ana translation

Ixiv
INTRODUCTION
Some of the A-group exhibit the (apparently conflate)
f Aj>Q*j2 A^**Z
()QJ> = VTTO Sety/xa TTVPOS. But whichever of the A-readings is right,
the B-reading is equally due to the resemblance between (AaCLMZ and
A^.xZ, leading to the omission of the former.
It will be noticed that in each and all of the above examples, the
B-text is not only uncorroborated but (with the exception of example
(e) where the B-reading is merely commonplace and pointless)
is in itself
improbable as being unsuited to the context in which it is found.
This fact would not, of course, disprove the possibility that such readings
existed in the exemplar used by the Philoxenian translator, though
they would lower its value as a textual witness. But another feature,
likewise found in common in all these examples without exception,
cannot be thus dismissed from consideration. It is this, that (as above
pointed out) in every case there is apparent to eye
resemblance between the Syriac words wherein A and B differ
utterly remote from one another in meaning
and ear a close
words
which compels us to infer
that one word has been written by mistake for the other ;
while the
Greek words represented by them are quite dissimilar inter se. For
this fact Professor Merx has not accounted ;
on his theory
it is a mere
accident that p*)OQ and )u>OQL look so much alike, (Ws.v"> and
LO and ]KVv ^VQ, V!MQ.. and l**J ]'.*"** and
and )AfiO,
A */ and ]AjQ>jZ, while there is no likeness
between ezriyi/wcrets (or en-tur^ara) and eTrayye'A/zara, KO and Aao?,
av(D@v and Acu'AaTro?, yeAouw and vTrepoy/ca, KaXrjv ana clXiKpwij, TTOLWV
and (fiXvapwv, VTTO irvp
and Sety/^a TTV/OO?. If indeed such likeness, however
close, appeared in but one instance, it
might be set down to chance,
though it would justify us in suspecting a mistake in that instance. But
recurring as it does in every instance, it warrants us in drawing confidently
the general conclusion that the outward resemblance between
two Syriac words, and not the existence of a Greek variant, has caused
the B-text to deviate from the A-text and from the Greek. For it
cannot be a mere accident that in every one of these examples two
dissimilar
Greek words should be represented by two Syriac words so
nearly alike in written (or spoken) form that either might readily be
by inadvertence substituted for the other. Then, as between the two
Syriac words which in each case have by their similarity led to the
disagreement of the texts, we are bound to accept the one which by