[ CORNELL UNIVERSITY LIBRARY BARNES BIBLICAL LIBRARY THE GIFT OF ALFRED C. BARNES 1889 10100 ܚܝ DATE DUE ara? VWs 3 O GAYLORD Cornell University The original of this book is in the Cornell University Library. There are no known copyright restrictions in the United States on the use of the text. http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924092359698 EVANGELION DA-MEPHARRESHE INTRODUCTION AND NOTES London: C. J. CLAY anp SONS, CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS WAREHOUSE, AVE MARIA LANE. Glasgow: 50, WELLINGTON STREET. Deipsig: F. A. BROCKHAUS. Pew Work: THE MACMILLAN COMPANY. Bombay and Calcutta: MACMILLAN AND CO., Lrp. [All Rights reserved.] ܡܝ EVANGELION DA-MEPHARRESHE The Curetonian Version of the Four Gospels, with the readings of the Sinai Palimpsest and the early Syriac Patristic evidence edited, collected and arranged by F. CRAWFORD BURKITT, M.A. University Lecturer in Palaeography. VOLUME II INTRODUCTION AND NOTES CAMBRIDGE, at the University Press, rgo4. ܐ Ke‏ Cambridge : PRINTED BY uv. AND 0. F. CLAY, AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS. CONTENTS OF VOLUME II. \ PAGES IntRoDUcTION . ܢ‎ : : : : : : 0 ‘ . : . 1-6 Cuaprer J. DescrIPTION OF THE MSS... : : 8 : . : . 7-33 Copex C: Later History . ܪ‎ : 8 0 . 2 8 ‫: = 7 a Composition of Quires, etc. . 3 2 ܘ 7 . ܕ‎ 9 0 Date. é : : ܘ 0 . : . ܗ‎ 8 : 13 0 Colometry . 3 . . ‘ . . 0 2 ‘ : 14 8 Cureton’s Edition : ‫. ‘ : ‘ 3 . . 8 16 CopEx S: Recent History . : ‘ | . j ‘ : : : 17 ܪ‎ When and where the upper writing was transcribed . ‘ 18 7 The original ss. ܪ : : : . : : ܪ‎ A 21 :ܪ‎ Composition of Quires, etc. ‘ i . 4 . ܘ‎ a 23 Titles, Subscriptions and Colophons in C and 8. ܘ ܘ‎ : . ‘ 30 Nore on the line and paragraph divisions‘in C and § . ܘ ܕ‎ : 34—38 CHaprer 11. GRAMMAR AND Synvrax. i : _ ܕ‎ 0 : : 39—84 General remarks on the style of Cand S . ܪ‎ 1 . : : ‘ 39 Spelling . : 0 : : ‘ A : 8 A : : : 40 Pronouns 0 : : ܕ‎ : : i : : : : . 5 41 Nouns. . : : : : . . 0 : . 1 : : 43 Numbers and Particles : ‘ : : : . . : : : 49 Verbs. : 0 ‘ : : 3 : ܘ‎ . : : 2 ; 51 Syntax . >+ ©. Ww, Sl RS ܨ ܨܡ 3 ܐܦ‎ © $: @€ 7 . Vocabulary. : : : : $< ® ܨ‎ +e ݁ܕ‎ a ia . 78 Appenpix: (A) Syriac renderings of etOvs, etdéas . : j 5 ‘ . 85 ‘5 (B) Syriac renderings of ܐܐܘ‎ 2220 20020 sD 7 (C) Syriac equivalents for ‘answered and said’ . : : 5 90 7 (D) The names of 8. Peter 02 3 ® :8& .ܘ ܘܐܗܗ )ܐ‎ 989 7 (E) Renderings of “Ijcods and of xvpuos ; : . . : 97 Contents of Volume LI. PAGES Cuaprer 111. Tsar Pesuirtra New TESTAMENT AND ITs Rivas. . 100—165 The Acts of Judas Thomas . : : : ] ‘ ‘ £$ ® 101 The Doctrina Apostolorum ܘ : : : ܒ‎ : ‫. : ‘ . 107 Aphraates > . : : : ; . : . . 9 : . . 109 ©, Ephraim . i : i : ‘ ‘ ‘ . . : . 112 The Commentary of Abba . : 1 a ‫. , : F : . 149 Cyrillona . : ‘ : F : : . : : : . 150 The Doctrine of Addai . ; . . : : . : : : 189 The Martyrdom of Habbib . : ‘ : . . : . , 155 Marutha . : 0 . 1 . : : 3 ‘ ܘ‎ . : ` 155 The Armenian, Georgian and Ethiopic Versions . ; ; : ; . 160 The Life of Rabbula > . : : : : :ܕ‎ . 160 Rabbula’s Revision identified with the N.T. Peshitta : ‘ : 101 162 . ‘ ܘ ‘ : 0 ܘ : :ܕ : Objections considered.‏ The survival of Sand 6 .. ‫. : : : : ܘ ܘ‎ . 165 AppENDIX: The Quotations in the Theophania of Eusebius . . 166—172 CHarter IV. Tur DIATESSARON AND THE OLD Syriac . 0 1 . 173-212 Notices of the Diatessaron in Syriac Literature . : : : : 2 173 Addai. ‫: F F ; . : . : ; : . . 174 175 » . : ; . : ܕ : ܕ ܨ : ‘ . Eusebius‏ Theodoret : : : : é 1 ܹ : . 176 Notices of the Evangelion da- Ginna ܕ‎ : : : , 177 06 ܀ ܘ : ܵܕ . : . : ܘ : ܕ . Rabbula‏ Bar Bahlul, Barsalibi. ܇ 8 : : : ܕ 1 ܕ‎ 178 Ignatius Philoxenus 0 : ܘ‎ : : ‘ : : . . 179 On the Quotations of Aphraates . 2 2 : : . ` . 180 ©. Ephraim’s use of the separate Gospels . 3 : : . . 186 References to the ‘Greek’ in S. Ephraim’s Commentary . 1 189 Internal evidences of the date of the Evangelion da-Mepharreshe . 191 Differences between the Hv. da-Mepharreshe and the Diatessaron in the underlying Greek text . 8 : : :ܘ .‫ ܘ‎ TOD 7 in rendering Greek words . 8 : : : : : . 196 49 in the Nativity Story : ܕ ܕ‎ . 198 The Hv. da-Mepharreshe influenced by the Old Testament Peshitta . . 201 The Diatessaron influenced by the Old Testament Peshitta . : . 905 Serapion of Antioch and Palut of Edessa . ܪ‎ : ‘ ‘ i - 207 The Hv. da-Mepharreshe dated about 200 A.D. . : . : . 09 Dr Hjelt’s Theory . 210 Contents of Volume TT. PAGES CHapter ¥. THE TEXTS oF S AND oF C. : 4 0 0 : . 213—254 Later revisions of our mss. from the Greek 214 Absence of the ‘Greater Interpolations’ from 8. 216 Signs of patchwork in the text of C 217 S, C, and the Diatessaron : 0 220 The textual affinities of the Old Syriac version . 223 I. The later Antiochian text 224 II. The xB-text : : 996 The ‘Western Non-Interpolations’ 228 Later Elements in ܠܐ‎ and B 233 111. Western texts 234 S or C with Western texts against the Diatessaron 235 S or C with Western texts including the Diatessaron 238 Passages where the Diatessaron reading is not known . 242 IV. Secondary Greek mss. : : 946 ¥. Noteworthy singular readings of S and C 251 Notes on SELECT READINGS S. Matthew 257 S. Mark . 280 8. Luke . 286 8. John . 306 GENERAL INDEX 318 BIBLICAL REFERENCES . 321 ERRATUM. P. 8, 11. 9, 20 for Habibai read Habbib (see Wright’s Catalogue, p. xxxv) vii CopEx ܗܣ‎ Dr CurEtTon Coprx § CopEx ܣ‎ ” Coprx S LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS. Mk xvi 17—20 followed by Joh i 1—7 Lk xix 32—45 Joh vi 41—53 Joh vi ® Mk xvi 1—8 followed by Lk i 1—3 to face p. 7 ” ” p- 16 ” ” Pp. 28 facing each other between pp. 38 and 39 to face p. 257 ® INTRODUCTION. Durine the greater part of the first nine centuries of our Era the language commonly used in the Valley of the Euphrates and the neighbouring provinces was the dialect of Aramaic which we call Syriac. The literary headquarters of the Syriac-speaking Church was the city of Edessa (in Syriac Urhdi), which also had been the centre from which Christianity spread in all that region. The beginnings of Christianity at Edessa are lost in legend, but it is certain that the new religion was well established there before the city was absorbed into the Roman Empire during the reign of Caracalla (Ap 216). The political independence of the little state accounts for the early translation of the Scriptures into the vernacular of the Euphrates Valley. About the year 420 ap the Gospel was extant in Syriac in three forms, viz :-— 1. The present Syriac Vulgate, now called the Péshittd. 2. The Diatessaron of Tatian. 3. A translation of the Four Gospels, called by the Syrians Evangelién da-Mépharréshé. The Evangelién da-Mépharréshé ܝܐܘܢܓܠܝܘܢ ܕܡܦܪ̈ܫܐ)‎ Le. ‘Evangel of the Separated ones’) derives its name by contrast with the Diatessaron, which is a Harmony containing the substance of our Four Canonical Gospels arranged in one narrative. This Harmony, besides the naturalised Greek name Diatessaron ܕܝܛܣܪܘܢ)‎ (, was also called Hvangelién da-Mchallété ܐܘܢܓܠܝܘܢ ܕܡ̈ܚܠܛܐ)‎ ie. ‘Evangel of the Mixed ones’). The main object of the following pages is to trace the history of the Evangelion da-Mepharreshe, and to determine as far as possible its relations to the Diatessaron and to the Peshitta. B. II. 1 2 Introduction. The Péshittd ܕܡܦܩܬܐ ܦܫܝܛܬܐ)‎ , ie. ‘The Simple Edition’) does not seem to have acquired this name earlier than the 9th century’. It is called Simple to distinguish it from the later versions of the Old and New Testaments made by Paul of Tella and Thomas of Harkel, both of which were provided with an apparatus of critical signs inserted in the text. The name Peshittw is never used by Syriac writers to distinguish the Syriac Vulgate either from the Evangelion da- Mepharreshe or from the Diatessaron, but the term is distinctive, and it is sometimes convenient to continue its use. In the same way we speak of the Latin Vulgate as opposed to pre-Hieronymian texts, although the term Vulgata editio was originally used by the Council of Trent to contrast S. Jerome’s work with the new translations of Erasmus, Beza, and others. The Peshitta is the only version now used in the Church services. It is so used by all branches of Syriac-speaking Christendom, whether Nestorian, Monophysite, Maronite, or Malkite. This fact alone is enough to prove that its general acceptance is older than the great split between the Nestorians and Monophysites after the middle of the 5th century”, In this version Mss of the Gospels are very numerous and a few are themselves as ancient as the 5th century, but they all represent the same type of text, the variations being considerably less important than those exhibited by the better mss of the Latin Vulgate. There aré several editions of the Peshitta New Testament, none greatly differing from the editio princeps of Widmanstadius or Widmanstetter (Vienna, 1555): a useful small edition was published in 1880 at New York and subsequently reprinted. A critical edition is now being prepared at the Clarendon Press by the Rev. G. H. Gwilliam, B.D., who has collated for the purpose all the oldest codices : of this edition, the volume containing the Gospels (called Tetra- evangelium Sanctum) appeared in 1901. The wide use of the Diatessaron in the early Syriac-speaking Church is undoubted. This work (to quote Dr Wright) “certainly gained 1 Péshittd is the pronunciation according to the ‘Nestorian’ System, which preserves the older sound of the vowels, as in Talitha and Maranatha. The Monophysites and Maronites say Péshitté. Theword is a fem. adj. in the ‘definite’ state, agreeing with mappaktd, ie. ‘ Edition,’ but Bar Hebraeus sometimes uses it by itself in the ‘absolute’ fem., hence the spelling Peshito. The form Peschzio is merely an adaptation to German orthography. 2 The Nestorian School at Edessa was finally broken up in 489. Introduction. 3 great popularity in the early Syrian Church, and almost superseded the Separate Gospels. Aphraates quoted it; Ephraim wrote a com- mentary on it; the Doctrine of Addai (in its present shape a work’ of the latter half of the 4th century) transfers it to the apostolic times ; Rabbula, bishop of Edessa (411-435), promulgated an order that ‘the priests and deacons should take care that in every church there should be a copy of the Separate Gospels (Evangelion da-Mépharréshé), and that it should be read’; and Theodoret, bishop of Cyrrhus (423-457), swept up more than two hundred copies of it in the churches of his diocese, and introduced the four Gospels in their place: ra rv terrdpav evayyehiotav avtecnyayor evayyédua.”! The policy of Rabbula and Theodoret was only too successful. Not a single copy of the Diatessaron has survived in anything approaching its original form—that form, I mean, in which it was known to and used by Aphraates and Ephraim. The discoveries of the last twenty years have enabled us to determine with considerable accuracy the order followed by Tatian, but it is only here and there (and generally by way of inference rather than direct testimony) that we can re- construct the actual text of the Diatessaron. The chief sources of information about the Diatessaron now available are :— (i) The Commentary of S. Ephraim. This work is preserved in an Armenian translation, which has been printed in vol. 11 of ©, Ephraim’s Works (Venice, 1836). A Latin translation of the Armenian was made by the Mechitarist Aucher and edited in 1876 by G. Mésinger, but the passages quoted by Ephraim from the Diatessaron are more accurately given in an English version revised by Dr Armitage Robinson in Dr Hamlyn Hill's Harliest Life of Christ, pp. 333-377 ?. Some fragments of the original Syriac of 8. Ephraim’s book, which moreover include a few important readings from the Diatessaron itself, are imbedded in later Syriac writers, notably the commentators Isho:- dad the Nestorian (ff. 852) and Dionysius Bar Salibi the Monophysite ± Wright’s Syriac Literature, p. 9: for further details, see Chapter 4 of this volume. 2 Repeated in Dr Hill’s Dissertation on the Gospel Commentary of S. Ephraem, pp. 75-119. The pages of Mosinger’s edition, by which the Commentary is always quoted, are to be found in Dr Hill’s margin. 4 Introduction. ({ 1171). Neither of these somewhat voluminous compilations has as yet been published, but most of the quotations from 8. Ephraim have been collected in Dr Rendel Harris’s Fragments of the Commentary of Ephrem Syrus on the Diatessaron (Cambridge, 1895). (ii) The quotations from the Gospel in Aphiaates. The Homilies of Aphraates were written between the years 337 and 345. In his numerous Evangelical references and allusions he never mentions either the Diatessaron or the evangelists by name, but it is universally recognised that some at least of his quotations are from the Diatessaron rather than from the Separated Gospels. This is notably the case with the rapid survey of our Lord’s ministry at the end of Homily II (Wright's Aphraates, pp. 41-43). (iii) The Arabie Diatessaron. This is a careful translation of the Diatessaron from Syriac into Arabic made by the Nestorian monk Ibn at-Tayyib (+ 1043). It was edited from two mss by A. Ciasca of the Vatican Library in 1888. A Latin translation was given by Ciasca, and an English one 8 to be found in Dr Hamlyn Hill’s Lar liest Infe of Christ, published 1 in 1894. Unfortunately the Syriac text of the Diatessaron from which the Arabic was translated had been subjected to a revision which very seriously lessens its worth for critical purposes. In its original, or at any rate earlier, form the Syriac Diatessaron was very closely akin in its renderings to the Hvangelion da-Mepharreshe. The causes which led to this textual resemblance are the subject of con- troversy, but the fact is undisputed. Moreover the Evangelists were not named in the text of the Harmony. But in Ciasca’s Arabic the text is conformed to the Peshitta, and every clause is labelled ‘ Matthew,’ ‘Mark,’ ‘Luke,’ or ‘John.’ In other words the Syriac Diatessaron from which the Arabic version was made had been prepared by identifying the Gospel passages out of which Tatian’s Harmony had been con- structed, and substituting clause by clause the corresponding passages as given in the Peshitta?. The three documents above mentioned supply our main information about the text of the ancient Syriac Diatessaron. The Peshitta, as has ± The Latin Harmony prepared by Victor of Capua, preserved in the Codex Fuldensis, was constructed in the same way out of what seems to have been a Latin text of Tatian’s Diutessuron. Introduction. 5 been already stated, is preserved in many ancient mss, some as old as the 5th century. The third form of the Gospel in Syriac, the Evangelion da-Mepharreshe, is represented by the two ancient 8 called © and S in the following chapters. Besides these primary authorities we have to reckon with the scattered quotations from the Gospel in the scanty remains of Syriac literature before the second quarter of the 5th century. It is an obviously delicate task to distinguish between quotations from the Gospels and quotations from the Diatessaron, when (as often happens) the wording of the Gospel and of the Diatessaron coincides, and it is only in the case of the Acts of Thomas that we can be sure that the writer is using the Separate Canonical Gospels. The quotations have been collected in the present work, and are discussed in Chapter 3. The main conclusions to which I have been led may be summarised as follows :— (1) The Peshitta is a revision of the Evangelion da-Mepharreshe, undertaken mainly with the object of conforming the translation more closely to the Greek text as read at Antioch early in the 5th century. It was prepared by Rabbula, bishop of Edessa from 411-435 ap, and published by his authority as a substitute for the Diatessaron, (2) The Diatessaron is the earliest form of the Gospel in Syriac. It was made originally in Greek, probably at Rome, by Tatian the disciple of Justin Martyr, and translated into Syriac during Tatian’s lifetime, about 170 ap. As might be expected from a document geographically Western in origin, the Gospel text of the Diatessaron is very nearly akin to that of Codex Bezae (D) and the various forms of the Old Latin version. (3) The Lvangelion da-Mepharreshe dates from about the year 200 ap. It was the earliest rendering of the Four separate Gospels into Syriac, but the translator was familiar with the Diatessaron and often adopted its phraseology. There is great probability that the Evangelion da-Mepharreshe was prepared under the auspices of Serapion, the bishop of Antioch who is mentioned in the Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius as having suppressed the apocryphal Gospel of Peter, and there is some reason to identify the translator with Palut, the third bishop of Edessa. 6 Introduction. (4) In text, the Evangelion da-Mepharreshe, so far as it is a direct translation from the Greek, reproduces for us the Greek text current in Antioch at the end of the 2nd century, a text of great critical value which is often very slenderly represented in extant Greek mss. But the use of the Diatessaron by the translator has often introduced readings which really belong to the texts current in Western lands. Moreover both S and C, our two ss of the Evangelion da-Mepharreshe, contain readings which have been assimilated to the Diatessaron by transcribers ; and further, C' represents a text that has been partially revised by later Greek mss. “L—1 1 gop Aq panoz70f OS@—LI ܬܐ‎ ± A suenquos abod ܘ‎ ‘azis [8:11480 ‘16g ‘7of fo qund saddn ‘Q xaaog PS ae oe 7 we ngow' wor ܢ‎ Neca 0] ܢ‎ yee Wie 3 aia 0 ܣ‎ 0 ` 50 CHAPTER LI. DESCRIPTION OF THE MSS. Copex C CopEex NITRIENSIS CURETONIANUS, called in this book C consists in its present state of 825 leaves in the British Museum, numbered Add. 14451, and of three leaves at Berlin, forming the fly-leaves of Orient. Quart. 528. The British Museum leaves are described in Wright’s Catalogue, p. 73, No. cxtx. The ms came from the great Library of the Convent of 8. Mary Deipara in the Natron Valley, west of Cairo. Later history of C. The preservation of C appears to be the result rather of a happy accident than of reverence for antiquity. Eighty of the surviving leaves reached England in 1842 as part of a volume of the Gospels made up in the year 1222 ap from various Mss of the same size ; the other leaves of the volume were taken from copies of the Peshitta, and the binder hardly seems to have been aware that the text of 0 was different from the rest. The remaining leaves came to Europe as fly-leaves to strengthen the bindings of other books. The leaves thus used are fol. 53, containing Lk i 48—-iii 16; and the Berlin leaves, containing Joh vii 37—viil 19, Lk xv 22—xvi 12, xvu 1-23. Two more detached leaves reached the British Museum in 1847: fol. 52, the half-leaf containing fragments of Joh xiv; and fol. 72, containing Lk xiv 35—xv 21. Of the earlier history of C we know very little. On the blank recto of the first leaf is written in a hand of about the 10th century the following note of its presentation to the Library of 8. Mary Deipara :— 8 Description of the MSS. ܀ ܐܝܬܘܗܝ ܟܬܒܐ ܗܢܐ ܕܚܒܝܒܝ ܕܝܪܝܐ ܕܫܟܢܗ | ܠܕܝܪܐ ܩܕܝܫܬܐ dasa‏ ܝܠܕܬ ܐܠܗܐ ܕܗܘܪ̈ܝܝܐ. | ܕܒ ܡܕܒܪܐ ܕܐܣܩܝܛ+ܐ. ܕܐܠܗܐ Xo‏ ܖܪ̈ܚܡܹܐ ܘܪܘܚܦܐ | am‏ ܕܡܛܠ ܫܡܗ ܡܫܒܚܝܐ ܦܪܸܲܫ ܘܝܗܼܒ | ܗܝܡܬܐ ܗܕܐ ܪܘܚܢܝܬܐ am‏ ܢܚܣܐ ܚܘ̈ܒܘܗܝ | ܘܢܫܒܘܩ ܒܘܨܪ̈ܘܗܝ ܘܢܡܢܘܗܝ (sic)‏ ܒܓܒ̈ܝܐ ܕܝܠܗ | ܒܝܘܡܐ ܕܚܝܝܢ ܖ̈ܚܡܼܘܗܝ ܒ̈ܨܠܘܬܐ ܕܟܠܗ ܚܘܕܪܐ | ܕܩܕܝܫ̈ܐ ܐܡܢܢ ܐܡܒܢܝܢ ܀ ܒܪܶܗ ܕܐܠܗܐ ܚܝܐ ܚܘܣ ܒܫܥ ܬܐ ܕܟ As‏ | ܚܛ ܝܐ ܕܣܗܪܛ ܐܡܝܢ ܀ “This book belonged to the monk Habibai, who presented it to the‏ holy monastery of the Church of the Deipara belonging to the Syrians‏ in the desert of Scete, that God, abounding in mercy and compassion,‏ for the sake of whose glorious Name he separated and gave this‏ spiritual treasure, might pardon his faults and forgive his shortcomings‏ and number him among His own elect in the day that His mercy‏ cometh to life, by the prayers of all the circle of the Saints. Amen,‏ amen !‏ “Son of the Living God, have pity in the hour of Thy judgement on‏ the sinner that wrote this. Amen!”‏ Whether C was perfect when it was presented to the Nitrian Library by the monk Habibai we do not know, but there are some indications that it was in a tattered condition before the rebinding in 1222 ap. The table of the quires given below shews a large proportion of loose leaves, and some marks on foll. 75 ¥, 76 ¥, 77 ,ܐ‎ shew that fol. 72 was once lying loose between 76 and 77, while at the same time fol. 79 was facing 75. The conjugates of foll. 77 and 79 are now at Berlin: no doubt they were loose detached leaves when they were used to strengthen the binding of the book in which they now rest. After the rebinding in ap 1222 a few Church-lessons were marked in the margin, and a misguided person corrected some of the pages containing the Sermon on the Mount to the Peshitta text. But the original reading can in all cases be made 0111. ± The only word which presents any difficulty is 4m in Matt v 39, where Cureton failed to decipher the original reading and edited ܐܠܦܐܕ‎ (the Peshitta reading) between square brackets. In Matt ¥ 41 the word ܥܡܗ‎ has been entirely retraced by this late corrector. Composition of C. 9 Composition of Quires, 6. The quires of C were arranged in quinions or gatherings of five conjugate pairs. These were originally 18 in number, but two of them are now represented only by single detached leaves and six have altogether perished. The original signatures seem to have been placed at the beginning of each quire on the lower margin, but so near the right-hand edge of the leaf that all have disappeared except that upon x 1 (now fol. 43 r), which is signed ». The binder in ap 1222 signed the beginnings and ends of the quires with Syriac letters, so that e.g. the second quire has ܒ‎ on fol. 9r and ܒ‎ again on fol. 18 v. The inner leaves of Quire 11, now foll. 12-15, have been supplied by a late hand from the Peshitta. They are hardly earlier than the rebinding. The last leaf, fol. 88, is of the same period as foll. 12-15. Present Original Quire Numeration Contents Headlines and Leaf of Folios [on verso only] Il lost 3 9 [fly leaves] 3 1 Matt i 1— Title 4 9 5 3 6 4 ܕܡܬܝ.‎ 7 5 8 6 ܕܡܬܝ.‎ 9 7 10 8 aaa 1 ܐܘܢܓܠܝܘܢ ̇ ܕܡܬܝ.‎ II 1 9 Matt vi 21—— 2 10 3 11 —viii 22 ܕܡܬܝ.‎ [4] [12] [viii 23— [5] [13] (Later ܐܘܢܨܠܝܘܢ ܕܩܠܬܝܢ‎ [6] [14] supplement) [7] [15] —x 31] 8 16 x 382— 9 17 10 18 -—xii 29 whens. ܐܘܢܓܠܝܘܢ‎ 10 Original Quire and Leaf 111 1 V—VIII 2 ܚ Doe‏ ¥ ܗ ܒ 10 ܢܝܙ wp‏ ܫܙܼܝܙ ܗܡ ܗ 8¥- ܣܝ ܒ < ܒ ܢܝܙ ܟܬ FP w&‏ ܗ ܗ ܓ ܗ ܩܒ ܒܙ oO‏ Description of the MSS. Present Numeration of Folios 19 20 bo em Whe ܨܝ ܡܐ wb ww‏ ܐܢܬܐ ܠܬܐ ܐܐ @) ܐܝܡ ܗ all lost lost lost lost lost 39 40 lost lost 41 42 Contents Matt xii 29— —xvili 3 Matt xviii 3— 25 ܥܕܢ [Matt xxiii 25— —Mk xvi 17] Mk xvi 17-20, then Joh i 1-42 [Joh i 42—iii 5] Joh iii 5— —iv 10 Headlines [on verso only] . ܕܡܬܝ. . ܕܡܬܝ. ܐܘܢܓܠܝܘܢ . ܕܡܬܝِ . ܕܡܬܝ ِ ܕܡܬܝِ olson i‏ . ܕܡܬܝ. [No Headline] ܐܘܢܓܠܝܘܢ . ܕܝܘܚܢܢ. Original Quire and Leaf a XI—XIV 8 2 4 <j ܝܙ‎ ܐܐ = ‘pel ܟܬ ܘܢ AN OOF‏ ܒܩ ܗ DH‏ ܗܢ ܥܙܼܙ ܡܓ ܗ ON‏ ܒܩ ܗ OS w DOH‏ ܗ ܝ ܗ ܩ ܘܒ Present Composition of C. Numeration Contents of Folios 43? 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 Joh iv 10— Berlin 3° —viii 19 all lost, [Joh viii 19—Lk vii 33] except fol. 52 Joh xiv (fragments) and fol. 53° Lk ii 48—iii 16 lost 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 Lk vii 33— —x 39 ‫: Lk x 39— —xv 21 1 This leaf is signed 4 by the original scribe. 2 Orient. Quart. 528, fol. 129. 3 Fol. 53 was probably the second leaf of Quire xiv. 11 Headlines [on verso only] . ܡܝܘܢܐܢܠܢ‎ vasa, . ܐܘܢܓܠܝܘܢ , ܕܝܘܚܢܢ‎ [No Headlines] . oaks, . nals, ܐܘܢܓܠܝܘܢ ݂ ܕܠܘܩ݀ܐ ܼ ܕܠܘܩܐ ِ .aoals, ܐܘܢܓܠܝܘܢ ̇ ܕܠܘܩ̈ܐ. 12 Description of the MSS. Present Original Quire Numeration Contents Headlines and Leaf of Folios [on verso only] XVII 1 Berlin 1! Lk xv 22— 2 lost Berlin 2° oan, 73 74 75 76 ِܿ ܕܠܘܩ݀ܐ‎ . 77 78 79 —xxi 12 ܿ ܐܘܢܓܠܝܘܢ ̇ ܕܠܘܩ݀ܐ‎ ܩܢ OP‏ ܗ MN‏ ܣܒ ܣ ܝܐ 80 Lk xxi 12— 81 82 _vnlon. 83 84 85 86 wala. 87 —xxiv 44 lost * 10 lost It will be noticed that the headlines are inserted on the verso of the 3rd, 6th and 10th leaves of each quire in 8. Matthew and 8. John, but in 8. Luke they occur on the 3rd, 7th and 10th leaves. This fact, even apart from the preserved signature on fol. 43r, is enough to shew that the true order is Matt Mk Joh Lk, and not Matt Lk Mk Joh. No headline occurs on fol. 40 ¥, which (on the assumption that 44 leaves are lost between fol. 38 and fol. 39) is the 6th leaf of a quire: probably the title to Joh on fol. 39r was regarded as an equivalent. XVIII TO oF WDD eH ܗ ܩܒ Codex © in its original state contained the Four Gospels in the unusual order Matt Mk Joh Lk, the beginning of 8. John following the end of 8. Mark on the same page. The portions still extant are :— Matt i 1—vili 22, x 832—xxin 5 Mk xvi 17°-20 followed by Joh 1 1-42°, ui 5°—vili 19*, xiv 10°-12%, 15°-19*, 215-24, 96-292, Lk ii 48°—iii 165 vii 33°—xvi 12, xvii 1»—xxiv 44% The colophon at the end is not preserved, but a title is prefixed to 8. Matthew which will be discussed later in connexion with the 1 Orient. Quart. 528, fol. 1. 2 Td., fol. 128. 3 The present fol. 88 is a late supplement containing Lk xxiv 44 to the end of the Gospel. Date of C. 13 colophon of codex S. There are no lectionary marks by any early hand or any numeration of chapters, but the text is divided into sections, a new line marking the beginning of each section. At present the text is divided into short sentences by red points, but it will be shewn that these were inserted by a later hand. The writing is a large and beautiful Estrangela, the work of a practised scribe: the freedom with which the curves of the letters are formed points to the early part of the 5th century as the latest date that can be assigned to the writing. The vellum also suggests an early date, as it is very smooth and exceedingly white where not stained or otherwise damaged. Each page contains two columns of writing, vertical lines for which were ruled in the vellum with a fine point, As is often the case with ancient Syriac Mss, horizontal lines were ruled only at the top and bottom of the columns, and the number of lines in a column consequently varies from 22 to 26. The usual number is 24 or 25. Each leaf is about 11? in. by 9 in. There are generally only three words to a line. Headings and subscriptions to the Gospels are written in red ink, as is also the first word of each Beatitude in 8. Matthew. The sign < is used in Matt viii 17 and Joh vi 32 to fill up the ends of lines accidentally left blank ; in Lk iii 11 the sign ܗ‎ is used for this purpose. The text of C suffered very little from subsequent correction previous to the rebinding in 1222 ap. The words ܠܘܬ ܢܘܪܐ‎ in Lk xxii 56 bave been added above the line, perhaps by the original scribe, and the word sas ‘forsooth’ (which is only met with in ancient Syriac writings) has been washed out in the three places where it occurs, viz. Lk xvi 11, xx 17, xxii 70". In Joh iv 35 ܐܢܬܘܢ‎ (2°) and in Lk ix 12 ܐܥܝܪܘܗܝ‎ have been cancelled with small red dots. The word ܐܥܝܪܘܗܝ‎ is a mere slip in writing, but ܐܢܬܘܢ‎ is apparently correct and should have been left standing. The same. remark applies to ܕܐܟܘܠ‎ in Joh iv 32, which has been washed out though it. is read in Sand the Peshitta in accordance with all other authorities. Several other words and lines have been washed out by the scribe and then written over, owing to various ordinary accidents of tran- scription, but neither in writing nor in correction is there the slightest trace of the use of a second exemplar. 1 In all three instances S has the word. 14 Description of the MSS. The Colometry of C. The text of C ig now divided into short sentences by a reddish- brown point, which is placed about as often as a comma or larger stop would come in an English book. At the end of paragraphs the same hand has added larger and more ornamental stops, substituting for the © plain point or :ܘ‎ of the original scribe figures such as 0-0 or 900. Where the paragraph ends a line, so that no room for a stop is left, tha punctuator inserted ee ܗܗ ܗܘ‎ between the lines, though frequently there was but little room for this, the original scribe having left no space vacant between the lines except where he intended a paragraph to end. It is obviously difficult to fix the date of a scribe whose work is confined to mere dots; but a fortunate accident makes it clear that the dots were inserted after the sheets were already sewn, and that the hand was not that of the regular rubricator who wrote the occasional headlines. For the dots are entirely absent from /fol/. 48 ¥, 49 r (Joh vi 30°-53*). The only mark of punctuation visible when the book is open at this place is a single point at the end of vi 51 ܕܥܠܝܡܐ.)‎ ,mais), where the paragraph ends. As soon as the leaf is turned over the points begin again. Now this could hardly have happened otherwise than through careless turning over of two leaves at the same time: in other words, 0 was already a bound book when the punctuator was at work. Moreover he must have written currente calamo, with much the same haste as according to the common story the New Testament was divided into verses ; we cannot imagine that he would not have found out his mistake if he had been copying the punctu- ation from another exemplar. Thus the colometry of the Curetonian Syriac represents nothing more than the individual judgement of a reader. That this reader was not the rubricator of the Ms appears from the fact that fol. 48 ¥ is one of the pages which has -,asasx- written in red upon the upper margin as a headline. The colour also of the red ink is different, that of the punctuation dots being sensibly browner than the headlines. Colometry of C. 15 The recto of the detached half-leaf containing fragments from Joh xiv is also without punctuation, but it appears on the verso. The same accident therefore of turning over two leaves together occurred here as well as in Joh vi. For some reason which I am quite unable to divine the punctuation throughout the whole of the first chapter of S. Matthew has been carefully washed out. The result may be clearly seen in the photograph of C published in F. G. Kenyon’s Our Bible and the Ancient MSs, facing p. 155. What punctuation was inserted in C by the first hand is very difficult to determine, as most of the places where punctuation is natural have been covered by the red dots. A small black dot was generally placed at the end of paragraphs, e.g. at the end of Matt i 23, vi 23, etc.; in other places a slightly more elaborate stop was used, @.g. ܒܐܝܕܗ ...ܘ‎ Lk xiii 17; but often no room was left for any stop at all, e.g. in Matt xxiii 14 etches comes quite to the end of the linet. There is a dot by the first hand at the end of the short interrogative sentence in Lk vili 45 (.A ܩܪܒ‎ ars), but if we may judge by the pages left untouched by the hand who inserted the red dots, the original scribe of C hardly gave any punctuation at all. This is very. uncommon in Syriac Mss, but much the same state of things once obtained in cod. B of Aphraates. Besides Lk viii 45, the only places I have noted as having stops certainly by the original hand are ܕܫܒܬܐ.‎ Lk xiii 14 and ܥܝ̈ܢܝܗܘܢ‎ Lk xxiv 31: both instances occur at the ends of lines. On the other hand it is clear that no stop was intended by the original scribe after ܓܒܳܪܶܝܢ‎ Matt xv 38, after ܕܐܝܬܝ‎ Matt xvi 15, or after ܘܒܫܘܒܝܝܐ‎ Lk xxi 27. In editing CI have inserted the dots of the punctuator, as they are on the whole a satisfactory division of the text. But it must be repeated that they have no claim to represent a traditional Old Syriac colometry. 1 The ܘܘ ܘܘ‎ oo is here inserted by the later punctuator between the lines. 16 Description of the MSS. Cureton’s Edition. Codex C derives its name from Dr Cureton, who edited the text in full in 1858. The title of his work is Remains of a very antient Recension of the Four Gospels in Syriac, hitherto unknown in Europe ; discovered, edited, and translated by William Cureton, D.D., F.RS....- London, 1858. The three Berlin leaves form part of a ms bought in Egypt by Dr Brugsch the Egyptologist : they were edited by Roediger in the Monatsbericht der Kéniglich Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin for July, 1872, p. 557. A small edition of 100 copies was printed for private circulation to range with Cureton’s book by Dr W. Wright. Cureton’s edition gives the Syriac text of C with great fidelity. His introduction contains much interesting and curious matter, then to a great extent new and unfamiliar, but now almost entirely superseded by the labours of two generations of Syriac scholars. Cureton’s theory that the text of S. Matthew's Gospel in @ retained to a great extent “the identical terms and expressions which the Apostle himself employed” (p. xciii) attracted a good deal of attention, but gained few converts: it is suficient refutation to point out that Edessene Syriac is quite a different dialect from the Aramaic of Palestine. The same claim had been advanced for the Peshitta by Widmanstadius in 1555: Ex, quibus omnibus, he says, conecturam non leuem capi posse arbitror, et Mathewm Euangelium suum, & Paulum ad Hebreos Epistolam sermone Syro, Hebraici populi vulgari vsu trite, vt & Iudeis passim omnibus intelligerentur, scripsisse, eaque in Syrorum Eeclesys vam vsque a temporibus Apostolorum conseruata fuisse (Preface to the Ed. Prine. of the Peshitta, fol. ® #x##3). 000 ܨ WILLIAM CURETON, D.D., F.R.S. Assistant-Keeper of MSS at the British Museum and Canon of Westminster. b. 1808; d. 1864. Recent history of the Sinai Palimpsest. 17 CopEx S. Coprx Parrupssstus Srvarricus is No. 30 among the Syriac Mss in the Convent of 8, Catharine on Mount Sinai. A description is given in Mrs Lewis's “ Catalogue of the Syriac mss...on Mount Sinai” (Studia Sinaitica 1), pp. 43-47. Recent history of S. The Syriac Library at the Convent on Mount Sinai was first explored by Mr (now Dr) J. Rendel Harris and Mr Bliss in 1889, when Dr Harris discovered the Syriac translation of the early Christian Apology of Aristides. In 1892 the Convent was visited by Mrs Lewis and her sister Mrs Gibson, of Cambridge, who saw S among the other volumes of the Library. Struck by the antique appearance of the lower writing of the palimpsest, which they knew from the still visible headlines to be a ms of the Gospels, these ladies took photographs of the whole volume. On their return to Cambridge a few of the more legible pages were deciphered by the late Prof. R. L. Bensly and the present writer!. Early in 1893 the palimpsest itself was transcribed at Sinai by Prof. Bensly, Dr Rendel Harris and myself; on the same occasion some more photographs were taken by Mrs Lewis, who was also of the party. Our transcript was published at Cambridge in 1894, after Prof. Bensly’s lamented death?. Mrs Lewis visited Sinai again in 1895, and transcribed some more passages with the help of a reagent: these were published in 18969, In 1897 Mrs Lewis went 1 It was not always an easy matter at first to discover from what part of the Gospels any given page was taken, and when that was done it was not always a page where @ was extant and characteristically different from syr.vg. I remember that the first reading we made out where the photograph clearly agreed with the Curetonian against the Peshitta was ܘܢ‎ (instead of (ܬܫܒܩܘܢ‎ at the end of Matt xxiii 23. 2 The Four Gospels in Syriac transcribed from the Sinaitic Palimpsest by the late Robert L. Bensly, M.A., and by J. Rendel Harris, M.A., and by F. Crawford Burkitt, M.A., with an Introduction by Agnes Smith Lewis; edited for the Syndics of the University Press, Cambridge, 1894. I quote this volume as “Syndics’ Edition.” 3 Some Pages of the Four Gospels re-transcribed from the Sinaitic Palimpsest...by Agnes Smith Lewis; London, 1896. I quote this volume as “Some Pages.” B, IL. 3 18 Description of the MSS. for the fourth time to Sinai, bringing back. several corrections, which she published in the Hxpositor for August, 1897, pp. 111-119, and also a series of excellent photographs much clearer than any previously taken. Complete sets have been presented by her to the Cambridge University Library; to Westminster College, Cambridge; to the University Library, Halle ; and to the Rylands’ Library, Manchester. Thus the editor of S has to take into consideration at least three publications, and he should also consult the photographs. In printing the text I have adopted the rule of silently following the latest published reading; when for any reason another reading is given, the reader is expressly warned in the notes. This chiefly occurs where I have succeeded in correcting the printed text from the photographs ; in this way the text of S as now given differs in over 250 places from what has been hitherto published. The corrections are registered in Appendix 111 to the first volume of this work. When and where the wpper writing was transcribed. The upper writing of the Sinai Palimpsest is dated in the year of the Greeks 1090, 1.6. 778 ap (fol. 181 v). The determination of the place where it was written is of interest to students of the Hvangelion da-Mepharreshe, as giving some indication of the home of S in the 8th century. In its present state the volume consists of 182 leaves of vellum, including a leaf pasted into the cover; the quires are quinions, except the last, which has six pairs. These quires are numbered doubly, wiz. with Syriac letters running from right to left and with Georgian signatures running the opposite 1877. The Georgian signatures were first observed by Mrs Gibson and should have afforded some clue to the place of writing, for it is not everywhere that we come across traces of Georgian communities in Syria. The contents of the book are chiefly taken up with a collection of twelve Lives of Female Saints. The scribe gives his name three times Mzeto ܝܘܚܢܢ ܚܒܝܫܐ ܕܒܝܬ ܡܪܝ‎ (fol. 2v) John the anchorite of Beth Mari the Saint. 1 Abridged from Mrs Lewis’s description in Syndies’ Edition, p. vi. Upper writing of the Sinai Palimpsest. 19 (fol. 165v)‏ ܝܘܚܢܢ ܚܒܝܫܝܐ ܕܒܝܬ ܡܪܝ ܘܢܘܢ ܒܕܝܫܐ ATI‏ ܡܨܪܝܢ ܡܕܝܢܬܐ John the anchorite of Beth Mari Qanon the Saint of Matarrath Mesrén city. ܕܡܥܪܬ ܡܨܪܝܢ‎ a ܝܘܚܼܢܢ ܐܣܛܘܢܝܐ ܕܒܝܬ ܡܪܝ ܘܢܘܢ‎ (fol. 1811) ܡܕܝܢܬܐ ܟܘܪ ܕܐܢܛܝܘܟܝܐ John the stylite of Beth Mart Qanon, a monastery of Ma‘arrath Mesrén city in the district of Antioch}. The natural interpretation of these sentences is that the book was written by a stylite monk called John in a certain monastery at Ma‘arrath Mesrén (.,, 46 sje), Which is a small town in Lat. 36°y, about equidistant from Antioch and Aleppo. This place is mentioned in Ydqit 1v 574 and in the various authorities for the history of the Crusades, but I have entirely failed to discover any mention of the seribe’s monastery. It is curious that J ass does not appear in the sentence quoted from fol. 2 ¥, The natural meaning of ܡܪܝ ܘܥܘܢ‎ dus is ‘the House (ie. Convent) of 8. Qanon, but we can hardly sup- pose the scribe to have accidentally dropped the Saint’s name in the first lines of his preface. ,t therefore seems to be a proper name. There is a village called Bét Merri near Beyrout, which also contained a monastery. But wherever our palimpsest was transcribed, it is certain that it reached Mount Sinai not alone, but as part of a considerable library. In the first place there is a likelihood that all the numerous mss at Sinai which are either in the Georgian language, or (like our palimpsest) contain Georgian writing, came originally from the same collection. Still clearer is the case with regard to cod. 588 of the Arabic mss at Sinai, a vellum book containing a Prophetologion in Arabic written over various Syriac Apocrypha. One of these fragments appears to have belonged to the same ms of the Transitus Mariae (Kotpunous 17 am sure the last word but one is 4as ‘district, not sas ‘star’ (as read by Mrs Lewis in Studia Sinattica IX, p. xxiv, at the suggestion of Dr Nestle). The word occurs at the end of a line, and there is a small gap between the o and the 4 which I think was left blank by the scribe, a being a letter which cannot be prolonged. ‘ass is derived from the Greek and so can be used in the absolute state, e.g. santa Aas Lk iii 1 SC; but ܕܧܐܐܕܢܛܝܘܦܝ̈ܐܕ‎ oan is grammatically improbable. 20 Description of the MSS. Mapias) as was also used for this palimpsest by John of Ma‘arrath Mesrén. “This identification rests (1) on the similarity of the vellum, (2) on the probable agreement in size, the leaves of the Syriac Apocryphal text used by John the Recluse having been slightly cut at the edges in order to harmonize with the rest of the volume, (3) on the character of the script, and (4) on the coincidence of the contents?.” Furthermore this same cod. 588 is a double palimpsest, four leaves of the Syriac Apocrypha being written over fragments of the Third Book of Kings in the Palestinian Syriac dialect? This brings the book written by John of Ma‘arrath Mesrén into connexion with the ancient Palestinian Syriac fragments at Sinai and St Petersburg, which also are in some instances covered with Georgian writing. It may be permitted, in the absence of certain information, to conjecture the fate of this Library of mss in Edessene and Palestinian Syriac, in Georgian and in Arabic, to which our palimpsest once belonged. The town and district of Ma‘arrath Mesrén was a portion of the Latin Principality of Antioch granted by Alexius to Bohemund about 1100 ap*. But in granting the temporal dominion to the foreign Crusader the Emperor expressly reserved the appointment of the Patriarch of Antioch, who was to be chosen from the Constantinopolitan clergy. This meant the predominance of ‘ Melkite’ influence throughout the Principality ; the Monophysite Patriarch had already left Antioch to take refuge in a Mohammedan land, and we may assume that the monks of Ma‘arrath Mesrén were not long in making their submission to Constantinople and Chalcedon. But the one fact which comes out from historical sources about Ma‘arrath Mesrén is that it was continually exposed to the chances of war; it was often raided, often retaken, and must have become more and more unsuitable as a vesting place for stylites and anchorites. In the same way therefore as Monophysite monks took refuge in the Natron Valley we may suppose that the monks of Ma‘arrath Mesrén migrated to the great Orthodox sanctuary of Sinai, bringing their books with them. At least there is nothing improbable in the conjecture. 1 Syndics’ Edition, p. xvii. The identification is due to Dr Rendel Harris. ° Discovered by my friend Mr J. F. Stenning, and edited by him in Anecdota Oxvonensia, 1896. 3 Alexiad xiii 12. Conwposition of the Sinai Palinypsest. 21 The original MSS. John of Ma‘arrath Mesrén wrote his book of Saints’ Lives on portions of five older mss. These are 1. 142 leaves of the ms of the Evangelion da-Mepharreshe, here called S. 2. 4 leaves, containing fragments of the Gospel of 8. John, in fine square Greek uncials of the 4th or 5th century. 3. 20 leaves, containing fragments of the Acta Thomae in a Syriac hand of the 5th century. 4. 4 leaves, containing fragments of the Transitus Mariae (Koipnous Mapias), in a Syriac hand of the 5th or 6th century. 5. 