[
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 ܫܘܠܛܢ ܕܒܫܡܝܐ ܘܒܐܪܥܐ., all?‏ ܘܬܠܡܼܕܘ ܠܦܠܗܘܢ wis‏
ܘܐܥܡܕܘ ܐܢܘܢ ܒܫܡ ܐܒܐ ino‏ ܘܪܘܚ̈ܐ ܕܩܘܕܫܐ܂ 9 ܘܐܠܦܘ ܐܢܘܢ ܕܢܛܪܘ

ܢ

ܦܘܠ ܡܐ ܕܦܩܕܬܼܦܘܢ ܘܗܐ .ܐܢܐ Lass‏ ܐܢܐ ܦܠܗܘܢ ܝܘܡ̈ܬܐ ܥܕܡܐ
ܠܫܘܠܡܗ ܕܥܠܡܐ,

After His resurrection from among the dead all of them together [as] was commanded
them went to Galilee where He said to them, “and when they saw Him, some of them
worshipped Him and some of them doubted. “Now He drew near by them and spake
with them, and said: ‘There hath been given to me from my Father all authority that is
in heaven and in earth. ‘Go ye and make disciples of all the peoples, and baptize
them in the Name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, and teach them to
keep whatsoever I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you all the days even unto
the consummation of the world.’

ܝ

CHAPTER IV.

THE DIATESSARON AND THE OLD SYRIAC.

WHEN we leave the Peshitta and go on to investigate the literary
history of the Gospel among Syriac-speaking Christians before the time
of Rabbula’s episcopate, we leave the region of comparative light and
certainty for that of darkness and conjecture. The main question to be
considered is the relative dates of the Diatessaron and of the Evangelion
da-Mepharreshe. Was the earliest version of the Gospel in Syriac a
translation of Tatian’s Harmony or a translation of the Four canonical
Gospels? This question is exceedingly important for our estimate of
the Evangelion da-Mepharreshe, because the appearance of the Diates-
saron in Syriac can be dated with some certainty. Tatian left Rome
for the Euphrates Valley soon after 172 ap and seems to have died
in the East a few years afterwards, so that the first publication of the
Syriac Diatessaron cannot be later than 180 ap. If the Hvangelion da-
Mepharreshe preceded the Syriac Diatessaron, then it cannot be dated
later than the middle of the second century. But if the Diatessaron
preceded the Evangelion da-Mepharreshe, it will not be very easy to
prove that any Syriac version of the Four Gospels existed before the
third century.

Notices of the Diatessaron in Syriac Interature.

The principal notices of the Diatessaron in Syriac writings, or of its
use among Syriac-speaking Christians, are collected below.

Docrrine or ADDAI, which gives the traditional account of the‏ ܡܡ
foundation of Christianity at Edessa, is in its present form a work of‏

174 The Diatessaron and the Old Syriac.

the early years of the 5th century’. The outline of the story, part
of which is told by Eusebius (7H 1 13), is doubtless much older, and
M. Tixeront thinks it had assumed a literary shape during the third
century’, This earlier form of the tale has been incorporated in our
Doctrine of Addai, but the text has been altered here and there’,
It is important to insist on these details, because the only definite
allusion in the work to the Diatessaron occurs in a single passage in a
rather harsh grammatical construction.

( ܠܘ We read (Doctrine of Addat, ed. Phillips, p.‏
ܟܢܫܝܢ parva aaa‏ ܠܨܠܘܬܐ ܕܬܫܡܫܬܐ. ܘܠܕܝܬܩܐ ܥܬܝܩܬܐ ܘܚܕܬܐ
ܕܕܝܛܣܪܘܢ. ܘܒܚܹܝܬ ܡܝ̈ܬܐ ܡܗܝܡܢܝܢ ܗܘܘ....

[Now much people day by day] were gathering together and coming
to the prayer of (Divine) Service and to the Old Testament and the
New of the Diatessaron; and in the Resurrection of the dead they were
believing...

The mention of the Diatessaron comes in very awkwardly, and the
phrase ‘to come to the Old Testament’ is as strange in the Syriac as it
is in English. It is evident that the passage has been ‘retouché et
interpolé, but I do not think we ought to assume that no mention
of the Diatessaron was originally made here. Possibly the earlier form
had Waiwera ܠܩܪܝܢܐ‎ ‘to the reading of the Diatessaron,’ and this
phrase was altered by a reviser who thought some mention ought to
have been made of the Old Testament. On this supposition ܩܪܺܝܢܐ‎
dropped out when Whasa ܕܝܬܩܐ ܥܬܝܩܬܐ‎ came in.

Elsewhere the Doctrine of Addai does not mention the Diatessaron,
but simply speaks of the ‘Gospel’ 7 (ܐܘܢܓܠܝܘܢ)‎ : “the Law and the
Prophets and the Gospel from which ye read every day before the
people, and the Epistles of Paul that Simon Cephas sent us from the
city of Rome, and the Acts* of the Twelve Apostles, that John the son
of Zebedee sent us from Ephesus—from these books be ye reading in
the churches of the Messiah and besides these do not read any other”

1 See L.-J. Tixeront, Les Origines de V Eglise & Edesse, Paris, 1888. The Abbé Tixeront (p. 134)
considers the date to be between 390 and 430, with a certain probability for the year 408. It is
clearly older than the episcopate of Rabbula, which began in 411 ap.

2 Ibid. p. 156. 3 *Légérement retouché et interpolé, Zbid. p. 117.

* wma, ie. pagers.

Ecclesiastical Use of the Syriac Diatessaron. 175

(p. asa). And again we read concerning certain Edessene converts
that Addai “associated them with him in the Service, while they read
from the Old Testament and the New, and upon the Prophets and the
deeds of the Apostles! every day they were meditating,...” (p. eal).

From the first and second of these quotations it is evident that
‘Gospel’ and ‘Diatessaron’ are interchangeable terms. The author
of the Doctrine of Addai, who no doubt represents the popular tradition
of Edessa at the end of the 4th century, does not seem to recognise any
form of the Gospel other than the Diatessaron.

EvusEsius’s CourcH History may be mentioned here, as affording
a curious illustration of the popularity of the Diatessaron among Syriac-
speaking Christians. The Church History must have been translated
into Syriac not long after its original publication in the 4th century,
and the translator more than once slightly modifies the original in
matters about which he had special knowledge. Eusebius )777 iv 29)
had said

‘O pévtovye mpdtepos adtav apynyds 6 Tatiavds cvvdderay twa Kat
cvvaywyny ovK 010 dTas TaV evayyediov ܐܗ‎ 76 Ata TEXTdpPwY TOUTO
Tpotwvowacev’ 0 Kat Tapa ¥ ܐܬܗ‎ Eloéte vov 606) 2

But in the Syriac (ed. M*Lean, p. 243) we read:
ܘܚ̇ܠܛ ܘܣܡ ܐܘܢܓܠܝܘܢ ܘܩܪܝܗܝ‎ xis ܕܝܢ ܗܢܐ ܛܛܝܢܘܣ ܪܫܗܘܢ ܩܕܡܝܐܼ.‎ ap
ܕܝܛܣܪܘܢ. ܗܢܘ ܕܝܢ ܕܡ̈ܚܠܛܐ. ܗܢܐ ܕܠܘܬ ܣܓܝ̈ܐܐ ܥܕܡܐ ܠܝܘܡܢܐ ܐܝܬܘܗܝ.,‎

Now this same Tatianus their former chief collected and mixed up and composed a

Gospel and called it Diatessaron ; now this is (the Gospel) of the Mixed, the same that
is in the hands of many unto this day.

To Eusebius the Diatessaron was a work composed he was not quite
sure how, to the translator the Diatessaron was a well-known work,
current among many people. He is also able to add the vernacular
name by which it was known in Syriac, VIZ. ܐܘܢܓܠܝܘܢ ܕܡ̈ܚܠܛܐ‎
Evangelion da-Méhallété or ‘Gospel according to the mingled Evan-
gelists,’ a name which it bore in contradistinction to the Separated
Gospel, the Evangelion da-Mépharréshé?.

± .ܒܣ ܘܥܪ̈ܢܝܗܘܢ ܕܫܠܝ̈ܚܐ‎ I have adopted the punctuation of Cureton’s Syriac text,
p- wad fin.
2 See also Hjelt’s Alisyrische Evangelientibersetzung, p. 23, note.

176 The Diatessaron and the Old Syriac.

To this notice in the Syriac Husebius hardly any further information
is added by later Syriac writers, except the statement of Dionysius
Barsalibi, in the preface to his Commentary on the Gospel of 8. Mark,
that 8S. Ephraim wrote an Exposition of the Diatessaron and that its
first words were In the beginning was the Word. Barsalibi died in
1171 ap: it is not likely that he ever saw the Diatessaron or even
S. Ephraim’s Commentary. Asin most other instances where he makes
an interesting statement, it 1s probable that he is quoting from an
earlier and better informed writer. The reference to Tatian in the
preface to the Nomocanon of ‘Abd-ishd‘ (Mai, Seriptt. Vet. Nova Coll.
x 191) is a mere rhetorical comparison between the general plan of the
Diatessaron and that of the Nomocanon itself. There is no reason to
think ‘Abd-ish6‘ was really acquainted with the Diatessaron.

THEODORET, bishop of Cyrrhus, N.E. of Antioch, from 423 to 457,
discovered as many as 200 copies of the Diatessaron in his diocese of
eight hundred villages!, a circumstance that shews that the use of the
work was by no means confined to Edessa. He says: ‘“ Tatian also
composed the Gospel called Diatessaron, removing the genealogies and
all the other passages which shew that the Lord was born of the seed
of David according to the flesh. This was used not only by the
members of his party, but even by those who followed the Apostolic
doctrine, as they did not perceive the evil design of the composition,
but used the book in their simplicity for its conciseness. And I found
also myself more than two hundred such books, which had been
received with respect in our churches; and having gathered all together,
I caused them to be laid aside, and introduced in their place the Gospels
of the four Evangelists (ra trav 7670 ebayyehiaTev avTevanyayov
ebayyéhua) 7.”

Thus a few years after the publication of Rabbula’s revised version
of the Four Gospels we find the Diatessaron being actually suppressed
in a neighbouring diocese. From the time of Theodoret and his
contemporaries it ceased to be a living feature of Syriac Church life.

1 Gibbon vi 111, note.
°? Theodoret. Haeret. Fab. 1 20 (Migne Ixxxiii 379f). The Greek is also given by Westcott,
Canon 1 iv § 10, by Credner, Bettriige, 1 442 and by Ciasca, p. ix.

Rabbulas Canons. 177

Notices in Syriac writings of the Evangelion da-Mepharreshe.

The name Evangelion da-Mepharreshe has been used throughout
this book to designate the translation of the Four Gospels preserved
in the Sinai Palimpsest (8) and in Cureton’s ms (C), as distinguished
both from the Diatessaron and from the Peshitta. This use of the
term is sufficiently justified by its occurrence in the colophon of S and
in the title prefixed to C. But though Evangelion da-Mepharreshe
has for us a quite definite textual meaning, it is not by any means
certain that those who used the Evangelion da-Mepharreshe ever
called it by that name to distinguish it from what we call ‘the
Peshitta,’ i.e. the revised version of the New Testament made and
published by Rabbula. There are only two real references by name
to the Evangelion da-Mepharreshe in Syriac literature; the success
of Rabbula’s revision put the ‘Old Syriac’ at once out of use, and
as soon as it was out of use it was forgotten.

The most famous allusion to the Hvangelion da-Mepharreshe, the
passage which in Syriac literature corresponds to S. Augustine’s notice
of the ‘Itala,’ occurs in the Canons of Rabbula himself. He gives
orders (Overbeck 220):

ܬ̇ܗܘܐ ܒܛܝܠܘܬܐ ܠܩܫ̈ܝܫܐ ܘܠܡ̈ܫܡܫܢܐܼ. ܕܒܟܠܗܝܢ ܥܕ̈ܬܐ ܐܘܢܓܠܝܘܢ
ܕܡܦܪ̈ܫܐ ܢܗܘܐ dur’‏ ܘܡܬܼܩܪܐ ܀
Let the priests and the deacons have a care that in all the churches‏

a copy of the Evangelién da-Mépharréshé shall be kept and read.

What did Rabbula mean here by Evangelion da-Mepharreshe ?
It is inconceivable that he was recommending the use of such a Ms
as S in preference to, or even in conjunction with, the Syriac Vulgate,
although we may well believe that he would prefer the use of the Four
Gospels in however inadequate a version to the use of a book like the
Diatessaron, the work of one whom the Greeks classed as a heretic.
I suggest therefore that Rabbula meant by Evangelion da-Mepharreshe
a copy of his own new Revised Version, ie. a codex of the Gospels
according to what we now call the Peshitta version. When he became
bishop of Edessa it is evident that Tatian’s Harmony was practically
the only form of the Gospel in circulation. Individual scholars
certainly, and the. Bardesanian heretics probably, used the Four Gospels

B. Il. 23

178 The Diatessaron and the Old Syriac.

in a translation akin to S and C, but the Church generally was familiar
with the Diatessaron alone. The new revision of Rabbula and the
_ ‘Old Syriac’ version on which it was based shared with such Mss
as S or C the title Evangelion da-Mepharreshe, in contradistinction
to the Diatessaron, or Evangelion da-Mehallete as it was also called.
But when the Diatessaron disappeared from circulation the term
“Gospel according to the Separate Evangelists” became unmeaning,
It was simply now the “Gospel” sans phrase. The presence of the
title ܐܘܢܓܠܝܘܢ ܕܡܦܪ̈ܫܐ‎ in S and C is in itself almost a certain
indication that the Diatessaron was still current at the time of their
transcription and in the districts where they were transcribed.

The Jtala has become a name for the ‘Old Latin, and with greater
justice the Evangelion da-Mepharreshe has become a name for the
‘Old Syriac’ version of the Gospels. But just as I believe that
S. Augustine meant by Jtala what we call the Vulgate, so I believe
that Rabbula in his Canons meant by Hvangelion da-Mepharreshe
what we call the Peshitta.

The other reference in Syriac literature to the Evangelion da-
Mepharreshe is a statement identically repeated in the Commentary
of Barsalibi (on Matt xxvii 16, 17) and in the Lexicon of Bar Bahlul
(s.v. Sort). I give the Syriac text from Bar Bahlul (Duval, col.
243) and the English translation from Barsalibi in the vigorous
language of Dudley Loftus (p. 13 of the second fasciculus of $. Matthew):

Bar Bahlul
inks ܒܪ ܐܒܐ. ܡ̄. ܝܫܘܥ‎
ܗܘܐ ܗܢܐ ܒܪ ܐܒܐ. ܘܗܒܢ‎

ܕܝܢ ܟܬܝܒ ܒܐܘ ܢܓܠܝܘܢ

ܕܡܦܪ̈ܫܐ. ܘܝܕܝܥ ܬܘܒ

ܡܢ ܗܿܝ ܕܐܡܼܪ ܦܝܠܐܛܘܣ.
ܘܠܝܫܘܥ ܕܡܬܩܪܐ urs‏
ܡܢܐ ܐܥܒܕ ܠܗ. pi‏

ܒܪ ܐܒܐ ܝܫܘܥ ܡܬܩܪܐ
am‏ ܘܠܐ Wag‏ ܐܘܢܓܠܝܣܛ ܐ
ܕܫܡܐ ala‏ ܟܦܬܒ. ܐܦܡܿܢ
ܕܠܐ ܢܗܘܐ ܒܦܬܒܐ ܫܘܐ

ܒܫܡܗ ܠܡܪܢ.

Barsalibi

Called Barabba. Jefus was his
Name, who is here called Barabba ;
for fo it is written in the Go/pel
of the separated; and it is more
evident from what Pilate faid, in
the 22d. Verf. What /hall I do with
Jefus, who is called Chrift? Where-
fore he was called Jefus; and the
Evangelift was unwilling to Write
his Name, that none might in his
Book bear the fame Name with the
Lord Jefus.

Barsalibi on Bar Abba. 179

Barsalibi wrote in the 12th century and Bar Bahlul in the 10th
century; but their verbal agreement in the above sentence shews us
that they are copying from a common source. What that source was
we can only guess. It was not S. Ephraim’s Commentary on the
Diatessaron, for 8. Ephraim has no remark upon the other name
of Barabbas!. Indeed it is remarkable that although the name Jesus
Barabbas is given by Syriac writers such as Isho‘did?, Barhebraeus?,
and Solomon of el-Basra, this reading is never assigned by them to the
Diatessaron. The statement of Barsalibi and Bar Bahlul may therefore
have been taken from a writer who was contrasting the reading Jesus
Barabba with the text of the Diatessaron, and not with the text of the
Peshitta. As a matter of fact Jesus Barabbas is the reading of S in
Matt xxvii 16, 17, and it was doubtless characteristic of the ‘ Old Syriac’
text of those verses. If this view of the source of the statement
of Barsalibi and Bar Bahlul be taken, the phrase Hvangelion da-
Mepharreshe retains its natural sense of ‘the Syriac translation of
the Four Gospels as distinguished from the Diatessaron”; there is no
necessity to take it as meaning “the ‘Old Syriac’ as distinguished
from the Peshitta*.”

There is one other occurrence of the phrase ܐܘܢܓܠܝܘܢ ܕܡܦܪ̈ܫܐ‎
which may be mentioned here. In the year 1496 ap Ignatius Philoxenus,
112th bishop of Antioch, sold some books to defray the cost of the
restoration of certain churches which had been destroyed by Tamerlane.
The first and third of these were ordinary service books, but the second
is described as Evangelion da-Mepharreshe in the deed of sale. At
that late date a copy of the ‘Old Syriac’ Gospels would have been
a curiosity; it certainly would not have been sandwiched between
ordinary books for liturgical use. Assemani, who quotes the deed of
sale (BO ii 230), supposes the book to have been a Lectionary, ie.
a book the correct title of which would have been ܐܘܢܓܠܝܘܢ ܕܩܪ̈ܝܢܐ‎

1 He only says: “Ad hunc autem agnum verum suas blasphemias converterunt, eoque repu-
diato Barabbam homicidam sibi postularunt” (Moesinger 239).

2 ܒܪ ܐܒܐ ܕܝܢ ܝܫܘܥ ܗܘܐ ܫܡܗ‎ (Camb. Univ. Libr. cod. add. 1973, fol. 133 b).

$ Comm. on 8. Matthew, ed. Spanuth, p. 63.

4 It is not improbable that the source of the quotation may have been the lost Commentary
on the Gospel by Mar Aba, the disciple of S. Ephraim, extracts out of which have been given
above from Harris, Zphrem, p. 93f.

180 The Diatessaron and the Old Syriac.

Gospel-book with separated Lections, and this is obviously‏ ܡܦܪ̈ܫܐ
the true sense. Indeed the tenor of the document in which it occurs‏
suggests that this ms which was sold was in the handwriting of John‏
of Mardé, who died in 1165. In ally case it can have nothing to do with‏
what was called Hvangelion da-Mepharreshe in the time of Rabbula.‏

The Quotations of Aphraates.

The earliest dated evidence we have as to the use of the Gospels
or the Diatessaron among Syriac-speaking Christians is derived from
the actual practice of Aphraates. In other works the dates of the
original compositions, or of those recensions which have come down
to us, are disputed or unknown. But in the Homilies of Aphraates
we have the undoubtedly genuine works of a writer who lived in
the diocese of Seleucia and wrote between the years 337 and 345.
I propose therefore in the following paragraphs to exhibit passages
which may throw light upon the document or documents he used when
quoting from the Gospel.

Aphraates names neither the Diatessaron nor any of the four
Evangelists!. But it is clear that he very often is using the Diatessaron.
Thus it is probable that he is quoting the opening words of Tatian’s
Harmony when he says (Wright, p. 18):

aKa‏ ܡܠܬܗ ܘܡܐܡܪܶܗ ܕܡܪܝܐ ܡܫܝܝܚܐ ܗܼܘ. ܟ ܕܟܬܝܒ݂. ܒܪܺܝܫ

ܣܒܪܬܗ ܕܡܢܚܚܝܢܢ ܇ ܕܒܪܫܝܬ ܐܝܬܘܗܝ ܗܘܐ ܡܠܬܐ.

And also the Word and Speech of the Lord is the Messiah, as tt
as written in the beginning of the gospel of our Life-giver, that in the
beginning He was the Word.

The quotation is not however quite decisive, except to shew that
Aphraates’ copy of the Diatessaron did not begin with Matt i 1 or
Lk i 1-4, for the word used is not ܐܘܢܓܠܝܘܢ‎ ‘ Gospel-book,’ but
ܣܗܒܪܬܐ‎ ‘the good tidings.’ The phrase used by Aphraates might
easily, if it had stood alone, have come from one who used our separated
Gospels.

But it is only one piece of evidence among many others, of which

± The ‘John’ mentioned in vi 12 ( Wright 123) is not the Evangelist, but the Baptist.

Aphraates and the Diatessaron. 181

the clearest and most decisive is the long summary of the Gospel
preaching at the end of the Homily on Love. Of all the quotations
of Aphraates this most surely rests on the Diatessaron and the
Diatessaron alone. I therefore give a translation in full, setting down
at the side the corresponding passages in the Diatessaron, according
to Mr Hamlyn -Hill’s numeration of the Arabic Harmony, together
with the corresponding Gospel references. It will be seen that the
references follow the order of the Diatessaron almost without a break.

Diatessaron Aphraates, Hom. 1 (= Wright, pp. 41—43) Gospel Moes.
viii27 In His great love 2’ He called happy the poor in Matt ¥ 8 62
33 their spirit, and promised to the peace-makers 9 63

that they should be brothers to Him and should be
29 called sons of God ; 2%and He assured the meek that 5
28 they should inherit the land of life; and He pro- 4

mised the mourners that they should be entreated

30 for'; %and He preached to the hungry satiety in (6)
38 His kingdom, *8 and them that weep He rejoiced by ee 3

31 His promise; 3:8110 He promised to the compas- Matt ¥ 7

32 sionate that they should bé compassionated, 3% and 8
to them that are pure in their heart He said that

34 they should see God. *4And He promised again to 10
those persecuted for righteousness’ sake that they

35 should enter the kingdom of heaven, * and those 11
persecuted for His name’s sake He assured happi-

40 ness and ease in Hiskingdom. * And He changed 13 64
our nature of dust and made us the salt of truth,
and delivered us from being the Serpent’s food.

41 ® And He called us the light of the world, that He 14
might deliver us from the authority of death. And

0 ܢܬܦܫܦܘܢ‎ oaks, a rendering of mapaxAnOycovra independent of what is found in SC
and Pesh.

182

Diatessaron
cf ix 14 ff.
x 38

xi 4 ff.
33 ff.
39 ff.

xii 7 ff.
11 ff.

33 ff.
42

44

xiii 3
20
xv 9

45

xvi 7 ff.

The Diatessaron and the Old Syriae.

Aphraates, Hom. 11 (= Wright, pp. 41—48)
He made us good instead of evil and fair instead
of hateful, and gave us love instead of hate. 38 And
He associated us with the good man that bringeth
forth from his treasures good things, and delivered
us from him that bringeth forth evil things from
the superfluity of his heart. And because of His
abundant love He made whole the wounds of
the infirm, *for He healed even the son of the Cen-
turion because of his faith; 33 and He silenced the
storms of the sea from us by His power 14
chased away from us the devils of Legion because
of His kindness. 7And in His compassion He saved
alive the daughter of the chief of the synagogue,
Mand He cleansed moreover the woman from the
impurity of blood 39810 opened the eyes of the
two blind men that drew near to Him. “And He
gave also to His Twelve power and authority over
every pain and infirmity, and to us also through
them. “And He restrained us from the way of the
pagans’ and of the Samaritans, and gave us power
in His compassionateness that we should not be
afraid 3when they bring us up before the authori-
ties of the world. 2°And He cast a division in the
earth because of his great tranquillity. And He
forgave many debts to the sinful woman because
of His compassion ; and He made us worthy be-
cause of His kindness that we should build the

tower at His expense, 7and He cast forth from us

Gospel
(Matt v 45)
ef Lk vi 35
Lk vi 45

Matt viii 5 ff.
Lk vii 2 ff.
Matt viii 24 ff.
Lk viii 23 ff.
(Matt viii 28 ff.)
Lk viii 27 ff.

Matt ix 18 ff.
Lk viii 41 ff.

Matt ix 20 ff.
Lk viii 45 ff.

Matt ix 27 ff.

Matt x1
(Lk ix 1)

Matt x 5

(Matt x 17)
Lk xii 7, 11

Matt x 34
Lk xii 51

Lk vii 48

Lk xiv 28

(Matt xii 43 ff.)
Lk xi 24 ff.

1 «ai: thus agreeing with Pesh. against S, which has scan ‘nations.’

Moes,

74
75

76 ff.

90

91

(95)
97

114

118

120

Diatessaron

25 ff.

xvii 27

51

xviii 8

43

xx 47 ff.

xxi 2 ff.

xxiii 4

xxiv 2 ff.

31

xxv 10

xxvii 28

Aphraates and the Diatessaron.

Aphraates, Hom. u (=Wright, pp. 41—43)
unclean spirits, and made us a guest-chamber for

His Godhead. 25 And He sowed in us the good seed,
that we might give fruit an hundred-fold and
sixty-fold and thirty-fold ; 2%and He was set in the
midst of the world in the likeness of the treasure
set in the field. 5! And He shewed the power of
His majesty when He was thrown from the height
into the depth and was not hurt. And He
satished the hungry in their fatigue from five
loaves and two fishes, “even five thousand men
besides children and women, and He shewed the
majesty of His glory. And because of His great
love 116 heard the Canaanite woman and raised
up her daughter from her infirmity ; and by the
authority of Him that sent Him ?He loosened the
tongue of the stutterer, the man whose ear was
hard of hearing. *And the blind saw His light,
and through Him they glorified Him that sent
Him. ?And when He went up to the hill to pray
the rays of the sun were overcome by His light;
and He manifested His excellent power *in the
lad on whom the spirit came suddenly, and the
demon of lunacy by His word He removed.
And He gave us a type and likeness that we
should be in the likeness of children and enter the

kingdom of heaven; *8and He said and shewed

Gospel

Matt xiii 4 ff.
LE viii 5 ff.

Matt xiii 44

Lk iv 29 (sic)

Matt xiv 18

Matt xiv 21
Lk ix 17
Joh vi 13

Mat xv 22 ff.
Mk vii 25 ff.

Mk vii 22 ff.

Matt xv 31

Matt xvii 1 ff.
Mk ix 2 ff.
Lk ix 28 ff.

Matt xvii 15
Lk ix 39

Matt xviii 3

Matt xviii 10

183

Moes.

124

131

132

138

(153)

156

(160)

165

1 Tt ig evident from the remarks of S. Ephraim (Moes 131) and his allusions to the passage
elsewhere that Tatian took Sore xaraxpypvica a’rdy to mean that the Nazarenes actually threw
our Lord over their cliff. S on the other hand implies the reading dore >>) ܬܘܗ ܘܬ‎ airdv, 580 as

to hang him.’

184

Diatessaron

xxii 13 ff.
(cf xxvii 41)

xxviii 49 ff.

xxix 13

xxviii 36 ff.

xxix 14

18,19

27 ff.

xlvi 17

(xlv 20)

(xxxiv 31)

The Diatessaron and the Old Syriac.

Aphraates, Hom. 1 (= Wright, pp. 41—43)

concerning the little ones that no one should ܠ‎

despise those whose angels at all times see the
Father in heaven. And He shewed moreover
His perfect healing in that man who thirty and
eight years was infirm and He increased His mercy
unto him and made him whole.

49A vain He gave us a command that we should
leave the world and turn unto Him, “and He
revealed to us that he whom the world loveth
cannot please God 36in the demonstration of the
rich man that trusted in his property, and in
that man who had delight in his good things
and his end was in Sheol 4%and he asked for
water on the tip of his little finger and no one gave
to him. 27And He hired us in the likeness of
labourers that we should toil in His vineyard,
17He who is the Vineyard of Truth.

All these things our Life-giver because of His
great love did for us. And we also, my beloved, shall
be consorts in the love of the Messiah 2°when we
love one another, and we shall perform those two
commandments whereon hangeth all the law, and

the prophets also.

Gospel Moes.

Joh ¥ 5ff 146 ff.

Matt xix 21 ff.
Lk xviii 22g, 170 ff.

Lk xvi 15

Lk xii 16 ff. 174
Lk xvi 19

23, 24

Matt xx 1 175

Joh xv 1

(Joh xiii 34)

(Matt xxii 40)
etc,

This long series of allusions speaks for itself. Either Aphraates was
turning over the leaves of his Diatessaron as he wrote, or (as is more
probable) the Diatessaron was so deeply engraved on his mind that in
epitomising our Lord’s ministry he naturally followed the peculiar order

adopted by Tatian.

Even at the end, where his dependence on the

Diatessaron is less marked, we have the Parables of Dives and Lazarus

Aphraates and the Diatessaron. 185

(Lk xvi) preceded by the Rich Fool (Lk xii) and followed by the
Labourers in the Vineyard (Matt xx), as in the Diatessaron.

There are many other passages where Aphraates evidently takes
his Gospel quotations from the Diatessaron, as in the combination of
Matt vii 18, Lk vi 45 in A 303 (= Diat x 37, 38), and the story of the
Rich Young Man told in 4392 (=Diat xxviii 42 ff). But mere
confusion of the text of one Gospel with another does not in itself
prove the use of a Harmony, and it must be remarked that some
of the composite quotations present a different mixture from the
Diatessaron as represented by 8, Ephraim’s Commentary and the
Arabic. In any case it is evident that the writer who could make
the statement that “Judas who betrayed our Saviour fell into the
sea with a mill-stone about his neck” (A 253) was capable of inventing
fresh combinations for himself. And if the remarkable agreement of the
passage quoted above from A 41-48 with the order of the Diatessaron
proves the use of the Diatessaron, there is another passage somewhat
similar which almost as strongly suggests the use of the separate
Gospels. Towards the end of the long Homily on Obedience, sent
out as a synodical Letter in 344 ap, we read (Aphraates, Hom. 14
= Wright, pp. 301, 302):

And we, beloved,...nothing outside the law have we written to you, nor have we
sent to you a treasure stolen, save from the seed and germ of the holy Scriptures.
Counterfeit silver wherever it may go is not to be received, and old leaven is not to
be kneaded with good flour. For *worn out wine-skins do not receive the power
of wine and °a new patch when it lieth on a worn-out garment teareth it; and
‘the vine that receiveth cultivation giveth fruit and not wild grapes. And “the
heart that is hard as a rock withereth the seed, and ‘the building which is set on
the sand—the rain washeth it away and it falleth from the blast of the wind. And
‘the salt that hath lost its savour—the Serpent doth eat it, and *the inferior fish
the fisherman doth cast out. For "the tares in their season are rooted out, and
the chaff from the wheat at the last is separated. ‘And the inferior labourers in time
despise hire; and ithe foolish virgins whose oil fails—when the bridegroom cometh
they are not able to buy. And ‘the steward who doth beat his fellow-servants—
his lord cometh and doeth judgement upon him. And 'the evil slave that hideth his
lord’s silver—he that gave it to him cometh and reckoneth with him for interest. And
™the door-keeper that loveth slumber in the time of watchfulness is deprived of life.
The wise king while yet the battle is far off sendeth ambassadors and seeketh peace.
These few reminders we have written to you, beloved, etc.

IL. 24‏ .ܡ

186 The Diatessaron and the Old Syriac.

a. Diat vii 35 Matt ix 17 Mk [1 22 Lk vi 37f.
b. 34 16 21 36
¢ Isaiah ¥ 2
d. Diat xvi 26 Matt xiii 5 Mk iv 5 Lk viii 6
@. x 47 £ Matt vii 90 f. (Lk vi 49)
£ viii 40 Matt v 13 (Mk ix 50) (Lk xiv 34)
(xxv 24)
g. xvii 30f. Matt xiii 48 f.
h. xvii 1ff. Matt xiii 24 ff.
1. xxix 27 ff. Matt xx 1 ff.
® xlii 9 ff. Matt xxv 1 ff.
k. xliii 2 ff. Matt xxiv 45 ff. Lk xii £
]. xlii 32 ff. Matt xxv 24 ff. ° (Lk xix 20 ff.)
(xxxi 45 ff.)
m. xii 34 Mk xiii 34
n xv 48 £ Lk xiv 31, 32

Here we have a string of passages from 8. Matthew's Gospel quoted
one after the other, followed by one from 8. Mark and another from
8. Luke. It is, I venture to think, unlikely that Aphraates had here
only the Diatessaron in view, and if the selection of passages was made
from memory it argues great familiarity with the text to have kept the
Gospels so distinct. It may be added that on the next page (Wright
303) Aphraates clearly quotes the Diatessaron.

S. Ephraim’s use of the separate Gospels.

There cannot be a question that ©. Ephraim habitually quoted from
the Diatessaron. At the same time his voluminous writings contain
some clear indications that he was aware of the existence of the
separate Gospels, and he seems occasionally to have quoted from them.

The clearest instance is to be found in Adv. Scrutatores xxxv
(Ed. Rom. vi 62 4)

<a‏ ܒܪܝܫܝܬ ܠܒܪܝܫܝܬ. ܘܕܡܐ ܠܡܘܫܐ ܐܦ ua‏ ܕܒܪܝܫ ܣܦܪ̈ܝܗܘܢ ܐܦܣܘ
ܠܗܿܦܪ̈ܐ ܕܕܪܫܘ ܒܝܫܐܝܬ. ܕܚܕ ase‏ ܠܝܐܠܗܐ ܕܐܬܼܐ ܠܚܫܐ. ܘܐܦ ܡܘܫܐ
ܠܦܝܢܐ ܕܐܬܼܐ ܠܦܐܒ̈ܐ܂, ܕܠܐ ܢܬܦܪܗܘܢ ܫܡ̈ܘܥܐ. ܒܪܝܫ ܣܦܪ̈ܝܗܘܢ ܦܬܒܘ

Like is the one ‘In the beginning’ to the other, and like to Moses is John also,
in that at the beginning of their volumes they rebuked the scribes who disputed with

S. Ephraim and the Separate Gospels. 187

evil intent. The one preaches the God that came to suffering, and Moses also preaches
the Nature that came to grief: it was in order that their hearers should not be made
weak that in the beginning of their volumes they wrote the excellencies of them.

It is evident that the writer of this sentence was acquainted with
the Fourth Gospel as a separate work, and not only through the
Diatessaron. Moreover this view of the Gospel is curiously similar
to that found in another passage, quoted by Philoxenus of Mabbog
from §S. Ephraim’s Homily on Joh i 1, a Homily from which other
quotations survive but which unfortunately is no longer extant in full,

Lamy ii 513 f. (corrected from B.M. Add. 12164; Burkitt,
S. Ephraim’s Quotations, p. 59 f.)

܀ ܬܘܒ , ma‏ ܡܢ. Asn ios‏ ܒܪܫܝܬ. ܐܝܬܘܗܝ. wom‏ ܡܠܬܐ ܀
...., ܥܠ ܓܝܪ ܝܘܚܢܢ ܕܢܦܬܘܒ ܡܕܡ ܕܗܣܒܼܠ ܡܪܸܢ ܒܩܢܘܡܗ. ܫܪܝ ܠܗ ܕܝܢ ܒܫܪܒܗ
ܕܒܪܐ ܡܢ ܦܪ ܕܒܐܝܕܗ ܐܬܒܪܝ ܟܠ ܡܕܡ. ܕܢܫܬܥܐ ܒܚܕܐ ܥܠ ܗܠܝܢ ܕܗܘ̈ܝ
purrs‏ ܘܥܠ ܗܠܝܢ soma‏ ܒܩܢܘܡܗ. ܕܡܛܠ ܪܘܪ̈ܒܬܐ ܕܗܘ̈ܝ ܒܐܝܕܗ. ܢܕܥ
ܠܐܝܢܐ ܫܦܠ ܐ hu‏ ܗܘ ܕܡܦܐܪ̈ܬܐ ܐܣܬܥܪ ܒܩܢܘܡܗ.

amen ܒܪܫܺܿܝܬܼ. ܡܩܪܐ ܩܪܝܗܝ ܠܡܘܫܐ ܠܣܗܕܘܬܐ‎ wa ܕܐ ܡܪ‎ Lina cee
ܕܢܥܠܢ ܬܩܢܐܝܬ ܒܥܩܒܗܝܢ ܕܗܠܝܢ‎ ian murs sian Gla ܡܘܫܐ ܥܠ‎
ܒܐܝܕܗ ܐܬܥܒܕ ܦܠܗܝܢ ܛܒ̈ܬܐ ܠܒܪܝܬܐ.‎ Mine ܡܢ ܩܕܝܡ‎ amass ܕܐܣܬܥܪ‎
ܠܗܘ‎ wo: ܗܦܝܠ‎ anne ܒܝ̈ܫܬܐ ܡܢ ܐܢܫܘܬܐ.‎ pals ܘܠܚܪܬܐ ܒܗ ܐܬܥܒܕ‎
ܡܕܡ ܕܒܐܝܕܗ ܐܬܒܪܝ ܗܘܐ. ܘܫܪܝ ܕܢܫܬܥܐ ܥܠ ܗܘ ܡܕܡ ܕܣܒܼܠ ܒܩܢܘܡܗ.‎
ܣܗܕܘܬܐ ܕܒܐܝܕܗ ܐܬܒܪܝ ܬܡܝܗ̈ܬܐ. ܥܠ ܠܗ ܕܢܫܬܥܐ‎ biz! ܦܕ ܓܝܪ‎
+ ܕܒܩܢܘܡܗ ܐܣܬܥܪ ܡܦܐܪ̈ܬ݀ܐ‎

AGAIN, FROM THE SAME [S. Ephraim], ovr or tHe Discourse upon ‘IN THE BEGINNING
was THE Worp.’... Mor John started to write that which our Lord endured in His own
person. Now he began with the story of the Son from where (it says) ‘ Through Him
was created everything, that he might tell in one sentence concerning those things
that were through Him and concerning those things that were (done) in His own person ;
so that because: of the great things that were through Him we might know to what
lowliness He had descended, against whose person the shameful deeds were performed.

