle complexity of the personal relations between St Paul and his converts as set forth in 2 Corinthians has proved a special snare to scribes, the scribes of the best MSS not excepted. Occasionally the variation between ἡμεῖς and ὑμεῖς is of much interest. Thus, though the limited range of attestation has withheld us from placing τινὲς τῶν καθ' ἡμᾶς ποιητῶν in the text proper of Acts xvii 28, there would be a striking fitness in a claim thus made by St Paul to take his stand as a Greek among Greeks; as he elsewhere vindicates his position as a Roman (xvi 37; xxii 25, 28), and as a Pharisee (xxiii 6).
D. 405—416. Breathings, Accents, and other accessories of printing
405. Orthography deals with elements of text transmitted uninterruptedly, with more or less of purity, from the autographs to the extant MSS. In passing next from the letters to the various marks which custom and convenience require to be affixed to them, we leave, with one partial exception, the domain of the written tradition. Whether the autographs contained Breathings, Accents, and the like, it is impossible to know. None exist in the earlier uncials of the New Testament, and it is morally certain that they were not included in transcription during a succession of centuries; so that, if any existed in the first instance, the record of them must have speedily ​perished. The earliest MSS of the New Testament that exhibit breathings and accents are in any case too degenerate in orthography and in substantive text alike to be followed with any confidence, even were it possible to regard them as having inherited these marks from an unbroken succession of ancestral MSS. But in truth they have no authority derived from ancestral transmission at all, the accessory marks having been doubtless chosen or placed, when they were first inserted, in conformity with the pronunciation or grammatical doctrine of the time. They are the expression of a tradition, but not of a tradition handed down through transcription, nor a tradition belonging to the New Testament more than to any other book containing any of the same words. The one exception to this statement is made by the conversion of a preceding hard consonant, κ, π, or τ, into an aspirate consonant, which thus carries in itself the impress of the rough breathing. The opportunity for such conversion of course arises only in ἀντί, ἀπό, ἐπί, κατά, μετά, ὑπό, where the final vowel suffers elision, in verbs compounded with these prepositions, and in the particle οὐκ.
406. The problem therefore, as limited by the evidence, is to discover not what the apostles wrote, but what it is likely that they would have written, had they employed the same marks as are now in use, mostly of very ancient origin: and the only safe way to do this is to ascertain, first, what was the general Greek usage, and next, whether any special usage of time, place, or other circumstances has to be further taken into account. The evidence at the command of modern grammarians for this purpose consists partly of the statements or precepts of ancient grammarians, partly of the records of ancient grammatical practice, that is, the marks found in such MSS as contain marks. To this second class of evidence the later uncials and earlier cursives of the New Testament make an appreciable contribution, which has not yet received due attention from grammarians: but their testimony respecting ancient Greek usage, though it has thus its use, in combination with other evidence, when marks have to be affixed to the text of the New Testament, must not be confounded with a direct transmission of affixed marks from primitive times.
407. Some few unusual Breathings indicated by aspiration of the preceding consonant occur in good MSS of the New Testament; but their attestation is so irregular ​that it is difficult to know what to do with them. They are assuredly not clerical errors, but genuine records of pronunciation, whether of the apostolic age or some other early time, and have to a certain extent the support of inscriptions, even of inscriptions from Attica. They seem to be chiefly relics of the digamma, and are interesting as signs of the variety of spoken language which often lies concealed under the artificial uniformity of a literary standard. The range of good MSS supporting them in one place or another is remarkable, and in some few places they can claim a large aggregation of good MSS: yet in others they receive but little attestation, and usually they receive none at all. In two or three cases we have admitted them to the text, content elsewhere to leave them for the present as alternatives in the Appendix, where any needful details as to these or other accessory marks will be found. The amply attested reading οὐκ ἔστηκεν in John viii 44 does not come under the present head, ἔστηκεν being merely the imperfect of στήκω as it appears also to be in Apoc. xii 4. The sense of an imperfect rather than a present is required by the context, which must refer to the primal apostasy as representing the Jews' abandonment of the truth into which they were born; and there is a fitness in the virtually intensive force ('stand fast') which belongs by prevalent though not constant usage to στήκω. The imperfect of this somewhat rare verb is not on record: but imperfects are too closely connected with presents to need separate authority, and multitudes of unique forms of verbs are known only from single passages. The aspiration of αυτοῦ used reflexively is discussed in the Appendix.
