ana translation

2 PET. i.
1-4] 97
SUPPLEMENTAL NOTES.
2 PETER.
I. I. The omission from this verse of ^>-._xO (= n
rests on the sole authority of the Bodleian manuscript (8) whence
Pococke derived the text of his Editio Princeps (n) of these Epistles.
No Greek or other authority confirms it. This is the first of the
instances in which subsequent editors have been misled by this very
inaccurate and recent text. The Polyglots duly insert the word.
Ib. The Harklensian coincides with Philoxenian in the rendering
|;LftJ2 AjiQ* for ta-oTL^ov. This agreement
is the more notable as
it involves the anomalous use of the construct followed by a prepositionprefix.
There is but one other instance in these Epp. (Phx. ;
but for
Hkl., see Jud. 16) of this rare usage (infr., ver. 17, where see Note).
In the New Testament, iVoVi/nos is a?ra
Xfyo/jLtvov the only similar
:
compound is the (also air. A.) lo-d^v^oi/ (Phil. ii. 20),
paraphrases, and Harkl. represents by (*11O |Q (using
which Peshitta
absol. not
constr.). Note that in both these instances (vv. 1, 17) a Greek compound
is represented : similarly, both versions of the Apocalypse*
exhibit a like instance in rendering the (air. A.) compound 7rora/xo-
6prjTov (Rev. xii. 15).
3. Note that
^D is here pron. ; (*SOL ..... J ^S yu| = d>s avrou
SeStoprjju-eVov).
So Polygl.,
" quippe qui
. . . dedit." Philox. treats SeSup.
as act., here and ver. 4.
4. In this verse, 8 has two misreadings which have passed from
it
through II into most editions (e.g., Gutbir's and Bagster's), though
neither has any Greek or other except Syriac (direct or indirect)
authority. Both had been noted by Pococke (Noate, pp. 41, 42), and
for each he had suggested a conjectural emendation,
since abundantly
verified by other codices, including (with slight exception in each case)
* See footnote to p. 99, infr.