12 leaves, containing fragments of Homilies in fine sloping Greek uncials of the 6th century or earlier. Nos. 4 and 5 were taken from mss much larger than the others, aud each leaf has been seriously cut to make it fit, but the leaves of S were very little trimmed when they were written over. All the leaves not taken from S were arranged by John of Ma‘arrath Mesrén in the last four quires of his book, so that we may regard them as a makeshift, resorted to when the supply from S was exhausted. The whole of S is preserved except 22 leaves, and these 22 include the blank fly-leaves originally placed at the beginning and end of the volume. These leaves and their conjugates are generally the first to go in neglected codices, so that their absence in this instance is not surprising. Probably therefore S was taken to pieces for the express purpose of supplying vellum for the existing palimpsest, and consequently we learn that the 22 leaves were already missing in 778 AD—a small number for so ancient a ms. The 12 leaves from the ms of Greek Homilies occupy the final quire, while the other miscellaneous leaves were used to make up the 15th, 16th and 17th quires. Portions of two leaves of the Greek Gospel fragmeuts have been made out, which formed the outside pages of a quire containing Joh vii 6—ix 238. The text is given in Studia Simantica rx, pp. 45, 46. In the same volume, pp. 23-44, the present writer has edited eight of the more legible pages of the fragments of the Acts of Thomas. These fragments are at least four hundred years older than any other known 29 Description of the MSS. text of the Acts of Thomas, and in view of the importance of the Acts for the criticism of the Evangelion da-Mepharreshe itself I add here a complete Table of the three quires of the palimpsest in which the fragments occur. Quires xv—xvil of the Sinac Palimpsest (Studia Sinaitica 1x, p. 25) 2 Pages of Wright’s Quire and Leaf _-—-Photographs nee 1 Text) XV 1 281, 282 Acts of Thomas 2997—3017 2 283, 284 Greek Gospel (Joh vii 6— ) 3 285, 286 Syriac Gospel (Mk xiv 64—xv 19) 4 287, 288 Greek Gospel 5 289, 290 Acts of Thomas 317*— 319° 6 291, 292 Acts of Thomas 315*— 317 7 293, 294 Greek Gospel 8 295, 296 Syriac Gospel (Mk xii 19-42) 9 297, 298 Greek Gospel (Joh —ix 23) 10 299, 300 Acts of Thomas 301%—303” XVI 1 301, 302 Transitus Mariae 2 303, 304 Acts of Thomas 321—323 3 305, 306 Acts of Thomas 185°—187 4 307, 308 Acts of Thomas 305—307 5 309, 310 Transitus Mariae 6 311, 312 Transitus Mariae 7 313, 314 Acts of Thomas 295%—2975 8 315, 316 Acts of Thomas 198” 202" (sic) 9 317, 318 Acts of Thomas 3118—313° 10 319, 320 Transitus Mariae XVII 1 321, 322 Acts of Thomas 209—211"° 2 323, 324 Acts of Thomas 297°—299° 3 325, 326 Acts of Thomas 309’—3118 4 327, 328 Acts of Thomas 2534—255 5 329, 330 Acts of Thomas 319°—321 6 331, 332 Acts of Thomas 313°—3154 7 333, 334 Acts of Thomas 237 —2390 8 335, 336 Acts of Thomas 323—325 9 337, 338 Acts of Thomas 303"—305 10 339, 340 Acts of Thomas 211%_213 XVIII 1—12 =. 341364 Greek Homilies (still unidentified) Composition of 8. 23 We come at last to S itself, the ms of the Evangelion da-Mephar- reshe. In its original form S was a vellum codex consisting of 166 leaves, on which were written the Four Gospels in the usual order Matt Mk Lk Joh. The following Table shews the original arrangement, together with the numeration of Mrs Lewis's photographs!, which follows the paging of the ms as it now is. The original composition of S. es Content 0 Il missing 2 ܝ‎ missing 3 Matt i 1—17 163, 164 4 i 17—ii 15 112, 111 5 ii 15—iii 17 83, 84 6 iii 17—v 1 97, 98 7 ¥ 1—26 110, 109 8 v 26—vi 10 177, 178 9 [vi 10-- missing 10 ܐ]‎ 1 —viii 3] missing 11 1 ܐ‎ Matt viii 3—30 20, 19 2 viii 30—ix 23 149, 150 3 ix 23—x 15 229, 230 4 x 15—xil 74, 73 5 xi 1—30 192, 191 6 xii 1—31 190, 189 7 xii 31—xili 5 68, 67 8 xiii 6—31 231, 232 9 xiii 31—xiv 1 151, 152 10 xiv 1—31 2,1 111 1 Matt xiv 31—xv 27 47, 48 2 xv 27—xvi 15 61, 62 3 [xvi 15—xvii 11] missing 4 xvii ]1—xvili 8 141, 142 5 xvili 9—xix 3 34, 33 6 xix 3—28 28, 27 7 xix 28—xx 24 159, 160 8 [xx 24—xxi 20] missing 9 xxi 20—43 79, 80 10 ܒ=‎ xxi 43—xxii 27 53, 54 1 See above, p. 18. Description of the MSS. Ancient Gir Cont < Iv 1 ܒ‎ Matt xxit 27—xxiii 15 89, 90 2 xxili 15—xxiv 2 269, 270 3 xxiv 2—31 225, 226 4 xxiv 31—xxv 12 200, 199 5 xxv 12—37 147, 148 6 xxv 37—xxvi 7 153, 154 7 xxvi 17-—44 182, 181 8 xxvi 4467 235, 236 9 xxvi 67—xxvii 19 271, 272 10 xxvii 20—47 91, 92 ¥ 1 Matt xxvil 47—xxviii 7 267, 268 2 [xxviii 7—Mark i 12] missing 3 Mark i 12—44 60, 59 4 [i 44—1i 21] missing 5 ii 21—iii 21 201, 202 6 iii 21—iv 17 219, 220 7 [iv 17—41] missing 8 iv 41—v 26 42, 41 9 [v 26-—vi 5] missing 10 ܓ‎ vi 5—28 273, 274 VIIA Mark vi 28—54 106, 105 2 vi 54—vii 23 49, 50 3 vii 23—viii 14 81, 82 4 viii 1438 187, 188 5 vili 388—ix 25 193, 194 6 ix 25—x 2 99, 100 7 x 9- 7 51, 9 8 × 27—xi 1 116, 115 VII 1 Mark xi 1—27 56, 55 2 xi 27—xii 9 128, 127 3 xii 19—42 296, 295 4 xii 42—xiii 23 96, 95 5 xiii 24—xiv 10 23, 24 6 xiv 10—36 37, 38 7 xiv 36—63 86, 85 8 xiv 64—xv 19 286, 285 9 xv 19—47 134, 133 10 oa xvi 1—Luke i 16 46, 45 Ancient Quire and Leaf VIII 1 ܒܙ 8 bd‏ 8 = ܢܝܙ ܟܬ ܘ ܥܫ ܗ ܗ ܒ¬- ܤܣ ܩ ܗ ܢܝ ܟܬ ܘ ܥܙܼܝܙ ܗ ܗ ܒ ܤܣ ܩܘ ܗ ܢܝܙ ܙܐ ܩܢ ܦܙܝ ܗܓ ܗ ܢ ܣ ܒ ܗ ܫܒ ܬܚܐ ܫ _ WD‏ ܥܝ ܗ ܗ ܕܝ ܗ ܩ ܗ [>] ܗ [ܗ] ]ܘ[ Composition of 8. Contents Luke [i 16—38] i 38—73 i 73—ii 18 ii 18—40 ii 40—iii 9 iii 9—iv 1 iv 1—26 iv 26—v 6 v 6—28 [v 28—vi 11] Luke vi 12—35 vi 35—vii 6 vii 7—28 vii 28—viii 1 vili 1—22 viii 22—40 viii 40—ix 6 ix 6—27 ix 27—49 ix 49—x 11 Luke x 11—33 x 33—xi 13 xi 13—32 xi 32—52 xi 52—x1i 21 xii 21—42 xii 42—xiii 3 xiii 3—22 xili 22—-xiv 5 xiv 5—23 Luke xiv 24—xv 12 xv 13—xvi 2 xvi 2—21 xvi 21—xvii 9 xvii 9—33 xvii 33—xviii 16 xviii 17—40 xviii 40—xix 22 xix 22—45 xix 45—xx 21 Photographs (and pp. of ms) missing 183, 184 276, 275 157, 158 101, 102 119, 120 143, 144 266, 265 197, 198 missing 214, 213 94, 93 205, 206 7,8 8, 4 17, 18 13, 14 215, 216 88, 87 208, 207 243, 244 9, 10 125, 126 132, 131 221, 222 239, 240 130, 129 135, 136 11, 12 257, 258 103, 104 162, 161 25, 26 65, 66 176, 175 166, 165 75, 76 35, 36 180, 179 117, 118 ܝ Ancient Quire and Leaf XII 1 9 wr wre‏ ܗ ܕ ܗ ܩܒ ܐܡܪ ܗ XIII DANAIanFwh ܢܝܙ‎ [9] ]ܐ[ ]ܐ[ Description of the MSS. Contents Luke xx 21—44 John xx 44—xxi 23 xxi 23—xxii 8 xxii 8—34 xxii 34—59 xxii 59—xxiii 14 xxiii 14—38 xxiii 838—xxiv 5 xxiv 5—26 | xxiv 26—fin. [i 1—25] 1 25—47 [i 47—ii 15] ii 16—iii 11 iii 11—31 iii 31—iv 15 iv 15-37 [iv 38—v 6] ¥ 6—25 [v 25—46] John v 46—vi 19 John vi 20—44 vi 44—69 vi 69—vii 21 vii 21—39 vii 39—viii 21 viii 21—41 viii 41—ix 1 ix 1—21 ix 21—x 1 x 1—23 x 23—xi 5 xi 5—31 xi 31—48 xi 48—xii 7 xii 7—28 xii 28—49 xii 49—xiii 18 Photographs (and pp. of ms) 58, 57 941, 9 109, 0 174, 3 78, 7 64, 63 168, 167 171, 172 259, 260 44, 43 missing 203, 204 missing 280, 279 185, 186 195, 196 262, 261 nvissing 217, 218 missing 124, 123 245, 246 249, 250 247, 248 32, 31 30, 29 253, 254 251, 252 255, 256 138, 7 145, 146 209, 210 107, 108 121, 122 139, 140 113, 114 211, 212 155, 156 Quire signatures in 8. 27 Ancient Quire Photographs and Leat Contents (and pp. of ms) XVI 1 [a] John xiii 19—xiv 1 21, 22 2 xiv 1—24 5, 6 3 xiv 24—xv 15 233, 234 4 xv 15—xvi 10 238, 237 5 xvi 10—32 224, 223 6 xvi 32—xvii 20 227, 228 7 xvii 20—xviii [24] 15, 16 8 xviii 14—31 39, 40 XVII 1 John [xviii 31— missing 2 — missing 3 — xix 40] missiny 4 xix 40—xx 17 2638, 264 5 xx 17—xxi 2 69, 70 6 xxi 2—17 71, 72 7 xxi 17—fin. 277, 278 8 # missing 9 ® missing 10 [ܛ]‎ * missing A Table similar to the preceding is given in the Syndics’ Edition, pp. xxx ff, but at that time not enough of the original signatures had been found to make clear upon what system they were inserted. The system actually employed is very curious. Instead of signing the first quire with ,ܐ‎ the second with ,ܒ‎ and so on, either uniformly at the end or uniformly at the beginning of a quire, the scribe signed Quire 1 at the end with ܐ‎ and Quire 2 at the beginning with pw, Quire 3 at the end with ܒ‎ and Quire 4 at the beginning with ,ܒ‎ and so on. The signatures are in each case placed in the inner corner of the lower margin, thus : first leaf of Quire 4 last leaf of Quire 3 28 Description of the MSS. In the Table I have indicated all the places where signatures ought to occur, adding square brackets where the letter is not actually visible in the photograph. In general appearance S is not unlike C. There is no title at all prefixed to 8. Matthew: at least no reagent used has brought up even the faintest indication of a letter’. The writing begins on a verso, and the recto of that leaf (Photograph 163) was absolutely blank. At the end of 8. John there is a colophon written by the original scribe, followed by a note in another almost contemporary hand, now unfortu- nately illegible: these will be discussed later in connexion with the heading to 8. Matthew in C. There are no lectionary marks in S nor any numeration of chapters, but as in @ the text is divided into sections, each section beginning with a new line. In many places the original hand has marked the end of sentences and even single clauses with a small point, but it is evident that this punctuation was somewhat irregular, even when due allowance is made for the loss of detached dots under the upper writing of the palimpsest. The writing is a very beautiful Estrangela, even more rapidly formed than that of C: it cannot be later than the beginning of the 5th century and is not inconsistent with an earlier date still. The vellum is now somewhat crinkled and in places rather brittle, partly owing to the washing process undergone in preparing the leaves to receive the later writing, partly owing to assiduous thumbing by readers of the lives of Female Saints. The washing process must have made the detached sheets of vellum quite limp, as in six instances (v1 1, 8; vil 2, 9; vu 4, 7; X1 2,9; x1v 1,10; xv13, 6) the conjugate leaves are now folded the re- verse way. On one or two pages the surface has a tendency to scale off’. Each page contains two columns of writing, vertical lines for which were ruled with a stylus; the sharp point has often made a round dot at the end of these vertical lines, giving the appearance of punctua- tion at the beginning or end of the first and last lines of the columns’. ± We should have expected at least ܐܘܢܓܠܝܘܢ‎ for a headline, since ates occurs as the headline to the following verso (Photograph 112). See below, p. 33. % I cannot agree with Dr Harris’s opinion (Syndics’ Edition, p. xxxv) that some pages have been scraped with a knife. But however this may be, it should be clearly stated that there is no evidence at all that S has been intentionally defaced in particular places for dogmatic reasons. % Eg. Matt i 1 (ܦܬܒܐ)‎ and Mk vii 30 ܐܫܦܚܬܗ:)‎ In each case the dot should be omitted. ܘ ܡܢ iu‏ SOG,‏ ܛܘܢ ܢܐ ܓ abe < aude Ser Copex 5, fol. 907, as now bound (Lk xix 32—45). Orthographical signs in 8. 29 1 cannot be sure whether horizontal lines were ruled to join the ends of the vertical lines, but certainly no other horizontal lines were ruled, and Consequently the number of lines in a column varies even more than ܬܐ‎ C—from 29 in 8, Matthew to 21 in 8. John. I think that the Whole ws is the work of one scribe, but the writing gradually became “tger and the lines in a column fewer as the work progressed. The caves now measure 88 in. by 64 in. There are generally only three words toa line, though in the earlier parts of the ms four words a line and 111 the later parts two words a line are not uncommon. The subscriptions to the Gospels and the colophon are in red. The headlines consist of ܐܘܢܓܠܝܘܢ‎ on the verso and ܕܡܬܝ‎ (or the corresponding name) on the recto ; 1t seems to have been intended to insert them on every page, but in many instances they are no longer legible’. The sign % 18 placed in Lk xii 18, xxi 15, xxiv 4, to 1 up blank spaces at the end of lines where no pause was intended, but in Matt ix 25 and Joh xiv 31 a horizontal stroke is used for the purpose. The very few corrections visible in S seem all to have been made by the original scribe and arise from the ordinary accidents of transcription, not from the use of a second exemplar. Words accidentally repeated or inserted are deleted by means of dots in Mk vi 18, Lk xiv 12; Joh ii 8 and x 18. In Lk xxi 24 ܕܚܘܿܪܒܐ‎ , the dot indicates that the word should be ܕܚܪܒܐ‎ , Words and letters accidentally dropped are inserted by the original scribe between the lines in Matt ¥ 48 ܐܝܦܢܐ‎ Lk xii 43 ܢܐܬܐ‎ , Joh xiii 16 ܐܡܪܢܐ‎ 8110 two steps in the Genealogy ܗ 4 Lk iii 33; also Mk xii 1 ܡܥܨܬܐ‎ , Lk xvii 23 ܬܪܛܘܢ‎ . If I have rightly conjectured, the word ܡܝܢ ܠܐ‎ was inserted in this way between Lk ix 17 and 18. A few letters have here and there been corrected by the first hand: instances occur Matt ix 20, xx 28, Mk 111 14. The only orthographical signs found in S, with the exception of (sic) in Mk xv 29, are the seydmé marks for the plural. These seem‏ ܐܘ hardly ever to have been dropped, though now the dots are often‏ illegible. In addition to their regular use over nouns they are used for‏ sometimes‏ ܐܙ ܡܝܢ the numerals and for the present participle, especially‏ Lk viii 56, and‏ ܢܐ ܡܪܘܢ they occur where they are not wanted, e.g.‏ 1 At the head of x1 1 r (Photograph 103) ܐܘܓܓܠܝܘܢ‎ is written, apparently by mistake. 30 Description of the MSS. even ܕܐܝܣܪܖ̈ܐܝܠ‎ Mk xv 32. The other dots usually found in Syriac 8 are absent, even the point which distinguishes the fem. suffix -dh from the masc. suffix -eh: eg. in S both leh ‘to him’ and lah ‘to her’ are written ol. In this S differs from C, which has the dot for the fem. sutix and sometimes also to distinguish am haw (‘that’) from ܗܘ‎ hi (‘he’)!. Neither in S nor C is there any sign to distinguish the various parts of the verb which are written with the same consonants. Titles, Subscriptions and Colophons in C and 8. The end of 8. Mark with the beginning of the following Gospel is preserved both in Cand S. We there read C S ܫܠܡ ܐܘܢܓܠܝܘܢ ܫܠܡ. ܐܘܢܓܠܝܘܢ̇‎ ܕܡܪܩܘܣ. ܝܨ. ܕܡܪܩܘܣ ܢܤ‎ 1 6:68: splat . ܐܘܢܓܠܝܘܢ ܕܠܘܩܐ. ܐܘܢܓ ܠܝܘܢ‎ Endeth Evangel Endeth Evangel of Mark. of Mark. en te Sica aware are: Evangel of Sohn. Evangel of Luke. Similarly, at the end of 8. Luke S has (at the bottom of a column) | ܫܠܡ ܐܘܢܓܠܝܘܢ | ܕܠܘܩܐ | ܐܘܢܓܠܝܘܢ ܕܝܘܚܢܢ‎ Endeth Evangel | of Lnke. | Evangel of John. | The beginning of 8. John’s Gospel no doubt stood at the head of the next left-hand column, but the leaf which contained it is unfortunately missing. These simple colophons, found both in @ and in S, differ from those in the codices of the Peshitta, which contain the peculiar phrase ܐܘܢܓܠܝܘܢ ܟܪܘܙܘܬܐ ܕ[ܠܘܩܐ] The Evangel, the preaching of [Luke].‏ 1 Hg. Matt ¥ 12 € Lk xv 4 € The point for the fem. suffix 844 is sometimes missed even in ¢ ag. ܠܪܚܿܡܬܗܿ ܘܠܫܒ̈ܒܬܗ‎ Lk xv 9. Colophon of 8. 31 This is not mere verbiage, but an attempt to render the Greek preposition kard. The Evangelion da-Mepharreshé had been content to render Evayyéuov kata Aoveav by Evangel or Luke, but the Peshitta wishes to emphasize the fact that it is not the ‘Gospel of Luke’ but the ‘Gospel according to Luke.’ Besides this, most codices of the Peshitta prefix ‘ Holy’ to ‘Gospel’ and add the reputed places where the several Gospels were composed, after the manner of many Greek minuscules}. The end of C is not preserved, but we read in S at the end of 8. John ܫܠܡ ܐܘܢܓܠܝܘܢ | ܕܡܦܪ̈ܫܐ ܐܪ̈ܒܥܐ | ܣܦܪ̈ܝܢ. ܫܘܒܚܐ | ܠܐܠܗܐ ܘܠ ܡܫܝܚܗ | ܘܠܪܘܚܗ ܩܕܝܫܬܐ | ܟܘܠ ܕܩܪܐ ܘܫܡܥ | ܘܢܛܪ sana‏ ܢܨܠܐ | ܥܠ ܚܛܝܐ shar‏ | ܐܠܗܐ ܒܖ̈ܚܡܘܗܝ | ܢܫܒܘܩ ܠܗ ?ܚܛܗܘܗܝ| ܒܬܪܝܗܘܢ cals‏ ¡ ܐܡܝܢ ܘܐܡܝܢ | . -o‏ | Endeth the Evangelion da-Mépharréshé, Four 0 Glory to God and to His Messiah and tv His holy Spirit. Every one that readeth and heareth and keepeth and doeth it pray for the sinner that wrote; (fod in His compassion forgive him his sins in both worlds. Amen and Amen. This colophon is noteworthy for two reasons. In the first place it distinctly describes S as a copy of the Evangelion da-Mepharreshe, the Evangel of (or, ‘according to’) the Separated, ie. the Gospels divided into the four volumes of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, and not mixed together as in the Diatessaron. The importance of this will be especially felt when we come to emend the not fully preserved title in C. But the way the Three Persons of the Trinity are mentioned is even more remarkable. It is not exactly unorthodox, for the co-ordination of the Three Persons by a simple AND was the watchword of orthodoxy +, but it is unusual to find the Holy Spirit treated as feminine in these 1 Matt is said to have been written in Hebrew in Palestine; Mk in Latin at Rome; Zk in Greek at Alexandria; John in Greek at Ephesus: see Gwilliam’s Tetraewangelium, pp. 194, 314, 478, 604. 2 The scribe apparently wrote ܢܛܘܗܘ ܗܝ‎ , by a slip of the pen. 3 That we should read sefrin ‘volumes,’ and not séfrin ‘scribes,’ is clear from the colophons to the Theophania in Lee’s ms (B.M. Add. 12150, dated 411 ap). Thus at the end of the Theophania we find ܝܫܠܡ ܠܡܦܬܒ ܚܡ̈ܫܐ ܣܦܪ̈ܝܢ ܕܐܪܘܣܒܣ‎ ie. Lndeth writing the Five Volumes of Husebius. 4 Compare Gibbon ii 382. 89 Description of the MSS. ascriptions of praise. The 8. Petersburg Codex of Eusebius's Ecclesias- tical History, dated ap 462, has (ed. Wright and M*Lean, p. 412): ܫܘܒܢܢܐ ܠ ܐܒܐ ܘܠܒܪ̈ܐ ܘܠܪܘܚܐ ܕܩܘܕܼܝܫܐ ܠܥܠܡ ܥܠܡܝܢ ܐܡܝܢ ܘܐܡܝܢ. wis‏ ܗܘ ܐܠܗܐ ܘܡܫܝܚܗ Awa‏ ܠܥܒܕܗ ܒܨܝܪܐ ܢܛܝܐ ܐܝܣܚܩ . . . . Glory be to the Father and to the Son and to the Holy Spirit for ever and ever, Amen and Amen. Blessed be God and His Messiah, who strengthened his servant. the wretched sinner Isaac...... . But not one of Mr Gwilliam’s Peshitta mss has anything like the doxology in S. Nevertheless I think we should do the scribe a wrong if we looked for the explanation of his language in any of the Greek heresies of the 4th century. It is rather an example of the conservatism of Syriac-speaking Christianity in its earlier stages. We may compare it with the great Creed of Aphraates (On Faith §19), where he speaks of belief in “God, the Lord of all,...Who sent of His Spirit in the Prophets, and then sent His Messiah into the world.” In this Creed, as in the colophon of S, we find the sacred names spoken of as ‘God’ and ‘ His Spirit’ and ‘His Messiah,’ instead of ‘the Father,’ ‘the Son,’ and ‘the Holy Spirit.’ But it is easy to see how such language would give offence after the epoch of Arian controversy. The unconventional terms in which the doxology of Sis couched can hardly be used to prove the formal heresy of the scribe, but they certainly suggest that the ms was written before the Christological disputes had greatly troubled the Syriac-speaking Church. In other words S is earlier than the 5th century. It is a singular fact that there seems to be no title in S to S. Matthew. The first two leaves are now missing, but they were probably intended as guards and left blank, as is usual in handsome mss. The Gospel of 8. Matthew begins on the verso of the third leaf, the recto of that leaf being entirely blank®. The ecto of the next leaf has ܕܡܬܝ‎ as a headline, so we should expect at least ܐܘܢܓܠܝܘܢ‎ as a headline on the preceding verso, but as a matter of fact nothing can be seen there and no re-agent has brought up any sign of a title. C, on 1 It is possible, of course, that this is a piece of intentional Nestorianism, and that the scribe Isaac really meant to distinguish between the Eternal Son and God’s Messiah. 2 Of course this leaf, which is numbered jo. 82 of the present ms, is now covered on both sides by the later writing. The title in C. 33 the other hand, has a title. It is unfortunately mutilated by two small holes, and before the term Evangelion da-Mepharreshe had. been well established as the native name of the ‘Old Syriac’ version some controversy had been raised as to the reading of the words and their interpretation. The title in C, as now preserved, 8 The writing is in vermilion ink which has turned silver through damp. There is no room for a complete letter between the second and third word, but as the first and the second are separated by a dot, it is almost certain that a dot stood also in the gap between the second and third. The dots over the middle of the first and third words are merely placed there for ornament, but the dot over the ܗ=‎ in the second word is unsymmetrical. It is therefore not placed for ornament but for use : we must therefore suppose that it is part of the plural sign (seydné). It is one of the peculiarities of the scribe of @ that he frequently avoids making the seyd@mé dots coalesce with the dot on a 4, ie. he was as likely to have written ܕܡܵܦ. ܪܫܐ‎ as the more regular form ܕܡܦܪ̈ܫܐ‎ 5 I have therefore no hesitation in restoring the title thus : ܐܘܢܓ ܠܝܘܢ : ܕܡܰܦܪܫܐܐ.] ܡܬܿܝ. Evangelion. da-Mépharréshé. Matthew.‏ The construction is the same as in the colophon of S, where we read “ Ev. da-Mepharreshe, Four Books,” not “ according to the Four.” Before it had been clearly made out that Hvangelion da-Mépharréshé was the name given by Syriac-speaking Christians to the Four Gospels as distinguished from the Diatessaron, it was supposed that ܕܡܦܪܵܫܐ‎ in the title to C had some special reference to ©, Matthew or to the Gospel of Matthew. But although the construction given above is certainly somewhat harsh there can be little doubt that it is correct, now that the Sinai Palimpsest definitely speaks of all four Gospels under the name of ܐܘܢܓܠܝܘܢ ܕܡܦܪ̈ܫܐ‎ 1 Eg. in Matt iii 5 C writes ܝܘܪܡܢܢ‎ waa 34 Description of the MSS. Note on the line and paragraph divisions in C and S. On pp. xx, xxi of the Syndics’ Edition a theory of the line and paragraph divisions in Cand S is briefly indicated by Mrs Lewis and Dr Rendel Harris, which, if well grounded, would have an important bearing on the history of the Gospel text in Syriac. I was unconvinced of the truth of the theory at the time, and subsequent investigations do not seem to bear it out: I will therefore very shortly put down the reasons why I consider the line-divisions of Syriac mss have no significance whatever, and why it is extremely improbable that any system of stichometry should have had a Syriac origin. Mrs Lewis says (p. xx), ‘‘ With regard to the punctuation, it is important to observe (with Mr Harris) that the division into paragraphs in our text and in the Cureton Ms is often identical. Not only so, but in many places there is a line for line agreement.” Twenty passages are then given in illustration. Mrs Lewis goes on to say (p. xxi): “Mr Harris says that the paragraphs are divided into short sentences by stops, which, where they can be traced in the palimpsest writing, agree frequently with the red stops in the Cureton ms. This shows us that the linear and colometric arrangement of the ms from which they were both taken, may be of very high antiquity.” Here there are three distinct theories indicated. S and C are said to shew a close resemblance in their division of the text (1) into Paragraphs, (2) mto Lines, (3) into Sentences or Clauses. Let us take these three theories in the reverse order. First, as to the Sentences or Clauses. It was assumed by Dr Rendel Harris that the red dots in C were by the first hand, or that they were at least part of the original contents of that ms. But it has been already shewn that this is not the case and that the dots were added after @ was a bound volume, perhaps many years after the codex had been written. Moreover these red dots occur very frequently, almost at every place where an English comma or higher stop would be set. It was therefore inevitable that their position should frequently agree with the points found in S, or indeed in any other Ms punctuated on a rational system. But they do not so frequently agree in anomalous punctuations ; and imperfectly as the punctuation of S is preserved, there are not wanting instances where S has a point though there is none in (. For instance, in Matt ii 9 S has a point after <uasas, but there is none in C. In Matt ii 13 S has “the angel of the Lorp appeared to Joseph in a dream, and said to him Arise,” but in C there is no stop after “dream” and in compensation there is a stop after “ said to him.” Similarly in Matt 1115 S has “spoken...by the mouth of Isaiah the prophet, who had said From Ligypt I have called my son,” while C has “ said...through the prophet who had said, From Egypt [ have called my son'.”” Other instances may be found in Lk viii 48 ܥܠܘܗܝ.‎ §, Lk ix 82 ܕܥܡܗ.‎ §, Lk ix 61 ܡܪܝ.‎ S, Lk xii 48 ܡܤܓܠܝ ̇ ܡܠܝ‎ 8 In all these places there is no stop in C corresponding to that in S. Yet on the whole there can be little doubt that the existing punctuation in Cis much fuller and more regular than that of S. I conclude therefore that they are practically independent. ± Tn Syriac ܢܒܐ ܕܐܡܪ ܗܘܐ ܡܢ ܡܨܪܝܢ ܩܪܝܬ ܠܒܪܝ܂‎ anew arn... ܕܐܬܡܠܠ‎ & wis\ ܘ ܕܐܬܐܡܪ.. ̣. ܒܝܕ ܢܒܝܐ ܕܐܡܪ ܗܘܐ. ܕܡܢ ܡܨܪܝܢ ܩܪܝܬ‎ Line divisions in Syriac MSS. 35 There are however a few cases where S and C agree in an interesting punctuation, notably in having a stop after ܘܠܫܬܐ‎ , at the end of Joh vii 87. In this they differ from the earlier Latin tradition, represented by the Epistle of the Churches of Vienne and Lyons, by Codex Bezae, by Cod. Palatinus (e) and by the Speculwm p. (700). According to this Latin interpretation, the first words of Joh vii 38 qui credit in me go with bibat at the end of the preceding verse, and the ‘living waters’ flow not from the believer but from Christ Himself. The fact that S and 0 have a stop at the end of ver. 37 shews that the Old Syriac Version rendered the verse as it is rendered in the English Bible and by the great majority of interpreters, ancient and modern. ‘The agreement of S and C in so widespread an interpretation proves very little as to the origin of their punctuation. As to the second point, the alleged agreement of S and C in their division into lines, it might seem suthicient to call to mind the great textual differences between these two mss. Sand C differ on matters of such fundamental importance, that it is difficult to believe that there can be any significance in their occasional agreement in the division of the text into lines. But the matter does not rest upon general probabilities. We have to consider the nature of Syriac script and its important differences from Greek script. Greek mss of the 4th and 5th centuries were written with no spaces between the words, and no scruple was felt about dividing the words at the end of a line. Thus the number of words in a line varied greatly, but the number of syllables was approximately constant, e.g. cod. & averages about six syllables in a line, cod. B about seven or eight. In a pair of such Mss it would be exceedingly improbable that the lines should coincide. There are so many ways of lawfully dividing most Greek words that marked examples of coincidence for several lines together could not be regarded as the result of a mere accident. But Syriac writing is quite different. The words are separated by spaces, as in modern English, and they are never divided at the end of a line. Consequently the average number of syllables in a short Syriac line varies very greatly, but the average number of words is constant. Now S and C, like all other known early Syriac Mss, are written in short lines, with only three words on the average to a line. Whenever there- fore they start level, as at the beginning of a paragraph, there is every probability that they will go on agreeing line for line, unless an actual variation in text occurs, such as the omission of one or two words. For example, to take the first passage on Mrs Lewis’s list, it is true that both S and C give Matt ¥ 3 thus :— ܒܪܘܚܗܘܢ ܕܕܝܠܗܘܢ ܗܝ ܡܠܦܘܬܐ ܕܫܡܝܐ Lo:‏ But how otherwise should the lines be divided? If the scribe did not end the first line at ܠܡܣܵܦܢ̈ܐ‎ he would have to get ~amvoi into the space. And indeed, as if to shew that this line-division in Syriac Mss is a matter of absolute indifference, we find the very same division of this verse in such codices of the Peshitta as B.M. Add. 17117, although naturally B.M. Add. 17117 reads ܒܘܚ‎ instead of ܒܪܘܚܗܘܢ‎ , Moreover, when once the line-agreement of S and C is disturbed, it remains disturbed, e.g. in Matt ¥ 10 we have 36 Description of the MSS. ܠ C‏ ܛܘܒ̈ܝܢܗܘܢ ܠ ܐܝܥܠܝܢ ܛܘܒܝܗܘܢ ܠ ܐܝܠܝܢ ܕܪܕܝܦܝܢ ܕܪ̈ܕܝܦܝܢ ܡܛܠ ܙܕܝܩܘܬܐ ܡܛܠ hoon‏ ܕܕܝܠܗܘܢ ܕܕܝܠܗܘܢ ܗܝ ܡܠܦܘܬܐ ܗܝ ܡܠܦܘܬܐ ܕܫܡܝܐ ̇ܘܼܿ. ܕܫܡܝܐ ܘ . The fact that S and C often take exactly the same number of lines to get through three or four verses is thus merely another way of stating that the lines in each ms are of much the same breadth, but the nature of Syriac script robs this circumstance of the significance which it might have had in a pair of Greek mss. I have therefore not thought it worth while in this edition to keep any record of the line-divisions either of S or of ¢ Had the occasional agreement of S and @ in their division of the text into lines possessed the significance suggested by Mrs Lewis, we should have been compelled to regard SN and C as direct descendants of the same exemplar. Besides this, it would have been reasonable to assume that these agreements were intentional and that they had something to do with an early system of Syriac stichometry. Dr Harris had found at Sinai a 9th cent. ms of miscellaneous contents which contained among other reckonings an enumeration of the number of <S:\ he in the Four Gospels. Now there are two systems of reckoning found in various Greek mss of the Gospel; we have enumerations sometimes of the or/xor, sometimes of the pyyara, sometimes of both. A ܘܐܗ‎ is a line of a given length, or rather of a given average number of syllables, e.g. a half-hexameter. If therefore the number of e7éyou in a work is known, und the number of lines in « column be constunt, it is easy by counting the number of columns at once to ascertain whether a Ms is approximately complete. In fact, the use of the numeration of o7ixor (Lat. wersus) is to guard the buyers of books against fraud. The meaning of fyyara in enumerations is not so clear. The word ܧܦܬܠ ܡܐ‎ may stand either for oréyos or pyya, and Dr Harris brought forward a theory, which found many supporters, that in the case before us ܦܬܓܡ̈ܐ‎ was a translation of ܕܬ )ܐܗ‎ and pyyara a retranslation of ܦܬܓܡ̈ܐ‎ In other words, the Greek enumeration of oriyou had been adapted to the Syriac version and the numbers so transformed had been retranslated into Greek under the name of pypara. An additional confirmation of the theory seemed to come from the presence of certain readings which agreed with the Old Syriac in the ‘Ferrar group’ of Greek mss, and the ‘Ferrar group’ were among the mss that contained the reckoning of pypata!, Attractive as this theory appears at first sight, it breaks down under close examin- ation from the Syriac side. If the pyyara system had a Syriac origin it must obviously have been a system intended for the ‘Old Syriac,’ ie. the Hvangelion du-Mepharreshe. The coincidences noted by Dr Harris between the Ferrar group and Syriac readings were with readings of the Leangelion da-Mepharreshe or of Tatian’s Diatessaron, not of the Peshitta. But the Syriac mss which contain the ܧܦܬܓܡ̈̈ܐ‎ are all of them late—the earliest witness is not anterior to the 9th century—and in at least two cases these lists contain figures for the full Greek Canon of the seven Catholic Epistles, a circumstance 1 J. R. Harris, On the origin of the Ferrar Group (1893), pp. 9, 17 fh Paragraph divisions in S and 4 37 which suggests a Greek origin for the whole system’. Moreover early Syriac mss, and especially S and C, are singularly ill adapted to form the basis of stichometrical caleula- tions. Neither in S nor in @ are horizontal lines ruled for writing, so that the number of lines in a column, even in parallel columns on the same page, varies considerably, and to ascertain the number of lines occupied by either of the Gospels in ¢ or Cit would be necessary to inspect each page of the ms. The fyara system appears in some Latin mss of the Vulgate about the same time as the earliest evidence for it in Syriac: the same reckonings seem to underlie the famous 4th century Cheltenham List, so that pyyata might equally well bea translation of wersus as of ܧܦܬܓܡ̈ܐ‎ , But whatever be the origin of these fyyara there is no tangible evidence to connect them with the Hvungelion da-Mephurreshe ; ov the contrary, there are many indications that the scribes of S and C were not familiar either with the pypara or any other system of stichometry. With regard to the third point raised by Mrs Lewis, viz. the division of S and C into paragraphs, the evidence is not as clear as might be wished. ‘here would be every probability that the paragraph system in a pair of mss such as S and C’ should go back, in part at least, to a common origin. But here again we are hampered by the ambiguity of Syriac writing. Both in S and in Ca fresh paragraph starts at the beginning of a line. The preceding line will in many cases be short, and the end of the paragraph is thus clearly marked either by the blank space at the end of the short line or bya stop. When the end of a paragraph happened to occur at the end of a full line it seems to have been the general intention of the scribes to leave a blank space, e.g. after Matt xiii 43S. But this blank space is not always left. When therefore the end of a paragraph comes at the end of a line it is often impossible to determine whether the next line was intended to begin a new paragraph or not. ‘This happens very frequently, for on the average there are only three words to a line. In something like one case out of ten therefore the same word will end a line both in /¥ and in C, whether a paragraph be intended to end there or not. And if a word is known to end the line in the one ms, the chances are one to two that it will also end the line in the other. This being the case it needs clear instances of agreement in quite peculiar divisions to prove that the paragraphs in S and C belong to the same system. Now as a matter of fact S and C very often do not agree in their paragraph divisions. If we take from Matt i1 to vi 10 (where S breaks off owing to the loss of a couple of leaves) we find that paragraphs clearly end in C, but not in S, before Matt ii 14 (Now Joseph arose...) 16 (Then Herod, when he saw...) 22 (Now when Joseph heard...) iii 1 (And in those days came John the Baptist...) iv 17 (From then Jesus began to preach...) 21 (And when he removed thence...) v 25 (Be agreed with thy adversary...) 48 (Become therefore perfect...) 1 See the Note by the present writer on the Gospel pyyara found in Syriac mss (Journ. of Theol. Studies, ii 429 tf). 38 Description of the MSS. On the other hand paragraphs end in S, but not in C, before Matt iv 1 (‘Then Jesus was led by the Spirit...) 25 (And when there was a great multitude...) ¥+ 31 (It hath been said ‘He that leaveth his wife....’) 43 (Ye have heard that it hath been said...) vi 9” (Our Father in heaven...) It will hardly be denied that here we have considerable variation. It is indeed quite surprising that S should not make Matt iii 1 begin a paragraph and that C should not make Matt iv 1 begin a paragraph’. Much the same state of things is to be found in other parts of the Gospels. For instance Lk xii 32 begins a paragraph in C, but not in S; on the other hand, Joh viii 12 begins in Con the same line as the last words of vii 52, but in S there is a fresh paragraph. ‘These grave divergences suggest that the systems of paragraph division in S and C may have been developed quite independently* In conclusion I will quote some words of Mr G. H. Gwilliam upon the paragraph divisions in Mss of the Peshitta, which have a real bearing upon the question before us. Mr Gwilliam says “evidence of the independence of these mss [of the Peshitta] appears in the different arrangement of the paragraphs of the sacred text in the different copies. In some the paragraphs are numerous; in others few, and differently placed. For example, in S. Matt x the Cod. 14459 makes a break in our Lord’s discourse at the end of verse 10, and seems to stand alone in so doing. In 0. xi it makes its division at the end of verse 1, thus not so distinctly connecting the message of the Baptist with the preaching of Christ recorded in verse 1, as do other authorities. And similarly in other Mss divisions are constantly made, more or less arbitrarily, according to the fashion of some scribe or school” (Studiw Biblicu 1 166). “ Besides the formal sections, the text is often interrupted in the best mss, where the sense requires a break; and these paragraphs are often made with much judgement” (Studia Biblicu 1181). If even the mss of the Peshitta Gospels shew independence in their paragraph divisions we shall not be surprised if the mss of the Hvangelion da-Mepharreshe exhibit wide divergence. 1 It is perhaps worth notice that the Latin Cod. Bobiensis (4) has no fresh paragraph at Matt iii 1, although like S it has a fresh paragraph at the Puter noster. But elsewhere S and & do not exhibit much in common in their system of text division. 2 The chief instance of marked agreement between S and @ in this matter is the division of each Beatitude in Matt ¥ into a separate paragraph. Each parable in Matt xiii is similarly divided. ܫܡܝܐ ܕܢܐܟܘܠ ܐܐ ܡܢܗܟ ܘܢܡܘܬ ܐܢܝܐܕܐܢܐ 7 39 ܕܐܐ ܐܙܬܠ ans‏ 18 ܬܘ ܠܨܝܢ ܗܘܘ ܝܗܘܕܝܐ soaks‏ ; < ܐܡܝܐ ܐܡܪܝܢ A 00d)‏ ܗܘܐ ܗܢܐ ܝܩܠ Copex © fol. 49x (Joh vi 41--68(. e with a small black dot at the end of a paragraph, but no other punctuation. 0 x i eat 00 A aN eae 1 Sak RS nar AN ad PN had ste 4 Copex C, fol. 48v (Joh vi 30—41). A page with a headline and corrections, but no punctuation dots CHAPTER IT. GRAMMAR AND SYNTAX. GRAMMATICAL PECULIARITIES OF S AND C. Ir was long the fate of the ‘Curetonian’ to be praised for its defects and slighted for its merits, and in no point was this treatment more marked than in the matter of its grammatical features. The defenders of its antiquity too often based their case upon points of grammar and spelling which C’ shares with ancient Peshitta mss, while many of the real peculiarities have remained hardly noticed to this day. Even more absurd was the contention that the ‘Curetonian’ was older than the Peshitta on the ground that the rougher and less polished version, as the ‘Curetonian’ was declared to be, must on this ground have preceded the more regular and grammatical. It is true that the Peshitta follows Greek idiom much more closely than its rival, though without the pedantic servility of the Harclean ; and this circumstance undoubtedly renders it extremely unlikely that it should be older than the text represented by Cureton’s ms. But it will be well at the outset clearly to state that neither the text of the Curetonian nor that of the Sinai Palimpsest can be described as in any degree barbarous or uncultured. Apart from a few corruptions in the text, such as might befal mss of Demosthenes or Cicero, both S and C are written in the most idiomatic Syriac. Our two mss are themselves very ancient, and the text which they present is doubtless much more ancient still ; hence the transmitted text of the Evangelion da-Mepharreshe is full of peculiarities of grammar and spelling which are hardly to be met elsewhere in Syriac literature, or are found only in the oldest and best preserved works. But there is no question of dialectical variety or of rustic idiom. On the contrary, every indication shews that the translator of the Evangelion da- Mepharreshe used the vernacular Syriac of Edessa with the simplicity 40 Grammar and Syntax. and ease which come only from literary training, coupled (as one is tempted to add) with the prevalence of a sound standard of taste. Few prose translations surpass the Hvangelion da-Mepharreshe in literary excellence. In this chapter I have followed the order of the sections of Noldeke’s Syriac Grammar, noting the more important peculiarities under each section. In transliterating I have used Greek letters for the . ܒ ܓ ܕ ܟ ܦ ܬ aspirated sounds of‏ Spelling. Sand Care on the whole regular in spelling apart from words where the form is really different from that generally found. [Noldeke §4.]| ܟܘܠ‎ and ܡܛܘܠ‎ occur frequently for ܟܠ‎ and ܡܛܠ‎ especially when there is plenty of space in the line. On the other hand S often writes ܠܩܕܡ‎ , (aol, ܠܩܒܠܗ‎ (Matt xxvii 61), at the end of a line ܐܘܪܚܐ‎ is three times written ܐܪܺܚܝܝܐ‎ (Mk x 32, Lk xix 36, Joh xiv 6)', and we even find ܬܬܒܘܢ‎ for ܬܬܘܒܘܢ‎ in Lk xiii 3. In this point C is more regular, though ܐܪܺܫܠܶܡ‎ is found for ܐܘܪܺܫܠܡ‎ in C, e.g. Lk xiii 4 (at the end of a line). The defective spelling ܘܐܫܛܘ‎ Matt xxii 19 S (sve, for (ܘܐܘܫܛܘ‎ must be a mere slip of the pen?. [ Noldeke §35.| Radical ܐ‎ is not unfrequently dropped in S, and sometimes also in C, when the letter is practically unpronounced. Thus we find ܦ ܦܝܐ‎ in Matt xxiv 2 S, Mk xiii 2 S, Lk viii 51 S, Lk xii 41 C ete., and in Seven Aq for ܢܐܙܠ‎ in Lk [ii 15, and | ix 51. In Lk xiv 16 C, Joh vii 31 C, Joh xviii 2 S ܣ̈ܓܝܐ‎ occurs for ܣ̈ܓܝܐܐ‎ at the end of a line. But the insertion of ܐܙ‎ in such words as ܬܐܥܠܘܢ‎ , Lols, never occurs either in S or C, with the single exception of ܡܓܐܪ | ܓܐܪ‎ Lk xvi 18 S, where the intrusive ܐ‎ in the first word is perhaps only due to a slip? The curious form ܡܝܝܐܘܬܐ‎ 04 in Mk iii 11, Lk x 34S, is noticed below on Néldeke $77. 1 yAed occurs Matt xx 30 in Mr Gwilliam’s cod. 36. 2 The same ix probably true of ܘܢܥܠ‎ for ܘܢܥܘܠ‎ in Joh x 98. It is noteworthy that many of the words from which a ܘ‎ is dropped in S are words in which another a occurs. Misspellings of another kind are ܦܘܬܘܢܝܢ‎ Mk vi9 Sand ܥܘܠܘܒܘܬ̇ܕ‎ Mk vii 93 8. 5 This incorrect insertion of ܐܡ‎ is not much found before the 9th century and then only in Jacobite mss, e.g. Cod. Crawfordianus 2 of the 12th cent. Along with many other late and in- correct forms it found its way into early editions of the Peshitta. Spelling. 41 [Noldeke § 50 B.] The unpronounced a and ܝ‎ at the ends of words are very rarely left out in Sand C. In Joh iv7 Chas A om, but the correct spelling A 55 is found in v. 10 and in S?/,. The majority of the mss of syr.vg have ܠܝ‎ sm: probably the phrase was regarded as a single word. In Matt xiv 16 ܗܒܘ ܠܗܘܢ‎ is correctly written in all the mss. [Noldeke §51.] Prosthetic ܐ‎ before r is common both in S and in C, eg. in Matt i 5 ‘Ruth’ is spelt ܐܪܶܥܘܬ‎ in C, while S has hast. In Joh xx 12 the curious phrase for ‘at the foot-place’ is written ܡܢ ܐܕ̈ܓܠܐ‎ in S, ie. min arydlé. In the Peal of ܪܰܟܒ‎ ‘to ride’ we find ܘܐܪܟܝܒ.‎ Matt xxi 5 Cand ,wals ܘܐܪܟܒ.‎ Mk xi7 8. This use of prosthetic ܐ‎ even after a explains the spelling of ܘܐܪܥܘܬܐ‎ Lk 1 14S: ܐܪܥܘܬܐ‎ (=ctdoxia) was probably so spelt in this passage in order more effectually to distinguish it from Whas4, 1. .ܘ‎ × 4 ‘shepherds,’ a word which occurs four times in the immediate context}. It may be mentioned here that S has ܐܪܶܩܘܥܬܐ‎ in Matt ix 16 and ܪܩܘܥܬܐ‎ in Mk i 21 for the word which is usually spelt hasta ‘a patch.’ In each case S is supported by Gwilliam’s cod. 23 and some other evidence. C' is not extant in either place. In Matt vii 13 C has esata (hiat S), but Mr Gwilliam has adopted ܘܐܪܘܝܚܐ‎ on excellent authority. Pronouns. [Noldeke § 63.] assarv is the form commonly used both in S and in C. ti» only seems to occur twice in S, viz. Lk vii 20, xix 14, but it is found more often in C) e.g. Matt xix 27, xx 18, xxi 16; Lk xi 4. [Néldeke §64.] The contracted forms of the Ist pers. sing. mase. such as atm’, Miss, are more common both in S and in C’ than the uncontracted forms ܒܥܐ ܐܢܐ , ܐܡܪ ܐܢܐ‎ . In the fem. we find ܝܕܥܢܐ‎ Joh xi 22 S, Joh xx 14 S, but ܝܕܥܐ ܐܢܐ‎ Joh xi 24 S: either form is of course pronounced ydd‘dnd?, while the masc. is yddsaind. ܡܗܝܡܢܐ ܐܢܐ‎ occurs Joh xi 27 8. 1 The pronunciation of hana I suppose to have been ard: comp. my) Ezr ¥ 17, vii 18, and in Syriac haze. 2 So also hw amd A* 365, agreeing with S, but A? has ܪܘܒܥܬܐ‎ 3 Mr Gwilliam edits ܝܕܥܐܐ ܠܐܡ‎ in Joh xi 24, wet efx, in Joh xx 14, B. Il. 6 42 Grammar and Syntax. In the 2nd sing. mase. the forms with ܐܢܬ‎ written separately are almost universal. As exceptions I have noted ܝܕܥܬ‎ Matt xv 12 6 ܨܒܝܬ‎ Matt xix 21 S (middle of line), ܐܡܪܬ‎ Lk xxii 60 S, ܚܟܡܬ‎ Lk xxiv 18S, ܒܥܝܬ‎ Joh iv 27 S ܒܥܬ)‎ C), ܫܐܠܬ‎ Joh xi 22S; ܚܙܬ‎ in Lk vii 44 S appears to be a scribe’s blunder for de, similar to that made by Cin Joh iv 27. In C ܩܪܺܝܬ‎ occurs Lk x 26 and ܚܝܒܬ‎ Lk xvi 5. But in the 2nd sing. fem. the rule is reversed: S never has the separated form and @ only twice. We find ܕܨܒܝܬܝ‎ Matt xv 28 S ܨܒܝܬܝ ,)0 ܕܨܒܝܐ ܐܢܬܝ)‎ Matt xx 21 S (due ܨܒܝܐ‎ 0 sic); ܐܡܪܶܬܝ‎ Matt xxvi 70 S, Mk xiv 68 S: ܫܪܺܝܬܝ‎ (pass. part.) Lk xiii 12 ® C and Pesh., ܝܕܥܬܝ‎ Lk xix 41 SC and Pesh. In Matt xxiii 87 S, Lk xii 34 S C we find ܕܩܛܠܬ ܝ . . ܘܪܶܓܡܬܝ‎ but C has aliios, just as ܐܢܬ‎ is written in C for ܐܢܬܝ‎ in Matt xi 23, xx 21, an error which occurs again twice in Joh iv 10 C ܗܘܝܬ)‎ WAcz...duam ean). It is not unlikely that ܝܨ ܦܬܝ‎ in Lk x 41 Cis a corruption of ܝܝ ܦܬ ܝ‎ Le. ydspat ‘thou ) 71 ( art anxious.’ The forms ܗܘ‎ am and asam are about equally common. am is never written enclitically after participles. [Noéldeke §66.] The irregular forms of the verbal suffixes will be found under the verbs. [ Néldeke §67.] ܗܢܐ ܗܘ‎ and ܗܢܘ‎ are about equally common. In C am hau sometimes has the ordinary point, e.g. ܝܘܡܐ‎ ams Matt ¥ 12, aco ܡܢ‎ LE xvii 14. The rare and ancient form wala is found in Matt xv 22 ¢ xx 9 C, xxi 40 C, xxii 7 C; Lk vill 13 S C, xii 37 C; Joh iv 38, 43 C (lat ©. Except in Lk vii 13, S where extant has in each case ܗܢܘܢ‎ for ܗܠܘ‎ It appears to be used with no distinction of meaning and ܗܢܘܢ‎ occurs in @ side by side with ,ܗܠܘܟ‎ e.g. 1 Matt xx 10. The fem. ܗܠܝܟ‎ occurs Matt xv 24 CS. [Noldeke §68.] ܡܢܘ‎ is frequently written for ܡܢ‎ and am ܡܢ‎ and also for ܡܢܐ ܗܘ‎ both in Sand ¢ ܡܢ ܗܝ‎ is written » in S where- ever it occurs, vz. Matt xii 48, Mk 111 33, Lk vii 39: this spelling is apparently unknown elsewhere in Syriac? 1 931 and 59 are both found in the Babylonian Talmud, as in the story of Rabbi Chasda (Shabb. 140b), who said to his daughters, ‘‘When any one knocks at the door 5 nds ܡܙ‎ won xd, ie. do not say ‘Who is there?’ as if to a man, but as if to a woman.” Plural Forms of Nouns. 43 Nouns. [Néldeke §71, 4.] The fem. pl. emph. of ܗܓܝܐܐ‎ is generally spelt ܣܗܓܝܐ̈ܬܐ‎ in S as in all other Syriac mss. But in Lk xxii 65 the word is very distinctly written ܣܘܓܝܐܝܬܐ‎ 1, This might represent a pro- nunciation saggtydéa (instead of saggt’d0d), but it is probably a mere ship of the pen. [Noldeke §74.] The plural of ܫܠܝܛܐ‎ is uniformly ܫܠܝ̈ܛܢܐ‎ when used as a substantive, including Lk xii 11 S. But as a predicate we find ܫܠܝܛܝܢ‎ in Matt xx 25 C (haat S) and in Lk xx 25 S: in the last passage Chas even ܫ̈ܠܝܛܐ‎ . In Mk iii 15 S has ܡܫܠܛܝܢ‎ [ Noldeke §77.] The plural of ܡܢܝܘܬܐ‎ ‘wound’ should be ܡܚܚ̈ܘܬܐ‎ ie. mahwd0d, as in Lk x 84 C, vi 21 SC, xii 48 SC. But S in Mk iii 11, Lk x 34, has ܡܚ ܐ̈ܘܬܐ‎ , ie. m’hawdd, like s’lawd6d from $7004 ‘prayer.’ That it was not treated as masc. appears from the context of Lk x 34S, where we read... pols ira ܒ ܡܚ ܐܘ̈ܬܗ‎ The grammatical interest of this form, thus doubly attested for S, is that it throws some doubt upon the complete sufficiency of the grammatical tradition of the Syrians. Ancient Syriac Mss are not vocalised, and the grammatical traditions upon which our Syriac grammars are based is essentially a series of directions for the pronunciation of the Bible in Church. In the same way the Massoretic vocalisation of the Hebrew text gives the Synagogue chant. But these official schemes do not allow for all varieties of pronunciation and they have a tendency to reduce what was varied and fluid in the living language to the uniformity of a cast-iron pattern. Many of the niceties of Syriac grammar depend on the vocalisation alone, and divergent forms may be hid under the regular consonantal spelling of ancient MSS. Thus in the present case ܡܚܘ̈ܬܐ‎ may repre- sent equally well mahwdéd and mhawdéd. But ܡܢܝܐ̈ܙܘܬܐ‎ cannot stand for mahwdéd ; there must be with this spelling a vowel between / and w. But if the scribe of S spelt the word ܡܥܚܐ̈ܘܬܐ‎ in Mk iii 11 and Lk x 34, he probably pronounced ܡܢܚܝܘ̈ܬܐ‎ as mhawdbd in Lk xii 48 1 See facsimile to the Syndics’ Edition, last line of col. a. 44 Grammar and Syntax. and elsewhere. It would be interesting to trace the usage of this word and others of the same sort in the earlier poets. [Noldeke §79 B.| The plural of ܠܒܐ‎ in S Cis whaal, except in Lk xxi 13 (14) where both mss have ܒܠܒܝܟܘܢ‎ [Noldeke § 87.1 ܡܠܬܐ‎ ‘ word’ is always fem. in the Hvangelion da- Mepharreshe. By a usage which derived its authority from Theology rather than Grammar, the Peshitta always makes ܡܠܬܐ‎ masc. when it means ‘the Word’ in the Johannine sense. SS is unfortunately missing for the opening verses of the Fourth Gospel, but in C, supported by Aphraates and by Ephraim, we read ܘܐܓܢܬ ܒܢ‎ ham ܡܠܬܐ ܦܓܪܐ‎ ‘the Word became a body and She sojourned with us®.’ So also in the Acts of Thomas 241 we find ܡܠܬܐ ܡܪܬ ܟܠ‎ ° the Word, Mistress of all.’ ‘spirit’ is also fem. in S and C. In the Peshitta it is‏ ܪܘܚܝܐ frequently treated as masc. when it means the Holy Spirit. But‏ the Holy Spirit is fem. in S and C: even in Joh xiv we find‏ vat ‘the Spirit, the Paraclete...She‏ ܕܝܢ ܦܪܩܠܛܐ . . . ܗܝ ܬܠܦܟܘܢ will teach you?” That this usage was not wholly a matter of‏ grammatical inflexion, but had also an influence in theological teaching‏ is clear from Aphraates 354, where that ancient writer asserts that the‏ Father and Mother whom a man leaves when he marries a wife are God‏ and the Holy Spirit.‏ In one passage, ܪܘܚܐ ܛܢܦܐ‎ acl Lk viii 29 S C, an unclean spirit is treated as masc., but probably in this passage sat is a correction for ܫܐܕܐ‎ ‘devil’: 7@ Samoviw instead of ܐ‎ mvevpate is read in D and in e of the Old Latin‘. The word ܫܡܝܐ‎ is used in Syriac both as sing. and plur. for ‘heaven’ and ‘heavens,’ and in the sing. it is sometimes masc. and 1 Alone of course it would be in any case a word of three syllables. But the spelling of ¥ would be greatly supported if an instance of ܕܡ ܐܢܘܬܐܕ‎ or <haiisa\ could be found where the verse required four syllables. Possibly the irregular spelling indicates that the third radical still had some consonantal force. The root is ND for ,/ YND, corresponding to as. and YN. ? For the exact meaning of ܐܓܢܬ ܒܢ‎ see the Note on the passage. 3 Cis here partly defective but ܗܝ ܬܠܦܟܦܘܢ‎ is clear. ± In Joh iii 6 C adds at the end of the verse ܡܛܘܠ ܕܐܠܗܐ ܪܘܚܐ ܗܘ . ܘܡܢ ܐܠܗܐ .ܐܬܝܠܕ.‎ But § has only ܢܐܐ‎ am ܡܛܠ ܕܐܠܗܐ ܪܘܢܚܵܐ‎ ‘because God is a living (m.) Spirit.’ The word way is unfortunately not very clear, but I think it is correctly read, otherwise we might conjecture aia, In any case it is a sentence where a feminine adjective would be very harsh. ‘Word, ‘Spirit, ‘Heaven.’ 45 sometimes fem. In S and C ܫܡܝܐ‎ is always 11886. pl. when it is the subject of a verb. The ‘ heavens’ are opened (Matt 111 16, Lk in 24) or are shut (Lk iv 24), and ‘ they’ are the throne of God (Matt v 34): in the last instance syr.vg has the sing. masc. But in other cases ܫܡܝܐ‎ is sing. masce. in S and sing. fem. in C. Thus the phrase “from one end of the world to the other” is rendered Mk xii 27 S‏ ܡܢ ܪܫܗ ܕܐܪܥܐ ܥܕܡܐ ܠܪܶܫܗ ܕܫܡܝܐ Lk xvii 24 8‏ ܡܢ ܪܫܘܗܝ ܕܫܡܝܐ ܘܥܕܡܐ ܠܪܫܗ Here as elsewhere S does not insert the diacritic point which distin- guishes résheh (m.) from réshdh (f.), but the suffix of ܪܫܘܗܝ‎ in the second passage shews that ܫܡܝܐ‎ is treated as masc. In Mk C 8 missing, but we find Lk xvii 24C‏ ܡܢ ܪܫܐ ܕܫܡܝܐ ܘܥܕܡܐ ܠܗܘ̈ܦܝܗ in which ܫܡܢܐ‎ is sing. fem. In Matt xi 25 ® C and syr.vg (with syr.vg also in Lk x 21) ‘Lord of heaven and earth’ is rendered ܕܫܡܝܐ ܘܕܐܪܥܐ‎ WI, whereby the gender of ܫܡܝܐ‎ is not indicated ; in Lk x 21 S and C* have ܕܫ ܘܕܐ‎ atm, but a corrector of C has added a dot in red over the om, thereby making ܫܡܝܐ‎ fem. Elsewhere the gender and number of ܫܡܝܐ‎ is carefully left indeterminate. The ‘kingdom of God’ is sometimes ܡܠܟܘܬܐ ܕܐܠܗܐ‎ sometimes ܡܠܟܘܬܗ ܕܐܠܗܐ‎ , but the ‘kingdom of Heaven’ is always ܡܠܟܘܬܐ ܕܫܡܝܐ‎ , except in the few instances where the construct state is used, an idiom which also leaves the gender and number of ܫܡܝܐ‎ doubtful? Neither ܡܠܟܘܬܗ ܕܫܡܝܐ‎ nor ܡܠܟܘܬܗܘܢ ܕܫܡܝܐ‎ ever occurs in Syriac literature, so far as I know. Similarly the Birds of Heaven are ܦܪ̈ܚܬܐ ܕܫܡܝܐܙ‎ Matt vi 26, viii 20, etc.; the Clouds of Heaven are ܥܠܥ̈ܝ ܫܡܝܐ‎ Matt xxiv 30 S, xxvi 64 S, or ܕܫܡܝܐ‎ iis Mk xiv 898 ; the Angels of Heaven are ܡܠܐ̈ܟܐ ܕܫܡܝܐ‎ , or ܡܠܐܟܝ ܫܡܝܐ‎ Matt xxiv 36, or ܥܝܪ̈ܝ ܫܡܝܐ‎ Lk xv 10 A; and the Powers of Heaven are ܚܝܠܘܬܐ ܕܫܡܝܐ‎ Matt xxiv 29 8, Mk xiii 25 S (sic)3, or ܚܺܝܠܝܐ ܕܫܡܝܐ‎ Lk xxi 268 € It is worthy of note that the construction of ܫܡܝܐ‎ is the same for 1 ܪܝܫܗ‎ (so I read the photograph) : S* has v<~z5, In this verse syr.vg makes ܝܡܐܪ‎ fem. sing. 2 .ܘܢܝܐ‎ hhaslss occurs Matt vii 21 ¢ xiii 52,8, xviii 3 4221, xix 23 ¢ A399. 3 Not ܚܝܠܘܬܗ‎ as S. Syr.vg has ܙܰܢܺܝܠ ܐܕ‎ in Matt and Lk, hola in Mk. 46 Grammar and Syntax. rendering ovpavds and ovpavoit. Thus in the Greek of Matt ili 16 the word is plural; in the parallel passage Lk 111 21, in Lk iv 24, and in Matt v 34, the word is used in the singular. The word ܣܘܟܬܐ‎ ‘branch,’ pl. Made, is not marked in Néldeke § 87 as of common gender. But both in Matt xxiv 32 and in Mk xiii 28 Shas ܣܘ̈ܟܝܗ‎ asia ܡܐ‎ ‘when its branches have become tender.’ C unfortunately is not extant for either passage, and in Matt xxiv 32 syr.vg has wi, Le. fem. pl. This is also the reading adopted by Mr Gwilliam in Mk xiii 28, but the Nestorian Massora (Mas. 1), with one of the Jacobite Massoretic codices (Mas. 4) and three ancient mss (7 11 21) all read aad as in S (src), thereby making ܣܘܦܬܐ‎ mase. in the plural. [Néldeke §98 c.] ܟܝܢ‎ occurs Matt i 19 S and ܟܐܢ‎ Joh ¥ 30C. ܟܢܘܬܐ‎ and chairs are about equally common, as is usually the case in ancient Syriac MSS. [Noldeke §100.] For ,ܡܚܝܐܘܬܐ‎ see on Noldeke §77. [Néldeke §103.] ܡܢ ܪܘܚܩ‎ occurs Mk vii 3 S, Lk xvi 23 8. The absolute and construct of ܪܘܚܩܐ‎ are otherwise unknown. On the analogy of star and star, we may suppose the pronunciation to have been ruhag. [Noldeke §117.] sats Matt viii 12 S must be a mere scribal error for pitas, like ܣܥܘܪܢܟܝ‎ Lk xix 44 S for ܣܘܥܪܙܟܥܝ‎ . [Néldeke § 127*.] For the formation of ܐܪܥܘܬܐ‎ (=evdoxia) Lk ii 14 S, see on Noldeke § 51. [ Néldeke §128 a.] sastasmo Lk xix 44 S must be a scribal error for ܣܘܥܪܢܟܝ‎ . The very peculiar rendering »ahast for rhs ܡܗ )ܬ*¢‎ $ gov is attested by 0 and Aphraates 412, and it is possible that the misspelling in S may come from an unskilful correction in its exemplar. [Noldeke § 135.) The words for ‘Galilee’ and ‘Galilaean’ are irregular in S. In C, as in other Syriac documents, ܓܠܝܠܐ‎ is ‘ Galilee,’ ‘a man of Galilee’ But in Matt xxvi 69, Mk xiv 70, Lk xxii 59, S has ܓܠܝܠܐ‎ for ‘Galilaean.’ The plural is spelt willy. in Lk xii 1, 2, and also in Lk xvii 11 apparently. To make the irregularity yet more conspicuous S has ܓܠܝܠܝܐ‎ in Lk xxiii 5, 6, for ` Galilee.’ [Noldeke § 145.] The possessive suffixes to Nouns offer in S no peculiarities, but the spelling ,asssa\h occurs in C twice (Matt xi 2, ‘Abba, Father, 47 Joh iv 8) for ܬܠܡ̈ܝܕܘܗܝ‎ This spelling is also found in most varieties of Palestinian Aramaic, so that possibly it was once not uncommon in Edessene. [| Noldeke § 146 : the anomalous Nouns. | is usual both‏ ܐܒܝ ordinary form for ‘my father,’ viz.‏ ܘ{ ܐܒܐ in Sand C. But in Matt x 32 C,xv 13 S, Lkii49 C, Joh vi 32 C, we‏ although no Greek ms omits pov. In Matt vi 4 S also we‏ , ܐܒܐ find‏ It is true‏ ,ܐܒܘܟ where C in agreement with the Greek has‏ , ܐܒܐ find‏ that in none of the cases are both S and C agreed, but on the other hand the same interchange of ܐܒܐ‎ and ܐܒܝ‎ is occasionally found in the Mss of syr.vg. I have noted ܐܒܐ‎ for ܐܒܝ‎ Joh vi 32 (cod. 14), x 17 (cod. 9), xii 27 (cod. 40), xii 50 (codd. 3 4 14 17 28 40), xiv 26 (cod. 3*), xvi 17 (cod. 12), xvii 25 (cod. 9(. ܐܒܝ‎ for ܐܒܐ‎ only occurs Joh xii 49 (cod. 8), xiv 12 (codd. 4 9 23 36 37). In Joh vi 32 C there- fore has some outside support, and in Joh xii 27 ܐܒܐ‎ has the support of S and the Greek. It is, I venture to think, not unlikely that ܐܒܐ‎ i.e. Abba, was once used for ‘my father’ in Edessene, as in most forms of Palestinian Aramaic, and that these variations are the last trace of a vanishing idiom’. In Mk xiv 36 for ABBa 6 warip we find ܐܒܝ‎ in S, Le. ‘my Father,’ without any addition; syr.vg has ܐܒܐ ܐܒܝ‎ ie. ‘Abba, my Father,’ in agreement with the Greek. ‘hand’‏ ܐܝܕܐ in all the Biblical translations the plural of‏ 48 .ܐܝܕܐ It only occurs in the phrase ‘to lay hands on’ a‏ ,ܐܝܕܐ not‏ , ܐܝ̈ܕܝܐ is‏ person ^.‏ 1 In Christian Palestinian Aramaic, as in Jewish Aramaic, <>< means ‘my father’ even where the emphasis is on the suffix, e.g. Joh xx 17 ‘unto my Father and your Father’ is rendered ܠܘܬ ܐܒܐ ܘܐܒܘܦܘܢ‎ 2 This phrase curiously illustrates the occasional fixity of Syriac idiom. ‘They laid [their] hands upon him’, ie. arrested him, is in Syriac ܐܪܡܝܘ ܥܠܘܗܝ ܐܝ̈ܕܝܐ‎ the word ܐܝ̈ܕܝܐ‎ being without a suthix and at the end of the clause. This is the case even in Matt xxvi 50, Lk xxii 53, where the Greek adopts the order usual in English. In Matt xxvi 50 the Greek has éméBadov ras yeipas emt Tov "Incovv Kat é€xpdtnoav aire. This does not go conveniently into Syriac, for . ܥܠ ܝܫܘܥ‎ is a little too heavy to be put between ܐܙܪܡܝܘ‎ and ܐܝ̈ܕܝܐ‎ Accord- ingly S has ot ܥܠܘܗܝ ܐܝܕܝܐ ܘܐܚܕܘܗܝ ܠܝܫܘܥ‎ ami But syr.vg is corrected back to the Greek, It has ܥܠ ܝܫܘܥ ܘܐܚܕܘܗܝ‎ Lamia ܐܪܡܝܘ‎ in accordance with the Greek order of the words. ܐܙܝ̈ܕܝܐ‎ being no longer at the end of the clause, receives a suffix, as in Matt xix 13, 15, and thus the distinction between laying one’s hands on a person for blessing and laying them on for violence is obliterated. 48 Grammar and Syntax. réasax..—See on Néldeke § 87. is the constant spelling in S but in‏ ܒܠܺܝ ܐܢܫܐ to and‏ ܐܢܫܐ - ܐܢܫ occur occasionally? .‏ ܒܢܝ̈ܢܫܐ and‏ ܒܪܢܫܐ C‏ pterv.—The sing. abs. of this word is spelt ܐܚܪܢ‎ in S: the same spelling is found in Cat Joh iv 87, v 82, vii 33, always at the end of a line. ܐܚܪ̈ܢ‎ also occurs in cod. A of Aphraates (e.g. Wright, p. 156), and in cod. B (Wright, p. 48), but I have only noticed it once in the ss of syr.vg, vz. Matt xi 3 in Mr Gwilliam’s cod. 36. pines, therefore, which stands at the end of a line for addoic 1 Mk x 40 S, is almost certainly meant for a plural, the scribe having probably intended to write ܠܐ ܚܪܢܝܢ‎ The emph. is always spelt ater in S, but ܘܚܪܵܢܐ‎ occurs in C at Lk vil 8 and a few other places. rhato.—The form ܩܘܪܝܬܐ‎ Joh vil 42 S” is a mere error of transcription: ܩܪܺܶܝܬܐ‎ is quite clear in the photograph. ܡ̈ܛܠܝܢ pl.‏ ܡܛܠܬܐ ‘roof, ‘dwelling,’ and‏ ܡܛܠܠܐ. ܡܛܠܠܐ ‘booth,’ have been confused in my translation, and the words are‏ certainly confused in syr.vg. But I now believe they were kept distinct‏ in Sand C. The ‘dwelling’ of the Centurion (Matt viii 8, Lk vii 9)‏ and the ‘dwelling’ of the birds of the heaven (Matt viii 20, Lk ix 58)‏ But the ‘booths’ which 8. Peter wished to set up at the‏ . ܡܛܠܠܐ is‏ Transfiguration (Matt xvii 4, Mk ix 5, Lk ix 33) the everlasting‏ ‘habitations’ of the parable (Lk xvi9)?, and the ‘Tabernacles’ of the‏ Feast (Joh vii 2, 14) are et\\sa, corresponding to oxnvai, oxnvornyia,‏ in the Greek.‏ Among anomalous nouns may be put s5az ‘seven’ Mk vii 5, 65S, Lk xx 29 S, ܫܘܒܥܬܝܗܘܢ‎ Mk xii 23S, ܫܘܒܬܐ‎ ‘Sabbath’ Lk xiii 14 S*”, and ܫܘܒܥܝܢ ܘܬܪܝܢ݀‎ Lk x 17 6", In the last two passages the photograph is illegible, but all four spellings may be held to hang together. These variations of the ordinary ܫܒ̈ܥܝܢ , ܫܒ̈ܥܐ‎ , “hax, are all the more interesting because they are found in the Christian Pales- tinian Aramaic, as well as in various forms of Jewish Aramaic. Equally suggestive of early forms of Aramaic is saa Matt xiii 35 S. It occurs at the beginning of a line, where there was plenty of room for saa, so there is no reason to regard it merely as asdefective spelling. 1 E.g. Matt. xix 6, Lk ix 25». 2 In § read ܒܡ̈ܛܠܝܗܘܢ‎ as in ¢; with one ܠ‎ 01- Anomalous Nouns and Particles. 49 D5 is always written without ( in the Aramaic portions of Daniel, and with a suffix we find M253 (Dan vii 5). ‘pS appears actually to occur in the old Aramaic inscription from Nerab near Aleppo. Numbers. [Noldeke § 148.] The numbers in S and C call for few remarks. ܫܘܒ̈ܥܐ‎ for ܫܒ̈ܥܐ‎ (Lk xx 29 S) has been noticed above. In two places S appears to have a false concord, for we find ܫܥܐ ܥܣܖ̈ܐ‎ Joh 139 and ܫܬ ܝܘܡ̈ܝܢ‎ Mk ix 2. Such false concords are extremely uncommon: I have not found any example noted in Mr Gwilliam’s apparatus to the Peshitta Gospels. Decapolis is rendered ܡܕܝܢ̈ܬܐ‎ dims in SC, as in syr.vg. But »ܘ‎ Tov Tecodpwr avéuwv Matt xxiv 31 is rendered Maat asin ܡܢ‎ in © where syr.vg has ܡܢ ܐܪܒܥܬ ܪ̈ܘܚܐ‎ ; in Mk xili 27 ܡܢ ܐܪܒܥܬܝܗܝܢ‎ ܖ̈ܘܚܐ‎ is found both in S and syr.vg. Particles. | Noldeke §155.] A Adverbs of Quality : w for dAws does not occur. In its place we find the very curious locution ܩܥܘܡܟܘܢ‎ Matt v 34 SC (so also Aphraates 505); and in Joh ix 34 S has wears. For the meaning see Notes on Matt ¥ 34. hal, occurs Matt xv 32 C, but not in S or syr.vg. The adverbial termination -ܐܝܬ‎ is written fully in S and C almost always, but we find ܡܪܺܝܪܺܝܝܬ‎ Lk xxii 62 C, ܫܪܺܝܪܺܝܝܬ‎ Lk xxiii 47 C in each case at the end ofa line. dhster occurs Matt xxi 29 C, but S has ܒܐܚܪܝܬܐ‎ . In Matt xxi 37 (where syr.vg has (ܐܚܪܶܝܬ‎ we find ܒܐܚܪܝܬܐ‎ in S, hates in € B. Adverbs of Time and Place: occurs in Lk xiii 9 SC for eis 7d wéddov, as in syr.vg. I have‏ ܠܡܢܚܝ translated it ‘next season,’ but the precise meaning of the phrase is as‏ doubtful as its derivation.‏ rita’ ‘where?’ and ܐܝܟܐ ܕ‎ ‘where’ is found in S, but side by side with it is found another form alors, especially in 8. John, which appears to be otherwise unknown. ܐܦܝܐ‎ occurs in S Matt xxiv 28, xxvi 13, 17; Mk ix 189, xiv 12, 14 bis; Lk viii 25, xii 17, xvii 37°, II. 7‏ .ܡ 50 Grammar and Syntax. moat 117"; Joh yu 35, vin 2207), xiv 4, ey. 6, xe 9, 18, 15, wx 5, On the other hand wale occurs Matt ii 2,4; Mk xv 47; Lk xvii 7, 875, scan 975 11”; Joh 1 28, 88, 89, (11:89, vin 11, war 145 19, 1 19, xi 34, xii 35, xiii 86, xiv 5. It will be seen that the two forms are used indiscriminately, even in the same verse. am ܐܝܦܐ‎ occurs Mk xiv 14 S: aase occurs Lk xix 23 € Lk xx 5 SC. Among the linguistic peculiarities of S is a curious preference for ܡܢ ܐܝܡܟܐ‎ , Le. ‘from whence, instead of ܐܝܡܦܟܐ‎ ‘whence. In eighteen passages where ܐܝ .ܡܟܐ‎ occurs in the extant parts of the Evangelion da-Mepharreshe, ܡܢ‎ is prefixed 13 times in S, only 8 times in syr.vg. In C ܡܢ‎ 18 prefixed 8 times out of fifteen, six of them being in 8. John. For the use of ܗܟܝܠ‎ ete. in rendering ,ܘ‎ see the Appendix at the end of this Chapter. Among the words for ‘immediately’ ܒܫܥܬܐ‎ ca> is much the most frequently used in S and Cin Matt and Mk, but ܒܪ ܫܥܬܗ‎ and Wass are also found. ܡܚܕܐ‎ is written ܡܢ ܚܕܐ‎ in Mk vi 45 S, and ܒܝܝܕܐ‎ oceurs Mk vi 25 S, Joh xiii 32 8. tule ܡܢ ܬܚܝܬ‎ occurs in SC for ܘܐ )ܘ‎ Lk 1x 39 and for aidviduos Lk xxi 34}. rast ܕܩܠܝܠ‎ (sic) for ܼܬܐ ܧ‎ ypdvov Lk iv 5 S is worth notice as an idiomatic rendering. C. Adverbs of Quality and Conjunctions. occurs Lk xvi 11, xx 17, xxii 70, both in S and in C, as the‏ ܥܘܕ equivalent of ody, in Lk xxii 3 S (not C’) and in Joh xi 37 S (heat C)‏ without any Greek equivalent. This word is only found in the oldest‏ Syriac literature, and seems to mean ‘forsooth, always with a‏ touch of contempt. I suppose it was considered too lively a particle‏ to be retained in Scripture. It has been allowed no place in the‏ Peshitta, and it has been diligently washed out in each of the three‏ passages where it occurs in C. This does not appear to have been‏ the case in S, for where a letter has been washed out in S by a cor-‏ rector before it was turned into a palimpsest it is now totally illegible.‏ But what has happened in C’ has happened also in Aphraates, who‏ 1 The same phrase occurs in syr.vg for eEaidpvns Ac ix 3, xxii 6, but in the Gospels only the ordinary phrases ale. ܡܢ‎ and ܡܢ ܫܠܝ‎ have been allowed to stand. 2 E.g. the first letter of [ܡ]ܦܝܠ‎ Lk xii 31. Adverbs and Conjunctions. 51 when quoting 1 Cor xv 29 has ܠܐ ܩܝܡܝܢ.‎ xan ܐܢ ܡ̈ܝܬܐ‎ and in quoting 1 Cor xv 32 ܢܐܟܘܠ ܥܘܕ ܘܢܫܬܐ. ܕܡܚܪ ܡܝܬܝܢ ܚܥܢ.‎ (Wright, p. 157). At least this is what the two mss originally had, as I was able to see after a careful examination in a good light. But in the former passage both mss now have ܓܝܪ‎ ; and in 1 Cor xv 32 the one Ms (A”) has ܓܐܪ‎ (ie. tX_), and the other (A*) has ܡܕܝܢ‎ , Both sets of corrections appear to be quite late. The particle ,ܠܡ‎ used in quoting other people’s words, very much after the manner of ‘says he’ or ,)ܗܗ‎ is found in Matt xvi 13 SC, Lk xiv 17 SC, and Joh xii 34 S (heat C). ,ܠܡ‎ like sas, has been banished from the Peshitta Gospels, but in the Epistles it is very suitably retained in Col ii 21, 2 Thess 11 2. In this point, as in others, the Gospels were more drastically revised than the rest of the N.T. in Matt xii 33 S*, Lk xviii 25 S, but possibly‏ ܓܪ is spelt‏ ܓܝܪ (=ydp) is however the‏ ܓܪ these were merely slips in writing.‏ spelling found in Palestinian Syriac documents.‏ never occurs in the Evangelion da-Mepharreshe, simple ܠܐ‎ or ram ܠܐ‎ being used instead. x occurs Mk xi 13 S, as a rendering of € dpa. [Noldeke §156.} The Prepositions in S and @ shew few peculiarities of form: for syntactical uses, see on Noldeke §§ 246-252. In Lk ix 23 ܢܝܐܬܐ ܒܐܬܪܝ‎ in S, followed by ,ܢܝܐܬܐ ܒܬܪܝ‎ appears to be an attempt to distinguish between the ܘ ܗܐܘ‎ pov épyer Oar and dkoovbeirw jot of the Greek. I have not met with any other resolution of ܒܬ ܪ‎ into its original elements. Verbs. [Noldeke §158.] The longer form of the 3rd pers. pl. mase. of the Perfect occurs in ܗܝܡܢܘܢ‎ Joh xi 40 S (sec). The 3rd pl. fem. Perf. is identical with the 3rd sing. masc. in S and C, as in all other ancient Edessene Mss, except in verbs tertiae »'. But in the Imperative pl. 1 Te, ‘my eyes were opened’ is ܐܬܦܬܚ ܠܝܠܟ‎ not ܐܬܦܬܢܝ ܠܝܠܟ‎ In the case of a palimpsest like S, often very difficult to read, there might in some case be a doubt whether a 52 Grammar and Syntax. fem. the longer form in én is used, as in the Peshitta, e.g. perme Lk xxiv 6 SC. In Mk xvi 7 for ܘܗ‎ € ei’tate Dr Harris edited ܐܙܠܝ ܐܡܪܝ‎ , my transcript has ܐܡܪܝܢ‎ AY. It is therefore probable that the former of the two verbs has no nén at the end: the photograph is unfortunately illegible. [Néldeke §160.] ܝܩܝܪܘ‎ Lk ix 32 S must be a mere orthographical miswriting of atas, not a relic of an intransitive 2-form. In several other places S has a twist too many, identical in shape with the small letter yod, e.g. ܐܫܟܢܢܝܢ‎ (for (ܐܫܟܝܝܢܢ‎ Matt xvii 19, rascal (for (ܠܡܚܐ‎ Matt xix 25, ܚܡܫܝܝܢ‎ (for ܚܡܫܝܢ‎ ( Joh vill 57. For ܝܗܒ‎ instead of sms, see on Noldeke § 183. [Noldeke § 172.] ܟܐܐ‎ Lk xvii 3 Sis no doubt a scribe’s blunder for ,ܦܐ ܝ‎ Both Sand C correctly read ܦܐܝ‎ in Lk xix 39. [Noldeke §173.] For the Imperative of t\a, S has ata\, Joh xiv 15 and ܛܪ‎ Joh xvii 11. For ܛܪ‎ Matt xix 17 C we find ܢܛܪ‎ in S, ie. the Pael. The Imperative Peal of ܢܩܡ‎ ‘to knock’ occurs Lk xi 9 S Cin the ordinary form azas, and thé Perfect occurs in Lk xii 36, but in Lk xi 10, xiii 25 (where C has the Participles rms, ,(ܢܩܫܝܢ‎ we find rom and ܡܩܫܝܢ‎ in S, ie. the Aphel participles magqqesh, maqgéshin. These appear to be the only passages where the Aphel of this verb is used in Edessene, but ܡܩܫܝܢ‎ occurs in the Christian Palestinian Lectionary at Lk xiii 25. Here again therefore a peculiarity of S finds illustration from other Aramaic dialects. [ Néldeke §174.] For ܐܙܠ‎ and whe, see on Néldeke § 183. [Noldeke §177.] ܢܕܫܘܢ‎ Lk xii 1S, ܬܬܒܘܢ‎ Lk xiii 3S, and ame (imptv.) Lk ix 44 S, are simply instances of seriptio defectiva for ܬܬܘܒܘܢ , ܢܕܘܫܘܢ‎ and ܣܝܡܘ‎ : they do not imply any difference of grammatical form. ] Néldeke §183: the anomalous Verbs. } is‏ ܐ and \ie.—In the Imperative of these verbs the initial‏ ܐܬܐ sometimes not dropped in S, particularly in ©. Matthew. The instances‏ mere twist were added ut the end of a word like ܐܬ ܠܦܬ ܙܕ‎ or not; what makes it almost certain that such a twist is never added is that verbs ending in ܟܙ‎ and ~p never add the yod. Thus in Matt xxv 5 we have ܠܡ‎ 4 a, not ܢܡܝܢ‎ and »Aspa: both in Matt xxiv 32 and in Mk xiii 28 S reads asa not ,ܪܰܦܟ‎ In zpMe xxvii 572 (Cyrillona ii 194) Bickell edited ܨܢܣܦܝ‎ but I have ascertained that the original reading of p.m. Add. 14591 is .ܠܦܘ ܟܙ‎ Curiously enough, Gwilliam’s cod. 36 reads say for tay in Matt xiii 6, where the word is masc. sing. Anomalous Verbs. 53 are (1) for ܐܬܐ‎ and ܐܬܘ‎ , Matt xi 28, xix 21, xxii 4; Lk ix 59; (2) for ܐܙܠ‎ and ܐܙܠܘ‎ , Matt ii 20, v 41, vili 4, 9, ix 6, 18, xvii 27; Mk vii 29 (Maw); Lk vii 22, x 3, xiii 31, xxii 10. It will be seen that no example of this spelling occurs in §. John. The fem. pl. Imperative of ܐܬܐ‎ is spelt ܬܝܢ‎ in Matt xxviii 6 S, the only passage where it occurs. ܗ‎ so written, from‏ ܠܐ ܬܪܛܘܢ Lk xvii 23 S we find‏ ܙ -. ܪܗܛ was unpronounced,‏ ܗ which perhaps we may infer that the vowelless‏ and so became liable to be dropped in writing.‏ >m..—In three places we find ܝܗܒ‎ written in S, where the sense is passive and we should expect msm.. The passages are (1) ܝܗܒ ܐܪܙܐ ܕܡܠܟܘܬܗ ܕܐܠܗܐ‎ am ܠܦܘܢ‎ Jo you is given the mystery of the kingdom of God (Mk iv 11 S) ; (2) ܕܠܝ ܝܗܒ‎ MN... ܠܟ ܝܗܒ ܐܢܐ ܫܘܠܛܢܐ ܗܢܐ‎ To thee I give this authority...because to me it 1s given (Lk iv 6 S); (3) ܠܗ ܟܬܒܐ‎ seal? ܘܥܠ ܠܟܢܘܫܬܐ.... ܐܝܟܢܐ ܕܡܥܕ ܗܘܐ‎ ܕܐܫܥܝܐ‎ And he entered the synagogue...as he was wont. 1 And there was gwen him the book of Isaiah (Lk iv 16, 17 S). The same spelling occurs in the codex of Aphraates called by Wright A and cited in this book as A*% In Wright, p. 355, we find ܠܗ̇. ܐܠܐ ܡܶܢ ܕܝܗܒ ܠܗ‎ nam ܠܐ ܗܘܐ ܟܠܢܫ‎ Not every one is sufficient for wt, but he to whom it rs given (Matt xix 11(. The other ms of Aphraates A> has ܕܝܗܝܒ‎ instead of omer, and ܕܝܗܝܒ‎ is also found here in S @ 8110 the Peshitta!, but the correction was so obvious that we may be pretty sure that A* preserves the true text of Aphraates. And again (Wright, p. 114), according to the same ms A’, we find ܫܢܢܐ ܕܚܪܒܐܐ ܫܩܝܠ ܡܢ ܐ̈ܦܝ ܐܝܠܢܐ ܕܢܳܢܳܝܳܐ܂ ܘܝܗܒ ܡܦܘܠܬܐ ܠܡܗܝ̈ܡܢܐ܂‎ ian le? ܘܦܪܕܝܣ̈ܐ ܡܠܝܟ ܠܛܘ̈ܒܢܐ. ܘܠܒ̈ܬܘܠܐ ܘܩܕܝܫ̈ܐ܂ ܘܝܗܒܝܢ ܦܐܪ̈ܝ‎ ܡܦܘܠܬܐ ܠܡܗ̈ܝܡܢܐ ܘܠܒ̇ܬܘܠ̈ܐ, (At the coming of Christ) the edge of the sword is taken from in front of the Tree of Life, and it is given for meat to the faithful ; and Paradise is promised to the blessed and to the virgins and the holy, and the fruits of the Tree of Life are given for meat to the Juithful and to the virgins. The other ms A has ܘܝܗ ܒ=‎ and ܆ ܘܝܗܝܒܝܢ‎ These five instances of the use of ܝܗܒ‎ for ܝܗܝܒ‎ shew that we are 1 One ms however, Mr Gwilliam’s 14, actually has a2 here, and similarly Mr Gwilliam’s 9 has ms Joh xix 11. 54 Grammar and Syntax. dealing with something more than a slip in writing. It would be intolerably harsh to translate the passages impersonally, and at first I believed that they contained a relic of the old Passive formed by internal vowel change, instances of which survive in Biblical Aramaic. 37’ actually occurs in Dan vii 14. But in the passage just quoted from Aphraates 114 the word ,ܝܗܒܝܢ‎ however pronounced, must be a Participle : it cannot be a Perfect tense. Moreover, as all the instances of this defective spelling concern the verb om, the explanation must be specially suited to that word. I therefore conjecture that when ܝܗܒ‎ is written for the Pass. Part. the ܗ‎ is intended to be elided, and that just as in the Perfect original yZhaB has become yaB, so in the Participle original yzhiB became yi®B or 78: that is to say, we should point the word .ܝܗܒ‎ a The spelling ܝܗܒ‎ for ܝܗܝܒ‎ is also found in Christian Palestinian documents, viz. Matt xix 11 codd. asc, Lk vii 25 codd. Be, Joh vi 66 cod. ,ܡ‎ Joh vil 39 codd. Bc, Joh xix 11 codd. Bc; also in Mrs Lewis’s Praxapostolos Gen ix 17, Exod xi 5 (sic)}. [Noldeke § 184 ff: the Verbal Suffixes.| The Verbal Suffixes are regular in C, so far as the consonantal writing is concerned, but in S there are found some rare and some otherwise almost unattested forms, especially in the 3rd sing. masc. suffix to the Imperfect. §§ 188, 189. The forms found in S are ܢܩܛܠܘܢܝܗܝ ܢܩܛܠܝܘܗܝ ܢܩܛ ܠ ܘܢܗܝ ܢܝܩܛܠܝܗܝ ܢܩܛܠܘܢܗ ܢܩܛܠܘܗܝ with corresponding forms for Saad, ,ܐ ܩܛܘܠ‎ etc. The form ܢܩܛܠܗ‎ does not occur either in S or C’; on the other hand ܢܩܛܠܘܢܗ‎ is much commoner than ܢܩܛܠܘܢܝܗܝ‎ both in S and in C. Examples of the irregular forms in S are given below. It will be noticed that they are less frequent in 8. Matthew than elsewhere. (1) Forms in ,oaa- (see also on § 195) :-̈ ܕܫܟܥܚܝܗ ܝ‎ Matt xxiv 46 (contrast Lk xii 43); ܐܫܐܠܝܗܝ‎ Mk vi 24 (contrast Matt xiv 7), ܕܬܘܒܕܝܗܝ‎ Mk ix 22, ܕܢܫܠܡܝܗܝ‎ Mk xiv 10, 11 (contrast Matt xxvi 16), 1 In the last instance sm, means simply ‘is’ or ‘is to be found,’ Just as ܝܗܒܝܢ‎ in Lk vii 25 corresponds to imapyovtes. Anomalous Verbal Suffixes. 55 Lk xii 44,‏ ܕܢܫܠܛܝܗܝ ;)61 Mk xiv 58 (contrast Matt xxvi‏ ܐܣܬܪܝܗܝ ܕܢܦܪܩܝܗܝ ,18 Lk xx‏ ܬܫܚܩܝܗܝ ,461 Lk xt‏ ܘܢܦܠܓܝܗܝ .... ܘܢܣܝܡܝܗܝ ܕܐܣܝܡܝܗܝ. . . . ܐܫܩܠ .ܗܝ ;34 Joh iv‏ ܘܐܫܠ ܡܝܗܝ ;21 Lk xxiv‏ Joh x 18 (both apparently meant for fem. suffixes, as in Lk xii 46),‏ Joh xiii 2,‏ ܕܢܫܠܡܝܗܝ ,48 ,47 Joh xii‏ ܕܐܕܘܢܝܗܝ.... ܬܕܘܢܝܝܗܝ Joh xiv 21.‏ ܐܪܚܡܝܗܝ ܘܐܚܘܝܗܝ (2) Forms in ,ena- (see also on §195):—,ma\\eax Matt xxiv 47?; ܕܢܩܝܡܘܗܝ‎ Lk xii 42°, ܕܬܫܕܪܘܗܝ‎ Lk xvi 27, ܐܫܒܩܘܗܝ‎ Lk xxii 16, 22; ܕܢܕܘܢܘܗܝ‎ Joh ili 17, ܐܩܝܡܘܗܝ‎ Joh vi 40, 54, ܕܐܥܝܪܘܗܝ‎ Joh xi 11. (3) The Plural forms in msa- and -ܘܢܝܗܝ‎ need no illustration ; it is sufficient to observe that msalsy and ܕܢܣܝܡܘܢܗ‎ occur Lk v 18 ® but ܕܢܥܠܘܢܝܗܝ‎ Lk v 19S. The following instances of -ܘܢܗܝ‎ are found in S:—,malezian Mk ix 32, ܕܣܬܟܠܘܢܗܝ‎ Lk xxiv 16, ܕܢܥܒܕܘܢܗܝ‎ Joh vi 15, ܬܪܺܝܡܘܢܗ ܝ‎ Joh vil 28, ܢܩܛܠܘܢܗܝ‎ Joh xii 10, ܕܢܫܠܡܘܢܗܝ‎ Joh xviii 284. ܢܩܛܠܘܢܗܝ‎ also occurs in Lk xxii 2 C, where S has ܘܢܝ ܗܝ‎ - . § 190. The regular form of the Impt. mase. pl. with suffix occurs in ܕܘܒܪܘܗܝ‎ Joh xviii 31 S (sic), but for verbs with initial ܐ‎ we find ܐܡܪܘܗܝ‎ ‘say ye it’ Matt x 27 S, ܐܚܕܘܗܝ‎ ‘take ye him’ Matt xxii 13 S, Mk xiv 448. In the Sing. we have the regular forms ܙܩܘܦܝܗܝ‎ Mk xv 14 S (and in Lk xxii 21 C), also ܫܩܘܠܝܗܝ‎ Lk xxii 18 S, but in Lk xxiii 21 S has ܙܩܦܘܗܝ ܙܩܦܝܗܝ‎ for cravpov oravpov. [Noldeke £192 ff. Verbs with final ܐ‎ and suffixes. | § 194. In the forms of the 3rd pl. masc. Perf. with suffixes we find -aa- always written in S for -ar-, and generally in C. Thus we have ܚܙܘܘܗܝ‎ Matt 110, 11 SC, Matt xxi 28 SC, Lk xx 14 SC; but smarts occurs Matt xiv 26 C, where S has avs without a 85 With a fem. we find ܡܠܘܘܗ‎ Matt xiii 48 S, In Mk vi 49 S ܚܙܘܢܝܗܝ‎ is the 3rd pl. masc. Perf. in -én- with suffix. The word was so read by the late Professor Bensly and myself at Sinai, but the form is said to be otherwise unknown in these verbs and I 1 Possibly these words were meant for the fem., i.e. ܘܢܦܠܓܝܗ ܡܢܬܗ ܘܢܣܝܡܝܗ‎ : cf Joh x 18. 2 Iam not quite sure that the true reading of S may not be ܕܢܫܠܛܝܘܗܝ‎ On the other hand in Matt xxi 38 the photograph of S appears to me to suggest um ܢܒܛܠܘ‎ 3 Photograph illegible. 4 In ܢܢܢܝܒܘܢܝܗ‎ Mk x 33 S the ܥ‎ is no doubt intrusive. 5 ܠܙ ܐܕܘܗܝ‎ 8180 occurs in the ancient palimpsest fragments of the Acts of Thomas (= Wright 3121). 56 Granmar and Syntax. confess that the photograph now suggests to me ,waars» as the reading of the ms, a form which actually occurs in the following verse, Mk vi 50. § 195. Instances of the irregular suffixes to the Imperfect are given below from S. (1) Forms in ܝܗܝ‎ - (see above on §§ 188, 189) -—,malah ܠܐ‎ Matt ¥ 42 (sic), Lk vi 29; ܐܚܙܝܗܝ‎ Mk xii 15; ,oastxan Lk xxili 20, ܐܪܺܕܝܗܝ‎ Lk xxiii 22; ܕܐܚܙܝܗܝ‎ Joh xii 47, ܘܐܚܘܝܗܝ‎ Joh xiv 21. (2) Forms in ,ma-:— ,moate Lk xxiii 161. : § 196. In the Imperative, as in the Perfect, we find in S -ao- instead of -arv-: e.g. ܐܝܬܘܘܗܝ‎ Lk xix 30 S (but ܐܝܬܐܘܗܝ‎ C) ; ܩܪܘܘܗܝ‎ Matt xxii 9 S, ,naat Joh xi 44 ܝܗܘܝܬܝܐܘ‎ Mk x12 S is probably a mere slip in writing. The Imptv. pl. of ,ܚܘܝ‎ with suffix of Ist pers. sing., is saa Matt ii 8, xxii 19, Lk xx 24 in S, but C has the regular form »saras in all three passages. In the Infinitive of these verbs, besides the regular forms we find ܠܡܚܙܝܗܝ‎ ‘to see him’ Lk xxiii 8 S. These irregular suffixes, which are one of the most striking gram- matical peculiarities of S, have some slight attestation in other Syriac documents. An instance occurs, curiously enough, in the dedication prefixed by Habibai to Codex @ itself where we find ܢܡܢܘܗܝ‎ for ܢܡܢܝܘܗܝ‎ : this may however have been a mere error of the writer. Of much more importance is the occurrence of ܕܐܥܝܪܘܗܝ‎ in Aphraates cod. A (i.e. A*, Wright, p. 169), in a quotation of Joh xi 11, the same passage where it is found in S. 16 is therefore clear that these peculiar sufhixes are not merely due to some accident of transcription in the Sinai Palimpsest. They are doubtless genuine remains of that early stage of Edessene Syriac, of which the Evangelion da-Mepharreshe is the only well preserved monument: of these suffixes, as of other features, we may say with Wellhausen, “man gewinnt den Eindruck, dass solche Rarititen stehn gebliebene Reste sind, dass schon im Sin. und Cur. die stilistische Korrektur begonnen hat, die in der Peschita (namentlich des Neuen Testaments) entschiedener, wenngleich auch nicht systematisch durchgefiihrt ist?.” ± ܐܕ ܢܙܘܗܝ‎ also occurs in Cyrillona i 12 and in the ancient palimpsest fragments of the Acts of Thomas (corresponding to umaswrt Wright 3158). 2 J. Wellhausen in Vachrichten der k. Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Gottingen. Phil.-hist. Klasse, 1895, i, p. 5. Uses of the Absolute State. 57 Syntax. The following remarks do not profess to be anything like a complete account of the Syntax of S and C, or even of their peculiarities of Syntax. As was remarked at the beginning of this Section, the Evangelion da-Mepharreshe is written in idiomatic Edessene Syriac : the most notable peculiarity of S and C is not the presence of this or that idiom, but their freedom from that imitation of Greek construc- tions which pervades so much of the later Syriac literature. [Noéldeke §2028.] ܩܘܪܺܝܬ ܕܡ‎ (ie. “Bloodfield”) Matt xxvii 8 S is an interesting example of the Absolute state in proper names. It is curious that the Syriac should have avoided the obvious rendering ܕܡܐ‎ Ans, found in the Latin and in the Palestinian Syriac texts’. Equally noteworthy is ܡܠܟܘ‎ Joh xviii 10 S (sec), because it shews that the translator of the Evangelion da-Mepharreshe recognised the genuine Semitic name which appears in the Greek as MaddAyos. The name is actually written yobp in a number of Palmyrene inscriptions of the 1st cent. aD and is doubtless identical with the common Arabic name Sue Manik". The Peshitta has Maléy, without the final a : probably by the 5th century the a had become unfamiliar as an ending to masculine names, and ܡܠܟܘ‎ only sounded like the abs. sing. of ܡܠܟܘܬܐ‎ . Similarly in Nehem vi 6 192 becomes wasX_in syr.vg. [§ 202c.] The curious phrase aS), wala ܓܒܝܘ ܢܘ̈ܢܐ‎ Matt xiii 48 SC appears to mean “they chose out the fishes whatever good ones there were.” A doubled adverb is normal in Syriac, as in the phrase ܥܒܝܕܝܢ‎ wo mon, used for of kaxas €xovres in the Peshitta as well as in SC. But the use of a plural adjective in this distributive sense is very uncommon and seems to have been a puzzle to the trans- lator of the Armenian version of the Gospel. A good example of the distributive use of the absolute state is paar ܐ[ܦܝܢ‎ for car’ dy Joh vii 24,8 C. The Peshitta has Warts «ammo. 1 The Palestinian Lectionary has for Matt xxvii 8 ܛܘܪܐ ܗܐܘ ܕܩܠ ܐܕܡܐ ܥܕ ܡܛ ܐ ܠܝܘܡܕܝܢ‎ sinh oa) Land’s ancient cod. Petropolitanus (a Ms of the continuous Gospel text) has ܠܟܢ Sse woh‏ ܕܝܬܗ eat‏ ܕܩܠ ܕܡܐ ܡܳܐ ings‏ ܕܐܕܡ ܥܕܡܐ 1 ܨ ܠܝܘܡܕܢ. B. IL, 8 58 Granunar and Syntan, [Noldeke § 208 4.[ ܗܘ ܐܬܪܐ‎ yin Lk xv 15 S is an instance of the somewhat careless construction mentioned by Duval (Grammaire Syriaque § 357 f), who quotes ܪܘܡܝ ܐܢܬܬ ܗܘ ܡܠܟܐ‎ from B.O, i 365. In Lk xv 15 C has am ܒܢܝ ܐܬܪܐ‎ , but in Lk xix 39 both S and C have ܟܢܫܐ‎ am ܡܢ ܒܝܢܝ‎ . [Noldeke § 210.1 ܟܠ ܩܪܶܐ ܕܓܠܝܠܐ‎ ‘every village of Galilee’ Lk ¥ 17 8 is a good instance of the use of the absolute state before a genitive. [Noldeke § 212.] In Lk xxiii 2 kat Aéyovra 6:7076 ypiorov Bacrhéa civat is translated in SC ܘܐܡܪ ܥܠ ܢܦܫܗ ܕܗܘܝܘ ܡܠܟܐ ܡܫܝܚܐ‎ The last two words agree letter for letter with the Jewish NMwWh xobp, commonly translated ‘King Messiah.’ But Dr Dalman (IVorte Jesu 240) has shewn that it is a mistake to treat ‘Messiah’ in this phrase as a proper name, and that we should render it ‘the Anointed King.’ And this also agrees with the usage of the Evangelion da-Mepharreshe and the Peshitta, for the Syriac not only has ‘ Herod the king’ in Matt ii 3, Mk vi 14, where the better Greek texts have 6 Baoweds “Hpddns, but also ‘Augustus Caesar’ in Lk ii 1, although ‘Caesar Augustus’ is the order found in all other authorities. In Lk xxiii 2, therefore, ܡܠܟܐ ܡܫܝܚܐ‎ should be translated ‘an anointed king’ rather than ‘King Messiah.’ [Noéldeke §217.] ܟܠ‎ for ܟܠ ܡܕܡ‎ is now attested by S in Joh iil 35, as well as Aphraates 123. On the other hand the Peshitta has As in Johi 3, where ܟܠܡܕܡ‎ is read by C and by Ephraim (Rom. iv 18 ,ܐ‎ Lamy 11 513). [Noldeke § 2208.] By the dropping of a repeated ܡܢ‎ the enclitic ܐܢܘܢ‎ occupies an unusual position in ܡܢܝ ܐܡܝ ܐܘ ܐܢܘܢ ܐܙܚܢ‎ ‘“Who’s my mother or who are my brothers?’ Matt xii 48, In the parallel passage Mk 111 33 the ܐܢܘܢ‎ is not present. [Noldeke § 222.] The idiom of a preposition followed by 8 pro- nominal suffix and a is ingeniously used in Joh xi 32 S, where 7\ev ܘܐܘ‎ yv “Inoods is rendered ܡܛܬ ܠܘܬܗ ܕܝܫܘܥ‎ , Similarly in Joh vii 42 ris ܢܳܐ‎ (¢ Omov qv Aaveid is rendered ܩܪܝܬܐ ܕܝܠܗ ܕܕܘܝܕ‎ by the Peshitta as well as SC. In each case the clumsy Johannine peri- phrasis is indicated without being allowed to hamper the movement of the sentence, Pronominal Phrases. 59 [Néldeke § 223.] ‘mas-o with suffix is twice used for ddws, viz. ܩܢܥܘܡܟܘܢ ܠܐ ܬܐܡܘܢ‎ = p17) :ܘܗܘ ܘْ‎ dws Matt ¥ 34. SC and A 505, and again ܒܚ̈ܛܗܐ ܐܬܝܠܕܬ‎ main ܐܢܬ‎ = ev ܗ‎ 076 av eyevuynOns odos Joh ix 34 S, where ܘ ܘܬܘ‎ is read for ddos in 1-118-131-209 and some other Greek mss, as well as the Armenian vulgate. The same idiom has been left standing in 1 Cor vi 7 syr.vg, where ddws yr7qHa ܐܬܐܐܐ‎ éoriv is rendered ܝ ܩܦܢܥܘܡܟܘܢ ܚܒܬܘܢ ܠܟܘܢ‎ ie. ‘ye your own selves are guilty.’ [Noldeke § 224*.| To render 6 Sapouobeis Mk v 18 S has the characteristic Syriac idiom ܕܫܐܕܗ‎ am, and this reappears in the Peshitta as ܕܫܐ̈ܕܘܗܝ‎ am. But in Lk viii 36 6 dayomoOels is only rendered in S and C by ‘that man’; accordingly in the Peshitta we find ܕܝܘܢܐ‎ ac etaX_‘that demoniac man.’ Evidently aw ܓܒܪܵܐ‎ was taken over from syr.vt, and ܕܝܘܢܐ‎ added to give the sense of the Greek. In other words the text of the Peshitta in Lk viii 36 is con- flate; we catch the reviser at work and see how his style differs from the idiomatic Syriac of the Evangelion da-Mepharreshe. [Noldeke § 225.] Asn is occasionally used in S and C to give - emphasis, e.g. ܡܛܠ ܫܡܝ ܕܝܠܝ‎ Matt v 118 (om. ܕܝܠܝ‎ C), where syr.vg has ܡܛܠ ܬܝ‎ in agreement with the Greek &vexey guod. Cases like ܠܐܘܨܪ̈ܐ ܕܝܠܝ‎ Matt xiii 80 C (om. ܦܬܘܪܐ ܕܝܠܝ ,(§ ܕܝܠܝ‎ Lk xxii 308 ܦܬܘܪܝ)‎ C’), where ܕܝܠܝ‎ appears to have no real force at all, are very uncommon and seem to be due to some accident of revision. [Noldeke § 228.| It is here very truly remarked by Néldeke that the difference between ܗܢܘܢ‎ ‘those’ and ܗܠܝܢ‎ ‘these’ is often neg- lected in Syriac. Thus in Matt xxii 23 ratra...«axetva is rendered by ܗܠܝܢ.... ܘܗܠܝܢ‎ in the Peshitta as well as in S C, although in other more important respects the Peshitta text of this verse has been conformed to the Greek. [Noldeke § 233. ] ܡܢ ܫ‎ stands for ¥) cou dvoud éorw; (Lk viii 30) in syr.vg as well as SC. This is no doubt the old Semitic idiom: it is found in the Hebrew text. of Judges xiii 17 JOY 'D, and in the Targum of Onkelos to Gen xxxii 27 we find SY ܐ‎ although the Massoretic Text here has ]2¥ 72. The use of the phrase ‘Who is thy name?’ is doubtless connected with that identification of the name with the personality, whereby in Semitic idiom the Name of God is 60 Grammar and Syntax. practically used for His personal character, as known to the wor- shipper. [Noldeke § 2360.] In several passages, e.g. Matt xx 15, Lk x 28, Joh iv 22, S has ܡܐ ܕ‎ where C and the Peshitta have .ܡܕܡ ܕ‎ In a few places the Peshitta keeps ܡܐ ܕ‎ with S, while C has the ordinary ,ܡܕܡ ܕ‎ e.g. Matt xvii 30. [Noldeke § 240 4.] ܫܒ̈ܥ ܫܒܥ‎ [paar] ܥܠ ܫܒ̈ܥܝܢ‎ Matt xviii 225 © and 4?/,, literally ‘on 70 [temes] seven seven, does not mean 3430 times but 490, as Aphraates especially declares (Wright, p. 298). ܫܒܥ ܫܒܥ‎ means ‘seven by seven,’ Le. ‘in rows of seven. When therefore the acts of forgiveness are piled in rows of seven upon seventy, we get 70 x 7, which is four hundred and ninety. [Noldeke § 243.) In Lk iv 40 8vvovros tov nAlov is rendered in S by the idiomatic ܡܥܪ̈ܒܝ ܫܡܫܐ‎ , without ܒ‎ prefixed, and this also is the reading of the Peshitta, as edited by Mr Gwilliam from the mss. In Mk i 82 ܡܥܪ̈ܒܝ ܫܡܫܐ ܕܝܢ‎ in S corresponds to dias 8¢ yevouevys ore eOvoev 6 ܘܬܐ‎ ¢ and in remedying the apparent deficiency syr.vg inserts the ܡܥܪ̈ܒܝ ,ܒ‎ no longer being the first word in the sentence ܒܪܡܫܐ ܕܝܢ ܒܡܥܪ̈ܒܝ ܫܡܫܐ)‎ (. Here again the effort to conform the Syriac to the Greek has resulted in the disappearance of a characteristic Syriac idiom. [ Noldeke § 244.| For the omission of ܠܕ‎ in short descriptive clauses, see on Noldeke § 275. [Noldeke ܛ‎ 249 £. [ The curiously slack construction sometimes used after ܡܢ‎ in comparative clauses is found in Matt xviii 13 S C’ as well as in the Peshitta and Aphraates 142, where we read that the shepherd who has found the lost sheep “ rejoiceth over it more than the ninety and nine which have not gone astray” ܡܢ ܬܫܥܝܢ....)‎ tedu .(ܚܕܐ ܒܗ‎ The Greek is paddov 7 eri followed by a dative, but no Syriac authority reads the logically more correct ܡܢ ܕܥܠ‎ teks. The same construction is found in Lk xv 7 C, but S followed by syr.vg reads As are instead of ܝܬܝܪ ܡܢ‎ Similarly in Matt xxvii 9 there is nothing but the context to decide whether the prophet held the Christ dearer than he held the sons of Israel, or whether he held the Christ dearer than the sons of Israel did. Usages with Prepositions. : 61 The use of ܐܘ‎ instead of ܡܢ‎ in comparisons, in imitation of (or at least corresponding to) the Greek 7, occurs several times in the Gospels, e.g. Matt xix 24 SC, confirmed by Aphraates 392. I see no reason to doubt that S in Lk xv 7 preserves the original rendering of the Evangelion da-Mepharreshe: there are many characteristic variations in the early part of Lk xv where S differs both from C' and the Peshitta, and it is more likely that @ borrowed ܡܢ‎ tc in v. 7 from the parallel passage Matt xviii 13 or from the Diatessaron itself than that S should have adopted the one variation ܐܘ ܥܠ‎ from the Peshitta. The compound preposition ܡܢ ܠܘܬ‎ corresponds to the French de chez, e.g. 111 Lk viii 37, and also in Matt vii 34S, the Gadarenes beseech Jesus to depart ܡܢ ܠܘܬ ܗܘܢ‎ . Similarly Judas comes with a multitude mamas ܡܢ ܠܘܬ ܪ̈ܒܝ‎ Matt xxvi 47, Mk xiv 48, the Greek being dé in Matt but apa in Mk. It is a little less direct than the simple ܡܢ‎ 4 gives the impression that the place of departure is, so to speak, a little more complex and less personal. Accordingly it is used of God, in exactly the same way as DP | is used in Jewish Aramaic. Our Lord is thus said to have come forth ܡܢ ܠܘܬ ܐܠܗܐ‎ in Joh xiii 3 S (=a $eod) and in Joh xvi 27 S-vg (=apa rod Oeod). But there can have been very little significance in the periphrasis, for wapa ܘܗ‎ 0 is rendered in S by ܡܢ ܠܘܬܟ‎ in Joh xvii 7 and by ܡܟ‎ inv. 8. In Matt xxi 42 and Mk xii 11 (‘ From the Lorp this came to pass’) all the Syriac texts have ruts ܡܢ ܠܘܬ‎ , but the Peshitta of Ps exviii (exvii) 23 has the characteristically Jewish ܡܢ ܩܕܡ ܡܪܝܐ‎ . [Noldeke § 250.] For ‘demoniac possession’ in the Synoptic Gos- pels the Syriac vulgate uses the preposition ,ܒ‎ e.g. ‘a demon is wm him’ Matt xi 18, ‘22 whom was a demon’ Lk viii 27; in S. John édaiporiov ܕ :)ܗ‎ is literally translated ܕܝܘܐ ܐܝܬ ܠܟ‎ ‘thou hast a demon.’ But in S and C'this ܠ‎ is never used and its place is supplied by ܒ‎ or As, eg. ܕܝܘܐ ܐܝܬ ܒܟ‎ Joh vii 20 SC, ܕܝܘܐ ܐܝܬ ܥܠܝܟ‎ Joh viii 48, 52 S (hiat C), and ܕܐܝܬ ܗܘܐ ܥܠܘܗܝ ܫܐܕܐ‎ ‘on whom was a devil’ Lk viii 27 SC. What was meant by this is evident from the picturesque expression ܕܪܟܝܒ ܠܗ ܫܐܕܐ‎ } whom a devil was riding’ (or, as we say, ‘ devil-ridden’), found in Matt ix 32 S for dapomdpevor!. 