By John therefore saying ‘In the beginning, he hath in fact called Moses to witness,
that Moses might give witness concerning those things that were through the Son,
that he might induce us accurately to investigate those things that were performed against

1 hae. Cod. 12164 (sic).

188 The Diatessaron and the Old Syriac.

His person. Of old, therefore, through Him all good things were done for the universe,
and at the last against Him all evil things were done by mankind: John therefore left
that which through Him had been created and began to tell concerning that which
He suffered in His own person. For when the witness began that through Him were
wonderful things created, he started to tell that against His person the shameful deeds
were performed.

The point of view from which the aim of the fourth Evangelist
is regarded in this extract is evidently the same as that of the previous
extract. ©. Ephraim therefore not only knew of the existence of the
Gospel according to 8. John, but also held a consistent opinion as to
the plan and object of the work.

Moreover in his Commentary on Genesis (Hd. Rom. iv 18D) he
quotes the words of the Evangelist in Joh i 3. He says

A ܘܒܠܥܕܘܗܝ ܐܦ‎ om ܡܕܡ ܒܗ‎ Asa (sic) ܥܠܘܗܝ ܐܘܢܓܠܣܛܐ‎ imc
ܘܡܚܬܡ ܥܠܝܗ ܘܐܦ ܦܘܠܘܣ ܘܐܡܪ ܕܒܗ ܐܬܒܪܝ ܡܐ ܕܒܫܡܝܐ‎ ham ܚܕܐ‎
ܘܟܠ ܕܠܐ ܡܬܚܿܙܝܢ܂‎ phon As ܘܡܐ ܕܒܐܪܥܐ.‎

The Evangelist said concerning Him that everything was in Him and apart from
Him not even one thing was; and Paul also confirmeth it, and saith that in Him
was created what is in heaven and what is in earth, all that is seen and all that
is not seen.

Here ‘the Evangelist’ is quoted as the authority for a statement,
just as in the next line ‘ Paul’ is cited as the authority for the point
of dogma enunciated in Col i 161.

Similarly in Lamy iv 659 we read that, just as the sun at the
Creation shone forth on the Fourth Day,

ܗܐ ܒܐܪܒܥܐ ܗܦܪ̈ܝܢ ܐܙܠܓ ܠܗ am‏ ܫܡܫܢ.
Lo, in Four Volumes hath our Sun shone forth.‏

Here the Four Gospels are evidently referred to, in words which
recall the colophon to 8 at the end of 8S. John.

These examples shew that 8. Ephraim was acquainted at least with
the Fourth Gospel in a separate form. This fact once established, we
are justified in looking out for other indications of a knowledge of 6
separate Gospels. The clearest evidence, if it could be:admitted, would
be found in a tract preserved in Armenian and printed in the second

± For a similar citation of ‘the Evangelist,’ see Ephraim on Matt ii 23 (Moesinger 36).

S. Ephraim’s Quotations from the ‘Greek.’ 189

voluine of the Mechitarists’ edition, pp. 261-346, under the name of
Targamnoutiun Avetarant, ‘Exposition of the Gospel.’ This seems
to be taken from the same ms as that from which the Commentary
on the Diatessaron is printed, and called by Moesinger A; it contains
also some Homilies ascribed to 8. Ephraim!. That the tract is a
translation from the Syriac seems clear, and some of the quotations
present a text such as would be used by a Syriac writer at the end
of the fourth century*. But the style is not very like 8. Ephraim’s,
and the number of direct quotations from the Scriptures is far larger
than we should expect to find in a genuine work of his. Moreover
some of the Old Testament quotations follow the Lxx*—a sure sign
that their text has been altered by the translator to agree with the
version with which he was familiar. As in the case of the Commentary
on the Diatessaron itself, where the same state of things to a slight
extent prevails, it is only where the text of the quotations differs from
that of the Armenian Vulgate that we can be quite sure that it
represents the version used by the original Syriac writer. In cases
where the Gospels are quoted by name it is therefore only too probable
that the text has been doctored by the translator, and the ascription

of the quotations to the several evangelists may have been the work
of the same hand?

References to the Greek in Ephraim’s Commentary.

The Armenian ss of S. Ephraim’s Commentary on the Diatessaron contain at the
end a paragraph very loosely joined on to the rest of the work, in which the characteristics
of the four Gospels are given, partly from Eusebius HF iii 39 (Moesinger 286). Of
more importance are three passages in the body of the Commentary, in each of which
“the Greek” is quoted. It is not quite clear what source is here intended by
8. Ephraim, but it may be well to quote them in spite of their obscurity.

1 Ephr. Arm., Preface, p. 7.

2 See especially p. 288, where we read “And again in another place he saith : ‘I am the vine-
yard (saya f) and ye are the vine (p{d-) ; every vine that in me is planted and giveth not fruit,
it is plucked up.”” This corresponds to the very peculiar rendering of Joh xv 1 characteristic of
the Diatessaron.

3 E.g. the quotation from Isaiah xlix 14-16, p. 264.

4 Quotations of the Gospels by name are to be found on p. 328 ff. Some of these so-called
quotations are strangely paraphrastic, e.g. on p. 329 we read: “ And again this is what Matthew
says, ‘When ye shall see the filth of corruption that it standeth in the place of holiness in Jeru-
salem—by Daniel the prophet it was announced, let him that readeth lay it to heart.’”

190 The Diatessaron and the Old Syriac.

Moesinger 29 (corrected from Ishd‘dad)' = Lk ii 35
@ Thou shalt cause a spear to pass, i.e. apostasy : but the Greek clearly says, Thoughts,
it says, will be revealed from many hearts—those who doubted.”

Moesinger 53=Joh ii 2°, 3

“TMary} saw that the wine had failed and she knew that not without cause He
had come to this wedding. The Greek writes: He was sitteng down and the wine
Sailed.”

Moesinger 116, 117=Matt xi 25, Lk x 21
“ And this that it says I confess to Thee, heavenly Father ; the Greek says I confess
to Thee, O God, Father, Lord of heaven and earth.”

The one thing that is certain about these tantalizing references is that in neither
case does the Greek tell us anything ‘clearly,’ and from such ambiguous materials
no certain conclusions can be drawn. My own working hypothesis is that all three
are citations from memory of the Lvangelion da-Mepharreshe, quoted for a single point,
which is given correctly, while the rest of the quotation is inaccurate. On this view
the Evangelion da-Mepharreshe is called ‘the Greek,’ because it is a translation of the
four Gospels used by the Greek Church, in contradistinction to the Diatessaron which
in 8. Ephraim’s day was used only by Syriac-speaking Christians.

The question is complicated by the unfortunate circumstance that neither S nor €
is extant for Joh ii 2, 3. The text cited by 8. Ephraim evidently represents €)
(or ܘ‎ or xarexdi6y), while all our Greek mss and of course the Peshitta have
éxhjOm. It is just possible that the Hvangelion da-Mepharreshe here had ܐܣܬܡܟ‎

by a misreading of éxA76, just as in Lk iv 29 it represents caraxpnuvicae by a word
which implies [kata]xpepdoat.

In the third passage (Moes’nger 116, 117) it is quite conceivable that the addition
of ‘God’ before ‘Father’ is a mere piece of carelessness and that the point of the
quotation is to assert that the separated Gospels had Lord of heaven and earth, as
indeed is the case. The Diatessaron probably had Father of heaven [and earth], in
agreement with ec ff 4 of the Old Latin and some Vulgate codices, which have
in Lk x 21 Domine Pater caeli et terrae.

As to Lk ii 35, it is exceedingly doubtful what the passage from ‘the Greek’ is
precisely meant to attest. The words Thoughts will be revealed from many hearts agree
exactly with the Armenian Vulgate in Lk ii 35. It is of course possible, though not
very probable that in all three cases ‘the Greek’ is an interpretative rendering of the
Armenian translator of the Commentary, the original Syriac expression actually used by
8. Ephraim having been a different technical term.

1 Ishé‘dad (Harris’ Ephrem, p. 34) says: ܡܪܝ ܐܦܪܝܡ., ܒܢܦܫܦܝ ܠܡ ܬܥܒܪܝܢܗ̇‎

- ܪܘܡܚܐ., ܕܢܬܓܠܘܢ ܡܢ ܠܒ̈ܘܬܐ ܕܪ̈ܥܝܢܐ ܣ̈ܓܝܐܐ ܗܢܘܢ ܕܐܬܦܠܓܘ.

Probably we should read ܪܥܝܢܝܳܳܐ‎ <A in accordance with the text and order of the
Armenian. It should be noticed that there is no reference in Ishé‘d4d to ‘the Greek.’

Differences. in the underlying Greek Test. 191

Internal evidences of the date of the Evangelion da-Mepharreshe.

The main result arrived at in the preceding investigation has been
to shew that the Diatessaron was by far the most widely used form
in which the Gospel was current among Syriac-speaking Christians
before the 5th century. At the same time, as far back as our evidence
goes, we still find traces of the use of the Four Gospels in Syriac.
For the solution therefore of the question whether the Evangelion
da-Mepharreshe be older or younger than the Syriac Diatessaron we
must ultimately resort to internal evidence, i.e. to the character of the
texts themselves.

First of all comes the question of the language in which the
Diatessaron was originally composed. The Evangelion da-Mepharreshe
is a translation from the Greek. Even if the translator knew the
Diatessaron in Syriac and was greatly influenced by it, it is nevertheless
obvious that a text of the Four Gospels cannot be evolved from the
Diatessaron alone. But it is conceivable that the Diatessaron of Tatian
might have been a purely Syriac work, compiled out of the text
of the Four Gospels then current in a Syriac Version. It is therefore
important to shew that in a number of leading variants and in a
number of renderings of noteworthy passages the Diatessaron ditfers-
widely from the Evangelion da-Mepharreshe, representing, in fact, a
different type of Greek text and a different style of translation.

Differences between the Ev. da-Mepharreshe and the Diatessaron
in the underlying Greek text.

Matt iii 16 (The Light at the Baptism).

The evidence collected above on p. 115 from Barsalibi and others
makes it quite clear that the Diatessaron contained an account of the
‘mighty light’ that appeared at the Baptism of Christ. This light is
referred to by Justin (Dial. 88) and appears in what seems to be the
oldest stratum of the Old Latin. But in S and C there is no trace
of this addition.

Matt vi 1 (‘Do not your gift before men’).
There is a well-marked various reading in this verse and the Syriac

192 The Diatessaron and the Old Syriac.

texts take different sides. The Diatessaron and C support 8dow
(=8" boh); S supports d.cavoodyny (=X*" BD 1&c latt.exc. k); syr.vg
supports élennoovynv (=s, also k). It is natural to suppose that S
represents the original text of the Hvangelion da-Mepharreshe in this
passage and that C’ has been altered from the Diatessaron.

Matt xvi 2, 3 (‘ The Face of the Sky’).

The well-known interpolation of the saying about the Face of the
Sky is omitted in S and C (=NB13&c157 arm). But, as we have
seen already on p. 134, 8. Ephraim quotes the words and his quotation
contains the characteristically Old Syriac word estas (Lk xii 55),
so that there is no room for suspicion that he was using the Peshitta.
The interpolation must therefore have stood in the Diatessaron, which
here again is found in agreement with D and the Latins.

Matt xvii 26 (‘as if ® stranger’).

The Arabic Diatessaron (xxv 6) in telling the story of the Tribute-
money makes a notable addition. We read

“ Jesus said to him ‘The sons then are free?’ Simon said to him
‘Yea!’ Jesus said to him ‘Give thou also to him as a stranger.’”

This addition is attested for the Diatessaron by Ephraim (Moes.
161). It is found also in the Greek minuscule 713, but not in S or C.

Matt xxvii 16, 17 (Jesus Barabbas),

That the Evangelion da-Mepharreshe gave the name Jesus to
Barabbas is definitely asserted by the common source of Bar Bahlul
and Barsalibi (see above, p. 178 f.), and this reading is confirmed by S.
It is found in 1*-118-209*, in the margin of several inferior Mss, and
in the Palestinian Syriac Lectionary!. It was also the reading of
Origen and there is good reason for thinking that it stood in the
immediate archetype of B. But there is no trace of it in the Diates-
saron, or in any Old Latin text.

Mk i 41 (‘being angry’).
When the leper came and begged to be cleansed, our Lord granted
his request, being, according to the ordinary text, moved with compassion

± Not however in the ancient fragments, published by Land, of a Ms of the Gospels.

Differences in the underlying Greek Text. 193

(omrayyvic eis). This is also the reading of S. But the Diatessaron

(Moes. 143, 144) very expressly supports the other reading being angry
(6pyvo Beis), which is that of D and the Old Latin.

Mk vii 33 (Spitting on the fingers).

From the evidence collected above (p. 127 f.) we learn that the
Diatessaron supported the curious reading érrucev eis rods Saxtvdous
avrov (He spat on His fingers and put it in the ears of that deaf-mute),
found in W4 But S has another reading, which nevertheless differs
from the ordinary text and agrees with cod. 28 and the ‘ Ferrar Group.’

Mk ix 15 (rpoorpéxovtes, tpooyatpovtes).

The variation between these words may be conjectured to have
arisen from an accidental permutation of letters. The majority of
Greek mss with S support mpoorpéyovres, while D and the Latins
Support mpooyatpovtes. The Arabic Diatessaron (xxiv 26) has

AON pS Salling ܘܨܦܨܨ (ܢܝܨܧܟܹܐ‎ pw cli! ܥ )ܢܘܐ ܨ‎ eon! Vg past bed whit,
And the folk when they perceived Jesus were amazed and in the
mudst of their joy they ran and greeted him}.

The regular way to use the Arabic Diatessaron is to compare it with
the corresponding verse in syr.vg: the differences between the two texts
represent readings of the original Harmony. Here there are two such
differences, viz. ‘Jesus’ instead of ‘him’ in the first clause and the
insertion of ‘in the midst of their joy’ before ‘they ran’ in the second
clause. The first variant is attested by Dbcffk, the same authorities
that read mpocyatportes instead of tpoorpéxorres, and it is evident that
‘in the midst of their joy’ stands ultimately for apooyatpovres, the
intermediate Syriac stage being, I suppose, pas aa. The Arabic
therefore has a conflate text containing equivalents both for mpoo-
tpéxovres and for tpocyaipovres. This double rendering can hardly be
original. Doubtless the words corresponding to ‘ran and’ come

1 The Arabic mss are said to have !9)l—, which may either be | ܕ‎ they lowed (like an ox),

or } gj le they raced, or | mre they drew back,—none of which are suitable, or explicable from the
context. The corresponding word in the Peshitta and S is ,ܬܘܗܘ‎ and as the substantive dy.
amazement is used in Diat xlii 19 to render ܬܘ ܗܬܝ‎ (Lk xxi 25, ste) 1 think there can be little
doubt that the word here meant is )ܨܐ‎ they were amazed,

B. II. 25

194 The Diatessaron and the Old Syriac.

ultimately from the Peshitta, or the Hvangelion da-Mepharreshe itself,
and the true text of Tatian’s Harmony in this passage agreed completely
with the ‘ Western’ authorities.

Mk xvi 9-20 (The Longer Conclusion).

The so-called ‘Last Twelve Verses’ of 8. Mark are omitted
altogether in S, the Gospel ending at xvi 8, which is immediately
followed on the same column by the beginning of ©, Luke. ‘The verses
are found in C. They also form an integral part of the Diatessaron,
as is clear from the allusions in Aphraates and in the Doctrine of Addai.
In this most important feature, therefore, the Greek text underlying
the Diatessaron differed from the Greek text underlying S.

And there can be little doubt that S, which omits the verses, more
truly represents the genuine text of the Hvangelion da-Mepharreshe
than C, which inserts them. It is impossible to conceive any Syriac-
speaking community suppressing the verses: the mere fact that positive
evidence for their omission exists is enough to shew that the original
form of the Hvangelion da-Mepharreshe did not contain them.

Lk vii 14 (‘Youth, youth !’).

The doubled Neavioxe, which is found in D and in the Old Latin
a and ff, is expressly attested by Aphraates and by Ephraim, but is
not found in S. There is no reason to suspect that S in this passage
represents a revised text, so that here also the Diatessaron and the
Evangelion da-Mepharreshe originally differed.

Lk xviii 30 (‘ Seven-fold’).

According to 8. Mark those that have left their lands and their
families for Christ’s sake and the Gospel’s shall receive an hundredfold.
In S. Matthew most authorities have an hundredfold, but a few ancient
texts (including B and Origen) have manzfold. In 8. Luke most texts
have manifold, but S and @ have an hundredfold, while D and the
Old Latin with the Diatessaron (Moesinger 88) have sevenfold. Here
again we may conjecture that the Hv. da-Mepharreshe and the
Diatessaron originally differed. But it is possible in this particular
case that the text of S and C has been assimilated to S. Mark (or

Differences in the underlying Greek Text. 195

S. Matthew). Certainly no authorities except S and @ have an
hundredfold in ©. Luke, but it would be somewhat strange to find in
our Syriac Mss examples of harmonistic corruption, not in agreement
with the Diatessaron text, but contrary to it. :

Lk xxii 43, 44 (The Bloody Sweat) and Lk xxiii 34 (‘Father, forgwe
then’).

These famous interpolations have a place in the Diatessaron, but
are not found in S. They are however found in C; so the case is not
absolutely parallel to the omission of Matt xvi 2, 3. Yet there can
be little doubt that S in omitting these passages preserves the original
text of the Hv. da-Mepharreshe. The intrinsic interest of the two
passages must generally have afforded a strong motive for their inser-
tion wherever they were known, and as a matter of fact S. Ephraim
shews his appreciation of them by repeated quotations and allusions.
According to a correspondent of Photius ‘some of the Syrians’ omitted
Lk xxii 43, 44; this is probably a reference to the asterisk in the
margin of the Harclean version.

Joh v 3, 4 (The Angel at the Pool).

The well-known interpolation about the Angel troubling the waters
is absent from C, and though a leaf is here missing from S it is evident
from the space that the passage was absent from S also. But it
must have had a place in the Syriac Diatessaron, for Ephraim says
(Moesinger 146): ‘If they believe that the Angel by the water of
Shiloah was healing the sick, how much rather should they believe
that the Lord of the Angels purifies by baptism from all stain?’ It is
only in the interpolated form of the story that there is any mention of
an ‘angel.’

Joh x 8 (‘those that came before me’).

The words ‘before me’ in this saying of our Lord are omitted in
mauy Greek mss (headed by &*), in all Latin authorities except those
mentioned below, in the Sahidic, and in S and syr.vg. They are found
in many Greek mss (headed by B and D), in Clement and Origen, in the
Bohairic and the Armenian, in Ephraim’s Commentary (Moesinger 200),
in Faustus (ap. Aug), in Lucifer, in Jerome’s own quotations, in the

196 The Diatessaron and the Old Syriac.

Latin Vulgate mss gat and fos, and in the ms of syr.vg called by
Mr Gwilliam 36. It is tempting to add this passage to the rest where
S and the Diatessaron differ in the underlying Greek. Gat is one
of a group of ‘mixed’ Vulgate mss whose readings sometimes agree
curiously with the Diatessaron, the other members being the Sanger-
manensis (g) and the Tours Ms called by Wordsworth M. On the other
hand, the only direct evidence that the words ‘before me’ were
contained in the Diatessaron comes from Moesinger 200, where the
verse is quoted in verbal agreement with the Armenian vulgate.
We cannot therefore be sure that the translator of Ephraim’s Com-
mentary was not adapting his text to that of his vernacular Bible.
This explanation however does not account for the presence of the
words in an isolated ms of the Peshitta: it is somewhat difficult to
account for them there, unless they slipped in through a scribe’s
reminiscence of Tatian’s Harmony.

Differences between the Ev. da-Mepharreshe and the Diatessaron
in rendering the Greek.

We now give a few examples of noteworthy divergence between the
Evangelion da-Mepharreshe and the Diatessaron in rendering Greek
words and phrases.

Matt ¥ 4 (5) tapakhynOyoovrat.

‘Happy is it for the mourners that they shall be comforted’
(ܢܬܒܝܐܘܢ)‎ is the rendering of SC and syr.vg, but Aphraates 41
in a string of allusions taken certainly from the Diatessaron’ has
‘He promised the mourners that they should be entreated for’
(ܕܠܗܘܢ ܢܬܟܫܦܘܢ)‎ .

In Lk xvi 25 sapaxadetrar is interpreted ‘he is besought’ by
Aphraates 383 and Ephraim?, in accordance with the oldest Latin
tradition, but S and syr.vg have ‘he taketh his ease’ ܡܬܢܝܚ)‎ (, But
in Lk vi 24 we read both in S and in Aphraates 390 ‘ Woe to you,
rich, that ye have received your supplication,’ where ‘ your supplica-
tion’ ܒܥܘܬܟܘܢ)‎ ( is a rendering of tiv Tapdkdynow stpar.

1 See above, p. 181. 2 See above, p. 136.

Differences in Rendering. 197

Matt x 5 €Ovav.

‘Go not in the way of the peoples’ ` (ܥܡ̈ܡܐ)‎ is the rendering of
S, but the Diatessaron (as attested by Aphraates 42)! has ‘Go not in
the way of the pagans’ (ra), and this rendering is adopted by the
Peshitta, although mass should represent é€Ovexév rather than evar.

Other instances of a similar nature, where the rendering of the
Diatessaron has been adopted in syr.vg in preference to that of the
Ev. da-Mepharreshe, are

Matt v 16 Kadd: ܫܦܝܪ̈ܐ‎ SC, but ܛܒ̈ܐ‎ Aphraates 14

Matt xxi 41 ékdécera: ܢܬܠ‎ S, ales C, but ܢܘܚܕ‎ Ephr. Lamy i 253

Mk xu 42 derra ܫܡܘܢܝܢ 6 ܘܘ‎ wih S, but paisa [ܬܪܝܢ]‎ Ephr.
iis OL"

Mk xii 42 xodpdvrys: ܪܘܒܥܐ‎ S, but ܫܡܘܢܐ‎ Ephr. Nis. 91%

Lk vii 43 6p@Gs- wax SC, but ܬܪܝܨܐܝܬ‎ Ephr. Lamy ii, p. xxii,

Mk ii 27 76 caBBarov dia tov advOpwrov éyévero.

The Sabbath was ‘created’ ,(ܐܬܒܪܺܝܬ)‎ according to S and syr.vg;
according to Ephraim’s Commentary (Moes. 62, 148) the word used
was either a literal rendering of éyévero or some word like ܐܬܝܗܒܬ‎ .
The text of S might naturally be put down as a quite permissibly free
rendering of éyévero, but éxtio@y is actually found in 1-118*-131-209
and in 700, and it is not very likely that these mss have been directly
influenced by the Syriac versions. We ought perhaps therefore to
include this instance under the category of those passages where the
Diatessaron differed from the Hv. da-Mepharreshe in text as well as
rendering.

Lk ii 14 evdoxia.
All Syriac authorities support eddoxia, but while S has the rare
word ܐܪܥܘܬܐ‎ ‘favour,’ the Diatessaron followed by the Peshitta has

‘good hope.’‏ ܗܒܪܐ ܛܒܐ

Lk iv 29 dote kataxpynpvica adrov.

As.explained above, pp. 130, 183, the Diatessaron used words which
implied that the people of Nazareth actually threw our Lord over
the cliff. This is not supported by syr.vg, and S has ‘so that they

1 See above, p. 182.

198 The Diatessaron and the Old Syriac.

might hang him.’ The reading of S seems meant for doe [Kara |xpe-
ܬܘ ܗܬܐ‎ adrdv, but as there is no trace of this elsewhere it is very likely
nothing more than a translator's blunder. But be that as it may, the
passage clearly illustrates the independence of the exegetical tradition
of S and the Diatessaron.

Lk vi 28 trav érynpealovtav vas.

These words are translated in S by ܕܥܫܩܝܢ ܠܟܘܢ‎ ‘that oppress
you,’ while the corresponding words in the Diatessaron as represented
by Aphraates 34 (see above, p. 110) are ~ ass ܕܡܬܛܓܪܝܢ‎ ‘that use
violence to you.’ Neither of these renderings was adopted in syr.vg.

Lk xii 20 240
Sand C' have ܚܝܪ ܪܥܝܢܐ‎ ‘lacking in mind’; the Diatessaron had
ܠܒܐ‎ wis‘ without heart’ (i.e. ‘without sense’): see above pp. 133, 157.

Lk xvii 21 &vrds tpor.
This is translated ‘among you’ (ܒܝܢܥܬܟܘܢ)‎ in S and C, but the
Diatessaron (Moes. 209, 211) has ‘within your heart.’!

Joh xv 1 7 apredos 7 adn Ouvy.

As explained above, pp. 143, f, 151, the Diatessaron rendered this
phrase by ‘the Vineyard of Truth,’ but S and the Peshitta have ‘the
_ Vine of Truth.’

Lastly we must bring forward the most characteristic differences of
all between the Diatessaron and the Kv. da-Mepharreshe as represented
by S,—those, namely, that concern Joseph and Mary,

Tatian was an Eneratite, who rejected marriage. It is therefore
not surprising that ‘he cut out the Genealogies and whatever other
passages shew that the Lord was born of the seed of David according
to the flesh, and that he made certain alterations in the wording of
the story of the Nativity. It was well pointed out in Baethgen’s
Lvangelienfragmente (pp. 93, 94) that these alterations are actually
found in C’; it is not too much to say that the agreements of C with
Tatian in Matt i 18-25 were the strongest features in his argument for

1 Here again the Peshitta agrees with neither rendering, having ‘in the midst of you’

ܠܓܘ ܡܢܒܘܢ)

2 Theodoret, Haer i 20.

Differences in the Nativity Story.

199

the dependence of the Evangelion da-Mepharreshe upon the Diatessaron.
But the text of S in these verses is animated by a wholly different
tendency, which can best be exhibited by placing the readings of our
two Mss side by side with the Diatessaron fragments.

S

18. Now the birth of

the Messiah was thus:
When Mary his mother

was betrothed to Joseph,
before ever they drew near
one:to the other,

she was found with child

of the Holy Spirit.

19. Now Joseph her husband*,
because he was upright,

was not willing

to expose Mary....

20. ...‘Joseph son of David,
do not fear to take°

Mary thy wife,

for that which is being born
from her

is from the Holy Spirit.

21. Now she will bear thee a
son,

and thou shalt call his name
Jesus,

for he shall save alive

his people from its sins....’
24. Now when Joseph
arose from his sleep,

he did as the angel of the
Lorp commanded him,

and he took his wife
25. and

she bare him a son,
and he called his name Jesus.

1]

ܒܥܠܗ + 19

30 ܓܡ ܪ̈ܐ Daxian‏

ܨ

18. Now the birth of

the Messiah was thus:
When Mary his mother
was betrothed to Joseph,
before ever they drew near
one to the other

she was found with child
of the Holy Spirit.

19. Now Joseph,

because he wasan uprightman’,

was not willing

to expose Mary....

20. ...“Joseph son of David,
do not fear to take”

Mary thy betrothed,

for that which is being born
from her

is conceived from the Holy
Spirit.

Now she will bear thee a
son,

and his name shall be called
Jesus,

for he shall save alive

the world from its sins....’
24. Now when Joseph
arose from his sleep,

he did as the angel of the
Lorp commanded him,

and he took Mary

25. and purely was dwelling
with her until

she bare the son ;
and she called his name Jesus.

21.

ܠܡܣܒ ©

Moesinger

(p. 20) The birth of
Jesus Christ was thus :
When his mother Mary
was betrothed to Joseph,
and before ever she was
given to a husband,

she was found with child
of the Holy Spirit.

(p. 22) Joseph,

because he was an upright man,
was not willing

to expose Mary.

(p. 23) ‘Do not fear
to take Mary.’

(pp. 25, 26) He took her. ...

... purely he was dwelling
with her until

she bare the first-born.

4 ܠܡܕ ܒܪ‎ (as v. 24)

200 The Diatessaron and the Old Syriac.

Some estimate of the value of the remarkable text of S for the
criticism of the Greek text of this passage will be given in the Note
on Matt i 16, 25, but the difference of spirit between it and that of the
Diatessaron “‘springt in die Augen,” as the Germans say. And that S
and not C here represents the original text of the Hv. da-Mepharreshe
is clear from the first clause of v. 21 (‘Now she will bear thee a son’),
the corresponding Greek being ré€erac dé viov. It is inconceivable
that the person who produced 9 8 text of v. 25 should have been the
translator of this clause, but it is quite easy to see how a reviser
altering a text like that of S into conformity with the Diatessaron
should have left unnoticed and uncorrected the tell-tale 111 .ܐ‎ 11

So far therefore as this passage goes, the argument of Baethgen as
to the dependence of the Ev. da-Mepharreshe upon the Diatessaron is
not confirmed by the text of S; on the contrary, it is seriously weakened,
for it shews to what a great extent Syriac texts which were originally
different in spirit and in wording have actually been harmonised.

The main object of this long catalogue of differences between the
Evangelion da-Mepharreshe and the Diatessaron has been to shew
what great divergence in spirit, in rendering, and in the underlying
Greek text, still exists in spite of all the natural tendencies to
harmonisation. The last example from Matt 1 18-25 shews the
harmonisation in the act of being accomplished. It is true, and the
fact has been insisted on by all the writers who have occupied them-
selves with these questions, that the agreements between the extant
fragments of the Diatessaron and the text of S and Care too numerous
and too intimate to be explained except by a common origin. But how
far dare we say that the extant fragments of the Diatessaron truly
represent the original text of Tatian’s Harmony? If the earlier history
of the Diatessaron at all resembled its later fortunes, it will have been
continually suffering assimilation to the current Biblical text. The
Syriac text from which Ciasca’s Arabic was translated had been almost
wholly corrected to the language of the Peshitta; Victor of Capua’s
Diatessaron has been almost wholly corrected to the language of the
Vulgate. The quotations in Aphraates and Ephraim are the earliest
form of the Syriac Diatessaron that we possess, and these quotations
agree largely with the Hv. du-Mepharreshe. But what right have we

The Residuum of Coincidence. 201

to assume that every reading in the codex used by Aphraates or
S. Ephraim faithfully represents the uncorrupted text as Tatian left it 2

These considerations all tend to shew that the Syriac Diatessaron
and the ‘Old Syriac’ version of the Four Gospels were, to a much
greater extent than is generally believed, independent works. And to
that extent all arguments as to the date of the ‘Old Syriac,’ that are
based on the supposed original resemblance in text between the
Evangelion da-Mepharreshe and the Diatessaron, fall to the ground.
Yet it is hard to believe that the resemblances of rendering can all be
made to disappear. He would be a bold man who would assert that
both the Diatessaron and the Hv. da-Mepharreshe had not always
rendered 6 vids pov 6 dyamnrtos by ‘My Son and my Beloved,’ or called
the verrnp in which our Lord washed the disciples’ feet ܠܩܢܐ ܕܫܝܓܬܐ‎
Le. ‘a Aexdvy for washing’ (Joh xiii 5), or the émvypad} on the Cross
ܦܛܩܐ‎ ie. ‘a murrdxov’ (Lk xxiii 38). If these renderings be original,
and the fulness of the evidence suggests that they are so, they can-
not be accidental and the translator of the later text must have been
acquainted with the earlier text.

The Ev. da-Mepharreshe influenced by the O.T. Peshitta.

The history of the text of the Old Testament in Syriac in its earlier
stages is involved in obscurity. The Syriac Vulgate of the O.T., to
which the name Peshitta properly belongs, is in the main a translation
direct from the original Hebrew. It is clear that the translators had
a good knowledge of the general meaning of the text and an excellent
acquaintance with Jewish tradition. To such an extent is this the
case that it seems impossible to avoid considering the Peshitta as the
work of Jewish scholars: it will be enough here to refer to J. Perles’s
Meletemata Peschitthoniana. With this agrees the oldest Syriac
tradition; according to Jacob of Edessa, the apostle Addai and the
believing king Abgar sent to Jerusalem and to Palestine for men to
translate the Old Testament from Hebrew into Syriac’. This is only
another way of saying that the Church in Edessa at the earliest period

± R. Duval’s Litterature Syriaque, p. 32,
26

202 The Diatessaron and the Old Syriac.

of its existence took over from the Synagogue a vernacular rendering
of the Old Testament.

The Peshitta as we have it now is this Jewish version, slightly
revised from the Septuagint, especially in the Prophets. The revision
was made long before the times of Aphraates and 8. Ephraim, probably
at the end of the 2nd century. But it did not alter the essential
character of the version, and where the Peshitta differs from the
Greek we may be fairly confident that it gives the text of the original
translation from the Hebrew. In attempting to discover the date of
the Ev. da-Mepharreshe it is therefore most important to ascertain
whether that version of the Gospels shews any traces of the influence
of the Old Testament in Syriac.

The answer must certainly be in the affirmative. In no other way
can we explain the general acquaintance which the translator shews
with the names and the phraseology of the Old Testament. This
appears above all in the Genealogies, the portion of the text least
influenced by the Diatessaron.

In the Genealogies the names are transliterated correctly into their
Semitic form, an impossible task to one familiar with them only in their
meagre Greek dress. It requires some acquaintance with the O.T. to
know that Nay@p in the genealogy given by 8. Luke should be written
jas, but Sapovy should be Natw, and Aduey should be \. Yet
S gets these right, together with all the other puzzling names of the
Patriarchs. In Matt i 5 he rightly transliterates Boés and 16,000 by
ܒܥܙ‎ and was!: if in Lk ui 32 we find the unbiblical names ܒܘܫ‎ and
Asa., that is because the Greek here had so0c and (doubtless) .ܘܙ‎
And the accurate rendering of the Patriarchs’ names is not due to
extraordinary skill in recognising a Semitic name in Greek spelling, for
in the names between David and Joseph that are otherwise unknown
to history the Syriac transliterations do not always approve themselves:
it is, at least, open to doubt whether wae: (the father of Joseph) should
be rendered ܝ‎ as S gives it, and not by or iby or ܡ‎

But the Hv. da-Mepharreshe does not merely give a scholarly
representation of the names. In several cases it gives the specifically
Syriac representation. Thus in Matt i 5 Ruth is spelt bass in S and

1 © supported by 4*, has 45a, a. Syriac corruption, which shews however that the lists
have not been revised,

Influence of the Old Testament Peshitta. 203

A, ܐܪܥܘܬ‎ in C, with the guttural after the ‘7,’ in accordance with the
Syriac Old Testament, a spelling which is not suggested either by the
Greek, which 68 ‘Povd, or by the Hebrew and the Targum, which have
ny. Similarly wie, for ,ܐܬܘܠ‎ agrees with the Peshitta text of Ruth
1¥ 20, 21, but not with the Hebrew or the Greek}.