408. The breathings of proper names possess a semblance of documentary evidence in the Latin version and its presentation of names with or without H. Yet, however early the first link in the Latin chain may be, it is evidently disconnected from the Palestinian pronunciation of Greek, the true object of search. The serious inconsistencies and improbabilities contained in the Latin usage condemn it equally on internal grounds: it is obviously due rather to unconscious submission to deceptive analogies and associations of sound than to any actual tradition. The breathings of Greek and Latin proper names can usually be fixed by the etymology: where this fails, it is seldom difficult to find direct or indirect authority in coins, inscriptions, or even early MSS of Latin authors. The well ​attested aspirate of the African Hadrumetum prescribes πλοίῳ Ἁδραμυντηνῷ, as the name of the obscurer Asiatic city must have had the same origin. In proper names transliterated from the Hebrew or Aramaic we have in like manner exactly followed the Hebrew or Aramaic spelling, expressing א and ע; by the smooth breathing, and ה and ח by the rough breathing. This principle, manifestly the only safe guide in the absence of evidence, sanctions Ἅβελ, Ἅγαρ, Ἁκελδαμάχ, Ἁλφαῖος, Ἁνανίας, Ἅννα, Ἅννας, Ἁρέτας, Ἁριμαθαία, Ἑμμώρ, Ἑνώχ, Ἑσρώμ, Εὕα, Ὡσηέ; also Ἁλληλουιά as well as Ὡσαννά. In Ἃρ Μαγεδών, Mount Megiddo, the common identification of Αρ with הַר is accepted. It is true that the rare form עׇר, denoting a 'city', is represented in the Ar-Moab of Num. xxi 28; (cf. xxii 36;) Is. XV I, (transliterated by Theodotion in Isaiah, but by no other Greek authority in either place,) and in the Αρσαμόσατα of classical authors, the name of a city near the sources of the Tigris. But better parallels on Jewish soil are supplied by Ἃρ Γαριζείν, Mount Gerizim, from two Greek Samaritan sources (Ps. Eupolem. ap. Eus. P.E. ix 419 A; Damasc.Vit.Marin. ap. Phot.Bibl.345 b 20 [τῷ Ἁργαρίζῳ]: cf. Freudenthal Alex.Polyhist. 86 ff.), and by Ἃρ Σαφάρ, Mount Shapher, from the LXX of Num. xxxiii 23 f. in A and most MSS. The context points to a 'mount' rather than a 'city'; and the name Mount Megiddo is not difficult to explain, though it does not occur elsewhere. In Ἁλφαῖος we follow the Vulgate Syriac (the Old Syriac is lost in the four places where the name occurs), which agrees with what the best modern authorities consider to be the Aramaic original. We have also in the text accepted the authority of the Syriac for Ἄγαβος (from ענב) : but Ἅγαβος (from חנב) is supported by the existence of a Hagab in Ezr. ii 45 f.; Νeh. vii 48. In like manner Ἐβέρ, Ἐβραῖος, Ἐβραΐς, Ἐβραϊστί have every claim to be received: indeed the complete displacement of Ebraeus and Ebrew by Hebraeus and Hebrew is comparatively modern. All names beginning with י have received the smooth breathing. No better reason than the false association with ἱερός can be given for hesitating to write Ἰερεμίας, Ἰερειχώ, Ἰεροσόλυμα (-μείτης), Ἰερουσαλήμ.