1 This use of ܥܠ‎ is also found in the Palestinian Syriac Lectionary, e.g. ܫܝܕ ܥܠܝܟ‎ Joh vii 20, 62 Grammar and Syntax. [Noldeke § 251.) In Lk x 30 S agrees with C’ in translating Apwbarns by ss\ dura dus ‘between dead and alive. The Peshitta is widely different. In Lk xvii 11 the addition of ܠܐܝ ܪܝܚܘ‎ by C to the phrase ܫܡܖ̈ܝܐ ܠܓܠܝ̈ܠܝܐ‎ dus is not found in S, and it probably means ‘to Jericho,’ It cannot therefore be brought forward as a parallel to ܠܪܘܚܐ‎ tal ܐܒܐ‎ dus Ephr. Overbeck 147 ult., qaoted by Néldeke : see further the Note on Lk xvii 11. | [Noldeke § 263.] The tenses are employed normally in S and C, and call for no special remark here except as regards the Pluperfect, ie. the Perfect followed by ,ܗܘܐ‎ In my translation I have ventured uniformly to translate these Syriac Perfects with ܗܘܐ‎ by the English Pluperfect, in spite of the occasional harshness, as I believe the reader will thereby be better able to seize the point of view taken by the Syriac narrator in telling his tale. In a plain historical narrative we find in Syriac a series of verbs in the Perfect, varied occasionally by Perfects followed by ܗܘܐ‎ or ܗܘܘ‎ as the case may be. These latter Perfects with ܗܘܐ‎ often occur in positions that obviously require us to use a Pluperfect in translation, but sometimes it is not so obvious and most translators then simply leave the ܗܘܐ‎ untranslated. But to do this obliterates the march of the action as conceived by the Syriac mind. If I am right, we may regard a Syriac narrative as a series of tableaux vivants. The simple Perfects describe the action, the movement, which we are invited to witness; the Perfects with ܗܘܐ‎ , on the other hand, describe the anterior action, the actions which we are not actually supposed ourselves to observe, but which have brought the dramatis personae into the required situation. Thus in ©, Mark’s story of the cursing of the barren Fig-tree and the cleansing of the Temple, as told by S, the narrator wishes to invite us to see and hear the following actions. Our Lord hungers, sees a fig-tree, comes to it, finds nothing but leaves, utters a curse on it. The curtain then lifts on another scene: He begins to put out the buyers and sellers in the Temple, and during some time we see Him stopping the passengers, teaching and saying ‘My House is a House of Prayer.’ Then again the disciples see the fig-tree withered, and 8. Peter says ‘The fig-tree is withered,’ and Jesus answers ‘ Have faith in God.’ Then in another scene we see the chief Priests come to Jesus, and they ask for His authority and He answers them (S. Mark xi 12-29). Pluperfect, Historie Present. 63 Here we have four scenes, two on the way and two in the Temple. The events which we are supposed to see and hear are told us in the simple Perfect. But the connecting links, the subsidiary, though necessary, actions that bring the actors into the required situations, are told us in the Pluperfect. How is it that Peter remembered (v. 21)? Because the disciples had heard ܫܡܥܘ ܗܘܘ)‎ v. 14°), How is it that we find our Lord busy with the merchants in the Temple ? Because He had entered the Temple (Kam ܥܠ‎ +. 15"). How is it that in the fourth scene our Lord is found in controversy with the chief priests? Because He and the disciples had come again to Jeru- salem (aam ܐܬܘ‎ v. 27°), and the chief priests had heard of His doings in the Temple (aam ܫܡܥܘ‎ v. 18%). The point is, that this tense describes a past scene. It may break the thread of the narrative to bring in a detail, but it does not carry the narrative forward. Wherever it appears there is a break of continuity!. A good example of this is Lk x 17 where S and C have ܗܘܘ‎ asada, suggesting the break which is logically demanded after v. 16. The previous verses give one scene, containing our Lord’s parting instructions to the Seventy-two: the following verses describe what was said when the Seventy-two had returned*. It is a question of pictorial effect, of the subordination of phrase. To neglect this . subordination turns a Syriac narrative into a monotonous chain of statements and takes the life out of the action. Naturally the proper grouping and subordination of the incidents in a story is a matter of individual taste, at least to some extent. We therefore find that editors often inserted or cut out the ܗܘܐ‎ or aam. A series of instances will be found in Lk vii 19 ff, where S three times has a simple Perfect when C has the Pluperfect : Matt xxi 46 is another example of the same variation. [ Noldeke § 274.] The ‘ historic present’ is rare in Syriac, but several clear instances occur in S: e.g. Matt xx 11 when the Labourers saw, they murmur (galt, Gr. éysyyvlov); Matt xxiv 1 when...the disciples drew near, they shew Him the buildings (passa, Gr. émidetEar) ; Matt xxvii 19 Pilate’s wife sendeth word to him ,ܫܠܚܐ)‎ Gr. daéoredev) ; 1 It is, in fact, the exact opposite of the Arabic ܩܢ‎ or the Hebrew strong -}. 2 A similar break in narration is to be,found in Lk i 62 5S, 64 Grammar and Syntax. Mk vi 5 on a few infirm folk He /ayeth His hands and they were healed ܣܗܐܡ)‎ , Gr. ܕ( :»݀ܧ‎ [...€0epdmevoev]); Lk viii 4, for ovmévros S has ܟܕ ܡܬܟܢܫ‎ , Chas ܐܬܬܢܫ‎ aa, syr.vg has .ܦܕ... ܟܢܫ ܗܘܐ‎ These examples, in all of which the tense used is clear from the consonantal writing, raise the question whether we ought not sometimes to point verbs as Participles rather than Perfects in cases where the consonantal writing does not distinguish between them. The point which distinguishes Mya killing from ܩܛܠ‎ he killed is never found in S or C, so that we are entirely dependent on analogy and such tradition as is afforded us by the transmitted vocalisation of the Peshitta’. [Noéldeke § 275.| Circumstantial clauses are expressed in Syriac by the Participle preceded by ܦܕ‎ or some other particle such as as, or by a relative. The Participle, or participially used adjective (§ 244), is rarely allowed to stand alone, except after Imperatives (§ 272). Thus in Matt xi 18 (John the Baptist came nezther eating nor drinking) Shas whe ܠܐ ܐܟܠ ܘܠܐ‎ , But this is altered in the other texts: Chas ܟܕ ܠܐ ܐܟܠ ܘܐܦ. ܠܐ ܫܬܐ‎ and syr.vg has whe ܕܠܐ ܐܟܠ ܘܠܐ‎ In the parallel passage, however, Lk vil 33, all three texts agree with that of S in 8. Matthew. A somewhat similar instance is Lk xviii 11, where S has ‘That Pharisee standeth by himself praying...’ ,)ܩܐܡ...... ܡܨܠ .̈ܐ)‎ but C and syr.vg have ‘was standing......and thus was praying’ (ram ܗܘܐ... ܘܗܠܝܢ ܡܨܠܐ‎ yrs). In this way the historic present and the independent participle of SS are both made to disappear. After Imperatives and some other expressions, such as ܡܥܕ ܗܘܐ‎ ‘he was accustomed,’ we find the bare Participle used, as is noted in Noldeke § 272. Thus Lk xii 13 ‘Speak to my brother to divide (uepioacOar) the inheritance with me’ is rendered in syr.vg, as well as SC, lit. ‘Speak to my brother dividing with me the inheritance.’ It is this construction which I believe to be intended in Matt xv 26 S, ܠܐ ܘܠܐ ܠܡܣܒ ܠܚܡܐ ܕܒܢܝܐ ܪܡܝܢ ܠܟܠܒܐ It is not fitting [for /0/0[ to take the sons’ bread to cast it to the dogs.‏ 1 For the inconsistencies exhibited by the Peshitta text in the phrase ‘answered and said, see the Appendix at the end of this chapter. Participle, Infinitive. 65 Here instead of ܪܡܝܢ‎ rdmén we find in C and syr.vg ܘܠܡܪܡܝܘ‎ ‘and to cast it,’ in accordance with cat Badeiv in the Greek. But the construction of S sounds to me idiomatic and original, although the antecedent to ܪܡܝܢ‎ has to be wholly inferred from the context}. [Néldeke § 286.] The Infinitive is used, as Dr Néldeke says ‘als eine Art Epexegese,’ e.g. Matt ii 20 ܒܥܝܢ ܗܘܘ ܢܦܫܗ ܕܛܠܝܐ ܠܡܥܕܝܘ‎ ‘they were seeking the lad’s life to snatch away,’ where ‘to snatch away’ is omitted by S. Here ܠܡܥܕܝܘܬܗܿ‎ ‘to snatch it away’ would have been possible, but with transitive verbs the addition of the suffix is not necessary. When however the verb requires after it a construction with a preposition the suffix is necessary after the pronoun, e.g. in Ps civ 26 39 pnd myo innd where we in English can say ‘Leviathan, that Thou hast formed to laugh at, the Syriac like the Hebrew must say ‘ Leviathan, that Thou hast formed to laugh at zt.’ This will explain the phrase ܠܡܠܥܣ ܒܗ‎ in Joh xxii S. Verbs of eating, such as ܐܠܠ‎ and ws\, usually govern an accusative; followed 1 Dr Merx, in his always interesting notes on the text of S (Dee Vier Kanonischen Evangelien: .. Erliiuterungen..von Adalbert Merx, i 248 ff), takes a widely different view. Deliberately dis- regarding the Greek, and even the text of S in the parallel passage Mk vii 27, he considers ܪܡܝܢ‎ to refer to ~4si=s and makes ܪ‎ a relative: the saying of Christ thus becomes ‘ Js zt not fitting to take the bread that the sons cast to the dogs?’ i.e. ‘is it not fitting that I, cast out as I am by the Jews, should help the Gentiles?’ To this question the woman replies by an eager affirmative. According to Dr Merx, the ordinary text of S. Matthew and also the parallel passage in S. Mark have been corrupted by a Judaistic re-editing ( Verjtidelung), which S alone has escaped. It is undoubtedly much easier to construe § in the way advocated by Dr Merx, but I cannot believe that his translation gives the sense intended by the scribe. When I find rév dprov rav réxvev in the Greek and ܠܥܢܡܐ ܕܒ̈ܢܝܐ‎ in the Syriac translation, I cannot but believe that ܪ‎ denotes the genitive and that the phrase means ‘the bread of the sons.’ Moreover Aphraates 149, in an allusion which I omitted to quote in voli, pp. 88, 89, as being too paraphrastical for textual purposes, says that those who assiduously beg for mercy are the dogs that receive the sons’ bread and they cast to them ܘܪܡܝܢ ܠܗܘܢ)‎ usa ܠܚܡܐ‎ ems), Dr Merx wishes to emend this also and to cut out the a before ,ܪܡܝܢ‎ but as it stands it attests the expression the sons’ bread, and a very little imagination is needed to believe that the phrase in Aphraates is a somewhat mechanical reminiscence of the text of S, understood as I have understood it and not as Dr Merx has done. If it be necessary to choose an antecedent to ܪܡܝܢ‎ in S, I should be inclined mentally to supply ܠܢ‎ after ,ܘܠܐ‎ Similarly in Mk vii 27 the Palestinian Lectionary has Jt ¥ not good that we should take the sons’ bread and (that) WE should cast it to the dogs. But no word is really required, seeing that in Joh xviii 8 S renders apere rovrovs trayew by ܫܒܘܩܘ ܐܙܠܝܢ‎ ܠܘܝܬܢ ܗܢܐ ܕܒܪܝܬ ܠܡܓܚܟ ܥܠܘܗܝ 2 B. I, 9 66 Grammar and Syntar. by ܡܢ‎ they signify ‘to eat part of a thing.’ But ‘to eat of a joint’ is ,ܐܟܠ ܒܗ‎ The expression is fairly common in Hebrew, e.g. Judg xiii 16, but it also occurs in Syriac, e.g. Job xxi 25 in imitation of the Hebrew. Hence ܐܝܬ ܠܟܘܢ ܡܕܡ ܠܡܠܥܣ ܒܗ‎ means ‘ Have ye anything to eat of?’ The choice of the preposition to be used was no doubt due to the fact that the Greek is wy te tpoodaycov € ; The confused construction of Lk ii 8 °C, is not supported by S, which has fais ܢܩܝܡ‎ arta ܡܫܟܚ ܐܠܗܐ ܕܡܢ ܗܠܝܢ‎ where ¢ has ܠܡܩܡܘ‎ for mass. The text of C (noticed in Néldeke § 286) appears to be nothing more than an unskilful mixture of the phraseology of Matt ui 9 with that of S in 8. Luke. A good example of the Infinitive used without a finite verb to express ‘must’ is Joh ix 30, where S has ܒܗܕܐ ܠܡܬܕܡܪܘ ܒܗ‎ ‘this is something to wonder at!’ The Peshitta inserts am after ܒܗܕܐ‎ and omits eas. [ Noldeke § 290.| A noteworthy example of a double accusative is to be found in ܘܠܢܦܫܟܝ ܕܝܠܟܝ ܬܥܒܪܝܢܗ ܪܘܡܚܐ‎ Lk ii 35 S, cor- responding to kat cod [de] adrys thy Wuyny duelevoerar popdaia. The text is supported by a fragment of the original Syriac of 8. Ephraim’s Commentary on the Diatessaron preserved by Isho‘dad, who has .ܒܢܦܫܟܝ ܬܥܒܪܝܢܗ̇ ܪܘܡܚܐ‎ The meaning is apparently ‘And through thine own self thou shalt cause a spear to pass,’ but no other authority has the verb in the 2nd person. For the use of tax. with an accusa- tive instead of with ܒ‎ see Lk xix 1, where we find ܐܝܪܺܝܚܚܕܘ‎ taxa in S, instead of ܒܐܝܪܝܚܘ‎ Jana. [Noldeke § 295.] The Infinitive absolute is much more commonly used in the Evangelion da-Mepharreshe than in the Peshitta. ܡܫܢܐ ܫܢܐ‎ Joh x 20 (Gr. paivera) appears to be the only instance in the Peshitta Gospels where the idiom is not actually indicated in the Greek. In one instance, ܡܗܝܡܢܘ ܗܝܡܢ‎ Lk viii 50, where it occurs in C but not in S or the Peshitta, the reading of C is supported by Aphraates, by the Commentary of S. Ephraim, and by the Acts of Thomas. It is possible, however, that this last quotation may be based on Mk v 36, a passage for which S is unfortunately not extant. Syntax of Particles. 67 [Noldeke § 304.] In Lk xviii 3 S has ܐܪܡܠܬܐ ܚܕܐ ܐܝܬ ܗܘܐ‎ where C' and the Peshitta have ܐܝܬ ܗܘܬ‎ [Noldeke § 328 B.] Both S and C are among the ‘ancient docu- ments’ that invariably use ܠܐ ܗܘܐ‎ and not al. The Peshitta on the other hand contains ܠܘ‎ several times, e.g. Joh vii 25. [§ 828 F.] Besides the use of ܕܠܐ‎ for ‘without,’ and also as a conjunction meaning ‘lest’ (almost like ,([ܕܠܡܐ‎ it is found several times in the Evangelion da-Mepharreshe in the sense of ‘else’ or ‘otherwise’: in such cases it is always followed by a noun, so as to distinguish it from ܕܠܐ‎ meaning ‘lest.’ This usage is obscured in the Peshitta and does not seem to be recognised in the Syriac Grammars, so I here set down the instances I have observed®. Matt vil SC: ‘Do not your righteousness before men, else ye have no reward with your Father’ ܐܓܪܐ ܠܝܬ ܠܟܘܢ ܠܘܬ ܐܒܘܟܘܢ)‎ win); Matt vi 24 C (hiat S), Lk xvi 18 S (hiat C): ‘No man can serve two lords, else the one he will hate and the other he will love’ ܕܠܐ ܠܚܕ ܢܣܢܐ)‎ mets ;(ܘܠܐܚܪܢܐ‎ Matt ix 16, 17, Mk ii 21, 22 S (hiat C): ‘No man putteth a new patch on a worn-out garment, else the fulness of the new pulleth away the weakness of the worn-out part...... neither new wine into worn-out wine-skins, else the wine teareth the wine-skins’ ܕܠܐ ܡܠܝܘܬܗ ܕܚܕܬܐ ܡܢܬܦܐ... . ܕܠܐ ܚܡܪܐ ܡܨܪܐ ܠܗܝܢ ܠܙ̈ܩܐ)‎ . In Matt vi 24 and Lk xvi 13 the corresponding Greek is 7 ydp, in the other instances it is €! d€ wy or ei Oe prjye. The Peshitta has ܘܐܠܐ‎ instead of ܕܠܐ‎ in Matt vi 1, and ܐܘ ܓܝܪ‎ in Matt vi 24 and Lk xvi 18. In Matt ix 16, 17, and Mk ii 21, 22, it has ܕܠܐ‎ but except in Mk ii 22 the construction is changed. In the other passages the verb comes immediately after ,ܕܠܐ‎ and in Matt ix 16 this is actually put in the future ܕܠܐ ܬܬܘܦ ܡܠܝܘܬܗܿ...)‎ ‘that the fulness of it may not pull,’ etc.). We may remark in passing that the unusual divergence of the Peshitta from the Greek in this verse receives a natural explanation when viewed as a stylistic cor- rection of the Evangelion da-Mepharreshe. The Greek here has aipe. yap TO mhypopa x.7.d., not € Sé py, aiper 70 TAypwpa as in 8. Mark. The Evangelion da-Mepharreshe rendered both passages 1 Here am ܐܝܬ‎ is read by Mr Gwilliam’s cod. 40, and by his 14 36 in Lk vii 37. 2 Other instances of ܕܠܐ‎ meaning ‘else,’ are to be found in asp 47}, 6817, 6916 ; Aphraates 1852, (R.H.K.) 68 Grammar and Syntax. alike, as its custom often is, employing in each passage the idiomatic use of ܕܠܐ‎ now under consideration. The Peshitta alters the idiom in Matt ix 16, but in so doing departs much further from the Greek. It is of course quite likely that in this particular phrase the official Peshitta text is simply reproducing a previous stylistic correction : we are even at liberty to conjecture that C, which is here missing, itself read .ܕܠܐ ܬܬܘܦ‎ [Noldeke § 338c.] In more than a dozen passages the Peshitta begins a paragraph with ܕܟܕ‎ rama ‘And it came to pass that when...,’ corresponding to kai éyévero ove in Matt, and Kat éyévero as or éyévero 6€ &v t@ in Lk. The formula occurs in S in Matt xi 1 and xix 1, and perhaps also in Matt xxvi 1, but elsewhere it is avoided in the Evangelion da-Mepharreshe. Usually the éyévero is left un- translated, as in Matt xiii 53 and Lk x 38: in other places we find ܟܕ‎ rama ‘And it came to pass when..., eg. Matt xi 1 C, xix 1 C, Lk i 41 S, ix 51 C. In the last passage S has saa without ܗܘܐ‎ . It is possible that the original translation had regarded sax kama as an exact equivalent of kai éyévero ore and aa ܘܗܘܐ‎ as an exact equivalent of kat éyévero ws. But as above remarked the éyévero is usually dropped in the Syriac rendering. The idiom specially mentioned in § 338¢ (wiz. ‘And it came to pass...and’) occurs in Lk ix 28 SC, but in the Peshitta the intrusive and has been corrected out. Here may conveniently be noticed the very curious anacoluthon introduced by the Kvangelion da-Mepharreshe and the Peshitta into their rendering of 8. Matthew’s phrase ‘Now all this is come to pass that it might be fulfilled,’ ete. (robro dé [ddov] yéyovey wa x.t.d.). The phrase occurs in Matt 1 22, xxi 4, xxvi 56, and in the Greek the construction is perfectly straightforward. But the Syriac has ܗܕܐ ܕܝܢ‎ x ܕܗܘܬ‎ , just as if the translation had read 0 instead of édov. That it is a native idiom and not a translator’s mistake is shewn by the retention of the phrase in the Peshitta: even in Matt xxvi 56, where S has in the plural ܕܝܢ ܟܠܗܝܢ ܕܗܘܝ ܕ‎ aloo, the Peshitta has ܗܕܐ ܕܝܢ ܕܗܘܬ ܕ‎ . In Matt xxi 4 a few ancient Peshitta codices 1 <Z\n meaning ‘else’ also occurs in Lk x 6, where reads ܐܢ ܕܠܐ ܥܠܝܟܒܘܢ ܢܗܦܘܟ‎ (sic, see the List of Errata), i.e. Lf (tt be) otherwise, upon you it will return. Apodosis introduced by the Copula 69 (Mr Gwilliam’s 15 17 19 20 36) remove this anacoluthon by omitting the ܕ‎ before ܗܘܬ‎ 1. This construction is also noticed in Néldeke § 358 B. [Noldeke § 339.] In the ordinary Edessene Syriac, as known to us in writings dating from the 4th century onward, the conjunction ‘and’ is not used to introduce the apodosis. But in S and C' there are several instances of this thoroughly Semitic idiom. The passages may be conveniently arranged under the two heads of Temporal Sentences, containing xa in the protasis, and Conditional Sentences, containing ܐܢ‎ 6 ale in the protasis. (A) Temporal Sentences. Matt ii 16 Banriobets S€ 6 “Inaods ¢ܐ0ܗ‎ avéBn amo Tov vdaTos Kal idov... SyI.vg‏ ܦܕ ܥܡܕ ܕܝܢ ܝܫܘܥ ܡܚܕܐ ܣܠܩ ܡܢ ܡ̈ܝܐ ܘܐܬܦܬܚܘ ܠܗ ܫܡܝܐ. Now when Jesus was baptized, immediately He came up from the water‏ and the heavens were opened to Him.‏ but‏ © ܘܟܕ ܥܡܕ. ܒܗ̇ ܒܫܥܬܐ ܕܣܠܩ ܡܢ ܡ̈ܝܐ. ܘܗܐ ܐܬܦܬܚܘ ܫܡܝܐ. And when He was baptized, in the same hour that He came up from‏ the water, [and] lo, the heavens were opened.‏ S‏ ܘܟܕ ܥܡܕ ܘܣܠܩ ܡܢ ܡܝܐ ܘܗܐ ܐܬܦܬܚܘ ܫܡܝܐ And when He was baptized and came up from the water, [and] lo,‏ the heavens were opened.‏ The [and] which I have put in square brackets simply serves to introduce the apodosis. Notwithstanding important differences, S and @ agree in the general cast of the sentence against the Greek and against the Peshitta, which follows the Greek. Lk. xiii 10ff The Greek text tells the story of the woman with the spirit of infirmity in the following manner: “'Now He was teaching... Mand lo, a woman having a spirit... 1Now Jesus... (spoke) land laid His hands on her.... ‘*Now the ruler of the synagogue answered and...(complained). 1° But (8€) the Lord answered him and said ‘ Hypocrite ! 7 1 A similar anacoluthon may be intended by the insertion of a before ahs in Lk xxii 37 S, but I incline to think the sa mere scribe’s blunder. A similar construction after ܦܠܗ ܦ‎ is found in Addai 234, 443, as my friend Canon Kennett points out. 70 rrammar and Syntax. S and C without substantial variation have: “'And when He was teaching... “and there was there a woman that had a spirit... Rand Jesus...(spoke) and laid His hands on her.... ‘And the ruler of the synagogue answered and...(complained). Jesus answered and said to him: ‘ Respecter of persons ! ` 7 It is surely unreasonable to take all the clauses in vv. 10—14 inclusive as introductory to the reply of our Lord in v. 15. Is it not more natural to regard v. 11 as the apodosis to v. 10? When Jesus was teaching in a synagogue one Sabbath, a certain woman (we are told) was present. The Peshitta retains the ‘when’ of SC in v. 10, but omits the introductory ‘and’ in v. 11, so that it reads “Now when Jesus was teaching... "there was there a woman, etc.”; 8 new sentence begins at v. 12 with “Now Jesus saw her.” Evidently therefore the a in the Hvangelion da-Mepharreshe at the beginning of v. 11 was taken as the introduction to the apodosis, and is accordingly omitted in the Peshitta in agreement with the later theory of Syriac syntax. Joh iv 1—8. This is another case where the Evangelion da- Mepharreshe had ܠܦ‎ in the protasis and a in the apodosis, and where the Peshitta in getting rid of this antiquated construction departed still more widely from the Greek. The Greek has ws ody ܘܗ‎ in v. 1, followed by a rather long parenthesis, but v. 3 takes up the principal narrative, beginning a¢nxev rHv “lovdaiay. This is properly and idiomatically rendered in S by ܟܕ ܕܝܢ ܝܕܥ‎ followed in ®, 3 by ܘܫܒܩܗ ܠܝܗܘܕ‎ . C is here mutilated, but from the space it 1s evident that v. 1 began with sa as in S, and v. 3 with ܫܒܩܗ‎ or ܘܫܒܩܗܿ‎ The Peshitta has manza like S, but it omits sa at the beginning of v. 1. The fact that the Peshitta has the a at the beginning of v. 3 is a clear indication that its insertion is no mere peculiarity of S but a characteristic reading of the Hvangelion da-Mepharreshe. Other instances of ܠܕ‎ followed by a are Matt ix 18 S, Matt xii 9 C, (not S), xviii 8, 9 S ܘܬܐܙܠ)‎ sic :ܨܐ‎ not C); Mk x 46 S, xi 15 S (tna, cf syr.vg); Lk xix 1, 2 S (not C), xix 36 S (not C). Somewhat similar is Joh xvi 6. Here S has ܡܛܠ ܕܐܡܪܬ ܠܟܘܢ ܓܝܪ ܗܠܝܢ ܘܐܬܬ ܟܪܝܘܬܐ ܘܡܠܬ ܠܒܘܬܟܘܢ‎ For because I have said to you these things [and] sorrow hath come and filled your hearts. Apodosis introduced by the Copula. 71 Here again it is obvious that we must omit the [and] in translating into English. The Peshitta also has ܘܐܬܬ‎ , but it omits ܡܛܠ ܕ‎ although the Greek is )ܬܘ‎ dru radra ܬܡܐ ܬ ܐܘܬ‎ dulv, Wan wemdjpoKev UPOV THY Kapdtlav. (B) Conditional Sentences. Lk xii 45, 406. édv 8€ etary 6 Soddos Exetvos ev TH Kapdia adTov...Kal ܫ‎ , A ~ 467 ܕ ܟ ܘ ܣ , ܨ‎ , apEnta TUTTEW TOS Tmatoas K.T.r., HEEL 6 KbpLos TOD SovAoV Exetvov... Here S and C have ܥܒܕܐ ܒܠܒܗ ..... ܘܢܫܪܐ ܠܡܡܝܝܐ ܠܥܒ̈ܕܐ...‎ am tac ܐܢ ܕܝܢ‎ 1.00 ܘܢܝܐܬܐ ܡܪܶܗ ܕܥܒܕܐ‎ Now if that slave shall say in his heart...and shall begin to beat the slaves... *®[and] the lord of that slave will come... The apodosis is thus clearly introduced by a, which we have to leave untranslated, or render by ‘then.’ The Peshitta agrees in the rendering of these verses with SC, but it omits the characteristic a before ܢܐܬܐ‎ at the beginning of v. 46, in accordance with the accepted syntactical theory. The evidence of Lk xii 45, 46, is especially cogent, because S and C' agree in inserting the ܘ‎ and there is no variation in the Greek. In other instances we have only the evidence of single ss. Matt xviii 12 8 ܐܢ ܢܗܘܝܢ ܠܓܒܪܐ ܡܐܐ ܥܢܐ ܘܬܛܥܐ ܚܕܐ ܡܢܗܝܢ ܘܠܐ par‏ ܬܫܥܝܢ ܘܬܫܥ Tf a man shall have a flock of one hundred and one of them be strayed, doth he not leave the ninety and nine...? (lit. ‘and doth he not leave...?’) Here C and the Peshitta have another word for sheep, and they also omit the a before ܠܐ‎ Matt xx 28 fin. C ܗܢ ܕܝ ܬܗܬܡܟ ܒܕܘܟܬܐ ܒܨܝܪܬܐ. ܘܢܐܬܐ ܡܢ ܕܒܨܝܪ ܡܢܟ.‎ armas ܘܢܐܡ ܡܪܐ ܐܚܫܡܝܬܐ ܐܬܩܪܒ ܘܐܬܥ ܠܐ‎ ܣܡ̈ܝܟܐ.‎ psd Witham ܘܬܗܘܐ ܬܫܒܘܚܬܐ‎ But if thou sit down to meat in a lesser place, and there come one less than thou, and the lord of the supper say to thee ‘ Bring thyself and come up and sit down to meat, then thou shalt have more glory in the eyes of the guests, 72 Grammar and Syntax. This sentence occurs in the well-known interpolation attested by Codex Bezae and the Old Latin version, but not by current Greek texts or the Peshitta. S is here deficient, owing to the accidental loss of a leaf, but it is evident from the space required that it could never have contained this long insertion. I have made the apodosis in the above translation come at the last clause: it might equally well be put at ܘܢܐܬܐ‎ or ܘܢܐ ܡܪ‎ , and D and the Latins actually set it at ܘܢܐܡܪ‎ , reading éped and not ܬܘܐ‎ épet. But in any case the clause which contains the apodosis begins with ‘and.’ As the evidence of S shews us that the interpolation does not belong to the earliest form of the Evangelion da-Mepharreshe, it is all the more interesting, from the point of view of the history of the language, to find in it an instance of the idiom now under discussion. Matt xxi 21 8‏ ܐܢ ܬܐܡܪܘܢ ܠܛܘܪܐ ܗܢܐ ܕܐܫܬܩܠ ܘܦܠ ܒܝܡܐ mama‏ ܗܟܢܐ. If ye shall say to this hill ‘ Be taken wp and fall into the sea, then it shall be so. Here ¢ has ܢܗܘܐ ܠܟܘܢ ܗܟܢܐ‎ without a. The Peshitta has but curiously enough three‏ , ܐܦܢ ܠܛܘܪܐ ܗܢܐ ܬܐܡܪܘܢ.... ܬܗܘܐ of Mr Gwilliam’s Mss (15 20* 36) read ܘܬܗܘܐ‎ Lk ×! 8 8‏ ܐܢ ܡܛܠ ܪ̈ܚܡܘܬܐ ܠܐ ܢܬܠ ܠܗ ܘܡܛܠ ܚܨܝܦܘܬܐ ܢܩܘܡ ܘܢܬܠ wal‏ Though because of friendship he will not give to him, ‘yet because of umportunity he will rise and give to ham. The a before the second ܡܛܠ‎ is not in Cand the Peshitta, and it is not visible in the photograph of S, though there is room for it and the rest of the passage is quite clear. I have not seen the passage myself at Sinai, but I should not wonder if a careful examina- tion shewed not only the a read by Dr Harris in 1893, but also signs that the letter had been intentionally washed out before the whole ms was broken up and converted into a palimpsest. In such cases the washed out letters are sometimes illegible in the photograph : a good instance of this is to be found in Lk xii 31, where I have little doubt that the first hand of S* had Massa, not ܗܟܝܠ‎ , Apodosis introduced by the Copula. 73 The illegibility of the a in Lk xi 8 is all the more to be regretted, as the sentence is of a somewhat different type to those we have been examining. The ܐܢ‎ has a concessive force, ie. ‘ though’ or ‘even if,’ and in the apodosis the first word is not a verb, but a noun preceded by a preposition. Lk xviii 4,5 8 ܐܢ ܡܢ ܐܠܗܐ ܠܐ ܕܚܠ ܐܢܐ ܘܡܢ ܒܪ ܐܢܫܐ ܠܐ ܡܬܟܚܕ ܐܢܐ «sma‏ ܐܪܡܠܬܐ ܕܗܟܢܐ ܡܠܐܝܐ ܠܝ ܐܬܒܥܝܗ Though of God I am not afraid and for man I have no reverence, * yet this widow who thus fatigueth me I wall requite. C has ܒܟܠܙܒܢ‎ instead of ܕܗܟܦܢܐ‎ ; the relative thus being dropped, ܘܗܕܐ‎ now begins a third conjunctive clause of the protasis, and the apodosis consists of the single word ܐܬܒܥܝܗ‎ ‘1 will requite her.’ For [ܘ]ܗܕܐ.. .. ܠܝ‎ the Peshitta has ܐܦܢ ܡܛܠ ܕܡܠܐܝܐ ܠܝ ܗܕܐ ܐܪܡܠܬܐ so that the sentence runs ‘ Though of God I am not afraid and of men I have no reverence, even though it 1s because this widow fatigueth me, I will requite her. This contains an admirable rendering of dud ye TO Tapexew por ܗܘܐ‎ THY xypav TavTyY, but it will be noticed that in this rendering also the a before the apodosis has disappeared. Lk ix 58 8‏ ܐܢ ܠܬܥܠܐ ܢܩܥܐ ܐܝܬ ܠܗܘܢ ܘܠܦܪܚܬܐ ܕܫܡܝܐ as‏ ܘܠܒܪܗ ܕܐܢܫܐ ܠܝܬ ܠܗ ܐܬܪ ܝ ܪܫܗ Though the foxes have dens and the birds of the heaven have nests, yet the Son of Man hath not where He may rest His head. In agreement with the Greek, Cand the Peshitta omit ܐܢ‎ and read ܠܒܪܗ ܕܝܢ‎ instead of mzala, besides one or two minor variations. The word ܐܝܢ‎ ‘yea’ is written ܐܢ‎ in Lk xii 5 S, but there can be little doubt that ܐܢ‎ here stands in S for ‘if’ or ‘though!’ An ‘if’ ig more than once inserted in S where the construction seemed to require it, e.g. Matt xii 28, Mk xii 87. But the half dozen instances which I have given of conditional sentences, in which the apodosis 1 So also Dr Merx in his translation, p. 133. B. IL. 10 74 Grammar and Syntax. is introduced by a, will I trust sufficiently prove that the idiom was really used in the earlier stages of Syriac literature. Now and then the apodosis of conditional sentences, especially such as contain dv in the Greek, are introduced by .ܕܝܢ‎ The classical instance is Gen xlii 10 syr.vg ܐܠܘ ܠܐ ܐܫܬܘܚܪܢ ܟܒܪ ܕܝܢ ܗܦܟܢ. Had we not delayed, perchance we should have already returned. ܕܝܢ‎ tas here corresponds to Any 3. The same construction occurs in Matt xi 21, Lk x 13, in S Cand the Peshitta; ‘if the mighty works had been done in Tyre and Sidon per- chance they would have already repented.’ yaa implies a slight doubt: the speaker is morally certain, but it remains a hypothesis‘: When jaa is absent, ܕܝܢ‎ can equally well introduce the conclusion without any expression of doubt. Thus in Lk xix 23 S C, and apparently also in Matt xxv 27, the lord asks the lazy slave ‘Why didst thou not give my money to the bankers ?’—equivalent to a conditional sentence —‘and I then ) (ܘܐܢܐ ܕܝܢ‎ had come and required mine own.’ 6 Peshitta both in Matt and Lk omits ,ܕܝܢ‎ as we might have expected. But the clearest example is Matt xvi 20 S, where we read ܐܠܘ ܐܝܬ ham‏ ܒܟܘܢ ܗܝܡܢܘܬܐ ...ܿ ܐܡܪܬܘܢ ܕܝܢ ܠܛܘܪܐ ܗܢܐ ܕܐܫܬܢܐ ܘܢܫܢܐ. If there had been in you faith...ye would have said to this hill ‘Be removed, and it would remove. Here C'and the Peshitta read ܕ]ܬܗܘܐ‎ acm] ܐܢ‎ at the beginning and substitute ܬܐܡܪܘܢ‎ for ܐܡܪܬܘܢ ܕܝܢ‎ . [Noldeke § 349 B.] The Greek construction of syr.vg and C in Lk ix 4 (aam ܬܡܢ‎ [ml] ܐܢܬܘܢ‎ alsa ܐܝܢܐ‎ wdual) is found also in S, and the same phrase recurs in Matt x 11, Mk vi 10, Lk x 5, 8, 10. But such a construction would hardly be possible in S and € with any preposition but \, which in Syriac is so intimately connected with the mere sign of the accusative after a transitive verb. When another preposition is used in sentences of this kind the Syriac begins with a ‘nominative absolute,’ e.g. Lk xx 18 éf’ dv dv méon ܐܬܬܬ‎ ܘܐܘ‎ is rendered in S ¢ ܡܢ ܕܬܦܠ ܥܠܘܗܝ ܬܫܚܩܝܘܗܝ‎ As, and ± gas ܡܢ‎ would have expressed the purely temporal sense of ‘already.’ Various dependent Clauses. 75 similarly in syr.vg with the substitution of ܬܕܪܝܘܗܝ‎ for the last word. Only in the Harclean do we find ܕܬܦܠ ܬܕܪܝܘܗܝ‎ ac As. In view of the concession to Greek idiom made by the Evangelion da-Mepharreshe in Matt x 11, it is a remarkable circumstance that in D and that excellent minuscule cod. 28 the clause runs 7 moAus eis Nv av eich Onre eis ;]ܵܘ‎ «7.4. Why do Western authorities thus syriacize at a point where Syriac texts graecize ? And in Mk vi 10, where the Greek is é7ov édv eiaédOyre eis otkiar, a phrase which reads like a translation from a Semitic original, why are S and syr.vg assimilated to the phraseology of the other Gospels ? It is easier to ask these questions than to suggest a satisfactory solution. [Noldeke § 355.] In my translation I have uniformly left the relative in short adjectival or adverbial phrases untranslated, wherever the verbal construction is left unexpressed. Thus ܐܝܠܝܢ ܕܒܫܡܝܐ ܐܢܝܢ‎ really means ‘the things that are in heaven,’ but ܐܒܘܢ ܕܒܫܡܝܐ‎ is better rendered into English by ‘our Father in heaven,’ than by the full verbal statement ‘our Father, who art (07, who is) in heaven".’ The mere fact that the relative in Syriac is a light unaccented half- syllable has doubtless helped the tendency of the language to insert it where the sense would be over-expressed by the English relative. [Noldeke §3588B.] See above, on § 338 ¢ [Noldeke § 373.] In three passages ܕܠܡܐ‎ seems to stand ellip- tically at the beginning of a sentence. The use of ܠܡܐ‎ for ܠܐ‎ in prohibitions is not found in the Evangelion da-Mepharreshe, unless we regard Joh v 45 C as an exception, so it is improbable that the ܕ‎ in ܕܠܡܐ‎ stands for ‘inverted commas,’ like 67 recitativum. The instances are (i) Matt vili 4 (Jesus saith to him “Opa pndevi etrys) ܐܡܪ ܠܗ... ܕܠܡܐ ܠܐܢܫ ܐܡܪ ܐܢܬ.‎ SC where the Peshitta has ܚܙܝ ܠܡܐ‎ instead of ܕܠܡܐ‎ , ie. ‘See, do not say to any one. Thus in SC ܕܠܡܐ‎ corresponds to dpa and the negative contained in pmdevi. 1 Of course atne5 o> could not be used in Syriac for ‘our heavenly Father’ (of Matt xviii 10 ‘their-angels in-heaven-behold my-Father-in-heaven’). 76 Grammar and Syntax. (ii) Matt xvii 9 (Jesus commanded them, saying Mydevi etayrte TO Gpapa) ܡܦܩܕ ܗܘܐ ܠܗܘܢ ܝܫܘܥ ܘܐܡܪ ܠܗܘܢ̇ ܕܠܡܐ ܠܐܢܫ ܐܡܪܝܢ‎ C ܐܢܬܘܢ ܚܙܘܐ. has‏ ܕܠܡܐ... ܚܙܘܐ S is missing at this point. The Peshitta for‏ ܠܥܝܢ ܐܢܫ ܠܐ ܬܐܡܪܘܢ iim Wow‏ Here again ܕܠܡܐ‎ stands in C for ‘Beware lest.’ (ili) Matt xxv 9 (The wise virgins reply Myjore otk dpkéon ypiv Kal vty) S‏ ܐܡܪ̈ܢ.... ܚܟܝܡ̈ܬܐ ܕܠܡܐ ܠܐ ܢܣܦܩ ܠܢ ܘܠܦ̈ܝܢ. Here ܕܠܡܐ‎ practically stands for ܕܠܡܐ‎ A, ie. ‘Nay, lest....,’ but the omission of the direct negative at the beginning of the sentence both in Greek and in Syriac gives a more courteous turn to the refusal. The Peshitta substitutes ܠܡܐ‎ , Curiously enough, in Matt xiii 29, where the Greek has ov, pymore... and S C have ܠܐ ܕܠܡܐ‎ the Peshitta has ܕܠܡܐ‎ alone, like Sin Matt xxv 9. It is noteworthy with what persistence the Peshitta avoids ܚܙܝ ܕܠܡܐ‎ and ܕܠܡܐ‎ ows. This is the case in Matt ix 30, xviii 10, xxiv 5, Mk i 44, Lk xxi 8, in all of which places the phrase is used by the Evangelion da-Mepharreshe. The only exception I have noted is Mk xii 5 ܚܙܘ ܕܠܡܐ ܐܢܫ ܢܛܥܝܟܘܢ‎ , where S has ܠܡܐ‎ . [ Noldeke §374 B.] ܐܢ ܗܘ ܕ‎ is generally avoided in S. Out of 15 places where the phrase occurs in one or other Syriac text, S has it only in Mk vii 3, 36. It occurs seven times in C; and its infrequency in S appears to be the result of stylistic correction. At least this is what is suggested by the occurrence of x ܐܢ‎ Matt x 18 S, am ܐܢ‎ (without x) Matt xii 10 S, and the reading ܗܘ ܬܟܝܠ ܗܘܐ‎ Matt xxvii 43 S. In the last mentioned verse the ordinary text has ܘܡ‎ alone, but € wéroev is read by D, 1-118-209, the Old Latin, the Egyptian versions, the Armenian and the Ethiopic: I venture to think it probable that the Evangelion da-Mepharreshe once read in agreement with these authorities ram ܕܬܟܝܠ‎ am ܐܢ‎ and that am in S is a relic of this reading. Hypothetical Clauses. 77 An expression similar in construction to 1 am ܐ ܢ‎ is to be found in Matt xiii 10, where S has ܡܢܐ ܗܘ ܕ‎ while ¢ and syr.vg have ܠܡܢܐ‎ [§ 374, Note at end.] The use of ܐܢ‎ to expres dy, common in later Syriac translations from the Greek, is naturally absent from the Evangelion da-Mepharreshe. But S preserves two instances of the use of ܐܢ‎ in alternatives )700/0606 § 3728), corresponding to I in Arabic’. Thus Mk xiii 35 S ܕܒܝܬܐ ܠܐ ܐܢ‎ mim ܠܐ ܓܝܪ ܝܕܥܝܢ ܐܢܬܘܢ ܐܡܬܝ ܐܬܐ‎ ܒܪܡܫܝܬܐ ܘܠܐ ܐܢ ܒܡܨܥܝܬܐ ܘܠܐ ܐܢ ܒܢܘܓܗܝܬܐ ܘܠܐ ܐܢ‎ For ye know not when the master of the house cometh, not whether at be in the evening-time, nor whether in the midnight, nor whether in the morning twilight, nor whether at the dawn. The Peshitta has ܐܘ‎ in each case in place of ,ܐܢ‎ to agree with the Greek 7. Similarly in Matt xviii 8 S* has ‘2t as better for thee to enter life ܐܢܬ ܐܘ ܟܕ ܚܓܝܣ‎ Xe ܟܕ ܐܢ‎ whether lame or halt. The ܐܢ‎ has been apparently washed out of the text by a corrector and does not appear in C or the Peshitta, but the occurrence of the word in Mk xiii 35 inclines me to believe it genuine here also. The same use of ܐܢ‎ is retained in the N.T. Peshitta outside the Gospels, e.g. in Rom i 16, where “Iovéatm te mp@tov Kat "EdAyve is rendered ܐܢ ܡܢ ܝܗ̈ܘܕܝܐ ܠܘܩܕܡ ܘܐܢ ܡܢ ܐܪ̈ܡܝܐ. [Néldeke §375 a.] The use of ܐܠܘ‎ in Sand 0:18 the same as in other Syriac documents, i.e. it introduces a hypothesis which is regarded by the speaker as impossible. Thus ܐܠܘ ܠܐ ܐܬܝܠܕ‎ is ‘if he had not been born. The use of alr, therefore, in the Hvangelion da- Mepharreshe for the sayings in Matt xvii 20 and Lk xvii 6 about faith as a grain of mustard-seed adds a tone of impatience and regret which 1 According to Wright ii § 166 the Arab grammarians distinguish between alternatives sepa- rated by ܩ‎ | and by .ܐܦ‎ In the former case one of the alternatives is known by the speaker to be true, in the latter no knowledge is assumed. 78 Grammar and Syntax. is lost in the Peshitta. ܐܠܘ‎ is practically our ‘if only’ :—‘if only,’ says Christ to the apostles, ‘ye had the grain of faith which ye have not, ye would have said....’ [§ 375 B.] Just like our ‘if only,’ the sense of ܐܠܘ‎ passes into that of a wish, and Lk xii 49 Cis worth quoting here as a parallel to the passage of the Julian Romance quoted by Dr Néldeke. In Julian 23” the Jews say ܘܟܡܐ ܨܒܝܢ ܗܘܝܬܘܢܿ. ܐܠܘ ܡܢ ܟܕܘ ܥܪܒܬ.‎ ie. “And how much ye would have been pleased if only our star had set!’ This is in form exactly like ,ܘܡܐ ܨܒܐ ܐܢܐ ܐܠܘ ܡܢ ܟܕܘ ܚܒܬ‎ Le, ‘ And how I should be pleased if only the fire had been already kindled!’ For the first clause S has ,ܡܐ ܕܨܒܐ‎ perhaps a slip for ܡܐ ܕܨܒܢܐ‎ but the construction of ܐܠܘ‎ is the same as in C. The Peshitta agrees with C but omits ,ܡܐ‎ Vocabulary. The Vocabulary of the Evangelion da-Mepharreshe is characterised by a straightforward simplicity, which is to some extent preserved in the Peshitta. There are certain standing locutions which are used constantly to the exclusion of others that might be thought equally good Syriac. Of these the most remarkable is the use of ras ‘life’ for cwrTypiov and cernpia as well as for Cwy. This extends to the verbal forms: ܐܢܢܥ‎ is used for ‘to save.’ Salvation and Life were thus identical terms in Syriac theological language, a different word (1n ta) being reserved for ‘ deliverance.’ Similarly ‘to come (or go) after’ stands both for dxodovfety and for €pyeoOo. 40, and among nouns ‘field’ is ܩܪܝܬܐ‎ and ‘boat’ is .ܣܦܝܢܬܐ‎ To each of the last there is one exception: eas is used for ‘field’ in Lk xvii 7 S, and ܐܠܦܐ‎ (‘ship’) is used for ‘boat’ in Matt xiv 22 @ a verse where S is illegible. Notable Greek words are :— occurs in Mk xu 38 S, Lk xx 46 SC, where the Greek has‏ ܒܐܣ̈ܛܘܐ otohais. The Hv. da-Mepharreshe apparently understood that‏ ܐܗ the Scribes wished to walk é Sroais like the Philosophers : cf Joh x‏ for orody occurs in Mk xvi 5 S, Lk xv 22 SC.‏ ܐܣܛܠܐ .23 Notable Greek Transliterations. 79 mia is used for 4 :ܐܩܘ«‎ ¢ Lk vi 17 S. The Peshitta has ܝܡܐ‎ Tw. occurs in Lk iv 29 S as the name of the hill, from which ths‏ ܦܪܶܣ people of Nazareth wished to throw Christ down. The Greek is‏ by S. Well-‏ ܥܕܡܐ wal‏ ܛܘܪܐ ws dppvos Tod dpous, rendered‏ hausen (Nachrichten der K. Ges. der Wiss. zu Géttingen, 1895, p. 4)‏ suggests that wa is a transliteration of [6|¢pvos: possibly the word‏ was understood as an equivalent of ®apos, spelt elsewhere in Syriac‏ .ܦܘܪܘܢ and‏ ܦܐܪ̈ܘܣ ma is used for rdoxa Mk xiv 1 6, Lk 11 41 SC, and also in Joh ¥1 4 ¢ See on ܦܛܝܪ̈ܐ‎ below, and the Note on Joh vi 4. is used for kepdria Lk xv 16 S: see below.‏ ܩܖ̈ܛܐ is used for Oapoetre Matt xiv 27 S, Mk vi 50S. In the other‏ ܬܪܣܘ C is only extant‏ , ܠܐ ܬܕܚܠ passages where Odpoe occurs S has‏ every-‏ ܐܬܠܒܒ for Matt xiv 27, where it has alusde; syr.vg uses‏ where. The following words are noteworthy, as being adaptations from the Greek which are used to render other words than those of which they are adaptations. used for ei dpa Mk xi 13 8.‏ ܕܛܟ : (from taxa)‏ ܛܟ réin\ (from exdvy): ܠܩܢܐ ܕܫܝܓܬܐ‎ ‘a dish for washing,’ used for vurtyp Joh xii 5 S, supported by Aphraates 226 and Ephr. Lamy i 657. The Peshitta has ܡܫܝܓܬܐ‎ . (from mirrdxvov): used for érvypagy Lk xxiii 38 SC, and also‏ ܦܛܩܐ by Ephr. Lamy i 667. The Peshitta has toda.‏ Lk xxiii 19 Cis quite obscure. It is obviously connected‏ ܗܛܖ̈ܘܬܐ with wwim ver. 25 C. In both places S has chaz, and the‏ corresponding to ordovs in the Greek. The‏ ,ܐ ܣܛܣܝܣ Peshitta has‏ reading of S is obviously a correction for some misunderstood or‏ in Mk xv 7, where‏ ܒܝܫܬܐ miswritten word. Similarly we find‏ syr.vg has pasa wore.‏ It is highly probable that the original word was some adaptation of ordous, and I venture to conjecture that ms ܥܒܕ‎ Mk xv 7* 8 is a substitute for ܣܛܣܝܪܐ‎ (i.e. ,ܬܬܗ ܘܐܗ‎ Bar Hebr. Chr. Keel. ii 725%, Nold. § 140), and that ܒܝܫ̈ܬܐ‎ in Mk xv 7° S, Lk xxiii 19, 80 Granmar and Syntax. 25 S, stands for ܣܛܗܝܪܽܘܬܐ‎ (i.e. sedition, the crime of a cracudpvos), a word that actually occurs elsewhere in Syriac (Guidi, Statute. de Nisibi osai iv 1833). It is easy to see how ܣܛܣܝܪܘܬܐ‎ could be cor- rupted into the ܗܛܪܘܬܐ‎ found in C, while wim appears to come from a further confusion of this word with wm\m, ie. asalsor!, More frequent than transliteration is the use of genuine Semitic phraseology to render technical terms. The list that follows is arranged in alphabetical order. ܡܩܕܫܐ‎ dus ܐܝܩܪ‎ Joh x 22 8 (=7a evkaivia). The use of ܐܝܩܪܵܐ‎ lit. ‘honour, for Dedication is curiously illustrated from the in- scriptions on Palmyrene tombs. In addition to the inscription of ownership, which usually begins ‘This grave (S37 N99) was made by So-and-so,’ there is in at least two cases a tablet under an ornamental niche, which says ‘This memorial (or this statue), which is ܐܐܬ‎ na 4p’, was set up by So-and-so to the honour of his family’ (De Vogiié i pp. 40, 41, and p. 47). The setting up of the ornamental statue of the family genius or of the guardian of the tomb was the Dedication of the building to sacred purposes, just as the setting up of the Altar by Judas Maccabaeus (1 Mace iv 56) was the Dedication of the Temple. In any case it is interesting to find the same technical term used by the Christians of Edessa as was used by their heathen cousins at Palmyra about a century earlier. a bier, Lk vii 14 8S". The original form of this Semitic word is‏ ܐܖܪܢܝܐ preserved in the Arabic ht irdn ‘a bier.’ This became in Hebrew jms, the long d@ becoming 6, as usual. The meaning is ‘box’ or ‘ark,’ and so was used for the ‘ Ark of the Covenant.’ The Hebrew word in this technical sense passed over into Jewish Aramaic and also into Edessene Syriac, but the 6 of ’avénd marks the word as borrowed trom Hebrew. The Christian Palestinian (in Lk vii 14) has retained the word with the genuine Aramaic vowel, the spelling varying between ܪܶܢܐ‎ and rate. Lk ii 14 S (=evdoxia). The word corresponds exactly to‏ ܐܪܥܘܬܐ my Ezr v 17, vii 18. See above, on Néldeke § 51. 1 Somewhat similar to these words is ܫ ܡܛܘܠܪ̈ܝܐ‎ (i.e. kverriovdpior, quaestionariz), used in the Peshitta as the equivalent of xoverwdia Matt xxvii 65ff. Here S has ܩܣܤܣܛܘܕܝ‎ and ܡܒܣܛܘܕܝܐ‎ . The word inal con (always in the plural as here) is, however, common in Syriac literature. Syriac Vocabulary. 81 Lk xxiii 48 § 0 (=ocvrmapayevdpevor): of Acts of Thomas‏ ܐܫܬܘܪܝܘ The word exactly corresponds to ‘se trouver’ in French.‏ .178 to be excited (of persons), used by all Syriac versions for‏ ܐܬܥܙܙ euBpyracOar Joh xi 33, 38; also for dvaorevalew Mk viii 12 S, and‏ for ducxupiferba. Lk xxii 59 SC. The word seems to be a‏ metaphor taken from the stirring up of a storm.‏ praters Joh vii 49 §"@ (see vol. i, p. 554), corresponding to‏ ܒܕܝܐ . ܩܘܛܢܐ dyNos otros. Here C has‏ 6 in Matt vi 7 S has ‘do not be saying battdld0d, i.e. idle‏ : ܒ̈ܛܠܬܐ things, to render py Batradoyjonre, and a similar rendering is‏ found in the Palestinian Lectionary. C and the Peshitta have‏ ‘be not stammering’ (mépaqgéqin), i.e. wy Battodoyjaoynte. Is it‏ possible that the word Barradoyet is actually an early Christian‏ coinage from the Aramaic ?‏ the under-hair of camels, Matt iii 4 S C. The word also‏ ܒܥܘܐ occurred in Ephraim’s Commentary on the Diatessaron, according to‏ Ishé‘dad (Harris, p. 22).‏ ܐܬܒܨ stands for ¢ éEnpdvOn, but de‏ ܒܨ ܘܝܒܫ 6 .06 Lk vit‏ ܒܨ means ‘to be emaciated, wizened (from drought)’ Ephr iv 491 .ܡ‎ wild mint Matt xxii 23 S(=ydvocpov). Cand syr.vg have‏ ܗܪܙܡܐ the ordinary word esas, and so also S in Lk xi 42. The‏ is obscure, but it does not seem to be a mis-‏ ܗܪܶܙܡܐ derivation of‏ writing of 7dvecpor in Syriac letters, as the 4 was quite clear in S.‏ seed of the Gentiles, used in Joh vii 35 SC‏ ܙܪܥܐ ܕܐܪ̈ܡܝܐ for 7 Swuacmopa tov “Eddjvev. etasaies, lit. ‘Aramaean,’ is the‏ regular conventional equivalent in Christian Syriac for ‘a heathen,’‏ without ethnographic signification, eg. Rom i 16. But the way‏ is used suggests that the technical sense of diacmopa for‏ ܙܪܥܐ ‘the Dispersed Jews’ was not familiar to the translator. The‏ Peshitta here has ‘the countries of the nations.’ In James i 1‏ ܕܙܪ̈ܝܥܢ) Siaamopa is rendered ‘those sown among the nations’‏ and in 1 Pet i 1 the ‘ Diaspora of Pontus’ is translated‏ ,(ܒܥܡܡ̈ܐ ‘those sown 7m Pontus.’‏ ras. The use of ras, life, to render cwrnpia and cwrrpiy, instead of some word meaning ‘ deliverance,’ together with the corresponding B, II, 11 89 Grammar and Syntax. equivalence of ܚܝܝܐ‎ and calerOa, belongs rather to theology and philosophy than to linguistics. It is noteworthy that this re- markable usage of the Hv. da-Mepharreshe whereby ‘salvation’ is identified with ‘life,’ was retained in syr.vg. The same definition of ‘salvation’ is given also by Clement of Alexandria: wrypia 009 TO emecOar Xpiot@: 6 yap ܘܗ ܘܟ‎ & atta lan éeoTw (Paed 1 vi 27). dus the coning-to-life of the dead, used for dvagracis Matt xxiii‏ ܡ̈ܝܬܐ in S and partly also in C and syr.vg. It corresponds‏ ,30 ,28 ,23 nvnn. The ordinary equivalent to‏ ܐܐܐ exactly to the Jewish‏ it is noteworthy that the specifically Syriac‏ : ܩܝܡܬܐ avdotacis is‏ term for the Resurrection, vz. esasai, well used in the Peshitta‏ of Joh xi 24, 25, does not oceur in the Hvangelion da-Mepharreshe.‏ meant dvapvéis (Ac iii 19) rather‏ ܢܘܚܡܐ Perhaps in early times‏ than dvaoracis.‏ to be acquainted with, Mk xiv 68 S, Lk xxii 60 S (not C),‏ ܢܚܟܫܡ ܡܢܝܟܘܡܬܐ Lk xxiv 18 SC, where other texts have sas. Hence‏ ܗܘ acquaintance, used for ot yyworot Lk xxii 49 SC, for‏ used for “ Boaz (09 7‏ ܕ ܡܚܟܘܡܬܢ Joh xviii 15,168. Similarly‏ in Ruth ii 2 syr.vg. In all three places S spells the word‏ (cf Noldeke § 126 B).