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
