ana translation

Ixvi
INTRODUCTION
With these may be classed, 2 Joh. 10, the repetition of j r
xO (KCU
Xaiptiv) ;
3 Joh. 6, the omission (by homceoteleuton of AJ*|)
of )OliO)
Aj| (TrpoTre/Ai/^as) ; also, Jud. 10, of (As'^M after |ZoJLM(aX.oya before u>a).
Most of these examples, though trivial to the eye, affect the text
appreciably some of them gravely. The reading of 2 Pet. iii. 10 is of
great critical interest the
;
omission from 3 Joh. 6 leaves the passage
unmeaning that from Jud. 4
; (of a single letter) appears to be an
intentional tampering with the text in mistaken zeal, to
attest the Godhead of Our Lord.
compel
it to
In all of them, the B-text is absolutely without Greek support, and
its deviations can only be ascribed to inexactness on the part of the
scribes. Under this head therefore we have further confirmation of
our estimate of it as being untrustworthy where it is opposed
A-text.
to the
SECTION XVIII. The Arabic Version and the H-text.
Turning now to the Arabic Version and the support it
B-text, which is really the only fact of importance
lends to the
that has been
adduced in favour of that text, it is to be noted that its support is
by no means given to all the B-readings. Thus under head i., it sides
with A against B in two (d, f) of the seven examples there cited
(representing with A, V7repoy/ca of 2 Pet. ii. 18, v of 3 Joh. 10).
Likewise under head ii.,
in one out of six (o-TrovSacroo
of 2 Pet. i.
15).
Under iii. there are eleven examples, in but three of which the Arabic
agrees with B ; namely, j before |lib (
= Xoyuv)
in 2 Pet. ii. 3, the
omission of ^-| (
= yap)
in 2 Pet. iii. 5, and the insertion of a second
t^rXtO (= /cat x ^ at ^ Joh. tl/ 10. Of the
'/ ) remaining eight, in which
the Arabic supports the A-text, some are very important.
The evidence therefore of this secondary Version (under heads and
i.
ii.) merely proves that of those corruptions of the B-text which are due
to mistake between words which look and sound alike, most are as
early as the tenth or even the ninth century,
older than the manuscript
evidence alone would have led us to suppose, though probably
later by three centuries than the time of Philoxenus. But its evidence
under head iii.
proves further that the B-text, where it errs in the
matter of inconspicuous (yet, as the examples of 2 Pet. iii. 10, Jud. 7
prove, far from insignificant) insertions or omissions, has suffered not a
little from the carelessness of transcribers of much more recent date.