The dependence of the Hv. da-Mepharreshe upon the Syriac Old
Testament affords the explanation of another very curious circumstance,
viz. that S and C are almost the only first-rate textual authorities that
spell the names of king Asa and king Amon correctly’. The Evangelist
spelt these names acap and amwc, following the forms then current in
Greek. ‘Amos’ is still current in the Greek O.T., but ‘king Asaph’
has been corrected to ‘king Asa’ through the influence of Origen’s
Hexapla: sufficient evidence however still remains to shew that
‘Asaph’ was once the prevailing spelling both in the Books of Kings
and in Jeremiah. We may therefore safely infer that the Greek ms
from which the Ev. da-Mepharreshe was translated had “Acdd and
"Apos, not "Acd and "Ayer, and that the reason why we find ܐܣܐ‎ and
ܐܡܘܢ‎ in S and C is because the translator knew the true names of
these Jewish kings from the Syriac Bible.

The influence of the Syriac Old Testament upon the Ev. da-
Mepharreshe is by no means confined to the Genealogies. The O.T.
quotations which occur in S and Care of course in general, like the rest
of the text, a translation from the Greek. But now and again S and C’
leave the Greek and agree with the Peshitta, even in places where it
differs from the Hebrew and the Lxx. <A few instances are given below.

Matt iv 6=Ps xci (xc) 12
‘On their arms they shall bear thee up’ S C.
This agrees exactly with the Peshitta in Ps xci 12 ܕܪ̈ܥܝܗܘܢ)‎ oe),

the Hebrew being "585 by. But the Greek has ܐܧ‎ yerpav dpovoiv oe,
and with this agrees Matt iv 6 syr.vg.
Curiously enough the parts are reversed in the parallel passage

1 Another instance, outside the Genealogies, is ܝܢ ܗܝܘܢ‎ for Zion, Matt xxi 5, Joh xii 15.
2 aca is read in Matt i 7,8 by NBCDe 1-209 543 0 keg q sab boh aeth arm, by the
Oxyrhynchus Papyrus (3rd cent) and by the Genealogy in Ciasca’s Arabic cod. A.
amwe is read in Matt i 10 by NBCD! al™'t latt (exc a f'vg) sah boh arm and by the
Oxyrhynchus Papyrus.

204 The Diatessaron and the Old Syriac.

Lk iv 11. There syr.vg has on their arms in agreement with the
O.T. Peshitta, while S has on their hands in agreement with the

Greek.

Matt x 25, xu 24, &c.

‘ Beelzebub.’

In 2 Kings i 2 ff the Peshitta has sa=yWss Bé‘elzZBd8 in agreement
with the Hebrew 2137 bya, But the Greek has BeedleBovdA, with d at
the end; so also has the Old Latin, and even the extant Armenian and
Arabic texts of the Diatessaron. The Syriac versions and the Latin
Vulgate stand alone in ending the word with the letter 6. In the case
of the Latin Vulgate this is certainly due to 8. Jerome’s knowledge of
the Old Testament in Hebrew ; and similarly the Syriac N.T. shews an
acquaintance with a translation made direct from the Hebrew, which
can be none other than the Old Testament Peshitta itself.

Matt xiii 35 = Ps xxviii (Ixxvii) 2
‘From of old’ ܩܕܝܡ)‎ par) SC.
This agrees exactly with the Peshitta of Ps Ixxvili 2, which is
a translation of pap ‘ip. But the Greek of Matt xiii 35 is dad Kara-

Bohs [xdopov]. There can be little doubt here that the rendering
adopted by the Hv. da-Mepharreshe is derived immediately from the
Syriac Old Testament.

Lk 111 4—6 = Isaiah x] 3—6

This long quotation is entirely assimilated to the Peshitta text of
Isaiah in Sand C. We may note especially the clause in v. 4,

ܘܬܪܘܨܘ ܒܦܩܥܬܐ what‏ ܠܐܠܗܢ̇
And direct in the Plain paths for our God.‏

This is word for word with Isai xl 3° in syr.vg. But the Greek N.T.
has ev@eias movetre tas tpiBovs avrov, and neither in S. Luke nor the
LXX is there anything to correspond with in the Plain (i.e. manya). We
see therefore that the O.T. Peshitta influenced the Ev. da-Mepharreshe
in 8. Luke as well as in 8S. Matthew.

Influence of the Old Testament Peshitta. 205

It follows, as an obvious corollary from these examples, that the
Evangelion da-Mepharreshe is later than the translation of the O.T.
from Hebrew into Syriac. The imperfect preservation of the Diatessaron
in its earlier forms makes it practically impossible to discover to what
extent it was influenced by the O.T. Peshitta, but as far as the evidence
goes the tests which prove the Ev. da-Mepharreshe to have been later
than the Peshitta tend to break down when applied to the Diatessaron.
In the first place, the Genealogies are missing; the lists found in the
23rd Homily of Aphraates cannot be ascribed to the original forin of
Tatian’s Harmony in the face of the definite statement of Theodoret
that the Genealogies had been left out. Then again the evidence, so
far as it goes, suggests that the Diatessaron had Beelzebul with the
Greek, not Beelzebub with the Syriac O.T. As for the quotations in
the Gospel from the O.T., it happens that the phrases which supplied
the clearest evidence in the case of the Hv. da-Mepharreshe are not
preserved in our fragmentary authorities for the Diatessaron text; but
Aphraates 330, when quoting Lk iii 6, ends the verse with

And all flesh shall see the Life of God,

ie. we have a rendering of kai dWeras Taca capE 70 ?]ܗ‎ Tov 060,
while on the other hand S and C give us And all flesh shall see at
together, because the mouth of the Lorp hath spoken, in agreement with
Isaiah xl 51. In this quotation, therefore, the Diatessaron is much less
influenced by the Syriac 0.1. than the Ev. da-Mepharreshe. At the
same time we must remember that the preceding clause in Aphraates’
quotation agrees verbally with S @ and the Syriac of Isai xl 4”, Itis
hard to believe that the text of S C and Aphraates, viz.

ܢܗܘܐ ܥܪܡܐ ܠܫܦܝܐ ܘܐܬܪܐ om‏ ܠܦܩܥܬܐ
the rough shall become a level and the broken country a plain,‏

can be an independent translation of éoras 7a oKodid eis ܘܘܗ‎ Kal at
tpaxetar eis d50ds .ܬ‎

Thus the Diatessaron itself appears to be later than the translation
of the O.T. into Syriac, but its text seems to have been less influenced

1 The N.T. Peshitta of Lk iii 6 agrees with Aphraates (i.e. with the Diatessaron), but
ܕܐܠܗܐ‎ amass is changed into ܕܐܠܗܐ‎ as.

206 The Diatessaron and the Old Syriac

by the text of the Syriac Old Testament than was that of the Hvan-
gelion da-Mepharreshe.

At the beginning of this chapter I confessed that the early history
of the Hvangelion da-Mepharreshe belongs to the region of uncertainty
and conjecture. In offering now a conjecture concerning the historical
circumstances which gave birth to that version of the Gospels I am well
aware of its precarious nature in the present state of our knowledge.
At the same time I venture to think that the evidence is sufficient to
enable us to make a guess, which may be useful at least as a working
hypothesis.

First as to the Diatessaron. The Greek name that Tatian gave to
his Harmony, the fact that he himself was a Greek author, and—most
important of all—the existence of direct though degenerate descendants
of the Diatessaron in the Codex Fuldensis and the medieval Dutch
Harmonies, all these things tell us that the Syriac Diatessaron is not
an original work but a translation of a previously existing Greek Har-
mony. In the absence of evidence to the contrary there is, I consider,
no reason why we should not accept Tatian as the author and compiler
of this Greek Harmony and believe that he brought it with him when
he finally returned to the East about ap 178. Doubtless it was very
soon rendered into Syriac, probably under his immediate supervision.

This part of our hypothesis becomes all the more probable when we
consider the number of Western readings—Western in the strict
geographical sense—which belong to the Diatessaron, but are otherwise
unattested except by Codex Bezae and Old Latin texts.

We come now to the Kvangelion da-Mepharreshe. The first intro-
duction of the Four Gospels to a Christian community is surely a very
great event in its history. This is especially the case in a community
where a rival to the Four Gospels exists, even a friendly rival such as
the Diatessaron was. Is there then any known event in the history of
the Syriac-speaking Churches, which might seem to indicate a breach of
continuity, an inauguration of a fresh order of things? At such a time
we might look for changes in the vernacular Bible.

What do we know of the early history of the Syriac-speaking Church
in its earliest seat, at Edessa? It has been well shewn—and here I
must refer again once for all to the admirable work of the Abbé Tixeront,

Serapion of Antioch and Palut of Edessa. 207

called Les Origines de ܐ‎ Eglise d’ Edesse’—that what we know is the
succession of the Bishops. That succession is

Addai
Agegai

Palit (about 200 an).
‘A bshelama
Barsamya (about 250-60)

Cona (died 3138).

Between Barsamya and Cona there is no real breach of continuity,
but the names of the bishops are uncertain: the Abbé Tixeront (p. 152)
gives some very plausible reasons for supposing that the names were
Tiridates and Shalula.

The real break comes between Aggai and Palit. According to the
tradition of the Church of Edessa, as embodied in the Doctrine of
Addai, the evangelist Addai had been sent to Edessa by the apostle
Judas Thomas, and Aggai was the disciple of Addai. But Paldt was
not ordained bishop by Aggai. The story goes that the persecution
broke out so suddenly that Aggai was martyred before he was able
to ordain his successor, so that Palit had to go for his consecration—to
Serapron of Antioch. Thus suddenly we emerge from legend into the
light of history.

Serapion was bishop of Antioch from 190 to 203 ap, and is known
to us from Eusebius (HF vi 12) as the ecclesiastic who suppressed the
Gospel of Peter in the neighbouring Church of Rhossus. There is
absolutely no reason why the Edessene Church should have traced
their succession to him, except that historical fact compelled them so
to do, instead of giving the honour to their somewhat mythical founder
Addai. Not that Addai and Aggai are altogether unhistorical, but the
stories concerning them are obviously legendary in all their details, and

1 See especially pp. 140 ff, 149, 151; also the Acts of Barsamya (in Cureton, Asp), p. 72. For
a toore extended attempt to fix the succession of the Edessene Bishops I venture to refer the
reader to my book Early Eastern Christianity (S. Margaret’s Lectures for 1904), especially

pp. 17—36 and 75—78.

208 The Diatessaron and the Old Syriac.

most modern scholars believe that Syriac tradition has placed them a
century too early.

We have, therefore, as the history of the evangelisation of Mesopo-
tamia a mission in the middle of the second century under Addai and
Aggai, a mission which at first met with success, but later on was
almost stamped out by persecution. Then comes the mission of Tatian
in the last quarter of the second century, in which the Diatessaron
makes its appearance. In a third period the organisation of the
Catholic Church makes a fresh start under Palfit about the year
200 ap, and Palft derived his commission from Serapion of Antioch,
a prelate whom we know to have been especially active in promoting
the ecclesiastical use of the Four Gospels. It is difficult to believe
that the origin of the Hvangelion da-Mepharreshe is unconnected with
the policy of Serapion and the mission of 17810.

If this theory be adopted, we must think of Palit as a Christian of
Edessa familiar with the wording of the Diatessaron, but trained by
Serapion to disregard its authority. The agreements between the
Evangelion da-Mepharreshe and the Diatessaron are in the main
agreements of language, in the choice of words and the style of
translation ; the differences between the Hvangelion da-Mepharreshe
and the Diatessaron are differences in the underlying Greek text and
in striking renderings of single phrases. In other words, the influence
of the Diatessaron on the translator was the sort of influence that the
English Authorised Version exercises on the work of an English
scholar. It modifies the phrase and the cadence of a new translation,
but does not as a rule affect the result in essentials.

Formerly I thought it a serious objection to this view that the
Evangelion da-Mepharreshe, especially as represented by S, contains
many ‘better’ readings than the Diatessaron. It has been argued
above!, for instance, that S, which omits the ‘last twelve verses of
S. Mark,’ presents an older form of the version than C, which retains
them, because we cannot conceive of an adequate reason for their
suppression. The Diatessaron contains these verses, together with
many other ‘ Western Interpolations’ which are absent from S; must
not therefore S be the older ?

The answer to this objection is that the two cases are not really

1 See p. 194.

Date of the Evangelion da-Mepharreshe. 209

analogous. In the case of two mss of the same translation of the
canonical Gospels into Syriac, which nevertheless differ here and there
in text, there is a very strong presumption that the text that has the
critically ‘better’ readings is the more faithful representative of that
translation. And this is especially true of the particular case of the
retention or omission of [Mk] xvi 9-20, for it is easy to imagine
motives for supplying what would seem a defect in the shorter text, while
it is difficult to imagine motives for cutting these verses out when once
they had been supplied. But the case is different when we compare a
translation of the Four Gospels with a translation of Tatian’s Harmony.
Here there will be differences, intentional differences, from the very
beginning. The fact that the translation of the Four Gospels should
be made at all is in itself a proof that in the mind of the translator the
Diatessaron was not of canonical authority. On every page, in every
paragraph, there were omissions, for the Diatessaron is fuller than
either of the Four Gospels taken singly. Moreover in the ‘last twelve
verses’ of S. Mark we have not to do with a single section omitted in
the middle of a familiar narrative. In the Diatessaron, as was natural,
this section was divided up among passages taken from the other
Gospels; and, as the substance of [Mk] xvi 9-20 is drawn from the
other three Gospels (except the statement about Christ sitting at the
right hand of God), it would require some attention from one who had
never seen the so-called ‘last twelve verses’ to discover their presence
in the Diatessaron!.

When once it is conceded that the Greek texts, upon which the
Diatessaron and the ‘Old Syriac’ were respectively based, were them-
selves different and came from a different part of the Christian world,
the excellence or inferiority of the readings attested by the two texts
affords no guide to their chronological sequence.

According to the view here suggested, the Evangelion da-Mepharreshe
in its original form gives in essentials a faithful representation of the
text of the Four Gospels as received at Antioch about 200 Ap. The
wording of the translation has been often influenced by the renderings
found in the Syriac translation of Tatian’s Diatessaron, a work familiar

1 There is nothing to suggest that early copies of the Diatessaron had, like Ciasca’s Arabic,

notes indicating from which Gospel the several passages were excerpted.

II. 27‏ .ܡ

210 The Diatessaron and the Old Syriac.

to the translator of the Hvangelion da-Mepharreshe ; to this cause also
we may put down the many instances of minor harmonistic readings, so
far as they have not been brought into our Mss by a similar tendency
on the part of Syriac scribes.

The Greek text that underlies Tatian’s Harmony is radically
different from that attested by the Evangelion da-Mepharreshe. It
represents the Gospels as read in Rome in the third quarter of the
second century. The fundamentally Western character of this text
appears on every page, and it is only by what we may call a historical
accident, viz. the personal history of Tatian himself, that it was ever
found east of Italy. We know something of this type of text from
Codex Bezae and its Latin allies, from Justin Martyr and from
©. Irenaeus. There are probably few readings of the Diatessaron which
are not otherwise represented in our apparatus criticus.

But from our ordinary sources of information we know next to
nothing about the type of Greek text current at Antioch about the
year 200. It is this that makes the Hvangelion da-Mepharreshe so
valuable to us. It is a textual witness from an otherwise unsurveyed
part of the Christian world. All the more, therefore, is it necessary to
use our mss of this version with the most careful discrimination, and
especially that we may avoid assigning to the Eastern text, which is
the real characteristic of the Old Syriac version of the Four Gospels,
Western readings which have been introduced into our mss from the
Western text of Tatian’s Diatessaron. This discrimination will be the
main object of the following chapter.

It is possible that the date assigned in the foregoing paragraphs to
the Evangelion da-Mepharreshe is too late, and that the version may
have originated in the epoch of the first mission, the times of Addai
and of Aggai. The most probable form in which this view can be held
is, I think, that brought forward by Dr Arthur Hjelt in his book
Die altsyrische Evangelieniibersetzung und Tatians Diatessaron.

Dr Hjelt regards the Hvangelion da-Mepharreshe as older than the
Syriac Diatessaron, but he considers the several Gospels to have been
the work of different translators, that of ©, Matthew being the oldest
and 8. Luke the latest. The main support of his theory is that the
same Greek words and phrases are often differently rendered in S

Dr Hyelt’s Theory. 211

in the different Gospels. A number of instances are collected by
Dr Hjelt on pp. 96-107 of his book, some of which are sufliciently
striking, and to those who are prepared to regard a text practically
identical with that of the Sinai Palimpsest as the earliest version of
the Gospel in Syriac they certainly present a formidable appearance.
Dr Hyjelt does not, I venture to think, allow sufficiently for the
difficulties of consistency. My own English translation of S and C
is fairly consistent ; but when I call to mind the numerous irregularities
which slipped in, some of which were only corrected in proof and some
of which, alas, still remain, I cannot wonder that irregularities of
rendering are to be detected in the Syriac text of the Evangelion
da-Mepharreshe. Moreover, some of the most curious irregularities
are not conterminous with the several Gospels. How irregular, for
instance, are the Syriac renderings of ܗ‎ 6, edéws! Or again, the
rendering of “Incots by ܡܪ̈ܢ‎ our Lord, one of the most striking
features of S, is not characteristic of the whole of Matt and Joh, but
only of parts of these Gospels, and it also occurs in Lk viii 401. We
may also bring forward against Dr Hjelt’s theory a number of very
curious agreements between- the text of the several Gospels in the
Ev. da-Mepharreshe, which seem to imply a common origin: one
striking example is the rendering of ¢ orodats by walwrs both
in Mk xii 38 and Lk xx 46, as if it were & ܘܘܗ‎ ¢

It will not be necessary to examine Dr Hfjelt’s interesting lists in
detail. If once we admit that the Diatessaron preceded the Lv.
da-Mepharreshe, another explanation of the differences between the
rendering of parallel passages lies at our disposal. It is simply this :—
that in one passage the translator allowed himself to reproduce the
already familiar text of the Diatessaron, in another he made his own
new rendering from the Greek that lay before him. Dr Hjelt observes
that the text of S. Matthew is more freely rendered in S than the
text of 8. Luke: the explanation is, that there are more undigested
fragments of the Diatessaron text in the First Gospel than in the Third.

For instance Dr Hjelt notes (p. 103) that oivomwdrns is rendered

1 See above, pp. 8577, 977, and the Note on ܬܪܣܘ‎ Matt xiv 27,8. Note also that réQos is
ܫܘܠܡܳܐ‎ in Matt xxiv 6, 14, and Mk iii 26, but ܢܪܬܐ‎ Matt x 22, xxiv 13, xxvi 58, Mk xiii 7, 13,
Lk xxi 9. In Matt xiii 39, 40, xxiv 3, cvvTéAea is rendered by ܝ ܝܫܘܠܡܐܐ‎ but in Matt xiii 49 by

.ܣܘܦܐ

212 The Diatessaron and the Old Syriac.

by ܫܬܝܐ‎ ‘a drinker’ in Matt xi 19 SC, but in Lk vii 34 S and
© have sat ‘a drunkard. Here the evidence of Ephraim! makes
it practically certain that ܫܬܝܐ‎ was the rendering found in the
Diatessaron. In S. Matthew, therefore, the translator of the Lv. da-
Mepharreshe adopted the rendering of Tatian’s Harmony, while in
8. Luke he chose to give a literal rendering. It is not necessary to
assume in such passages that the text of both S and @ have been sub-
sequently assimilated to the Diatessaron, though this may frequently
have occurred; but I am sure it is only in accordance with ordinary
human nature, that a translator should sometimes follow previously
existing renderings and sometimes translate for himself. It must of
course be remembered that Dr Hjelt regards the original text of the
Evangelion da-Mepharreshe as older than the Diatessaron and there-
fore uninfluenced by any previous rendering of the Gospel into Syriac.
It is naturally impossible to know how long the translator of the
‘Old Syriac’ was occupied with his task: for aught we know it may
have been the work of several seasons, and the translator's style may
have slightly changed in the interval. But if it be granted that the
Diatessaron preceded the ‘Old Syriac’ version of the Four Gospels and
exercised a decided influence on the wording of the version, it does not
appear to me necessary to suppose that it was the work of more than
one translator or that the translator made use of more than one Greek
exemplar. And that this translator was none other than Bishop 17810,
the disciple of Serapion of Antioch, I now consider a probable surmise.

On the view here advocated, the view which dates the Syriac
Diatessaron about 173 ap and the ELvangelion da-Mepharreshe about
200 ap, the earliest Church in Edessa under Addai and Aggai had no
New Testament. For the first generation of Syriac-speaking Christians
the Law and the Prophets sufficed. It is just this absence of an
available text of the Four Gospels which explains the instant and
continued success of the Diatessaron in Mesopotamia in contrast to its
failure throughout the rest of the Christian world.

± Lamy ii 747 : see above, p. 118.

CHAPTER V.

THE TEXTS OF § AND OF ¢.

THE application of our ancient mss to the correction or the
confirmation of the Greek text of the Gospels is the ultimate aim
for which they are studied, but before the readings of such mss as S
or @ can be profitably so applied many preliminary questions have to
be settled. In the previous chapters a sketch of the history of the
version to which S and @ belong has been attempted: we have now
to consider how far S and C preserve the original form of that version.
The Evangelion da-Mepharreshe, as it left the translator's hands, may
have been a fairly faithful representative of the Greek text current at
Antioch about 200 ap; but the Evangelion da-Mepharreshe, as known
to us, consists of the text of Sand of C. If these mss represent the
Evangelion da-Mepharreshe as revised at some later period from the
Greek, we cannot use them with confidence as evidence for the text
current at Antioch at the end of the second century.

The need of some such investigation is all the more pressing,
because of the frequent serious divergences between S and C. The
most obvious explanation of these divergences is, of course, the Syriac
Diatessaron, and doubtless in most instances it is the true explanation.
But we must not always assume that, where S and C' differ, the
reading which is not that of the Diatessaron is the original ‘Old
Syriac.’ It is possible that in any given case the original ‘Old Syriac’
may have agreed with the Diatessaron, and that S or @ may have been
revised at a later period to agree with a Greek Ms.

We may take as an example Joh iv 25, where the Greek has oiéa
ott Mecatas epyerat, 6 heydpevos Xpiatds: orav EAOy Exeivos, €
pw amravra. I give the Syriac texts in parallel columns:

214 The Texts of S and of C.

S ®
ܝܕܥܐ ܐܢܐ ܕܡܫܝܢܝܚܐ ܐܬܐ. ܗܐ ܡܫܝܚܐ ܐܬܐ‎
ܘܡܐ ܕܐܬܐ‎ am ܘܡܐ ܕܐܬܐ‎
ܡܒܕܩ ܠܢ ܟܘܠ ܡܕܡ. ܟܘܠ ܡܕܡ ܢܬܠ‎
Lo, the Messiah cometh ; I know that the Messiah cometh ;
and what time he hath come, and what time he hath come,
everything he will give. he shall explain to us everything.

The Diatessaron (Moes. 141) has: “Lo, Christ cometh ; and when
he shall come, everything he will give us.” Thus the remarkable
paraphrase found in S is practically identical with the text of the
Diatessaron, while @ follows the Greek. It should further be noticed
that syr.vg. which of course agrees with the Greek, has alsa ‘teacheth’
where @ has ܡܒܕܩ‎ ‘explaineth.’ The text of @ 18 therefore certainly
not derived from syr.vg: indeed I may say that I know of no instance
where the text of either S or @ has been assimilated to the Peshitta.
The Peshitta often agrees with S or C, but in such cases we may be sure
that the text is older than Rabbula.

If it were only asked which is the original rendering of Joh iv 25
into Syriac, the answer is easy: without doubt the bold paraphrase
attested by S and the Diatessaron is more primitive than the literal
version found in C. But it is not so easy to decide which is the
original reading of the Evangelion da-Mepharreshe. Assuming that
the paraphrase really belongs to Tatian’s Harmony there are two
possible explanations of what we find in Sand C. We may suppose
that C gives the translation made by Paltit (if it be he) about 200 ap,
while’ S has been assimilated by some later scribe to the familiar text
of the Diatessaron; or we may suppose that Palit was content to
accept the Diatessaron rendering in this verse as adequate, and that
what he wrote has been faithfully preserved in S, but that @ represents
the work of a later reviser who has brought the text of the Evangelion
da-Mepharreshe into closer agreement with the Greek.

In the particular instance of Joh iv 25 I incline to think that
the first alternative is correct, that @ gives the original rendering
of the Hvangelion da-Mepharreshe and that S has been altered
to agree with the Diatessaron. But this is not always the case,

Signs of Revision from the Greek. 215

and the two alternatives that I have put forward challenge the
judgement on almost every page of our mss. It is therefore necessary
to ask whether S or C’shews any signs of revision from Greek mss later
than that used as the basis of the translation itself.

Out of this part of the inquiry S emerges with flying colours.
There are very few instances where S shews a text which seems to
have been mended from the Greek. In other words, the text of S$
is almost always either that of the original Hvangelion da-Mepharreshe
or that of the Diatessaron, with the exception of a few simple blunders
of transcription such as no Ms, ancient or modern, is entirely free from.

It is quite otherwise with C. There are readings in @ that cannot
be explained from the Diatessaron at all. Foremost among them is
the occurrence of [Mk] xvi 9—20: these verses were present in the
Greek text underlying the Diatessaron, but they could not be re-
constructed from the Diatessaron itself. Equally convincing is the
occurrence in C’ of some, but not all, of the greater ‘ Western
Interpolations.’ These Interpolations may be defined as the sub-
stantial additions to the Gospel story which are found in Codex
Bezae (D) and the ‘ African’ Latin, but are absent from Codex
Vaticanus (B). They appear to form a single series, probably derived
from a glossed edition of the Four Gospels issued somewhere in the
West about the middle of the 2nd century. The exact limits of the
series are of course impossible to ascertain, but the twelve readings
given below certainly form part of it, and that the most important.

Two facts about the distribution of the ‘ Western Interpolations’
come out with unmistakeable clearness from this tabular arrangement.
We see in the first place that the ‘Old Syriac,’ as represented by S,
is entirely free from them ; and secondly, that it is the ‘ African’ Latin
which has incorporated the largest number. Had Codex Bobiensis )2(
survived complete, I think it not unlikely that it would have contained
the whole series. The Diatessaron, as might have been expected from
a text essentially Western in origin, contains a large number of the
Western additions to the canonical text. C, on the other hand,
occupies a middle position. ‘The fact that it omits the additions to
Matt xvi 2, 3, and to Joh v 3, 4, which are otherwise attested by
nearly the whole mass of ‘ Western’ evidence, is enough to shew that

1 See above, p. 209.

The Texts of S and of C.

216

‘INXX ‘IIXX YT UI 9 Jo ssuIpesr oy} poppe 0:10[8:181[14 eaey [

‘ayes[n A.

ay} Woy poqepodioqur ABYysts ATuo ‘YT Jo pus oy} 48 9x09 pooS Ajrefnoyszed e syuosoid 2 puey 18140 oy} UO
THXX WT qnoqge .4[]8100080 ‘uorstaer Joye] Jo 8908: AULUI sMOYs 41 4110 08011 , APWeUIMMOperd st a Jo 4x9} OU,

(S) ‘wo ”)@0 6'MO | ܨ‎ ‘m0 | a —| q | (4reynpy ut ueyez 81010 M euy,) ] ] WA—eg 114 Yor ‘ZT
ܦ‎ fo] ‘wo 2; q 2? | 9 40a, — | (WHO) (Joog oy} 48 ]888 ¥ ey.) F A YOR “IT
0ܣ©0¶‎ ‘m0 0 100 ‘to | 7010 0 -- a (at04g (88.18 OY.) EG MIXX YT “OT
s mo 869) «(gay | 60 ‘mo | a9 —| ‘wo (,, MOY} 94190 “TOYIVT ,,) ehE WXX YT “6
0 710 0 0 ‘UO | 99 — | ‘wo |(,,"S@AIM 2 85109 MO-* MET 911} SUISOOT,,)G‘°Z 1113± YT 8
ܦ‎ | mo 9 mE | ¶ yp |99 - | @ (qeamg Apoorq UL) FF ‘Eh {± YT ܬ‎
(.s) m0 69 q ® |audkhg—| (q) | ("Jo ore of grads 48 ܠܬ]‎ you Mouy eX ,,) $$ ±! YT 9
10 _ — “m0 ‘m0 | ‘m0 8 — a (TIVQqVY OY} WO SUIYIOM UR] OY], $ 14 YT ܣ‎
7010 wo — [wo] | — ܐܐ]‎ -mo]— | — y | 0 (MorpooTINSEYy 944 4% (1]917 oy) “weg UX AN ¥
‘wo |[mo)] 9 q D | a —| € (,, SSBOLNUT 0} OPFFI[ 00.1 YOOG,,) “wy Sz xXx YR “€
5 Let 70 L fs q » | 9 —| aq (, AAS oy} Jo 808 OUT,,,) $ “WS AX WR €
“m0 ‘m0 "MO 287 | 0 2? | — — | ‘wo (usydeg 019 48 IqSryT OY) “wa EL 111 418] CT
ܗ‎ SO 88881 | 4 (w to) » | a(9) ܐ . ܝ‎ paronb saroyny
eer wits moe | eT
"suounpod.aquy aqvILD £
‘queyxo JOU SI FI yyy sozvoIpul _—, { SUIpver 01] 81010 4r yey soyworpuUT WO, { 801[(80:1 $

yous pue yous surezu0o uoysenb Ul SW OY} 481]{݇ SeqyVoIpUL SW $ 10] [00048 ]8011110 ayy saTqey, SurmoTOy oy Uy

Signs of revision in C. 217

the series of Interpolations forms no part of the ground-text of the
Evangelion da-Mepharreshe. The members of the series which are
actually found in C must therefore have been brought in from some
other source, and from their very nature it is difficult to believe that
the source can have been in every case the Diatessaron itself. The
episode of the bloody Sweat may certainly have come from the
Diatessaron, although even in that case it is remarkable that the
interpolation should have been made in 8. Luke’s Gospel. But it is
very difficult to believe that ‘Father, forgive them,’ was inserted in C’
just before Lk xxiii 34°, exactly at the place where the words are
inserted in Greek mss, if we are to suppose that the interpolator took
them from the Diatessaron. For according to the Arabic Harmony
(lii 6, 7), apparently supported by S. Ephraim’s Commentary, the saying
‘Father, forgive them,’ was assigned by Tatian to our Lord’s last
moments, whereas in the mss of the Gospels the saying is always
placed at the moment of crucifixion.

We learn therefore from a consideration of the ‘Western Inter-
polations’ that @ has been revised from a Greek ms, and that this
MS contained some at least of the more common Western additions
to the text, besides the ‘Longer Conclusion’ to 8. Mark. That such
Mss were to be found in the East from the 4th century onwards is
certain. It was, for instance, just such a ms that Thomas of Harkel
used for the emendation of the Philoxenian version of the Acts, and
just such a MS must have been used to correct the immediate ancestor
of Codex Beratinus (®).

The argument from textual criticism is, I venture to think, the
strongest proof that @ has been revised from the Greek. But a couple
of instances where theories of textual criticism are not involved may be
brought forward to strengthen the argument.

Matt v 18 0
idta © # pia Kepaia...
For these words we find in S
ܝܘܕ ܐܬܘܬܐ ܚܕܐ‎
One Yéd-letter.

This is a complete, though not an absolutely literal translation of
B. I. 28

218 The Texts of S and of C.

the Greek. ܐܬܘܬܐ‎ means a letter of the alphabet. That it can
be appropriately used for xepaia is proved by the fact that piav
xepatay in Lk xvi 17 is rendered by ܐܬܘܬܐ ܚܕܐ‎ both in S and in
the Peshitta’. If then ܐܬܘܬܐ‎ corresponds to xepaia and ܝܘܕ‎ to
ira, all the essential elements of the Greek are represented in S.
But in C we find

ܝܘܕ ܐܬܘܬܐ ܚܕܐ ܐܘ Kt‏ ܚܕܐ
One Yéd-letter or one horn.‏

Here xepata is doubly translated, the reviser not having seen that
it was already represented by ,ܐܬܘܬܐ‎ Aphraates and Ephraim
agree with S, so that no doubt the rendering of the Evangelion
da-Mepharreshe is ultimately due to Tatian, the translator accepting
Tatian’s paraphrase as an adequate representation of the meaning of
the Greek®. But the text of Cis only a piece of later patching.

Joh iv 24
~ 3 3 < ‘\ ~ ܢ ً > 3 ̈ܝ‎ > ,
mvevpa 6 066¢, Kat TOUS TpoaKUVOdYTAS aUTOY € TVEvpaTL Kal adnbela
det TpooKuvery.

For this C has
ܐܠܗܐ ܓ .ܪ ܪܘܚܐ ܗܘ. ܘܐܝܠܝܢ ܕܣܗܓܕܝܢ ܠܗ ܒܪܘܚܐ. ܘܠܡܣܓܕ‎
wal ܠܗܘܢ ܘܠܐ] ܠܐܝܠܝܢ ܕܒܪܘܚܐ ܘܒܫܪܪܐ ܣܓܕܝܢ‎

[For God as ® spirit, and they that worship him in spirit and to
worship them it behoves| them that in spirit and in truth worship him.

“Quae quidem,” as Tischendorf very truly observes, “mire confusa
sunt.”

S omits the words enclosed in brackets*. It should also be noticed
that ܘܠܡܣܓܕ‎ in C, though by the original hand, is written over a
word that has been washed out, a circumstance of transcription that
may be held to indicate that the scribe had some difficulty in repro-
ducing correctly the text of his exemplar.

It is very difficult to invent a satisfactory theory which will account

1 @ is missing in Lk xvi 17.
2 The Peshitta of Matt v 18 has ܡܐ ܐܘ ܢܕ ܗܪܛ ܐ‎ ras One Vdd or one line, rejecting
ܐܬܘܬܐ‎ altogether.

3 ;§ also reads ܐܝܠܝܢ‎ instead of ܓ ܐܝܠܝܢ‎

Signs of revision in C. 219

for all the features of S and Cin the above passage, but the general
unpression I have formed is that S represents the original rendering of
the Evangelion da-Mepharreshe, a rendering based on a defective
Greek text; C, on the other hand, is a doublet, and the unnatural
order. of the words placed above between brackets is due to the
reviser, who translated the verse afresh on the margin of his Syriac Ms.
But in the process of transcription ‘in truth’ has fallen out between
‘in spirit and’ and ‘to worship.’

The remarkable omissions in S do not stand alone. There is little
doubt that the ordinary text of Joh iv 23, 24, is in essentials the true
text, but the repetition of rods tpooKvvodvtas abréy seems to have
given great trouble to scribes in early times, and a mutilated form
of the verse must once have been widely current. The following
variants are actually found

23 adda EPX ETAL Wpa KQaL VUVY E€OTLY, OTE OL ahyOuvor T POT KVVYTAL
TpOTKYYyTOVTW TH TaTpL EV mu Kat adyfea: *Kae yap o 060

Tovovtova Cyter "trove mpooKuvouvtac avtov* ° “ava o Os Ka” rove

TPOOKVVOVITAO QAUTOV EV VL KAL ahybeva Sep Tpookuvew",

area om. 1-118-209 22 ܢܐ‎ om. G69 229 131 ept*
© + ev mu 124* a b rushw ad tpoookuvew de X8*D a pp! (syr. C)
Om. mpookuvew €
om. mpookxuvey det 1381 ܙ‎
Of these authorities g is the Cod. Sangermanensis, which has occasional remarkable

affinities with the Diatessaron. The authorities which add ev wv at the end of © 23
imply a text that omitted the first part of v. 24, like G69 and 131.

It would be a grave omission if I failed to quote here the remarkable
judgement passed on @ by Dr Hort a dozen years before the Sinai
Palimpsest was brought to light. He said (Introduction, § 118):
“The character of the fundamental text confirms the great antiquity
of the version in its original form; while many readings suggest that,
like the Latin version, it degenerated by transcription and perhaps
also by irregular revision.” It is not often that pronouncements of this
kind are so signally sustained by later discoveries.

220 The Texts of S and of C.

S C and the Diatessaron.

The irregular revision to which an ancestor of Chas been subjected
has had the effect of making C itself more commonplace. Unfortunately
it is impossible to detach the work of the reviser from the rest of the
text of C by applying any stylistic test. For the most part the
additions and alterations are themselves small in bulk and the general
usage of the Evangelion da-Mepharreshe is well maintained in the
choice of words. In some of the longer insertions, such as that at
the end of Matt xx 28, it seems probable that the wording is to a
great extent taken from Tatian’s Harmony. The reviser’s justification
for inserting the passage in the ancestor of @ at that particular place
may have been that it was so inserted in a Greek ms used for purposes
of revision ; but the general cadence of the words was already familiar
to him from the Diatessaron, so that he naturally adopted the style of
the Syriac Bible. To such an extent is this the case, that at the end
he finishes off the interpolation with ‘and thou shalt have more glory
in the eyes of the guests’—the very words of Lk xiv 10, though the
Greek on the authority of which the passage was inserted doubtless
read kat €otar cou TovTo ypHoyov, as in Codex Bezae.

