Page:The New Testament in the original Greek - Introduction and Appendix (1882).pdf/256

vowels, current in uncial times, as between ο and ω, η and ει; including the confusion between ἡμεῖς and ὑμεῖς. This solitary blunder is παραλλαγὴ ἢ τροπῆς ἀποσκιάσματος for π. ἢ τ. ἀποσκίασμα in James i 17. The final -⁠ατος might possibly be derived from an αὐτός which stands at the head of the next verse in a good cursive (40) and in two Syriac texts, and which has much intrinsic force: on this supposition the reading of א and B, though erroneous, would be nearer to the true reading than the common reading. But the evidence as a whole does not point to so deeply seated a corruption; and it may be fairly assumed that the reading -⁠ατος is due either to thoughtless assimilation to the preceding genitive or to a mental separation of ἀπό from σκίασμα and consequent correction of the supposed solecism. But, though a series of such coincidences would imply community of proximate origin, a single instance does not, nor would two or three. Our extant MSS afford examples of more startling coincidences, unquestionably accidental, as σειροῖς ζόφοις (אA) for σειροῖς ζόφου in 2 Pet. ii 4, φθορᾶς φθαρτῆς (אAC) for σπορᾶς φθαρτῆς in 1 Pet. i 23, and ἐξίσταντο (א*C*D*) for ἐξίστατο, followed by Ἀκούσαντες δὲ οἱ ἀπόστολοι, in Acts viii 13, the subject of the verb being ὁ Σίμων. The coincident readings of א and Β likewise include one or two peculiar spellings having a somewhat problematical appearance: they occur however in peculiar words, in which it is difficult to find a trustworthy criterion of intrinsic certainty or even probability. They include likewise a few substantive readings which are capable of being accounted for as blunders, but which may as reasonably be admitted as genuine, and in most cases are sustained by internal evidence.