^{page 187 note 4} Transliteration is evidently only possible for the passage from one literal alphabet to another. Transcription means the representation of the characters, signs and sounds of a language by any system of characters or phonetic signs.

^{page 187 note 5} Concerning the controversial theory of the transliteration of the Hebraic Old Testament text into Greek letters (F. Wutz) see recently Bertram, C., Das Problem des griechischen Umschrift des hebräischen Alten Testament. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Septuagintaforschung, in Die Welt des Orients V (1970), 237–64.Google Scholar

^{page 187 note 6} Cf. Jellicoe, S., The Septuagint and Modern Study (Oxford), pp. 106–11.Google Scholar

^{page 187 note 7} In our ‘Note concernant la translittération en caractères latins des noms de personne attestés par les sources grecques’, Orbis XIII (1964), 299–308Google Scholar, we discussed the proposition that, in certain circumstances, transliteration is to be preferred to transcription.

^{page 188 note 1} By centring our study on ‘New Testament’ Greek we do not mean to exclude other terms such as koinē (dialektos), hellenistic or biblical Greek.

^{page 188 note 2} For the transliteration of classical Greek see Martinet, A., ‘A Project of Transliteration of Classical Greek,’ Word IX, (1953), 152–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar; idem., ‘Crasis, Elision and Aphacresis. A Supplement to A Project of Transliteration of Classical Greek’, Word XI (1955), 268–70; and Galiaby, M. F., ‘Sobre un proyecto de transliteraciόn del Griego clásico’, in ‘Αντ|δωρον Hugoni Paoli oblatum. Miscellanea philogica (= Pubbl. Ist. fil. class. VIII) (Genoa, 1956), 124–36.Google Scholar The project mentioned on Galiano is that of ISO (International Standard Organisation).

^{page 188 note 3} Cf. Barclay, W., New Testament Words, Combining ‘A New Testament Wordbook’ and ‘More New Testament Words’ (London, s.d. [1964])Google Scholar; Turner, N., Grammatical Insights into the New Testament (Edinburgh, s.d. [1965])Google Scholar; Nida, E. A., Toward a Science of Translation. With Special Reference to Principles and Procedures Involved in Bible Translation (Leiden, 1964)Google Scholar.

^{page 188 note 4} Wenham, J. W., The Elements of New Testament Greek, Based on the Earlier Work of H. P. V. Nunn (Cambridge, 1965) (repr. 1967)Google Scholar; Hudson, D. F., Teach Yourself New Testament Greek (London, 1960).Google Scholar

^{page 188 note 5} The transliteration of α by a and β by b is so evident that no one will attempt anything different.

^{page 188 note 6} Since it is impossible to discuss this problem here, we refer to Stanford, W. B., The Sound of Greek. Studies in the Greek Theory and Practice of Euphony (Sather Classical Lecture 38) (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1967)Google Scholar, and Allen, W. S., Vox Graeca. A Guide to the Pronunciation of Classical Greek (Cambridge, 1968)Google Scholar.

^{page 188 note 7} What is to be said about a Modern Greek article that discusses an Ancient Greek text (e.g. the review in Arkhaiologikon Deltion XVII (1961–1962), 211)Google Scholar? Shall we need two different transliterations for the same written word? The problem seems to be the same for one who is speaking about the ancient god Phoibos (Φοīβος) in the Hotel Phivos (Φοīβος) at Delphi!

^{page 188 note 8} In the long-playing record included with W. B. Stanford's book, the diphthong ου is pronounced au. This can be the source of real complication if transliteration is based on the pronunciation. Concerning this sound (and others) see the book review by Allen, W. S. in Gnomon XL (1968), 305–7.Google Scholar

^{page 189 note 1} In New Testament Greek i (The i of pit) is the pronunciation for ει, η, ι, υ, (being the transition to Modern Greek). A testimony to the pronunciation of hellenistic Greek is to be found in a firstcentury papyrus edited by Miss Laura Giabanni in Aegyptus XX (1940), 21–3, on which Miss Claire Préaux notes in Chronique ď Égypte XVI (1941), 142Google Scholar, that the autograph subscription is a monument of phonetic orthography.

^{page 189 note 2} D. F. Hudson, op. cit., using the pronunciation of English as a basis, comes to strange results when he transliterates ου and υ by οο, e.g. τούς = toos and ρῦσαι = rhoosai. A better transliteration can be found in Wenham's Elements, p. 23 (John i. 1–14). Other examples of transliterations based on the pronunciation of a modern language are to be found in the recently published DTV-Lexikon der Antike (Munich, 1969)Google Scholar, e.g. Didachē (s.v.): Διδαχή Κυρίου διά τῶν δώδεκα άποστόλων τοīς έθνεσιν = Didaché Kyríu diá ton dódeka apostólon tois ethnesin (no distinction is made between ο and ω, between ε and η).

^{page 189 note 3} First, the iota subcriptum appears only in the late manuscripts; there is, as far as we know, no trace of it in hellenistic papyri: secondly, only a few words, with the exception of some dative cases, have the iota subscriptum (e.g. ληρτές which occurs in the four gospels and in the epistles of St Paul). Thirdly, some contemporary text editions have the iota adscriptum.

^{page 189 note 4} For the ancient Greeks there were three double consonants: з = σ+δ, ζ = κ+σ, ψ = π+σ (cf. Dionysius, Halic., De Comp. verb. XIV. 78Google Scholar).

^{page 190 note 1} In hellenistic Greek papyri there are some instances of words written with κρ for ξ.

^{page 190 note 2} In the New Testament the instance does not occur, as in certain papyri where πσ is written instead of ψ (cf. O. Heid, 225, 115 B.C.: Πσετεώνıος).

^{page 190 note 3} This preference is based on three reasons: the transliteration is made letter by letter and does not depend on pronunciation; in hellenistic papyri we can find γκας well as ngr;κ (e.g. 'Ανκιαγίτις P. Mich. 224, second century A.D.); for some Latin names written in Greek characters, such as Longinus = $$$ονγίνος the νγ transliteration is to be used.

^{page 190 note 4} Transliteration accents do not improve the transliteration and readableness of a text; cf. p. 189 n. 2 for the system of the DTV-Lexikon der Antike.