409. On the other hand an interesting question is raised by the concurrence of several of the best MSS in Gal. ii 14 in favour of οὐχ Ιουδαϊκῶς, the only other well attested reading οὐχὶ Ιουδαϊκῶς being probably a correction: nowhere else in the New Testament is any ​similar proper name preceded by a hard consonant, so as to give opportunity for aspiration. The improbability of a clerical error is shown by the reading οὐχ Ιούδα in Susan. 56, attested by at least three out of the four extant uncials (ABQ), the reading of the fourth (V) being unknown; combined with the fact that this is the only other place in the Greek Bible where an opportunity for aspiration occurs before a similar proper name. It seems to follow that, where יְהוּ at the beginning of proper names was transliterated by Ιου- (and by analogy יהוֺוׂ by (Ιω-), the aspirate sound coalesced in pronunciation with the semi-vowel. On this view Ιουδαῖος and all derivatives of Ιούδας, together with Ιωράμ and Ιωσαφάτ, should always carry the rough breathing. We have however refrained from abandoning the common usage in the present text.
410. The Iota adscript is found in no early MSS of the New Testament. As the best MSS make the infinitive of verbs in -όω to end in -οῖν (κατασκηνοῖν Matt. xiii 32 and Mark iv 32; φιμοῖν 1 Pet. ii 15; ἀποδεκατοῖν Heb. vii 5), analogy is distinctly in favour of allowing the Iota subscript of ζῇν and infinitives in ᾷν. Indeed even in ordinary Greek the practice of withholding it, which Wolf brought into fashion, has been questioned by some high authorities, Ἡρῴδης is well supported by inscriptions, and manifestly right: of course its derivatives follow it. It seems morally certain that the Greeks wrote not only πρῷρα, ὑπερῷον, but ἀθῷος, ᾠόν, ζῷον; and we had good precedents for accepting these forms. Almost as much may be said for σῴζω (see K.H.A.Lipsius Gramm. Unters. 9; Curtius Das Verb. d. griech. Spr. ed. 2. ii 401): but it had found no favour with modern editors when our text was printed, and we did not care to innovate on its behalf then, or to alter the plates in more than a hundred passages on its behalf now. Once more, authority has seemed to prescribe εἰκῇ, κρυφῇ, πανταχῇ, πάντῃ, λάθρᾳ.
411. Details of Accents need not be discussed here. The prevalent tendency of most modern grammarians, with some notable exceptions, has been to work out a consistent system of accentuation on paper rather than to recover the record of ancient Greek intonations of voice, with all their inevitable anomalies: but we have not ventured on any wide departures from custom. With some recent editors we have taken account of the well attested fact that certain vowels which were originally long became short in the less deliberate speech of later ​times, and have affixed the accents accordingly (see Lobeck Paralip. Diss. vi; Mehlhorn Gr. Gr. 26, 31, 158; Cobet N.T.Praef. li; K.H.A.Lipsius 31 ff.). The example of C.E.C.Schneider, who usually shews good judgement in these matters, has encouraged us to drop the unnecessary mark or space distinguishing the pronoun ὅτι from the particle.
412. In the division of words at the end and beginning of lines we have faithfully observed the Greek rules, of which on the whole the best account is in Kühner's Grammar, i 273 ff. (ed. 2). It has been urged that the scribe of א copied an Egyptian papyrus, on the ground that some of the lines begin with θμ, a combination of letters which may begin a word in Coptic, but cannot in Greek. The truth is that θμ, following the analogy of τμ, is a recognised Greek beginning for lines. It was a Greek instinct, first doubtless of pronunciation and thence of writing, to make syllables end upon a vowel, if it was in any way possible; and the only universally accepted divisions between consonants occur where they are double, where a hard consonant precedes an aspirate, or where the first consonant is a liquid except in the combination μν. Among the points on which both precept and practice differed was the treatment of prepositions in composition as integral parts of a word, in the two cases of their being followed by a consonant or by a vowel: in allowing division after πρός and εἰς, but joining the final consonant of the preposition to the next syllable in other cases, even after σύν, we have been guided by the predominant though not uniform usage of אABC. In most particulars of the division of syllables these MSS habitually follow the stricter of the various rules laid down by grammarians, more closely indeed than such papyrus MSS as we have compared with them by means of facsimile editions, though miscellaneous deviations may occasionally be found. The rarest of such lapses are violations of the rule that a line must on no account end with οὐκ, οὐχ, or a consonant preceding an elided vowel, as in ἀπ', οὐδ', ἀλλ'; in which cases the consonant must begin the next line, unless of course the separation of the two adjacent syllables can easily be altogether avoided. In the case of compound Hebrew proper names, as Βηθλεέμ, we have ventured for the present purpose to treat each element as a separate word.
