ana translation

INTRODUCTION
xxxvii
The passages in which the verb occurs are closely
alike in both it is used in one and the same sense ;
no reason can
be assigned for the change of :
rendering the former Version has
arbitrarily varied, and the latter has mechanically followed. Again :
For vTrc/ooy/ca,
in 2 Pet. ii.
11, both give ^wJOy. ; in Jud. 12 both vary
to the equivalent and cognate but distinct form ]A"< a coincidence
in itself petty, but none the less telling as evidence of the
mutual relation between the Versions. So again, both distinguish
the o-Ti-iAaSes of Jud. 12 from the a-rrlXoL of 2 Pet. ii. 13, by making the
minute change from ]Vf>A^Vn to
* V>Af^Vn Other cases, affecting less
unfamiliar words, point the same way ;
as that of Kpi/na, translated
in both by the usual jlaj in 2 Pet. ii. 3 ; but by ]"i < where it is
used, with no alteration of meaning, in Jud. 4. In like manner, in
comparing 2 John with 3 John, we note that the verb epyd^'fjiai
is
rendered in 2 John by both translators by the ordinary -**V ;
in
3 John by the less familiar p>D. A coincidence the converse of this,
but equally pointing to affinity, appears in the use of the verb Q^2) |
(properly equivalent to 7ret'0a>) which both exceptionally employ to
represent two other Greek verbs, eptorw in 2 Joh. 5, TrapaKaXw in
Jud. 5. In all such cases the fact that the two vary needlessly, yet
vary together and alike, amounts to a proof of their interdependence.
Moreover, inasmuch as of the two, the one is nowhere studious
to maintain, while the other habitually affects, precision
in uniform
rendering, it follows that the latter, which in the above-cited instances
of variation deviates from its ordinary practice,
has in these cases
been led so to deviate by the example of the other, in other words,
is the derivate Version.
d. Philoxenian Renderings retained on the HarTdensian margin.
Another line of investigation
leads also to a like conclusion. It
lies in the critical apparatus attached by Thomas to his text, his
asterisks and his marginal notes. The former usually relate to
variations of reading in the Greek original as to the presence or
absence of the words marked by them, and belong to our next
Section. The latter for the most part offer alternative renderings
of the Greek (where no doubt exists as to the reading) ;
and in these
are to be found distinct proofs of the relation we allege,, for some