ana translation

xxxiv
INTRODUCTION
On the other hand, for the only really gross blunder in either
Version he is solely responsible, the |2o23j -*A (Jude 7) by
~vhich he misrepresents in his text the still stranger misreading of his
margin, /xe/x^t/xvpot for /x,/xi//t/x,oipot (see p. 135 infr.).
SECTION IX. The affinity between the two Versions, twofold.
The conclusion above drawn (Sect, iv, p. xxvi et sqq.), that the two
Versions of the Four Epistles are closely akin,
of which the Harklensian is a revision
ours being the primary
is based on the affirmation that
when compared together they reveal an affinity such as can be accounted
for in no other way. Of this affinity the proper evidence lies in the
Apparatus subjoined to the Syriac and Greek Texts as printed in
this edition, where the Harklensian readings and renderings are set
forth for comparison \
and it is more fully stated in such instances
as seem important and illustrative, in the Supplementary Notes.
The
strength of the case cannot be adequately appreciated without a careful
study of these texts and annotations. But in the two following
Sections it is proposed to state the main heads of the evidence they
yield, and to illustrate them by examples.
The relation between the Versions, its nature and extent, would
best be exhibited by printing them side by side,
as our Authorized
and Revised English Versions are often printed, and marking their
agreements and disagreements (whether of substance or of form) by
distinctive type. The comparison between the Versions thus facilitated
would disclose many examples of textual divergence, and moreover it
would place them in instructive contrast as regards literary method.
Such differences, textual and literary, are to be expected ; they are
consistent with in fact, necessary to our hypothesis that ours is
the text which Thomas re-handled in his graecizing manner, and
emended after an auxiliary Greek copy. But along with the
occasional disagreements in text there would be apparent a preponderating
amount of textual coincidence ;
and the dissimilarity of
literary form would be seen to be grammatical merely and superficial,
insufficient to disguise an intimate and fundamental affinity in
diction and phraseology. For the purpose of our present inquiry,
therefore, we set aside such minor differences, whether of substance
or of form, and we address ourselves to show that the affinity which