In 2 Peter ii. 15 the father of Balaam is called Βοσόρ, which is quite peculiar. Westcott and Hort and Weiss, in their fondness for B, write Βεώρ. But this is most certainly a correction which is combined with the original to form βεωρσόρ in א. The only thorough discussion of the passage that I know is in Zahn’s _Einleitung_, ii. 109. The only thing that might be added to his data in the LXX. is that, according to Holmes-Parsons, the Georgian version has υἱὸν τοῦ βοσόρ in Jos. xiii. 22. Σεπφώρ, as the name of Beor, has crept into various manuscripts in several places from Jos. xxiv. 9—_e.g._ into the Armenian in Gen. xxxvi. 32, Codex 18 in Num. xxii. 5, Codex 53 in Num. xxiv. 15, where Cod. 75 has Σεβεώρ, and into Lucian in 1 Chr. i. 43. There seems to me to be a confusion between Gen. xxxvi. 32 (= 1 Chr. i. 43) and the following verse, in which Bosra occurs. In Gen. xxxvi. 33 one manuscript observes, ἡ βοσὸρ πόλις τῆς Ἀραβίας ἡ νῦν καλουμένη βόσρα. Jerome also renders “ex Bosor.”[263] Βοσόρ also occurs as the name of a place in Deut. iv. 43; 1 Sam. xxx. 9; 1 Macc. v. 26. On this last passage see _ZdPV._, 12, 51; 13, 41. For other interpretations (Hebrew pronunciation of the Aramaic פתורה)[264] see Pole’s _Synopsis_ on 2 Peter ii. 15. It is worth observing that minuscule 81 displays a close agreement with B in other places as well as this. On the names in the catalogue of the Apostles, see Zahn, _Einl._, ii. 263; on Ἱερουσαλήμ and Ἱεροσόλυμα, ii. 310; on Jesus Barabbas, ii. 294; on Barachias in Matt. xxiii. 35, i. 454, ii. 308. On the confusion between Isaiah and Asaph in Matt. xiii. 35, and between Jeremiah, Zechariah, and Isaiah in other passages, compare Ambrosiaster’s note on 1 Cor. ii. 9 cited above, p. 148. “He who seeks in the wild fir wood, will still find many a cudgel good.” [Sidenote: Textus brevior.] The rule that the =shorter text= is the more original is a subdivision of Bengel’s canon. It is specially the case when two longer forms are opposed to it which are mutually exclusive and whose origin can be explained from the shorter. As examples of this Zahn adduces, in addition to the double conclusion of Mark’s Gospel, the following:— John vi. 47: πιστεύων, א B L T, + “in God,” Syr^{cu. sin}, + εἰς ἐμέ A C D Γ Δ Λ Π.... John vii. 39: πνεῦμα, א K T Π, + ἅγιον L X Γ Δ Λ, + δεδομένον it vg^{cle}, + ἅγιον ἐπ’ αὐτοῖς, D f goth, + ἅγιον δεδομένον, B 254 Syr^{sin. hark}.... James v. 7: πρόϊμον, B 31, pr. ὑετὸν A K L P, pr. καρπὸν א 9 ff etc. It is equally clear that a reading is incorrect which proves to be a mixture of two others (=conflate readings=). The respective claims of these others must be adjudged on other considerations. Thus we have—