413. Quotations from the Old Testament are printed ​in 'uncial' type. Under this head are included not only passages or sentences expressly cited in the context as quotations, but sentences adopted from the Old Testament without any such indication, and also all phrases apparently borrowed from some one passage or limited number of passages, and in a few places characteristic single words. The line has been extremely difficult to draw, and may perhaps have wavered occasionally. Words or forms of speech occurring in either the Massoretic Hebrew alone or the Septuagint alone have been treated as belonging to the Old Testament, as well as those which stand in both texts; and the various readings belonging to different states of the LXX, as preserved in its extant MSS, have likewise been taken into account. On the other hand words occurring in the midst of quotations, and not clearly capable of being referred to an Old Testament original, have been left in ordinary type. A list of references to the passages, phrases, and words marked as taken from the Old Testament is given in the Appendix. Hebrew and Aramaic words transliterated in Greek, not being proper names, are marked by spaced type; inscribed titles and the peculiar formulæ quoted in Rom. x 9, 1 Cor. xii 3, and Phil. ii 11, are printed entirely in ordinary capitals.
414. The use of capital initials for the most part tells its own tale; but some explanation is required as to the exceptional employment of Κύριος and Χριστός. Wherever κύριος is preceded by an article, it is manifestly a pure appellative, and needs no capital. When the article is wanting, apart from such phrases as ἀπὸ θεοῦ πατρὸς ἡμῶν καὶ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ and ἐν κυρίῳ [Ἰησοῦ], in a considerable number of cases the form is evidently taken from the LXX, where it usually represents Jehovah (Jahveh), Adonai, or some other name of God. Direct and in this respect exact quotations from the LXX, which evidently throw no light on the usage of the writer who quotes them, similar direct quotations in which Κύριος is not the word employed in at least existing texts of the LXX, reminiscences of one or more passages in the LXX, and detached phrases of frequent occurrence in it (as ἄγγελος Κυρίου) make up the greater number of these cases. The only writers who in our judgement employ the anarthrous Κύριος as a name after the manner of the LXX, but quite independently, are St James, St Peter, and (in the Apocalypse) St John; and even in reminiscences of the LXX, or short phrases taken from it, the distribution of this use ​of Κύριος is strikingly limited. In all these five classes of passages, which shade into each other, the capital has been used, because here Κύριος is the equivalent of a proper name, though it may sometimes contain a secondary allusion to the Greek signification. On the other hand after careful examination we can find no instance in which the omission of the article need be referred to the Greek idiom by which, for instance, ἥλιος and κόσμος are often used anarthrously, that is, in which κύριος seems to be used convertibly with ὁ κύριος. In other words, where the God of Israel is not intended, the absence of the article is always accompanied by a directly or indirectly predicative force in κύριος, and a capital initial would certainly be wrong. Such passages are numerous in St Paul's epistles, very rare elsewhere.