‏ ܡܚܟܡܬܐ carol-pods of the sca, used for kepdtva Lk xv 16 C,‏ ܚܪ̈ܘܒܐ ܕܝܡܐ where S has wis, ie. ‘S. John’s Bread, the Carob-tree bean :‏ see art. ‘Husks’ in Encyclopaedia Biblica. But the addition of‏ is very puzzling.‏ ܕܝܡܐ ial, i.e. the hills, is used for dypés in the sense of ‘the open-country’ in Lk xii 28 SC, and péde 0:6 ܹ6 is translated ܕܒܫܐ ܕܛܘܪ̈ܐ‎ Matt iii 4S. dak, Aull, is used for this sense of dypés in the Palestinian Lectionary. cama Mk xii 14 S evidently differs from mtxt amas, the‏ ܕܪ̈ܫܐ ordinary Syriac equivalent for ‘poll-tax,’ in order to indicate‏ emxepadhavoy rather than kivoos.‏ ܗܐ ܐܦ Joh ix 21 S. For atros puxiay dyer S has am‏ ܡܪܫܢܘ̈ܗܝ ‘lo, he also hath become master of his years. 6‏ ܡܪܫܢܘ̈ܗܝ ܗܘܐ ‘he also hath entered‏ ܐܦ am‏ ܥܠ ܠܗ ܠܫܢܰܘܗܝ Peshitta here has‏ his years,’ an almost equally idiomatic phrase.‏ Lk xvii 10 ¢ The word means ‘ the sweepings of a threshing-‏ ܡܫ̈ܝܐ Syriac Vocabulary. 83 floor,’ ‘chaff,’ e.g. Amos viii 6. I have therefore translated rato ܥܒ̈ܕܐ‎ by ‘slaves and riff-raff.’ But it is not unlikely that the translator confused dypetou useless with a&xupor chaff-heaps. The use of the rare Syriac word ܡܫܝܐ‎ in this forced and un- natural connexion probably led to its omission in S, followed by the Ethiopic version. the morning-twilight watch, Mk xiii 35 S, is fem. to agree‏ ܢܘܓܗܝܬܐ .»ܘܩܘ »€ understood. The Greek has‏ ܡܓܪܬܐ with‏ rméoos Joh ui $ S, wes Joh iv 48 C, well known as a Jewish Aramaic term for ‘miracle.’ In Syriac it seems only to be used in the plural, chiefly in the phrase ܢܣ̈ܐ ܘܐܬܘ̈ܬܐ‎ (i.e. onpeta Kal répara, as in Joh iv 48 and in Aphraates 181, 273). But in Joh ii 28 ܢܤܣܐ‎ corresponds to oneta alone. mar to cast lots, Matt xxvii 35 S, Lk xxiii 34 S C, where the Greek has Baddew kdnpov. The ordinary Syriac phrase is WMA ܐܪܡܝ‎ as in Mk xv 24.8; but ܢܦܣ‎ also occurs in Joh xix 24 syr.vg, where however the Greek has \ayydvew without «dypov. )ܐ unleavened bread (ra dlvpa), used in 8. John to render‏ ܦܛܝܪ̈ܐ and the Note on Joh vi 4.‏ ,ܦܣ ܟ See above on‏ malas the mob, the common people, Joh vii 49 CL The Greek is only 6 dxXos ovros, but the comparatively rare Syriac word exactly hits the sense required. S has ܒܕܝܐ‎ praters: the ܒ‎ and the ܐ‎ are quite clear in the photograph taken by Mrs Lewis in 1902 (see above, p. 81). Possibly the original Syriac was sat > outsiders, as in Mk iv 11. mais (with suffix) for dos, Matt ¥ 34 SC, Joh ix 34 S: see on Noldeke § 155. puddle, shallow pool, Matt xiii 5 S (as I read the photograph).‏ » ܪܩܩܐ The word occurs in a gloss on 7a metpaédy, inserted apparently to‏ shew that there was there a little moisture, though without ‘depth‏ .ܬܬ of earth. mot is used in Exod 11 3 syr.vg to translate‏ letting the hands hang down (i.e. ‘ helplessness’), and‏ ܪܘܫܠ ܐܝ̈ܕܝܐ clasping the hands together (i.e. ‘ perplexity’) are‏ ܦܘܫܟ ܐܝ̈ܕܝܐ Lk xxi 25. The former is in S, the latter in‏ »)ܘ used to render‏ Cand syr.vg. 84 Grammar and Syntax. Matt vi 5 S, Lk xiv 21 SC, is used to render pvuy ‘lane,’‏ ܫܩܩܐ ‘bazar,’ a word which corresponds‏ ܫܘܩܐ as distinguished from‏ and to mdareta. Like some other words for ‘small‏ ܘܘ both to‏ means by etymology ‘a fissure.’‏ ܫܩܩܐ street’ in various languages‏ blue-purple, used as a technical term for the ‘ ribband of blue’‏ ܬܟܠܬܐ worn on a Jew’s dress in accordance with Nu xv 38. It corresponds‏ to kpdomedov in Matt xiv 36 C, Matt xxii 5 SC (and syr.vg).‏ In Matt ix 20 S has rasa (as also in xiv 36), while syr.vg has‏ was‏ ܬܟܠܬܐ it may therefore be conjectured that here also‏ : ܩܪܢܝܐ the original reading of the Hv. da-Mepharreshe. Was there a‏ prejudice against representing our Lord as dressed in a distinctively‏ Jewish garb ?‏ ie. Hebr. porn, used by syr.vg in Matt xxiii 5 for dudaxrypia,‏ ܬܦܠܐ ois ‘the straps of their phylacteries.’‏ ܕܬܦܠܝܗܘܢ but S C have‏ an insipid fig-tree, Lk xix 4S Cand syr.vg (= ovko-‏ ܬܬܐ ܦܟܝܗܬܐ ܦܦܝܗܐ popea). There does not seem to be any other instance of‏ ܬܬܐ in the sense of ‘wild’: in fact, the natural rendering of‏ is ‘a fig that has gone bad,’ and it is difficult to resist the‏ ܦܟܝܗܬܐ obvious explanation that the translator did not know what tree was‏ popav. In‏ ܟܐܗ meant and translated the word as if it were‏ ie.‏ ܬܘܬܐ Lk xvii 6 S C and syr.vg translate cuxdpwos by‏ ‘mulberry.’‏ The Diatessaron, on the other hand, translated ov«opopéa in Lk xix 4 by Na, the tree whose name forms part of the word ‘Bethphage, and if we may trust the Arabic (Diat xxxiii 10) it had ‘fig’ instead of mulberry in the passage corresponding to Lk xvii 6. are ܒܫܥܬܐ‎ 8110 statim. (A) Renderings of ei0vs, eiOéws, and kindred eapressions. Tabulated Renderings. APPENDIX TO CHAPTER IL. 88 The renderings for ev6¥s which we commonly find in the Hvangelion da-Mepharreshe a>, 7 Matt iii 16 ܐܗ‎ 6 iv 20 evééws and simple omission.‏ ܡܚܕܐ ,ܒܪ renderings (including simple omission) are found, such as continuo, confestim, protinus,‏ The lists which follow were originally drawn up in order to ascertain‏ whether the Latin and the Syriac renderings shewed any tendency to agree inde-‏ pendently of the Greek, but such is not the case, even with regard to omissions.‏ 22 evOéws (om. lat.vt) viii 3 ܐܘ‎ ¢ (om . &*) © > ܐ ܚ‎ 9 ‫ܹ 13 év TH wpa exetvy ix 25 (wapaxpyya ®) 30 (after Kat: xili 5 evbéws 20 evOus (om. 6 ܘ 21 of xx 34) 2) xiv 22 edOéws (om. N*C*al) 27 evOUs 31 evOéws xx 34 evdéws wo xxi 2 evOéws (om 3 evOus 19 rapaypyyo. 20 mapaxpypa xxiv 29 ܘܢܘ‎ ¢ xxv 15 ad fin. «6 xxvi 49 >¢ . lat. eur) / €ws 74 ܘ ܙ06ܧ‎ (or -éus) XXVil 48 edGews wa - illegible om. ܒܗ ܒܫܥܬܐ‎ ܒܗ ܒܫܥܬܐ‎ ܣܨ as‏ ܒܫܥܬܐ <hass aa‏ hiat hiat buxamiam In Latin also several Syr.vg as‏ ܒܫܥܬܐ om, (= rell.) 86 Grammar and Syntax. Mk i 10 ܘ ܐܧ‎ (om. D lat. cur) i 11 =r me iv Vv. ܝܙ 19 6 18 ebdOvs (om. c) 20 ebOus (om. bt) 21 ܘܐܗ‎ (om. c) 23 edBds (om. © D latt) 28 edfus (om. N* 1 28 lat.vt) 29 dvs (om. Dec fr) 30 edfus (om. be ff qr) 31 (cd0éws, om. & Bale arm) 42 edOds (om. ber) 43 edOvs (om. ¢ bc aeth) 2 (ci0éws, om. N Bal) 8 ܐܧ‎ (om. D 28 565 al) 12 edOvs (om. lat.vt) 6 ܐܧ‎ (om. DLbcq) 5 edbus 15 ed6vs (om. 1-209 arm) 16 etOus (om. D 28 ܘ‎ £ ( 17 ܐܧ‎ (om. 1-209) 29 eddus (om. ec) 2 (dOus, om. B lat.vt arm) 13 (cd6éws, om. NBal) 29 ܘܐܘ‎ 30 cb6Us (om. lat.eur) 36 (edOews, om. NBD al latt. ) exc. a) 42 066 25% ed6us (om. 17 L 1 lat.vt) 25> égauris (om. Def) 27 edOvs (om. off vg) 45 evOus (om. c) 50 e’Ous (om. D 33 ¢ ?( S hiat hiat ܒܗ ܒܫܥܬܐ ܒܗ ܒܫܥܬܐ om. (om.) om. om. om, ܒܗ ܒܫܥܬܐ ܒܗ ܒܫܥܬܐ om. hiat hiat hiat ܒܪ ܫܥܬܗ om. om. hiat hiat hiat hiat <a> ans‏ ܫܥܬܐ om. ܡܢ ܚܕܐ ܒܗ ܒܫܥܬܐ Tabulated Renderings. 87 S ܨ‎ Syr.vg Mk vi 54 ed6Us (om. q) ܒܗ ܒܫܥܬܐ ܗܝ‎ hiat ܒܪ ܫܥܬܗ‎ vii 25 etfs (om. an qg) om. 0 <a 35 (cits, om. BDlatvt) ܒܗ ܒܫܥܬܐ‎ : haze as viii 10 ed@us (om. D lat.vt exe. «) om. ‘i um ix 8 édmuva (ebOis Dlateur) ܡܢ ܫܠܝܐ . ܡܢ ܫܠܝܐ‎ 15 tbs ܒܪ ܫܥܬܗ .‫ ܒܗ ܒܫܥܬܐ‎ 90 ܘܗ‎ (om. Diateur.) hse ܒܪ ܫܥܬܗ . ܒܗ‎ 94 66 ܒܪ ܫܥܬܗ 5 ܒܗ ܒܫܥܬܐ‎ × 52 ets ܡܚܕܐ . ܒܗ ܒܫܥܬܐ‎ x1 2 06¢ܧ‎ (om. k) ܒܪ ܫܥܬܗ 0 ܒܗ ܒܫܥܬܐ‎ 3 dbus ܡܚܕܐ‎ 0 <aum xiv 43 eb6vs (om. D113 565latt) — om. 0 om. 45 ebfis (om. D 565 lat.vt) am ܒܪ ܒܫܥܬܗ ܕ‎ 72 etGvs (om. =) om. 0 ܒܗ ܒܫܥܬܐ‎ × 1 edOus (om. ac) om. 0 au Lk i 64 rapaxpqya (om. @) ܒܗ ܒܫܥܬܐ‎ hiat ܡܚܕܐ‎ ii 38 ܫ ܙܚܘ‎ ‡ Spa ܒܫܥܬܐ ܒܗ ܒܫܥܬܐ‎ as iv 39 ܡܚܕܐ .‫ ܒܪ ܫܥܬܗ )ܘܩ ܘܐ‎ ¥ 13 eibéws ܒܪ ܫܥܬܗ 0 ܒܪ ܫܥܬܗ‎ 35 <» ܡܢܢܕܐ 7 ܒܗ ܒܫܥܬܐ ¥ ܘ‎ 40 (ahd 90990 ܡܕܐ " 4 ܘܐ‎ vi 49 ed6vs (om. Dac) ܒܪ ܫܥܬܗ 7 ܒܪܫܥܬܗ‎ vii 31 év éxeivy TH dpa ܒܗ ܒܗܝ ܫܥܬܐ 7 ܒܗ ܒܫܥܬܐ‎ viii 44 ×») 7 ܝ‎ om. am 47 <») ܡܚܕܐ ܒܪ ܫܥܬܗ ܒܪܫܥܬܗ‎ 55 »ܐܟܘ ܘ«‎ (om. &*) ܡܢܕܐ ܒܪܫܥܬܗ ܒܪܫܥܬܗ‎ × 91 ܒܗ ܒܫܥܬܐ ܒܗ ܒܫܥܬܐ ܒܗ ܒܫܥܬܐ (4 ܘ01) ܀4 $ ܡܚܘ &܀‎ xii 36 ܗ‎ ¢ (om. e Cyp) ܡܚܕܐ ܒܪܫܥܬܗ ܡܚܕܐ‎ 54 >¢ ܡܚܕܐ ܝ ܒܪ ܗ݀‎ ܒܝ ܒܪ ܫܥܬܗ ܒܪ mrss.‏ ܬܬܘ »< 13 xiii‏ 88 Grammar and Syntax. S ܗܨ‎ Syr.vg Lk xiv 5 06¢ܗ‎ om. ܡܚܕܐ ܡܢܕܐ‎ xvii 7 ܡܚܕܐ ܒܪܫܥܬܗ ܡܚܕܐ ( $ ? 8 .ܐ (9) ¢ ܗ‎ xviii 43 <»: ܒܪ ܫܥܬܗ ܒܪܫܥܬܗ ܒܪܫܥܬܗ »ܛ ܘ‎ xix 11 ×» ¥)» (om. e) ܒܫܥܬܐ ܗܝ‎ hae ܒܗܝ ܫܥܬܐ ܒܗܝ‎ xx 19 év ܙܘ‎ 7 wpa (om. e) ܒܗܝ ܫܥܬܐ ܒܗ ܒܗܝ ܫܥܬܐ‎ as ܒܗܝ ܫܥܬܐ‎ xxi 9 ܐܙܘ‎ edOéws ܠܐ ܥܕܦܝܠ ܠܐ ܥܕܦܝܠ ܠܐ ܥܕܦܝܠ‎ ܡܚܕܐ ܒܗ ܒܫܥܬܐ ܒܗ ܒܫܥܬܐ < 60 ܐܰܐܶܫܫ‎ xxiv 31 (om. Gr) <a> a> au 33 airy 7H dpa ܒܗ ܒܫܥܬܐ ܒܗ ܒܫܥܬܐ‎ <bean Joh v 9 ܙ¿ ܶܘ‎ > (om. &*D ܐ‎ arm) ܒܪ ܫܥܬܗ ܒܗ ܒܫܥܬܐ ܒܪ ܫܥܬܗ݀‎ vi 21 ܒܫܥܬܐ ܒܗ ܒܫܥܬܐ ܗܝ 35 ܫܥܬܗ݀ ܘܗܢܘ‎ as xi 44 (ev6vs D pr f vg) ܒܗ ܒܫܥܬܐ‎ hiat om. (= rell.) xiii 30 ܘܐܘ‎ (om. e) om. 7 ܒܪ ܫܥܬܗ‎ 32 evOds a3 a ܡܢܕܐ‎ xviii 27 ebOéws ܒܫܥܬܐ 0 ܒܗ ܒܫܥܬܐ‎ as xix 34 ܗ‎ 60 (om. e) hiat ` au xxi 3 (evOus, om. NBal latt) om. ra om. The most notable points that emerge from the above lists are :— (1) To render t6vs, ܐܢܗ‎ the Hv. da-Mepharreshe tends to use ܒܫ ܠܬ ܐܡ‎ as, the Peshitta to use «aus, (2) In 8. Luke ܒܫܥܬܐ‎ a is avoided as a rendering of evs, ܘܙܘ ܘܢܗ‎ This is probably due to the fact that [év] ܐܐܘ‎ 77 wpa is so often used by this Evangelist. (3) To render rapaypjpa the Lv. da-Mepharreshe never uses <<3u=, which is the almost constant rendering in the Peshitta. (4) The omission of «v6vs or ev@éws rarely occurs, except in passages where a num- ber of allied documents also omit. Tabulated Renderings. - 89 (B) Renderings of ovv. The rendering of otv presents some interest on account of its extraordinary frequency as a connecting particle in 0. John. The natural Syriac equivalent is ,ܗܦܝܠ‎ like the English ‘ therefore,’ to which it very nearly corresponds, it is slightly stronger than ovr, Consequently we find in the Ev. da-Mepharreshe that o and ܝܢ‎ (Le. 82) are used to render otv. Simple omission also is not infrequent. A table of the renderings would be unsatisfactory on account of the fluctuation in the Greek text itself. In many instances it is impossible to ascertain what Greek particle was likely to have stood in the ms that the translator of the Hv. da-Mepharreshe was using. A numerical reckoning of the occurrences of \ss@ gives some remarkable results. No. of times ofy is given ܗܦܝܠ‎ occurs in Ss Cc Syr.vg in Bruder’s Concordance Matt 16 24 41 56 Mk 4 hiat 7 11 Lk 11 9 21 46 Joh 2 4 11 212 No doubt in a large number of cases the otv which is left untranslated was absent even from the codex used for revising the Peshitta, but when every allowance is made these numbers shew at a glance how insupportable the Johannine ody was felt to be in a Semitic rendering. It is a remarkable circumstance that both in 0. Mark and 8. John we have a connecting word very frequently employed in a manner that is hardly Greek, and yet not at the first glance Semitic. In the course of working at the Syriac equivalents for 8. Mark’s ets and 8. John’s ovv it has occurred to me that fundamentally they mean the same thing, and that they really correspond to the Hebrew ‘waw consecutive.’ Not, of course, that either of these Gospels is a translation from the Hebrew; but if the authors of these Gospels were familiar with the Old Testament otherwise than through the awkward medium of the txx, they might well have felt themselves in need of something to correspond to the Hebrew idiom. The essence of the meaning of *wdw consecutive’ is that the event related is regarded as happening in due sequence to what has gone before. To express this «ai is too inadequate a link, while 5 implies a contrast which is wholly wanting in the Hebrew: the turn of thought is more or less our English ‘and so.’ But this is exactly what S. Mark means by his xai ed@vs, and it is what is generally meant in the Fourth Gospel by ovv. Simon’s wife’s mother was sick of a fever and so they tell Jesus of her (kat ed6vs Mk i 30): 8. Mark does not mean to emphasise the haste they were in to tell the news. Similarly in 8. John there are literally scores of verses beginning with etwev odv or tov ow where ‘he said therefore’ brings out far too prominently the idea of causation. All that is meant is TON ‘and so he said,’ or ‘and so they said,’ as the case may be. The Evangelion da-Mepharreshe is the translation of the Gospels which of all others is nearest in spirit to the evangelists themselves. ‘That this translation so often omits cits in 0. Mark, and so often omits otv in 8. John or translates it by a simple ‘and,’ is strong evidence that these particles are in their essential meaning nothing more than a copula—a copula, it may be, with a certain nuance, but still merely a copula. B. IL. 12 90 Grammar and Syntax. (C) Syriac equivalents for ‘answered and said. The Syriac renderings for droxpiOets etrev and the other Greek phrases which we usually render in English by ‘answered and said’ are ܥܢܐ ܘܐܡܪ‎ ‘he answered and said’ and the simple ܐܡܪ‎ ‘he said.’ The tense of these verbs will be discussed in the latter part of this Note. The chief results obtained from tabulating the actual renderings found in S'C and syr.vg are as follows: (1) When the sense really is ‘to make a reply’ the Syriac is ܝܗܒ ܦܬܓܡܐ‎ ‘to give a response.’ It is only when the sense is practically no more than ‘to say’ that the Syriac uses ܥܢܐ ܘܐܡܪ‎ or the simple ܐܡܪ‎ (2) When azoxpivec@ar occurs alone without Aéyew the Syriac has ܐܡܪ‎ not in, The only exceptions are in the Peshitta text of S. John where ‘answered and said’ is found for aroxpivecOo. Joh ¥ 7, 11, vi 68, viii 19, x 25, xiii (26,) 36, xviii 23, mostly without outside support. as never occurs without i>. Even in Lk x 28 6p6ds amexpiOns is rendered ‘Well hast thou sazd!’ (3) In 8. John, where the usual Greek phrase is avexpi6y xal etre (or A€yet), syr.vg has ‘answered and said’ every time except Joh iv 17. In Sand ©, on the other hand, is only occurs in Joh ii 19 S, 111 9, 10 C (not S in either place), vii 16 S (not C), ix 20 S, xviii 30 8. (4) In 8. Matthew Syriac authorities read simple 1=>< instead of ><a ܥܢܐ‎ in the following places, practically without other support :— Matt 15 C xvi 4 © xxlv 20 —vg xii 38 S(C) 11 € xxv 9 S — xv 288 Cvg xxl27 @ 37 — — vg xvi 2 © 298 C xxvi 23 S — 17 © In the last four passages C is missing, and ¢ is illegible in xxv 87. In Matt xii 38 ¢ reads ‘drew near’ instead of ‘answered’ with of the Old Latin. (5) In 8. Mark 0 fails us, and the many variations in the Greek make the task of enumerating the Syriac renderings more difficult and uncertain. In the following places S and syr.vg have ܐܡܪ‎ instead of ܥܢܐ ܘܐܡܪ‎ without outside support :— Mk vi 87 S vg x 3 vg vii 28 ® 61 vg villi 29 8 xii 35 8 xv12 vg The omission of ‘answered’ in Mk xi 33* is doubtless connected with the other variations in that verse, and therefore is not counted here. Tabulated Renderings. 91 (6) In 8. Luke our Syriac authorities have ܐܡܪ‎ instead of ܥܢܐ ܘܐܡܪ‎ without outside support in the following places :— Lk i60 § x27 © xix 40 © vg ill S © 41 © xx 3 © 16 C xii 8 © vg 39 SC vi 40 S © xv29 © vg xxiii 38 C vg 43 SC ×¥(1 17 ©€ 40 SC vg ix 19 (S)C 20 © xxiv 18 SC 37 SC In Lk i 60, the only place where { stands alone in omission, Cis missing. On the other hand § has ܥܢܐ ܘܐܡܪ‎ in Lk viii 46, 48, 50, where there is no doxpivecOae in the Greek, and also in Lk xx 34 where it is only found in inferior texts. In this last passage the Diatessaron seems to have had Then said to them our Lord, if we suppose that Aphraates 167 comes from Tatian’s Harmony: the text of S may be an independent ` adaptation of Matt xxii 29. The general impression left on me by these textual facts is that the Evangelion da-Mepharreshe very often rendered dvoxpiGeis etev and the kindred phrases by simple ܐܡܪ‎ and that there was a further tendency to drop the ‘answered and,’ even where it once stood in the Syriac text. This tendency is especially visible in C. It is not the case that S has any general tendency to insert 1s, for the only place where S has ܥܢܐ ܘܐܡܪ‎ against the Greek is Lk viii 46—50. But in syr.vg the reviser, in remedying the almost total omission of 1s from the Lv. da-Mepharreshe, did wrongly supply the word in a few passages. In any case it is impossible to bring forward the ‘Old Syriac’ as an authority for the omission of dzoxp.Heis in these introductory phrases, though the presence of 1x is good evidence that some form of dzoxpiveoOar was contained in the text which lay before the translator. The words ><a ܥܢܐ‎ may be vocalised ‘¢nd wemar (i.e. ‘he answered and said’) or ‘énd wamar (i.e. ‘he answered and saith’). As a matter of fact, the traditional ‘pointing of the Syriac Vulgate always makes it ‘he answered and said, both for droxpibets etrev and for azoxpieis déyer. The earliest Syriac mss are not vocalised, but we may form some idea of the correctness of this vocalisation by observing how the form is rendered in the feminine and in the plural. In Syriac ‘she answered and said’ is ܘܐܡܪܬ‎ dus, but ‘she answered and saith’ is ܘܐܪܡܪ̈ܐ‎ dus. If the traditional vocalisation for the masc. sing. be correct, the latter form ought never to appear; and similarly we ought always to find ܥܢܘ ܘܐܕܡܪܘ‎ never ܥܢܘ ܘܐܡܪ̈ܝܢ‎ But the fact is that ‘they answered and say’ is by far the more common formula. In the following Table the Peshitta renderings are given with the variants of S and € Where no reading of S is given the Hvangelion da-Mepharreshe has ܐܡܪ‎ without IN, 92 Grammar and Syntax. Syr.vg Syr.vg Matt xii 38 ܥܢܘ ̇ ̇ ݂ ܘܐܡܪܝܢ‎ Mk vii 28 ܥܢܬ ܘܐܡܪܐ‎ XX1 27 ܥܢܘ ܘܐܡܪܝܢ‎ (=8, om. C) x1 33? ܥܢܘ ܘܐܪܕܡܪ̈ܝܢ‎ xxy 9 ܥܢ̈ܝ ܼ , ܘ ܐܡܪܢ‎ 44 ܢܥܢܘܢ . . ܿ ܘܢَܰܐܡܪܘܢ‎ )=§( Joh ii 18 ܥܢܘ . . , ܘܐܡܪܘ‎ XXVi 66 ܥܢܘ ܘܐܡܪܘ) ܥܢܘ ܘܐܡܪܝܢ‎ 8) Vil 90 ܥܢܐ ܦܢܫ ܐ ܘ݀ܐܕܡܪܝܢ‎ XXVI1 25 ܥܢܘ . , ܘ̇ܐܐܡܪܝܢ‎ (=8) 52 pido ܥܢܘ‎ vill 89 ܥܢܘ ܘܐܕܡܪܝܢ‎ Lk i 60 ܥܢܘ ݂ ݂ ܘܐܡܪܝܢ 48 ܥܢܬ ݂ ݂ ܘܐܡܪܐ‎ ix 19 ܥܢܘ ܘܐܡܪܝܢ‎ ix 20 ܥܢܘ ̇ ̇. ܘܐܡܪܘ‎ (not 6( XVii 87 piesa ܥܢܘ ܘܐܕܡܪܝܢ 84 ܥܢܘ‎ xx 89 ܥܢܘ ݂ ݂ ܘܐܡܪܝܢ‎ Xvili 80 ܥܢܘ ܘܐܐܕܡܪ̈ܝܢ‎ (= 8) In Mk xi 88” some Peshitta mss have ,ܥܢܘ ܘܐܐܕܡܪܘ‎ In Joh ix 90 S has certainly ܐܡܪܝܢ‎ not ois. I have not given the Greek, as the Syriac renderings do not distinguish between amoxpiWevres héyovow and droxpibévres etrov, or even amexpiOnoay Kat éirov. It must also be noticed that the Peshitta text in this matter cannot be explained as a survival from the ‘Old Syriac,’ for in most of the passages the Hv. da-Mepharreshe has the single verb, and in Lk i60 S has the perf. ܐܡܪܬ‎ where syr.vg has ܘܐ ܡܪ̈ܐ‎ .. dus, Under these circumstances it is almost impossible to believe that ܥܢܐ ܘܐܡܪ‎ should uniformly have been intended for ‘énd wemar in each of the 117 places where it occurs, and never for ‘éxd wadmar. The point in itself is of small importance, but it shews us that the traditional vocalisation of the Peshitta is not always to be trusted. (D) The names of 8S. Peter. The names by which 8. Peter is spoken of afford a curious illustration of the danger of @ priori reasoning in textual matters. The names actually found are (1) ܫܡܠܘܢ‎ Shim'dn, (2) “ats Keéphd (ie. ‘Stone’), and (3) the double name “aca ܫܡܥܘܢ‎ Shim‘én Képhd. When once it was ascertained that the Syriac-speaking Church did not use the Greek name Petros, it might easily be assumed that Shim‘dn corresponded to* Sipov, and Képhd to Kndas and to 11600, But this is not always borne out by the actual evidence. The Greek name Petros only occurs once, viz. Joh i 42 S, where Kndas, 0 épunveverat Tlérpos: is rendered aca‏ ܕܡܬܪܓܡ bursa‏ ܦܛܪܘܣ Kepha, that is interpreted in Greek ‘ Petros.‏ Here C is missing, and syr.vg simply omits 6 épynvevera. Térpos, just as the similar clause 6 éorw pebeppyvevouevov Xpirrés in the preceding verse is omitted by all the Syriac texts. In a reference to the story of 8. Peter walking on the water (Matt xiv 28) the name wots occurs twice in Ephraim Overbeck 27, but there is no exact quotation. In a somewhat similar allusion in Lamy i 263 the name ‘Simon’ only occurs. Tabulated Renderings. 95 As we should expect, Scuwv is generally rendered by ܝܫܡܥܘܢ‎ Simon, as always in the phrase Simon, son of Jona, and also in Matt xvii 25°; Mk i 16, 30, 36, xiv 37; Lk iv 38 bis, ¥ 4, 5, 10 bis, xxii 81 bis, xxiv 34, but Simon Kepha is put for Siuov in Mk i298, Lk ¥ 8 syr.vg, Joh i 41 (42) ¢ The other Syriac texts have Simon alone in these three passages. The following Table gives the Syriac renderings corresponding to [érpos in the Greek Gospels. 8. MATT, iv 8 vili 14 x 2 xiv 28 29 xv 15 xvi 16 18 22 26 xvill 21 xix 27 XXvl 8 35 37 40 58 69 78 75 8. MARK ii 16 v 37 S Simon Simon Kepha Simon Kepha Simon Kepha Simon Kepha Simon Kepha on. om. Simon Kepha Simon Kepha Simon Kepha Simon Kepha Simon Simon Simon Simon Simon Simon Simon Kepha ܘ 60 Kepha Simon Kepha Simon Kepha Simon Kepha Simon Kepha Simon Kepha Kepha Simon Kepha Simon Simon Kepha Simon Kepha Simon Simon om. Simon Simon Kepha Simon Kepha Syr.vg Simon... Kepha Simon Simon... Kepha Kepha Kepha Simon Kepha Simon Kepha Kepha Kepha Kepha Kepha Kepha Kepha om. Kepha Simon Kepha Kepha Kepha Kepha Kepha Kepha Simon Kepha Kepha Kepha Kepha Simon... Kepha Simon Kepha Where the Greek has Siwy Mérpos the Syriac rendering is printed in ztadies. There are here several insertions & transpo- sitions of 8. Peter’s name in Greek and Latin uss 94 Grammar and Syntax. 8. MARK S Cc Syr.vg vili 29 Kepha — Simon Kepha 32 Simon Kepha _ Kepha 33 Kepha _ Simon ix 2 Kepha _ Kepha 5 Kepha — Kepha x 28 Kepha = Kepha xi 21 Kepha _ Simon xii 3 Kepha _ Kepha xiv 29 Kepha — Kepha 31 Simon — om. [syr.vg=S NBD latt] 33 Kepha — Kepha 37 Kepha — Kepha 54 Kepha — Simon 66 Kepha — Simon 67 om. — om. (syrr =1&e 13 & 565c] 70 Kepha _ Kepha [om. Da] 72 Kepha — Simon xvl 7 Kepha _ Kepha 8. LUKE v 8 Simon _ Simon Kepha — [om. 1( ܘ&:18‎ abe] vil4 Simon... Kepha — Simon... Kepha vili 45 Kepha Kepha Simon Kepha 51 Kepha Kepha | Simon ix 20 Simon Kepha Simon Kepha Simon —_[‘Simon Petrus’ ¢ qf vg] 28 Kepha Kepha Simon 32 Kepha Simon Kepha Simon 33 Kepha Kepha Simon xii 41 Kepha Kepha Simon Kepha xviii 28 Kepha Kepha Simon Kepha xxii 8 Kepha Kepha Kepha 34 Kepha om. Simon 54 Kepha Simon Kepha Simon 55 Kepha Kepha Simon 58 om. Kepha Kepha [S=D lat.eur] 60 Kepha Kepha Kepha 61° Kepha Kepha Kepha 61? Kepha Kepha Simon — [om. D 157 gat] 62 om. om. Simon 9 0 aa tated) xxiv 12 Simon Simon Simon __[om. v. 12D lat.vt] 8. JOHN i 40 (41) 42, (43) 44 (45) vi 8 68 xili 6? gb xvii 0 16° 16° 21 Tabulated Renderings. S Simon Kepha, ¢.¢. Petros Simon Simon Kepha Simon Kepha Simon Kepha Simon Simon Simon Simon Kepha Simon Kepha Simon Simon Kepha Kepha Simon Kepha Simon Kepha Simon Simon Simon [om. (of vv. 167, 18) ] Simon 'Kepha' Simon Simon Kepha om. Simon Simon Simon Kepha Simon Simon Simon Stmon Simon Simon Simon Simon ܣ Simon Kepha‏ Simon Kepha Simon Kepha Syr.vg Simon Kepha Simon Simon Kepha Simon Kepha Simon Kepha Simon Simon Kepha Simon Kepha Simon Kepha Simon Kepha Simon Kepha Simon Kepha Kepha Simon Kepha Simon Simon Simon Simon Simon Kepha Simon Simon Simon Kepha Simon Simon Simon Simon Kepha Simon Kepha Kepha Simon’ Simon Kepha Simon Kepha Kepha Simon Kepha Kepha 95 [Aéyet, + ‘ Petrus’ latt] [om. Ziuwr D] [om. Ilérpos D] [for S, ef ver. 25] A glance at the above tables will shew the necessity for taking each Gospel separately and also for considering what the underlying Greek is. 1 Ephr vi 158 has Simon Kepha. 96 Grammar and Syntax. Where the Greek has Sov Uérpos, the Syriac has naturally Simon Kepha, the exceptions being Matt iv 18 and Joh 1 40 (41), xxi 8, 7°, 11, 15, where S has Szmon only?. Lk ¥ 8 is not an exception, for there Sis simply following the so-called ‘Western’ authorities in omitting Meérpos, The omission of Joh xviii 25 is caused by the peculiar transpositions made by S in this chapter. Where the Greek has Heérpos without Sipwv we find a remarkable distinction between the Gospels. In the Hvangelion da-Mepharreshe ‘Kepha’ is avoided'in Matt and Joh, but almost exclusively employed in Mk and Lk. The only instances where Kepha alone is used in Matt or Joh are Matt xvi 18 and Joh i 42, passages where Simon would have been out of place, and also Joh xviii 11. On the other hand, only two instances occur in the other Gospels where Ierpos is rendered ‘Simon’ in S or C. These are Mk xiv 31 and Lk xxiv 12,8 C. In the former passage the true text has 6 6¢ without Iérpos, but 8 adds ܝܫܡܥܘܢ‎ for clearness’ sake, just as a number of Greek mss add ‘Peter’: the textual evidence does not suggest that 6 8 Iérpos stood before the translator of the Hv. da- Mepharreshe. In Uk xxiv 12 we are dealing with one of the so-called ‘Western Non-Interpolations.’ The verse is omitted by D and the Old Latin, and is certainly no part of the genuine Gospel according to 8. Luke. It is therefore striking to find that the text of the verse in S and C contains an equivalent for ‘Peter’ that we do not meet with elsewhere in this Gospel. At the same time the hypothesis that S and C are here themselves interpolated, and that the verse forms no part of the original Av. da-Mepharreshe, raises serious difficulties. The translator may possibly have been influenced by the four-fold occurrence of ‘Simon’ in the parallel passage Joh xx 3—10. The preference shewn by S and C in Matt, and to a less degree in Joh, for ‘Simon Kepha’ as a rendering of Ierpos is a remarkable feature of the Hvangelion da-Mepharreshe. 1 see no reason to suspect that our Mss do not in this preserve the original rendering of the translator. As for the Peshitta, the preference for ‘Kepha’ as a rendering of [léerpos in Matt and Mk is what we should expect. ‘The surprising thing is the preference for ‘Simon’ shewn in Lk and Joh. In $. John this use may be explained as a survival from the Old Syriac, but that explanation will not hold equally for 8. Luke. It is impossible to believe that S and C have been independently conformed to the Greek in this one particular, while the direct Syriac ancestors of syr.vg have escaped: it is more probable that the double name Simon Kepha was once more frequent in the Syriac 8. Luke (cf ix 20 SC, xxii 54 C), and that the reviser, considering that both ܫܡܥܘܢ‎ and <A<s were each separately an equivalent for Ilérpos, took in this Gospel the former name instead of the latter. In any case the evidence derived from the Syriac texts of 0. Luke shews us how dangerous it is to use the Peshitta text of any book, such as the Acts, as a starting point for investigations about the original form of the Proper Names in the N.T. Yet this is what Dr Merx has done (Hriiuterung i 164). Dr Merx comes to the conclusion that Tlérpos is generally a later correction and that the Evangelists commonly wrote Supewy instead. A similar argument might be used to prove that the Evangelists wrote Meooias where our Greek mss have Xpuords. 1 Also Joh i 40 (41), xxi 79 syr.vg. But in the latter passage Ephraim has Simon Kepha. Tabulated Renderings. 97 (E) Renderings of “Incots and of xipios The usual rendering of [6] ‘Incots in the Syriac Versions is ax, pronounced by Jacobites Yeshi‘ and by Nestorians /shé‘. This is doubtless the original name of which "Ingots is the Greek transcription: it frequently occurs in the O.T. with the vocalisation yw Véshiia'. But one of the most curious features of S is that —4= Mdran, i.e. ‘our Lord,’ is occasionally used to render [6] Ijcots. This occurs Matt viil 3—xi 7 (inclusive). Lk viii 40. Joh i 36—vi 5 (inclusive), vill 34, xi 44, xii 16, xiii 23. In $. Mark ܡܪܢ‎ never occurs. The only places where ܡܢ‎ is similarly found in C is (1) Matt iv 18, where S and syr.vg omit with most authorities, but ELAal’™achmarm add 6 Inoots; and (2) Lk xxli 25, where syr.vg has ‘Jesus’ with Aal?, but S omits with all other authorities. In the quotations of Aphraates, the only other ‘Old Syriac’ source of any considerable bulk, ‘our Lord’ is used instead of ‘Jesus’ in Matt xviii 22, xxii 29; Lk ix 60, xix 9. On the other hand ‘Jesus’ occurs in Aphraates’ quotations of Mk x 21, 23 (= Matt xix 23); Mk xvi 19; Lk iii 23; Joh xiii 8, 10. . Before estimating the reason of these variations it will be well to tabulate the Syriac renderings of 6 xvpios, when used as it occasionally is in S. Luke and 8. John in place of the personal name ‘Jesus.’ The vocative Kvpve is naturally rendered by ܡܪܝ‎ my Lord, or sometimes (when the speaker is one of the disciples) by 45» our Lord. In tabulating the occurrences of 6 xvp.os in this sense it is necessary to give the Greek and Latin various readings somewhat fully: it will usually be found that important authorities read ‘Jesus’ or omit the name altogether. Greek and Latin evidence for 8. LUKE S ܨ‎ Syr.vg 6 "Inoods, or for omission vi? Jesus — (the Lorp) — [see below] vii 13 Jesus — Jesus ic D 1é&e. lat. § -vgeodd THs 9 x 1 om. om. Jesus 15 ace iv a 39 Jesus our Lord our Lord De lene A. ky 8 B*O*D L Sal lat.vt -vg 51 41 Jesus om. Jesus 0 1 ܝ‎ × 9 Jesus our Lord Jesus ic Uc al lat.vgeod xii 42 Jesus our Lord Jesus THB 9 xiii 5 Jesus Jesus Jesus ic D® FUL 1&c. 28 13 &e. al” lat.ygooua xvii 5 Jesus our Lord our Lord Tan DNO) bee far vert 6 om. om. om. ܝ‎ ] 0 3:27 9 B. II. 13 98 Grammar and Syntax. Greek and Latin evidence for 8. LUKE ܪ‎ : Syr.vg 6 Inoois, or for omission xviii 6 Jesus our Lord our Lord xix 8 Jesus our Lord Jesus in GEKMIL 13 &e. al® ¢ ܨ‎ 4 ܪ‎ IN ܒܬ‎ 818 xxil 25 om. our Lord Jesus one Pall THS lat.vgeot 31 (om. clause) our Lord Jesus 7 ܣ‎ 61* Jesus our Lord Jesus ic D1é&e. 124* al? lat.vgeod 61° Jesus our Lord our Lord Xxlv 8 (Jesus) (Jesus) (Jesus) [see below] 34 our Lord our Lord our Lord (‘ The Lord is risen indeed’) 8. JOHN iv 1 (‘ourLord’) — Jesus Jesus iG ` ieee ala vi 23 illegible (om. clause) Jesus om. clause D69* ae xi 2 illegible — Jesus xx 2 our Lord — our Lord (said to Peter and John) 13 my Lord — my Lord (said to the angels) 18 our Lord _ our Lord (said to disciples) 20 om. _ our Lord 25 our Lord _ our Lord (said to Thomas) xxl 7 our Lord — our Lord (said to Peter) 7> our Lord — our Lord (repetition) 12 om. _ our Lord In the above list I have not included Lk vii 31, for almost all Greek and Latin authorities omit the clause efe 8¢ 6 kvpios. In Lk ¥ 17 dvvapis xvpiov jv is taken by S to mean ‘the power was in Jesus,’ so that the verse has to be added to the list of passages where the translator of the Hv. da-Mepharreshe understood xvpios to be used in narrative in the sense of ‘our Lord.’ But no other authority has ‘Jesus’ here. Lk xxiv 3 also might perhaps have been placed by itself. Most authorities read ‘the body of the Lord Jesus’: Dabe ffir omit ‘of the Lord Jesus,’ while a Greek minuscule, 7 and the Sahidic, omit ‘the Lord.’ It is evident that the Syriac versions do not attest the longer reading, but a glance at this Table will, I think, be enough to shew that we cannot determine whether they attest rod xvpiov without “Iycot, or rod “Iyood without «vpiov. In Joh iv 1 the reading of S'is marked illegible, but as the passage comes within one of the sections in which ‘our Lord’ is regularly used for ‘Iyoots, there can be no doubt that § has — i> here. It must further be noticed that Ephraim (Moes. 98) supports S against C and the Peshitta by having ‘Jesus’ in Lk x 39. Tabulated Renderings. 99 The main question in dispute is whether 8 or C most accurately represents the original text of the Ev. da-Mepharreshe in the matter of these Proper Names. S is consistent with itself, The only occurrences of ‘our Lord’ where the Greek has «pos are in reported sayings of the disciples, all as a matter of fact after the Resurrection, and such that ‘Jesus’ would be inappropriate in them. Even if a revising pen was running through the text changing —4= into ax, these passages would remain untouched. In other places it seems to me likely that S has saz in the text, because the ms from which the original Hv. da-Mepharreshe was made had “Incots and not xvpwos, e.g. in Lk vii 13 and xiii 15. But it is a little difficult to suppose that 6 xvpus in narrative was never rendered ‘our Lord’ by the translator of the Hv. da-Mepharreshe, seeing that it is so rendered in such passages as Lk xxiv 34. On the other hand ¢ does not give a consistent text. We cannot simply take it as faithfully representing in this particular the original form of the version, for we must account for the renderings in Lk ix 39 and xii 42, where S and syr.vg practically alone agree in having ‘Jesus.’ Such passages shew that this use of the personal name is a real feature of the version, not a peculiarity of S. Moreover we must remember that in other parts of the Gospels S has ‘our Lord’ where all other texts have ‘Jesus.’ Further discussion would be probably fruitless and would certainly be wearisome. My provisional conclusions are :—- (1) The original form of the Hvangelion da-Mepharreshe had ܝܫܘܠܝ‎ for 6 ܣܝ‎ and =.= for 6 xvpwos, but the latter term less frequently occurred in the Greek ms used by the translator than in the majority of our Mss. (2) At a later period ܡܢ‎ was generally substituted for sax» in one of the immediate ancestors of S, without regard for the Greek. (3) At a still later date ܝܫܘܥ‎ was restored, but certain sections in 8. Matthew and 8. John were passed over, together with a few places here and there (Lk viii 40, Joh xi 44, xi1 16), where i> was left by accident. The correction was not made by the help of a Greek codex, consequently in the narrative passages such as Lk xvii 5, xviii 6, xxii 61”, where ‘our Lord’ should have been left, it was nevertheless changed into ‘Jesus.’ In all this S shews no sign of revision from the Greek. (4) The Peshitta, as is clear from other considerations, is a revision of the Ev. da-Mepharreshe by the help of a later Greek ms: it was no doubt by the help of the Greek that ‘in Jesus’ (ov, ‘in our Lord’) was changed in Lk ¥ 17 into ‘of the 1:0817 But where o xvpros simply meant ‘Christ’ the reviser of the Peshitta does not seem to have thought it worth while to change the transmitted Syriac text: in this respect it is not unlikely that the Peshitta gives a better representation of the genuine text of the ‘Old Syriac’ than either S or € (5) The occurrence of ‘Jesus’ in the Peshitta in such passages as Lk xi 39, xii 43, convicts C of partial revision from the Greek. In these passages if the reading of 0 truly represented the original form of the ‘Old Syriac,’ it would be difficult to understand how the Syriac Vulgate came to have ax» and not ܡܪܢ‎ CHAPTER III. THE PESHITTA NEW TESTAMENT AND ITS RIVALS. THE great antiquity of the Syriac Version of the Old Testament that goes by the name of the Peshitta is acknowledged on all hands. It is a version made direct from the Hebrew, not from the Greek, and the quotations and allusions in our earliest Syriac authorities practically agree with the text as we have it. It has even been conjectured that the version was the work of Jewish scholars in the 2nd century AD, and in any case its renderings often shew the influence of Jewish tradition and exegesis. In the course of a long history it has doubtless suffered a little from the usual incidents of transmission, but—to name a single instance—the whole of the 9th chapter of Daniel is quoted by Aphraates (Wright 368 ff), and the text as there quoted does not seriously differ from that printed by Lee, though Lee’s edition is notoriously based upon late and bad mss. But the case of the New Testament Peshitta is very different. In the Old Testament the Syriac vulgate had no rivals till the sixth century; in the New Testament we have to reckon with the Diatessaron and the Hvangelion da-Mepharreshe. It is, | am convinced, a fruitless endeavour to attempt to reconstruct the history of the Gospel in Syriac from internal evidence alone, and the direct traditions as to the recensions and revisions made in these early times are too vague and scanty to start from. I propose therefore in the following pages to examine whether any evidence for the existence of the Peshitta N.T. before the episcopate of Rabbula (ap 411-435) can be gleaned from the contemporary Syriac literature. The order of the writings examined is that in which they are mentioned in Wright’s Syriac Lnterature, pp. 25-49. Quotations in the Acts of Thomas. 101 THe Acts or Jupas Tuomas (Wright 26). The numerous N.T. ‘Apocrypha’ briefly catalogued by Wright are almost all translations of uncertain age from the Greek and need not detain us here. But the Acts of Thomas, which occurs among them, is a very different work and needs our careful attention. It is a work written originally in Syriac, as I hope is now generally recognised!. The arguments which shew that the Greek Acta are a translation from the Syriac are partly linguistic, such as misrenderings and misreadings of Syriac words in the existing Greek texts, and partly general considerations derived from the Oriental cast of the proper names and from the metrical structure of certain Hymns which occur in the work. In other words, the theory that the Acts of Thomas were originally composed in Syriac is independent of the character of the incidental quotations from the Gospel. But if the Acts of Thomas be a Syriac work, it can be shewn that the incidental quotations are taken from the Kvangelion da-Mepharreshe, in contradistinction both to the Diatessaron and to the Peshitta. The Quotations in the Acts of Thomas not taken from the Diatessaron. Although we are often in doubt as to the Syriac text of Tatian’s Harmony, the surviving authorities are sufficient for us to ascertain the arrangement of the Parables*. We thus learn that the Parables of the Pounds (Lk xix 12-27) and of the Talents (Matt xxv 14-30) were given separately in different parts of the Diatessaron, but the Parables of the Marriage-Feast (Matt xxii 1-14) and of the Supper (Lk xiv 16-24) were fused together into one. In consequence of this the writers who habitually used the Diatessaron could not keep these last two Parables distinct. For example, the references of Aphraates to the Parables of the Pounds and of the Talents are separated by an allusion to the Labourers in the Vineyard®. But when he has occasion to speak of the Wedding-garment, a detail peculiar to Matt xxii, he mixes it up with expressions taken from Lk xiv. He says 1 See the present writer’s Notes in the Journal of Theological Studies i 280-290, ii 429, ili 94. 2 See the list in Hamlyn Hill, Ap. v, p. 319. 3 Wright’s Aphraates, pp. 171, 172. 102 The Peshitta and its Rivals. “Let us be clad in holy clothing and we shall be seated at the head of the chosen. Him that is not clad in clothing for the Wedding they cast forth into the outer darkness. He that excuseth himself from the Wedding tasteth not of the Supper. He that loveth fields and merchandise defraudeth himself of the city of the holy ones’.” The italicised words come ultimately from ©. Luke. Of course this running together of the two parables does not absolutely prove that Aphraates was entirely dependent on the Diatessaron, but the quotation given above is just such a fusion of the two Gospels as a writer who used the Diatessaron might be expected to make. Now let us turn to the Acts of Thomas. Towards the end of the Acts, in the great discourse of 8. Thomas in the prison, there is a whole series of allusions to the Gospel Parables. I give the most important passage in full :— ܠܢ ܐܪܡܿܝܬܗ ܥܠ ܦܬܘܪܟ܆ ܓܒܝܗܝ ܘܗܒܝܗܝ ܠܢ ܒܪ̈ܒܝܬܗ‎ boas ܐܝܟ ܕܐܫܬܘܕܝܬ, ܒܡܚܟ ܐܬܬܓܪܬ ܥܣܗܪܐܼ, ܢܬܬܘܣܦ ܥܠ ܕܐܝܬ ܠܝ‎ ܠܐ ܢܬܬܒܥ ܒܐܝܼܕܝ ܕܫܒܩܬ ܠܗ,‎ usm bone ܐܝܟ ܕܡܼܠܦܬ. ܠܚܝ̈ܒܝ‎ ܘܡܢ ܩܪܝܬܐ ܘܡܢ ܦܕܢܐ ܘܡܢ ܐܢܬܬܐ‎ ANS ܠܐܚܫܡܝܬܐ ܐܙܕܡܿܢܬ ܘܐܬܶܝܬ‎ hohe .ܿܗܡܥܛܐ ܠܐ ܐܣܬܠܐ ܡܢܗܿ. ܘܒܡ̈ܘܡܬܐ ܠܐ‎ Ache ܘܠܐ ܢܦܦܪܘܢ ܐܐܝܼܕ̈ܝ ܘܪ̈ܓܠܝ.‎ al ܐܕܿܫܘܐ‎ esl ia» ܐܙܕܡܿܢܬ, ܘܢܚ̈ܬܐ‎ Aya ܥܕ‎ mim ܢܿܛܪܗ‎ ous gS Mamas Aj waded ܘܠܢܚܫܘܦܐ ܒܪܝܐ ܠܐ‎ ܡܢ bus‏ ܡܫܬܘܬܐ ܘܐܐ̈ܩܒܠܝܘܗܝ. ܟܕ ܡܛܦܛܦ ܡܢ ܡܫܚܗ ܠܐ ܐܚܢܙܝܘܗܝ ”. ̇ ݂ Thy Silver that Thow gavest me I have cast upon Thy table ; exact it and give it to me with its usury, as Thou hast promised [Matt xxv 27, Lk xix 23]. With Thy Pound I have gained ten ; let it be udded unto what is mine, as Thou hast engaged [Lk xix 16, 24]. To my debtors I have forgiven the Pound ; let not that be requited at my hand which I have Jorgiven [Matt xviii 23 ff.]. To the Supper I have been bidden and have come quickly, and from field and from plough and from wife I have excused myself ; let me not be rejected Strom it and with oaths not taste it [Lk xiv 17-20, 24]. To the Wedding I have been bidden and with white garments I am clad; may I be worthy of it, and may they not 1 Wright's Aphraates, p. 106. Similarly on p. 107 we read “He that inviteth himself to the supper, let him not excuse himself and become a merchant.” This is all from Lk xiv 18, except the word merchant which comes from Matt xxii 5. 2 Part of this passage is contained in the Sinai Palimpsest of the Acts of Thomas, which spells the last word umaw+< (see above, p. 56, note 1). Quotations in the Acts of Thomas. 103 Jasten my hands and my feet, and to the outer darkness may I not go forth (Matt xxii 11, 8, 12, 13]. My Lamp, gay with His light, hath its Lord preserved ; until He withdraweth From the Wedding-feast and I receive Him [Lk xii 35, 36], may I not see it smouldering Srom its oil {ef Matt xii 20]...". This one passage contains in itself all the elements of the problem. It is manifestly the composition of an Aramaic-speaking Christian, for it is only in the Syriac that the smoking ` flax’ becomes a ‘lamp”.’ It is the work of one who knew the Gospels well independently of the Diatessaron, for the Supper and the Wedding are kept distinct. In strict accordance with the Gospels, but against the Diatessaron, the excuses of the invited guests about the field and the wife are connected with the Supper, as well as the vow of the offended host? ; on the other hand, the episode of the garment and the ejected guest is kept in connexion with the Wedding. Moreover the order in which the Parables are referred to is not that of the Diatessaron: one suggests the other through some verbal likeness, the ten Pounds of Lk xix suggesting the one Pound of Matt xviii‘. Finally we have in t\a ‘to withdraw’ a rendering of dvahvoy (Lk xii 36), which is characteristic of the Hvangelion da-Mepharreshe as opposed to the Syriac Vulgate. But this is anticipating. What we are concerned with now is that the passage here quoted from the Acts of Thomas could not have been derived from the Diatessaron. A curious confirmation of the above argument is to be found in an allusion to our Lord’s Temptation in Thos 256, where we read that “Temperance is the rest of God, for our Lord fasted forty days and forty nights and tasted nothing.” This isa free combination of Matt iv 2 and Lk iv 2: the same combination occurs in the Arabic Diatessaron iv 44, and at first sight we might be tempted to take the passage in Thos 256 as a quotation of Tatian’s Harmony. What renders this view 1 Wright’s Apocryphal Acts, pp. ܝܫܝܗ--17 ܫܝܕ‎ 8 (Engl. Tr., pp. 280, 281). I have given here my own translation, as minute literal accuracy is important for the present purpose. In the clause referring to Lk xii 35, 36, I take ܢܿܛܪܗ‎ as perf. Pael not as imperf. Peal, so that no copula is required before ܡܛܦܛܦ.‎ an. 2 This rendering of Matt xii 20, found in syr.vg as well as S and C, may have been suggested by the Peshitta of Isaiah xlii 3. 3 The ‘Amen I say to you’ of Lk xix 24 is regarded as the equivalent of an oath. 4 The equation of 100 Denars to one Pound is not far wrong. Wright’s rendering is ‘talent,’ but the Syriac has ssp (=pva), not ANS (=rdAavrov). 104 The Peshitta and its Rivals. unlikely is that the ‘forty nights’ of Matt iv 2 seem to have been absent from the Diatessaron. They are passed over by Ephraim (Moes. 44), and are actually omitted from the text of 8. Matthew in C. Any allu- sion to the forty nights therefore is almost certainly inconsistent with the use of the Diatessaron. The presence of the clause ܘܡܕܡ ܠܐ ܛܥܡ‎ in these Acts may fairly be used to convict the Sinai Palimpsest itself of corruption from the Diatessaron in Lk iv 2. For in the place of Kal ovk epayey ovdev x.t.d. S has ‘And he was there forty days, and after forty days that he was fasting, he hungered’: this agrees with the Diatessaron as given in Moesinger 44, except that 8. Ephraim does not quote the first clause!. Then again the list of the Apostles at the beginning of the Acts of Thomas tallies exactly with that of Sin Matt x 2-4, but with no other authority”. The nearest after S is the Syriac fragment quoted by Dr Goussen from the Berlin ms of Isho‘dad (ap. Harris 101), which expressly professes to give the list according to the Diatessaron. This interesting text has the same order as S and Thos, but it adds the name ‘Lebbaia’ to James son of Halpbaeus®. The Arabic Diatessaron and Cod. Fuldensis give us the order of 8. Luke. The Quotations in the Acts of Thomas not taken from the Peshitta. The reader will have already noticed that some of the phrases quoted above shew a marked agreement with S and C against syr.vg. The use of ta ‘to withdraw (from an entertainment),’ where the Peshitta of Lk xii 36 has waa ‘to return,’ is a striking instance. Equally characteristic of S Cis the mention of ‘stubborn infirmities’ in Thos 230 (AALS ,(ܟܘܪ̈ܗܢܐ‎ for the Peshitta of Matt iv 24 renders ܟܐܘ )»ܘ‎ vdcous by ‘divers infirmities’ ` ܡܫܥܿܝܠܦܐ)‎ eam tas). But the agreement of the Acts of Thomas with the Hvangelion da- Mepharreshe is not confined to these relatively small points. In Thos 313 (Engl. Tr., p. 279) the Lord’s Prayer is quoted in full, in agreement with @ (and S where extant), but with marked differences from syr.vg. I give the three texts side by side (Matt vi 9-13): 1 Note that the text of Thos 256 is not taken from syr.vg, which has ܘܠܐ ܠܥܣ ܡܕܡ‎ in Lk iv 2. 