from ἱκανώσαντι and the Western καλέσαντι, 2 Thess. iii 4 καὶ ἐποιήσατε καὶ ποιεῖτε καὶ ποιήσετε Β from [καὶ] ποιεῖτε καὶ ποιήσετε and the Western καὶ ἐποιήσατε καὶ ποιεῖτε), is but partially followed in the composite ternary variation of Rom. x 5. Here the scribe of Β adopted two out of three closely connected Western (and subsequently Syrian) changes, the transposition of ὅτι and the insertion of αὐτά after ποιήσας, but in the third place negligently left αὐτῇ untouched, doubtless the reading of his primary exemplar, and thus produced an impossible combination. Combinations like these imply imperfect workmanship, not skilful choice. Nor is it material to know whether the scribe of Β himself took the Western readings from a second exemplar, or, as seems more likely, merely copied a single exemplar with marginal or interlinear corrections which he incorporated into the text (see §§ 335 ff.): the essential nature of the process is not changed by its being carried a single step back. Except in so far as even the slightest mixture may be said to involve some kind of selection, we hold it to be certain that the readings of Β are never the result of any eclectic process. Its occasional individual aberrations of course sometimes take place where there is variation already, and therefore sometimes go to make up ternary variations. But it remains true that the readings of Β in ternary variations, simple or composite, are habitually those of the original text, and the readings of the other texts divergent attempts to amend it.
321. What has been said on the excellence usually shown by the readings of Β in ternary variations will be made more intelligible by two or three examples of different types.
18