The use of the Diatessaron does not appear in the fragment of
[Mk] xvi 9-20 which is preserved in C; in fact, the Peshitta text
of these verses is much more closely than that of C allied to the
Diatessaron’. This fact in itself supplies a proof that @ has been to
some extent revised from a Greek ms later than the original translation.
Nevertheless it is exceedingly probable that in the great majority of
cases where S and C' differ, the cause of variation is not that one or
other Ms has been altered from the original reading of the Evangelion
da-Mepharreshe in order to make it agree with some Greek ms of the
Four Gospels, but in order to make it agree with the Syriac Diatessaron.
In such cases of variation between S and C, the reading that does not
agree with the Diatessaron is the original reading of the Evangelion
da-Mepharreshe. In other words, the reading that does not agree
with the Diatessaron is that which represents the Greek text current
at Antioch about 200 ap.

1 See the Note on the passage.

Assimilation of S or C to the Diatessaron. 221

It will be useful to give some instances in illustration. In
Lk xi 2-4 S has the short form of the Lord’s Prayer, beginning with
ܐܒܐ‎ instead of ܕܒܫܡܝܐ‎ ._asr, and ending without ‘Deliver us
from the Evil One’: it differs in language from the Peshitta, notably
in the rendering of émovowr. C, on the other hand, has these two
clauses and has ܢܫܒܘܼܩ‎ instead of plain ܝܫܒܩܝܢ‎ , as in 8. Matthew.
Here I suppose every one would acknowledge that S preserves the
original form of the Evangelion da-Mepharreshe and that C gives us
a text partially assimilated to the Diatessaron.

Again, S preserves a very peculiar recasting of Lk xi 35, 36, which
is otherwise only known from the inferior Old Latin mss f ¢, but C
assimilates the text to Matt vi 23, as do also Codex Bezae and the
leading mss of the Old Latin.

But besides this class of variation, in which the singularity of S
affords us an unmistakeable indication that it has preserved the true
text of the ‘Old Syriac,’ there is another important class in which
assimilation to the Diatessaron has produced the opposite result.
The Diatessaron, as has been pointed out in the previous Chapter,
pp. 191.f7, was based on a ‘ Western’ text, Western in the geographical
as well as in the textual sense; moreover, a translation of a Gospel
Harmony offers more scope for variation of every kind than a translation
of the Four Gospels. Speaking generally, therefore, the text of the
Syriac Diatessaron differs more widely than that of the genuine text of
the Evangelion da-Mepharreshe from the renderings found in the
Peshitta, notwithstanding the fact that here and there the Peshitta
(like other late texts) has adopted Western readings found in the
Diatessaron but absent from the Greek text that underlies the ‘Old
Syriac.’ There are many places throughout the Gospels where the
‘Old Syriac’ and the Peshitta agree together against the Diatessaron ;
in such cases, if C has been assimilated to the Diatessaron, we get S in
agreement with the Syriac Vulgate, while @ and Tatian agree in a
variant, which is perhaps further supported by a quotation in Aphraates
or Ephraim. These passages demand special notice, because we may
be at first sight tempted to regard them as passages where S has been
assimilated to the Peshitta, though I believe there is no real justification
for this view. For example, in Lk xxiii 43 ¢ܗ‎ 7@ wapadeiow is rendered
ܒܦܪܕܝܗܐ‎ ‘in Paradise’ by S and the Peshitta; but C, together with

0223 The Texts of S and of C.

Aphraates (twice), Ephraim (twice) and also in the Diatessaron Com-
mentary (oesinger 244), have ܒܓܢܬ ܥܕܢ‎ ‘in the Garden of Eden.’
Here we have two originally independent translations from the Greek.
It is clear that ‘Garden of Eden’ belongs to the Diatessaron, but there
is no reason why we should not assign ‘Paradise’ to the original form
of the Kvangelion da-Mepharreshe. On this hypothesis we must
assume that the text of C’ has here been assimilated to the
Diatessaron.

In Lk xix 44 the same explanation also holds good. In this verse
‘the time of thy visitation’ (tHs émvaxomys gov) is properly rendered
ܕܣܘܥܪ̈ܢܟܝ‎ by S and the Peshitta’. But C’ and Aphraates have
ܕܪܒܘܬܟܝ‎ , Le. ‘of thy greatness. A translation so singular as this
is certainly very old, and the circumstance that it is attested by
Aphraates makes it highly probable that it really belongs to the
Diatessaron. But there is no necessity to suppose that it really
belongs also to the Hvangelion da-Mepharrveshe in its original form,
and the agreement between @ and Aphraates is completely accounted
for when we regard C’ as having been assimilated here also to the
Diatessaron”.

Another good instance of a picturesque expression in C’ that has
probably been introduced from the Diatessaron is to be found in
Lk vii 31; in fact, these readings (though perhaps more frequent in
8. Luke than in the other Gospels) may be picked out from almost
every chapter. In not a few cases S has been assimilated to the
Diatessaron, while @ has preserved the true text of the Old Syriac
intact: an example from Joh iv 25 was quoted above, p. 214. There
may, of course, be cases in which both S and C' have been independently
assimilated to the Diatessaron, and such cases would be very difficult
to detect, but the great differences between S and C, coupled with
their frequent agreement against the Diatessaron, make it improbable
that they have suffered the same corruptions to any great extent.
Where S and C'agree we may be confident that we have the original
text of the Hvangelion da-Mepharreshe, the earliest translation of the
Four separate Gospels into Syriac; where S and C agree together with

1 Spelt in S ܕܣܥܘܪܢܦܟ‎
? For an attempt to explain the use of «Chas in this phrase, see the Note on Lk xix 44.

Textual affinities of the Old Syriac. 223

the Diatessaron, we must believe that the translator of the Evangelion
da-Mepharreshe was content to adopt the rendering of the Diatessaron
into his Syriac text of the Four Gospels}.

The textual affinities of the Old Syriac version.

We have now to attempt to discover the textual atfinities of the
Old Syriac; that is, to find out which of our Greek mss agree with
the Greek ms from which the Hvangelion da-Mepharreshe was tvans-
lated. The problem before us is a little different from that which
confronts the investigator who is studying such a late document as
one of the ‘ Ferrar-Group,’ or even the common origin of the ‘ Ferrar-
Group,—to name but one problem out of many. When we study a
comparatively late document, we may feel sure it contains many
late features, and our aim is to isolate its ancient ‘Western’ or
‘ Alexandrian’ elements. But the Greek ms that underlies the Old
Syriac would be, if it were in our hands, a primary authority. If it
were possible to retranslate the Old Syriac into the Greek that it
really represents we should be able to estimate the amount of
divergence it presents from the great Uncials or the texts constructed
by modern critical editors. Retranslation, however, is a very dangerous
proceeding. It sometimes happens that a Greek variation cannot be
represented in a foreign language, and on the other hand the Syriac
idiom sometimes introduces variety where no Greek variant ever
existed. Or again, there are cases where the Syriac might represent
either of two rival readings in the Greek. Under these circumstances
grave doubt must always hang over conjectural restorations of the
Greek text represented by the Old Syriac, except where the Old
Syriac is in literal agreement with some Ms or group of mss with which
it habitually keeps company. To give the most obvious illustration,
in Matt i 16 the evidence of the Ferrar Group and the Old Latin
makes it certain that the text of the Old Syriac represents the clause
@ punotevdeioa [jv] rapbévos Mapp (or @ euvnoredOy), and that it

1 An exception may perhaps be made in the case of the story of the Last Supper according to
S. Luke. It is possible that there both S and C represent independent mixtures of the true text
of 8. Luke with the narrative of the Diatessaron.

224 The Texts of S and of C.

is not a mere paraphrase of the 70 dvdpa Mapias of the ordinary
text; on the other hand, in the absence of subsidiary attestation, we
cannot be quite sure that the doubled ‘Joseph’ stood in the Greek
text from which the Old Syriac was translated, still less that it read

tov “laond: “Iwaond 86 6 ×

The following lists of various readings have been drawn up to help
in finding out which documents contain an early-Antiochian element,
ie. a text akin to the Old Syriac. It has simply been compiled from
Tischendorf and other obvious sources, but I have not inserted readings
where the apparent agreement between S or @ and some other text
might reasonably be regarded as the result of accident. No attempt
has been made to evaluate the differences between S (or C’) and such
mss as 565 or the Latins: the aim of the list is to establish points of
contact, not to estimate the amount of early-Antiochian matter in the
various late and mixed texts The agreement of S or C with the
Peshitta, the Armenian, the Ethiopic, or the later Syriac texts, is to
be regarded merely as evidence of the influence of the ‘Old Syriac’
on these Oriental versions. But it is not yet proved that the ‘Old
Syriac’ ever had any reflex action upon Greek mss. The agreement
of S or C, therefore, with 28 or 565 or with the ‘Ferrar Group’ may
still be generally considered as indicating that the Greek ms in
question has preserved an ancient reading which existed in the ms
from which the EHvangelion da-Mepharreshe was translated.

The Notation is that of Gregory’s Prolegomena to Tischendorf.
In all cases where only S or only @ is quoted on either side of a
variant, it may be presumed that the ms which is passed over is not
extant at that point.

Crass I.
SC and the Antiochian teat.

The text called ‘Syrian’ and ‘ Antiochian’ by Westcott and Hort,
of which the so-called Received Text is a very fair representative,
has but little affinity with the Old Syriac Version. This is best
shewn by the absence from S and C of the characteristic conflate
readings, but the fundamental separation between the Old Syriac

The Antiochian Text. 996

and the ‘Syrian’ Greek text is evident on every page of the Gospels.
There must have been a great break of continuity between the earlier
and the later Greek texts current at Antioch, a breach which may
have begun with the deposition of Paul of Samosata in 274aD. The
Old Syriac often represents a different exegetical tradition from that
of the later Antiochenes: for example, in the punctuation of Joh v 27,
28, C agrees with Paul of Samosata and the ancient tradition generally,
while Chrysostom joins éru vids dvOpérov éoriy (v. 27) with pr
Javpdalere rotro (v. 28), and in this he is followed by the Peshitta
and even by the Armenian vulgate.

In a few cases, some of them of considerable importance, the Old
Syriac does agree with the later Greek mss against the early Western
and Alexandrian evidence. Thus in Lk ii 14 S reads eddoxia, not
eddoxias (as in SB and D latt); and in Lk xiv 15 SC, in company with
the great mass of later Greek mss, give ܐܘܗ‎ instead of aprov!.
Readings such as these have no greater and no less claim on our
attention than singular or subsingular readings of the Old Syriac: the
extra attestation given to them by the late Greek mss only tells us
that in these particular cases the leading eclectic text of the end of the
4th century adopted a reading current in the East in preference to that
favoured by the Western texts or the Origenian tradition.

In nearly all these cases of combination between the Old Syriac
and the later Greek texts the reading so attested is clearly wrong.
It is pretty certain, for instance, that ©. Luke wrote “ Blessed is he
that shall eat bread in the kingdom of God,” and not “ breakfast.”
Almost the only instance where a good case can be made out for
accepting the Oriental against the combined Western and Alexandrian
tradition is the reading avaBorjoas, instead of davaBds, in Mk xv 8.
And here the Western texts are not quite unanimous, for the word is
passed over altogether in 4.

1 Note that Clem! reads dprov not dpecrov (Barnard’s Biblical Text of Clement, p. 48).

226 The Texts of S and of C.

Cuass II.
SC and the SB-text.

The Old Syriac has some striking agreements with the two great
4th century Bibles ܐܐ‎ and B, the texts of which form the basis of
Westcott and Hort’s edition. A glance at the Table printed above,
p. 216, shews that S omits all, and C more than half, of the ‘ Greater
Interpolations,’ which have been recognised as such and consequently
removed from the text by critical editors on the authority of ܐܐ‎ and B.
Nor is this coincidence between S @ and NB confined to the rejection of
a few extensive and easily recognisable passages. All through the
Gospels S, and to a certain extent C also, agrees with 8B in omitting
words and clauses found in most extant documents. Sometimes these
authorities stand almost alone in their omissions, sometimes they are
supported by a number of other texts.

The question therefore arises whether there may not be some special
connexion between NB and S, which would deprive their agreement
of special significance. Put in a more concrete form, is there any
reason for supposing that the Sinai Palimpsest omits the ‘ Western
Interpolations,’ because they had been excised from its ancestor in
order to make it agree with the recension of Origen and Eusebius ?
The answer to this must be, I am sure, in the negative, quite
independently of any theory of the genesis of the NB-text. Besides
the difficulty of explaining the omissions attested by Cif the text of
S had been produced by excision, this hypothesis does not account for
the clauses which actually form part of the text of S though they are
absent from ܠܐ‎ and B. Instances may be found in Matt iv 10, v 22,
x 23, xx 16, xxv 1, Mk x 24, xiii 8, Lk xx 34, xxiii 48, Joh iii 6, xi 39,
xii 12, xx 16, and elsewhere. It is immaterial here to discuss whether
these words and phrases are genuine or not: they are absent from the
NB-text, and a hand that would have cut out from S the so-called ‘last
twelve verses’ of S. Mark on the authority of the ‘ Eusebian tradition’
—to use the well-known question-begging phrases—would not have
been likely to leave all these passages standing.

Apart from the omitted passages there is not a very close affinity

The Origenian Text. 227

between the Old Syriac and 8B. What we may call the Origenian
text does not get much support from S or C. Neither jrdpe in Mk
vi 20, nor rod )ܡ‎ éxhetrovros in Lk xxiii 45, nor povoyeris Beds in
Joh 118, is attested by the Old Syriac. It is of course natural that
two such ancient lines of transmission as the text underlying NB and
the text underlying the Old Syriac should often coincide; but the only
kind of agreement between documents that shews community of origin
is community in error, and of this there is to the best of my belief very
little. The faults of S are not the faults of NB, and the reader need
only go over any list of alleged monstra drawn up by opponents of the
NB-text to see how few of them are shared by S or C. Other instances
of characteristic readings of B or 8B not supported by S are to be
found in Matt vi 8, xi 19, xxvii 49; Mk ii 14, 16, vi 22, xi 33;
Dk [1 14, ± 41, 49, wiv 6, ev 91, Kyi 19, ee 24; Joh ix ,ܘ‎ × 22,

But if the lines of transmission now represented by XB on the one
hand and SC’ on the other be practically independent, their occasional
agreement becomes of the greatest weight. Thus in Lk iv 44 the
agreement of SS with NB and others (including the group 1&c.) makes
it certain that ©. Luke wrote ‘Judaea’ and not ‘Galilee!’ And
I venture to think that the force of the agreement of these two
groups is very little weakened if either ܠܐ‎ or B deserts its companions
to join the mass of ordinary codices. Thus S supports B all through
the complicated series of variations in 8. Mark about the double cock-
crowing, which was chosen by Dr Hort (Introd. § 323) to illustrate the
unique character of the Vatican ms. In Lk vii 43 and xi 11 Band S
join in omitting words which are undoubtedly interpolations though
found in most Mss: in the former passage iarpots tpooavahdcaca odov
Tov Biov 18 a mere adaptation of Mk ¥ 26 and in the latter the words
about the Bread and the Stone belong to Matt vii 9 only. It may be
remarked in passing that both in Lk viii 43 and in xi 11 C' follows
the harmonistic reading of the mass of later documents, perhaps
under the influence of the Diatessaron, while B is supported by the
Sahidic and S by the Armenian. Other notable places where B and
the Old Syriac go together are the ‘many stadia’ of Matt xiv 24 and
the ‘Seventy-two’ disciples of Lk x 1.

The passages where the Old Syriac sides with ܠܐ‎ against B are

1 See the Vote on Lk iv 44.

228 The Texts of S and of C.

fewer in number. Instances are pydéva (for pdév) in Lk vi 35, and
‘the Chosen of God’ (instead of ‘the Son of God’) in Joh 1 34. In
Joh vili 57 S reads with ܠܬܐ‎ and the Sahidic édpaxé(v) oe, where most
documents, including the Diatessaron, read édpaxas. Here B* halts
between the two variants and reads eopakec.

The Western ‘ Non-Interpolations.’

A few words must here be said about the passages called by
Westcott and Hort ‘Western Non-Interpolations.’ These are certain
passages contained in B and for the most part in &, but passed over by
D and the Old Latin: the passages are regarded by Westcott and Hort
as no part of the original text and accordingly are placed by them
between double brackets ([ ]). A few other passages somewhat
similarly attested are placed by Westcott and Hort between ordinary
square brackets.

The consideration of these passages is necessary, because our estimate
of the value of the Old Syriac as an independent witness for textual
purposes depends largely upon the view we take of them. If these
passages be really interpolations wrongly inserted into the text of the
Gospels, then all the documents that contain them have at least in part
a common origin—they have, in fact, been at least influenced by a
common interpolated recension. We have therefore to ascertain to
what extent these passages are attested by the Old Syriac, and to
examine how far Westcott and Hort are right in treating them
practically as a single series by giving them a common name.

The following List of the ‘Western Non-Interpolations’ has been
compiled from Hort’s Introduction S§ 240 and 383.

The Table below tells us at the first glance that the Old Syriac is
divided upon the question of the Western Non-Interpolations, and this
alone is enough to shew tbat the 27 readings here cited are not
homogeneous. They cannot be all the result of one critical process,
whether we decide in favour of retention or omission. There are, it
must be remembered, two questions of textual criticism before us,
which should be kept distinct. The question with which we are more
immediately concerned is the relation of S and C to the NB-text; this

The Western ‘ Non-Interpolations.’ 229

question is indeed intimately connected with the question of the origin
and propagation of the ‘Western Non-Interpolations,’ but it is not
identical with it. Even if we accept the view that certain passages
(such as Luke xxiv 12) are interpolations, it may be that they were

Omitted by
Syr.vt D lat.vt
pie except as
Authorities quoted...... B Ss ܘ ̈ܗ‎ S| stated below
1. Matt vi 15 [rd raparreipara aitdv] B |om| ܗ‎ | C _ b
2. Matt vi 25 [} +) < B | om| ܗ‎ |om —
3. Matt ix 34 [of 8 Baprator.. dapovia. } 8 SN | ܗ‎ | -- om. b
4. Matt xiii 33 [éAaAqoev avrots | B® s | om. om. (06 a) b
5. Matt xxi 44 [kal ܘ‎ weodv.. Atkuyoe abrov. | Bi N | s | Com.
6. Matt xxiii 26 [kal r7s rapoyidos] (B)| & | ܗ‎ | — om.
7. Matt xxvii 49 fin. [+ ܘܣ‎ 88...aina.] B | & |jom.| — om.
8. Mark ii 22 ܘܬ[‎ olvov véov €@¢ aoKOUS Katvous | Bi ܗ‎ {| > 2?
9. Mark x 2 [mpocedGovres ܗ | »ܐ 8 »ܗ«‎ |— = om.
10. Mark xiv 9 [rov avrov déyov eiruy] Bi’ ܐ‎ | — S
11. Luke v 39 [Ovdeis Oe 2 xpnaros éorw,| {8 | ܛ‎ |S =
19. Luke x 41 f [pepimvas...... q 661 BIS (ܗ)|‎ )( om.| (D)
13. Luke xii 19 [kecpeva...... paye, wie] BIJ ®& > ܨܘ‎ S
14. Luke xii 21 [Otrws? ) eis Oedv / «7061 | | ܫ‎ C S 3
15. Luke xii 39 [éypynyépycev ay 11 B |om.| © | om. om.
16. Lukexxiil19", 20 [76 0720 ipa... exyuvvopevor. | BI ®& > (C) (00 (06, b)
17. Luke xxii 62 [kal...... ékAavoev miKpas. | Bi Nis | € S | D
18. Luke xxiv 8 [rod kupiov “Incod]] 8. ܐܐ‎ is ]/@ (SS)
19. Luke xxiv 6 [lov gorw ade, ¢ HyépOy. ] {8 | ܨ ¦ ܗ | ܐ‎ S
20. Luke xxiv 9 [ad rot pynpeiou| BI’ > C S
91. Luke xxiv 12 [fo de Ilérpos...... 0 yeyovds. ] BIN ܗ‎ ± S
22. Luke xxiv 36 [kat Aé€ye: avrois Eipyvy iptv.] | | ܨ > ܠ‎ S
23. Luke xxiv 40 [Kat TOUTO €lTWV...... rodas. | Bi ®& s | om. om.
24. Luke xxiv 52 [kal avedépero eis tov ovpavor]] B |om.| ܗ‎ | — (om.)
25. Luke xxiv 53 [tpooxuvjoavtes aitov]] BIN | ܗ‎ | -- om.
26. Joh ii 31, 32 [éravw mavtwv eotiy & 9071 B ¦ om.| ܗ‎ | om. (0
97. Joh iv 9 [ov yap ` 7 5 | B |om.| ܗ‎ CS)

inserted so generally and at so early a period in the texts current East
of the Adriatic that their presence in S and C'as well as in XB proves
little as to any special connexion between the Caesarean Library and
the Old Syriac Version. It should therefore be pointed out at once
that in Nos. 7 and 12, the two cases where ܠܐ‎ and B are not backed up

230 The Texts of S and of C.

by the mass of later Greek texts, no support is given to the reading of
NB by the Old Syriac. In Lk x 41 f (the answer of Jesus to Martha)
S agrees with the Latins in omitting the disputed words, while C’ has
been revised to agree with the Zeaxtus Receptus, and not with SB. In
Matt xxvii 49 the Syriac joins with the Latin and the Teaxtus Receptus
in rejecting the notorious interpolation from Joh xix 34 found in 8B
and a few other authorities. This interpolation is a true peculiarity of
the NB-text, and documents which contain it have either been emended
from the NB-text or contain an emended form of the NB-text. Its
absence from S goes some way to clear that ms from any suspicion that
it has been revised, at least to any considerable extent, by means of
Mss akin to NB}.

The divergence between the Old Syriac and the NB-text is by no
means confined to these two passages. In about half of the whole
twenty-seven ‘Interpolations’ the Old Syriac is on the side of omission,
sometimes, as in the case of Luke xxiv 40 (No. 23), against the whole
mass of extant Greek Mss except Codex Bezae. In other cases, such
as Luke xxiv 3, 52 (Nos. 18 and 24), the Old Syriac has an interpolated
text, but the interpolation or alteration differs from the NB-text : here,
therefore, the Old Syriac manifests its independence of the NB-text 8
much as in the passages where it supports simple omission of the
disputed words. Among these we must reckon No. 16 (the account of
the Last Supper in 8. Luke): at this point both S and C have been
harmonised to agree with the other Gospels, perhaps under the influence
of the Diatessaron, but certainly not by way of assimilation to what is
found in ܠܐ‎ and B and the ‘ Received Text.’

It must not be forgotten also that it remains an open question
whether all the twenty-seven readings are really interpolations. Inter-
polation is not the only fault of Western texts, and there is little
doubt that Western editors sometimes omitted what they did not like
or understand. Thus in Lk xii 19 (No. 13) I have very little doubt
that the words retained by NB and the Old Syriac are genuine, and

± Another characteristic interpolation, which is absent from and @ 88 well as the Old Latin,
is to be found in Lk xv 21, where ‘Make me one of thy hired servants’ is added from v. 19 by D
as well as by 8B. The addition of ‘And no man gave to him’ in Lk xvi 21, an interpolation
similar in character, is found in Aphraates, the ‘Ferrar Group’ and some late Latin texts, but
not in Sor XB. Cis missing here and in Matt xxvii 49,

The Western ‘ Non-Interpolations.’ 231

that the cause of the omission was failure to understand how a ‘soul’
(anima) could ‘eat’ or ‘drink.’ I venture to think that the Old Syriac
is quite right in retaining the disputed words in Lk xii 19, 21 (Nos. 13
and 14), and also in Mark xiv 39 (No. 10). In the latter passage
Tov avtov doyov eimév introduces a petty verbal discrepancy with
Matt xxvi 42, and by retaining these words in Mk S shews at this
point notable independence of the influence of the Diatessaron!. Some-
what similar is Mk ii 22 (No. 8), where the short form of the saying
without a verb, found in NB, is probably genuine. Here S has been
assimilated to Matt ix 17, as is natural and proper in a translation”.
To these passages I would provisionally add Lk ¥ 39 (No. 11). Neither
S nor C is here extant, but it is quite as likely that the verse was
omitted because of its difficulty and its absence from the parallel
passages, as that it is the interpolation of a later hand.

Nevertheless, when all allowances have been made, there still
remain some passages at the end of ©, Luke where S and @ join with
NB in supporting additions to the text, which cannot be regarded as
genuine. It is very difficult to suppose that Lk xxiv 12 (the visit of
Peter to the empty grave) is a genuine portion of the Third Gospel.
Accidental omission of the verse is highly improbable, and it is
impossible to conceive why it should have been intentionally cut out.
On the other hand, v. 24 might seem to call for some explanation, and
the narrative in Joh xx 3—10 supplied materials for the insertion.
The wording of S and C in the verse differs from the Peshitta, so that
their text cannot have been derived from that source, nor can it have
come direct from the Diatessaron, for in a Harmony the verse is
naturally swallowed up into the fuller narrative from 8. John. The
verse therefore, as we read it in S and C, must come directly from the
Greek. At the same time the wording differs in one important point
from that of the general usage of the Evangelion da-Mepharreshe, for
Iérpos is here rendered Simon and not Kepha as in the rest of 8. Luke
(see Chap. 11, p. 96). This marked difference of usage makes it con-
ceivable that we are here dealing with an interpolation in the Old
Syriac which has invaded S as well as C.

The result is of the greatest importance for our estimate of S.

1 Of Diate xviii 13.
2 The English Revised Version has done the same.

232 The Texts of S and of C.

What has happened in one place may have happened in several. It
has probably happened in Lk xxiv 6 also, and the hypothesis of
interpolation is the simplest explanation of the text of Sin Lk xxii 62
and xxiv 36. But there is nothing to lead us to believe that this
element in S is of any great extent. Probably it is confined to a few
well-marked readings which became familiar to Syriac scribes through
revised texts such as that of C, and so ultimately invaded even purer
types of text like S.

That some of these widely spread interpolations were foisted into
the text of the Hvangelion da-Mepharreshe is evident from Matt xxi 44
(No. 5), which is read by € but omitted by S, and from Lk x 6
(No. 12), where as has been already remarked € has the longer reading
in the form in which it appears in the majority of Greek Mss, and not
in the form characteristic of NB. The general results, therefore, of a
consideration of the readings called by Westcott and Hort ‘ Western
Non-Interpolations’ are: (1) that the Old Syriac, like the Old Latin,
was free from these extraneous additions to the text; (2) that in a
few cases the Syriac evidence helps us to revise the list furnished by
Westcott and Hort by establishing the genuineness of some readings
omitted on Western evidence only; (3) that some of the ‘ Western
Non-Interpolations’ which were originally passed over. by the Old
Syriac are now found in C, and in a few cases even in S; (4) that
these insertions in our Old Syriac Mss appear to have been ultimately
based on Greek Mss nearer akin to the Textus Receptus than to the
type represented by ܠܐ‎ and B.

In the above discussion no notice has been taken of the two
readings from 8. John. In Joh iti 31, 32, C’ supports the shorter text,
while S is said to contain part of the longer reading. The photograph
is nearly illegible at the decisive point and I am of opinion that the
text of S has not been correctly represented in this edition!. The case
of Joh iv 9 will be dealt with below among the independent readings
of the Old Syriac version.

1 See vol. i, p. 434.

Occasional inconsistency of Cod. Vaticanus. 233

Later elements in ܠܬ‎ and B.

Before leaving the NB-text it may be well to ask how far it is
homogeneous. The question is not out of place even in a discussion
upon the value of a Syriac Version. No one can compare the text of
S with that of Westcott and Hort without noticing that S is much
more strongly ‘Western’ in 8. Matthew than in 8. Luke. The critic’s
first impulse, in the case of a new document like S, is to suspect that
the two Gospels were translated into Syriac by different hands, perhaps
at different times, or that 8. Luke has sutfered revision while
S. Matthew has escaped. But it is only fair to ask whether the
standard of comparison itself be homogeneous. The text of Westcott
and Hort is practically the text of NB. The Old Syriac sometimes
supports the true text of the NB family, where ܠܐ‎ singly or B singly
deserts the family to side with a later variation: is it not therefore
possible, and indeed likely, that in some instances 8 and B may both
have deserted the reading which they ought to have followed, and that
they and not S are inconsistent ?

That ܠܐ‎ and B occasionally are inconsistent with themselves appears
certain in several places. Carefully as B is written, now and again it
presents an ungrammatical reading, which proves on examination to be
a fragment of the rival variant. Thus in Matt xxiii 26 most Greek
documents read kafdapirov mp@tov 7d évTds 700 moTypiov Kal ¢
Tapowidos, iva yérntat Kat TO éxTos avT@v Kabapdrv. Here kai rhs
mapoyidos is omitted by D l&ce 700 we, as well as by syr.vt, all these
authorities reading avrov instead of avrov. But in B*, together with
E* 13&¢ 28 157 al®° Bas '/,, we find kat ¢ mapoidos supplied, while
avrov is left standing. It is not necessary to suppose that all the Mss
that support B* here represent a common tradition: it was easy to
supply ‘the platter’ from the preceding verse. But the presence of
avtod in B*, coupled with the occurrence of the shorter reading in the
Old Syriac, leads me to claim it as really characteristic of the 8B-text
as well as the various ‘ Western’ texts. The presence of adrov in B is
exactly analogous to the use of Simon by S and @ in Lk xxiv 12: the
irregular reading shews us in each case that our MS is not giving us the
true text of the family to which it belongs.

B. IT. : 30

234 The Texts of S and of C.

Other instances from B of the same kind are the employment of
varepos (instead of éoyaros) in Matt xxi 31, the presence of the article
before BapaBBav in Matt xxvii 171, and the reading 77 ܐ‎ instead of
nacov in Lk xix 87. In all these instances B presents us with what is
evidently a doctored text. We are able in a few cases to detect the
patch by an imperfection in the joining, where the words added or
taken away involve by their presence or absence a consequential change
in the text. But in many cases of the insertion of words no further
change is caused in the body of the text, and we have no means of
knowing how often B has suffered in this way. An obvious instance
in point, the insertion of ob€ tad rov pddiov in Lk xi 33, is noticed
below.

Cuass ITI.
SC and Western texts.

By ‘Western texts’ I mean here the texts which are properly
called Western as belonging geographically to the West of the Adriatic
—in other words Codex Bezae (D), the texts of the Old Latin version
and the Latin Fathers. The frequent agreement between the Old
Syriac and these Western texts had been a subject of comment ever
since Cureton’s publication of C, but it was not until the investigations
of Zahn and Biithgen upon Tatian’s Diatessaron that any steps were
made towards a rational explanation. A careful and independent
examination of the textual phenomena has brought me round to the
view first enunciated in 1885 by Bathgen in his Evangelienfragmente
and supported since 1895 by Zahn?, viz. that the Diatessaron was the
earliest form of the Gospel in Syriac, earlier therefore than the Old
Syriac, and that the translator of the Old Syriac, which on this view
dates from about 200 ap, knew the Diatessaron and adapted its
language to a very considerable extent®. The Diatessaron itself was
mace in Rome, or at least was the work of one who had lived there
many years; it is not surprising therefore to find that the text of the
Diatessaron is predominantly Western. And when it is acknowledged
that much of the text of the Old Syriac is direct adaptation of the

1 See the Note on the passage.

2 Theol, Iitteraturblatt 1895, ii 17—21.
3 See above, pp. 208 ff.

Western Texts. 235

Diatessaron an easy explanation of the origin of the Western element
at once offers itself: the Western readings do not necessarily represent
the text of the Four Gospels as read in Antioch about 170, but the
text of the Diatessaron; and the text of the Diatessaron in turn
represents the Four Gospels as read in Rome about 170 av. In such
passages, and they are very many, we cannot take the agreement of
East and West as instantly decisive. It is almost safer to regard the
Eastern text in these passages as non-existent, and to treat the Old
Syriac evidence as one element in a group belonging to the West.
The Western reading may be purer than the Alexandrian reading in
any given case, but where S and C give us the Diatessaron text the
independent consensus of East and West disappears; what is left is
group against group, not two very early groups against one.

It is a pity that we know so little of the continuous text of the
Diatessaron. At every turn we find ourselves confronted with reason-
able suspicion that the special features of an Old Syriac reading may be
due to the influence of the Diatessaron, while at the same time we are
without direct information as to the reading of the Diatessaron in the
passage in question. In giving examples of the definitely Western
element in the Old Syriac I have therefore divided the lists into three
classes: in the first class are given some striking agreements of the
Old Syriac with Western texts against the Diatessaron, in the second
class agreements of the Old Syriac with Western texts including the
Diatessaron, and in the third a selection of passages where the reading
of the Diatessaron is not definitely known.

Agreements of S or C with Western: texts against the Diatessaron.

Matt 1 18 rod 8¢ ypiotod] S C=d (iat D) latt.omn

Tod 6€ “Incod Xpiorod Moes. 20=Gr.rel (incl. the Oxyrhynchus
Papyrus), but B has ¥ d€ Xpiorod "Incov.

The phrase used in Moesinger does not agree with the Armenian
Vulgate. It is possible that the text of the Diatessaron was
assimilated by Tatian to Matt i 1: the personal name ‘Jesus’ is
almost necessary when the narrative of Matt 1 18 ff is placed
immediately following the first chapter of ©. Luke instead of after
a genealogy such as Matt i 2-17. At the same time it is quite

236 The Texts of S and of C.

possible that the text of S and C was here not derived trom the
West at all, for the reading of B suggests that a text agreeing
with the Latins was current in early times in the East also.

Matt iii 17 od ef 6 vids pov] SC=D a Tren™ (hiat k)
obtds ¢» ܐܐ‎ 6 vids pov Moes. 99 &&=Gr.vel.
For a further discussion of this important variation, see the
Note on the passage.

Matt xviii 20 ‘ For there are not two or three gathered together in my
name, that I am not in the midst of’ S=D (gy) (Clem 541)

The ordinary text is supported by @ Aphr 69 and all other
authorities: it appears to be implied in Moes. 165. Whatever be
the origin of this curious reading, it does not seem to have come
into S through the Diatessaron.

Lk xx 34 ‘The sons of this world beget and are begotten, and take
wives and become the wives of men’ SC. This agrees with
a Iren 168 and Clem 551 (103, 230). D and some Latin mss have
‘are begotten and beget,’ the best Latin (incl. Cyp ?/, and ce)
omitting ‘marry and are given in marriage.’ Most documents
omit ‘beget and are begotten.’

It is not easy to ascertain the exact text of the Diatessaron at
this point, but it appears that it did not contain the clause beget
and are begotten. According to Moes. 194 the reply of our Lord
begins “Much do ye err, for the sons of the times of this world
take wives, etc.” According to Aphraates 167, a quotation which
seems to represent a text of the Diatessaron, the reply begins
“Much do ye err, and ye know not the Scriptures nor the power
of God. For they that are worthy of that world...,” 1.6. Matt xxii 29
followed by Lk xx 35, omitting v. 34 altogether. Thus neither
text has beget and are begotten, so that the presence of this
so-called ‘Western’ reading in S and C’ cannot be due to the
influence of Tatian’s Harmony.

Joh x 8 ‘all that came’] S ( followed by syr.vg)=8* al! lat.vt-vg
+‘before me’ Moes, 200 = BDAN® al” fos gat Lucif!! Faust*” 6
Hieron */,

Western readings independent of the Diatessaron. 237

I quote this passage mainly for the remarkable distribution of
reading. Is it conceivable that the gloss is really due to Tatian
himself? See above, p. 195.

Joh xi 25 ‘I am the Resurrection ° [ S=«* (?) /* Cyp 310
+ ‘and the Life’ Moes. 202 =Gr.rel Lat.rel
In this striking variant S agrees with Cyprian against the
Diatessaron and practically all other texts.

Besides these passages, where the Diatessaron is definitely ranged
on the opposite side to S, there are some others where the Diatessaron
from its very nature cannot have served as the channel of connexion
between S and the Western text.

Matt vill 5 (before mpoondOev aire éxatrovtapyns)
(a) pera dé ܘܐ ܘܐ‎ S=k
(8B) «icedOdvros §¢ avdrod eis Kadapvaovp NBC &c lat.vg syr.vg
(y) pera d€ radra cioeNO. av. eis Kad. C=lat.eur (hiat D)

The words ‘ when he entered into Capernaum’ would naturally
have a place in the Diatessaron, because they stand in all
authorities as part of Lk vi 1. Thus the omission of these words
in S and & cannot be due to the Diatessaron, though it may be
the source from which the words were inserted in C. I have a
strong suspicion that (a) is the true reading in Matt, while (8) is
an early harmonistic variant and (y) is a conflation of (a) and (8).
The fact that pera d€ radra is not elsewhere used by the compiler
of the First Gospel is not necessarily fatal to this view, as it may
possibly have stood in the source from which Matt and Lk drew
the story of the Centurion’.

