ana translation

98 SUPPLEMENTAL NOTES. [2 PET. i. 4
most of our earlier group, and also the new witness 20 ;
as well as
18 and 19, which, though transcripts recently made, apparently present
an early text.
(a) The first of these errors lljOQJi (= eViyvoxms) for V?OQ*
(= iTrayyeXfjLa.ro)
was rectified in P (the Paris Polyglot of 1645), presumably
on the authority of a codex in the hands of the editor, Gabriel
Sionita, and in A (that of London, Walton's of 1657, which closely
reproduces the Paris text).
Yet it holds its ground in the European
editions, even L (Lee's, 1816 the Buchanan codex (9)
which he used
being here hardly legible).
In N (the American edition, New York,
1886) it is corrected after the Williams codex (11).
The resemblance
between the two words in Greek is but slight and remote ;
in Syriac
it is
very close. Thus the corruption is to be ascribed to the Syriac.
But it must have been an early one, for the Arabic version from the
Syriac (of Cent, ix or x) has adopted it. The emendation J^jooii
is attested by all our earlier group (except 9, which is doubtful),
and also by 18, 19, 20, as well as by 11, and the text which P represents,
against the later group, and the text from which Etzel derived
his Latin version.
Here Hkl. supports our emended text, but in such wise as to exclude
the supposition that the pJOoi of the authorities for that text may
have been a correction borrowed from it ;
for in rendering eTrayyeX/xara
it
employs a different though equivalent word, ]i^ \r>^> Note that
this latter rendering is used in our version, iii. 13 infr. ;
and also iii. 4, 9
(=7rayyeAi'a). In these three places Hkl. prefers |^)OQ* ;
so that in
their use of these two words the two versions agree in no instance,
nor is either consistent in itself.
They agree however in rendering
eTrayyeAAo/xei/oi by _j5oA*Lo (ii.
19, infr.).
(b) The second error ]*;QA]O (= /cat ri/nas) for ]'," i O iO (= /ecu rt/xta)
stands in all editions before the present.
In this instance the correction
though less strongly is sufficiently attested,
by 9, 12, 14, being the
majority of our earlier group (though not by 1 or 2), with 19 and 20,
and (apparently) 18 also ; by Etzel's text, though not by that of the
Arabic translator nor that of the Paris editor. Here the evidence of 1,
our primary authority, needs to be fully stated j
for a mere copyist's error
in it, erroneously corrected, seems to have introduced the misreading.
The scribe apparently first wrote Ir^jO (or fcOiO), which would= 6Ao-
(or w/xara), for which compare Mark xii. 33 (Peeh.)
; a later