415. The grounds of distinction for χριστός and Χριστός are different. Here the Greek word exactly translates an appellative of the Old Testament which was in popular speech becoming or become a proper name, and in like manner it becomes at last a proper name itself. We doubt whether the appellative force, with its various associations and implications, is ever entirely lost in the New Testament, and are convinced that the number of passages is small in which Messiahship, of course in the enlarged apostolic sense, is not the principal intention of the word. The presence or absence of the article is only an imperfect criterion, as its absence is compatible with the meaning "a Christ", and its presence with limitation to a single definite person. Adequate representation of the gradation of use is beyond the power of notation: yet we could not willingly give support to the perverse interpretation which makes [ὁ] χριστός a merely individual name, as we should have done had we used the capital initial always. In using it where the article is absent (the forms Ἰησοῦς Χριστός, Χριστὸς Ἰησοῦς being included), and avoiding it where the article is present (ὁ χριστός Ἰησοῦς being included) and in the vocative of Matt. xxvi 68, we have, we hope, obtained fair approximations to the predominant force of the word. In 1 Peter alone it seemed best to retain the capital both with and without the article, for fear of obscuring the apparently complex usage of this epistle. Fortunately both forms throughout the New Testament are bound together by the common accent, the oxytone Χριστός never having been exchanged for the Χρίστος appropriate to a true proper name.
​416. An initial capital has likewise been used for Ὕψιστος in the four places, all in St Luke's Gospel, in which it stands in the singular without an article. In this shape it exactly represents the anarthrous Elion, a very ancient name not confined to the Jews, and is virtually itself a proper name. In the LXX the article is usually inserted: but in Ecclesiasticus, doubtless a better authority for Palestinian custom, Ὕψιστος occurs frequently, and has the article but once, except in combination with another title.
E. 417—423. Punctuation, Divisions of text, and Titles of books
417. Punctuation properly includes not stops only, but spaces at the beginning, middle, or end of lines, and indeed any notation having a similar effect, that is, the distribution of words into clauses, and of clauses into sentences of greater or less complexity. In this sense probably no MSS are without punctuation, though in the earlier biblical MSS it is vague and comparatively infrequent. Comparison of the punctuation of extant MSS leads to the conclusion that, though in some places breaks or stops occur with fair constancy, there has been no transmission of punctuation of any kind from the autographs; so that whatever punctuation is found is merely a record of ancient interpretations of unknown authority. Punctuations presupposed in the renderings of Versions may often be older, but they have essentially the same character; and those which are involved in the renderings or interpretations of Fathers differ only as having usually the authority, whatever it may be, of known expositors or theologians. Many interpretations embodying punctuations naturally became traditional within a wider or narrower sphere: but the starting-point of each tradition must have been an individual act of judgement upon an inherited text, not a continuously transmitted reproduction of an original punctuation as part of a text. Modern editors have therefore no option but to punctuate in accordance with the best interpretation that they are themselves able to arrive at, with ancient and modern aids; and no unwillingness to encumber a text with needless comments can dispense them from the necessity of deciding a multitude of subtle and difficult points of interpretation, to be expressed only by stops.
​418. In arranging the punctuation, on which we have bestowed especial pains, we have followed the example first set by Lachmann in aiming at the greatest simplicity compatible with clearness. We fear that we may not always have succeeded in preserving a strictly uniform scale of punctuation; but some of the deviations have been intentional, being made with a view to help the reader through confusions or ambiguities. In some cases of doubt, or of division of judgement, an alternative punctuation has been placed in the margin.
419. Punctuation passes insensibly into the larger arrangements denoted by paragraphs and sections. The course which we have followed has been to begin by examining carefully the primary structure of each book as a whole, and then to divide it gradually up into sections of higher or lower rank, separated by spaces, and headed if necessary by whole words in capitals. In the subdivision of sections we have found great convenience in adopting the French plan of breaking up the paragraphs into subparagraphs by means of a space of some length. In this manner we have been able to keep together in combination a single series of connected topics, and yet to hold them visibly apart. The advantage is especially great where a distinct digression is interposed between two closely connected portions of text. We have been glad at the same time to retain another grade of division in the familiar difference between capitals and small letters following a full stop. Groups of sentences introduced by a capital thus bear the same relation to subparagraphs as subparagraphs to paragraphs. The transitions of living speech are often however too gradual or too complex to be duly represented by punctuation or any arrangement of type. The utmost that can then be done is to mark those articulations of a book, paragraph, or sentence which apparently dominate the rest, and to preserve the subordination of accessory points of view to the main course of a narrative or argument.