1 Besides, there is a special reason for pera S€ ravra here. It may be, so to speak, the voice
of the compiler of Matt expressing his belief that his new arrangement of the story of the Leper
is satisfactory. A comparison of Matt vii, viii, with the parallel in Lk vi, vii, leaves little doubt
that the story of the Centurion followed in the common source immediately after the great
Sermon. The story of the Leper, on the other hand, comes in Mk i 40 ff, after the healing of
Peter’s wife’s mother ; its new place in Matt viii 2-4 is certainly due to the compiler, not to his
source. We should naturally have assigned the mention of Capernaum to the common source
of Matt and Lk but for its omission by S and ¢, It is also omitted by e in Joh iv 46. Possibly
therefore the place was not indicated in the source and the connexion of the story with Caper-
naum may be due to 8. Luke’s own information or conjecture.

238 The Texts of S and of C.

Matt xxi 44 (Whosoever shall fall on this stone, &c)] om. S=D 33
abe ff Orig
The verse is read by @ with SB &c.
The Diatessaron (Moes. 193) retains the verse, as was almost
inevitable in a Harmony, but there is nothing to shew that it is
not merely the equivalent of Lk xx 18.

Joh xii 8 (For the poor ye have always with you, but me ye have not
always)] om. S=D

All other authorities have the verse. It doubtless stood also in

the Diatessaron, but as the equivalent to Mk xiv 7 = Matt xxvi 11.

Here again it is difficult not to believe that S and D have

preserved the true reading: the sudden verbal agreement of

Joh xii 8 with the Synoptic Gospels occurring in the midst of so

much real difference is suspicious, and it is better to regard the

verse as an interpolation, so far as the Fourth Gospel is concerned.

Agreements of S or C with Western teats including the Diatessaron.

Matt ix 34 (‘ But the Pharisees said: By the Prince of the devils,...’)
This verse is omitted by S with Dah, and it is passed over in
Diat* xii 41, 42.

Matt xi 5 Kat mrwxot evayyedilovrat | om. S=k and Clem. 151. In
© the clauses are transposed: ‘the deaf hear and the poor are
sustained! and the dead arise.’

In Moes. 100 we read “‘The Lord began from those things that
seem more easy... The blind see and the lame walk and the lepers
are cleansed and the deaf hear, and in the end as the seal of all he
said this: The dead arise.” This is followed almost immediately
by a quotation of Matt xi 6. It is evident that the Diatessaron
agrees here with S, and that C represents an attempt to replace
the missing clause.

Internal evidence is very strongly in favour of the omission
of Kat mrwyot evayyedilovra. The verb evayyedilerPar is not
found in Matt outside this passage; on the other hand, it is one

1 / 8 ܡܣܬܝܒܪܝܢ‎ (ste): see the Note on Matt xi 5.

Western readings supported by the Diatessaron. 239

of the favourite words of Luke and actually occurs in Lk xvi 16
with the same passive use as here. Probably therefore its intro-
duction into this context is due to the evangelist: ‘the dead arise’
in the reply of our Lord to 0. John’s messengers has no doubt the
same significance as ‘raise the dead’ in Matt x 8. In other words,
the true text of the First Gospel, as preserved in S and the
Diatessaron, supported by 4 and Clement, gives us the words of
Jesus; ‘the poor have the Gospel preached to them’ is 8. Luke’s
interpretation of the words, an interpretation which we may safely
accept.

The text of the Diatessaron as preserved in Moes. 100 is also
notable in that it adopts one of two parallel accounts instead of
combining them. Similar instances are to be found in Diat iv 44
(Moes. 44) where there is no mention of the 40 nights, Lk iv 2
being preferred to Matt iv 2; also in Diat xxix 9 (Moes. 88) the
seven-fold of the Western text of Lk xviii 30 is preferred to the
hundred-fold of Mk x 30 or the manzfold of some texts of
Matt xix 29 and Lk xviii 30. In the last instance (Lk xviii 30)
S and C have ‘an hundred-fold’: we must therefore refrain from
ascribing all the harmonistic readings in the Old Syriac to Tatian’s
influence, while at the same time we must not assume that the
Diatessaron always combined the variations of the Gospels instead
of selecting between them.

Matt xxi 31 6 éxyaros S=D lat.vt, i.e. the Pharisees say that the son
who said he would go into the vineyard, and did not go, obeyed
his father?.

The Diatessaron (Moes. 191) supports 6 éxyaros, but there is
room to believe that Tatian transposed the order of the two sons,
as in B 13&¢ and the Armenian, whereby the sense.is the same as
that of the ordinary text with 6 zparos, which is supported also
by C. If this be really the case the agreement of S and the early
Western text is independent of the Diatessaron, but in view of

1 This reading is also implied by Iren 280 ad jin, who says : ‘alter quidem contradixit patri et
postea poenitetur quando nihil profuit et poenttentia, alter autem pollicitus est statim promittens
patri non abiit autem, quoniam omnis homo mendax et uelle quidem in promptu adiacet non
inuenit autem perficere.’

240 The Texts of S and of C.

the doubt I have inserted the passage here and not above on
p. 2361. :

Matt xxvi 73 kal yap 7 ܐܬܘܬܐ‎ cov ܬܘܬܘ‎ S=D latt, and also
Diat®” xlix 12. Most documents, including syr.vg, have dyhov oe
move for duodte. The words cai 7 Aadud cov ܛܘ‎ are added
at the end of Mk xiv 70 by most late texts, including syr.vg, but
they are omitted by S with the best Greek and Latin authorities.

Mk viii 31, 32. For éddde, S reads ܐܬܘܬ‎ (or possibly é«Aadetv) with
k and Diat® xxiii 42, so that the announcement of the Passion
runs He had begun to teach them that the Son of man was about to
suffer much...and they will kill Him and the third day He will rise
and openly speak the word.

As this striking reading had a place in the Diatessaron—for all
the readings of the Arabic Diatessaron that do not agree verbally
with the Peshitta are doubtless genuine survivals of Tatian’s
Harmony—we must not claim the agreement of S and & in its
favour as an independent consensus of East and West®, At the
same time there are very few, if any, traces of the influence of the
Diatessaron in the African Latin, so that the reading represents a
very early strain of the Western text, and there is much to be
said in its favour from internal evidence.

Mk ix 3 (after ‘and his garments became glistering exceeding white’)
(a) ‘so as no fuller on earth can whiten them’ NB 1l&c al?
dk arm
(8) ‘assnow’ S=Xan
(y) ‘as snow, so as no fuller on earth can whiten them’

Gr.rel. Lat.rel
D* and‘ syr.vg practically agree with (y), but substitute no one

± Tt is perhaps worth while pointing out that no ms except B has terepos for gcyaros.
Ephraim’s words (AMoes. 191) are: ‘How,’ saith he, ‘seemeth this to you? A certain man had two
sons.’ And that he called them ‘sons’ was that he might stimulate them to his work. ‘ Yea,’
saith he, ‘Lord!’ He called him ‘Son,’ and he called him ‘ Lord, instead of calling him ‘ Father’
and accomplishing his word. ‘Which of them did the will of his father?’ And they decided
rightly and say ‘The second.’

2 In the Journ. of Th. Studies ii 112 and Ene. Biblica 4992 I fear that I emphasised the
mere agreement of East and West too strongly in discussing the passage.

Western readings supported by the Diatessaron. 241

for no fuller. There can be little doubt that (a) is the true text:
the naive simile in Mark provoked alteration from the time of the
first and third Evangelists down to the fourth century. The
introduction of ‘as snow,’ which is also inserted in Lk ix 29 by
e and C’ (not S), may possibly have been due to Tatian. According
to Diat* xxiv 4 he wrote “ His raiment became [exceeding] white
as snow and as the brightness of lightning, so that nothing on earth
can become so white.” As this does not agree verbally with the
Peshitta, it may very well represent the true Diatessaron.

Mk xvi 3, 4. The clause wv yap péyas ofddpa is placed in most docu-

ments, including f, at the end of xvi 4, so that it is a remark of
the Evangelist. In S, with D565 lat.vt (exc. &) Eus and Diat™
lu 47—49, the clause is put at the end of the women’s speech, and
EpXovTar kal edplioxovew dmoKkexvdtcpevov Tov hiov is read instead
of dvaBrépacar Pewpotow ore ܬ »?ܗܬ »ܘܗ‎ 6 NOos. Thus we get

NB ete.

...they were saying one to
another, ‘Who will roll away
for us the stone from the door
of the tomb 2’

And looking up they see
that the stone is rolled away,
for it was very great.

[L.e., at was so large that
they could see its position at
some distance. |

Diat* li 47—49.

...they were saying one to another,
‘Who will roll away for us the
stone from the door of the tomb,
for it was very great?’ [And
WHILE THEY SPAKE THUS, there was
a great earthquake, and an angel
descended from heaven and came
and rolled away the stone from the
door.| And they came and found
the stone rolled away [FROM THE
TOMB, and the angel sitting on the
stone. |

The words in italics come from Matt
xxviii 1, 9. The words in small capitals

appear to be connecting links added by the
harmonist.

Were it not for the accessory attestation, we might be tempted to
conjecture that the transposition was due to the harmonist himself.
But &, which does not transpose the clauses, also attests épyovra: and

B, II,

31

242 The Texts of S and of C.

dmoxexudiopevov Tov Mov, and the Gospel of Peter also puts péyas yap
Hv 6 dOos into the women’s speech—in fact, it is put into their mouths
before they start for the tomb. The reading of S and the Diatessaron
was therefore very widely spread in one form or another. Yet it can
hardly be original. The text of 8. Mark, indeed, at this point invites
change. It is easy to miss the meaning of jv yap péyas ofddpa, though
such a remark is exactly in the style of the man who wrote 6 yap Katpos
ܬܐܘ‎ Av ovKov (Mk xi 13). Still more unsatisfying to the taste of the
2nd century was the absence of a ‘sign from heaven’ on the Resurrec-
tion morning. It is here that 6 brings in a sudden darkness and the
descent of angels from heaven. A similar prodigy is related in the
rospel of Peter, and we have seen that Tatian joined these verses from
Mk with the appearance of the angel in Matt xxviii 1—3. In fact, the
wording of Matt xxviii shews a similar treatment of the sober narrative
of 0. Mark.

May we not conjecture that the interpolation in Mk xvi 3, now
found only in k, was once far more widely spread? On this view the
text represented by D565 lat.eur and the Diatessaron represents a
revised text from which the apocryphal addition has been cut out.
The transposition of the clauses and the obliteration of dvaBdébacat
would then be regarded as scars arising from imperfect surgery.

In any case we may feel safe in saying that S is here dependent on
the Diatessaron: either the ancestor of S had been assimilated to the
Diatessaron by transcribers, or more probably the translator of the Ev.
da-Mepharreshe was himself here influenced by the familiar wording of
Tatian’s Harmony.

Agreements of S or C with Western texts, where the reading
of the Diatessaron is not known.

Matt v 11 Wevddpuevor] om. S=D lat.vt; Chas the word, with Gyr.rel.

Lk x 41, 42. ® with lat.vt, has only Martha, Martha, Mary has
chosen for herself the good part that shall not be taken from her.
Here Cin v. 41 has been corrected to agree with the received
text, but no yap is added in v. 42. D has dopyBaly added after

the second Mép@a.

Western readings where the Diatessaron is not known. 243

Lk xi 35, 86. D and all the best Old Latin mss simply substitute the
parallel passage Matt vi 23° for these somewhat obscure verses.
S and C both have Lk xi 35 (‘see lest the light that is in thee
be darkened’), but in C this is followed by Matt vi 23” (omitting
®. 36). JS, on the other hand, has the same curious recasting of
the verse which is attested by f and g, Latin mss that usually
present quite commonplace readings. This grouping is most pecu-
liar; in fact, it can hardly be accounted for, except on the
supposition that fand ¢ here preserve the true Old Latin rendering
and that D abe ffir have been assimilated by later transcribers to
the more familiar wording of Matt. For details, see the Note on
the passage.

Lk xi 53, 54. Both S and C give support to the Western text of this
passage, C’ agreeing exactly with Codex Bezae (which we may
conjecture here to represent the Greek text underlying the Dia-
tessaron). But S omits wa evpwow Kkatyyopqoat avtov, probably
because there was nothing corresponding to these words in the
Greek ms from which the Hv. da-Mepharreshe was mainly ren-
dered, i.e. it agreed with NB and the text adopted by Westcott
and Hort.

Lk xiv 5. vids # Bods B (and most Gk mss) efqg sahsyr.ve; dvos 7
Bods SL 1&c 33 al? lat.eur-vg arm ; mpoBarov 7 Bovs D.
Here S and aeth have ‘his ox or his ass’; C’ has ‘his son or 8
ox or his ass.’

Lk xvii 11 ‘through the midst of Samaria and Galilee’] + ‘and Jericho’
lat.vt. C, but not S, has an addition which may be translated
‘and Jericho’ or ‘to Jericho. Diat*" omits the half-verse. For
the linguistic details see the Note on the passage.

Joh viii 34 ‘He that doeth sin is a slave of sin’] so most documents ;
Db Clem“ Cyp and S omit ‘of sin.’ This interesting reading is
now further attested in Latin by the so-called Tractatus Oriyenis,
pp. 25, 94.

It will be noticed that the agreements of S and @ with the Western
texts is of the most varied kind, ranging from passages where the whole

244 The Texts of S and of C.

mass of Old Latin and allied documents is arrayed on the one side to
passages where the Old Syriac, or one branch of it, is found to agree
with a single Western text such as k or Cyprian. Agreements with
Codex Bezae are frequent, but S and C shew no greater tendency to
agree with it than with any other of the leading representatives of the
Old Latin.

On the whole, I venture to think it is reasonable to suppose that
most of the distinctively Western readings in the Hvangelion da-
Mepharreshe are due to the influence of the Diatessaron, At the same
time we have seen that there are some readings of the Hvangelion
da-Mepharveshe, otherwise only attested by Western authorities, which
yet are not in the Diatessaron. The genealogical interpretation of such
readings is that they represent the primitive agreement of Rome and
Antioch in rejecting a distinctively Alexandrian corruption. But the
extant attestation does not differ from that of readings where S and C
have received a Western corruption through the Diatessaron. One of
the chief guides in this puzzling labyrinth is, I believe, to be found in
the African text, i.e. Cyprian and ¢ or e. The Africans have their own
faults, but I do not think they seem to have been much influenced by
Tatian’s Harmony. If this be conceded, it follows that the agreement
of Carthage and Edessa has a much stronger claim to our acceptance
than the mere agreement of Rome and Edessa. The latter grouping
may represent little more than a text locally current in Rome towards
the end of the second century. The agreement of Carthage and Edessa
may take us back a generation earlier.

Before taking leave of the Western texts, we may once more remind
ourselves of the large non-Western element in the Evangelion da-
Mepharreshe. Many of the most characteristic Western readings find
no place in it. Thus the quotation of Ps ii 7 in Lk iii 22 and the
omission of the name ‘Philip’ in Matt xiv 3 are not attested by the
Old Syriac, and in Matt ¥ 4, 5, § preserves the Eastern order of the
Beatitudes. Other passages where S rejects a well-marked Western
variant are Mk ix 35, xiv 25, Lk ix 62, xii 38.

Agreements with secondary Greek MSS. 245

Crass IV.
SC and secondary Greek MSS.

We have examined the nature of the agreements between the Old
Syriac and the two chief strains of text found in our ancient authorities.
But all the readings of the Old Syriac cannot be grouped under agree-
ments with 8B and agreements with the Western texts. There remain
those readings, in some respects the most interesting class of all, where
the Old Syriac agrees with neither of these groups, nor yet with the
text current in the mass of later Greek mss. These readings are not
preserved in any Greek ms which is generally regarded as of primary
importance, but they are actually extant in Greek. The secondary
Greek attestation shews us that the reading in question is not a mere
trick of Syriac rendering, while the witness of the Old Syriac in favour
of the reading declares its antiquity and its claim on our serious con-
sideration.

The mss which contain noteworthy readings attested by the Old
Syriac are

The group 1-118-131-209, here called 1&c

The Ferrar-group 13-69-124-346-543 (and others), here called 13&c

565, called by Tischendorf 2°

28

700, called by Scrivener and Hoskier 604.

Of these the most important is the group 1&c. This group has been
long familiar to scholars through its chief representative Codex 1, a
ms used by Erasmus himself. Codex 1 has often been collated, and
in 1902 its text was published in full by Mr Kirsopp Lake (now
Professor in Leiden), together with its special allies (Texts and Studies
vii 3). It will however be convenient to take all the mss above
enumerated together, as their textual affinity to the Old Syriac seems
to be derived from their common remote ancestry rather than from
their special composition. We are now, in fact, trying to gather
readings from the Greek text of the Gospels as read in Syria before
the 4th century. No Greek ms survives which has such a text even
in approximate purity, and to collect our material we must use an
eclectic method.

246 The Texts of S and of C.

The few variants collected below have been brought together as
examples of the help given us in this quest by l&e 13&¢ 28 565 and
700. It must be remembered at the outset that we are dealing with a
different class of evidence from what we have been hitherto considering.
The NB-text and the ‘Western’ texts (including the Diatessaron) are
practically contemporaneous in origin with the Old Syriac. They are
‘authorities’ on the same textual plane. Now we are dealing with
inferior mixed texts, the antique elements of which are essentially frag-
mentary and often mutilated. They are in no sense rivals of the Old
Syriac, like the Greek ms B or the Latin ms k: none of their readings
when definitely contradicted by the ancient texts can be entertained as
genuine. Their whole textual use is subsidiary.

At the same time the part that they may legitimately be made to
play is considerable, when they preserve the Greek text which underlies
the Old Syriac Version. The Old Syriac Version is one of our chief
textual authorities, but its witness to the type of Greek text anciently
current at Antioch is liable to suspicion from two sides. Like all
versions, the Old Syriac may give us merely a translator’s paraphrase
where it seems to differ from the transmitted Greek: in such cases
subsidiary Greek attestation, if it agree literally with the Syriac, tends
to shew that the Syriac is preserving a real Greek variation. But
besides this ordinary source of uncertainty, from which the Old Syriac
suffers in common with other versions, there is the special uncertainty
arising from the influence of the Diatessaron. And here the subsidiary
Greek attestation plays a most important part. The Old Syriac is
wholly ancient, but it is open to the suspicion that many of its readings
are nothing more than a translation from the Diatessaron, nothing
more than a translation of a text current in Rome. The subsidiary
Greek attestation, on the other hand, is taken from a text full of late
elements, but it is substantially free from the suspicion of mixture
with the Diatessaron or the special Roman text of the end of the
2nd century. Readings, therefore, which are supported both by the
Old Syriac and by these subsidiary Greek texts escape both accusations.
Such readings must be really ancient, for they are found in the Old
Syriac; and they are not mere Syriac adaptations of the Diatessaron,
for they are extant in Greek Mss not specially connected with the
West of Europe. In other words, like almost all the Old Syriac

Agreements with secondary Greek MSS. 247

readings which are neither due to the exigencies of translation nor
rendered directly from Tatian’s Diatessaron, these variants must have
been found in the Greek text of the Gospels as read at Antioch about
200 AD.

Matt vi 6 7@ 2°] om. syr.S C Diat™ ix 27 (sic) Aph 67 = Dal? (latt) 1
18& 700
By this omission the sense becomes ‘Pray in secret to thy
Father’ instead of ‘Pray to thy Father which is in secret.’ The
addition of 1 18&@ 700 to the authorities for omission shews us
that we cannot be sure that the Old Syriac took over this reading
from the Diatessaron against the evidence of the text known to
the translator. The use of to & To Kpvdaiw in Matt vi 18
instead of év ܼܐ‎ kpumr@ (as here), when the Evangelist wishes to
indicate ‘the Father who is in secret’ makes it not unlikely that
the article has been wrongly inserted by most texts in ver. 6.

Matt xxii 35 els €€ avrav vopuxds]| om. vomuixds syr.S arm = 1&e ¢ Orig"

Here @ has the independent insertion Wtaw (=~ypappareds).
The words ܘܐ ܐ )ܐܘܐ‎ ¢ and vopodiddoKados in the Gospels are charac-
teristic of S. Luke alone, so that vouieds is out of place in
Matt xxii 385 and should be omitted. In this passage, then,
the only Greek text that preserves a good reading attested by the
consensus of the best extant representatives of the most ancient
versions is the family 1&c.

Matt xxv 1 rod vupdiov]+Kat ths viudys syr.S-vg arm=D X* 1*-
209* 124* al? latt
There is no evidence for ‘and the Bride’ in any of our more
ancient authorities for the Diatessaron text, but this may be
merely accidental. The erasure of kat $ viudys from every one
of the late Greek documents which do contain the words saves
these documents from the suspicion of having been conformed to
the Latin Vulgate.

Matt xxvii 16, 17 5 BapaBBav| “Inoovv BapaBBav......
"Incoty tov BapaBBav syr.S arm=1kc. See the Note on this
passage for the inconsistent reading of B.

248 The Texts of S and of C.

Mk 1 138 exe? ev 7H epypw (so s)] om. év rH ép. syr.S arm = 1& 28* 565
700 69-124 al™*; om. éket NSABDL 33 13-346&c latt aeg Orig
Here is a clear instance of conflation in the Constantinopolitan
text, but instead of its elements being made up of an Alexandrian
reading on the one hand and a Western reading on the other, it is
made up of an Alexandrian and Western reading added to an
Eastern reading!.

Mk ii 27 éyévero] ¢») syr.S-vg = 1&c 700
This curious reading, viz. ‘The Sabbath was created for man,’ is
not attested for the Diatessaron (Moes. 62, 148, and see the Note
on the passage). There is no real ground for supposing that ‘ was
created’ is a Syriac paraphrase for éyévero. It is to be noted that
no ancient Western text of this passage survives, ver. 27 being

omitted by Dace ffi (7).

Mk iii 17 Boavnpyés| B’nai R’yesh? syr.S-ve, Baneregés arm = Bavn-
peyes 565, Bavnpeyel 700
It is exceedingly improbable that 565 and 700 have here got
their text through the Syriac.

Mk v 1 Tepaoynvar]| Tepyeonvar syr.S arm aeth =N°LUA 33 al” 1&e 28
565 700
It is to be noted that neither S nor @ reads ‘ Glergesenes’ in
Lk viii 26, 37.

Mk vi 22, 23 ‘And the king said unto the girl: “ Ask of me whatsoever
thou wilt, and I will give it thee.” “And he sware unto her:
“whatsoever thou shalt ask of me I will give thee, unto the half
of my kingdom.’] ‘And the king said to the girl: “Ask of
me [what thou wilt], and I will give to thee “unto the half of
my kingdom.” And he sware unto her’ syr.S = 1-209.

Here D (28) 565 lat.vt arm have the common text, but add
moAha after Kal ̇ܘ ܗܗ ܘܨܘ‎

± The full list of Greek authorities which according to Hoskier have exe? without év rq ܘܼܬܐ‎
is KII¥ 1 4 0 11 12 28* [42] 50 69 72 114 124 131 209 253 300 474 489 565 700 ; add syr.S' and
arm, together with the Book of Kells.
ܐ‎ if Written ܪܓܫܟ‎ ,145. The vocalisation here adopted is that of syr.vg according to the
acobites.

Agreements with secondary Greek MSS. 249

Note that in the early part of ver. 22 syr.S-vg arm aeth agree
with 1&¢ bef in reading tHs Ovyarpds THs “Hpwdiuddos, where
NSBDLA 565 have ris 0. avrod “Hpwdiddos and most documents
have ris 0. ܐܐܘ‎ ¢ THs “Hpwdiddos.

Mk vii 88. In the complicated variations found in this verse, syr.S
agrees with 13&c 28, while D 565 side with the Old Latin. For
details, see above, p. 127 f.

Mk viii 10 ets 7a pépy Aadpavovdd] to the hill of Magadan syr.S = eis
TO Opos payeda 28 (sic).

The name Dalmanutha is almost certainly corrupt, and there is
much to be said for Dr Cheyne’s suggestion (Lncy. Bibl. 1635)
that the place meant is Migdal-nunaya, a suburb of Tiberias.
ND ܕܒܐ‎ ie. ‘Tower of the Fishes,’ is mentioned in Talmud B.
Pes. 46 b. On this hypothesis the name was miswritten in a very
early copy of 8. Mark (cf ‘ Boanerges’) and the various texts,
including §. Matthew's Gospel, give more or less independent
attempts at emendation?.

But be that as it may, the agreement here between 28 and
syr.S is of considerable interest for the history of the text. If
syr.S had not been supported by Greek evidence, it might have
been assumed that the Syriac rendering was a mere paraphrastical
harmonisation ; if 28 had stood alone, the reading it supports
would be set aside as the lapse of a mediaeval scribe. As it is,
we must recognise that even singular readings of the group of
minuscules which we are considering, wz. 1&c 13&c¢ 28 565 700,
may be genuine relics of a Greek text akin to that from which the
Old Syriac was translated.

Mk ix 48 eis rHv yéevvay]| om. syr.S=1&e 28 al
In ver. 45 syr.S with the best authorities omits eis 7d Up 06
aa Beoror, and also vv. 44 and 46 which are identical with ver. 48.
Thus instead of the repetitions of the ordinary text, repetitions

1 In Mk viii 10 codex B has AaAmanoynOa, which is a step nearer to the hypothetical
MAPAdANOYNES, OF Maydadvouvaia, conjectured by Dr Cheyne. The Armenian Dalmanounea is
still nearer.

B. Il. 32

250 The Texts of S and of C.

which in ver. 43 have invaded even the text of Westcott and

Hort, we get the series ‘“...the unquenchable Fire...Gebhenna...
Gehenna, where neither their worm dieth nor is their fire
quenched.”

That the doubled eis in the ordinary text of ver. 43 is not
original is also suggested by the fact that the second eis is changed
into dmov éoriv by D and the Old Latin.

Mk x 11,12. In syr.S and 1 these verses are transposed, so that the
prohibition of the wife leaving her husband comes before that of
the husband leaving his wife. In 209 the latter clause is omitted
altogether. Is it not possible that the reading of 1 and syr.S is
the original? Later editors would be more likely to put the man
before the woman than the woman before the man; moreover the
order supported by 1 and syr.S brings out more strongly the unmis-
takeable reference to Herodias and Herod Antipas, which underlies
the whole story as told in the primitive narrative of 8. Mark.

Mk x 14 Hyavderncey Kat etrev avrots| after kai syrS adds émuripjoas
= 1&¢ 13&c¢ 28 565 (and arm). A clearly recensional variant.

Mk x 20 éfvrakdunv (or épvdagéa)| ܘܗ ܘܐܘ‎ syr.S arm=1&c! 565.
‘Done’ instead of ‘kept’ is also read in Aphraates 392, but there
is no evidence for éroiyoa in Matt or Lk.

Mk x 50 daoBahov| émBadrov syr.S aeth=565. Another instance of
an early variant preserved in Greek only in a single minuscule.

Mk xvi 3, 4. On the transposition here found in D 565 lat.eur as well
as in syr.S and Diat®™ lii 47, see above, p. 241. I mention this
reading again here because it is supported by 565 as well as by
Codex Bezae.

Lk vi 48 ‘because it was well builded’ (so NBL&c)] om. syr.S=700.
Most documents read ‘for it was founded upon the rock,’ in agree-
ment with Matt vii 252.

± Note that syr.$ does not omit dSdoxade in x 20, as is done by KT 1-209 al’.

+ It is interesting to note that so conservative a scholar as Mr H. C. Hoskier ventured in 1890
to suggest that in this instance the reading of a single minuscule preserved the original text
(Hoskier’s Codex Evangelium 604, p. cxvi).

Agreements with secondary Greck MSS. 251

Lk xi 33 ܘ ¢ ܘ‎ Tov pdSior] om. syr.S arm=LIs 1&c¢ 69 700. 6
words are inserted in syr.C' in such a way that the ‘bushel’ comes
before the ‘concealed place’: cf cod. Fuldensis, p. 46. The im-
portant fragments edited by Amélineau in Not. et 205 xxxiv,
which represent a type of Greek text current in Upper Egypt, also
omit the clause in agreement with LE.

Joh i 28. See the separate Note.

Joh ix 34 ddos] ܘܘ‎ syr.S arm =1&c al’. The reading implied by S is
certain : cf Matt ¥ 34 SC.

Joh xix 13 Ta@Ba0é] xampaa 1 19 22 138 565 and the Armenian.
Unfortunately both S and C are missing, but the agreement of
1 and 565 with the Armenian leaves little doubt that the Hv. da-
AMepharreshe had here ܟܦܬܐ‎ Kapphéthd, i.e. ‘Arch.’ The Peshitta
has ,ܓܦܝܦܬܐ‎ a word a little nearer TaBBabe in sound, but mean-
ing ‘coved,’ ‘having a niche.’!
It is worthy of special notice that 565 in Joh xix seems to
present the same type of text that it has in Mk, though in the
greater part of Joh it differs little from the run of late mss.

@ 488 V.
Noteworthy singular readings of S and C.

The singular readings of the Old Syriac must always lie under a
certain amount of suspicion, because it is always possible that such
readings never existed in Greek, but were mere mistakes or simplifica-
tions due to the translator. At the same time we should expect to
find a certain number of valuable singular readings. To take the most
obvious instance, there are several ancient readings preserved only by
the Old Syriac and the African Latin: where the best representatives
of the African Latin fail us we may expect to find some equally ancient
readings preserved by the Old Syriac alone.

1 Romance of Julian 189%: a ܡܥܪܬܐ ܓܦܝܦܬܐ‎ was suitable for an extemporised altar.

252 The Texts of S and of C.

The singular readings of the Old Syriac, about which we may have
the most confidence that they represent ancient Greek variants, are
those which supply one element of a variant, otherwise only attested as
part of a conflation. The famous conflate readings upon which so much
of Dr Hort’s textual theory is founded are combinations of an ancient
Alexandrian—Dr Hort would say ‘Neutral’—text with its almost
equally ancient Western rival. The normal Greek attestation of such
readings is B for the Alexandrian side, D for the Western side and the
mass of codices for the combination of the two rival variants together.
In these readings the Old Syriac goes sometimes with B, sometimes
with D.

But there is another class of conflate readings in which SBD and
the Latins are all grouped on the one side, the opposing group being
mostly made up of the minuscules 1&c 13&¢ 28 565 700, the readings
of which we have just been considering. But these minuscules, valuable
as they are, are not nearly so true to type as Codex Bezae. It often
happens that they present the ordinary Constantinopolitan reading,
especially in Matt Lk and Joh, and so the Old Syriac is often left alone
as the representative of the ancient variant. In such cases the text
attested by the Old Syriac survives only in those parts of the longest
reading which are not attested by the Alexandrians and the Latins. It
will be found that most of the examples given below illustrate this state
of things.

Matt xxiii 23 ratra 6€ eeu ,ܬܘܗ 7 ܬܘ‎ KaKEtva py) adetvar.

Here Westcott and Hort follow BCL al® adh syr.vg boh in reading
Aceae, While ede: alone (without dé) is read by > D* al?! lat.e-vg arm.
But syr.S C have

ܗܠܝܢ ܕܝܢ ܥܒܕܬܘܢ ܘܗܠܝܢ ܕܝܢ ܠܐ ܫܒܩܬܘܢ
But these ye have done, but these ye have not left.‏

This is evidently a rendering of a Greek text in which $¢ was
present but ede was omitted.

I venture to think that there is good reason to believe that the
reading implied by the Syriac is the original. The Syriac as it stands
is, of course, almost incoherent unless we supply a note of interrogation
at the end, but the Greek implied by the Syriac sounds to me like a
literal rendering of an Aramaic original. rtavra ¢¢ moujoar ܐܬܘܬ‎

Noteworthy singular readings. 253

py ܬܘ ܐܧ‎ might very well stand for
paws pon xdy ܐܒܒ‎ poo

where the infinitives with b have the same force as ܒܕܡ‎ in 2 Ki xii 9
Heb. The sense is the same as when ée is supplied, but the rhetorical
effect is stronger without it.

A New Testament parallel to this construction is to be found in
2 Cor xii 1, where we ought to read with ܠܐ‎ (D,*) al boh aeth cavyacGar
dé—od ouphdpov pév—édedoopar 8¢ eis drtacias ,)ܐܐ‎ a broken con-
struction that well suits the impassioned style of the context.

Lk xix 37 ܐܐ‎ racdv av eidov Suvdpewr.

For this, syr.S C have simply wept ravrev ar eidov, while D 7 have
Tepl TavtTwy wv eldov y(e)wvouévwr, the whole clause being omitted by
cffils. The chief interest of this variation consists in the fact that
the great codex Vaticanus has mepitrantwnwneidonaynamewn, a false concord
which suggests that its ancestor attested the shorter reading, now found
only in the Old Syriac.

Lk xxiv 46 ovrws yéypamrat| The note on these words in Westcott
and Hort’s Notes on Select Readings ran as follows :—-“ + Kat ovtTws eeu
Syrian (Gr. Lat. Syr.): also ovvws ee omitting ovtTws yéypamrat Kat
cut arm Eus.Theoph. syr. v 2 (Epiph): also <ovrtws ce Cyp. Probably
three independent corrections of the (in the sense intended) abrupt
phrase ovrws yéypamrar wabety; though the Syrian reading might be a
conflation of text and the second, had the second more substantive
attestation: €e. comes from the similar v. 26.”

The suggestion thus made has been confirmed by the discovery of
syr.S, which omits ovrws yéypamrat cai while retaining ovrws ede. C is
not extant, but the evidence of the Armenian shews that S here pre-
serves the genuine Old Syriac reading. The four Greek minuscules
are 72 237 240 244: I have not noticed that any of them shew any
tendency to agree with the Old Syriac, so that their reading here may
be due to the accidental dropping of a clause.

Joh ili 18 Tov povoyevovs viod tov Geov] See the Notes on this passage
and on Joh i 34, where it is suggested that S (which reads ‘ the Chosen
Son,’ Le. 70d éxexTov viov) may alone have preserved the true reading.

254 The Texts of S and of C.

Joh iv 9 yuvaikds Sapapizridos ovans] om. syr.S. The following
words ob yap ouvypavrat “lovdaior Sapapetrats are omitted by N*D abe:
is it possible that this gloss arose as an explanatory paraphrase of
yuvaikds Lapapiridos ovens, i.e. that it was intended to round off the
woman's speech? If so, syr.S preserves an earlier stage than the
mass of Greek Mss.

The main object of this chapter has been to shew that, when all the
necessary deductions have been made, we may learn a great deal from
the Old Syriac as to the type of text current in Antioch about the end
of the second century. It is useless to attempt to sum up the results
of so tentative an investigation as has been here made. One thing,
however, remains—to point out the great gap that still exists in our
knowledge of the early history of the text of the Canonical Gospels.
Speaking generally, we learn the Roman text from Justin Martyr, from
Tatian, from D and the Latins, the special variety current in Carthage
being preserved with great purity in k. We learn the Alexandrian
text from ܠܐ‎ and B, so far as the evidence is not directly contradicted
by the puzzling witness of Clement. We learn the early Antiochian
text from the Old Syriac. But of the texts current in the fourth great
centre of early Christendom, Ephesus and Asia Minor, we know very
little. It is almost certain that the manuscripts of this part of the
Christian world must have exercised some influence on the texts which
have survived to our times, but at present this question is almost
untouched and the ancient readings characteristic of Asia Minor and
the mss that preserve them remain alike unidentified.

NOTES ON SELECT READINGS

art 9 :
pe ܒܠܐܐ‎

`

CLAS‏ ܥܥܛܟܢܵܟ݀ܬ

¡ os ܝܐܝ„ ܀‎ DPETDIN IO

ܪܨܢ = 2 9 ܥ 0
ܥ 60
ay RCo >‏

Copsex S, fol. 28 ¥, 4s 0

nee
ܨ‎

ܠ ܐܝ
ia” Ceuta oe, eet‏
= ܢ ̈ܠ 0 ‘ ‘ 7
Pa oe oS 0‏
“een FN‏ <
ܘܝܓ ܘܗ ܐ ܛܬ = SS‏
ܥܢ .ܗ ܨ

ܣ

reT At

ps

ORES 1

es
» Sat 6 - ܨܡ ܥ ܆‎

bound (Mk xvi 1—8; Lk i 1—3).