3 Cis not extant at this point. 3 The ms has pals ,ܝܥܩܘܒ ܠܒܝܐ ܒܪ‎ It is doubtful whether the word is meant for AeBBatos (p=), or Aeveis (aad), or Aeuns. 105 Quotations in the Acts of Thomas. ‘te ‘og dd ‘xt vowing wipnag wr payuud sr spuauboyg wurgy 942 fo 22092 YT 3 ܣ‎ CSTSPIP ZA ܐܕܗܕ‎ OIpamomp ys Ay keg wr Awe tas ܠܗ‎ aed prod: oacvr gece ܗܗ ܠܗ ܘܗܫ̈ ܡܫܢ ܢܢ ܗܣ‎ ܝ ܝ‎ woos Sank RR ܐܕܪܘܣ‎ nears ne PASO” toate 1; 262} s £0 BTA [Ree Ome [aco ܐ ܝܡܹܐ ܟܕ‎ [em s ‘wo ܗܝ ܟܘ]‎ Der = SO we [ome 0 too Sank 8 OPDAIR D> (sjuambvuf wurg ayi) s fo pun )6&8& “PPP ˆ)?" “a2Q abpriqung) 0 fo syuv.ww4 Ay ST St ce 0¥ ܬܗ‎ pres oer’ tas ܗܡ ܠܗ‎ re ܢ ܡܫܡܘ‎ goon ܩܚܪܐܘ‎ ܕܢ ܗ ܗܘ‎ TRS ܗܕܗ ܝܡܝ‎ ܢܐܐ ܝ ܐܫܗ‎ ܟܘܢܐܘ‎ = Sanh: Nae BARA TSHR zoo” beac SLE "6 abod » fo sso) ay3 Yybnowy) S Ut Jwozea Jou sr ye Ur ahnsg ayn fo sab ayy 1 @ DIR ZAR > Ay ܓ‎ wor ` ܟ ܗ ܦܢ AYR‏ pres Your‏ ܒܣܘ AST tS mt moor pred vase ܠܗ ܠܢ‎ ܠܢ ero wo‏ ܝܗܝ ܕܫܡܢܘ Se mh SS"‏ Sees‏ ܒ= ܟܘܢܐܘ RE Teo ly eae ܥܗܫܗܝ̄̈ ܐܫܝܒ‎ (s) 0 14 106 The Peshitta and its Rivals. The Cambridge ms is a copy of the abridged text of the Acts of Thomas preserved in the Sachau ms at Berlin and ‘partly collated by Bedjan. Its peculiarities here are all verbal assimilations to the Peshitta, such as one might expect in a late transcript. On the other hand the Sinai fragments here attest all the remarkable readings of Wright’s text. The extracts hardly need a commentary: in every point the Acts and C'agree together against the Peshitta and the Greek. They read ‘Thy wishes be done,’ in the plural. They have ‘In earth as it is in heaven,’ while the Peshitta has in the Greek order ‘ As in heaven so in earth’ For rov dprov jpav tov )ܗܘܬ‎ they have ‘continual bread,’ while the Peshitta has ‘the bread of our necessity.’ They read ‘so that we may forgive’; the Peshitta has ‘as we have forgiven.’ Finally they read ‘bring us not,’ where the Peshitta rendering is ‘make us not enter?,’ It is surely unnecessary to pursue this part of the investigation further. So far from finding any evidence that the Peshitta was known to the author of the Acts of Thomas we have found his quotations in marked agreement with its rivals, while at the same time there is decisive evidence that the quotations are not derived from the Diates- saron. We shall not find elsewhere such clear traces of the use of the Evangelion da-Mephurreshe, so that the point is of great historical importance. Meanwhile it must be remembered that we have hitherto brought forward no evidence as to whether the Hvangelion da- Mepharreshe was originally translated in the circles that produced the Acts of Thomas, or whether it merely found a home there when other branches of Syriac-speaking Christianity were using Tatian’s Harmony?. 1 A curiously exact parallel to the variation between the Authorised and Revised Versions at this point ! 2 The reading ܘܢ̇ܛܗܝܢ‎ ped our debts and our sins is not that of the Diatessaron : at least Aphraates twice quotes the verse with may alone. The combination of Matt and Lk reappears in Jacob of Serug’s Homily on the Lord’s Prayer, and curiously enough it finds a place in Teseo Ambrogio’s miscellany (G. H. Gwilliam in Studia Biblica ii, p. 268). 3 Before leaving the Apocryphal Acts, I should like to record my opinion that the work called the Acts of Philip, printed by Wright, is also a Syriac original, and that the author of them used the Diatessaron. Wright’s ms is late (1569 ap), and the quotations present the same sort of assimilation to syr.vg that we have noticed in the Cambridge transcript of the Acts of Thomas. But in pam ܘܝܠܝ ܡܢܐ‎ (p. ܠܓ‎ 3) we have an echo of the ery of woe added to Lk xxiii 48 in all ‘Old Syriac’ authorities, and again on p. ܢ ܠܠ‎ 5 we find the phrase <a ܚܠܦ‎ was, cheek for cheek, introducing Matt v 39 just as in S. Ephraim’s Commentary (Joes. 65, 133). This phrase is ultimately derived from the Syriac of Exod xxi 25, but it seems to have stood in some texts of the Diatessaron. There is a 13th cent. Ms of the Acts of Philip at Paris (Zotenberg 235). Quotations in the Doctrina Apostolorum. 107 THe Syriac Docrrina Apostotorum (Wright 27). This document is the only work of its kind which has a Syriac origin. It has been published by Cureton in Ancient Syriac Documents ܠܗ ܟܕ‎ (Engl. Tr., pp. 24-35) from a Ms of the 5th or 6th cent. It had previously been printed as the ‘ Doctrine of Addai’ in Lagarde’s Reliquae Juris Eccl. Antiq., pp. 32-44, from an inferior ms of the 9th cent. The quotations from the Gospel are as follows :‏ Matt xxiv 27.‏ = ܟܗ ASD.‏ .1 ܐܝ Sow‏ ܕܒܪܶܩ ܡܢ ܡܕܢܚܐ ܘܡܬܚܙܐ ܥܕܡܐ ܠܡܥܪ̈ܒܐ ܗܟܢܐ ܬܗܘܐ ܡܐܬܝܬܗ ܕܒܪܗ ܕܐܢܫܐ. Variants of S and syr.vg‏ .ܙܟ ܐܝܦܢܐ ܓܝܪ ܕܒܪܩ̈ܐ ܢ̇ܦܩ ;§;ܐܝܦܢܐ ܕܒܪܒܐ ܓܝܪ ܒܪܩ init.)‏ Relig (sic)‏ ܠܥܪܒܐ Thus the Doctrina Apost. agrees with S in reading ܒܪܩ‎ (cf dorpa- ntovoa Lk xvii 24), while syr.vg has mai (= é&€pyerar Matt xxiv 27). But it is in still closer accord with Ephraim’s Commentary (Moes. 211), which has As the lightning that lighteneth... 2. ܦܛ ,8.0 ܬ‎ = 1: xvi 15 5. Quoted in agreement with S and syr.vg. 3. ASD. al=Matt xxviii 20. reals ܥܡܟܘܢ ܐܢܐ ܥ .ܕܡܐ ܕܫܠܡ‎ Variants of A 120, 484 and syr.vg [ܥܡܦܘܢ‎ pr. Mie ܗܵܐ‎ syr.vg [ܥܕܡܐ‎ pr. ܦܠܗܘܢ ܝܘܡܬܐ‎ syr.vg ܥܠܡܐ‎ ples] ܟ‎ also A120; ܠܫܘܠܡܗ ܕܥܠܡ̈ܐ‎ syr.vg A 484 (and Relig) S is not extant, but of the two quotations from Aphraates one agrees word for word with the Doctrina Apost., while the other (though agreeing in the two characteristic omissions) follows syr.vg and the Greek in the final clause’. 1 It may be conjectured that A120 gives the text of the Diatessaron, 4 484 that of the Evangelion da-Mepharreshe. 108 The Peshitta and its Rivals. 4, asp. ,ܠܕ‎ of Lk x 1. Addai, the evangelist of Edessa, is here said to have been one of the 72 disciples. In Lk x 1 SC'read 72, but syr.vg reads 70. The ms from which Lagarde printed the Reliquiae has here again been conformed to syr.vg. A, of Joh xiv 26.‏ .8.0 ܬ .5 ܠܗܘܢ ܓܝܪ ܣܦܩܐ ܗܘܬ ܪܘܚܐ ܦܪܩܠܛܐ ܕܒܗܘܢ. ܕܐܟ ܕܗܡܬ ܒܐܝܕܗܘܢ ܗܠܝܢ ܢܡ̈ܘܗܐ ܬܕܒܪܿ ܐܢܘܢ ܢܡܘܣܐܝܬ. For to them [se. the Apostles] sufficient was the Spirit, the Paraclete that was in then, that, as it appointed by their hand these laws, it should lead them lawfully. Here the Paraclete is feminine, to agree with Spirit, as in Joh xiv 26 SC, but not of course in syr.vg. In the Reliquiae (pp. 38, 39) the feminines have all been changed into masculines, as we might have expected. Earlier in the Doctrina Apostolorum )4.8.1 cas, Reliquiae p. 34) the verse is alluded to with the masculine pronouns and verbs. ܡܐ ܕܣܠܩܬ ܠܘܬ ܐܒܝ ܡܫܕܪ ܐܢܐ ܠܟܘ STA Swat‏ ܕܗܘ ܕܢ : ܢܠܦܟܘܢ ܟܠܡܕܡ ܕܙܕܩ ܠܟܘܢ ܕܬܕܥܘܢ ܘܬܘܕܥܘܢ What time I have ascended unto my Father, I will send you the. Spirit, the Paraclete, who will teach you everything that it 1s right for you to know and to make known. Though the genders are here masculine the characteristic phrase “the Spirit, the Paraclete” recurs. It is found in Joh xiv 26 S, the first part of the verse being lost in C. But syr.vg has “the Paraclete, the Holy Spirit,” with the Greek. The Doctrina Apostolorum speaks elsewhere of Luke and John as Evangelists, and of Mark the Gospeller (st>a2). But there is no express direction to read their Gospels: though the Acts are expressly assigned to ©. Luke, the Gospel is always spoken of impersonally in the singular and no author is ever named for it. It is therefore almost certain that the coincidences with S C against the Peshitta noted above imply the use of the Diatessaron. Quotations in Aphraates. 109 APHRAATES (Wright 31-33). The surviving works of the school of Bardesanes supply nothing for our present purpose, unless indeed we include among them the Acts of Thomas’. We therefore come to the Homilies of Aphraates, composed in the years 837, 344, and 345 ap. The numerous quotations from the Gospel in these Homilies are given in their place in vol. i, so that it is unnecessary for me to go through them here in full. I need only point out that the striking coincidences between the language of Aphraates in quoting the Gospel with the text of S and of C are not balanced by agreements of like weight between Aphraates and syr.vg. The following remarkable agreements of Aphraates’ quotations with S or C against the Peshitta may be here brought forward :— Matt ii 20 seeking the lad’s life: A 405 and C' (not S) add to snatch away. ¥ 18 téra év { pia Kepata: A 30 and S (C) have one Jod-letter, C further adding by conflation or one horn. vi 19 where moth and rust doth corrupt: A 389 and C have where the moth falleth and corrupteth. Lk vi 24 your consolation : A 390 and S (sic) have your supplication, an alternative rendering of tyv tapdkhnow 1) 67 xii 19 and I will say to my soul: A 381 and @ (not S) have and he saath to his soul. xix 44 the day of thy visitation: A 412 and C (not S) have the day of thy greatness. xxii 43 in Paradise: A 266, 437, and C (not 8) have in the Garden of Eden. 48: A 271 has the words Woe to us! What hath befallen us! which are added at the end of this verse in S and C. Johil4: A 120, 167, and C have The Word (fem.) became a body and it sojourned among us”. 1 Cf the Mechitarists’ Latin translation of 8. Ephraim’s Commentary on the Pauline Epp., p. 119. 2 Or, ‘in us.’ The Peshitta has the same verb and preposition, but the Word is treated as mase. and odpé is rendered ‘flesh’ instead of ‘ body.’ Sis not extant. 110 The Peshitta and its Rivals. There are very few coincidences in Aphraates with syr.vg against SC united. An instance is to be found in Matt ¥ 16, where A 14 has ‘your good (ܛܒ̈ܐ)‎ works’ with syr.vg, while SC have ‘your fair (ܫܦܝܪ̈ܐ)‎ works. But this distribution of the evidence is almost isolated. On the other hand the combination of Aphraates with S and syr.vg against C, or Aphraates with C' and syr.vg against S, is often found. But this does no more to prove the use of the Peshitta by Aphraates than the occasional agreement of ‘African’ authorities with the Latin Vulgate proves that S. Cyprian was acquainted with S. Jerome’s revision!, Such a grouping as S A syr.vg against C' (as in Matt v 15) means that the Peshitta text has here followed that branch of the ‘Old Syriac’ now represented by S, and not that branch now represented by € A more interesting class of variants is well illustrated by the Syriac texts of Matt v 44. Aphraates 34, 35 Peshitta (and SC) ܘܒܟܪܦܘ ܠܡܿܢ ܕܠ ܐܛ ܠܦܘܢ̇ ܘܒܪܦܘ ܠܡܿܢ ܕܠܐܛ ܠܦܘܢ̇‎ ܘܥܒܕܘ ܕܫܦܝܪ ܠܡܿܢ ܕܣܢܐ ܠܦܘܼܢ̇ ܘܨܠܘ ܥܠ ܐܝܠܝܢ ܕܕܒܪܝܢ ܠܦܘܢ ios‏ ܘܨܠܘ ܥܠ ܐܝܠܝܢ ܕܡܬܛܓܪܝܢ ܒܦܘܢ ܘܪܕܦܝܢ ܠܦܘܢ. ܘܪܕܦܝܢ ܠܦܘܢ. ܐܪܚܒܘ for‏ ܪܚܡܘ de SS has‏ ܕܡܩܛܪܿܓܝܢ ܠܦܘܢ ;”4 [ܕܡܬܛܓܪܝܢ ܒܦܘܢ SC omit the words overlined Love your enemies, and bless Love your enemies, and bless him that curseth him that curseth you, and pray you, and do well to him that hateth you, and for them which use violence to pray for them which treat you with compul- you and persecute you sion and persecute you use violence to you] A>; accuse you A* SC omit the words in italics. The omissions correspond to a well-known variant in the Greek. The shorter text found in SC is that of NBk, while syr.vg (and Aphraates) attest the reading of most mss. The words in question are read by all authorities in the parallel passage Lk vi 27. For our present purpose it is important to notice that the text of Aphraates cannot have been taken from thence, because the Syriac corresponding ' E.g. in the Latin texts of Matt ¥ 45 we find orird facit in k Cyp 3/, vg, but orirt dubet inabeg m. Quotations tn Aphraates. 111 to Tov emnpeatovtwy vas is in the Peshitta ܕܕܒܪܝܢ ܠܟܘܢ ܒܩܛܝܪܿܐ‎ (as in Matt), while in S we find ܕܥܫܩܝܢ ܠܟܘܢ‎ Le. ‘that oppress you.’ The text of Aphraates therefore is not derived from the Peshitta nor from the Evangelion da-Mepharreshe: if we exclude the improbable supposition that it was derived by direct revision from the Greek, we must assume that it faithfully represents the original text of the Diatessaron. In this passage then the three Syriac texts are for once clearly dis- tinguished by their independent renderings of érypedfew!. Difference of rendering implies the use of different Greek exemplars: here at least neither of the three Syriac texts can have been derived directly from the other. It is of course hazardous to maintain with any confidence that the ancient Diatessaron of Tatian really attests the longer form of Matt v 44, for in a Harmony constructed out of all the Gospels the apparent deficiency of Matt would naturally be supplied from Lk. What is of greater importance for the immediate question, vzz. the use of the Peshitta in early Syriac writings, is that mere agreement with Greek readings attested by syr.vg against S Cis not always a decisive proof of the use of syr.vg. In the present instance Aphraates and the Peshitta have words corresponding to rev érnpealovtwy vas while SC have none, but the grave differences of rendering between the two texts shew that Aphraates is not dependent upon the Peshitta. Similarly in Matt x 5 eis 680: 2696 is rendered ‘In the way of the peoples ܥܡ̈ܡܐ)‎ (° by S, but we find ‘In the way of the pagans (ܚ̈ܢܦܐ)‎ ° in syr.vg and 442. Yet nothing about the quotations of Aphraates is more certain than that the long string of allusions on pp. 41, 42 are taken from the Diatessaron, not from the Gospels?: here again, therefore, the agreement with syr.vg does not imply the dependence of Aphraates. These results should be borne in mind when we are considering some of the quotations in 8. Ephraim, notably the combination of Lk xii 54 and Matt xvi 2, 3. 1 The reading of A* (ܡܩܛܟ̈ܠܝܢ)‎ looks like a corruption of ܡܬܛܓܪܝܢ‎ under the influence of the aan of syr.vg. 2 See next chapter, p. 181. 112 The Peshitta and its Rivals. $. Eporam (Wright 33-37). The surviving works of ©. Ephraim, commonly called Ephrem Syrus, are considerably more voluminous than all the rest of pre-Rabbulan Syriac literature, and till lately they have been the rallying ground of those who claimed a very high antiquity for the Peshitta N.T. The importance of his quotations for the history of the Syriac Bible led me to make a special study of the Ms sources of the works which have been printed as his. This has been published in the Cambridge ‘Texts and Studies’ under the title of S. Ephraim’s Quotations from the Gospel (Cambridge, 1901), and the favourable way in which the little book has been received, both in this country and in Germany, saves me from the necessity of clearing the ground again. I shall therefore confine myself here to the quotations from the genuine works of ©. Ephraim, as given in my book, together with those from Dr Lamy’s fourth volume since published. I cite my book by its pages as ‘ Quotations.’ The Genuine Writings of S. Ephraim (‘ Quotations’ 23 ff). The following list of genuine works by 8. Ephraim has been drawn up on the principle of admitting only those which are extant in Mss earlier than the Mohammedan invasions. A mechanical rule such as this no doubt excludes some genuine writings, but the list at least escapes the charge of having been constructed to suit a pre-determined critical theory. The Commentary on the Diatessaron—an undoubtedly genuine work—has not been included, because it is only extant in an Armenian translation. Besides, we may regard this Commentary as being, so to speak, on its trial. We know that 8. Ephraim wrote a Commentary on the Diatessaron, while on the other hand there is absolutely no evidence which even suggests that he wrote upon any of the separate Four Gospels. It is therefore the Diatessaron, and not the Four Gospels, which we should naturally expect to find quoted in his genuine works. Yet it has been actually asserted (Studia Biblica iii, p. 115) that very few of S. Ephraim’s quotations accord with the Diatessaron where Quotations in S. Ephraim. 113 they differ from the Peshitta! No more striking instance could be given of the result of trusting to uncritical editions in matters of textual criticism. List of the Genuine Writings of S. Ephraim. PrRosE WRITINGS: (1) The Commentary on Genesis and Exodus! Ed. Rom. iv 1—115, 194—235 (2) The Homily on our Lord Lamy i 145—274, (1 pp. xxi—xxili (3) The fragments of the Homily on Johil Lamy ii 511—516 (4) The fragments of the Treatises addressed to Hypatius against False Doctrines? Overbeck 21—73 (5) On the Fear of God, or De Misericordia Divina 7 105—112 (6) Letter to the Monks in the Mountains » 1138—131 [(7) Letter to Publius B.M. Add. 7190 (‘ Quotations,’ p. 70)] MerricaL Works (including both ‘‘ Hymns” and “ Homilies”) : (1) ‘Sermones Exegetici’ on Adam, etc. Ed. Rom. v 318 c—330 (2) 55 on Jonah 08 ¥ 359 D—387 A (3) De Nativitate xi (see below, no. 20) 8 ¥ 396—436 (4) Sermones Polemici Lv1 8 v 437 ad fin. (5) De Fide adv. Scrutatores LXXxXvu 0 vi 1—164 (6) De Libero Voluntatis Arbitrio ¥ i vi 359 A—366 (7) ‘Paraenetica, no. 1 5 vi 367—369 B (8) 6 no. XX 0 vi 450 p—451 F (9) 0 nos. LXXV, LXXVI 0 vi 555 F—561 (10) De Paradiso Eden (see below, no. 15) 7 vi 562—598 (11) ‘ De Diversis Sermones,’ no. 1 0 vi 603—604 E (12) 2 no. IV—XII 0 vi 608 c—629 B (18) 7 no. XVIII 0 vi 654 F ad fin. (14) On Julian the Apostate Overbeck 3—20 (15) De Paradiso Eden (supplement to no. 10) » 3839-354 (16) The Carmina Nisibena (see below, no. 19) Bickell’s Edition (17) Aymni Azymorum Lamy 1 567—636 )18( ܝ ,ܝ‎ De Crucifivione » 16387—714 1 The text in the Roman Edition must of course be corrected by Pohlmann’s collations (Journ. of Theol. Studies i 570). 2 The Commentari (aX Sah), edited as Ephraim’s by Overbeck, pp. 74-104, are inten- tionally omitted from this List. B. II. 15 114 The Peshitta and tts Rivals. (19) Sermo de Reprehensione 1' Lamy ii 332—362 (20) Hymni de Nativitate (supplement tono.3) > ܝ‎ ii 501—510 (21) Hymns on Fasting, Virginity, etc. » UW 647—678, 685—694, 718— 814 (22) Sermones Rogationum, nos. 111 v—X » lui 387—44, 65—114 (23) Hymns on the Confessors »» li 643—696 (24) ,ܝ‎ , on Abraham Kidunaya and on Julian Saba » wl 741—936 (25) Hymns de Keclesiu et Virginitate » lv 497—670 [(26) Hymns on the Epiphany » 15—144 )' Quotations,’ p. 67)] [(27) Hymns de Virginitate, etc. » 1773—824 (‘ Quotations,’ p.69)] [(28) Sermones Rogationum ܕܝ‎ Ul 3—126, iv 367—454 )' Quo- tations, p. 69)] [(29) The Testament of Ephraim Overbeck, Duval] This may not be a complete list of the genuine extant works of S. Ephraim, but there can be little doubt that all those which are included are genuine. Each of them [except Nos. 7, 26—29,] is attested by at least one Ms not later than the 7th century, and several are found in two ss of the 5th or 6th century. Together they make up a very considerable mass of writing, certainly enough to settle the question whether 0. Ephraim used the Peshitta text of the Gospels. It is, to say the least, exceedingly improbable that works which are assigned in later mss to ©. Ephraim should, if genuine, present a different type of text in the Biblical quotations and allusions from that found in these 350 separate poems, not to speak of the many pages of prose. Examination of S. Ephraim’s Quotations (‘ Quotations’ 28-57, 67-72). [Matt ii 16 = Lamy 1 127 (‘ Quotations’ 67 ff.) ܥܡܕ ܩܕܝܫܐ ܘܡܚܕܐ .olo‏ ܘܐܙܠܩ ܢܘܗܪܗ ܥܠ ܥܠܡܐ. The Holy one was baptized and immediately came up, and His light flamed upon the world. 1 This discourse (ܦ ܐܒܐ ܕܐܡܪ ܐܠܨ ܠ(‎ appears to me to be one of the missing numbers of the Carmina Nisibena (either xxii, xxiii, or xxiv). It deals with the abandonment of Nisibis to the Persians by Jovian in 363 Ap. A verbose Greek paraphrase of this discourse is printed in Ed. Rom. i 40-70. The second Sermo de Reprehensione (Lamy ii 363-392) is not, as stated on col. 312, taken from a Ms of the 5th or6th century. It is written on the fly-leaves of B.M. Add. 12176 in a hand of about the 9th century. It contains no quotations from the N.T. Quotations in 8S. Ephraim. 115 Neither the Peshitta nor the Evangelion da-Mepharreshe have any allusion to the Light at our Lord’s Baptism, but it clearly had a place in the Diatessaron. Not only does Ephraim himself speak of ‘the shining of the light which was on the waters’ (Moes. 43), but the Syriac text. of the Diatessaron itself was quoted by the common source of Isho‘dad and Barsalibi for the sake of the addition. Barsgalibi is still unedited, but the quotation from Isho‘dad is given by Dr Harris in his Fragments of the Commentary of Ephrem Syrus upon the Diatessaron. The passage from Barsalibi’s Commentary on the Gospels runs as follows (B.M. Add 7184, fol. 37) ܘܡܚܕܐ ܐܝܟ ܕܗܕ ܐܘܢܓܠܝܘܢ ܕܕܝܛܗܪܘܢ :ܡ ܕܡܚ̈ܠܛܐ, ܢܘܗܪܐ ܥܙܝܙܐ Ade‏ ܥܠ ܝܘܪܕܢܢ. ܘܢܗܪܐ Enh‏ ܥܢ̈ܢܐ hia‏ ܘܐܬܢܙܝܘ ܚܝ̈ܠܘܗܝ ܣܓܝ̈ܐܐ ܕܡܿܫܒܚܝܢ ܒܐܐܪ. ܘܩܡ ܝܘܪܕܢܢ ܡܢ ܡܪܕܝܬܗ ܟܕ ܠܐ ܐܬܬܙܝܥܘ uma‏ ܘܪܝܚܐ ܒܗܝܡܐ ܡܢ ܬܡܿܢ wom ws‏ And immediately, as the Gospel of the Diatessaron (i.e. the Mixed) ‘testifies, a mighty light flashed upon the Jordan and the river was girdled with white clouds, and there appeared his many hosts that were uttering praise in the air; and Jordan stood still trom its flowing, though its waters were not troubled, and a pleasant odour therefrom was wafted. Isho‘dad gives this curious passage in almost the same words: it may be conjectured to have been taken from some early Hymn, perhaps one of 8. Ephraim’s own. Dr Harris remarks (p. 44): “It is not necessary to suppose that the whole of the extract...is from Tatian. Probably the quotation is contained in the first clause, or, at most, in the words ܥܠ ܝܘܪܕܢܢ‎ Adie ܡܚܕܐ ܢܘܗܪܐ [ܥܙܝܙܐ]‎ ." I have added ܥܙܝܙܐ‎ from Barsalibi, though it is omitted by Isho‘dad and Dr Harris, as ܢܘܗܪܐ ܥܙܝܙܐ‎ corresponds to the Old Latin readings in Matt iii 16, where we find ‘lumen ingens’ in @ and ‘lumen magnum’ in g. It may be remarked that g (Cod. Sangermanensis), where it differs from the majority of Latin mss, in several instances presents us with readings attested for the Diatessaron. ]’ 1 Quotations from works of 8. Ephraim, which are certainly genuine but are only preserved in mss later than the 7th century, are marked off from the rest by the use of square brackets. 116 The Peshitta and its Rivals. Matt iii 17, Mkill, Lkiii22= Rom. v 5454, ¥1 10 0 (‘Quotations’ 28) aim (v 545)‏ ܠܡ ܒܪܝ ܐܦ ܚܒܝܒܝ. ‘This is my son, yea my beloved.’ (vi 16C)‏ ܗܢܘ »t>‏ ܘܚܒܝܒܝ. This is my son and my beloved. For ܘܚܒܝܒܝ‎ (‘and my beloved’), Pesh. has ܚܒܝܒܐ‎ (‘the beloved’) in accordance with the Greek 6 vids ov 6 dyamnrés, but ܘܚܒܝܒܝ‎ is the reading of SC in Matt ii 17 and of S in Lk iii 22, Le. of syr.vt wherever it is extant}. The evidence of Ephraim in v 545 is all the more striking, as the quotation forms a 7-syllable line (hdnau lam bér db habbiB); ܘܚܒܝܒܝ‎ has only two syllables and so could not stand, but Ephraim instead of using the Peshitta abbiBd, which would have satisfied both sense and metre, preferred to expand ܘܚܒܝܒܝ‎ into ܐܦ ܚܒܝܒܝ‎ Matt iv 5, Lk iv 9 =Lamy iv 525 and 11 815 )' Quotations’ 69) ܩܪܢܐ ܟܕ ܩܐܿܡ ܗܘܝܬ.‎ wi ܡܿܢ ܕܝܢ ܚܪ ܗܘܐ ܘܟ ܡܪ̈ܢ. ܥܠ‎ Now who had looked and saw thee, our Lord, on the head of the corner when thou wert standing ? The * pinnacle’ of the Temple is rendered by Sato ‘corner’ (lit. ‘horn’) in C (Matt) and S (Lk). But the Peshitta has ܟܢܦܐ‎ ‘wing’ in both Gospels, in agreement with S in 8. Matthew. The ‘pinnacle’ is also called ܩܪܵܢܐ‎ in a somewhat similar allusion Lamy iv 511. Matt iv 6 (& Lk iv 9) = Lamy iv 523 ܕܐܡܖܿܚ ܘܠܗ ܐܡܪ Jan‏ ܠܡ ܡܟܐ (Satan) who dared and said to Him ‘ Fall from hence.’‏ This widely differs from all our Syriac texts, except that of S in 8S. Matthew, which has ܡܢ ܗܡܟܐ‎ Aa. The other Syriac texts all 1 See also Matt xii 18C, xviii C; Lkix 35@ In Mkix7 and Lk ix 358 has other ren- derings, but never the =s=y of the Peshitta. Quotations in S. Ephraim. 117 have ‘Cast thyself down’ (or ‘from hence’) in agreement with the Greek Bade ceavrov [evredbev] Kato. In his Hymns on the Temptation Ephraim follows the order of S. Matthew, adding at the end that the tempter departed from our Lord for a time, as in 8. Luke (Lamy iv 517). But these words are added to the text of Matt iv 11 in S and C, so that no stress can be laid on them. [Matt v 18 = Overbeck 149, Duval, p. 37 (‘ Quotations’ 67) ܫܡܝܐ ܓܝܪ ܘܐܪܥܐ ܥܒܪ̈ܝܢ. ܘܝܘܕ ܐܬܘܬܐ ܠܐ ܬܥ̇ܒܪ. For heaven and earth pass away, and not ® Jéd-letter will pass away. The general turn of the sentence is taken from Matt xxiv 35, but ‘one Jéd-letter’ is the peculiar rendering of id7a év ¥? pla Kepaia found in Aphraates and in S at Matt ¥ 18, while C’ has the double rendering ‘one Jéd-letter or one horn’ (Kato). But the Peshitta has ‘one Jéd or one line, an independent rendering‏ ܝܘܕ ܚܕܐ ܐܘ ܚܕ ܣܪ which follows the wording of the Greek.‏ It is right to add that this passage of the Testament is absent from the short recension in B.M. Add. 14582, but it is accepted by M. Duval. It comes in the last strophe of the genuine work. | Matt v 39, Lk vi 29 = Nis. 72™ )' Quotations’ 28) ܕܡܚܐ ܠܟ ܠܡ ܥܠ 9 ܐܚܪܢܝܐ ܒܝ ܐܬܩܢ ܠܗ. He that smiteth thee on thy cheek, thine other cheek present to him.’‏ ‘ A paraphrase, partly caused by metrical considerations, but omitting ‘right’ as an epithet to ‘cheek,’ in agreement with S and C’ against the Peshitta. (Matt vi 11, Lk xi 3 = Lamy 111 53 (‘ Quotations’ 70)‏ ܡܝ ܕܐܡܝܢ ܠܚܡܗ ܕܚܘܝܐ. ܠܚܡܐ ܐܡܝܢܐ ܗܒ ܠܢ ܡܪܝ. As the Serpent's bread is constant, constant bread give us, my Lord ! This is an evident allusion to the ‘daily bread’ of the Lord’s Prayer. ‘Constant bread’ 7 ܐܡܝܢܐ)‎ rsasal) is the rendering of dpros 118 The Peshitta and its Rivals. émuovotos found in all Old Syriac authorities wherever they are extant, including the Acts of Thomas (see above, p. 105); it even survives in the Homily upon the Lord’s Prayer by Jacob of Serug (B.M. Add. 17157, fol. 38). But the Peshitta has both in 8. Matthew and S. Luke ‘the bread of our need’ ܕܣܘܢܩܥܢ)‎ ras). | Matt ix 17 = Rom. v 538 ¢ (‘ Quotations’ 28)‏ ܠܐ ܣܗܝܡܝܢ ܚܡܪܐ ܚܕܬܐ ܒܙ̈ܩܐ ܕܒܠܝ They do not set new wine in bottles that have worn out. Pesh. and S both have ܪܰܡܝܢ‎ ‘ put’ for ܣܝܡܝܢ‎ ‘set,’ and ܒܠܝ̈ܬܐ‎ for .ܕܒܠܝ‎ The second variation is no doubt occasioned by the metre. Matt x 5= Lamy iv 545‏ ܠܐ ܠܡ ܬܐܙܠܘܢ ܒܐܘܪܚܐ ܕܚܢܦ̈ܐ. ܘܐܦܠܐ meatal‏ ܕܒܝܬ ܫܡܪܖ̈ܝܐ. ‘Ye shall not go im the way of the pagans, nor in a town of the Samaritans’ land.’ The insertion of dus before fs tzax, like that of ܠܡ‎ in the first line is caused by the metrical necessities of an 8-syllable verse. In Wis ‘pagans’ Ephraim agrees with Pesh. against S, which has ܥܡ̈ܡܐ‎ ‘peoples’ for évév, but in this particular rendering we may be practically certain from the evidence of Aphraates that the Diatessaron also had mais: see next chapter, p. 182. On the other hand Ephraim agrees with S against Pesh. in having ata ‘town’ instead of ܡܕܝܢܬܐ‎ ‘city,’ although ܘܠܐ ܠܡܕܝܢܬܐ ܕܒܝܬ ܫܡܪܖ̈ܝܐ‎ would have made an unex- ceptionable line in the required metre. Matt xi 19, Lk vii 34 = Lamy ii 747 (‘ Quotations’ 29) ܡܢ ܐܣ̈ܘܛܐ ܚܫܝܒ. ܐܟܘܠܐ 0 ܖ̈ܘܝܐ ܚܫܝܒ ܫܬܝܐ.‎ By the dissipated He was thought an eater...by the drunkards He was thought a drinker. The opprobrious words ¢éyos and oivordrys seem to have offended the later translators, both in Syriac and Latin. ¢dyos of course could not be avoided; it means worax and had to be so translated, while Quotations in 8S. Ephraim. 119 the Syriac equivalent is ܐܦܘܠܐ‎ literally ‘an eater’ but practically meaning ‘glutton.’ But oivordrys could be softened by translating it etymologically. Accordingly the Latins used bibens winwm and potator uint to replace the older winaria preserved in k and Augustine, while the Peshitta (followed by the Harclean) has ܚܡܪܐ‎ edz ‘drinking wine.’ The scandal of calling our Lord a wine-bibber was thus avoided. But instead of wWias. Whe we find ܪܘܝܝܐ‎ ‘a drunkard’ in Lk vii 34 SC, and ܫܬܝܐ‎ (shattdyd) ie. ‘a drinker, ‘one given to drink,’ in Matt x1 19 SC: this latter is the word used by Ephraim. Matt xiv 28 ff = Overbeck 27: cf also Lamy i 263 (‘Quotations’ 29) This is a reference to the story of 0. Peter walking on the water, textually interesting because he is twice called watha (Il. 7, 27) and only once ܫܡܥܘܢ‎ (l. 18). The name comes twice in the narrative, and Pesh. has ܟܐܦܐ‎ ie. ‘Cephas,’ while S and C have ‘Simon Cephas.’ The Greek form ‘Petros’ is very uncommon in the Syriac text of the Gospels: it occurs only in such places as Johi42 S. In somewhat similar allusions to the same story in Lamy 1 263, iv 439, the name Simon alone occurs. Matt xv 27 = Rom. vi 585 D (‘ Quotations’ 29). This is best taken in connexion with the quotation of Mk vii 28. Matt xvi 2, 3; see on Lk xii 54—56 (‘ Quotations’ 30). Matt xvi 18 = Overbeck 352 (‘ Quotations’ 30)‏ ... ܡܠܬܗ ܕܡܪܢ. ܕܥܠ ܥܕܬܗ ܡܠܠ. ܕܠܐ ܠܡ ܡܨܝܢ ܡ̈ܘܟܠܝܗܿ. ܕܫܝܘܠ ܕܢܙܟܘܢܗܿ. word of our Lord, that of His Church He spake, that * the‏ 6 ܐ)... gate-bars of Sheol shall not be able to conquer it.’‏ The ‘gate-bars of Sheol’ (7vAaz ddov) occur again in Eus. Theoph*!” ili 27, iv 11, v 40, and in HE*” 417. The same graphic phrase is also found in a passage ascribed to Ephraim in the Severus Catena and in Lamy iv 673, 687. In Matt xvil8 Cand Pesh. have ܬܪ̈ܥܐ ܕܫܝܘܠ‎ ‘the doors of Sheol’: Sis unfortunately not extant. 120 The Peshitta and its Rivals. Matt xvi 19 = Lamy i 267 (‘ Quotations’ 30)‏ ܐܡܼܪ ܠܫܡܥܘܢ ܠܟ ܐܬܠ ܩܠܝ̈ܕܐ ܕܬܪ̈ܥܐ, He saad to Simon, ‘ To thee I will give the keys of the doors.’ The Peshitta has here, in accordance with the Greek, ‘the keys of the kingdom of heaven,’ but @ has ‘the keys of the doors of the kingdom of heaven.’ Thus Ephraim’s text agrees with C against Pesh. in an addition for which no other authority is known. S is deficient ; Aphraates 141 has ‘ Hear ye also, that hold the keys of the doors of heaven.’ Matt xviii (12,) 13, Lk xv 4, (5) = Overbeck 114 (‘ Quotateons’ 30)‏ "ܡܢܘ ܠܡ ܡܢܟܘܢ ܕܐܝܬ ܠܗ ܚ̈ܝܘܬܐ ܒܛܘܪܐ. ® ܘܛܿܥܐ min‏ Sot‏ ܚܕ: ܠܐ anit‏ ܬܫ̈ܥܝܢ ܘܬܫܥܐ *# ܒܕܒܪܐ ® ܘܒܛܘܪܐ: ܘܐܬܐ esha am eas‏ ܥܕܡܐ ܕܢܫܟܚܝܘܗܝ. ܗ ܘܡܐ ܠܡ ܕܐܫܟܚܗ eae”‏ ܒܗ. ܝܬܝܪ ܡܢ sth am‏ ܘܬܫܥܐ ܕܠܐ ܛܥܘ. ‘Who is there of you that hath beasts in the hill-country, and one sheep stray from him,—doth he not leave the ninety and nine in the plain and in the hill, and come and seek that which strayed until he find it ?’... ‘And what time he hath found it, he rejorceth over it more than those ninety and nine that did not stray.’ It is difficult to believe that a mosaic such as this can have come from anywhere but the Diatessaron. There is nothing in the wording which definitely indicates the use either of the Peshitta text or of that found in S and C, except that ܚ̈ܝܘܬܐ‎ as a rendering for mpoBara occurs in Joh x 3ff. in S, but never in the Peshitta. The Arabic Diatessaron (xxvi 4, 5) gives us Lk xv 4 followed by Matt xviu 13, which is practically what we find in Ephraim, but without the charac- teristic phrase ܒܕܒܪܐ ܘܒܛܘܪܐ‎ which combines the ev rp épypyw of Lk xv 4 with the émi ra dpy of Matt xvii 12. Quotations in S. Ephraim. 121 Matt xviii 22 = Nis. 721 (‘ Quotations’ 31) ܫܒܘܩ ܠܐܚܘܟ. ܫܒܥ ܫܒܥ ܠܡ ܥܠ ܫܒܥܝܢ.‎ Forgive thy brother (he saith) ‘by sevens seventy times over.’ The idiomatic ܥܠ‎ which is here used something like the English ‘for’ (‘in batches of seven, for seventy times’) is found in SC and Aphraates 35 and 298. And as if to remove all doubt as to the exact meaning the number is stated in Aphraates 298 to be 490 times. But the Peshitta, in more literal accordance with the Greek, has ‘unto seventy times by sevens’ (sax 5(ܥܕܡܐ ܠܫܒܥܝܢ ܙܒ̈ܢܝܢ ܫܒܥ‎ Matt xxi 3= Rom. iv 108, 109 (‘ Quotations’ 32) ܐܡܪܘ ܠܗܘܢ ܕܠܡܪܗܘܢ ܡܬܒܥܝܢ.‎ (sic Ms) Say ye to them that for their Lord they are required. So also Chas ܠܡܪܗܘܢ ܡܬܒܥܝܢ‎ for 6 Kipios adrav ypefav exer. This quotation, short as it is, presents several points of difficulty and interest. It comes from the Commentary on Genesis, a genuine prose work of S. Ephraim, and was assigned by Mr Woods (in Studia Biblica iii, p. 126) to Mk xi 2,3. The text of the quotation which Mr Woods had before him (Ed. Rom. iv 108, 109) runs thus :— ܐܡܪ ܓܝܪ puss]‏ ܐܢܬܘܢ ܥܝܠܐ ܕܐܗܝܪ. ܫܪܘ ܐܝܬܐܘܘܗܝ.] ܕ݀ܐܢ ܐܡܪܝܢ ܠܦܘܢ ܡܢܐ ܫܪܝܢ ܐܢܬܘܢ ܥܝܠܐ com‏ ܐܡܪܘ ܠܗܘܢ ܕܠܡܪܢ ܡܬܒܥܐ, For He said [Ye will find a colt tied; loose him and bring him. | that uf they say to you ‘ Why are ye loosing that colt?’ say to them that for our Lord tt $ required. The brackets are my own insertion. Mr Woods called the quotation a combination of Mark and Matt., and noted that while C (the Curetonian) had many verbal variations from the Peshitta, yet in the only ‘important variation’ it differed from Ephraim’s quotation where the quotation agreed with the Peshitta. The ‘important variation’ concerns the words which in the Greek 1 The addition of y+) in Pesh, is not significant, as both S and A*/, add yas after B. II, 16 122 The Peshitta and its Rivals. of Matt xxi 3 run 0: ܬ‎ 2 _ , 2 ܘ‎ KUpLosS QUTWV XPEeLav EXEL (Mk xi 8 and Lk xix 34 have of course ܐܘܐ ܐܘ‎ in the singular). The extant Syriac readings are 1 ‘For our Lord they are (or it is) required’ Pesh. (Matt) (Mk, Lk). 9» ‘For their Lord they are required’ C’ (Matt). 2b ‘For its Lord it is required’ SC (Lk) S (Mk). It is evident that we have here two independent interpretations of the Greek. According to the Peshitta 6 xvpios is used absolutely of Christ (as so often in Lk, so rarely in Matt and Mk): according to S and C, on the other hand, ܘ‎ 76 or adrov is taken with kvpios, so that it means the ‘master’ of the animals, either as Lord of all creatures or as their legal possessor. Thus the quotation in ©, Ephraim’s Commentary on Genesis, as given in the Roman Edition, presents quite a striking agreement with the Peshitta. The passage printed above within brackets agrees verbally with clauses in the Peshitta text of Mk xi 2 and 3, and the last two words agree in a characteristic variation with the Peshitta against the mss of the Evangelion da-Mepharreshe. But the fact is that the text of the Roman Edition does not in the least represent the text of the Ms upon which it is based. The ms (Vat. Syr. cx) was examined some time ago by Dr A. Pohlmann, who published a tract upon it in 1862-4. The practical result of this investigation is that you can never trust a Biblical quotation in the printed text of the Commentary where it verbally agrees with the Peshitta. In the present instance the bracketed passage is not in the Ms at all, having been added de suo by the editor (Pohlmann, p. 52) ; while for the last two words the ms actually has (Pohlmann, p. 54) ܕܠܡܪܗܘܢ ܡܬܒܥܝܢ in exact accordance with the Curetonian text of Matt xxi 3! The translation therefore of S. Ephraim’s reference to the Entry into Jeru- salem should run 1 In Mk xi 3 S reads ܕܠܡܪܗ‎ as is clear from the photograph, not ܠܡܪܝܐܐ‎ as was edited in the Syndics’ Edition. S is not extant for Matt xxi 3, and C is not extant for Mk xi 3. Quotations in S. Ephraim. 123 ‘For He said that if they say to you ‘Why are ye loosing that colt?’ say to them that for their Lord! they are required.’ I may add that if the quotation was taken by 8. Ephraim from the Diatessaron, as seems probable, it was only to be expected that it should give us the text of 8. Matthew (who alone mentions two animals) rather than that of 8, Mark and ©. Luke?. Matt xxi 40, 41 = Lamy i 253 (‘ Quotations’ 34)‏ ܡܢܐ ܠܡ ܓܝܪ ܢܥܒܕ ܡܪܐ ܟܪܡܐ ܠܗܿܢܘܢ ܦ̈ܠܝܚܐ. ܐܡܪܝܢ ܠܗ ܕܝܢ ܗܢܘܢ ܥܝܠ ܕܦܫܗܘܢ. ܕܒܝܫ ܒܝܫ ܢܘܒܕ ܐܢܘܢ ܘܢܘܚܕ ܟܪܡܐ ܠܦ̈ܠܚܐ. ܐܝܠܝܢ ܕܡܤܣܩܝܢ ܠܗ ܐܒܒܐ ܒܙܒܢܗ. For ‘ What (quoth He) will the master of the vineyard do to those husbandmen ? “| But they say to him concerning themselves that evilly he will destroy them and will let out the vineyard to husbandmen which raise for him the produce in tts season.’ Two points deserve notice in this quotation, which comes from the prose Homily on our Lord. The only part of it which appears to be intended for a real quotation is the answer of the Pharisees: that this is a real quotation is certain from the occurrence in it of the peculiar Syriac rendering of Matt xxi 41°. But the final clause in Ephraim differs altogether both from the Syriac Vulgate and the Evangelion da- Mepharreshe. At the same time Ephraim’s ‘raise for him the produce’ is as good a representation of droddécovew ait@ tovs Kaprovs as ‘ give to him the fruits’ ,(ܝܗܿܒܝܢ ܠܗ ܦܐܪ̈ܐ)‎ which is the rendering found in S Cand the Peshitta. 1 Or, ‘for their master.’ 2 This quotation of 8S. Ephraim was discussed by the present writer in the Journal of Theological Studies i 569 ff. 3 The clause referred to is ܒܝܫ ܢܘܒܕ ܐܢܘܢ‎ exam, which corresponds to xaxots £ dmokécet avtovs in SC and Pesh., as well as in the quotation of Ephraim. Judging by the phrase ܒܝܫ ܥܡܝܕܝܢ‎ mag, which so often stands for »ܘܬ‎ ¢ Zyorres, this rendering might be held to imply the omission of xaxovs, but it is more likely to be nothing more than an attempt to give the effect of the alliteration in the Greek. oes. 192 has ‘malos per mala perdet’ (qsmaput suplop aunnutbugl), but this Armenian rendering may have been influenced by the Armenian vulgate which has qeupets suspreses.. 124 The Peshitta and its Rivals. The other point concerns the rendering of ܘܧܗ ܘܘ‎ in Matt xxi 41. In ܢܘܢܝܙܕ‎ ‘he will let out (on hire)’ Ephraim and Pesh. agree against SC. This word is used in all the Syriac texts of Mk xii 1 and Lk xx 9. But in the passage before us S has ܢܬܠ‎ ‘he will give’ (as in Mk xii 9 and Lk xx 16), and C has ܢܫܠܡ‎ ‘he will deliver’ (as in Matt xxi 33 SC). Thus the text of S. Matthew as given in S and @ seems to avoid the word ܐܘܚܕ‎ though its occurrence in 8. Mark and §. Luke shews that it was the natural one to use; it is therefore clear that S. Ephraim’s quotation cannot be explained by the use of the Hvangelion da-Mepharreshe. But neither can 8. Ephraim’s quotation be explained by the use of the Peshitta alone, as in the final clause the quotation differs as much from the diction of the Peshitta as from that of S and C. It may reasonably be conjectured that here as in other places S. Ephraim is giving us the text of the Diatessaron, and that the agreement in this single point between the Diatessaron as represented by Ephraim and the Syriac Vulgate is merely the result of literally rendering the Greek. But instances of this agreement are so rare compared with those where the renderings of the Diatessaron agree with the Evangelion da-Mepharreshe against the Syriac Vulgate that it is worth while to draw special attention to those which make the other way. The case is in every way similar to that of ܬܪܝܨܐܝܬ‎ in Lk vii 43, to be discussed later on. Matt xxii 13 = Nis. 84 (‘ Quotations’ 35) ܦܟܪܘܗܝ aml‏ ܓܒܪܐ. mtXar‏ ܡܟܬܡ ܗܘܐ. They fettered that man, whose body was defiled.‏ The reference to the Parable of the Wedding Feast is quite clear in the context, and ©. Ephraim has just explained that the body is the wedding-garment, which ought to be kept bright and clean. S. Ephraim obviously supports the reading of the better Greek mss Syoartes avTov Tddas Kal yEtpas éxBadere adtov..., which is also the reading of Pesh.; while S and C have ‘Take hold of him by his hands and by his feet and put him forth,’ which seems to represent dapare avrov ܣ ܬܘܟ‎ Kal xeipav Kai adhere avrov..., the reading of D and lat.vt. Quotations in S. Ephrain. 125 But whereas Pesh. here uses the ordinary word ܐܣܪ‎ for ‘bind,’ Ephraim has ܦܦܪ‎ to ‘fasten’ or ‘fetter,’ a word which only occurs once in the N.T. Peshitta, viz. Ac xxii 29. It might naturally be thought that Ephraim’s use of taa was a mere paraphrastic alteration of the Biblical text, but the same word occurs in the quotation of Matt xxii 13 in the Syriac Theophania iv 16, and in an express allusion in the Syriac Acts of Thomas (Wright, p. 315)!. A version of this passage, therefore, containing the word ܦܦܪ‎ instead of tor’, must have been once current, and from this version and not from the Peshitta was ©, Ephraim’s quotation made, It is unfortunate that no allusion to Matt xxii 13 is made in the Commentary on the Diatessaron. Matt xxiii 8 = Rom. ¥ 491 B (‘ Quotations’ 36) ܪܒܐ ܒܐܪܥܐ ܠܐ ܬܩܪܘܢ̇ Ye shall not call (any one) a great one on earth.‏ Le.‏ ܐܢܬܘܢ ܕܝܢ ܠܐ ܬܩܪܘܢ 54 This agrees with S C, which have‏ ‘but ye, ye shall not call (any one) Rabbi’; Pesh., on the other hand,‏ has ܬܬܩܪܘܢ‎ instead of ,ܬܩܪܘܢ‎ making the sense to be ‘ but ye, ye shall not be called Rabbi,’ in accordance with the Greek. Matt xxvi 18 = Lamy 1 257 (‘ Quotations’ 36) ܢܗܘܐ cal‏ ܠܝܡ ܓܝܪ ܫܡܐ ܘܗܢܐ ܕܘܟܪܢܐܼ. ܒܟܠ ܐܬܪ ܕܬܼܣܬܒܪ ܣܒ̣ܪܬܝ. For ‘There shall be to her (quoth He) a name and this memorial everywhere that my Gospel shall be announced.’ There is no trace of this recasting of the verse either in the Peshitta or in the Evangelion da-Mepharreshe, so that it is possible that Ephraim’s words are a conscious paraphrase*. 1 See above, p. 1027. 2 esq (ie. ‘ this’) is omitted in B.M. Add. 14654, 126 The Peshitta and its Rivals. Matt xxvii 40 = Rom. ¥ 558 a (‘ Quotations’ 36) ܐܝܠܝ ܐܝܠ ܠ ܡܢܐ ܫܒܩܬܢܝ.‎ (sic) Eli, El, why hast thou left me? For the first words S has Aw ܐܠܝ‎ (ie. ‘Eli, Eli’) in Matt and ܐܠܗܝ ܐܠܗܝ‎ (ie. ‘My God, my God’) in Mk. Pesh. has ܐܝܠ ܐܝܠ‎ both in Matt and in Mk. I owe the correct transcription of Cod. Vat. Syr. exi (p. 263 a), given above, to the kindness of Dr G. Mereati, of the Vatican Library. Mark iv 39 = Lamy i 263 (‘ Quotations’ 37) ܫܠܝ ܠܡ ܓܝܪ ܣܟܝܪܬܝ.‎ For ‘ Be quiet! (quoth He) thou art muzzled !” B.M. Add. 14654 (Lamy’s B, but not cited by him here) has ܫܠܝ ܠܡ ܙܓܝܪܬܝ‎ ‘Be quiet! thou art stilled!’ But both the mss of 8. Ephraim’s Homily agree in having a feminine participle, so that the rebuke is addressed to the wind. S and Care unfortunately both missing, but Pesh. has ܙܓܝܪ ܐܢܬ‎ riz (with masc. verbs and pronoun), and the rebuke is addressed to the sea. Here again therefore S. Ephraim shews his independence of the Peshitta. Mark vii 28 (Matt xv 27)=Lamy i 163 (cf Rom. vi 585 p) (‘ Quotations’ 37) ܕܬܣܒܿܥ ܐܢܘܢ ܡܢ ܦܖ̈ܬܘܬܐ ܕܡܢ ܦܬܘܪ ܒܢܝ̈ܐ ܢܦܠܝܢ ܗܘܘ. That thou shouldest satisfy them from the crumbs that from the sons’ table were falling. (Rom. vi 585 D has ܟܠܒ̈ܐ ܡܢ ܦܪ̈ܟܘܟܐ ܣܒܥܝܢ ܕܡܪܖܪ̈ܝܗܘܢ Dogs from the crumbs of their masters are satisfied.)‏ The second quotation occurs in the Hymns De Paradiso and is‏ obviously a paraphrase. It is however noteworthy that both quotations‏ agree in having a form of the verb ܣܒܥ‎ ‘satisfy.’ The first quotation Quotations in S. Ephraim. 127 is from the prose Homily on our Lord, and is remarkable for containing the phrase “the sons’ table,” which is not found in any Greek Ms or in the Peshitta, but does actually occur in Mk vii 28 according to S and arm.vg. That it was also the reading of the Diatessaron is probable from Moes. 138, where Moesinger’s cod. B has “ Yea, Lord, even dogs eat of the crumbs of the children’s table!.” Here again therefore Ephraim, the Evangelion da-Mepharreshe and the Diatessaron unite in preserving a singular expression, of which the Peshitta has no trace”. The allusion in Rom. vi 5685 to this saying of Christ is chiefly remarkable for the word ܦܪ̈ܟܘܦܐ‎ ‘crumbs.’ This word is synonymous in meaning with the word ܦܪܖ̈ܬܘܬܐ‎ used in syr.vt-vg, and is also metrically equivalent. The fact that it is found in the Harclean (both in Matt xv 27 and Mk vii 28) is curious, but the circumstance is too isolated to have any special significance. Mark vii 33 = Lamy 1 171 (‘ Quotateons’ 38)‏ ܪܩ ܠܡ ܒܢ ܒ̈ܥܬܗ ܘܣܡ ܒܐ̈ܕܢܘܗܝ ܕܚܪܫܐ AM‏ ‘He spat on his fingers and put (it) in the ears of that deaf-mute.’ The variants in Mk vii 33 are particularly interesting: there are four rival readings extant in Greek, and three of these (if not all four) are represented in Syriac, or in translations from the Syriac. (a) ܐܪܡܝ ܨܒ̈ܥܬܗ ܒܐܕ̈ܢܘܗܝ ܘܪܩ ܘܩܪܒ ܠܠܫܢܗ‎ Pesh. He laid his fingers in us ears, and spat and touched his tongue. This is the reading supported by most Greek Mss, including B (&) and the ‘Received Text’ (€Badev rods Saxtvdous adrod eis TA GTA avToD kal »ܗ ܐܡ‎ HYWaTo THS + »ܗ‎ avTov). 1 The other us has “their masters’ table,” in agreement with Matt xv 27. 