ana translation

INTRODUCTION
Ixvii
SECTION XIX. The Harklensian Version and the A-text.
1. As regards the coincidences between the A-text and the Harklensian,
and the suggestion that they are due to editorial corrections made
in the former to conform it to the latter, I have remarked (pp. 98, 99,
110, infr.)
on the perversity of the criticism to which that suggestion
belongs.
I have now to point out that (as we have seen in last
Section that the Arabic does not always corroborate the B-text, so
likewise) the A-text is not uniformly in agreement with the Harklensian.
As we there saw that A sometimes has the Arabic on its side,
so we now meet the counter fact that B sometimes (though rarely) has
erred in company
with the Harklensian. A notable instance of this
occurs 2 Pet. i.
15, where the Harklensian leads, and all the B-group
(but not the Arabic) with most of the intermediate follow, in adopting
against the A-group the plainly erroneous reading o-TrovSao-are. So
again, 2 Pet. ii. 10, the Harklensian with the B-text, not the A-text,
reads ev e7ri0u/ucus for iv fTnOvfjLLa
'
ib., 11, omits Trapa Kvpio> ; and,
2 Joh. 5, omits u>s before wroXrjv. In these cases therefore Professor
Merx's theory of the A-text fails absolutely.
2. Further, even in the cases where the A-group agrees (as against
the B-group) with the
Harklensian as regards the Greek text represented,
it differs as regards the Syriac word employed. Thus, (a)
2 Pet. i. 4, the Harklensian is with A against B in representing eTrayye'A-
/Ltara (see Sect, xvn, head i., a, p. Ixii) ;
but the Syriac equivalent used
by Harklensian is llnLoLD, not (as Philoxenian, A-text) ]-iJOCL
.
Again, ((3) 76., Harkl. (head ii., h, p. Ixv) renders rt/xia by fyO i V)
not (as Philox., A) by "\" - - (which is rather = rt/x^ra). Again, (y)
3 Joh. 6, Harkl. (head iii., p. Ixv) renders Trpoirtfjuf/as by ]oVf> not
(as Philox., A) by >O^D.
Lastly, (8) Jud. 10, Harkl. (again head iii.,
p. Ixvi) renders aAoya by ]AVi Vf) 11 ,
not (as Philox., A) by ]AV**.
It is obvious that if the A-readings in these places were corrections
made by an editor of the Philoxenian to assimilate it to the Harklensian,
the assimilation would have extended to the Syriac equivalent
employed, as well as to the Greek text followed.
3. Moreover, in one of the above examples, the Harklensian, in discarding
the A-rendering, attests the A-reading against the B-reading,
namely, 3 Joh. 6. Here,
its margin, though its text renders