8. MATTHEW

i 1-16 On the general correctness of the spelling of Hebrew proper names see
Introduction, p. 202 f. For ‘Shala’ (wv. 4, 5), see Ruth iv 20, 21 syr.vg. It is remark-
able that the earlier Syriac tradition so often has 4 at the end of these names where it
ought to be a, e.g. 40% Ober (for ‘Obed’) in C.A*, ܐܪܒܡܝܘܪ‎ Abior (for ‘Abiud’) in
SC, and ܐܠܝܘܪ‎ Elior (for ‘Eliud’) in C; similarly we find ܐܪܦܦܫܪ‎ for Arphaxad in
Lk iii 36, on which see the Note. These mistakes, for such they are, afford a welcome
proof that the earliest Syriac version of the New Testament was made before the diacritic
point which distinguishes 7 from ® was in general use.

ig The insertion by C of the three kings of Judah omitted by the Evangelist has
some historic interest, as it was long supposed to be the only variant of the ‘Old Syriac’
supported by Syriac patristic evidence. But it is really nothing more than an inter-
polation due to the misplaced erudition of a scribe who did not pay attention to the
‘fourteen generations’ expressly counted in v. 17. What Barsalibi says is: ‘There
was once (==>) found a Syriac ms conflated (ss) from the Hebrew, which inserted
the Three Kings in the Genealogy’; there is nothing else to shew that this Ms was a
copy of the Lv. da-Mepharreshe.

i18 ܦܕ ܠܐ ܢܬܩܪܒܘܢ‎ in ( must surely be wrong. ‘The first letter 18 6
in 8S and Eus. HE” 60 has ܥܕ ܠܐ ܢܬܩܪܒܘܢ‎ ‘before ever they came near.’ The
imperfect after <\ ܥܕ‎ is regular and idiomatic in Syriac (Néldeke § 267), while <\ ܟܕ‎
with the imperfect in the sense of ‘though they had not...,’ would be harsh. An instance
seems to occur in A* 340 (hts ܠܐ‎ a5), but probably that also is a blunder.

Perhaps however <\ ܧܕ‎ was substituted by 0 in Matt i 18 for <\ ܥܕ‎ to exclude
the so-called Helvidian theory that the ‘brethren’ of our Lord were the younger children
of Joseph and Mary. In that case the irregularity of the grammar really arises from
dogmatical considerations.

airod). We may compare‏ ܘܘ ܘܐ =( and syr.vg‏ 8 ܠܥܡܗ ;¢ <s\s\‏ 821 ܐ
for ravi 76 Aad. It is always‏ ܠܦܠܗ ܥܠܡܐ Lk ii 10, where S and syr.vg have‏
‘people’ to a Syriac‏ ܥܡܐ tempting to assign confusions of sls ‘world’ and‏
origin, but in Matt 1 21 the variation in the suffix shews that the change was not due‏
to a simple graphical error. Ia view of the far-reaching variations of S from syr.vg in‏
in this very verse, noticed on‏ ܬܐܠܕ to‏ ܠܟ this chapter (including the addition of‏
is a mere correction from the Peshitta. See‏ ܠܥܡܗ p. 200), it is hardly likely that‏
also on Lk ii 10.‏

B. IL. 33

258 Notes on Select Passages.

116-25 The variations of S and (in these verses from the ordinary text are best
taken together; and contrary to the usual custom, I think it will be better to begin with
historical and dogmatic considerations and then go on to the details of the transmitted
text. Ido this from a firm belief that no fresh light upon the historical events of the
Nativity has been thrown either by the discovery of 8 or by the publication of the
Dialogue of Timothy and Aquila.

The belief that Jesus Christ was born from a virgin mother was not a constituent
part of the earliest preaching of Christianity. Even if credence was given to the dogma
by those who had heard of it, the silence of 8, Mark, of 8S. John, and of 8. Paul, is
enough to shew that to them, and to the circles for which they wrote, the theory of the
birth of Jesus from a virgin was either unknown or was at most an unessential
accompaniment of the Incarnation of the Messiah. In the case of 8. Paul we may even
claim that the words which he uses to assert the true humanity and Israelite nationality
of God’s predestined Son, born of woman, born under Luw (Gal iv 4), imply rather that
His birth was essentially natural rather than peculiar. The phrase Man that is born of
® woman is found in Job xiv 1, and that passage may even have been in S. Paul’s mind,
though doubtless it had been used for ‘a human being’ in many a verse and proverb
before the author of Job enshrined it in Hebrew literature.

We do not know what led to the propagation of the dogma of the Virgin-birth. The
evidence for it rests upon the narratives in the First and Third Evangelists and the
general belief of the Church in the second century. It is difficult, if not impossible, to
harmonise the details of Matthew and Luke, but the fact that the two narratives are
absolutely independent of each other shews that the points upon which the writers agree
were not their own invention. ‘The tradition or belief, therefore, known to the First and
Third Evangelists and accepted by them, was that Joseph the husband of Mary was a
descendant of King David, that Jesus the Messiah was born at Bethlehem, having been
conceived by Mary while she was yet a virgin, and that afterwards the Holy Family
lived at Nazareth. It is certain that this much was believed by Matthew (as I shall for
convenience call the First Evangelist) and that he did not invent it. The matter in
hand is the question of textual criticism, and for that purpose this very bare conclusion
is quite sufficient.

I must now indicate very briefly the arguments that lead me to believe that the
first two chapters of the First Gospel are the work of the same hand as the rest of the
Gospel. In common with the majority of modern scholars I believe that our First
Gospel is based on a document identical with, or very closely akin to, the Gospel
according to 8. Mark, while another document has supplied the material for the long
Discourses, such as the Sermon on the Mount, &c. Besides these two main sources the
Evangelist had access to some other traditions, possibly written, possibly oral, which
supplied peculiar features like the earthquake at the crucifixion and the story of the
guard at our Lord’s tomb. To the Evangelist himself may be assigned the character-
istic quotations from Old Testament prophecy, by which he intends to shew that all the
stages of Christ’s life on earth, and not only the events of the Passion, were fulfilled
according to what the Scriptures had foretold. 'The Greek style of Matthew is marked;
he has a fondness for certain words and phrases, so that almost every passage of
considerable length contains some of them.

S. Matthew i 16-25. 259

When we come to Matt i, ii, and ask ourselves whether these chapters belong to the
rest of the Gospel, or whether they are to be regarded as a later insertion, we find that
the internal literary evidence is extraordinarily strong in their favour. The two
chapters contain no less than five of the O.T. quotations, accompanied by the regular
Matthaean formulae; we find also the same machinery of dreams which is employed
later on in the story of Pilate’s wife (xxvii 19), itself an incident peculiar to Matthew.
The linguistic peculiarities of these chapters are conveniently tabulated in Sir John
Hawkins’ Horae Synopticae, pp. 4-7; it is sufficient here to note that in the short
compass of Matt i and ii—only 48 verses in all, 16 of which are taken up with a
genealogy—we find of the characteristic Matthaean words dvayupeiv, eydpevos (with
names), dvap, rAnpotoba, pybév, oPdSpa, tére, Paiverba. We may say, in fact, that if
the Nativity Story (Matt i 18-ii 23) be not an integral part of the First Gospel, it must
be counted one of the cleverest of literary adaptations, a verdict that is not likely to be
passed on it by a sane criticism. The literary evidence for the authorship of the
Genealogy (Matt i 1-17) is in the nature of things slighter. Yet even here we have the
characteristic ܤܘ ܘ )ܘܘ‎ in v. 16, and the objective way that the writer speaks of ‘the
Christ’ in v. 17 is quite in the manner of Matt xi 2.

The contents of Matt i and ii, apart from the intrinsic interest of the events related,
events which in the view of the Evangelist were even in their details the direct
fulfilment of prophecy, fit in excellently with the general scheme. ‘The Gospel according
to Matthew may well be called The Book of Jesus Christ, the son of David. Under this
title our Lord is recognised by the two blind men (ix 27), by the multitudes (xii 23), by
the Canaanitish woman (xv 22), by the children in the Temple itself (xxi 9, 15). He is
the King of the twelve tribes of Israel (xix 28), who is ultimately to reign over all the
nations (xxv 34). The special aim of Matthew, in one word, is to represent our Lord as
the legitimate Heir of the royal house of David. This aim is strictly pursued in
Matt i, 11. The Genealogy exhibits the royal descent of Jesus Christ, while the Nativity
Story shews us the alarm of the usurper Herod, when he learns that the legitimate ruler
has been born within his dominions. As Saul tried to kill David, so Herod tries to
kill Jesus; and Jesus finds a refuge in Egypt, as David found a refuge among the
Philistines. .

I believe therefore that Matt i and 11 form an integral part of the First Gospel. We
have now to consider what view of the Nativity the Evangelist wishes to set before us.
There can in the first place be no doubt at all that Matthew wishes us to learn that
Jesus Christ was conceived by Mary while yet a virgin. This is not a question of
textual criticism, of the omission of a word here or there. The whole paragraph i 18-25
is absolutely based on this assumption. Joseph finds his betrothed: with child, but on
the authority of Divine revelation he learns that this has taken place not é« ropvelas but
éx mvevparos ayiov. Accordingly he accepts Mary as his wife, and on the birth of the
child he accepts the child as his son by naming him, in obedience to the command of
the Angel.

I do not know what view the learned Sir Robert Filmer took of this question (see
Patriarcha i 9), but to me the position taken up by the Evangelist seems as logical as
the necessities of the case allowed. If the Messiah be the son of no earthly father and
at the same time the legitimate heir of David, it is difficult to see what else he could

260 Notes on Select Passages.

have said. That the Messiah should be merely a son of David was not enough. There
were doubtless many sons of David alive at the time; but the Evangelist wanted the
legitimate Heir of the Divine promises made to David. That the infant Jesus was the
legitimate Heir was proved for Matthew by the miracles which were performed on His
behalf and by the prophecies which were at once fulfilled by the circumstances of His
childhood. The points which Matthew wishes to impress on his readers are the physical
reality of the birth of Christ from a virgin and the legality of the descent from David.
The physical reality of the descent from David was, as I understand him, a matter of no
moment so long as the legal conditions were satisfied.

To come at last to the Genealogy. A great deal has been written since the discovery
of the Sinai Palimpsest about the original form of this Genealogy, about supposed
Temple registers, &c. I cannot believe that any document underlies it. On the
contrary, I believe that it is the composition of the Evangelist himself. It is a
statement of claim that ‘Jesus called Christ’ is the heir of David, but I do not believe
that it is meant to be a statement of physical facts, any more than in the case of the
corresponding lists in Chronicles upon which it is so closely modelled. The con-
temporaries of the Evangelist knew their Bible at least as well as we do. They knew
that there were more than 14 generations between David and the Captivity, that Joram
did not beget Uzziah, and that Josiah did not beget Jeconiah. Nor would the fact that
the Evangelist had followed the statements in 1 Chron iii 17 allow them to forget the
tremendous curses that Jeremiah had pronounced upon this same Jeconiah: Earth,
earth, earth, hear the word of the Lord! Thus saith the Lord, Write ye this man
childless,...for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and
ruling any more in Judah (Jer xxii 29/.). As 8. Irenaeus says, adv. Haer. ut xxi 9,
Super haec autem nec rex esse posset si quidem Ioseph filius Suisset, nec heres secundum
Hieremiam.

Throughout the whole Genealogy the Evangelist appears to be telling us in an
audible aside that the heir had often been born out of the direct line or irregularly,
Thamar the daughter-in-law of Judah, Rahab the harlot, Ruth the Moabitess, and the
unnamed wife of Uriah, are forced upon our attention, as if to prepare us for still
greater irregularity in the last stage. his again is no matter of textual criticism and
‘various readings’: just as we cannot emend the miraculous conception out of the
Nativity story, so we cannot get rid of the essential and intentional artificiality in the
Genealogy. The Genealogy in 8. Luke is quite different: I know no reason why the
series in Lk iii 23-31 may not be the names of the ancestors of J oseph up to David, and
there can be little doubt that 8. Luke believed himself to be giving the true names.
But I cannot believe that the Genealogy in Matt i 2-16 rests on any previous list of
Joseph’s ancestors. It is artificial from beginning to end, and meant to be 80, as
artificial as the lists of the twelve thousand sealed out of every tribe of Israel except
Dan in the Book of Revelation’.

± T rejoice to think that this view of the Genealogy in 8. Matthew was also held by so orthodox
a theologian as the late Bishop Westcott. He says in his own note on Matt i 16 (Westcott and
Hort’s Introduction, 2nd ed., Appendix, p. 141): “it is scarcely necessary to add that eyévunoev
in this genealogy expresses legal heirship and not physical descent.”

S. Matthew i 16-25. 261

From what has been said it is evident that no light can be thrown by any statement
in this Genealogy upon the physical facts of the Nativity. If the Genealogy had ended
with the uncompromising statement ‘and Joseph begat Jesus’ it would not prove that
the Evangelist believed that Joseph had been the natural father of Jesus. All that the
Evangelist cares about is that Joseph accepted Jesus as his son; and further, that Joseph
was justified in so doing, because of the exceptional circumstances that had been
revealed to him by the Angel.

It has been necessary to discuss these questions at length, because our judgement
upon the various readings that are actually found in Matt i 16-25 must be influenced
by the general view we take of the passage, i.e. whether we are looking for a document
with a different tendency underlying the text, or contrariwise hold that no such
document ever existed.

The important points of variation are four, wiz.

)1( the omission in i 24.

Gi) the addition of ‘to thee’ by the Old Syriac in i 21.
Gii) the nominative to be supplied to éxéAecey in i 25.
(iv) the variations in i 16.

)1( Matt i 24, 25, runs as follows :—

“Now when Joseph arose from sleep he did as the angel of the Lord commanded
him; and he took his wife and [knew her not until] she bare a son, and called
his name Jesus.”

The words between brackets are omitted by # and S. They are, I believe, right in
so doing. According to the view of the whole matter which bas been explained above,
the shorter text expresses the meaning of the Evangelist. He was only concerned at
this point to assert that Joseph publicly accepted Mary as his lawful wife and publicly
acknowledged her son as lawfully born in wedlock. ‘The domestic arrangements which
their piety may have suggested to them were not a matter of concern for the world at
large. But it is easy to see how later generations of Christians, more impressed with
the significance of the physical miracle and less anxious to assure the legality of our
Lord’s title to be Heir of David, might find difficulties in the shorter text. Accordingly
most documents insert the words which I have enclosed in brackets; while the
Diatessaron, here followed by C, inserts lived purely with her until in the same place.
C also changes ‘his wife’ into ‘Mary,’ still further to remove the impression that they
might have lived together as man and wife. The reading of C and the Diatessaron
presupposes the shorter text of $ and S, for the ordinary text does not provoke
alteration in that sense. From the point of view of textual genealogy, the agreement of
the African Latin (4) with the original form of the Old Syriac (S), virtually supported
as itis but not caused by the Diatessaron, carries us back to the earliest stage of the
Canonical text.

Gi) Inv. 21 both S and C make the Angel say of Mary to Joseph She will bear
thee ® son, as if it were ré€erar dé vidvy coi, Kal kadéoes x.7.r., just like Lki13. The
addition is interesting, inasmuch as its presence in C’ as well as S makes it certain that
in this whole series of variations it is S that preserves the original form of the
Eangelion da-Mepharreshe, and that the variants of C are later attempts at emendation.
Similarly, in v. 25, S has she bare him a son, but here C omits, in company with the

262 Notes on Select Passages.

rest of our witnesses. It is tempting to suppose that the pronoun is genuine, as it is
quite in harmony with the point of view of the Evangelist. But its absence from 4 and
the other Latins makes it on the whole more probable that it is a mere stylistic addition
to the Syriac by the translator of the Hv. da-Mepharreshe and that it never had a place
in the Greek text.

(iii) ékéAecey in Greek and Latin may refer either to Joseph or to Mary, but in
Syriac and in English we are bound to take a side. The command of the Angel as to the
naming of Mary’s Child is given to Joseph (v. 21), so that we can hardly doubt that
the English versions both of 1611 and of 1881 are right when they make Joseph the
nominative of the verb in v. 25. By naming the Child, Joseph accepts Him publicly as
a lawfully born member of his family. It is therefore thoroughly satisfactory to find
this view confirmed by 8, which has a masculine verb in v. 25. But 0 and the Peshitta,
apparently following Tatian, adopt the other view, and make the verb in v. 25 feminine.
This was all the more tempting in Syriac, because <4=ha, the form of the verb required
in v. 21 and used both by S and the Peshitta, may mean either ‘and thou (smasc.) shalt
call’ or ‘and she shall call.’ In such a case it is legitimate to interpret the doubtful
tense by what follows; probably the scribe of S wrote ܬܩܪܐ‎ in v. 21 for the 2nd sing.
masc., while the Peshitta wrote it for the 3rd sing. fem. But C goes still further and
reads ܘܢܬܩܪ̈ܐ‎ so that the clause reads ‘and his name shall be called.’ Here again the
object of the change is to minimise the part played by Joseph.

It is worth notice that Cod. Sangermanensis (q), the ‘mixed’ Latin ms that has so
many affinities with the Diatessaron, has in v. 21 not wocabis but wocabit, in agreement
with the interpretation of the Syriac implied by the Peshitta.

(iv) The textual problems involved in Matt i 16 are exceedingly complex, and I
cannot claim to have arrived at a solution that satisfies all the elements of the puzzle.
But if what I have said above be accepted, as to the general aim and composition of the
Genealogy, the intrinsic interest of the determination of the original text in this passage
is considerably lessened. Whatever our decision be, the question is only a matter of
literary criticism, not of historical fact.

The distinction is important, because some critics, believing that this Genealogy
must have been based on an earlier document, have acclaimed the texts that contain or
seem to contain the statement “Iwod...eyévyqoev tov “Incotv as the representatives of an
earlier form than the received text, and as genuine relics of the (supposed) naturalistic
account of the birth of Jesus which they conjecture to stand behind Matti and ii. But
if the Genealogy be the composition of the Evangelist himself, it will reflect his own
point of view.

The two readings of Matt i 16 which are extant in Greek mss are

(a) “laxwB ¢ éyévvyoer rv "Iwo tov dv8pa Mapias, ¢¢ Hs »ܘ‎ (76 “Inoods 6 Aeyopevos
ܘܐܗ ܬܘܥ‎ ¢

This is the reading of NB and most mss, and it is definitely attested by Tertullian,
De Carne Christi § 20.

(B) “laxwB ܘܘ‎ éyévvycer tov "Iwo, $ prnorevdeioa mapbévos Mapidp, eyévynoey “Incoty
tov Aeyopevov Xpiorov.

This is the reading attested by the ‘Ferrar Group.’ It is also implied by the

S. Matthew i 16-25. 908

various forms of the Old Latin and by the text which underlies the extant Armenian
version’,

In Syriac we find
ܠܝܘܣܗܦ ܓܒܪܗ̇ ܕܡܪܝܡ. ܕܡܢܗ̇ ܐܬܝܠܕ ܝܫܘܥ ܕܡܬܩܪܐ ܡܫܝܚܐ.‎ alow ܝܥܩܘܒ‎

Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, from whom was born Jesus called the
Messiah.

This is the reading of syr.vg., agreeing with (a).

ܝܥܩܘܒ am mal alow‏ ܕܡܦܝܪܐ ܗܘܬ ܠܗ ܡܪܝܡ ܒܬܘܠܬܐ. ܗܝ hala‏

Jacob begat Joseph, him to whom was betrothed Mary the Virgin, she who bare Jesus
the Messiah,

This is the reading of C. The double relative shews that this text cannot be
primitive: it looks to me like an attempt to rewrite the text of S

ܝܥܩܘܒ alo‏ ܠܝܘܣܦ ܝܘܣܦ ܕܡܦܝܪܐ ܗܘܬ ܠܗ ܡܪܝܡ ܒܬܘܠܬܐ. aia‏
ܠܝܫܘܥ ܕܡܬܩܪܐ urn‏

Jacob begat Joseph; Joseph, to whom was betrothed Mary the Virgin, begat Jesus
called the Messiah.

This is the text of S. It is with genuine regret—I must ask my readers to excuse
this expression of personal feeling—that I find myself unable to derive the reading of
the Sinai Palimpsest from anything but 6. I believe that 6 accurately preserves the
original text of the Old Syriac version in this passage and that all the other Syriac
variants (in C, in Aphraates and elsewhere) are derived from that of S. But the reading
of S itself I have come to regard as nothing more than a paraphrase of the reading of
the ‘Ferrar Group,’ the Syriac translator taking 6 to refer to éyévyycer as well as to
ܐ‎

The main consideration that has led me to this conclusion is the impossibility of
rendering the text of S into Greek in such a way as to run harmoniously with the rest of
the Genealogy. The text of S implies “lax f 8 ¢ . rov lwoyp: Iwo [82] ¢ prnotevdeioa
[av] a. £. ܘܩܒ ܘܗ‎ °]. rov rey. X. This as it stands, whether we read éuvnotevOn with
Westcott or prqorevfeioa jv with Blass, is much clumsier than the rest of the Genealogy.
The practice of the writer is to interpose no words between the name and the verb
ܟ ܘܗ ܙ ܗܗ‎ 80 that the clause @ ,ܗܐ‎ 00, M. ought to follow the first mention of
Joseph, not the second. here is of course no grammatical objection to assuming that

1 The more important Old Latin texts here extant are :—
...losef - cui desponsata - uirgo - Maria genuit Iesum Christum &
...loseph cui desponsata - uirgo Maria peperit Christum Iesum d (Ds is lost)
...loseph cui desponsata uirgo Maria genuit lesum qui dicitur Christus a
...loseph cui disponsata uirgo Maria genuit Iesum qui uocatur Christus g
...loseph cui desponsata erat uirgo Maria. uirgo autem Maria genuit Iesum... 6
...loseph cui desponsata uirgo Maria; Maria autem genuit Iesum qui dicitur Christus c

264 Notes on Select Passages.

the original had simply

“lwo S& eyéevvnoey tov “Incotv tov dey. Xpiorov‏ ]ܗܘܐ Se éyévvncey tov‏ »ܘ]'
but in that case there would be no mention of Mary at all. It is inconceivable that the‏
Evangelist, who thought it served the purpose that he had in hand to mention Thamar,‏
Rahab, Ruth and Uriah’s wife, should leave the step containing Joseph bare. No‏
evidence exists, as a matter of fact, for omitting all reference to Mary. Had we sucha‏
text as "Iax. d¢ éyévy. tov “Iwan tov avdpa Mapias: "Iwond S& éyévvycey x.7.d, the case‏
would have been different, but the evidence does not point that way. And in that case‏
also the reading of S would be further from the original than that of NB and Tertullian.‏

As I have explained at length in the earlier part of this Note I believe the question
to be only one of literary and textual interest. But what is to me a very serious matter
is this. If the clause $ prvyorevbeica waphévos Mapiaz. be not genuine, even in the
connexion in which it appears in S, then all the authorities which contain it agree in
error, and therefore they must have some common origin later than the autograph. In
the case before us I must regretfully own that S and 4 agree in a common corruption.
It becomes once more possible to speak of the Western text in the singular number.
This is the real lesson of the variation in Matt 116, and I do not see how to evade the
difficulty, except on the supposition that Theodoret was mistaken and that the
Genealogies had a place somewhere in the Diatessaron, perhaps as an Appendix. On
that hypothesis the agreement of £ and S would be regarded as one of the numerous
cases where the Hvangelion da-Mepharreshe deserted the true old-Antiochian Greek text
to follow a Western reading embedded in Tatian’s Harmony. But I must offer this
rather as an excuse than as an explanation.

There still remain some pieces of evidence that must not be passed over in silence,
although I am unable to regard them as contributing any new element to the solution of
the problem.

Gi) In both the Sinai mss of the Palestinian Lectionary (Mrs Lewis’s B and C) we
read

tam, ܠܝܘܣܦ ܓܒܪܗ ܕܡܪܝܡ ܕܡܢܗ ܐܬܿܝܠܕ‎
Joseph the husband of Mary, him from whom was born Jesus.

The Vatican ms (A) has ܓܒܪܗܿ‎ and eis, now changed into cass, No doubt the
reading of the Sinai Mss is only a mistake for cases (i.e. her from whom), but its
occurrence should warn us not to assume too hastily that later orthodox scribes might
not blunder into statements that look heretical.

Gi) The Genealogy added at the end of the Borgian ms of the Arabic Diatessaron
(Ciasca’s B) contains no ancient element of text, as I have learnt through the kindness
of my friend Dr Guidi. he Vatican ms (Ciasca’s A) is a more interesting document,
inasmuch as some of the kings’ names come ultimately from a Greek and not a Syriac
source, €.g. ܙܚ ܘܟܐܬ‎ (= “PoBodu), Sl) (=’Acad). In Matti 16 we find

olny‏ ܕܐܥ ry ciwoz‏ ܘܢܗ SHI‏ ܘܕܐ gamut aly‏ ܐܚܝܨܢ
Jacob begat Joseph, who from her begat Jesus the Messiah.‏

S. Matthew i 16-25. 265

It is from general considerations most unlikely that any peculiarity in this Arabic Ms
should be really old, unless the reading stood in the immediate Syriac original. Even
in the Genealogy, although the spelling of some of the names shews a Greek influence,
others like 6) (i.e. Ruth) are clearly derived direct from the Syriac. Now syr.vg.

has ,ܕܡܢܗ ܐܬܝܠܕ ܝܫܘܥ‎ and ܘܐܬ ܐܕܚܟܐ‎ lc (od! is surely more likely to be a
blundering translation of this (pointing ܕܚ‎ than of a hypothetical ܕܡܢܗ̇ ܝ ܗܘܠܦ‎ , We

have seen from the example of the codices of the Palestinian Lectionary that orthodox
scribes do not always produce an orthodox reading. I doubt therefore if Ciasca’s A
brings us here back to anything but what is found in the Peshitta.

(iii) More important are the variations found in the Dialogue of Timothy and Aquila,
edited by F. C. Conybeare (Oxford, 1898). In this Dialogue Matt i 16 is quoted three
times. The third of these (p. 88) is obviously based on the common text, and is inter-
esting only as an example of how loosely and inaccurately the writer quotes the N.T. :
it runs lax. 6€ ܘܒܘ‎ tov ܤ ܗܘܐ‎ tov prynotevodpevov papidp, >€ Fs ܗܘ‎ 969 6 xpioros 6
vids Tod Geod. The second quotation is in a rapid recapitulation of the genealogy (p. 76)
and runs »ܘܐ‎ 8& tov iwond, ¢ prnoterfeica papla: € Fs ܙ ܘܗ‎ 67 "Ino. 6 dey. Xpioros.
This is chiefly interesting as affording an actual proof that the phrase ‘husband of Mary’
was liable to change. The first quotation (also on p. 76) is more striking. It is put
into the mouth of the Jew, and to gain an idea of the context it is necessary to quote
more fully.

The Christian says : ‘‘Yes,...from Abraham [Jesus] derives his flesh.”

The Jew says: “How was he born? Tell me his genealogy.”

The Christian says: ‘Thine own mouth hath declared it when reading the Old and
New Testament, and dost thou not know this?”

The Jew says: ‘There is a genealogy in the Old Testament, and in the New there is
one in Matthew (év 73 ×» ܘ‎ 7» Mar@aia, sic), and it runs thus, Jacob begat Joseph the husband
of Mary, from whom was born Jesus that is called Christ. And [so] Joseph begat Jesus
that is called Christ, about whom we are talking, it says he begat [him] from Mary.”

The Greek is taxaB...reydpevos xo, Kal lnonp ܘܗ ܗܗ‎ tov w +, dey. x. wept od viv
6 Adyos, Pyaiv eyévyycey ex THs papias.

I do not believe that cai iwonp éyéryynoev ×... is meant to be a quotation ; it is the
inference of the Jew, who is represented as on the way to conversion. The use of «al is
much the same as on p. 81, last line, where we read paprupa 8¢ rapiotapev tov mpopyrny
noatay Néyovta, ido ¥ wapOevos év yaotpi éfer Kai Téerau vidv, Kal y pyTyp adtod avdpa
od yvaoetat. Here the last seven words are evidently no quotation but the inference of
the speaker. We may almost paraphrase this «ot in English by ‘well then.’ The Jew
quotes the Genealogy and then draws his inference, which is of course repudiated by the
Christian disputant. It is the simple fact that the Genealogy, as it stands according to
the ordinary text, is consistent with the statement ‘Iwonp éyévvycev tov “Tncoty, and it
is only because of what comes afterwards in the following verses that we see that ‘Joseph
begat Jesus’ was not the Evangelist’s meaning. ‘Ihe Jew in the Dialogue had a perfect
grammatical right to take the intentionally ambiguous language of Matt i 16 as he did ;
it is only by examining the context that we can confute him.

B, Il, 34

266 Notes on Select Passages.

With this passage in the Dialogue of Timothy and Aquila we may finally compare
a remarkable passage from the still unpublished Commentary of Barsalibi (on Matt i 18:
cf Dudley Loftus, Trans. p..33):—

ܗܪܦܐ ܙܢܐ ܕܡܘܠܕܗ ܦܓܪ̈ܢܝܐ ܡܿܠܦ. ܡܐ ܕܝܢ ܕܫܡ̇ܥܼܬ ܒܥܠܐ: ܠܐ ܬܣܒܪ
ܕܒܢܡܘܣܐ ܕܦܝܢܐ ܡܬܝܠܕ, ܗܘ ܕܠܢܡܘܣܐ ܕܦܝܢܐ sami‏ ܘܦܕ ܐܬܐ ܠܘܬ
ܝܘܣܦ ܐܡܼܪ ܕܐܘܠܕ ܠܡܫܝܚܐ ܘܥܠܗܝ ܒܬܪܒܢ ܐܡܼܪ. mala‏ ܠܡ ܕܝܫܘܥ ܡܫܝܚܐ

ܗܦܢܐ ܗܘܐ . ܗ. ܕܠܘ ܠܡ ܐܝܟ ܫܪܦܐ ܕܐܢܫܐ . ܐܬܝܠܕ܂, ܐܠܐ ܚܕܬܐ am‏
ܙܝܐ ܕܡܘܠܕܗ,

Here the manner of His corporeal birth (the Heangelist) teaches. When therefore
thou hearest the word ‘husband’ do not suppose that He is to be born by the Law of
Nuture, who Himself prescribes the Law of Nature. And when it comes to Joseph it
says ‘Who begat the Messiah, and for that reason afterwards it says ‘The birth of Jesus
the Messiah was thus,’ i.e. ‘not as the rest of mankind was He born, but a new thing is
the manner of His birth?

Whether this be Barsalibi’s own comment on the Peshitta text, or a quotation from
some ancient writer who had before him a text like that of S, it is after all a sound
exposition of the general meaning of the passage Matti 16, a question which should
be kept quite.distinct from the criticism of the general Christian tradition as to the
Nativity.

iii4 On ܛܘܪ̈ܐ‎ the hills, in the sense of ‘the open country,’ see p. 82.

iii 16 On the mention in the Diatessaron of a great light at the Baptism, see
pp. 115, and 191.

When Rabbula, the future bishop of Edessa, became a Christian he betook himself to
the Holy Places in Jerusalem. From thence he went down to the Jordan ‘and
immediately he persuaded the priests and repeated the Faith before them, and they
anointed him and baptized him. And immediately as he came up from the water, the
cloth that was wrapped round his body, according to the custom of the spiritual
bridegrooms of the Messiah, appeared flashing all over it from all sides with the single
colour of the blood of the Messiah in the sign of Crosses. And all that were there when
they saw this great wonder, they saw and were amazed...and were glorifying God”
(Overbeck 165).

iii 17 On the rendering of 6 vids pov o d&yarntos by ܒܪܝ ܘܚܒܝܒܟ‎ ‘My Son and My
beloved,’ see pp. 116, 156: in this peculiar translation it is evident that the Diatessaron
and the Hv. da-Mepharreshe were agreed. But they differ in what immediately
precedes.

According to all authorities, the Voice from Heaven said ‘ This is My Son’ at the

S. Matthew i 16—v 4. 267

Transfiguration. At the Baptism according to Mk and Lk, the Voice said ‘Thou art My
Son.’ In Matt, according to the ordinary text, the Voice says ‘ This is My Son,’ as at
the Transfiguration; and this reading is followed by the Diatessaron against the witness
of the other Synoptic Gospels. The evidence is singularly full, including Ephr.
‘Rom. vi 16.0 and Moesinger 99, Marutha (see above, p. 156), and even the Arabic
Diatessaron: all these have ‘ This is My Son’'. But S and C here read ‘ Thou art My
Son,’ in agreement with D a and Irenaeus Haer. iii 9, according to the Greek text as
preserved in the very ancient fragments from Oxyrhynchus*, Here therefore S and C
agree with the best extant Western texts in supporting a reading opposed by the
Diatessaron.

I venture to think that the balance of internal evidence is in this case in favour of
the reading ‘Thou art My Son’ attested by S and ©. The general harmonistic
tendencies of transcribers familiar with the Gospel text cannot be cited in favour of
either reading, for the impulse to assimilate Matt iii 17 to Matt xvii 5 would be at least
as strong as the impulse to assimilate it with Lk iii 22 and Mkill. But the same
tendency which led Tatian to prefer the ‘This is My Son’ of his text of Matt to the
‘Thou art My Son’ of Mk and Lk would lead an over-orthodox scribe to change ‘Thou
art’ into ‘This is.’ For ‘This is My Son’ is an announcement to the bystanders or to
John the Baptist: it does not imply the act of Adoption, any more than the Voice at the
Transfiguration implied it. But ‘Thou art My Son’ is addressed to Jesus Himself: we
even find that most of the older Western texts, including Da and SC (but not Iren),
add zpos airév after Aéyovoa, and in any case the reference to Ps ii 7 could not be
missed. For these reasons I prefer to think that the First Evangelist here followed
his source Mki 11 without making any alteration (unless indeed zpés airov itself be
genuine), and that the true text of Matt iii 17 contained the words od «i 6 vios pov, not

93 > € 3
OUTOS EOTLY 0 VLOS MOV.

v 4 ܢܬܒܝܐܘܢ‎ ‘shall be comforted’ SC and syr.vg; the Diatesswron had
ܠܗܘܢ ܢܬܦܫܦܘܢ‎ (or (ܠܗܘܢ ܢܗܘܘܢ ܡܬܦܫܦܝܢ‎ ie. ‘to them folk will make sup-
plication,’ if we may trust Aphraates 41: see Introduction, p. 181, note. The sense of
this alternative rendering of rapaxdyOjoovra: is the same as in Lk vi 24, xvi 25 (see
pp. 109, 1354), but the verb there used is <= not ܐܬܦܫܦ.‎

In rendering the Syriac text of the Beatitudes into English we are met with the
difficulty that ܦ‎ like the English ‘that,’ is used both for a conjunction and for the
relative pronoun. Thus Matt ¥ 4 may mean ‘Happy is it for moumers who will be
comforted,’ as well as ‘Happy is it for mourners because they will be comforted.’ Asa
general rule the true English rendering of such passages in a version may be ascertained
by referring to the original Greek, but here the question is complicated by the very
strong probability that the original Aramaic saying corresponded in form and therefore
in ambiguity to the Syriac before us.

1 J do not include Ephr. Rom. ¥ 545 (see above, p. 116), as the context shews that the
Transfiguration was in S. Ephraim’s mind.

2 See Oxyrhynchus Papyri iii 10 f, and the restoration of the fragments by Dr Armitage
Robinson in the Athenaewm for Oct. 24, 1903. Note that Cod. Bobiensis (£) is not extant here.

268 Notes on Select Passages.

¥ 13 <\eho mash 0: a double rendering of »opav67, betraying the hand of
the reviser, who was probably the same as added ay 34m ܐܘ‎ in ¥ 18: see p. 2177
For > ܝܫܛ‎ as a rendering of pwpaiverdar, see Rom i 22.

¥ 22 The forensic conception of guilt in this verse is so genuinely Semitic and
therefore alien to our phraseology that it is difficult to find a satisfactory translation.
It is desirable to get a terminology which will fit Matt xii 41, 42 and Matt xx 18 as well
as this verse. We distinguish between ‘guilty’ and ‘sentenced’: the Semitic idiom did
not. Further there is a common error that ‘judgement’ in this verse and in Matt 1
41, 42, means the Last Judgement; this error was at any rate not shared by the Syriac-
speaking commentators, as may be seen from Barsalibi on Matt xii 41. 510 stand up in
judgement with’ means little more than ‘to be judged in comparison with’: the Court
and the penalty are unspecified. But this idiom has passed over into the Greek Gospel,
and the év 7H «pice of Matt xii 41 is taken even by Grimm and Thayer to refer to the
Last Day. On this see Wellhausen in GGN for 1895, Heft 1, p. 11.

v34 On ܩܢܘܡܦܘܢ‎ for ¢$, see p. 59 and also Joh ix 34.

