I noted to my surprise that the attestation of a has imperfect coherence and seems to have arisen several times in the transmission from reading b. At the same time, one would expect the prepositional phrase προς με and also ημην from v. 5 to have influence on scribes. But a change in this direction seems not to have happened as often. The most closely A-related witnesses attest to reading a, but reading b has support of a number of A-related witnesses too.