2 The actual texts found in syr. vt-vg are :— ܐܦ alsa‏ ܐܦܠܝܢ ܡܢ ܦܪ̈ܬܘܬܐ ܕܢܬܪ̈ܝܢ ܡܢ ܦܬܘܼܪ̈ܐ ܕܒܢܝ̈ܐ܂ Mk vii 28 § ܦܪ̈ܬܘܬܐ ܕܒ̈ܢܝܐ܂‎ pla ܡܢ ܬܚܝܬ ܦܬܘܪ̈ܐ‎ ala ܐܦ‎ Mk vii 28 77. ܕܢܦܠܝܢ] ܢ ܦܬܘܪ̈ܐ ܕܡܪ̈ܝܗܘܢ ܘܢܢܝܢ‎ <hohia ܐܟܦܠܝܢ [ܡܢ‎ Waals ܐܦ‎ Matt xv 27 Pesh. (S) (C) [S omits the bracketed words, C adds ܓ‎ after [ܦ̈ܠܒܐ‎ 128 The Peshitta and its Rivals. (b) ܠܠܫܢܗ‎ sina ܗܡ ܨܒܥܬܗ ܘܪܩ ܒܐܕܢܘܗܝ‎ § He put his fingers and spat in has ears and touched has tongue. This is the reading of the ˆ Ferrar Group’ and of the very important minuscule 28 ([ém|éBadev rods ;ܙ ܐܘܐ »ܘܘ‎ avrov mricas eis TA Gta ܘ‎ 3%, A 8 > = Kai 7 ܘ?ܧ‎ THS yAd@oons avTov). (Cc) Adland ܐܚܢ‎ And! Cod ܩܪܐ ܢܦܘ ܕ[ ܐܦܵܨܸܢ‎ (gle 8 Diat® xxi 3 He spat on his fingers and put (it) in his ears and touched his tongue. This agrees with Ephraim’s quotation, and is attested in Greek by the uncial fragment called W® (errucev cio Tova ܪܘܬܐ ܗܘܘ‎ dvTov: Kat eBarey cio td wTa TOV Kwpov- Kat WbaTo THT yAwooae Tov poyytAddov). The passage is not quoted in Ephraim’s Commentary, but the fact that the Arabic Diatessaron does not agree with the Peshitta makes it certain that the Arabic has here preserved the ancient Syriac text substantially unaltered?. In this passage, therefore, Ephraim follows the transmitted text of the Diatessaron, while both the Peshitta and the Evangelion da- Mepharreshe ditter from it and from each other. Mark xii 42 = Nis. 9175 (‘ Quotations’ 39) ܠܡܢܝܗ̇ ܘܫܡܘܢܗ̇ ܐܘܪܒܗ ܕܐܪܡܠܬܐ. The pound and the mite of the widow he increased.‏ S has ܫܡܘܢܝܢ ܕܐܝܬܝܗܘܢ ܪܘܒܥܐ‎ wih ‘two mites which are a quarter’ for hemra do, 6 éotw Kodpdvtys. But the Peshitta has ܬܪܝܢ ܡ̈ܢܝܢ ܕܐܝܬܝܗܘܢ ܫܡ̈ܘܢܐ‎ ‘two pounds which are mites.’ 8 is obviously the rendering followed by S. Ephraim. It seems to me very probable that in this case as in many others the Peshitta has retained unaltered a previously existing Syriac 1 The fourth reading, found in D (565) lat.vt, puts mrvcas before @8adev, but otherwise agrees with (a). By a curious coincidence this reading is found in the Discourses of Philoxenus (Budge 145). His words are ܪܩ ܘܣܡ ܨܒ̈ܥܬܗ ܒܐܕܼܢܘ̈ܗܝ ew ama‏ which looks like a conflation of the Evangelion da-Mepharreshe with the Diatessaron, as Philoxenus can hardly have derived his text direct from D and the Latins. Quotations in S. Ephraim. 129 rendering. For it is wholly unfair to equate the pra (Mina or Maneh) of the Parable of the Pounds with the derrév of the poor widow, and the later Syriac scholars were quite incapable of originating such a mistake’, My friend Professor A. A. Bevan suggests that the original rendering may have been yasse, in which case we must read ܬܪ̈ܬܝܢ‎ and ܕܐܝܬܝܗܝܢ‎ , as ܡܥܐ‎ (a small coin, Heb. gera) is feminine’. We may notice that the widow’s mites are called ܫܡ̈ܘܢܝܢ‎ pth in Rom. vi 677 £ and in Lamy iv 541, 579. Luke 11 80 = Lamy 1 259, 261 (‘ Quotations’ 40) ܗܐ ܠܡ ܚܙܝ ܥܝܢܝ‎ ‘Lo, mine eyes have seen thy Mercy !’ This agrees both with S and the Peshitta. The regular equivalent for 70 ܬ[ܘܗ‎ gov, according to Syriac Biblical usage, would be ܚ‎ ‘thy Life,’ and ‘thy Mercy’ looks like an intentional alteration of this. But if so, the alteration must have taken place before S. Ephraim’s day. Luke ii 34 = Lamy i 267 (‘ Quotations’ 40) ܗܢܘ ܠܡ ܗܝܡ ܠܡܦܘܠܬܐ ܘܠܩܝܡܐ. ‘This one is set for falling and for rising.’‏ The same words (and no more) are quoted in a passage of the Severus Catena (Rom. iv 129, 130), on which Mr Woods remarks: “The use of this expression without any further limitation is certainly curious. Now in the translation of the Commentary on the Dia- tessaron (see Zahn, 11. ii. § 4 [Moesinger 28]) we have Ecce hic stat in rumam et in resurrectionem et in signum contradictions, and Ephrem’s comment shows that this is not an abbreviation but a real variant. It seems likely therefore that we have in this quotation an omission of the words ‘of many in Israel’ influenced by the Diatessaron,” Mr Woods's argument is certainly strengthened by the passage quoted 1 The Harclean has ܠܦ̈ܛܐ‎ i.e. the Greek word transliterated. 2 The very same corruption also occurs in the Jerusalem Targum to Exod xxx 13, which has }°2!2 where Onkelos has .ܐ|‎ 1, Tt, 17 130 The Peshitta and its Rivals. above from the undoubtedly genuine Homily on ow Lord. In this verse, the Peshitta has the ordinary text ‘This one is set for the falling and for the rising of many in Israel’; but S presents us with the curious order ‘This one is set in Israel for the falling and for the rising of many.’ Luke 11 36 = Lanvy 111 813 )' Quotations’ 41) ܝܘ̈ܡܝܢ. ܗܘܬ ܗܘܬ‎ wl ܡܐ ܕܡ̇ܐ ܢܟܦܐ. ܠܢܟܦܬ ܢܟ̈ܦܬܐ. ܕܫܒ̈ܥܐ‎ ܥܡ ܓܒܪܐ.‎ How like 1s the modest one (i.e. Julian Saba, who deserted his wife) to that most modest of the modest, who ‘for seven days had been with a husband.’ According to the Peshitta, as in the ordinary text, Hanna the prophetess had lived seven years with a husband, but S alone among Mss and versions makes it into seven days only, and in so doing is followed by Ephraim. Luke iii 22; see on Matt iii 17 (‘ Quotations’ 41). Luke iv 29 = Nis. 59°°, Lamy 1 613 )' Quotations’ 41) ܟܕ ܫܕܐܘܗܝ ܡܢ ܛܘܪܐ. ܦܪܚ ܠܗ ܒܐܐܪ.‎ (Nis.) When they threw him from the hill, he flew in the 5 (Lamy)‏ ܦܕ ܬܘܒ ܫܕܐܘܗܝ ܡܢ mt‏ ܛܘܪܐ. When again they threw him from the top of the hall...‏ It is clear from these phrases that S. Ephraim used a text which represented wore kataxpnpvioa avrov, and took these words to imply that the people of Nazareth actually threw our Lord over the cliff. This is also the view taken in the Commentary on the Diatessaron Moes. 130, 212), which no doubt represents the text as read in Tatian’s Harmony. But it is not supported either by S or the Peshitta. S has ‘so that they might hang him’ (i.e. doe [kata |xpeudoa adrév), while the Peshitta has ‘that they might throw him from the cliff’ (i.e. eis 90 Katakpnpvioas avtov, the reading of the ‘ Received Text’). Quotations in S. Ephraim. 181 Luke vi 29; see on Matt ¥ 39 )' Quotations’ 41). Luke vii 14 = Mis. 72° © )' Quotations’ 42) ܝܫܘܥ ܕܝܢ to‏ ܠܡܝܬܐ. ܥܠܝܡܐ ܥܠܝܡܐ. Now Jesus called to the dead man ‘ Youth, youth!’‏ This remarkable reading is expressly attested by Aphraates, who says (p. 165): “And with two words He raised each one of them. For the son of the widow, when He raised him, He called twice, saying to him ‘Youth, youth, arise!’—and he lived and arose. And the daughter of the chief of the Synagogue He called twice, saying to her ‘Girl, girl, arise !’?!—and her spirit returned and she arose.” Thus Ephraim’s reading (which is also that of D and of « ff of the Old Latin), was that which was alone familiar to Aphraates, and we may safely conjecture that it stood in the Diatessaron. But it is not the reading either of the Peshitta or of S, Luke vii 34; see on Matt xi 19 (‘ Quotations’ 42). Luke vii 41-43 = Lamy i, p. xxiif. (supplying the lacuna in i 249) (‘ Quotations’ 42 f.) ܬܖ̈ܝܢ ܠܡ ܚܝܒܝܢ ܐܝܬ ܗܘܘ ܠܓܒܪܐ ܡܘܙܦܢܐ. ܚܕ ܠܡ ܚܝܒ ܗܘܐ ܕܝ̈ܢܪܐ ܚܡܫܡܐܐ ܘܐܚܪ̈ܢܐ ܕܝܢ ܕܝܢܪ̈ܐ ܚܡܫܝܝܢ 5 ܘܟܐ ܠܡ ܟܕ ܠܝܬ ܠܚܕ ܡܢܗܘܢ ܕܢܦܪܥܝܘܗܝ ܠܬܪ̈ܝܗܘܢ ar‏ ܠܐܝܢܐ ܗܐܡ ܐܢܬ ܒܪܥܝܢܟ ܕܝܬܝܪ ܢܚܒܝܘܗܝ. "ܐܡܪ ܠܗ ܫܡܥܘܢ ܘܒܪ ܐܢܐ acon‏ ܕܐܫܬܒܩ ܠܗ ܣܓܝ ܐܡܪ ܠܗ ܡܪܢ ܬܪܝܨܐܝܬ ܕܢܬ. 416 Two debtors there were to a man, a money-lender. One was in debt for five hundred denars, but the other for fifty denars.’...‘ Finally, when not one of them had aught to pay him, he forgave them both. Which dost thow set in thy mind will most love him?’ Simon sarth to him ‘I suppose it is he to whom he forgave much.’ Our Lord saith to him <‘ Correctly hast thou judged.’ 1 Or we may regard it as a transliteration and render it ‘ Talitha, talitha, cum. Traces of this reading also are to be found in D and the Latin texts of Mk v 41. 152 The Peshitta and its Rivals. It will not be necessary to give in full all the trifling variations between Ephraim’s not absolutely accurate quotation and the Biblical mss. The three significant readings are: (1) in ver. 41 Ephraim with S has ܡܘܙܦܢܐ‎ XtaX_‘a man, a money-lender,’ while C and the Peshitta have ܚܕ ܡܪܶܐ ܚܘܒܐ‎ ‘a certain creditor. That the reading of S and Ephraim was also that of the Diatessaron is clear from Moesinger, where however what appears in the Latin (p. 114) as um domino creditor. should be translated viro cuidam feneratori (unt ܗܨܘ‎ 4& ifnfsuunf). (2) In the beginning of ver. 43 both S and C have with Ephraim ‘Simon saith to him,’ while the Peshitta has more in accordance with the Greek ‘Simon answered and said.’ The simpli- fication of these introductory sentences in dialogue is one of the characteristics of the Old Syriac, while the Peshitta tends to follow the Greek wording. It is therefore noteworthy that Ephraim here agrees with S Cand not with the Peshitta. (3) At the end of ver. 43 Ephraim has ܬܪܺܝܨܐܝܬ‎ ‘correctly’ in agreement with the Peshitta, while SC have tax ‘well.’ The word in the Greek is 6p0as, which is translated by ܬܪܝܨܐܝܬ‎ in Lk x 28, xx 21, by S and C’as well as Pesh. In this passage the agreement of S and @ shews us that wax was really the reading of the Hvangelion da-Mepharreshe, which is there- fore not the text from which Ephraim is quoting!. Luke ix 62 = Overbeck 127 (‘ Quotations’ 43) ܠܐ ܐܢܫ ܪܡܐ ܐܝܕܗ ܥܠ wow‏ ܕܦܕܢܐ ܘܚܐܪ ܠܒܣܬܪܗ܇ ama‏ ܚܫܚ ܠܡܠܟܘܬܐ ܕܫܡܝܐ. No one putteth his hand on the plough-share and looketh behind him, cand becometh fit for the kingdom of heaven. Here again Ephraim does not exactly reproduce any of the Syriac Biblical texts, for both S C and Pesh. have ‘God,’ not ‘heaven.’ But the insertion of kam ‘becometh’ is attested by SC. ‘A parallel case is the rendering of éxSéeera, which has been discussed above on Matt xxi 41. Quotations in S. Hphrain. 133 [Luke xii 16-20 = Letter to Publius, B.M. Add. 7190, fol. 191 ¥, sic (‘ Quotations’ 72) ܠܐ ܚܙܐ ܐܢܬ ܡܢܐ ܓܿ̇ܕܫ ܠܗ ܠܗܘ ܕܐܥܠܼܬ ܠܗ ܐܪܥܗ ܥ̈ܠܠܬܐ ܣܓ̈ܝܐܬܐ. ܕܥܠ ܕܐܡܿܪ ܠܢܦܫܗ܆ ܢܦܫܝ shea sadn’‏ ܘܐܬܬܼܢܝܚܝ ܘܐܬܒܿܣܡܝ: ܡܛܠ ܕܗܐ ܥ̈ܠܠܬܐ ܣܓܝ̈ܐܬܐ ܚ̈ܡܝܠܢ ܠܟܝ ܠܫ̈ܢܝܐ ܣܓ̈ܝܐܬܐܼ. ܠܐ ܫܡܼܥܬ ܕܥܕ ܡܠܬܗ ܒܦܘܡܗ cals‏ ܗܘܬ܆ ܒܪܬ ܩܠܝܐ ܡܪ̇ܝܪ̈ܬܐ. ܒܥܘܒܐ ܕܐܕܢܗ ܐܬܢܣܒܬ ܗܘܬ. ܕܟܕ ܕܠܐ ܠܒܐ ܠܗ ܩܿܪܝܐ ܗܘܬ. ܘܐܡܪܐ. ܗܐ ܒܗܢܐ ܠܠܝܐ ܢܦܟ ܪܚܝܡܬܐ ܡܟ ܬܒܿܥܝܢ ܠܗ̇. ܗܢܐ ܡܕܡ hails‏ ܠܡܶܢ ܢܗܘܐ. Dost thou not see what befel him whose land brought in to him mach produce? Because he suid to his soul: ‘My soul, eat and drink aud rest and be merry, because lo, much produce is stored wp for thee for many years, —hast thou not heard that while yet his word in his mouth was sweet, the bitter Vorce was received in the bosom of his ear, which was calling him ‘Senseless one’ and saying: ‘Lo, in this night thy dear soul—from thee they require it; that which thou hast made ready, whose will it be?’ This Parable is quoted in Aphraates 381 in very close agreement with the extract from the Letter to Publius. In common with Aphraates and @ against S and Pesh. it has ‘he said to his soul’ instead of ‘I will say to my soul’ In common with Aphraates and S against @ and Pesh. it has lavas ‘stored up’ instead of pase ‘laid up.’ In common with Aphraates and Pesh. against S and C'it prefixes the vocative ‘Soul’ to the rich man’s meditation, and it has ܐܦܘܠܝ‎ ‘eat’ instead of the synonym yoas\. But it also has in common with Aphraates against SC’ and Pesh. the remarkable phrase ܕܠܐ ܠܒܐ‎ ‘senseless’ (dat. ‘without heart’) instead of ܚܝܪ ܪܥܝܢܐ‎ ‘lacking in mind’ as a rendering of 06, and it also has the singular instead of the plural in the last clause. It is difficult to assign any sufficient cause for this marked agreement between the ‘Letter to Publius’ and Aphraates against Syriac Biblical texts, except a common use of the Diatessaron. | 134 The Peshitta and its Rivals. Luke xii 49 = Overbeck 124, 126 (‘ Quotations’ 44) sins ܢܘܪܐ ܐܬܝܬ ܕܐܪܡܐ‎ Fire I cume to cast in the earth. This agrees with Pesh. against SC, which add ܓܝܪ‎ am after ܢܘܪܐ‎ (For fire it is that 7 came to cast...). Luke xii 54-56, | Matt] xvi 2, 3 = Rom. v 320 B (‘ Quotations’ 44 1.‏ 50 ܦܪܨܘܦܐ ܠܡ ܓ ܪ ܕܐܪܥܐ. ܐܦ ܕܫܡܝܐ .ܝܕܥܝܢ ܐܢܬܘܢ̇ {ܘܐܡܬܝ ܗܘܐ ܦܘܪܢܐ. ܐ ܘܕܐܡܬܝ wah wom‏ ܡܬܢܒܐ ܐܦ ܥܠ ܨܚܘܐ. lig.‏ For the face of the earth aid of the heaven too ye know, and when there will be a sirocco und when there will be vain; prophecies are made also about fine weather. This stanza is not a quotation, but is as Mr Woods called it (p. 122) a ‘mixed paraphrase’ of Matt xvi 2, 3, and Luke xii 54—56. Asa matter of fact it is only the last clause that seems to be taken from Matt., but the word Was. ‘fine weather’ is decisive. 8. Ephraim’s Gospel text therefore included the interpolated verses, which are read in the Peshitta, but not in S or C. This quotation, therefore, is not taken from the Evangelion da-Mepharreshe. But neither is it from the Peshitta, for the word used corresponding to kavowv (Lk xii 55) is not ܚܘܡܐ‎ ‘heat, as in the Peshitta, but ܦܘܪܵܢܐ‎ ‘a sirocco. This isa somewhat rare word, ultimately derived from an Assyrian name for an oven. But it is used in this place by Cand by S also”. Ephraim’s quotation here, therefore, presents similar features to those which we have noticed elsewhere ; viz. it has the language and style of the EHvangelion da-Mepharreshe or Old Syriac, but an inde- pendent text: in other words, it has the characteristic features of the Syriac Diatessaron. From this passage we further gain the very interesting information that the Diatessaron, like every other text known to be connected with the West, recognised the interpolation 1 ] give the text from B.M. Add. 14571, fol. 33 va. The Roman Edition has ܝܕܥܝܢ ܐܢܬܘܢ‎ hefove ܐܧ ܕܫܡܝܐܪ‎ and inserts sah before Al => so as to make ܘܕ ܐܡܬܝ‎ two syllables. 3 The reading of S given in Mrs Lewis’s Some Pages is maya, but Mrs Lewis’s transcript had ܕܦܘܼܪܢܐ‎ and the edited reading was merely the result of misapprehension. Quotations in S. Ephraiin. 135 dwpias yevouérys «.t.d. in Matt xvi 2, 3, which is absent from the best Greek texts (XB and Origen) as well as from the Old Syriac codices C and 3S. Luke xiv 31 = Rom. v 487 a (‘ Quotations’ 45)‏ ܟܬܝܒ ܕܐܝܢܐ ܗܘ ܡܢ alsa‏ ܩܐܪܣܐ ܐܶܙܠ ܠܡܥ ܒܕ ܠܡ. ms‏ ܡܠܟܐ iter’‏ ܚܩܪܗ. It is written ‘Who among kings goeth to do battle with another king his fellow ?’ This is quite different both from Pesh. and from S C, and we really possess no evidence to shew whether Ephraim’s wording is anything more than a paraphrase arranged to suit his 7-syllable metre. But as the quotation is expressly introduced for the sake of the word a tas which means his ‘fellow’ or ‘comrade’ (though in this case used of an enemy), it is evident that the word must have stood in Ephraim’s text. In Lk xiv 31 SC both have Katee cals, while the Peshitta has ܚܒܪܗ‎ reals. Luke xv 4 £ ; see on Matt xviii 12 £. )' Quotations’ 45). [Luke xvi 25 = Letter to Publius, B.M. Add. 7190, fol. 189 r )' Quo- tations’ 71 f.) ܒܪܝ ܐܬܕܟܪ ܕܩܒܼܠܬ ܛܕܖ̈ܬܐ nese‏ ܟܠܗܐ ܘܠܥܙܪ ܩܒܠ maxis‏ ܘܐܘ̈ܠ ܨܢ.ܘܗܝ ܡܢ ܩܕܝܡ. ܘܗܫܐ ܠܐ ܡܫܟܚ ܕܢܐܬܐ ܢܥܕܪ ܒܬܫܢ̈ܝܩܝܟ ܆ ܡܢ ܕܠܐ 1 ܥܕܪܬܝܗܝ ܒܬܫ̈ܢܝܩܐ ܘܟܘܖܪ̈ܗܢܘܗܝ. ܡܛܠ ܗܢܐ 5< ܐܢܬ ware ATER maim‏ ܕܒܥܐ ܗܘܐ ܡ ܕܬܥܕܪܝܘܗܝ: ܘܠܐ dud.‏ ‘My son, remember that thou recewedst good things im thy life and thy folly, and Lazar received his evil things and his afflactions before- hand; and now he cannot come and help thee in thy torments, because thou didst not help him in torments and his infirmities. Therefore thou dost beseech of him to help thee, as he had besought of thee to help ham, and thow wouldst not.’ 1 Cod, ܕܥܕܪܬܝܗܝ‎ 136 The Peshitta and its Rivals. This is a free paraphrase, but one point is perfectly clear: in the last clause mapaxadetrae is not rendered as in our Bibles “he is com- forted” (or “resteth”), but “he is besought.” The former rendering is that of the Peshitta and of S, while the latter is found in Aphraates and we may well believe it to be the rendering characteristic of the Diatessaron!. The actual words of Aphraates (Wright, p. 383) are ܒܪܝ ܥܗܕ ( ܐܬܕܦܪ ܐ .«) ܕܩܒܠܬ ܛܒ̈ܬܟ ܒܢܝ̈ܝܟ. ܘܠܥܙܪ ܩܒܠ ܒܝܢ̈ܫܬܗ, ima‏ ܕܝܢ ܒܥܝܬ ܡܢܗ. ܘܠܐ ܡܥܕܪ ‘My son, recollect that thou receivedst thy good things in thy life, and Lazar received his evil things: but to-day thou dost beseech of him, and he doth not help thee.’ The only other passage I know where this view of wapaxadetras is taken is Cyprian Test 111 61, in which according to the better Mss we read: Commemorare quoniam percepisti bona in wita tua, HKleazar autem mala: nune hic ROGATUR, tu autem doles. The rest of the Latin texts have consolatur?. Note also that the word used in the letter to Publius for the ydopa of Lk xvi 26 is ܦܢܢܬܐ‎ as in Aphraates 383, but in Pesh. and S we find the synonym wham. Curiously enough, the Harclean has ܦܢܝܬܐ‎ and a similar word is used in the Palestinian Lectionary. In Lamy iv 381 there is a reference to the story of Dives and Lazarus in which ܦܢܥܢܬܐ‎ is again used, together with the picturesque detail that the rich man in torment asks that Lazarus may dip in water cates ܪܺܝܫ‎ ‘the tip of his lzttle finger’ and come and refresh him. Here SC and Pesh. have simply ‘the tip of his finger’ in accordance with the Greek. | Luke xvii 31, 32 = Overbeck 127 (‘ Quotations’ 45 f.) waia dass ܐܢ ܐܢܫ ܠܡ ܐܝܬܘܗܝ ܒܫܘܩܐ ܘܡ̈ܢܘܗܝ ܒܒܝܬܐ ܠܐ‎ ܠܡ ܠܐܢܬܬܗ ܕܠܘܛ.‎ arcs ܐܢܘܢ‎ ‘Tf any one ws in the street and his things in the house, let him not enter and take them. Recollect the wife of Lot.’ ‘The leaf of C which contained this passage is missing. It is also probable that Aphraates and Ephraim read 68 mapaxadetrac with the Latins and the ‘Textus Receptus,’ while S and the Peshitta (with the great majority of Greek mss) support de mapaxaXeirat. ° For the rendering of mapdxAnow in Lk vi 24 by S and Aphraates 390, see p. 109: in that verse ¢ has postulationem and Tertullian aduocationem. Compare also ‘expectans praecem Isdrahel’ Lk ii 25 ¢. Quotations in S. Ephraine. 127 Here again the wording is different both from Pesh. and from S 0 and the text of the Diatessaron is not given for this passage in Moesinger. But the quotation from Ephraim is taken from a prose work, so that it may not be a simple paraphrase. The chief differences are that Ephraim has ܒܫܘܩܐ‎ ‘in the street’ for émi tov dépuaros, where the Syriac Biblical texts have WtXrt> ‘in the roof’ (Pesh.) or Wir ܥܠ‎ ‘on the roof’ (SC); and that Ephraim has ܥܗܕܘ‎ ‘recollect, where the Syriac Biblical texts have ataz ܐܬ‎ ‘remember.’ The omissions made by Ephraim at the end of xvii 31 are probably of no importance, as he speaks of ‘our Lord telling us not to turn back’ (cf ver. 31°), just before his more formal quotation begins. Luke xviii 13 = Overbeck 28 (‘ Quotations’ 46)‏ ܡܛܠ ܕܚܠܬܗ ܥܝ̈ܢܘܗܝ ܠܡ ܪܡܘ ܠܫܡܝܐ ܠܐ ܡܡܿܪܚ wan‏ He [the publican] because of his fear was not daring to lift has eyes to heaven. The Greek has ܬܘ‎ 7Oedev...€mapar, and accordingly S and the Peshitta have he was not willing to lift. But Cagrees with Ephraim, against the Greek. [Similarly in Lamy iii 63 (see ‘ Quotations’ 70) we find ܚܛܝܐ ܠܐ ܐܡܪܚ. ܕܢܚܘܪ ܗܘܐ ܠܡ ܒܫܡܝܐ.‎ ac That sinner (it says) did not dare to be looking to heaven. | Luke xxii 43, 44 = Lamy i 233, 655, Nis. 59° (‘ Quotations’ 46 f.). The passages from Lamy i 665 and Nis. 59 only shew in a general way that S. Ephraim’s Gospel text contained the incident of the bloody sweat. In this it agrees with C, the Peshitta, and Moes. 235, but differs from S. The passage from Lamy i 233 goes more into detail and is worth quoting : ܟܬܝܒ ܕܐܬܢܚܙܝ ܠܗ ܡܠܐܟܐ ܟܕ ܡܚܝܠ wad‏ It is written that there appeared to him an angel strengthening him. Here Cand Ephraim agree in omitting ‘ from heaven’ after ‘angel,’ B. I, 18 138 The Peshitta and tts Rivals. against the Peshitta and all other authorities, except a few patristic quotations (including Arius and Caesarius of Nazianzus). Wherever therefore C and Ephraim got their common text of this passage, it was not from the Peshitta. Luke xxiii 38 = Lamy i 667 (‘ Quotations’ 47). Happy art thou, O tablet! The same word taka, a Syriac adaptation of mirraxoy, is used also in S and C for the émypady of the Gospel text. But the Peshitta has Moka, which must have been regarded as a more literal trans- lation, as it is here found also in the Harclean. Luke xxiii 43 = Lamy i 667, 669 (‘ Quotations’ 47) )667( ܡܢܟܝ ܠܥܕܝܢ wha‏ ܘܥܠ. From thee | Golgotha] he opened und entered Eden.‏ a ܘܘܡܟ ܒܥ‎ ts ܫܩܠ‎ (669) Our Lord took and set thee [the thief] in Eden. It is evident from these passages that Ephraim read ‘in the garden of Eden’ with C, Aphraates, and the Diatessaron (Moes. 244, 245), not ‘in Paradise’ with S and the Peshitta. Joh i 1 = Lamy ii 513 )' Quotations’ 48) duris‏ ܐܝܬܘܗܝ ܗܘܐ ܡܠܬܐ. In the beginning He was the Word. This agrees verbally both with C and Pesh., but the English translation here given (which is demanded by the context) assumes ‘word’ to be feminine as in C, not masculine as in Pesh. S 8‏ ܡܠܬܐ deficient until Joh i 25,‏ Quotations in S. Ephraim. 139 Joh 1 8 = Rom. iv 18 (‘ Quotations’ 48) ܐܡܪ ܥܠܘܗܝ ܐܘܢܓܠ .ܣܛܐ ܕܟܠ ܡܕܡ ܒܗ ܗܘܐ. ܘܒܠܥܕܘܗܝ ܐܦ ܠܐ ܚܕܐ ܗܘܬ . The Evangelist scath of him ‘ Everything was in Him, and apart from Him not even one thing was.’ This exactly agrees with the Evangelion da-Mepharreshe as repre- sented by C, but the Peshitta has ܒܐܝܕܗ ܗܘܐ‎ As, ie. ‘all was through Him’ (following the Greek wdvra 8v ܘܡܘ‎ éyévero), instead of .ܟܠ ܡܕܡ ܒܗ ܗܘܐ‎ The rendering of C' and Ephraim is also found in the Syriac Theophania i 24. Here Ephraim quotes the ‘Evangelist’ for his own statement, just as in the following words the authority of the ‘Apostle’ is brought forward. Dr Mercati has in this passage also kindly verified for me the reading of Cod. Vat. Syr. cx (fol. 15 r). Joh 1 83= Lamy 11 513 f. (corrected from B.M. Add. 12164) (‘ Quo- tations’ 48 f.) ܕܝܠܗ. ܥܠ ܓܝܪ ܝܘܚܢܢ ܕܢܟܬܘܒ ܡܕܡ ܕܗܒܼܠ ܡܪܢ ܒܩܢܘܡܗ. ܫܪܝ ܠܗ ܕܝܢ ܒܫܪܒܗ ܕܒܪܐ ܡܢ ܟܪ ܕܒܐܝ ܕܗ ܐܬܒܪܝ ܟܠ ܡܕܡ ` ܫܒܩܗ ܗܟܝܠ ܝܘܚܢܢ acl‏ ܡܕܡ ܕܒܐܝܕܗ DAR‏ ܗܘܐ... From the same [S. Ephraim] For John started to write that which our Lord endured in Himself. ‘ Now he began with the history of the Son from where (it says) that ‘Through Him had been created everything ’...... John therefore left (the consideration of) that which through Hun had been created...” These words, as may be seen from the opening formula, are taken from a collection of extracts. The collection is that made by Philoxenus at the end of his great and still unedited work on the Incarnation, written to prove ‘that One Person of the Trinity became Man,’ which is preserved in a Vatican Ms and also in B.M. Add. 12164, a Ms of the 6th century. It is perfectly clear that the version of Joh 1 3 agrees with the Peshitta, and ditters from C’ and Ephraim’s quotation else- where, in having ܒܐܝܕܗ‎ for 8’ aitod. At the same time, it differs both from C and the Peshitta in having ܐܬܒܪܝ‎ ‘created,’ instead of 140 The Peshitta and its Rivals. ‘was, to render éeyévero. This is not unparalleled in Syriac‏ ܗܘܐ ܘܘܗ seems to stand for‏ ܐܬ ܒܪܝ 27 texts of the Gospel; in Mk it‏ in S and the Peshitta, but curiously enough not in the Diatessaron‏ (Moes. 62); nor is there anything in the opening section of Ephraim’s‏ Commentary on the Diatessaron (Moes. 6) to suggest that it had‏ in each place in‏ ܟܠ ܡܕܡ in Joh i 3. Finally, Ephraim has‏ ܐܬܒܪܝ agreement with C, where Pesh. has Aa. The texts used by Ephraim‏ in the beginning of the Fourth Gospel are thus diverse and their source‏ is not at all clear, but none of them can be explained from the use of‏ the Peshitta.‏ Joh 1 14 = Lamy 11 7431 )' Quotations’ 49 f.) iter ܒܥܘܒܐ‎ «Wa ܘܠܒܼܫܬ‎ moar ܡܠܬܗ ܕܐܒܐ ܐܬܬ ܡܢ‎ wets Waar ܥܘ̈ܒܐ‎ mam alma ܡܢ ܥܘܒܐ ܠܥܘܒܐ ܢܦܩܬ.‎ The Word of the Father came from His bosom, and clothed itself with a body in another bosom; from bosom to bosom it went forth, and pure bosoms have been filled from it: blessed is He that dwelleth in us! It is obvious that this is a reference to Joh i 14 and 18, the reference to ‘bosoms’ shewing that the Biblical statement is in the mind of the writer and not a generalised reference to the Incarnation. But the diction in two very important particulars is that of C and not of the Peshitta; the Word is feminine, and It puts on not flesh (rims), but a body .)(ܦܓܪܶܐ)‎ For 6 déyos ܘܗ‎ éyévero Pesh. has ܡܠܬܐ ܒܣܪܐ ܗܘܐ‎ , but Chas ܡܠܬܐ ܦܓ ܪܐ ܗܘܬ‎ , and Aphraates twice quotes the verse in agreement with C. That the Peshitta gives the revision and C'the original Syriac rendering is made highly probable by the fact that even the Peshitta has ܦܓ ܪܐ‎ in all seven places where oapé occurs in the sixth chapter of ©, John. It is not necessary here to examine the reasons which led to the original adoption of the term ‘body’ in Joh i 13, 14, or to those which led to the subsequent rejec- tion of it in favour of a more literal rendering of the Greek?, But I ± Repeated in Lamy iv 751. * See Isho‘dad as quoted by Dr J. R. Harris in Fragments of the Commentary of Ephrem Syrus upon the Diatessaron, p. 25. The Armenian altogether fails us here, for in Armenian Hiupdpe marmin stands indifferently for capé and for cpa. Quotations in S. Ephrain. 141 may remark that there is no surer test of the Biblical text used by a Syriac author than the phrase used for the Incarnation. On the one hand the Acts of Thomas, the Doctrine of Addai, Aphraates and ©, Ephraim, constantly speak of our Lord having ‘clothed’ Himself with a body’; on the other, Isaac of Antioch and the biographer of Rabbula agree with the Peshitta in speaking of the Word made flesh, a phrase which (so far as I know) never occurs in Syriac literature before the 5th century. This passage also is quoted by Philoxenus (B.M. Add. 12164, fol. 131 ra), with the reading ܪܐ‎ a hama ‘and became a body.’ This reading is exactly what is found in 04 and as it is metrically satisfactory it may very well be the actual wording used by 8. Ephraim. Joh 111 34 = Lay 1 267 )' Quotations’ 50 f.) ܡܛܠ ܗܢܐ ܠܐ ܗܘܐ ܒܟܝܠܬܐ ܝܗܒ ܠܗ ܐܒܘܗܝ ܪܘܚܐ.‎ Therefore not by measure gave his Father to hum the Spirit. This passage presents several interesting variants in Syriac texts, which can best be exhibited by quotation in full. We have Aph 122‏ ܐ ܠܐ ܗܘܐ ܒܦܝܠܬܐ ܝܗܒ ܠܗ ܐܒܘܗܝ ܪܘܚܐ Aph 123‏ ܝܗܒ ܪܘܢܚܐ ܐܒܐ ܠܒܪܗ C (partly torn away)‏ ܠܐ ܗܘܐ ܓܝܪ ܒܦܝܠܬܐ ܝܗܒ ܀ ܀ ܐܒܐ ܠܒܪܗ݀ srid‏ ܠܐ ܗܘܐ ܓܝܪ ܒܦܝܠܬܐ ܝܗܒ ܐܠܗܐ ܐܒܐ Pesh.‏ ܒܦܝܠܐ ܝܗܒ ܐܠܗܐ ܪܘܚܐ ̈ܕ 2 99 As to S, ܐܠܗܐ‎ is not legible in the photograph. Moes. 105 has ‘And not by measure gave he to his Son.’ The Greek of this passage is ov yap €» pérpov diSaow [6 Beds] 90 mvedpa, followed by 6 warip ayarg tov viov. If ܐܠܗܐ‎ be really the reading of S, it looks almost like a conflation with syr.vg; but the independence of Ephraim in this passage needs no further commentt. Note that <A\as is peculiar to syr.vg, as it has now been definitely ascertained that S‏ ܐ reads Chia (Expositor for Aug. 1897, p. 117).‏ 143 The Peshitta and its Rivals. Joh vi 52= Rom. vi 102 F )' Quotations’ 51) ܐܝܟܢ ܡܨܐ ܗܢܐ ܦܓܪܗ ܕܢܬܠ ܠܢ.‎ Tow can this man his body give ws ? This is a mere allusion, with ܠܡܐܟܠ‎ ‘to eat’ at the end of the verse left out and ܡܨܐ‎ er (3 syllables) substituted for the Biblical ܐܝܦܢܐ ܡܫܟܚ‎ (5 syllables), doubtless for metrical reasons. At the same time it agrees in giving the order found in Pesh. against MINA ܕܢܬܠ ܠܢ‎ in SC. The order here preserved in Pesh. and Ephraim is that of cod. 69, and partially that of other mss of the ‘Ferrar Group.’ Joh xii 2 (Luke x 40) =Lamy 1 255 (‘ Quotations’ 51 f.) ܥܢܝܐ ܗܘܬ ܒܬܫܡܫܬܐ‎ whim ܟܕ‎ When Martha was occupied in serving... This sentence belongs properly to Lk x 40 (4 6€ Map0a 706» 066 mept ܬܬܘ«‎ Suakoviav), but it appears in Ephraim as part of the story of the supper given by Lazarus and his sisters to Christ. Thus it corresponds to Joh xii 2 (kal 7 Madp@a diynxdver), a clause which is literally translated in the Peshitta. But S actually has in Joh xu 2 ܡܪܬܐ ܕܝܢ ܥܢܝܐ ܗܘܬ ܒܬܫܡܫܬܐ‎ What makes the agreement here of S and Ephraim all the more remarkable is that the Diatessaron, as represented in Moes. 99, 204, and also in the Arabic, kept the two incidents quite distinct. But in Ephraim they are completely confused. Job xiii 5 = Lamy 1 657 (‘ Quotations’ 52) ܡܪ̈ܢ alls‏ ܠܓܘܫܡܐ ܕܐܚ̈ܐ. ܒܠܩܢܐ ܕܐܝܬܝܗ̇ ܐܪܙ ܐܘܝܘܬܐ. Our Lord purified the bodily frame of the brethren, in ® dish which‏ is the symbol of concord.‏ ‘in a‏ ܒ ܡܫܓܬܐ For eis rov vemtnpa in Joh xiii 5 the Peshitta has‏ washing-bason,’ but S and Aphraates have ܒܠܩܢܝܐ ܕܝܫܝܓܬܐ‎ ‘ina dish for washing.’ This is evidently the text known to Ephraim. Quotations in S. Ephraim. 143 The case is therefore exactly similar to Lk xxiii 38. There Ephraim and SC agreed in having rola, a word derived from wurrakiov, but used as a translation of érvypady. Here Ephraim agrees with Aphraates and S in having | ܠܩܢܐ | ܕܫܝܓܬܐ‎ , where asl is derived from €» ܕ‎ but is used to translate vurrjp. Joh xiv 23 = Lamy i 273 (‘ Quotations’ 52) ‘ He that loveth me, unto him we come, and an abode with him we will make.’ The latter part of this verse is quoted also in Aphraates 130. The one Ms of Aphraates (Wright’s A) agrees with Ephraim and with S in having sas. ‘we will make.’ The other ms of Aphraates (Wright’s B) has ܥܒ ܕܝܢܢ‎ ‘we make’ with the Peshitta’. C, on the other hand, has ܐܬܐ ܐܢܐ‎ ‘I come’ and ܐܥܒܕ‎ ‘I will make, in agreement with Codex Bezae and the Old Latin ms ec. I have but little doubt that the true reading of the Hvangelion da-Mepharreshe is given in C, and the reading of the Diatessaron is given in S, in Aphraates and in Ephraim. Joh xv 1 = Lamy ii 359 (ef ‘ Quotations’ 53 f.) ܟܪ̈ܡܐ ܕܫܪܪܐ‎ The Vineyard of Truth. A number of indications combine to shew that this is a reference to Joh xv 1; or rather, that this is a reference to the passage in the Diatessaron corresponding to Joh xv 1, and that the Diatessaron had 7 am the true Vineyard...and ye are the vines. The context of the passage quoted is not in itself quite decisive. S. Ephraim says of the loss of Nisibis to the heathen Persians: “The vineyard that belonged to my Beloved in a corner of fertile land (Isaiah v 1), that vineyard hath the oppressor rooted up, and planted 1 This is not the only occasion where cod, A of Aphraates gives a better reading than that of B or B, 144 The Peshitta and its Rivats. a new one in its stead. The vineyards of time are worked more than the Vineyard of Truth: wrath hath made all vineyards desolate, that in the Vineyard of verity we may work.” No doubt Ephraim has also in mind the Parable of the Vineyard (Matt xx), but the phrase in S. John is the only one which connects either Vine or Vineyard with “truth.” Vine of Truth is of course only the Semitic turn of expres- sion for True Vine. The word esata is the ordinary Syriac word for ‘vineyard’; it sometimes appears to be used in the sense of ܓܦܬܐ‎ ‘vine,’ but the passages quoted below from Aphraates and Cyrillona make it clear that ‘vineyard’ is here meant and not ‘ vine.’ Parallels to ܟܪ̈ܡܐ ܕܫܪܺܪܶܐ‎ are to be found in the second Hymn on the Epiphany (Lamy i 21), nearly identical with that printed as the thirteenth Hymn de Nativitate (Rom, v 434). I give the text from B.M. Add. 14506, fol. 170r ܒܫܢܬܐ ܕܥܣܪ sara‏ ܬܘܕܐ ܓܦܬܐ ܠܡܪ̈ܢ. ܟܪܡܐ ܕܩܘܫܬܐ ܗ̈ܘܝ ܢܦ̈ܫܬܐ ܐܝܟ ܢܨܒ̈ܬܐ. ܫܺܝܢ ܟܪ̈ܡܐ ܘܐܚܪܒ ܟܪܡܐ ܕܝܗܒܘ ܚܪ̈ܘܒܐ. ܡ ܥܩܘܪܗ . ܘ and from B.M. Add. 14512, fol. 25 ¥‏ ܒܫܢܬܐ tess‏ ܘܫ̈ܒܥ ܬܘܕܐ ܓܦܬܐ ܕܐܟܠܗܿ. ܚܙܝܪ̈ܐ ܕܥܒܐ ܠܟܪܡܐ ܕܩܘܫܬܐ. ܕܦܠܸܚ ܢܦܫܗ. ܘܢܛܪ ܦܐܪ̈ܘܗܝ. ܘܩ̇ܪܒ ܦܐܙ̈ܐ ܠܡܪܐ ܟܪܡܐ. wp‏ ܦܠܚܗ ܘ In the seventeenth year let the Vine give thanks to our Lord; the Vineyard of verity—the souls were as the plants: He gave peace to the Vineyard and laid waste the vineyard, for that they bare wild-grapes — Blessed be its Uprooter ! In the seventeenth year let the Vine give thanks, which the wild boar of the wood hath eaten; the Vineyard of verity that husbanded itself and kept its fruits, and brought the firwits to the Lord of the Vineyard— Blessed be its Husbandman ! Here the reference to Joh xv 1 is as clear as that to Psalm ]xxx 13. ܟܪܡܐ ܕܩܘܫܬܐ‎ was doubtless chosen as being a syllable shorter than tier ܟܪܡܐ‎ . The two stanzas appear to be alternatives. They are combined in tom. ¥ 434, but the phrase Vine of Verity is avoided by an unmetrical variation, Quotations in 8. Ephraim. 145 The verse is quoted again in a tract ascribed to 8. Ephraim, which 18 extant only in Armenian (Ephr.Arm ii 288). After a quotation of Matt xxi 33, we read: “And again in another place He says I am the Vineyard, and ye are the vine.) Besides these passages from Ephraim we find other instances of the same rendering in early Syriac literature. The quotation of Cyrillona which includes the words ܐܢܐ ܐܢܐ ܟܪ̈ܡܐ ܕ݁ܫܪܺܪܶܐ‎ is given below?. And Aphraates says, with unmistakeable reference to Joh xv 1 (Wright, p. 288): ܗܘܝܘ ܟܪܡܐ ܕܫܪܪܐ amanda‏ ܦܠܚܐ ܘܐܢܚܢܢ ܓܘ̈ܦܢ ܐ ܕܢܨܝܒܝܢ MONS‏ He is the Vineyard of Truth, and His Father the husbandman, and we the vines planted within him. And again (Wright, p. 98f.) ܦܪܡܐ ܓܝܪ ܡܫܝܚܐ ܗܘ. amanda‏ ܦܠܚܐ. ܘܓܘ̈ܦܢܐ Lam‏ ܕܫܬܝܢ ܡܢ Mar‏ For the Vineyard is the Messiah, and His Father the husbandman, and the vines are they that drink of His cup. This curious translation is not found in S or the Peshitta, though otherwise these two texts differ considerably in the opening words of Joh xv, nor is there any trace of it in the Acts of Thomas. It is there- fore probable that it never found its way into Biblical mss, but there can be little doubt that it was a characteristic feature of the Syriac Diatessaron. Joh xvi 11= Rom. iv 37 F (‘ Quotations’ 54) ܘܐܡܪ ܕܥܠ ܕܝܢܗ ܠܡ ܕܐܪܟܘܢܗ ܕܥܠܡܐ ܗܢܐ ܕܝܢ ܗܘ. And he said ‘About his judgement, that the ruler of this world 1s‏ judged.’‏ Here S agrees with Ephraim in having miasieas, where Pesh. has‏ ܕܝܢܗ ‘judgement’ not‏ ܕܝܢܐ but both S and Pesh. have‏ , ܕܐܪܟܘܢܐ 1 The word translated ‘ Vineyard’ is «qf (as in Matt xxi 33 arm.vg), that translated ‘ Vine’ is apf (as in Joh xv 1 arm.yvg). » See p. 151. B. II, 19 146 The Peshitta and its Rivals. ‘his judgement.’ How likely an early Syriac text was to have the suffix here is shewn by Joh xvi 8, where S has ‘ He will reprove the world in its sins and about his righteousness,’ against the Greek and the Peshitta. Joh xvii 11 = Rom, vi 122 c (‘ Quotations’ 54) cir ܐܒܝ ܣܒ ܛܪ‎ My Father, take (and) keep them. B.M. Add. 12176 reads wa ‘and keep.’ Pesh. has ܐܒܐ ܩܕܝܫܐ‎ ܛܪ ܐܢܘܢ‎ ‘Holy Father, keep them, while S has ܐܒܝ ܩܕܝܫܐ ܣܒ‎ ܛܪ ܐܢܘܢ‎ ‘My holy Father, take (and) keep them.’ ܩܕܝܫܐ‎ had of course to be dropped in making a 5-syllable verse, and its omission leaves just five syllables both in S and in Pesh. It is therefore significant that Ephraim should give the reading of S and not of the Peshitta. Joh xix 30 = Lamy i 229 (‘ Quotations’ 55) ܡܕܡ.‎ As ܕܗܐ ܡܫܠܡ‎ tan aw’ As he said ‘ Lo, everything is finished.’ Neither S nor Cis here extant, nor is the verse quoted in Moesinger, but the Arabic Diatessaron (lii 4) and the Armenian vulgate have ‘Everything has been finished.’ The Peshitta has only ,ܗܐ ܡܫܠܡ‎ so that here again Ephraim appears to be following the Diatessaron. Joh xx 24= fom. vi 16 F (‘ Quotations’ 55) ܘܠܝܗܘܕܐ ܬܐܘܡܐ And Judas Thomas.‏ This is the reading of the Vatican ms on which the Roman Edition professes to be based, as given in Bibliotheca Orientalis 1 101, and it is also the reading of B.M. Add. 12176; the printed text changes it into ܬܐܘܡܐ‎ aca, whereby both the metre is spoilt and the Quotations in S. Ephraim. 147 connexion with Old Syriac nomenclature is lost. Judas, or Judas Thomas, is the regular name for the apostle in the Acta Thomae, and the ‘Judas not Iscariot’ of John xiv 22 appears as ‘Judas Thomas’ in Cand ‘Thomas’ in S. The name Judas Thomas also occurs in the Syriac Doctrine of Addai, and it was doubtless from a Syriac source that Eusebius got the "lovdas 6 Kat Owpnas of HE i 13. On the 50 (or 55) passages quoted and discussed in the preceding pages must rest the decision as to what text of the Gospel was used by 8. Ephraim. For my own part, I cannot think that the occasional coincidences of language with the Peshitta against the Sinai Palimpsest and the Curetonian, amounting to eight in all, are of a character to suggest the actual use of the Syriac Vulgate’. Most of them occur in passages which otherwise present notable coincidences with the Sinai Palimpsest or the Curetonian, or else differ widely from all known Syriac texts of the Gospel. Against these are to be set at least three times as many agreements of S. Ephraim with S or C against the Peshitta, some of them of most striking and unmistakable character. The phrases ‘My Son and My beloved’ at the Baptism, ‘the sons’ table’ in the story of the Syro- Phoenician woman, the statements that Hanna the prophetess had lived only seven days with her husband and that the publican in the Temple did not dare to lift up his eyes to heaven, the words used for the tablet on the Cross and for the dash which Christ used to wash the disciples’ feet, the promise of Hden to the penitent thief, the name of Judas Thomas, and last but by no means least the statement that the Word became a body—all these 8. Ephraim shares with ‘Old Syriac’ mss, and with Old Syriac mss or the Diatessaron alone. There are not wanting also marked differences between 8. Ephraim and these mss, and these differences suggest that it was not the Old Syriac version of the Four Gospels, the Hvangelhion da-Mepharreshe. that S. Ephraim was using, but the Diatessaron. Whatever the origin of the Syriac Diatessaron may have been, and I see no reason to doubt 1 The coincidences referred to are Matt xvi 2 («ay )ܨ‎ Matt xxi 41 (away), Mk xii 43 ܡ̈ܢܝܢ)‎ ((, Lk vii 43 (fund eth), Lk xii 49 (om. 4a\_am),-Lk xiv 31 ,(ܚܒܪܗ)‎ Joh i 3 (ass) and Joh vi 52 (order). 148 The Peshitta and its Rivals. the correctness of the tradition that it was the Harmony made by Tatian the disciple of Justin Martyr, it is certain that in 8. Ephraim’s day the wording of the text was very largely the wording of the Evangelion da-Mepharreshe. The agreements of 8. Ephraim with S and C are all explicable on the supposition that he was using the Diatessaron, while in many of the differences the reading attested by S. Ephraim is known on other grounds to have been that of the Diatessaron. This is the case with the curious statements that our Lord spat on His fingers when healing the deaf man, that He was actually thrown down from the cliff by the people of Nazareth, and that He said at the end ‘Lo, everything is finished.’ 8S. Ephraim also agrees with the express testimony of Aphraates, who seems to have used the Diatessaron habitually if not exclusively, that Christ said to the widow’s son ‘ Youth, youth, arise !’—a form of the saying otherwise only found in the West. I do not shrink from going yet further, and using the testimony of S. Ephraim to establish the presence in the Diatessaron of the saying about the Face of the Sky and the episode of the Bloody Sweat, neither of which belong to the true text of the Old Syriac version of the Four Gospels, though found in the Peshitta. The latter of these passages is quoted in the Commentary on the Diatessaron and has found its way into the Curetonian ms, but the former one does not happen to be mentioned in the Commentary and it is omitted in the Curetonian Ms as well as in the Sinai Palimpsest. Thus it is only by the chance quotation of S. Ephraim that it is attested for any ancient Syriac text. At the same time in each of these two important passages the text as quoted by 8. Ephraim has marked divergences from the Peshitta, so that these quotations in 8. Ephraim cannot be employed to prove his use of that version. These quotations, in fact, are exactly parallel to what we have already noticed in Aphraates. Just as in the quotation by Aphraates of words corresponding to Matt ¥ 44, Lk vi 27, we find an ‘inter- polation’ supported by Aphraates and the Peshitta but rejected by S and C, where nevertheless the Syriac renderings of Aphraates and the Peshitta seriously differ; so also Ephraim and the Peshitta agree in having words corresponding to Matt xvi 2, 3, which are omitted by S and C. In each case also the explanation is the same: S and C are Quotations in the Commentary of Abba. 149 faithfully reporting the Evangelion da-Mepharreshe, while Aphraates and Ephraim ave reporting the Diatessaron. And, if I may be allowed to wander into a subject which belongs more properly to another chapter, in each case it is a question of a ‘Western’ reading. The Diatessaron contains Western elements, brought by Tatian from Rome, the Evangelion da-Mepharreshe represents in the main an Eastern text. The Western elements in the Peshitta are of course not drawn trom the Diatessaron, but from the mixed Greek texts current all over the Greek-speaking world from the middle of the 4th century onward. THE CoMMENTARY OF ABBA (Wright 38). Abba (or Abha) was a disciple of 8. Ephraim, and the writer of a Commentary on the Gospel. A few extracts are preserved from this work in B.M. Add. 17194, which have been edited by Dr Rendel Harris in his book called ‘Fragments of the Commentary of Ephrem Syrus upon the Diatessaron,’ pp. 92-94. B.M. Add. 17194, fol. 48 v= Harris, p. 93 ܕܡܪܝ ܐܒܐ ܬܠܡܝܕܗ ܕܡܪܝ ܐܦܪܺܝܡ ܡܢ ܦܘܫܩܐ ܕܐܘܢܓܠܝܘܢ. ܗܘܐ ܕܝܢ ܟܕ ܡܫܡܫ ܗܘܐ ܒܛܟܣܤܣܐ ܘܒܥܝܕܐ ܕܦܗ̈ܢܐ. ܐܘ ܐܝܪܚ ܝܘܡܝܢ ܐܘ ܥܕܢ ܒܥܕܢ. ܡܢ ܗܝ ܕܐܥܠ ܒܣܤܡܐ ܒܝܪ̈ܚܐ ܕܫܒܥܐ... Out of S. Abba, the disciple of S. Ephraim, from the Explanation of the Gospel. Now it came to pass when he was serving in the order and in the custom of the priests (Lk i 8, 9), esther for a month of days or from time to teme, from the fuct that he brought im incense in the seventh month...... Here we find several agreements with S against the Peshitta. Abba and S have to bring in incense; Pesh. has to put (yasaasx) incense. Abba and S (ver. 9) speak of the priests, where Pesh. has the priesthood. Still more significant is the word for serving. Abba and S have ,ܡܫܡܫ‎ i.e. ‘ministering. But in the language of Ritual this means doing the work of a deacon: Zacharia was a priest, so the Peshitta uses the technical word ܕܡܟܗܢ‎ ie. acting as a rama or priest. Is ܗ not this liturgical precision a mark of post-Nicene times ?‏ 150 The Peshitta and its Rivals. B.M. Add. 17194, fol. 74v= Harris, p. 94‏ ܕܡܪܝ ܐܒܐ ܬܠܡܝܕܗ stan‏ ܐܦܪܝܡ [ܡܢ] ܦܘܫܩܐ ܕܐܘܢܓܠܝܘܢ. ܠܐ ܬܬܠܘܢ ܩܘܕܫܐ ܠܟ̈ܠܒܐ ܘܠܐ ܬܪܡܘܢ ܡܕ̈ܓܢܝܬܐ ܩ ܕܡ ܚܙܝܪ̈ܐ... Out of S. Abba, the disciple of S. Ephraim, from the Explanation‏ of the (rospel.‏ Give not a holy thing to dogs, neither cast pearls before swine...‏ This is word for word with Matt vii 6 as read in C, and as implied‏ in the Jartyrdom of Habbib quoted below. The Peshitta, in accor-‏ ‘your pearls,’ but it is worth‏ ܡܪ̈ܓܢܝܬܦܘܢ dance with the Greek, has‏ noting that three of Mr Gwilliam’s mss drop the suffix—one of the few‏ examples of ‘Old Syriac’ readings surviving in the codices of the Syriac‏ Vulgate. The third passage cited by Dr Harris (p. 94) does not keep close enough to the Biblical text to be of value for our present purposes. CyriLtona (Wright 39-42). The works ascribed to Mar Balai (Wright 39) do not appear to contain any quotations of textual value from the Gospels, but the surviving poems of Cyrillona, edited by Bickell in the Zeztschrift der Deutschen Morgenlindischen Gesellschaft, vol. xxvii, pp. 566-598, contain several noteworthy allusions. Lk xxi 15 = Cyrillowa 11 361-364 (p. 574) ܡܙܓ hw‏ ܕܐܟܘܠ ܥܡܟܘܢ. ܦܨܚܐ ܗܢܐ. ܥܕ ܠܐ ܐܚܫ. I have indeed longed to eat with you this Pussover before ever L suffer. This agrees word for word with C, except that C omits ܗܢܐ‎ S differs from @ only by reading ܠܝ‎ &X3 for ܪܶܓܬܢܝ‎ . On the other hand, Pesh. has ܪ̈ܓܬܐ‎ instead of Ags, it puts wos ܗܢܐ ܦܝ ܝ‎ before ܥܡܟܘܢ‎ daar, and reads ܕ‎ was for ܠܐ‎ sx. The preference given by Cyrillona to ܥܕ ܠܐ‎ , and his insertion of ܗܢܐ‎ , admit of explanation as due to Quotations in Cyrillona. 151 metrical necessities ; but ܡܙ̈̄ܓ‎ and ܪ̈ܓܬܐ‎ are both of two syllables, and the change of order does not alter the thythm, so that in these points there is a true agreement with the Evangelion da-Mepharreshe. Joh xiii 5 = Cyrillona i 6 (p. 566) ܘܛܥܢ ܠܩܢܐ ܕܫܝܓܬܐ‎ And He carried a dish for washing. Here Cyrillona agrees with Aphraates, Ephraim, and S, in the word used to translate vurryp. See above p. 142. Joh xiv 26 = Cyrillona 111 158-161 (p. 579)‏ whew‏ ܪܘܚܐ. ܥܡ ܠܫܢܘ̈ܗܝ. ܘܦܪܩܠܛܐ. ܥܡ ܓܠܝܢ̈ܘܗܝ. Lhe Spirit shall come with His tongues, and the Paraclete with His revelations. This is not a quotation, and the reference is as much to Acts ii 3 ff as to Joh xiv, but it is worth notice that the Spirit is masculine. In this point, therefore, the theological language of Cyrillona agrees with that of the Peshitta, against SC and the Doctrina Apostolorum (see above, p. 108). Joh xv 1 = Cyrillona iii 289-290 ܐܢܐ ܐܢܐ ܟܪܡܐ ܕܫܪܪܐ. ܘܐܒܝ ܗܘ ܐܝܬܘܗܝ ܦܠܚܐ.