¥ 39 On ,ܩܪܒ‎ see p. 8 note. In ©. Ephraim’s Commentary (Afoes. 65, 133) we
find ‘slap for slap’ quoted almost as if it formed part of the text before him. The
passage in his mind is evidently Exod xxi 25 where the Syriac has “as ܚܠܦ‎ <as,
The word Ss means (1) ‘the cheek’; (2) ‘a slap on the cheek.’ It is therefore
curiously appropriate as an illustration of Matt v 39, and may possibly have had a place
in the Syriac Diatessaron after ‘eye for eye, tooth for tooth.’ But the play upon words
does not seem to be repeated in any form of Palestinian Aramaic, so that it can hardly
have anything to do with the original form of the saying.

¥ ® On the Diatessaron text in this passage, see pp. 1107.
vil On ,ܕܠܐ‎ meaning ‘else,’ see p. 67.

vid On ܐܪܒܐ‎ for <<, see p. 47.

vi7 On ܒܛܠܬܐ‎ see p. 81.

vi11,12 For the text of the Lord’s Prayer according to the Acts of Thomas, see
pp. 1057. The metrical Homily of Jacob of Serug on the Lord’s Prayer is still
unpublished: it is a work of some interest as shewing that the pre-vulgate text of the
Prayer still to some extent survived in popular if not in liturgical use so late as the
6th century. I give the text from B.M. Add. 17157 (ap 565), with various readings from
B.M. Add. 14515 (ap 893) and B.M. Add. 14584 (6th or 7th cent.). Jacob of Serng
died aD 521 at the age of seventy.

S. Matthew ¥ 13—vi 24. 269

The actual quotations in the following extract are distinguished in the trans-
lation by difference of type.

ܫܐܠܘ ܬܠܡ̈ܝܕܐ ܕܢܠܦ ܐܢܘܢ ask al’‏ ܘ ܘܕܝܕܥ ܗܘܐ WALI‏
ܫܐܠܘܗܝ ܠܐ ܟܠܐ ܐܢܘܢ ܘ ܗܟܢܐ ܠܡ ܨܠܘ ܐܢܬܘܢ ܡܐ

ܕܡܿܨܠܝܢ ܘ ܐܒܘܢ ܕܒܫܡܝܐ wrod‏ ܡܟ ܐܗ ܕܐܦ pero‏ @
%ܬܐܬܐ chal‏ ܐܦ ܡܠܟܘܬܟ ܡܢ TA‏ ܕܐܝܬܝܗ̇ ܘ ܢܗܘܐ

ܒܐܕܙܕܥܐ ܐܦ os‏ ܝ ܕܒܫܡܝܐ @ ܗܒ ܠܢ ܠܚܡܐ ܐܡܝܝܐ

ܕܝܘܡܐ ܡܢ ܒܝܬ ܓܙܟ ܘ ܘܫܒܘܩ ܚܘ̈ܒܝܢ pols casa‏ ܐܝܟ
ܕܫܒܩܢ ܚܢܢ @ ܘܠܢܣܝܘܢܐ ܠܐ ܕܬܥܠܢ ܕܡܚܚܝܠܝܢܢ .ܘ ܐܠܐ ܦܨܢ

ܐܢܬ ܡܢ ܒܝܫܐ ܕܪܒ ܗܘ 53 e‏ ܡܛܠ ܕܕܝܠܟ ܐܝܬܘܗܝ ܥܘܫܢܐ
ܐܦ ܡܠܟܘܬܐ ܘ ܐܦ ܫܘܠܛܢܐ ܘܪܫܢܘܬܐ 'ܠܥܠܡ ܐܡܝܢ @

14584 ܢܐܠܦܧܦ ܐܢܘܢ ܠܡܨܠܝܘ ale‏ ܬܠܡ̈ܝܕܐ ,14515 ܕܢܿܨܠܘܢ ܗܘܼܘܼ 2
1484 ܐܦ ܨܒܝܢܟ ܢܗܘܐ Mis‏ ,14515 ܘܢܗܘܼܐ ° 6 ܘܬ ]ܕܬܐ %
(ie. ta‘ellain, Nild. § 1900)‏ ܬܥܠܝܢ 1796 : 14616 ܬܥُܠ ܠܢ 4
for the last two lines 14584 has‏ : 14615 ܠܥܠܡ ܥܠܡܝܢ ! 6 ܢܚܠ ܐ ©
ܡܛܘܠ ܕܕܝܠܟ ܗܝ ܡܠܦܘܬܐ ܘܓܢܒܪܘܬ̈ܐ ܘ
ܐܦ ܫܘܠܛܢܐ ܥܡ ܬܫܒܘܚܬܐ ܠܥܠܡ ܥܠܡܝܢ @

The disciples asked that He should teach them to pray—And as He knew that
well they asked Him, He did not restram them—“ Thus (quoth He) pray ye, when they
are praying:—Our Father in heaven, Thy name be hallowed even as it is holy,—Thy
kingdom also come to us from where it is,—Thy will also be done in earth, as in heaven.—
Give us the continual bread of the day from Thy treasury,—And forgive our debts and
pardon our sins, as we have forgiven,—And into temptation do not make us enter, who
are feeble,—But deliver thou us from the Evil One, for that Thy power is great.—
Because Thine is the might, also the kingdom, also the authority and the principality
Jor ever, Amen.

Thy kingdom] pr. ‘and’ 14515 Thy will] pr. ‘and’ 14515 Thy power] the power 14515

For the last two lines 14584 has ‘Because Thine is the kingdom and the heroism—also the

authority with the glory for ever and ever.’

Note that for rov aprov yudv tov éemovorov dds yuiv onpepov the Peshitta has
ima: ܗܒ ܠܢ ܠܚܡܐ ܕܣܘܢܩܢܢ‎ Hive us the bread of our necessity to-day.

vi 24 See p. 67.

270 Notes on Select Passages.
vii 17, 18 See Note on Lk vi 45.
viii ® On the omission of sw, or some similar word, before ,ܕܠܐ‎ see p. . 6
viii 5 For Euseb. Theoph. iv 2, see p. 170.
viii 16 On the sign > in C, see p. 18 and also p. 29.

x 2-4 The variations in the names and the order of the Twelve Apostles are
somewhat complicated and confusing, but for the consideration of the sources which
have contributed to mould the text of Matt x 2-4 in S several of the lists may be left
out of account. In the first place a tabulation of all the lists in our various authorities
brings out at once the curious and noteworthy fact that neither the list in Mk nor the
list in Acts has exercised any influence. We may also neglect the lists in the Arabic
Diatessaron and in Cod. Fuldensis, for both of these have been assimilated to the list in
Lk vi 14-16. The Syriac list published by Goussen from Cod. Sachau 311 (see Harris
101), which professes to give the Diatessaron list according to Isho‘dad, has on the other
hand every sign of genuineness. It is obviously a harmonised list, such as the text of
the Diatessaron might be expected to present, and at the same time it contains clear
points of resemblance with the text of S in Matt x 2-4.

All the lists in Matt and Lk agree in the first six names and end with Iscariot. It
is therefore only necessary to take the remaining five names. I have not noted the
inclusion or exclusion of titles, except to point out that all three Syriac lists add ‘the
Publican’ to Matthew’s name, thereby clearly shewing on which Gospel the list is
primarily based.

(In the Table, Ravenna stands for the order attested by the 5th century mosaics in the
great Baptistery at Ravenna (Battistero degli Ortodossi), in which the Eleven and 8. Paul
stand round a circle thus :—

PAVLYS PETRVS
THOMAS ANDREAS
MATTHEVS IACOBVS ZEBEDEI
IACOBVS ALFEI IOHANNIS
SIMON CANANEVS FILIPPVS
IVDAS ZELOTES BARTOLOMEVS

The same set of mosaics attest the ‘Western’ order of the Gospels, Matt Joh Le Mc.)

NB lat.vg Thos. Matth. James Alph. Thaddaeus Simon Canan.

DE Thos. Matth. James Alph. Lebbaeus Simon Canan.

Isho‘dad Thos. Matth. pre Lebbaea Simon Canan. Jude s. of James
ph.

Acts of Thomas Thos. Matth. James Alph. Simon Canan. Judes. of James
S Thos. Matth. James Alph. Simon Canan. Judes. of James

S. Matthew vii 17—xii 24. Q71

Ravenna Thos. Matth. James Alph. Simon Canan. Jude Zealot

gh gat (mm) Thos. Matth. James Alph. Jude Zealot Simon Canan.

abg Matth. James Alph. Jude Zealot Thomas Simon Canan.
Luke Matth. Thos. James Alph. Simon Zealot Jude of James

(and Diat.arab
and Cod. Fuld)

From the above Table we see at once that the list in the Acts of Thomas follows that
in S, both where it agrees with the Diatessaron (as in introducing Jude son of James
from 8. Luke after Simon and in omitting Thaddaeus), and also where it differs from the
Diatessaron (as in the use of the ordinary name of James son of Alphaeus). The name
‘James Lebbaeus son of Alphaeus’ appears to shew the influence of the ancient Western
text now represented by D and f, which put ‘Lebbaeus’ instead of Thaddaeus, and not
the later European Western text which put ‘Judas Zelotes’ instead of Thaddaeus.

x 5 On the Gospel references in Aphraates 41, 42, see pp. 111, 197.

x 32 ‘and before his angels.’ This addition is also found in the verse as quoted
in the Acts of Guria and Shamona (ed. by Rahmani, Rome, 1899, p. 1) and the Syriac
text is confirmed by the Metaphrast. These Acts are certainly genuine, but our present
knowledge of them rests on a much later ms than that of the companion Acts of Habbib,
so that it is not always safe to use them for minute textual points.

x38 On Syriac renderings for ‘ cross,’ see on Mk ix 12, Lk xxiv 7.
xil On [ܕ]ܦܕ‎ “ama, see p. 68.

xi2 ‘despatched...sent word’: ¢f Matt xxvii 19, Lk vii 6, and Acts ef Thomas 187°
ܘܫܠܚ ܠܗ ܗܦܢܐ...‎ Ase ܡܿܠܦܐ ܠܘܬ ܝܗܘܕܐ ܐܝ̈ܙܓܕܐ‎ ie. ‘The king despatched
messengers unto Judas and sent word to him thus (saying)...’

On ܬܠܡ̈ܝܕܘܝ‎ for ܬܠܡ̈ܝܕܘܗܝ‎ see p. 46.

xi5 For the reading of S, see p. 238 f The reading of C ܡܣܬܝܒܪܝܢ‎ sustiined
must be a mere error for ܡܣܬܒܪܝܢ‎ evangelized, as the Greek is etayyediCovrat, but like
other scribal errors or conjectural emendations in Syriac Biblical texts it makes singu-

larly good sense. Compare the Note on Lk ii 30.

xi 21,22 Lome for ܨܝܕܢ‎ must be a mere blunder of transcription in 1893:
see vol. i, p. 543.

xii 9 For the construction, see pp. 69, 70.

xii 24 On the spelling of the word ‘ Beelzebub,’ see p. 204.

272 Notes on Select Passages.

xii 40 The occurrence of ܒܪܗ ܕܸܓܒܪ̈ܐ‎ in Aphraates 222 shews that the phrase
actually had a place in Syriac ecclesiastical terminology, but it 1s difficult to imagine in
what sense it was understood. The Syriac for wir is ;ܓܠ ܪ̈ܐ‎ but homo is Mz ܒܪ‎
(a word also written ,ܒܪ ܢܡܐ‎ the plural being ܒܢ̈ܝ ܐܢܫܡܫ‎ or e105, The word
ܐܢܫܐ‎ by itself is used for ‘some folk,’ and similarly exi< is also used. The YIN 73
of Dan vii 13 is translated in the Peshitta by wxie< 45, and the rendering is attested
by Aphraates and other early writers. xia ܒܪܗ‎ does not occur in Syriac, except as
a rendering of the Gospel phrase 6 vids tod évOpdrov—in fact, it exactly corresponds to
the English rendering ‘Son of Man,’ which is in itself meaningless. You cannot say in
English ‘Son of Jew’ or ‘Son of Roman.’

But 45 is also used for ‘individual,’ as in Matt x 36, where ܒ̈ܥܠܕܒܒܘܗܝ‎
ܕܓܒܪܐ 3 ܒܝܬܗ‎ corresponds to éyOpoi rot dv@purov ot ܐܘ»ܧܬܐܘ‎ airot. Hence
some early translator, probably the earliest of all, translated 6 vids rod ܘܡܣ‎ by
A542 ,ܒܪܗ‎ We can only suppose that the meaning of the Greek was incompre-
hensible to him, that he was in possession of no traditional explanation of the title,
and that under the circumstances he thought it best to give what he considered a literal
rendering.

It is not surprising that ܒܪܗ ܕܓ ܟܪ̈ܐ‎ did not find favour, and now it has almost
entirely disappeared, the meaningless but inoffensive <x1<. ܒܪܗ‎ taking its place.
45X32 ܒܪܗ‎ jis now only found in Edessene Syriac in the passages mentioned in
vol. i, p. 67, viz. Matt xii 40 4, Mk viii 38 8, Lk vii 34 SC, Lk ix 26 C (NS illegible),
Lk xxii 48 C (for S, see the Note on the passage), Joh xiii 31S. But curiously enough,
it is quite common in the Christian Palestinian texts.

That the expression “=~. ܒܪܗ‎ seemed to Syriac ears to have a meaning not
unlike ܒܪ ܐܢܫܐ‎ appears from a comment of Ephraim on Lk ¥ 21 (Lamy i 191, from
the great Homily on our Lord) :—

ܗܢܘ ܕܘܡܪܐ ܕܦܕ ܗܘ ܡܪܢ ܡܪܗ ܕܐܢܫܐ ܡܪܐ ܗܘܐ ܢܦܫܗ ܬܡܢ.
ܒܥܠܕܒܒ̈ܘܗܝ ܟܕ ܠܐ ܪܓܝܫܝܢ ܐܠܗܐ wali maar‏ ܥܒܕܘܗܝ 00M‏

This is the marvel, that while our Lord was calling Himself son of Man there,
His enemies without perceiving it had made Him God the Forgiver of sins.

xi 48 On WH ܐܡܝ ܐܘ ܐܢܘܢ‎ yt, the grammatically curious reading of
S, see pp. 42, 58.

xiii 5 On ܪܒܩ̈ܐ‎ , see p. 83.

xiii 6 ols is fem.; with what does it agree? 1 rather incline now to suppose
that my translation is wrong and that the sun is not said to shine on the ‘land’
ܐܪܥܐ)‎ fem. understood), but upon the young plant. Both S and C are 80 para-
phrastical at this point that the Greek gives very little help. At the beginning of
ver. 5 they agree in having the mase. sing. for the seed which fell on the rock. Here
they agree in having fem. sing. for that upon which the sun shone. But all the other

S. Matthew xii 40—xiv 36. 273

verbs in vv. 5-8" are masc. sing. in S and fem. sing. in C. Thus both mss are inconsistent
with themselves. ~<hive< in 0 (ve. 7°, 8°) is inconsistent with <siwe< (v. 5°), and
ܥܠܝܗ‎ here in § is inconsistent with wax. and ,ܝܫܒ‎ unless the forced construction indi-
cated in my translation be adopted. Under these circumstances is it not better to
suppose that the translator used masc. for the seeds, fem. for the young plants? In the
first case <<%41 is understood, in the second an impersonal fem. sing. (Noldehe § 274).
In S the verbs were all corrected to agree with ܐܪܚܪܢܐ ܢܦܠ‎ in wer. 5°, but as was
overlooked. In 0 the ܢܠܠ‎ <s4ue< at the beginnings of vv. 7 and 8 were made fem.,
as well as ܘܝܗܒ[ܬ]‎ in ver. 8, under the influence of the fem. verbs in ver. 6.

ܐܪܥܐ ܛܒܬܐ in ver. 8 might grammatically be taken to refer to the‏ ܘܝܗ
but both in Sand in Aphraates 301° it is referred to the seed sown in the earth.‏

xiii 35 On the relation of the text of S and C to the Peshitta rendering of
Ps Ixxvii 2, see p. 204.

xiii48 ܛܒ̈ܝܢ‎ esha Ma: asX.. These words correspond to owédcéay rd Kade
els ayyn (or els dyyeta) in the Greek: see p. 57. On the construction my friend Prof.
Kennett writes to me: “I am inclined to think that the repetition is due to a semi-
adverbial, or perhaps one should say predicative, use, viz. ‘they chose out fishes as good’.”

In any case the doubled »+5\, is not superlative in meaning and has nothing to do
with the Old Latin use of optimus in this passage, though doubtless the latter is the
cause why D*" reads 7a ×») ܘܗܐ‎ for ra add, meliora in d being a further attempt to
produce an equivalent for D*.

xiv 22 ܒܐܠܦ̈ܐ‎ , Compare p. 78.

xiv 27 ܬܪܣܘ‎ § The equivalent for Odpoe, Oapoetre, in syr.vg, wherever it
oceurs in the Gospels, is ==\he< or ܝ ܐܬܠܒܒܘ‎ but this uniformity does not appear
to be primitive. ܐܬܠܒܒ‎ is never used either by S or ¢ In Matt xiv 27 C has
ܐܬܚܝܠܘ‎ (like syr.vg in Acts xxiii 11), and in the other passages it is not extant. The
usual rendering in S, found in Matt ix 2, Mk x 49, Joh xvi 33, is ‘Fear not,’ the
primitive Semitic greeting, of which @dpce is one of the regular Lxx equivalents.
But here ܠܐ ܬܪܚܠܘܢ‎ is unsuitable, because 7 poBeiobe almost immediately follows
Gapoeire, and so we find ܬܪܣܘ‎ in S, an adaptation of the Greek word not elsewhere
found in Syriac.

In Matt vi 26, Lk xii 24, ܡܬܪܣܐ‎ occurs in ( and syr.vg in its ordinary sense of
tpépet, but S substitutes ܡܣܝܒ ܪ‎ for it in Lk and in Matt it is not extant.

xiv 32 For the construction, see pp. 69,70. The verb me ‘to calm down’
(e.g. of a fever), is the opposite of and ܐܬܥܙܙ‎

xiv 86 On ܬܦܠܬܐ‎ lit. ‘ blue-purple, see p. 84.
B. II, 35

274 Notes on Select Passages.

XV 2 ܠܧܘܩ̈ܕܢܐ ܕܣ̈ܒܝܢ‎ means ‘the commandments of our greybeards,’ not ‘of the
ereybeards.’ Similarly in Lk xxiv 20 ¢ ܘܩܫܝܫܝܢ‎ ian ܪ̈ܒܝ‎ means ‘the chief priests
and our elders,’ i.e. the word is to be read with the suffix of the 1st pers. plur. [
mention this only because both Cureton and Mrs Lewis (in Some Pages) have translated
the word as if it were the ‘plur. absolute,’ without a suffix. Similarly in the Acts
(e.g.1 15) pix ܓܠܡܪ̈ܐ‎ , corresponding to avépes 40606 should be pointed with a
suffix, so as to make ‘O men, our brethren'.’

xv 26 For the construction of wo 4 in S, see p. 64 and 65 note.

xvi 1 If S§ really has pois, and not emma as CO, the construction of the
participle will be parallel to that m Lk xviii 11 / on which see p. 64.

xvi 18 On the ‘Gate-bars of Sheol,’ see pp. 119, 156, 170.
xvii 20 For the construction of S, see p. 74.

xvii 26,27 The remarkable addition quoted in the foot-notes from Moesinger and
the Arabic obviously belongs to the text of the Diatessaron. It is found in the Greek
minuscule 713.

In the Acts of Thomas (Wright 312) our Lord is called

ܝܗܒ ܡܦܣܐ ܘܦܗܦ ܪܫܐ ܚܠܦܝܢ ܘܚܠܦܘܗܝ
Giver of toll and head-money for us and for Himself,‏

or, as the Sinai Fragments read in agreement with the ancient Greek translation
(Bonnet, p. 250) ܚܠܦܘܗܝ ܘܚܠܦ ܬܠܡܝܕܘܗܝ‎ for Himself and for His disciples.
This is obviously an allusion to this passage of 8. Matthew’s Gospel, but it affords
no evidence as to the reading in xvii 26.

xviii 8 For the construction of S in this verse, see [£ 77 and p. 70.
xviii 10 For Aphraates 43, see p. 183 f.

xviii 17 The use of ܦܢܘܫܬܐ‎ here by S to render »)ܗܡܘ‎ is in every way
remarkable. The Syriac for ‘Church’ is «hax and for ‘Synagogue’ <hras,
The words are used just as in English, so that in Theophania iv 11, where Eusebius
makes a point of the foreknowledge of Christ in calling the Christian assemblies
‘Churches’ and not ‘Synagogues,’ the Syriac translator is able to employ the regular
antithesis between <hax and <heais, Both words mean by derivation ‘assemblies,’
and both are probably derived from Jewish terminology, but by usage <hax is appro-
priated to Christian and <hzois to Jewish assemblies. This is the case even in

1 The only Peshitta edition which here has the correct vocalisation pix is De Sacy’s Syriac
and Carshuni N.T. (Paris 1824), but Erpenius’s Arabic has Vac!) Shey! Gal .ܢ‎

S. Matthew xv 2—xx 28. 275

Acts vii 38, where ‘the Church in the wilderness’ )7 éxxAynoia év 7H épyjuy) becomes
in Syriac ܒܡܕܒܪܐ‎ <heas, ie. ‘the Synagogue in the wilderness.’

The rendering of S does not imply a various reading in the Greek of this verse,
any more than in the case of Acts vii 38 syr.vg. We must therefore suppose that the
translator understood our Lord to mean by ékxAyoia not Holy Church, but some less
august assembly appropriate to the social organisation of the day (¢/ Matt ¥ 22), a piece
of exegesis as surprising as it is refreshing. It is a pity that S is not extant for
Matt xvi 18.

xviii 20 On the reading of S, see p. 236.

xviii 22 On ܥܠ ܫܒܥܝܢ ܫܒ̈ܥ ܫܒ̈ܥ‎ (see p. 60), Prof. Kennett remarks:
“The Syriac expresses addition and multiplication by much the same words, and
likewise subtraction and division. I should take the reduplicated ܫܒܿܠ‎ as an
adverbial use, signifying ‘seven times,’ and understand the phrase to mean ‘add to
seventy (its like) seven times.’”

xix 11 On ܝܗܒ‎ for =sm, see p. 53 6

xix 28 Alluding to this passage A 280 has
hus ܘܡܥܬܕ ܕܝܢܝܐ‎ (A® <hasia ܡܬܩܢ ܬܡܒܡܢ ܬܪܘܢܣ ܕܡܠܦܘܬܐ (ܬܪܘܢܘܣ‎
LA ܠܥܘ̈ܠܐܐ ܒܝܘܡ‎ pena ܬܪ̈ܝܨܝܢ ܠܙܕܝ̈ܒܢܐ ܦܘܪ̈ܣܘܢ‎ waa

There is prepared the Throne of Royalty (A* has ‘of Greatness’), and judgement is
made ready in the Judgement-place; for the righteous seats ure arranged, who judge the
wicked in the day of Judgement.

This agrees with C (aiid syr.vg) in reserving the transliteration of the Greek Opévos
for the Throne of the Son of Man: S on the other hand uses the Syriac s«405 both
for the great Throne and the seats of the Apostles. In Matt xxv 31, where ܬܪܢܘܣ‎
occurs again both in Aphraates 289 and in syr.vg, / is not extant.

xx 28 fin. ܐܢ ܕܝܢ... ܘܢܐܬܐ... ܘܢܐܡܪ ...ܘܬ ܗܘܐ‎ For the construction, see
pp. 71, 72, where it is pointed out that the apodosis may be placed at either of the last
three words, i.e. the sentence may be translated

either “But if...there will come...and [he] will say...and thou shalt have...”
or “But if...and there come...then [he] will say...and thou shalt have...”
or “But if...and there come...and [he] say...then thou shalt have....”

The second of these alternatives is that which is actually found in D and the Latins,
which support épet not «ai épet. But the fact that C ends the saying by ‘thou shalt have
more glory in the eyes of the guests’ (ie. Lk xiv 10”) instead of kat gorau cou todro
ܘܬ ܐܬܗ‎ shews that the Syriac is by no means a literal rendering of the Greek, and
passages such as Matt xii 44, 45 (= Lk xi 25, 26) make it clear that the Syriac often

276 Notes on Select Passages.

places the apodosis differently. I have therefore not scrupled to put the apodosis in my
translation at the last clause. As a matter of fact the Greek ms ® (Cod. Beratinus)
reads éiy 8...éréAOy...épet...xal éorar, putting the apodosis at éréA@y, and leaving
épet x... to follow as a detached sentence.

xxi 3 On the rendering, see pp. 121.7

xxi 9 This passage as given in ¢ consists of Matt xxi 9+Joh xii (12%)
13+ Lk xix 37°. In Diat*” xxxix 31-35 we read :—‘“4* «x 57 And when he drew near his
descent of the Mount of Olives, all the disciples began to rejoice and praise God with a
loud voice for all the mighty works which they had seen, saying ™**i% ‘Glory in the
highest, “tt xxi 9 Glory to the son of David, blessed is he that cometh in the name of the
Lord, ™**#10 and blessed is the kingdom which cometh, even our father David’s:
Uk xix 38> peace in heaven and glory in the highest.’ 4° #12 And a great multitude......
8. -went forth to meet him.”

xxi 21 On the construction of S, see p. 72.

xxi 31,32 On the reading of S, see pp. 239. Throughout this complicated series
of variations S sides with Codex Bezae. The Old Latin mss a b fh 1, as well as ¢ and e,
have quod non credidistis for tod murretoar in ver. 32.

xxi41 For Ephr. Lamy 1 253, see p. 123,

xxii 2 For the references in Aphraates, see p. ,. 6
xxii 13 For the use of ܠܦܠ‎ in this passage, see pp. 102, 124 f,, 170.
xxii 23,28 On <bus bus, see p. 82.

xxiii 13 The rendering of S, i.e. ‘ye hold the key of the kingdom, is obviously a
(wrong) interpretation of <harlme ܐܢܬܘܢ‎ eww. The word ܐܕܠܝܕ‎ means either
‘to hold’ or ‘to shut,’ the Greek being 47: «deere. The phrase quoted in Moesinger 211
is ‘Woe to you, lawyers, for ye hide the key’: this suggests that the Diatessaron did not
speak of the scribes or lawyers as ‘holding the keys,’ but as having ‘shut the doors.’
The passages from Aphraates which speak of ‘holding the keys’ may therefore be
conjectured to have been derived direct from the Hy. da-Mepharreshe.

xxiii 23 On <s14m, see p. 81. On the reading implied by the Syriac in the
latter half of this verse, see p. 252/.

xxiv ± The construction adopted in the text implies the use of a historic present,
which is somewhat rare in Syriac, though several instances occur in S (including
Matt xx 11): see p. 08. But it is not unlikely that what is intended is “And when

S. Matthew xx 28—xxvii 16, 17. 277

Jesus went forth..., his disciples drew near, shewing him (ie. to shew) the building.’
For a=1sa...a%0, see pp. 69, 70; for ܡܚܘܝܢ‎ ܘܒܪܩܘ‎ see p. 64 and 65 note: on this
view the construction of Matt xxiv 1 affords a parallel to that of S in Matt xv 26.

xxv ± On the reading, see p. 247.
xxvi47 For the construction, see p. 69.

xxvi 50 he reading of S* is correct (see vol. i, p. 544), i.e. S really has
ܥܠ ܡܐ ܕܐܬܝܬ‎ for af? $ ,ܠܐܐ‎ a rendering of the Greek which, like ܥܠ ܗܝ ܕܝܐܬܝܬ‎
in syr.vg, seems to leave an anacoluthon. Barsalibi understands the saying to mean
“Because thou hast come [I call thee not my disciple, but] my associate [ie. my
adversary],” but this is explanatory paraphrase not a translation of the Syriac, which is
as obscure as the Greek of which it is a word-for-word rendering.

83 | ro4
xxvi 60 As explained in vol. i, p. 544, S seems to read ܠܡܐܢܕ ܫܪܝܪܬܐ‎ ie,
‘they could not take the truth.’ Compare D a fh, which attest ody ebpov 70 eéjs,

xxvii 16,17 ‘Jesus bar Abba.’ The Greek text of these verses is '" elyov S& 6
déopuov erionpov heydpevov ["Incodv] BapaBBav. “ cuvyypévwv otv aitav rev abrois 6
TletAGros: tiva Oédere ܘܐܘ«‎ pty [‘Inoody tov] BapaBBav 4 Incotv tov Aeyopevov Xpiorov;

The bracketed words are omitted by all authorities except syr.S with 1*-118-209*
arm syr.pal'**t and some marginalia: also B and Orig’ 75 have rov before BapaSBav, but
without "Incodv in either place.

Furthermore 1*-118-209 add rév ܘܘ‎ to drodvow ipiv, while other authorities,
including Origen arm and syr.pall* prefix tév ܘܘ‎ (or dd 70× b¥0) to drodvow 006
This addition seems to be derived from ver, 21 and is not countenanced by syr.S.

The main object of this Note is to point out the reasons why the reading of syr.S
should be adopted as the original text of Matt xxvii 16, 17, on the ground of
transcriptional probability, textual authority, and internal appropriateness.

As regards transcriptional probability there can be no doubt. There is little
likelihood that the various reading originated in a mere scribal error, for no suggestion
yet made has explained the presence of rév in ver. 17 between "Inooty and BapaBPav on
the hypothesis of a mere accidental reduplication of letters, and this rov is an integral
part of the longer reading. If both the prisoners in Pilate’s hand bore the name Jésus,
it is natural that he should distinguish them, one as 76v B., the other as rov Acyopevoy £.
Moreover the ordinary reading has in it nothing to induce change, while the fact that
nearly all the supporters of ‘Jesus bar Abba’ have had the name erased is in itself
enough to shew that it was only too likely to provoke alteration.

Westcott and Hort rejected the reading ‘Jesus bar Abba’ very largely on the ground
of authority. “It is against all analogy,” they say (Notes, p. 20), “that a true reading
should be preserved in no better Greek ms than the common original of 1-118-209, and
in none of the more ancient versions.” But this is no longer an accurate presentation of

278 Notes on Select Passages.

the textual evidence. The definite statement of Barsalibi and Bar Bahlul as to the
reading of the Hvangelion da-Mepharreshe (see above, p. 178) has now been confirmed by
the direct evidence of S. Thus the Old Syriac is on the side of the reading rejected by
Westcott and Hort. D and the Latins are, as a matter of fact, for the ordinary reading
and their evidence shews us why no evidence for it comes from our Diatessaron texts:
right or wrong, the omission here of the name ‘Jesus’ is attested by the Western texts,
among which must be counted Tatian’s Harmony. On the other hand, the presence of
tov before BapaZPav in B and in Origen shews the neutrality of compromise (see above,
p. 2337). The word rév is an integral part of the reading ‘Jesus bar Abba,’ and its
presence in B tells us that B is descended from a ms which once had had the longer
reading, but from which "Ijcotv had been intentionally deleted. The same is almost
certainly true of Origen’s ms, though here his own comment suggests that he cut the’
name out himself on considerations which seemed to him to commend themselves on
internal grounds, though the omission was not supported by most of the mss known to
him. He says In multis exemplaribus non continetur quod Barabbas etiam Tesus
dicebatur et forsitun recte, ut ne nomen Lesu conueniat alicui iniquorum. In tanta enim
multitudine scripturarum neminem scimus Iesum speccatorem....... Et puto quod in
haeresibus tale aliquid superadditum est.

As regards internal evidence, we may consider the reading in the light of the general
Synoptic problem and from the point of view of style. It has always been conceded that
calling Barabbas ‘Jesus’ gave point to vv. 16, 17, but it was held that this could not be
the true reading because the antithesis in vv. 20 and 26 is between tov BapaBBav and
tov “Incotv, Is not this to ignore the fact that the First Gospel is, in the Passion at
least, a secondary document based on 0. Mark with additions inserted here and there ?
8. Mark knows nothing of the name Jesus Barabbas, consequently in Matt xxvii 26 we
read dréAvoev atrois tov BopaBBav, rov 8& “Inooty...mapédwxev, in agreement with
Mk xv 15. But it is in accordance with the first Evangelist’s practice occasionally to
insert names where none were given by his source. The obvious instances are the
introduction of the name Matthew for Levi the publican (Matt ix 9), and the name
Caiaphas for the High Priest (Matt xxvi 3, 57). If the Evangelist really got the name
‘Jesus Barabbas’ from an independent source, it may very well have been the source
which furnished him with the story of the dream of Pilate’s wife, an episode inserted by
him into the Marcan narrative only two verses away from the passage we are considering
(Matt xxvii 19). As for the antithesis between rév BapaSBav and rov “Incoty in vv. 20,
26, it is not surprising that to the Christian narrator the antithesis should be between
‘Barabbas’ and ‘ Jesus’: the point of the antithesis in ver. 17, between ‘Jesus Barabbas’
and ‘ Jesus called Christ,’ is that it is placed in the mouth of Pilate. Pilate asks in fact
‘Which of these two Jews with very similar names do you want me to let go?’ This is
an appropriate remark for the Roman Governor, but it would not be used by the
Evangelist im his own person.

It only remains to add that NIN 3 yy ‘Jesus bar Abba’ is a perfectly
appropriate name for a Jew living in the 1st cent. ap. Several persons mentioned in the
Talmud have the name Joshua or Jesus, and several are called Bar Abba after the name
of their father. For instance, NAN 3 NP is cited in 'Talm. B. Berachoth iv 3, ete.

S. Matthew xxvii 16, 17—xxvili 19. 279

xxvii 43 For ܗܘܐ‎ Lah ܗܘ‎ I conjecture the true reading of S to be
:ܐܢ ܗܘ ܕܬܦܟܝܠ ܗܘܐ‎ see vol. i, p. 544, vol. ii, p. 76. The photograph of S is
here unfortunately blurred.

xxvii 50 In the Martyrdom of Habbib (asp 84) we read: “they brought faggots
and set them in order and placed them on all sides of him, and when the fire burnt up
and the flames ascended fiercely they called out to him ‘Open thy mouth.’ And the
moment he opened his mouth ܗܘܬ ܢܦܫܗ‎ holo his soul had mounted up.”

The Peshitta has here ܟ ܝܫܒܩ ܪܘܢܗ‎ literal translation of ܘ‎ 16 wvedpa, The
idea underlying the story of Habbib and the ܪܘܢܗ‎ how of § in this passage seems to
be that touched upon in Eccl iii 21, xii 7.

xxviii 19 In the Commentary on the Diatessaron (AMoesinger 226), in the middle
of comments on the promise of the Paraclete (Joh xvi 7) Ephraim observes: “ And that
he saith ‘Go ye into all the world, and baptize them in the Name of the Father and of
the Son and of the Spirit.’ And he said not ‘In the Name of the Father and in the
Name of the Son and in the Name of the Spirit’ that he might make it manifest that
They are One Nature, who in one Name there named Three Persons.”

The last clause is rather confused, but manifestly the evidence of Ephraim confirms
that of Addai 20 (quoted in vol. i, pp. 172, 173), and that the Diatessaron attests the
ordinary text of Matt xxviii 19. The evidence of the Syriac Theophania (see above,
pp. 171, 172) seems to indicate that the ordinary text was also generally current in the
Ev. da-Mepharreshe.

$. MARK.
i13 ܬܡܢ‎ ‘there.’ On the reading, see p. 248.
i41 On the reading, see p. 192,f

ii 27 ‘created.’ On the rendering, see p. 197.

iii 17 ܪܓܫܝ‎ 5 is the consonantal spelling of the Syriac transliteration of
‘Boanerges,’ both in S and in syr.vg. How »xX4 was intended to be vocalised it is
impossible to say with certainty. It has no meaning in Syriac; the Nestorian
pronunciation is Raysh (with final y mute)', but the Jacobite is R’yesh. At the same
time it is hardly likely that a y would be added at the end, which was neither intended
to be pronounced nor represented a letter-in the Greek.