420. Passages apparently metrical in rhythm have been printed in a metrical form, whether taken from the Old Testament or not; and in the former case fresh words substituted or added in the same strain have been dealt with in the same way. We have not thought it necessary to follow the Massoretic arrangements of passages from the poetical books of the Old Testament, even in passages transcribed without modification. In many places ​indeed it would have been impossible, owing to the changes of form or language introduced in the process of quotation. We have merely tried to indicate probable or possible lines of Hebraic metrical structure clothed in a Greek dress, first by assigning a separate line to each member, and then by expressing the most salient parallelisms through an artificial ordering of lines. Doubtful cases however have not been rare; and we are far from supposing that the divisions and distributions here employed are exclusively right.
421. The hymns of the Apocalypse shew, strange to say, no metrical arrangement of diction, so that they could be marked only by a narrower column of type; and in Luke ii 14 the diversities of possible construction led to the adoption of the same course. On the other hand the example of Eph. ν 14, which seems to be taken from a Christian source, has emboldened us to give a metrical form to the latter part of 1 Tim. iii 16, the difficulties of which are certainly somewhat lightened by the supposition that it is part of a hymn. But we are unable to recognise in the Pastoral Epistles any other quotations, metrical or not, such as are supposed by some to be introduced or concluded by the phrase πιστὸς ὁ λόγος. We have been especially glad to mark the essentially metrical structure of the Lord's Prayer in St Matthew's Gospel, with its invocation, its first triplet of single clauses with one common burden, expressed after the third but implied after all, and its second triplet of double clauses, variously antithetical in form and sense. Other typographical arrangements speak for themselves.
422, In the order of the different books we have for various reasons not thought it advisable to depart from traditional arrangements. We should have defeated our own purpose had we needlessly mixed up such disputable matter as the chronology and authorship of the apostolic writings with the results of textual criticism, obtained by different methods from evidence of an entirely different kind. We have however followed recent editors in abandoning the Hieronymic order, familiar in modern Europe through the influence of the Latin Vulgate, in favour of the order most highly commended by various Greek authority of the fourth century, the earliest time when we have distinct evidence of the completed Canon as it now stands. It differs from the Hieronymic order in two respects. First, the Acts are immediately followed by the Catholic ​Epistles. The connexion between these two portions, commended by its intrinsic appropriateness, is preserved in a large proportion of Greek MSS of all ages, and corresponds to marked affinities of textual history. This connexion is not sacrificed in the arrangement found in the Sinai MS and elsewhere, by which the Pauline Epistles are placed next to the Gospels. The Sinaitic order has the undoubted advantage of keeping together those books of the New Testament which were most decisively invested with a scriptural character in the earlier ages. But there is a manifest incongruity in placing the Acts in the midst of the Epistles; and moreover, since the choice lies between what are after all only rival traditions, strong reasons would be needed to justify us in forsaking the highest ancient Greek authority, in accordance with which the Pauline Epistles stand after the Catholic Epistles, Secondly, the Epistle to the Hebrews stands before the Pastoral Epistles. It is certainly not satisfactory to ourselves personally to separate what we believe to be genuine writings of St Paul from the bulk of his works by an epistle in which we cannot recognise his authorship. But no violence has, we trust, been here done to truth in deferring throughout to the most eminent precedent, since the Epistle to the Hebrews is on all hands acknowledged as in some sense Pauline, and St Paul's epistles addressed to single persons may very well be placed by themselves. We have therefore been content to indicate the existence of three groups in the table prefixed to the whole Pauline collection.