‎ L ain the Vineyard of truth; and my Father, He is the husbandman. In reading sata instead of ܓܦܬܐ‎ Cyrillona agrees with Aphraates and Ephraim against S and the Peshitta. Moreover he makes it quite clear that by ܟܪܶ̈ܡܐ‎ he meant ‘vineyard’ and not ‘vine, for in iil 821 £ we read: ‘The robbers have entered the vineyard—they stole leaves and touched not the grapes,’ and again ‘ The foxes tore between the vines ܓܘ̈ܦܢܐ)‎ (, and one only of them withered, 1.6. Judas. And again, in ii 256 (p. 573), Cyrillona says of the disciples after Judas had left, that there remained ܓܘ̈ܦܢܝ ܟܪܡܐ ܕܠܐ ܚܪ̈ܘܒܐ‎ ‘the vines of the vineyard without a wild-grape.’ It is therefore certain that the words of Christ familiar to Cyrillona were ‘I am the Vineyard and ye are the vines, and not ‘I am the Vine and ye are the branches.’ ܪ 152 The Peshitta and its Rivals. Joh xvii 11 = Cyrillona 111 395 (p. 582) a_i ܐܒܝ ܣܒ ܛ‎ My Father, take (and) keep them. This is identical with the quotation of Ephraim (Jtom. vi 122 6(, already discussed on p. 146, and to it the same remarks apply. THe Doctrine or 41141 (Wright 43). The historical, or legendary, work known as the Doctrine of Adda is our chief authority for the early history of Christianity in Edessa. In its present shape, with which we are here alone concerned, the Doctrine is a product of the latter half of the 4th century, contem- porary with ©. Ephraim and Cyrillona. The Gospel allusions are quoted by the pages of Phillips’ edition. ܡܒܢ Matt xviii 10 = Phillips‏ ww‏ ܫܒܪ̈ܐܿ. ܕܡܠܐܐ̈ܟܝܗܘܢ ܚܝܢ ܦܪܨܘܦܗ ܕܐܒܐ ܕܠܐ ܡܬܚܙܐ. The little lambs, whose angels see the countenance of the Father who as not seen. This agrees with @ and Pesh. in having ܦܪ̈ܨܘܦܗ‎ ‘ countenance,’ while S has ܐܦܘܗܝ‎ ‘ face.’ Matt xxii 38, Lk xiii 35 = Phallips va ܗܐ ܫܒܝܩ ܒܝܬܟܘܢ ܚܪܒܐ.‎ Lo, your house is left a desolation. This agrees with S*/, and C in having ܫܒܝܩ‎ where Pesh.?/, has ܡܫܬܒܩ‎ . It agrees with S?*/, against C and Pesh.?/, in omitting which‏ ܚܪܒܐ after ainx. It agrees with Pesh. */, in having‏ ܠܟܘ ܢ omitted by S*/,; but C has st» ‘desolate.’‏ Matt xxvii 52 = Phillips ys ܐܢܫܐ ܐܬܢܚܡܘ ܗܘܘ ܟܐ̈ܢܐ ܘܙܕ̈ܝܩܐ.‎ tas ܘܠܐ ܗܘܐ‎ And not by a man had come the resurrection of upright and righteous persons. Quotations in the Doctrine of Addai. 153 This is an allusion to Matt xxvii 52, where we read that ‘many bodies of the saints arose.’ In agreement with the Greek the Peshitta has ܩܕ̈ܝܫܐ‎ ‘holy ones,’ but S (followed by the Ethiopic) has ܙܕ̈ܝܩܐ‎ ‘righteous ones,’ alone among our authorities. The Doctrine of Addar goes on to say that the Veil of the Temple was rent ܡܢ ܪܺܝܫ ܠܪܺܝܫ‎ ‘from end to end.’ This recalls the singular phrase yat ܡܢ ܕܥܠ‎ of Matt xxvii 51S, much more than ܡܢ ܠܥܠ ܥܕܡܐ ܠܬܚܬ‎ , the some- what commonplace rendering of da’ ܘܗܐ‎ ws ܘܐ‎ adopted in the Peshitta. Matt xxviii 19 = Phillips ܨ‎ ܠ ܗܢܐ liam‏ ܝܫܘܥ ܡܫܝܚܐ ܡܟܪܙܝܢܼܢ ܘܰܡܗܰܒܪܺܝܢ pls‏ ܘܥܡܗ ܠܐܒܘܗܝ ܡܫܒܝܝܝܢܢ ܚܥܼܢ. ܘܠ ܪܘܚܐ ܕܐܠܗܘܬܗ ܡܪܡܪܡܝܢ pie‏ ܘܣܓܕܝܢ ܚܢܢ. ܡܛܠ ܕܗܟܢܐ ܐܬܦܩܕܢ ܡܢܗ. ܕܢܥܡܕ ܘܢܚܿܚܣܐ ܠܐܝܠܝܢ ܕܡܗܝܡܢܝܼܢ. ܒܫܡ ܐܒܐ ܘܒܪ̈ܐ ܘܪܘܚܐ ܕܩܘܕܫܐ. This Jesus the Messiah, therefore, we preach and announce, and with him his Father we praise and his Spirit of Godhead we exalt and worship, because thus we were commanded by him, that we should baptize and sanctify them that believe in the Name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit. This passage is of importance, as it distinctly refers to Christ the command to baptize in the name of the Trinity. We may therefore conclude that the ordinary text of Matt xxviii 19 had a place in the Diatessaron. [Mk] xvi 15 = Phillips ܚ‎ ܕܢܟܪܙ ܣܒܪܬܗܿ ܒܟܠܗ̇ ܒܪܝܬܐ‎ nade We have been commanded to preach Hts gospel in all the creation. This passage clearly proves that the Doctrine of Addai agrees with Aphraates, the Peshitta, and C, in recognising the ‘longer conclusion’ to S. Mark’s Gospel, omitted by S. A reference to Lk ix 62 in Phillips ܡܗ‎ proves that the Doctrine, .ܡ‎ II. 20 154. The Peshitta and its Rivals. like all other Syriac documents, supports the ordinary text in that verse. More interest attaches to Lk xxiii 48 ad fin. = Phillips va f- ܠܐ ܗܘܐ ܚܘܪܒܐ ܕܡܕܝܢܬܗܘܢ ܡܟܪܙܝܢ ܗܘܘ. ܐܦ ܠܐ ܗܘܐ ܥܠ ܢܦܫܗܘܢ ܘ̈ܝܐ ܡܛܦܝܢ ܗܘܘ. (If the Jews had not known Jesus to have been the Son of God,) they would not have proclaimed the desolation of their city, nor would have let fall the Woes against themselves. This is a reference to the ܘܝ ܠܢ ܡܢܐ ܗܘܢ‎ ° Woe to us! what hath befallen us?’ added at the end of Lk xxii 48 by S and C against the Peshitta and the Greek. But it also contains a phrase about the desolation of Jerusalem which is not added in either S or C, but is found in Ephraim’s Commentary (Moesinger 246) and reappears in the Latin Cod. Sangermanensis (g), a MS of mixed text that certainly contains an element akin to the text of Tatian’s work. In this instance, therefore, the Doctrine is based neither on the Peshitta nor on the Evangelion da-Mepharreshe, but on the Diatessaron. Joh xili 31 = Phallips ܕܐܢܫܐ. ܘܐܠܗܐ‎ mia ܐܡܪ ܠܢ. ܕܗܐ ܡܟܝܠ ܐܫܬܒܚ‎ ama we ܕܒܗ ܡܫܒܚ ml‏ ܒܚܝ̈ܠܐ ܘܒܬܕܡܖ̈ܬܐ. As he himself said to us ‘Lo, henceforth hath the Son of Man been glorified, and God who glorifieth Himself in him by miracles and by wonders.’ This quotation agrees markedly with S against Pesh. In agree- ment with S it has ܡܟܝܠ‎ for ܗܫܐ‎ and inserts a relative after ܐܠܗܐ‎ But it has the ordinary phrase ܒܪܗ ܕܐܢܫܐ‎ for ‘Son of Man,’ and not the rarer form ܕܓܒܪܵܐ‎ ww here retained by S. ܡܗ Joh xiv 2, 23 = Phillips‏ ܠܐܬܪ̈ܘܬܐ ܕܐܼܙܠ ܒܪܐ ܕܢܛܝܒ asam......‏ ܗܐ ܐܙܝܠ ܕܢܛܝܒ ܠܦܠܚ̈ܘܗܝ. ܐܘ̈ܢܐ ܒܪ̈ܝܟܐ. The Places that the Son hath gone to make ready....He, lo, is gone‏ to make ready for his worshippers blessed Abodes.‏ Quotations in the early Martyrdoms. 155 For povy in Joh xiv 28 all Syriac authorities have esa, but in xiv 8 S has ܐܬܖܪ̈ܘܬܐ‎ , followed by Aphraates 437. It would be difficult to say which of the two words was really implied by the allusion in the Doctrine of Addai. THe Marryrpom or Haspis (Wright 43). The Hypomnemata of Sharbel and the Martyrdom of Barsamya contain no textual allusions to the Gospels, but there is one quotation in the Martyrdom of Habbib published by Cureton in Ancient Syriac Documents. Matt vii 0 = asp ܦܒ‎ 085 ܡܕ̈ܓܢܝܬܐ‎ cota ܟܬܝܒܐ ܠܢ. ܕܠܐ ܢܬܠ ܩܘܕܫܐ ܠܟܠܒ̈ܐܼ. ܘܠܐ‎ ܩܕܡ ܚܙܝܪ̈ܐ.‎ It is written for us that we should not give a holy thing to dogs, nor cast pearls before swine. ‘your‏ ܡܕ̈ܓܢܝܬܟܘܢ is also read by C, but Pesh. has‏ ܡܕ̈ܓܢܝܬܐ pearls.’‏ MarvutHa AND THE Book or Martyrs (Wright 44-46). The Book of Martyrs, containing accounts of those who suffered for the Christian faith in the Persian Empire under Sapor 11 and his successors during the latter half of the 4th century, was compiled by Maratha, bishop of Maipercat or Martyropolis, early in the 5th century. It was edited by 8. E. Assemani in 1748, and again in 1891 by Bedjan, Acta Martyrum et Sanctorum, vol. ii, pp. 57-396. Prefixed to the Acta in Bedjan’s edition is a preliminary discourse, which contains several quotations and allusions to the Gospel, and it is from this discourse that most of the passages quoted below are taken. Matt ii 18 = Bedjan 11 7‏ ܩܠܐ ܠܡ whois‏ ܐܫܬܡܥ.܂ ܐܠܝܐ ܘܒܟܝܐ ܘܬܢ̈ܚܬܐ ܡܪܝܪ̈ܬܐ. “A voice in Ramtha was heard, wailing and weeping and bitter groaning.’ 156 The Peshitta and its Rivals. This is partly accommodated to the Peshitta text of Jerem xxxi 15, in that it has ܒܪܶܡܬܐ‎ before ܘ ܐܫܬܡܥ‎ 110 ‘bitter’ instead of ‘much.’ But neither in Jeremiah nor in the Peshitta text of S. Matthew is there anything corresponding to the ‘ groaning’ ` ܬܢܝܝܬܐ)‎ ( found in SC and Marutha. Moreover they agree in having ‘wailing and weeping,’ while Pesh. has ‘ weeping and wailing.’ Matt 111 17 = Bedjan 11 1204 dual er ܠܡ ܒܪܺܝ ܘܚܒܝܒܝ ܕܒܗ‎ aim ‘This is my Son and my Beloved, in whom I am well pleased.’ The Voice from heaven at the Baptism is quoted in exact agreement with Ephraim (see above, p. 116) and with Moesinger 99. It agrees with the Peshitta and the Greek in having the second person, but like Sand C, wherever extant, it renders 6 vids ov 6 dyamnrds by ‘My Son and my Beloved.’ Matt vi 24 = Bedjan ii 661°‏ ܠܐ ܠܡ ܡܫܟܚܝܬܘܢ ܠܡܦܠܚ. ܠܬܪܝܢ ܡܪ̈ܘܢ܆ ܕܠܐ ܠܚܕ ܬܪܚܡܘܢ ܘܠܐܚܪܢܐ ܬܣܢܘܢ. ܠܐ ܡܫܟܚܝܬܘܢ ܠܐܠܗܐ ܠܡܦܠܚ. ܘܠܡܡܘܢܐ. ‘Ye cannot serve two lords: else the one ye will love and the other ye will hate. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.’ This agrees with Cin Matt vi 24 and S in Lk xvi 13 in having the characteristic ܕܠܐ‎ ‘else,’ instead of two clauses separated by ܐܘ‎ ‘or, as in the Peshitta. Matt xvi 18 = Bedjan ii 81" ܥܠ ܗܕܐ ܠܡ ܟܐܦܐ ܐܒܢܝܗ̇ ܠܥܕܬܝܼ. ܘܡܘ̈ܟܠܐ ܕܫܝܘܠ ܠܐ ܢܚܣܢܘܢܗܿ. ‘On this Stone I will build my Church, and the gate-bars of Sheol shall not overpower it.’ This exactly agrees with Eus. Theoph*” 111 27. Sis here not extant, and Cand the Peshitta have ܬܪ̈ܥܐ ܕܫܝܘܠ‎ ‘the doors of Sheol,’ but Ephraim also attests ‘ gate-bars’ (see above, p. 119). Quotations in the Book of Martyrs. 157 Matt xviii 7 = Bedjan ii 673 ܘܝ ܠܗ ܠܡ ܠܥܠܡܐ ܡܢ ܡܟܫܘ̈ܠܐ ܕܐܬܿܝܢ.‎ ‘Woe to the world from the offences that come!’ This agrees exactly with S and C, and they are the only known texts which add ‘that come’ to ‘offences.’ Lk xii 16, 19, 20 = Bedjan ii 313° (Assemant i 127)‏ ܗܝ ܕܟܬܝܒܐ ama‏ ܥܬܝܪܐ ܕܐܥܠܬ ܠܗ ܐܪܥܗ ܥ̈ܠܠܬܐ ܣܓܝܐ̈ܬܐ ܘܐܡܪ܆ ܕܐܘܝ ܢܦܫܝ܇ ܐܦܘܠܝ ܘܐܫܬܝ ܘܐܬܒܣܡܝ. ܘܒܫܘܠܡ ܡܠܬܗ ܐܬܐܡܪ ܠܗ܆ ܕܠܐ ܠܒܐ. ܗܐ ܒܗܢܐ ܠܠܝܐ ܢܦܫܟ ܬܒܿܥܝܢ cal‏ ܡܟ ܗܢܐ ܡܕܡ ܕܛܝܒܬ ܠܡܢ ܢܗܘܐ. ...that which is written of that Rich Man, whose land brought in to him much produce, and he said ‘O my soul! eat and drink and be merry. And at the conclusion of his word it was said to him: ‘Senseless one! Lo, in this night thy soul they require of thee; this which thou hast made ready, whose will it be?’ This quotation is taken not from Marutha’s preliminary discourse, but from the main body of the Book of Martyrs, so that it is also to be found in ©. E. Assemani’s edition. The text is in very close agreement with Aphraates 381 and with 8. Ephraim’s Letter to Publius (quoted above, p. 133). This is especially marked in the rendering of a¢pwv by wal ܕܠܐ‎ , instead of the ܪܥܝܢܐ‎ tame found in S Cand Pesh. Lk xii 47, 48 = Bedjan 11 64%‏ ܘܡܪ̈ܢ ܐܡܪ܆ ܕܥܒܕܐ ST‏ ܨܒܝܢܗ ܕܡܪܗ ܘܠܐ ܬܩܢ ܠܗ ܡܝ ܨܒܝܢܗܼ. sls‏ ܡܚ̈ܘܬܐ ܣܓܝܐ̈ܬܐ. ܘܐܝܢܐ ܕܠܐ ܝܕܥ sls‏ ܙܥܘܖ̈ܝܬܐ. And our Lord said ‘ The slave that knoweth the will of his lord and‏ ` prepared not for him according to his will is flogged with many stripes,‏ and he which knoweth not vs flogged with few.‏ ‘prepared’ is the word used in Lk xii 47 by S and C;, but the‏ ܬܩܢ ‘made ready.’‏ ܛܝܒ Peshitta has‏ 158 The Peshitta and its Rivals. Lk xxi 14, Matt x 20, Lk xxi 12, 18 = Bedjan 118°‏ ܝܫܘܥ ܡܪܐ ܕܢܒ̈ܝܐ ܕܐܡܪ܆ ܕܠܐ ܬܬܪܥܘܢ ܡܢ ܩܕܡ ist‏ ܡܢܐ ܬܐܡܪܘܢ ܠܗܘܢܼ. ܡܛܠ ܕܠܐ ܗܘܐ ܐܢܬܘܢ ܡܡܠܠܝܢ: ܐܠܐ ܪܘܚܐ ܕܩܘܕܝܫܐ ܡܡܠ ܠܐ ܚܠܦܝܟܦܟܘܢ. ܘܥܠ ܡܪܕܘܬܢ ܐܡܪ: ܕܢܪܡܘܢ ܥܠܝܟܘܢ ܐܺܝܕܝܐ ܘܢܪܕܦܘܢܟܘܢ܆ ܘܢܫܠܡܘܢܟܘܢ ܠܟܢܘ̈ܫܬܐ ܘܠܢܛܘܪ̈ܐ. ܘܢܝܬܘܢܟܘܢ mas‏ ܡ̈ܠܟܐ ܘܗܓܡ̈ܘܢܐ. ܕܬܟܦܪܘܢ ܒܫܡܝ ܠܣܗܕܘܬܐ. Jesus, the Lord of the Prophets, who said ‘Do not meditate before the time what ye shall say to them, because not ye are speaking, but the Holy Spirit speaketh for you. And concerning our persecution He said ‘They will lay hands on you and persecute you, and will deliver you up to the synagogues and to keepers, and they will bring you before ` kings and governors, that ye may deny my Name for a testimony.’ This differs considerably both from Sand Cand from the Peshitta. No other authority has ܢܛܘܪ̈ܐ‎ ‘keepers’ for ¢vdakds, instead of ܒܝܬ ܐܗܝܪ̈ܐ‎ ‘prisons, nor is there any other trace of the curious paraphrase in the last line. But the first part of the quotation, corresponding to Lk xxi 14, Matt x 20, Mk xii 11 is quoted in Aphraates 415, with some striking points of resemblance to the text before us. Aphraates has ܠܐ ܬܬܪܥܘܢ ܡܢ ܩܕܡ ܙܒܢܐ ܡܢܐ ܬܡܠܠܘܢ. ܘܐܝܦܢܐ ܬܦܩܘܢ awa xvod‏ ܐܬܠ ܠܦܘܢ mon‏ ܘܚܦܡܬܐ ܕܠܐ ܢܫܦܚܘܢ ܒܥܠܕܒ̈ܒܝܦܘܢ ܠܡܙܦܦܘܢ. ܡܛܠ ܕܠܐ ܗܘܐ ܐܢܬܘܢ ܡܡܠܠܝܢ܂. ܐܠܐ ܪܘܚܐ ܕܩܘܕܫܐ ܕܐܒܘܦܘܢ up‏ ܡܡܠܠ ܐ ܒܦܘ Do not meditate before the time what ye shall speak and how ye shall make excuse, and I will give you a mouth and wisdom that your enemies will not be able to conquer you, because not ye are speaking but the Holy Spirit of your. Father—it speaketh in you. This is on the whole nearer to Lk xxi 14, but there is the same combination of parallel texts, and the same elaborate rendering of mpopeerav is common to Marutha and Aphraates. We can hardly doubt that it was also found in the Diatessaron. It is worth a passing note that in this same passage of the Acta Martyrum (Bedjan ii 118) Marutha, while quoting the Gospel for our Quotations in the Book of Martyrs. 159 Lord and the Epistles for 0. Paul, only quotes Acts ili 19 for S. Peter. The Catholic Epistles apparently formed no part of the New Testament as known to him. This agrees with what we know from other sources about the Canon of the New Testament in the early Syriac Church. Lk xxiii 48 = Bedjan 11 58° ܘܝ ܠܢ ܡܢܐ ܗܘ)ܢ‎ Woe to us! What hath happened to us ? This is not a formal quotation: it goes on to say ‘ For our eyes have seen the slaughter of the saints.’ But it agrees exactly with the words put into the mouth of the spectators of the Crucifixion by all Syriac texts except the Peshitta. Joh x 29 = Bedjyan 11 120” ܐܒܐ ܠܡ ܕܝܠܕܢܝ ܪܒ ܗܘ ܡܢ ܟܠ. ‘The Father who begat me is greater than all.’‏ This singular misquotation has no parallel elsewhere and seems to be due to a reminiscence of Psalm 11 7. Joh xiv 1=Bedjan 11 119” ܗܝܡܢܘ ܠܡ ܒܐܠܗܐ ܘܒܝ ܗܝܡܢܘ.‎ ‘Believe in God, and in me believe.’ This gives the text as printed by Bedjan, and it agrees with the Peshitta. But in his notes he gives the reading of another ms (probably that in the Vatican), which has ܡܗܝܡܢܝܢ‎ am ܗܝܡܢܘ ܠܡ ܒܐܠܗܐ ܘܒܝ‎ ,ܐܢܬܘܢ‎ £» ‘Believe in God and ye will believe in me.’ This is what S also has, and doubtless it represents what Marutha wrote. We have now passed in review practically all the quotations found in the extant remains of Syriac literature before the end of the first quarter of the 5th century. On the one hand, no clear instance of the use of the Peshitta has presented itself; on the other, these quotations and the mss of the Evangelion da-Mepharreshe often agree against 160 The Peshitta and its Rivals. the Peshitta, while the differences between the quotations and the Evangelion da-Mepharreshe all point to a use of the Diatessaron. I do not propose to examine the witness borne by the secondary Oriental Versions, vzz. the Armenian, the Georgian, and the Ethiopic, to the original form of the Syriac N.T. A considerable body of evidence exists, which shews that all three versions were originally made from a Syriac text, but so far as I am aware it has never been discussed whether this text was a Ms of the Four Gospels or of the Diatessaron. In any case it was certainly not the Peshitta, for the coincidences of text which are still visible, notwithstanding later revision from the Greek, are all with the Hvangelion da-Mepharreshe and not with the Syriac Vulgate. For the Armenian Version, see J. A. Robinson’s Huthaliana (Texts and Studies iii 3, pp. 72-98), and F. C. Conybeare in the American Journal of Theology for October, 1897. For the Georgian Version, see the same paper by F. C. Conybeare. For the Syriac elements in the Ethiopic Version, see Gildemeister’s Note in Gregory’s Prolegomena to Tischendorf’s N.T., p. 895 ff. RapsButa (Wright 47-49). Rabbula, the great organiser and regulator of the Syriac-speaking Churches, was bishop of Edessa from 411 ap till his death in 435. His biography was written soon after his death by an admiring disciple, and is printed in Overbeck, pp. 159-209. Two quotations from the Gospel in this work will be enough to shew the text used by the writer. Matt vi 11, Lk xi 3= Overbeck 168? ܛܝܒܘܬܐ ܡܥܪ̈ܒܝ ܫܡܫܐ ܫܕܪܬ ܠܗܘܢ ܠܚܡܐ ܕܣܘܢܩܢܗܘܢ.‎ Grace ut the setting of the Sun sent them the bread of their need. In the Lord’s Prayer aprov émuovovoy is rendered ܠܚܡܐ ܐܡܝܢܐ‎ ‘continual bread’ in S and €; in the Acts of Thomas and in Ephraim. But the Peshitta has ܠܚܡܐ ܕܣܘܢܩܢܢ‎ , as here. Rabbula. 161 Joh i 14= Overbeck 197”‏ ܝܘܚܢܢ ܡܦܫܩ ܒܣܒܪܬܗܼ. ܕܡܠܬܐ ܒܣܪܐ ܗܘܼܐ Awa‏ ܒܢ. John explains in his gospel that the Word became flesh and sojourned among us. This agrees with the Peshitta against C and Aphraates and Ephraim in making ‘the Word’ masculine, and in using the term ܒܣܗܪܐ‎ ‘flesh’ instead of ܦܓ ܪܐ‎ ‘body.’ S is not extant for this passage. It is unnecessary to multiply instances: these two crucial pas- sages make it quite evident that the writer of the 7478 of Rabbula knew and used the Syriac Vulgate. And his testimony is borne out by that of later Syriac literature. Here and there a diligent search may pick out a reminiscence of the Diatessaron, or of texts akin to S and C, but from the time of Rabbula the Syriac Vulgate holds a position of absolute supremacy. Before Rabbula, no trace of the Peshitta : after Rabbula, hardly a trace of any other text. What, we may ask, is the cause of this sudden and decisive change ? The answer is to be found in a sentence which describes the doings of Rabbula immediately after he entered into possession of the see of Edessa (Overbeck 172*°-*) : ܦܫܰܩ ܕܝܢ ܒܚܟܡܬ ܐܠܗܐ ܕܒܗܼ. ܕܝܬܩܐ ܚܕܬ̇ܐ ܡܢ ܝܘܢܝܐ ܠܣܘܪܝܝܐ. ܡܛܠ ܫܘܚ̈ܠܦܝܗ̇ ܚܬܿܝܬܐܝܬ. ܐ ܡܐ ܕܐܝܬܝܗܿ ܗܘܬ. Now he translated in the wisdom of God that was im him the New Testament from Greek into Syriac, because of its variations, exactly as it was. These words I believe to be an account of the first publication of the Syriac Vulgate. Rabbula found the Diatessaron in general use ; the Four Gospels were little read and there was no standard text of them. To bring the Syriac-speaking congregations into line with Greek thought and Greek praxis it was necessary to get rid of the Diatessaron. His flock read the Diatessaron, but the other Churches of God had no such custom, and he resolved to get rid of it. The Evangelion da-Mepharreshe was therefore revised by him into greater B. II. 21 162 The Peshitta and its Rivals. conformity with the text current in Antioch at the beginning of the 5th century, and the use of this revised Evangelion da-Mepharreshe was enjoined by him!. His efforts were eminently successful in this as in all his other undertakings. The Diatessaron was suppressed and the revised text of the Four Gospels soon attained a position of unassailable supremacy. Two objections to the identification of Rabbula’s revision of the New Testament with the present Syriac Vulgate must here be considered. In the first place I can imagine that the incompleteness of the Peshitta canon might be used as an argument against dating the version so late as 411 aD. The Peshitta, as a matter of fact, does not include the Apocalypse and the four shorter Catholic Epistles. It is true that some evidence for all of these books exists at the beginning of the 5th century in certain parts of the Christian world. But it is just these books and no others that are passed over in the quotations of 8. Chrysostom and of Theodoret. Moreover the canon of the Peshitta, in which James, 1 Peter and 1 John are included, is really a nearer approximation to the full Greek canon than anything that can be traced earlier in Syriac. Neither in Aphraates nor in the genuine works of 8. Ephraim is there a single reference to any of the Catholic Epistles, and the Doctrine of Addai says expressly: ‘The Law and the Prophets and the Gospel...and the Epistles of Paul...and the Acts of the twelve Apostles...these books read ye in the Church of God, and with these read not others?’ This is the ancient Canon of the Syriac- speaking Church. The Canon of the Peshitta, so far from being in the late Bishop Westcott’s unfortunate phrase ‘the earliest monument of Catholic Christianity,’ is only a half-way stage, which represents the custom of Antioch at the beginning of the 5th century, both by what it includes and what it leaves out. Another objection which may be raised to regarding the Peshitta as the work of Rabbula is the acceptance of it by the Nestorians. How should the Nestorians accept a revision set forth by ‘the tyrant of Edessa,’ ? ' 1 See Overbeck 2204, and see the discussion in the following Chapter, p. 177//. * Doctrine of Addai ܡܘ‎ (Eng. Tr., p. 44): see above, p. 159. . Rabbula and the Diatessaron. 108 This would indeed be a grave difficulty, if in the time of Rabbula the Nestorians had been, what they afterwards became, a definite sect of Syriac-speaking Christians. But at the epoch we are now considering the Greek Nestorians were as prominent as those who spoke Syriac, and it was not till 449 ap, fifteen years after Rabbula’s death, that Nestorian doctrines were formally condemned. The pro-Nestorian school, as much as their opponents, derived their doctrine from Greek theologians; they would be as anxious as any party to possess a translation of the Bible which agreed with the Greek. As a matter of fact, very few ‘various readings’ favour Nestorianism against its opponents, or vice versa; the chief exception is Hebr ii 9, and in that verse the variation between ywpis 0600 and ydpute Oeod is actually reflected in the mss of the Peshitta. Manuscripts of Nestorian origin support ywpis 0600 in agreement with Theodore of Mopsuestia, while Jacobite mss have ‘God in his grace,’ a strange rendering which possibly represents ydpute Beds. As regards the most striking feature of difference between the Peshitta and the ancient use of Syriac-speaking Christians, the heads of the Nestorian party were at one with Rabbula. Rabbula ordered that in every church there should be a copy of the Separated Gospels and that it should be read, meaning by this (as I believe) a copy of his own revision’. But it was Theodoret, the partisan of Nestorius, who withdrew over 200 copies of the Diatessaron from circulation in his own diocese, and substituted in their place the Gospels of the Four Evangelists. Indeed Rabbula’s change of front with regard to the doctrine of our Lord’s Nature may have helped to spread the version that he recommended. If the heads of the Nestorian party had been persuaded to give up the Diatessaron before Rabbula went over to their adversaries they would not return to its use after he left them. A body of Christians in the 5th century who had once given up the Diatessaron would hardly revert to their heretical Harmony. Meanwhile Rabbula’s defection to the anti-Nestorian party, as we may call the Orthodox and the future Monophysites, must have helped to recommend his Biblical policy to these also. Clear traces of the Peshitta text appear in the Biblical quotations and allusions in Isaac of Antioch, who died 1 See the discussion in the next Chapter, p. 177. 164 The Peshitta and its Rivals about 460 AD after a long literary career’. It is noteworthy, however, that Monophysite scholars appear to have been less satisfied with the Peshitta than those of the other party. The fact that all later attempts at the revision of the Syriac Bible, such as the Harclean version, were the work of Monophysites may perhaps be taken to indicate that they had not adopted the Peshitta so early or so willingly as other divisions of Syriac-speaking Christians. One point remains to be noticed. If my conjecture be correct, that Rabbula in ordering the use of the Evangelion da-Mepharreshe had really in view the substitution of his own revised Peshitta for the Diatessaron, it follows that the Diatessaron was the only serious rival that the Peshitta had to face at the time of its publication. That the ‘Old Syriac’ version of the N.T. had had a long and complicated literary history is proved by the extensive variation between the texts of the two surviving Mss. The Sinai Palimpsest and Cureton’s Ms are clearly representatives of one and the same translation, but they differ in some places very widely from each other, almost as widely as ss of the Old Latin version of the Gospels. But the Patristic evidence that has been collected in this Chapter does not suggest that the version to which the Sinai Palimpsest and Cureton’s ms belong enjoyed a wide circulation in the Church during the 4th and 5th centuries. Whatever may have been the state of things with regard to the Acts and Epistles, about which we know very little, it is evident that when Rabbula became bishop of Edessa the form in which the Gospel was practically known to Syriac-speaking Christians was Tatian’s Harmony. This explains the success of Rabbula’s efforts, and the absence of Gospel Mss containing the Peshitta text mixed with readings derived from the ‘Old Syriac.’ The Latin mss with mixed texts are descended from ‘Old Latin’ mss corrected, but not quite thoroughly, to the official Vulgate. But you cannot correct a copy of the Diatessaron into a copy of the Four Gospels. It was not a question of changing the readings, but of substituting one book for another. Wherever the ± E.g. Isaac speaks of the Word made Mlesh (wfAcas): see Bickell’s Ed., i 274 (p. 14). Ina Metrical Homily printed in the Roman Edition of 8. Ephraim as Paraenesis Ixxiv, but really by Isaac of Antioch, Lk xvii 21 is quoted in agreement with the Peshitta, against both the Ewangelion da-Mepharreshe and the Diatessaron (‘ Quotations, pp. 21, 22). Rabbula and the Diatessaron. 165 change was made, and we learn from Theodoret that the change was made wholesale, no mixture of texts took place. The Diatessaron codex was taken away and a copy of the revised Peshitta was put in its place. Meanwhile the copies of the unrevised Hvangelion da-Mepharreshe remained where they were. The two which survive contain no early liturgical marks in the margins, as is generally the case with books intended for service. They are, so to speak, library volumes. To us they are inestimably precious as survivals from a previous age, relics of the time before the Syriac-speaking Church became the servile imitator of Greek Christianity. But to the contemporaries of Rabbula, who allowed them to rest undisturbed on their shelves, they were neither recommended to be used nor condemned to be suppressed by Church authority: they were simply old-fashioned books to be left alone and forgotten. Thus it has come to pass that two mss of the Evangelion da-Mepharreshe have survived, while not one single copy of the once popular Syriac Diatessaron has reached the hand of modern scholars. THE GREAT TWIN COLUMNS ON THE CITADEL OF EDESSA APPENDIX TO CHAPTER II. THE GOSPEL QUOTATIONS IN THE 7HEOPHANIA OF EUSEBIUS. The quotations from the Gospel in early Syriac translations from the Greek form a class by themselves. They cannot be accepted without further examination as evidence for the Biblical texts current among Syriac-speaking Christians. As a general rule we find that translators render the quotations afresh from the original without paying much heed to the current version of the words, while at the same time the use of a word or phrase betrays their acquaintance with the Biblical text in the vernacular. Consequently, where the wording of such a quotation differs from all vernacular renderings we learn little or nothing about the texts known to the translator; it is only from striking agreements with other texts, agreements either too peculiar or too extensive to be accidental, that we are able to draw our inferences. The works of Eusebius were very quickly translated into Syriac, possibly during the lifetime of the author. Eusebius died in 338 ap, and the Nitrian ms of the Theophania is dated 411 ap. This ms is itself a copy, so that we are at once carried into a very early period. It is likely that the various works were translated by the same school, though not, I think, by the same hand, the Ecclesiastical History being much less slavishly literal than the Theophania. The quotations in the Keclestastical History are for our purposes only two, but each of them contains an agreement with the ‘Old Syriac’ against the Peshitta. In HE 112 (Wright and McLean, p. 60) there is a reference to Matt i 18 :— ܥܕ ܠܐ ܢܬܩܪܒܘܢ ܚܕ ܠܘܬ ܚܕ hushed‏ ܒܛܢܐ ܡܢ ܪܘܚܐ ܕܩܘܕܫܐ, This is word for word with 8 and C, except that C has ܦܕ‎ for ܕ ܠܕ‎ perhaps by a clerical error. For zpiv i} cvveddetv atrovs the Peshitta has ܠܠܐ ܢܫܬܘܦܘܢ‎ ay, while the Diatessaron (A/oestnger 20) had ‘Before she was given to a husband.’ The agreement of the translator of Eusebius with the Avangelion da-Mepharreshe in rendering this phrase by ‘ Before ever they drew near one to the other’ is too marked and too extensive to be accidental. In HE ܐ‎ 3 (p. 8) we find ܘܒܠܥܕܘܗܝ ܐܦܠܐ ܡܕܡ ܗܘܐ‎ am ܟܠ ܒܗ‎ This is unbiblical phraseology, for both the He. da-Mepharreshe and the Peshitta have ham ܚܕܐ‎ <lax<. But the theologically interesting renderiug m= ‘in Him’ agrees with Cand §. Ephraim against m= ‘through Him’ in Pesh. On the other hand As ‘all’ agrees with Pesh., as © and Ephraim have ܡܕܡ‎ As ‘everything.’ Upon such a point as the last it is obvious that no stress can be laid. Unless the translator was deliberately copying a Syriac version he was equally likely to choose As or ܡܕܡ‎ As: it is only when the rendering is elaborate or striking, as in the former example from Matt i 18, that the text of these quotations can prove anything. Gospel Quotations in the Theophania. 167 The quotations in the Theophania demand more attention. At first sight they seem to promise very valuable textual help. There are many formal citations of the Gospels by name, the quotations often extending over several verses together, and there can be little doubt that the passages thus incorporated by Eusebius in his work represented the text of the codex he used. But the quotations in the Syriac translation of the Theophania neither represent accurately the text used by Eusebius nor the readings of any ancient Syriac text. They represent a mixture of the Eusebian text with the Biblical text as known to the translator, and it is almost impossible at times to disentangle the two elements. For example, take Theoph iv 6=Lk v 5. ܓ Theoph Syr.vg‏ ܘܐܡܪ ܠܗ ܪܒܝ ܘܐܡܪ ܠܗ ܪܒܝ ama‏ ܐܡܪ ܠܗ ܠܠܡ ahs‏ 3 ܠܝܐ ܗ 38 ܕ ܘܡܕܡ ܠܐ ware‏ ܘܡܕܡ ܠܐ ܐܚܕܢ. ܘܡܕܡ ܠܐ ܐܫܦܢܢ. ܗܫܐ ܕܝܢ ܥܠ ܡܠܬܟ ܥܠ ܡܠܬܟ ܕܝܢ ܥܠ ܡܠܬܟ ܕܝܢ ܕܝܠܟ ha em ion‏ ܪܡܐ ܐܢܐ ܡܨܝܕܬܐ. ܐܫܕܐ ܡܨܝܕܬܐ. Here we have (1) an agreement between 77604 and S in wax ‘found,’ for wwe ‘taken’ (=édAdBopev); (2) an agreement of Theoph and syr.vg in not having the addition <x ‘now,’ which is a peculiarity of §, and (3) not less than five peculiarities of Theoph, where it differs both from S and from the Peshitta. These are the insertion of ܗܘ‎ before ܐܡܪ‎ the omission of -=>4, the order of ܠܠܝܐ‎ miars, the addition of wes, and the word <ax< ‘I will throw,’ where Pesh. has “16% ܪܡܐ‎ ‘T cast’ and S has 45% ‘we will put out. In other words, the translator has done just what might have been expected : he has translated the Greek of Eusebius directly, not rendering Eusebius’s quotations by the corresponding passage of the Syriac N.T. At the same time the occurrence of wax< suggests that he has been influenced here and there by the familiar words of the vernacular version, even where that version is an inaccurate or paraphrastic rendering of the Greek. More definite results can be obtained from examining the quotations which occur in those parts of the Theophania covered by the extant fragments of the Greek. These were first published by Mai in the Nova Bibliotheca Patrum, vol. iv 109-156, 310-312. The Greek fragments consist of extracts, and only a few of the Biblical quotations are contained in them, but enough remains clearly to shew the method of the translator. Below is given Matt xxi 33-43 in the Greek as quoted by Eusebius, and in the Syriac as printed by Lee from the Nitrian ms. Theoph iv 13 Mai np iv 122 hus 6¢ܐܗ 406 ”" "ܓܒܪܐ ܢܕ ܐܝܬ ܗܘܐ ܡܪܐ‎ Tis Fv oiKkoderrorys, ܐܗܘ‎ ܣܝܓܐ‎ Miwa ܦܪܡܐ‎ =< eprevoey dumeddva, kal ppaypov air ¢ mepréOnke, ܘܚܦܪ ܒܗ ܡܥܨܪܬܐ‎ Kal ܧܧ ܐܳܘ‎ ev adt@ ܐܨ(‎ ina Kal @Kodopnoe 710‏ ܒܗ ܡܓܕܠܐ kal e&éSoTo avrov yewpyois, Kal arednpunoev’‏ ܘܐܫܠܡܹܗ Ret or.) <ils\‏ 168 Theoph iv 13‏ ܦܕ ܕܝܢ ܡܲܪܒ ini‏ ܕܦ݀ܐܪܳܐ jae‏ ܥܒܕ̈ܘܗܝ ܠܘܬ ܦܠܚܐ Jotun‏ ܠܗ ܦܐܪ̈ܐ. ܐܘܠܒܸܦܘ ܐܢܘܢ ܦܠܚ̈ܐ ܠܥܒܕ̈ܘܗܝ. ܘܠܡܢܗܘܢ ܡܢܘ ܘܠܡܢܗܘܢ ܪ̈ܠܡܼܘ. ܘܠܡܢܗܘܢ Ake‏ "ܘܬܘܒ ane,‏ ܐܢܪ̈ܢܐ HSN‏ ܕܣܓܝ̈ܐܝܢ ܡܢ ܩܕܡ̈ܝܐ. ܘܥܒܕܘ ܠܗܘܢ ܗܦܢܐ. ܐܠܚܪܬܐ ܕܝܢ tan‏ ܒܪܗ ܘܐܡܪ ܕܦܒܪ ܢܒܗܬܘܢ ܡܢ IS‏ ܗܢܘܢ ܕܝܢ ܦܠܚܐ ܟܕ ܚܙܐܘܗܝ ܠܒܪܗ ܐܡܪܘ ܒܝܢܬܗܘܢ ahs aa‏ ah‏ ܢܩܛܠܝܘܗܝ ܘܬܗ̱ܘܐ ܝܪܬܘܬܐ ܕܝܠܢ. «ܘܐܚܼܕܘܗܝ ܘܐܦܩܘܼܗܝ inl‏ ܡܢ mis‏ 3 ܡܐ ܕܐܬ̈ܐ wisn mim Asa‏ ܡܢܐ ܢܥܒܕ ܠܗܿܢܘܢ ܦܠܚܐ. ܐܡܪܝܢ ܠܗ ܕܒܝܼܫ ܒܝܼܫ ܢܘܒܕ ܐܢܘܢ̇ mina‏ ܢܫܠܡ ܠܐܢܪ̈ܢܐ weal‏ ܗܿܢܘܢ asain‏ ܠܗ ita‏ ܒܙܒܢܗܘܢ̇ im<”‏ ܠܗܘܢ ap‏ ܝܫܘܥ arvana‏ ܕܐܣܠܝܼܘ via‏ ܗܝ bam‏ ܠܪܝܫ xin‏ ܕܒܢܝܢܐ. ܡܢ ܠܘܬ ܡܪܝܐ tam haw‏ ܘܐܝܬܝܗ ܬܕܡܘܪܬܐ ܒܥܝ̈ܢܝܢ. »ܡܛܠ ܗܢܐ ܐܡܿܪ̈ܢܐ ܠܟܘܢ ܕܬܫܬܒܩܠ ܡܢܦܘܢ ܡܶܠܦܘܬܐ ܕܐܠܗܐ ܘܬܬܝܼܗܒ ܠܥܡ̈ܐ saan‏ ܦ݀ܐܪ̈ܐ. The Peshitta and its Rivals. Mat iv 122 34 be ܪ = ܝ‎ a lal ore O€ ¥) ܗ‎ 6 Kalpos THY KapTdY, > ‫. ܢܠ‎ rd > a XN 5 ܢ‎ améotere Tovs SovAous » ܐ‎ 7700 mpos Tods yewpyors 3 os hn Se on AaPeiv Tovs Kapmovs aurod: : / ܘ‎ 45 kal NaBdvres of yewpyol Tos SovAovs adrod, a ܢ‎ 4 ov pev éderpar, .ܨ ܠ ܠ‎ ov dé améxrewvav, dv dé éAGoBodyoav’ ®rddw améoredev addovs dovdous , tal ‫, mAlovas TOY TPUTWY, ̈ܝ ܨ ~ ܕ ܟ ܕ ܢ‎ 0 kal éroinoav adrois woattws as 039 Rec 303 7 9 3 97 vartepov 6 0¢ aréoteiAe Tpos avTovs Tov 10 0700, 2 > ‫, ‘ td déywv: évtparyoovrae Tov viov pou: 38 ܨ‎ be ܢ‎ ido ܪ‎ «Xx oi 8& yewpyot idovres Tov vidv <a > ܨ‎ a ba 2 2 [3 .ܝ‎ elmov év Eavtots: ovrtds éotw 6 KANpovopos, ~ > ܫ ܨ‎ dcdre amoxteivupev adrov ܕ ܢ 2 ܢ‎ > a Kal karacywopev THY KANpovopuiay adrov: a 0 ® kal AaBdvres )ܫܐܘ‎ e£éBadov ܧܐ‎ Tod dpmehavos ibs ay Kal ܐܘܬ ܐܘ‎ 3 a ? ܫ‎ “Grav ovv €\@y ¢ Kvptos Tod apmeddvos Ti ToinoeL Tots yewpyois exeivors ; 41 ܐ‎ / 38 ` 28 > , 1 9 ܐܬܗ ܙܘ ܇ܐ‎ atta: KaKods Kaxds ® ܬܧ€#»ܧ#0«‎ avTous: % ܕ ܢ‎ xe 2 ¥ ܣ‎ ~ Kal TOV )ܘ‎ €©\6)» exdwoeTat Gros yewpyois, ܇.‎ > , 2A ܢ ܢ‎ ܐܬ ܗܐ 0 ܗ 00 ¢> ܐܬܐܘ‎ 177 @@ TOUS 0001 ܠ‎ 8 < ܝܢ‎ ܐܧ‎ TOls Kalpots 709 Par 0 + ¿> adrois o ‘Incods: ܨ‎ 4 ® at 0 ovderore aveyvwte ev tats ypadais a a ~ ov 0 amedoxipacay of oixodopodvres, ܟ ܢ > ± ܝ ܫ‎ ovros éyevyOn eis 677 ywvias ; x , 2: oF ¢ mapa Kuptov éyévero avtn, ܢ‎ ie cen es kat éort Javpacty év dpOadpois nudv ; A a ܓ‎ 70:4 TOTO A€yw ܬܐܠ‎ ¢ ‫, 8 ̈ܨ ܡ‎ ^ ܐܘ‎ apOyoetar ad 066 7 Bactrela Tov 0600, ܩ <> ܠ ܠܓ a‏ ܝ . ܢ kat dobyoetar Over wovodvte Tovs Kapmovs ®$‏ Gospel Quotations in the Theophania. 169° Here we have a passage of sufficient length to exhibit the characteristic phenomena of the quotations in the Theophania. First of all, it is evident that the Syriac text was translated direct from the Greek as quoted by Eusebius. It is far less idiomatic in style than either the Hvangelion da-Mepharreshe or the Peshitta: contrast, for example, the ܐܝܬ ܕܡܚܘܘܗܝ‎ of § C and Pesh. with the stiffer and more literal ous ܠܡܢܗܘܢ‎ of the Theophania. Characteristic also of the Eusebian translator is ox» a@ for ܘ‎ “Incots. Moreover ܠܒܦܘ‎ (for ܚܕܘ‎ in v. 35 and ܩܪܢܐ ܕܒܢܝܢܐ‎ (for (ܙܘܝܬܐ‎ in v. 42 depart entirely from the traditional vocabulary of the Syriac Bible. A rendering so literal as that in the Theophania could hardly fail to present some agreements with the Peshitta which are not shared by the Hv. da-Mepharreshe, a translation marked by great freedom. Thus Theoph and Pesh. have the Greek order in v. 33; they have the same word for ‘inheritance’ in v. 38, though the construction of the clause is different ; and in v. 40 they both begin the verse with ܡܐ ܕܐܐܙܬܐ ܗܦܝܠ‎ . Against these we may set the omission of dors in v. 33 by Theoph and C; the translation of ééédoro atrév in v. 34 by ܐܕܐܫܠܡܗ‎ in Theoph and SC; the omission of avrot at the end of v. 34 by Theoph and SC, where Pesh. has ܕܦܪܡܗ‎ ‘of his vineyard’; the rendering of kai xatdcywpev tHV KAypovopiay avtod in v. 38 by ‘and the inheritance will be ours’ in Theoph and S C, where Pesh. is literal; and the translation of :ܘܗܘܬܘ‎ in v. 41 by ܢܫܠܡ‎ in Theoph and C. It is especially noteworthy that the quotation in the Theophania shews no points of contact with that of 8. Ephraim discussed above, p. 123. In v. 41 80. Ephraim, who is probably reproducing the renderings of the Diatessaron, has ܢܘܠܦ‎ (with Pesh.) for ܢܫܠܡ‎ , and <a5< ano against all other Syriac texts, for “ia ܝܗܒܝܢ‎ 5, An examination of the quotation of Lk xix 41—44* in Theoph iv 19 would lead to similar results; except that in this case the divergence from S Cand Pesh. is more marked. This quotation is also preserved in the Greek (A/az NBP iv 129); the fact of its occurrence in the Greek extracts shews that the series of formal quotations found in the Syriac of the Theophania was really characteristic of the work as Eusebius left it, and has not been added de suo by the Syriac translator. When therefore the Syriac text of the Theophania is a literal rendering of the Greek Gospel text, the translator may be merely rendering the Greek as quoted by Eusebius, without following any existing Syriac version of the Scriptures. The importance of this caution will be seen when we consider the quotation of Matt viii 5 ff in Theoph iv 2, 3. This passage is extant in Greek (Mai, p. 116 f), but it differs widely from the Syriac and the quotation from the Gospel is less formal. The Syriac quotation therefore may tell us what version of the Gospels was known to the translator of Eusebius. We actually find roiyoov rodro Matt viii 9 rendered by ܥܒܕ ܙܦܠܢ‎ ‘do so much’ in Theoph as in S C, while Pesh. has the ordinary <a@ ܥܒܕ‎ ‘do this.’ he pronoun AS is quite rare in literature, so that its use in the Syriac Theophania is very likely due to a reminiscence of the Hv. da-Mepharreshe. 1 The influence of the Zvangelion da-Mepharreshe upon the Syriac text of the quotations in the Theophania was first noticed in a review of Cureton’s text published anonymously i in 1859 by the Abbé Lehir, under the title of Etude sur une ancienne Version Syriaque des Evangiles, pp. 22—25. IL. 22‏ .ܡ 170 The Peshitta and its Rivals. But we cannot press the agreement of the Theophania with S in a much more striking point. Both in ¢ (in 8S. Matthew) and in Theoph iv 2, 3, the Centurion is promoted to the rank of Chiliarch. All other authorities, including C and also S itself in Lk vii 2, 6, call the man a Centurion’. He is also called éxarovrapyys in Mai iv 117, in the portion of text which does not correspond literally with our Syriac. But a little lower down (at 1. 32 of the same page, in a passage of Theoph iv 3 which reappears literally in the Syriac) we read ws tore pev els fwpaios Hv 6 TO ܬܘܗ‎ mpocedyAvOds xAdapyos. Thus the true text of the Greek Eusebius also called the man a Chiliarch, and the faithfulness of the Syriac translation is vindicated. But just for that very reason we cannot claim the agreement of the Syriac Theophania in this point with S as a proof that the translator is borrowing from a Syriac version. Yet even after all deductions have been made there remains an appreciable number of cases, like the use of As mentioned above, where the translator does appear to have been influenced in his choice of renderings by his familiarity with a Syriac version, and that version a form of the Evangelion da-Mepharreshe such as we know it in Sand ¢ Thus in Theoph i 24 we find Joh i 3 rendered by ܒܗ ܗܘܐ‎ ~pasls, ‘Everything was in Him,’ just as in C; in Theoph iv 30 the tpiBodro of Matt vii 16 is rendered as in C by x<4a4a ‘brier(s),’ while Pesh. has ܩܘܪ̈ܛܒ̄ܐ‎ ‘thistles’; in Theoph iti 27, iv 11, ¥ 40, for the ܬܘ )ܐܡ‎ ddov of Matt xvi 18 we find ܡܘ̈ܦܠܐ ܕܫܝܘܠ‎ ‘the gate-bars of Sheol’ as in Ephraim and Marutha, though not in Pesh. or in © All these coincidences with S or C, or with early Syriac Patristic evidence, cannot be accidental. In one passage it is tempting to suppose that the Syriac Theophania may preserve the genuine reading of the Mvangelion da-Mepharreshe, where both S and C have followed a different text. In Matt xxii 18, according to the Peshitta and the text followed by modern critical editors of the New Testament, the King in the Parable says to his servants about the Man who had not on a Wedding-garment: ‘Bind him hand and foot and cast him out” (dycavres avtod wédas Kal xetpas €xBadere avror). For the first word the Peshitta has ܣܘܪܘ‎ the ordinary word for ‘bind.’ But the Acts of Thomas (Wright, p. 315), a work which uses the Hv. da-Mepharreshe, as we have seen above (p. 102), has a reference to the passage implying the use of the verb ܦܦܪ‎ ‘to fasten.’ The whole Parable is quoted in Theoph iv 16, and the word used in ®, 13 is ܕܠܦܦܘܪܘ‎ in agreement with the text that seems to underlie the Acts of Thomas. But S and ¢ read ܝܐܘܚܕܘܗܝ ܒܐܝ̈ܕܘܗܝ ܘܒܪ̈ܓܠܘܗܝ‎ “Take hold of him by his hands and his feet,” a reading which recalls the reading dpate adrév modav Kat xepav, found in D and the Old Latin texts. If we make the conjecture that the reading of S and Cis really that of the Diatessaron, and that in this passage the Acts ef Thomas and the Theophania give us the genuine text of the Ey. da-Mepharreshe, we have an explanation of the textual phenomena. But it must be remembered that this is a mere conjecture, and the translator of Eusebius may ± The Diatessaron, as represented by Aphraates 20, appears to have called him Baotduxds, 8 in Joh iv 46 ff Gospel Quotations in the Theophania. 171 quite easily have been following the Greek that lay before him without any thought of the current Biblical texts. It is certain that in some of the previous verses of this Parable he has paid little regard to the Syriac Bible in his rendering of the Greek. Moreover this theory hardly accounts for the use of ܦܦܪ‎ by Ephraim (see above, p. 124). The reader who has been persuaded by the foregoing argument will understand why I have omitted to record the Theophania readings in my apparatus to the Lwangelion da-Mepharreshe. I believe there is no certain sign of acquaintance with the Peshitta or the Diatessaron on the part of the translator of the Theophania, and I believe there are signs of his acquaintance with the Zv. da-Mepharreshe. The translator translates for himself from the Greek, and it is only very occasionally that we can venture to assert that he is influenced from any other source. The only exceptions to be made occur when we know that the Syriac actually differs in text or in meaning from what Eusebius wrote: of this there are a few instances, one of which is important enough in itself to demand separate notice. My friend Mr F. 0. Conybeare has made it abundantly clear that in the Theophania and in several other works Eusebius could not or would not quote the command to baptize in the. name of the Trinity’. This very curious fact is quite distinct from the deductions which Mr Conybeare and others have drawn from it. It might, I suppose, be maintained that Eusebius considered it unseemly to publish in a work intended for the general heathen reader the magic words of a sacramental ritual. Be that as it may, the fact remains that Eusebius in the Theophania (v 17, 46, 49) represents our Lord as telling His apostles to make disciples of all nations in His Name, without any mention of baptism. When therefore we find the full text quoted in the Syriac of Theoph iv 8 with some noteworthy variants, but including the command to baptize in the name of the Trinity, we feel sure that the translator is not giving us the text of Eusebius. It was therefore taken from the text of 8. Matthew as he knew it, ie. from the Hvangelion da-Mepharreshe. In this way we arrive at the exceedingly important conclusion that some mss at least of the Hvangelion da-Mepharreshe had the command to baptize in the name of the Trinity, as in the ordinary text. The evidence of the Theophania is all the more important as neither ܐ‎ nor C is extant at the end of 0. Matthew, and the Diatessaron is represented by an ambiguous allusion in the Doctrine of Addai and a still more ambiguous quotation in Aphraates. At the same time this evidence from the Syriac Theophania, important as it is, must not be made to prove too much. We have two mss of the Hvangelion da-Mepharreshe : one contains the Longer Conclusion to 8. Mark, the other does not do so. In the case of the peroration of S. Matthew’s Gospel it is quite likely that one ms might have the ordinary text, while the other had something different. If I may venture the conjecture, the impression I have formed from a study of S and @ leads me to feel confident that C had the command to baptize in the name of the Trinity, but I do not think we should be justified in making any guess as to what may have been contained in the missing leaf of S. 1 See Preuschen’s Zeitschrift fd. NTliche Wissenschaft i 275-288 ; Hibbert Journal i 102-108. 172 The Peshitta and its Rivals. The text of the quotation of Matt xxviii 16—20 in the Syriac Theophania iv 8 runs as follows. ܡܢ tha‏ ܩܝܡܬܗ ܕܡܢ ܒܝܬ ܡܝ̈ܬܐ ܦܘܠܗܘܢ ܐܦܚܕܐ [ܐܝܦܢܐ] ܕܐܬܦܩܕ ܠܗܘܢ ali‏ ܠܓܠܝܠܐ ܐܝܦ݀ܐ ܕܐܡܪ ܠܗܘܢ . 17 ܘܦܕ sma‏ ܡܢܗܘܢ ܣܓܕܘ ܠܗ ܘܡܢܗܘܢ ܐܬܦܠܓܘܼ. op‏ ܕܝܢ ܩܪܒ ܨܐܕܝܗܘܢ ܘܡܠܠ ܥܡܗܘܢ ܘܐܡܼܪ ܐܬܝܼܗܒ ܠܝ ܡܢ ܐܒܝ ܦܘܠ