423. The titles of the books of the New Testament are no part of the text of the books themselves. Their ultimate authority is traditional, not documentary. In employing them according to universal custom, we neither affirm nor question their accuracy in respect of authorship or destination. In length and elaboration they vary much in different documents: we have adopted the concise and extremely ancient form preserved in אB and some other documents, which is apparently the foundation of the fuller titles. In prefixing the name ΕΥΑΓΓΕΛΙΟΝ in the singular to the quaternion of 'Gospels', we have wished to supply the antecedent which alone gives an adequate sense to the preposition ΚΑΤΑ in the several titles. The idea, if not the name, of a collective 'Gospel' is implied throughout the well known passage in the third book of Irenæus, who doubtless received it from earlier genera​tions. It evidently preceded and produced the commoner usage by which the term ‘Gospel’ denotes a single written representation of the one fundamental Gospel. There are apparent references to “the Gospel” in a collective sense in Justin Martyr, while he also refers to ‘the memoirs of the apostles’ as ‘called Gospels’. The difference in orthography between the title ΠΡΟΣ ΚΟΛΑΣΣΑΕΙΣ and St Paul's words ἐν Κολοσσαῖς has too strong documentary attestation to be rejected: the evidence is fully set forth by Dr Lightfoot (Col. p. 17), who has arrived independently at the same conclusion. The spelling Colassae was in use at a time subsequent to the apostolic age; and a current pronunciation might easily fix the form of name for the epistle, while St Paul’s way of writing was faithfully retained by most transcribers in the text itself.
F. 423, 424. Conclusion
424. In conclusion we desire to express sincere acknowledgements to our publishers for the patience with which they have endured the protraction of this edition through many long years, and for the considerate kindness with which they have forwarded our wishes in various ways. No less acknowledgements are due to the officers and workmen of the Cambridge University Press for the equal patience with which they have carried out a work troublesome in itself, and rendered doubly troublesome by intermissions and revisions. To Dr Tregelles, had he been still living, it would have been to us a special pleasure to express out sense of the generous encouragement always received from him. Many friends have earned our gratitude by help rendered in various ways. Among them we must especially single out Mr A. A. VanSittart and the Rey. Hilton Bothamley, to whose minute care in the examination of the proof sheets the text owes much in the way of typographical accuracy, and who have contributed invaluable assistance of other ​kinds. A certain number of misprints, chiefly in accents and breathings, which had escaped notice in the first or private issue, owe their rectification to notes kindly furnished by correspondents in England, Germany, and America. Any further corrections of overlooked errors of the press will be sincerely welcomed: with the utmost desire to secure accuracy, we have learned increasingly to distrust our own power of attaining it in the degree to which an edition of the New Testament should aspire.
425. It only remains to express an earnest hope that whatever labour we have been allowed to contribute towards the ascertainment of the truth of the letter may also be allowed, in ways which must for the most part be invisible to ourselves, to contribute towards strengthening, correcting, and extending human apprehension of the larger truth of the spirit. Others assuredly in due time will prosecute the task with better resources of knowledge and skill, and amend the faults and defects of our processes and results. To be faithful to such light as could be enjoyed in our own day was the utmost that we could desire, How far we have fallen short of this standard, we are well aware: yet we are bold to say that none of the shortcomings are due to lack of anxious and watchful sincerity. An implicit confidence in all truth, a keen sense of its variety, and a deliberate dread of shutting out truth as yet unknown are no security against some of the wandering lights that are apt to beguile a critic: but, in so far as they are obeyed, they at least quench every inclination to guide criticism into delivering such testimony as may be to the supposed advantage of truth already inherited or ac​quired. Critics of the Bible, if they have been taught by the Bible, are unable to forget that the duty of guileless workmanship is never superseded by any other. From Him who is at once the supreme Fountain of truth and the all-wise Lord of its uses they have received both the materials of knowledge and the means by which they are wrought into knowledge: into His hands, and His alone, when the working is over, must they render back that which they have first and last received.
ⲉⲜ ⲁⲩⲧⲟⲩ ⲕⲁⲓ ⲇⲓ ⲁⲩⲧⲟⲩ ⲕⲁⲓ ⲉⲓⲥ ⲁⲩⲧⲟⲛ ⲧⲁ ⲡⲁⲛⲧⲟⲁ.
ⲁⲩⲧⲱ ⲏ ⲇⲟⲝⲁ ⲉⲓⲥ ⲧⲟⲩⲥ ⲁⲓⲱⲛⲁⲥ.
ⲁⲙⲏⲛ.