It is, I venture to think, conceivable that the Syriac translator connected BoanHprec
(or BanHperec) with wsroX4 as used in 1 Kings xviii 41 by the Peshitta, where
ܒܠܐܐ ܕܒܪ̈ܓܘܫܝܐ ܕܡܛܪܐ‎ stands for the ‘sound of abundance of rain.’ »2X4, on
this supposition, may have been intended to be pronounced &’ywshac, the theoretical
‘absolute’ of ܪܓܘܫܝܐ‎ (Duval, §253a): of ܩܘܪܝܬ ܕܡ‎ Matt xxvii 8 S. In making
this suggestion as to the origin of the Syriac transliteration, nothing is assumed as to
the real meaning of the word or the spelling originally used by the Evangelist.

iv 11 On the form ܝܗܒ‎ for ܝܗܝܒ‎ see pp. 537. The reference to Dan vii 14
should be deleted from the foot-note to vol. i, p. 182; it is explained in vol. ii, p. 54,
that ܝܗܒ‎ is not really a passive form but a contracted participle.

iv17 ‘The reading of S is certainly m= (as in Matt xiii 21), but here as elsewhere
there is no diacritic point to distinguish the fem. 04 from the masc. beh. It is evident
however from the pointing of C in Lk viii 13 that bdéh is intended here. The shallow
folk receive the Word but have no root in it—a curious inversion of the figure of the
Parable, because the Word is what is sown, not the soil.

v8 hail ܦܘܩ ܪܘܚܐ‎ is the reading of S, making the false concord of a
masculine verb with a feminine adjective. In the parallel passage Lk viii 29 both S and

Chave ,ܗܘ ܪܘܚܐ ܛܢܦܐ‎ in the masc. It is of course possible that in that verse <ua4
has replaced an original <ax and that in Mk v 8 ܦܘܩ‎ is.a mere slip for spas, but

elsewhere in the Gospels <vo4 is so generally feminine that it is worth while to call
attention to the exceptions.

1 Mr Gwilliam gives pe (Le. Raysht) as the reading of the Nestorian Massoretic Ms, but
the dot under the x may be only a sign of interpunction.

S. Mark i 13—vii 19. 981

vi49* ܚܙܘܢܝܗܝ‎ is probably a mere blunder of transcription for »waow as suggested
on p. 55.

vi49> The use of arte. ‘devil’ as an equivalent for ddvracpa has a curious echo
in the famous saying of our Lord quoted by Ignatius and taken according to Jerome from
the ‘Nazarene’ Gospel Were dre ܵܘ‎ eiyt ܘܬܘܨܘ‎ dodparov, It is obvious that the
saying goes back to a Semitic origin and that the original word corresponding to daipdviov
was TY. The same may be said of wvetuo in Lk xxiv 39: in fact all three Greek

words, mvedua, :ܬܬܘ‎ Pévtacpua, exactly represent our popular use of ‘ghost’ for a
disembodied but more or less visible spirit.

In Mk vi 49 and Matt xiv 26, however, the Peshitta rejects this popular usage of
ܘܙ ܗܘܐ ܐܘܟ‎ in favour of the etymologically correct signification, i.e. the ‘appearance’

of something not actually there. No doubt it seemed an offence, both here and in
Lk xxiv 39, to use atx. of our Lord.

vii 4 The abruptness of da’ dyopas ܘ‎ py Barticwvra. ob éobiovew invites
paraphrase and addition. ‘The usual interpretation, adopted even by the English Bible,
is ‘when they come from the market-place, except they wash themselves, they eat not.’
This is followed by D 472 and the Old Latin, together with the Armenian; it is also
implied by S and the Peshitta, for ܥܠܡܕܝܢ‎ has only a middle or passive sense. On the
other hand, the Arabic Diatessaron (cap. xx 20) has ‘they used not to eat what is sold
from the market, except they washed it.’

The natural inference is that the Arabic Diatessaron here preserves the independent
interpretation or paraphrase of Tatian, but closer investigation will shew that this view
is hardly tenable. In the first place the Armenian evidence raises a presumption that
the usual view of the construction was that current on Syriac-speakig ground in early
times. What is more cogent still is the fact that the interpretation found in the Arabic
Diatessaron is that found in all the Arabic Gospel-texts of the middle ages, e.g. in
Erpenius, in Lagarde, and even in De Sacy’s bilingual Syro-Carshunic edition (Paris, 1824).
From the Arabic, no doubt, it has found its way into Aethiopic, in strict accordance with
Guidi’s theory.

The source of this Arabic interpretation of the passage may have been the Egyptian
versions, for the Bohairic has ‘if they do not wash them from the market, they do not
eat,’ and the Sahidic ‘but what is from the market, except they sprinkle them, they do
not eat.’ In these sentences the word ‘them’ may refer either to what is brought from
the market or the ‘hands’ mentioned in the preceding verse. In any case the interpretation
adopted in the Arabic Diatessaron was the natural one for a mediaeval Arabic writer to
adopt, and until some Syriac evidence appears to confirm it, there is no reason why we
should imagine it to have had any real connexion with Tatian or his Harmony.

vii 19 ܦܘܠܗ ܡܐܦܠ ܐ‎ , I have marked the end of this verse in my translation
as possibly corrupt, but perhaps there is no mistake. The common word for ‘meat’
or ‘food’ is ܘܙ" ܡܐܦܘܠܬܐ‎ word here used (ܡܐܦܠ̈ܐ)‎ cannot be the absolute of
ܡܐܦܘܠܬܐ‎ because ܡܐܦܠܐ‎ is fem. and ܕܡܬܕܦܐ‎ like \s, is mase. Besides,
after ܦܘܠܗ‎ the absolute state would hardly be used. I find, however, that the much
rarer masc. word ,ܡܐ ܦܠ ܐ‎ which stands for Bpdors in Rom xiv 17, is actually used in

II, 36‏ .ܡ

282 Notes on Select Passages.

the sing. for Bpdpara in Hebix 10. It is probably therefore intended here. In any case
it is clear that the Old Syriac did not read ×» ܟ )»ܘ‎ though it is not easy to see how a
passive meaning can be extracted from any of the recorded variants.

vii26 ܐܪܡܠܬ݀ܐ‎ ‘widow’ is of course a Syriac miswriting of <tumi< ‘Gentile.’
ܐܪܡܝܬܐ‎ is literally ‘Aramaean,’ but the word is regularly used for ‘Gentile’ or
‘Heathen,’ as opposed to ‘Jew.’ Thus in Romi 14 °EAAnowv re xai BapBapors is rendered
ܝܘ̈ܢܝܐ ܘܒܪ̈ܒܪܝܐ‎ (lit, ‘Ionians and Barbarians’), but in Rom i 16 “Iovdaiw re cat "EXAque

is rendered amine ܡܢ ܝܗ̈ܘܕܝܐ ... ܘܐܢ ܡܢ‎ ox (Vit. ‘whether Jews or Aramaeans’).
The confusion in Mk vii 26 between ‘widow’ and ‘Syrian’ becomes of particular
interest in view of Wellhausen’s conjecture (GaN 1895, i 12), that when we read in
Lk iv 26 that though there were many widows in Israel in the days of Elijah, unto none
of them was he sent but only to Sarepta, unto a woman that was ® widow, we are to
believe that in the original Aramaic our Lord had said that unto none of the widows
in Israel was Elijah sent but only to Sarepta, unto the woman that was a heathen

(ynbpas for NAAN). For other instances of apparent palaeographical confusion
in the Syriac Bible, see on Lk ii 30.
The Svpopowixicoa 7G yévet is rendered in S by
ܡܢ ܬܢܙܘܡܐ ܕܨ ܘܪ ܕܦܝܢܝܒܢܐ‎

i.e. 2008 was derived from Sor, the Hebrew and Syriac name for Tyre, which appears
in some parts of the Lxx as 360, This of course is impossible etymology, though
it agrees very well with Matt xv 22. The district called Svpoowixy in the 2nd century
was sufficiently large to include Damascus (Justin, Zryph $78), but doubtless the
Evangelist meant nothing more than that the woman was neither a Jewess nor one
of the Greek-speaking townsfolk. The Peshitta has ܕܣܘ ܪ̈ܝ ܫܚ‎ oan ܡܢ‎ from Phoenicia
of Syria, i.e. ‘from that part of Syria which is called Phoenicia.’ This is necessarily
vague, like the Greek. Later Oriental students of the Bible tried to be more precise.
The usual Arabic texts of the Gospel (e.g. Erpenius’s and Lagarde’s) say that the woman
was a Greek Syrian from the Jordan Valley () 92)! ܘܚܙܢ‎ lwie), possibly through some
confusion with the woman who had an issue, whom Eusebius asserts to have come from
Paneas. Barsalibi, on the other hand, understands the Peshitta to mean the district known
in early Byzantine times as Syria 11, between Apamea and Caesarea (mod. Shaizar). A
similar line is followed in Diat™ xx 48, which says the woman was .lAd! Geom Cro from
Limesa of Syria, i.e. from a district which was also called Phenice Libant as distinguished
from Phoenicia proper on the sea coast. That this would be a natural interpretation
from the 4th century onward may be seen from the Note upon the relics of apostles, etc.
in the Cod. Fuldensis (6th cent.), where we read

caput iohannis baptistae in prouincia phenicae ciuitate emetza.

Thus there is no reason to suppose that the statement in Diat* xx 48, connecting the
Syrophoenician woman with Emesa, rests on ‘tradition’ or that it ever stood in the
Syriac Diatessaron. It is merely an interpretation of the geographical expression
by which the Peshitta rendered the Greek ܘܗ ܗ »)ܘܘ‎ (or Svpa ®) .ܗ‎

vii 33 For a discussion of the readings, see pp. 127.

S. Mark vii 19—x 25. 283

viii 23 The photograph is here illegible and S* has <whh ܫ‎ + is. Prob-
ably this is nothing more than a mere error of transcription, and we should read
ww ܡܢܐ 7 ܐܢܬ‎ , a sufficiently good rendering of € ¥ BAéres;

viii 25 With regard to the word to be supplied, the Greek is ܐܘ×‎ déBreper ܐܘܬ‎
dmexatéoty Kal évéBrerev for which & has et widit et restitutus est ut uideret. The
Armenian has ‘he pierced and was seeing, he recovered and was seeing’; in fact, the
Peshitta stands practically alone in omitting a verb to correspond with 0:6066

viii 32 ‘as if pitying him,’ or ‘as if sparing him.’ The reading of S was also
current in the Diatessaron, for Ephraim (Moesinger 156) says ‘And when he was pitying
him, as at the first when he said Be it far from thee !...’ The confusion between ox»
and ܢܐܝ‎ belongs therefore to the Arabic Diatessaron only, not to the earlier Syriac
form.

It should be noted that there is really a confusion between three words, viz. (1) sy,
i.e. absit, a word corresponding to the Arabic ole ܐܢ‎ Ym; (2) wos, pres. part. of
cay ‘to pity,’ or ‘spare,’ /ܢ‎ DIM; (3) ܐܝܡ‎ pres. part. of xu, ‘to suffer,” /wwn. If
any other evidence were forthcoming, we might perhaps take wy, the reading of S;,
to be a denominative from ܣ‎ absit, and translate ܐܝܟ ܕܚܐܣ ܥܠܘܗܝ‎ ‘as if saying
Beit far from Thee! over Him.’

Dr Edwin Abbott has most appropriately pointed out to me that a similar confusion
between these roots is found in Eccl ii 25, where the mysterious w mM’ is rendered
geioerae by Aquila and Symmachus and some texts of Lxx, but in the Targum by

od mt 332.‏ ܡ ܐܬܢܐܬ

ix1 ܕܩܝܡܝܢ‎ ala, ie. ‘those that stand’ (= +× éornxdrwv). A comparison with
Joh xi 41* makes it clear that the sense intended is simply ‘the by-standers,’ for in that
verse pay obv tov Adov is rendered by S Mads ܗܝܕܝܢ ܐܢܫܐ ܗܢܘܢ ܕܩܝܡܝܢ ܩܪܒܘ‎
ܠܦܐܦܐ‎ ive. ‘then those folk standing by drew near and lifted the stone.” A similar
instance is to be found in Joh xviii 22. But the use of ܕܣܺܝܡܢ‎ for éveordra in 1 Cor iil
22 seemed sufficiently near to justify a reference.

ix 12 On Syriac renderings for ‘ cross,’ see on Lk xxiv 7.

ix 15 For a discussion of the reading of Diat* xxiv 26, see p. 193.

ix 50 maa must be a miswriting of ܢܡܕܦܝܗܿ‎ , and perhaps it would be better
to take it as 1st pers. pl., 1.6. ‘wherewith shall we season it ?’

× 11,12 On the reading, see p. 250, and the present writer’s Mote in the Journ.
of Theol. Studies ¥ 628—630,

x25 The use of \Ns by A? is very curious: it is one of the many proofs that
this Ms often preserves the text of Aphraates better than the slightly older ms A°+A?,
preferred by Wright. In this passage, is it possible that \N& is connected with the
taxevov which is substituted for edxorwrepoy in Ds?

284 Notes on Select Passages.
x 50 On the reading, see p. 250.

xi3 On the reading, see p. 122, note.

xii 14 On ܦܗܦ̈ܐ ܕܪ̈ܫ̈ܐ‎ see p. 82.

xii 42 On the Syriac renderings, see pp. 128, 129, and the Note on Lk ii 30.

xiii 28 asia § (sic): see pp. 46 and 51, note.
In v. 25 read <haliv for ܚܝ̈ܠܘܬܗ‎ and in v 27 read ܪܫܗ‎ for ;ܪܝܫܐ‎ see vol. 1,
p. 547, and vol. ui, p. 45.

xiv 24 This is the only place where a pre-Peshitta text has ‘my blood or the new
covenant.’ In Matt xxvi 28 S and A* 221 have <ha» ܕܡܝ ܕܝܬܒܐ‎ aim, and the
same words are added by S to Lk xxii 17. No other ms of Aphraates is extant at
Wright 221 except A*: the reading musa in Wright’s text is conjectural only.

In Matt xxvi 28 Gwilliam’s 20, and in Mk xiv 24 Gwilliam’s 14 15, have ܕܝܬܒܢܐ‎ for
ܕܕܝܬܒܢܐ‎ .

xiv 63 ‘our witnesses’: see on Matt xv 2.

xv 8 On the reading, see p. 225.
xv 29 On ax, see p. 29 and Noldeke § 9.

xvi 3,4 On the reading of S, see pp. 94171, 250.

[Mk] xvi 17—20 ‘hat the original form of the Hv. da-Mepharreshe omitted the
‘Longer Conclusion’ to 0. Mark, viz. xvi 9—20, is proved by the absence of the verses
from S: see Introd. pp. 194, 2087 The object of this Note is to point out that the
renderings in the Peshitta text of [Mk] xvi 9—20 shew the influence of the Diatessaron,
while @ represents an independent rendering from the Greek, a rendering in which
the style of the Hv. da-Mepharreshe has been to a considerable extent abandoned.

ver. 17 Sauda] 20% ‘demons’ C; <axx ‘devils’ syr.vg and Aphraates 21.
The word saa never occurs in the Hv. da-Mepharreshe except in 0. John, but it has
been occasionally substituted for a in syr.vg. The tendency in later times was
thus to introduce saa and to get rid of <a: the presence therefore of a= in
syr.vg suggests that the text of syr.vg is here an adaptation from a previously existing
Syriac text, and the quotation in Aphraates shews that this text was the Diatessaron.

S. Mark x 50—xvi 20. 285

ver. 18 Brdwy] <a ‘hurt’ ¢; ܢܗܪ‎ ‘injure’ syr.vg. In Lk iv 35, the only other
passage in the Gospels where BAdmrew occurs, S has 4@< while syr.vg has wie, The
rendering of syr.vg in this verse thus agrees with Old Syriac usage against that of C.

ver, 19 dvedjppbn] ܐܬܥܠܝ‎ ‘he was taken up’ €; ܣܠܩ‎ ‘he went up’ syr.vg and
Aphraates 406, 409. ܐܬܥܠܝ‎ only occurs in the Hv. da-Mepharreshe in Lk xiv 10 (and
in the parallel Matt xx 28 (), where it corresponds to rpocavaBaiverOu. But ‘he went
up’ is also found in an Old Latin text of this verse, viz. the fragment called 0, which is a

‘supply’ of the 7th cent. to Cod. Sangallensis () and represents, as I venture to think,
the same type of text.

ver, 20 Tod Kupiov cuvepyotvros|] Chas ܦܕ ܡܪܝܐ ܥܡܗܘܢ ܒܠܠ‎ ‘the Lorp being
with them in all’; syr.vg has ܘܡܪܢ ܡܥܕܪ ܗܘܐ ܠܗܘܢ‎ ‘and our Lord was helping
them.’ This is much too free a rendering to have been coined for the first time in the
age of Rabbula, and we may conjecture the phrase to have stood in the Diatessaron.
Here again the rendering can be paralleled from Western authorities, for all the Old
Latin texts of this passage which survive, ¢, 0 and g, have Domino adiuwante, not
Domino cooperante as in the Vulgate.

Finally we may notice a curious turn in the Peshitta of [Mk] xvi 11 which must have
been derived from a Gospel Harmony. The Greek has × ܬܘ ܐܬܘܐ‎ dxovoavres ore G} kal
20:07 im ܘܡܘ‎ yriotyoay, but in syr.vg we find

ܘܗܢܘܢ ܦܕ ܫܡܥܘ ܕܐܡܪ̈ܢ por‏ ܘܐܐܕܬܚܙܝ ܠܗܝܢ ܠܐ ܗܝܡܢܘ ist‏

And they, when they heard that the women say that He was alive and had appeared
to them, did not believe them.

Thus, instead of a reference to Mary Magdalene alone, the text is made to speak
of the other women also. But the alteration was almost unavoidable according to the
scheme of the Diatessaron, which placed [Mk] xvi 11 between Lk xxiv 10 and 11%, verses
which speak of Joanna and Mary the mother of James as well as of Mary Magdalene.
No Old Latin text has here been influenced by the Diatessaron, but Cod. Fuldensis adds
eis at the end of the verse.

8. LUKE.

i 1-4 8. Luke’s Preface, as might be anticipated, affords evidence both of the
common origin of the Peshitta and the Hv. da-Mepharreshe and of their frequent
divergence. The opening words ܡܛܠ ܕܣܓܝ̈ܐܐ ܨ ܒܘ‎ are a sufficiently bald rendering
of "Exedynrep ܐܘ«‎ érexeipyoay to establish at once a literary connexion between
“syr.vt” and “syr.vg,” but the two differ as to the meaning of rerAnpodopnpévan ev
yutv. In S this is rendered by ‘completed among us,’ as in the text of the English
Revised Version; syr.vg has ܕܚܢܢ ܡܦܗܝܢ ܚܢܢ ܒܗܘܢ‎ ale, ie. ‘the things of which
we are fully persuaded,’ in agreement with the English Bible and Rom xiv 5.

i146, 56 Who spoke the Magnificat? According to most authorities, comprising
all Greek mss and many Latins, including Tertullian De Anima 26 (expressly), it was
spoken by Mary; according to ® b /* and Irenaeus! 235 (not 185) the Magnificat was
spoken by Elisabeth’. In favour of this view might be urged the airy of ver. 56: we
read there that ‘Mary’ remained with ‘her,’ a use of the pronoun which indicates that
Elisabeth and not Mary was the previous speaker. It is therefore important to notice
G) that S and A 180 and syr.vg read Mary in 1 46;
(i) that S and syr.vg get rid of the difficulty in 1 56 by reading ‘ Mary remained
by Elisabeth.’
No other authorities follow the Syriac here, but the fact that the Syriac has inserted
the proper name for the pronoun in ver. 56 helps to recommend the conjecture that the
true text of ver. 46 had kat etrev without Mapiap.

i149”, 50 The translation given on p. 249 is inaccurate: it should read ‘He, whose
Name of mercy is glorified and holy unto ages and for generations to them that fear
Him’ (or ‘by them that fear Him’).

It is remarkable how different the rhythm of the Syriac is from that which is
familiar to us: the impression left on my mind by the text of S is that the translator of
the Lv. da-Mepharreshe was not accustomed to any liturgical use of the Magnificat.

i110 sls ܐ ܠܦܠܗ‎ all the world: Gr. ravti 76 dog. This translation recalls
the Babylonian-Jewish Aramaic xpdy by, meaning ‘every one’ (Dalman’s Worte
Jesu 144), just as eis dAov Tov kdopov is used in Mk xiv 9 in the same sense. The Greek

itself, like the Galilean Aramaic NDY bs, means ‘every one,’ as in Lk viii 47, xviii 43,
xx 6, 45. The fact that in none of these latter cases the Syriac has sais makes
it likely that ܥܠܡ݀ܝܐܡ‎ in Lk ii 10 is only a corruption of sax, or rather that it is one

1 Niceta of Remesiana, the author of the Te Dewm, also ascribes the authorship of the Mag-
nificat to Elisabeth in his tract De Bono Psalmodiae (ed. Burn, pp. 76, 79).

S. Luke i 1-4—ii 30. 287

of the curious set of more or less intentional changes discussed in the Note below.
Matt i 21 is different, for there C differs from S in the suffix as well as in having ܥܠܡ‎

for ܥܡ‎

S: see pp. 41, 80.‏ ܘܐܪܥܘܬܐ 14 !ܐܐ

ii 30 ܚܢܢܟ‎ Thy Mercy is the reading of S, of syr.vg, of Ephraim (see above, p. 129,
and Moes. 28). The Greek is 76 cwrypisv cov, so that according to Syriac Biblical usage
we should have expected wis» Thy Life (see p. 81). The correction is easy and obvious,
and yet it is not made by any extant Syriac text.

The fact is that the substitution of ܚܢܢܟ‎ for oe aa in this passage is only one of a
series of readings, which taken together make up one of the most curious features of the
Syriac version. The ample attestation of the phrase from the Nwnc dimittis in our
Syriac authorities makes it a convenient point for noticing the general question.

In the following passages a slight change in the transmitted text of the Hv. da-
Mepharreshe would bring it into conformity with the Greek. Passages marked with *
are those in which the Peshitta follows the Hv. da-Mepharreshe against the Greek.
Proper names such as ܐܪܠܠܫ ܪ‎ (Lk iii 36) are not included.

* Matt vili 4 <scas\ to the priests: Gr. ܐ‎ iepe?. The plural points do not happen
to be legible in S, but they are found in C and in all the mss of syr.vg.

* Matt ix 36 ܝܫܪܝܢ‎ let loose: Gr. épyspévor. The obvious correction, viz. ܝܪܝܢ‎ ‘cast,’ is
made in the Harclean but not in any Ms of syr.vg. Compare 1x10 Ps ii 3 (sie),
according to all the mss.

Mk vii 26 ܐܪܡܠܬܐ‎ widow: Gr. ‘EAAnvis. Instead of the obvious correction
ܐܪܡܝܬܐ‎ Jeathen, syr.vg reads ܢܦܬܐ‎ ‘pagan.’

Mk xii 38, Lk xx 46 ܒܐ̈ܣܗܛܘܐ‎ in porches: Gr. & orodais, Here syr.vg has
wx in robes, as we should expect.

Mk xii 42 pase Sh two pounds )80 syr.vg and Ephraim): Gr. Aerra ,ܘܐܘ‎ Here S
is different. The reading of syr.vg, which is doubtless that of the Diatessaron,
appears to be a corruption of ܬܪ̈ܬܝܢ ܣ̈ܥܝܢ‎ two farthings, according to Professor
Bevan’s suggestion, given above on p. 129.

*DUk i110 <>Ax ܠܦܠܗ‎ to all the world: Gr. ܐܘܐ‎ 76 dad (see the Note above).

* Lk 11 30 ܚܢܢܟ‎ Thy Mercy: Gr. 76 :]ܘܗ‎ cov (see above).

M Lk iv 19 ܐܫܪܪ‎ S, ܠܡܫܪܪܘ‎ syr.vg, [to] strengthen: Gr. drooreidar, We should have
expected ܠܡܫܕܪܘ‎ to send, as in the Harclean. Here S and syr.vg actually differ in
the form of the verb, and yet agree against the Greek in what, if it had stood alone,

we should have dismissed as the mere blunder of a Syriac scribe: see further the
Note on Lk iv 19 and the remarkable parallel afforded by Ps xliv 2 syr.vg.

*Lk xix 20 ܒܣܕܘܢܐ‎ in a cloth: Gr. ܐ‎ covdapiy (not ¢ owdove). In the other three
places where ܘ :ܘܗ‎ occurs (Joh xi 44, xx 7; Ac xix 12) it is rendered by
<anaw, while <sorw should correspond with owddv, as in Mk xiv 51.

288 Notes on Select Passages.

Lk xx 46, see above on Mk xii 38.
* Lk xxiv 32 ܝܩܒܢܪ‎ heavy: Gr. xatouévy. The obvious emendation is =» burning,
which is adopted by the Harclean.

I have not included in this list the confusions between ܝܪܬ‎ to inherit and ܝܬܪ‎ to
gwin, which are to be found in Matt xvii 15 C, Mk viii 36S, and apparently in
Mk x 17 syr.vg, because in these passages the mss are not unanimous.

The common feature of the eleven passages quoted above is that the Syriac presents
a reading which gives a plausible sense but is not a translation of the Greek, while a
very slight change in the Syriac letters would produce a reading which is a literal
translation of the Greek, though in most cases the translation would read somewhat
harsh. It is difficult to avoid the supposition that the original Syriac version of the
Gospel, 1.6. the Diatessaron, was corrected here and there before publication wzthout the
help of a Greek ms, and that some at least of the corrections then made in the interests
of a smoother diction passed unchanged from the Diatessaron into the Hv. da-
Mepharreshe, and from the Hv. da-Mepharreshe or direct from the Diatessaron into the
present Syriac Vulgate. The minute care of Thomas of Heraclea eliminated all these
readings from his revised text, but in most instances they leave a trace behind in the
citation of the actual Greek words on the margin of the Harclean version.

There is a curious parallel in English to this smoothing down of a Biblical text for
the purposes of public worship. When the Psalms first were printed from Coverdale’s
Bible in the Book of Common Prayer several changes were made, which held their own
till 1662. The most striking is that whereby in the 68th Psalm, instead of “praise him
in his Name JAH,” we read “praise him in his name, yea, and rejoice before him.”
This ingenious emendation, which is of course entirely destitute of any ancient
authority, appears to me to afford a very close resemblance to the readings here
collected from the earlier Syriac texts.

ii 48 ܘܒܛܘܪܦܐ ܣܓܝܐܐ‎ <hoxs, the reading of € stands for d3uriuevor Kal
Aumovpevor asin Dae f'glqr gat. <hex is used for Wry in Lk xxii 45 by all
Syriac texts, so that hoxs, ie. ‘in trouble, corresponds to Avrovpevo. But when
this word was inserted into the ancestor of C it was natural to put it before ܨܒܛܘܪܦ̈ܐ‎
not after it, because hax is fem. To put it after ܣܓܝܐܐ‎ would spoil the rhythm
and to put it before <<sX20 would sound like a false concord.

For a similar instance, see the Note on Lk xx 34.

iii 1 ,ܒܝܗܘܕ‎ On the reading of S*, see vol. i, p. 548. The spelling ܗܒ̈ܠܢܝ̈ܐ‎
(with ܗ‎ not ~<), both in ancient and modern times, seems to rest on a popular

derivation which connects the name with that of the Patriarch Abel (see G. A. Smith
in Hney. Bibl. 17).

111 6 On ܕܐܠܗܐ‎ smasii in A, see pp. 81, 205.

iii 7 ‘coming unto him’ C, ‘coming to him to be baptized’ 8. The Peshitta has
ܠܘܬܗ ܠܡܥܡܕ‎ ie. it agrees with except in the preposition. The ordinary Greek
text has BarricOjvo. bm’ atrod, the same phrase as in Matt iii 6 and Mk i 5, for which

S. Luke ii 30—iv 18. 289

we should expect in Syriac ܕܢܥܡܕ .ܐܢܘܢ‎ , or (less probably) ܕܢܬܥܡܕܘܢ ܡܢܗ‎ as in
Lk vii 30. Possibly therefore the disturbing cause is the Western reading Barrio 0 ȣ
évorov adrod, found in D b e /* gr. This uncommon phrase is very likely to be
genuine: possibly even it stood in the source from which 0, Luke took Lk iii 10-15.
It seems to present a view of Jewish Baptism in which the penitent administered the
rite to himself, as Naaman did.

iii 23-38 For the general bearing of the Genealogies upon the date of the Syriac
N.T., see p. 202. Two names call for special mention here, viz. ‘Arphaxad’ (v. 36) and
‘Jared’ (v. 37). With regard to the latter, I thought I saw ܝܪܝܕ‎ in S, but the ms is
very indistinct and if S really has this reading it can be nothing more than a. scribe’s
mistake. More likely it is my own blunder. Aphraates 473 has 244, and this is the
constant spelling in all other Syriac authorities, both in the Old Testament and in the
New. The end of the name corresponding to ‘ Arphaxad’ is illegible in S, but we
cannot doubt that the final consonant was ‘r’ (not ‘d’), as in Aphraates and the
mss of the Peshitta, both in 0.T. and N.T. The case is somewhat similar to Aaa
Matt i13 8, though there both A and syr.vg have 305+. In the case of ܐܪܦܦܫܪ‎
the N.T. Peshitta no doubt retained the (incorrect) final 4 which it had inherited from
the Old Syriac under the influence of the 0.T. Peshitta, in the same way that it retained
‘Beelzebub’ with final ‘b.’

It is necessary to emphasise the fact that the Peshitta text of Lk iii 36 really has
ܐܕܪܦܦܫܪ‎ because Mr Gwilliam has edited ܐܕܪܦܠܫܕ‎ against the evidence of his mss,
under the influence of a single ‘Masoretic’ Codex (Mas. 2=B.M. Add. 12178), which
gives in this Genealogy not the Peshitta tradition, but a sophisticated accommodation to
Greek spellings. The Nestorian Masoretic Codex (Mas. 1=B.M. Add. 12138) has
,ܐ ܪܧܰܒ݂ܫܰܪ:‎ ie. Arpayshdr, and the same spelling and vocalisation is attested by the other
Jacobite Masoretic ms. None of the ancient codices of syr.vg has any vocalisation by
the original scribes, but they all have 7 at the end and not d, a fact which Mr Gwilliam
has unaccountably failed to record.

The Syriac vocalisation of the name we call ‘Jared’ is ܝܪܕ‎ Le. Yard, with hard ®.

This is a correct transliteration of the Hebrew 97. Mr Gwilliam retains ܝܳܪܶܕ‎ an
impossible form, apparently because his favourite Mas. 2 reads ܐܐܪܐܕܿ.‎ (sic). Yet
ܪܨ‎ (Gdpes v. 33) he correctly transliterates ‘ Pharts’ (i.e. Pars). ‫.

iv 2 On the text of the quotation from the Acts of Thomas, see pp. 103, 104.

iv18 The clause drocreiAar reOpavopevous ev >>: is an adaptation of Isaiah lviii
6, inserted into the quotation of Isaiah Ixi 1 ff. As is usual with quotations from the
O.T. peculiar to S. Luke, the wording is that of the .ܐ‎ The O.T. Peshitta of
Is lviii 6 is quite different, consequently the various Syriac translators and revisers from
Tatian to Rabbula had nothing to influence them but the Greek. Now a perfectly
literal and natural rendering of the Greek into Syriac would be

ܘܠܡܫܕܪܘ ܠܬܒܝܪ̈ܐ ܒܫܘܒܩܢܐ
and to send (away) the broken ones in remission.‏

290 Notes on Select Passages.

This is not 80 poetical a rendering as that of the English Bible in Lk iv 18, which
has ‘to set at liberty them that are bruised,’ but it is a far more literal version of the
awkward Biblical Greek. Consequently when Widmanstadius in the Ed. Princeps of the
Peshitta printed
: ܘܠܡܫܪܪܘ ܠܬܒܝܪ̈ܐ ܒܫܘܒܩܢܐ‎
and to strengthen (or, confirm) the broken ones in remission,

it seemed obvious that there had been an error of the press. Following Schaff, therefore,
the common editions have ܘܠܡܫܕܪܘ‎ , which is also the reading of the Harclean. But
the mss of syr.vg support Widmanstadius, and Mr Gwilliam has very properly restored
ܘܠܡܫܪܪܘ‎ to the text. No doubt there is an error somewhere, but it is older than our
Ms tradition, i.e. it goes back to Rabbula.

The evidence goes beyond Rabbula, for S has ܘ ܐܫܪ‎ i.e. and 7 will strengthen (or,
confirm), a reading which looks like a variation of ܘܠܡܫܪܪܘ‎ made without consulting
the Greek. In any case S attests the root 44% and not the root 4a". Thus the ‘error’
is really primitive and can be traced into the 2nd century, into the very beginnings of
the Syriac N.T.

In the Note on Lk ii 30 it was shewn that this error does not stand alone, but that
it is one of a series of plausible corrections which taken together seem to indicate that
the original Syriac Gospel text was here and there smoothed down before publication.

The same phenomenon also occurs at least twice in the Psalms, in passages which
greatly resemble what we find in Lk iv 18. At the end of Ps xliv 3 the Hebrew has

‘and Thou didst send away them (i.e. the heathen),’ and with this agrees the‏ ܡܐܡ
as‏ ܘܫܕܪܬ ܐܢܘܢ Greek xai é&¢Bades airovs. But the mss of syr.vg, instead of reading‏
‘and Thou didst strengthen them (i.e. the‏ ܘܫܪܪܬ ܐܢܘܢ we should expect, all have‏

Israelites).’ Similarly in Ps ii 3 ܕܚܒ‎ (Gr. kai ܘܬ ܐܙܘ‎ ( is rendered ܘܢܫܪ̈ܝܐܐ‎ by
all the mss of syr.vg, not 310 as we should expect: this is exactly parallel to
Matt ix 36.

iv 29 On 43, see p. 79.
On ܐܝܟ ܕܢܬܠܘܢܗ‎ and the corresponding words in the Diatessaron, see pp. 180,
183, 197f.

iv 44,v 1 The text of S here rests on Professor Bensly’s transcript, as emended by
Mrs Lewis from what seemed visible in the Ms in 1895, the photograph being almost
entirely illegible. The text as printed in Some Pages runs thus:

ܘܡܦܪܙ ܗܘܐ ܒܦܢܘܫܬܐ
ܕܝܗܘܕ ܗܘܐ ܦܫܐ
aS‏ ܐܕܝܫ ܗܘܐ ܕܢܫܡܥ
maim‏ ܡܠܬܗ ܕܐܠܗܐ
ܘܗܘ ܩ݀ܐܡ ܗܘܐ ܥܠ ܝܕ
ܝܡܬܐ ܕܓܢܣܪ

S. Luke iv 18—vi 43-45. 291

Of this only the first four words were marked by Professor Bensly as certain. Some
of the rest he had not made out, and some he had only transcribed tentatively. The
certain words, however, reach to the end of Lk iv 44 and include the very interesting
reading ‘Iovdaéas instead of TadtAadas (see above, p. 227).

But I cannot believe that Professor Bensly’s more or less tentative ܗܘܐ‎ in line 2
can be the reading of the Ms, or that line 3 has been correctly deciphered by Mrs Lewis.
The photograph seems to indicate that line 3 began with = (or ܕ ܠܠ‎ where Some Pages
has max as. I have no suggestion to offer, and the exact wording of S in Lk ¥ 1 is
not a matter of prime importance; but it seemed worth while to point out that the
doubt which overhangs the transcription of Lk ¥ 1 does not extend to Lk iv 44.

v21 For Ephraim’s comment on this passage, see the end of the Note on Matt
xii 40.
vi 20 For the rendering, see on Matt ¥ 4.

vi24 ܒܥܘܬܦܘܢ‎ ‘your supplication’: for this rendering of rv tapdxAnow tudy,
see p. 196 and the Note on Matt ¥ 4.

vVi35 ܦܦܘܪ̈ܝ ܛܝܒܘܬܐ‎ ‘the ungrateful for kindness’: Gr. robs éxapiorous. The
same rendering is found in the Apocalypse of Baruch xiii 12, where ܗܘܝܬܘܢ ܦܿܦܪܝܢ‎
ho=\= corresponds to jxapurreire in the Oxyrhynchus fragment (0. P. iii, p. 5).
The Syriac version of this Apocalypse thus appears to belong to the school of translation
that produced the Lv. da-Mepharreshe.

vi 43-45 ‘The agreement in order between Aphraates 303 and the Diatessaron can
best be exhibited by quotation in full :

A 8 Diat*™ x 35-38
They do not pluck from Pe er ..-and no one doth pluck
thorns grapes, nor figs from thorns figs, nor gather
from briers ; because the Matt viil7 from briers grapes. So every
good tree giveth good good tree bringeth forth good
fruits and the bad tree giveth 0 fruit, and the bad tree bringeth
bad fruits. ‘The good tree they a3) forth bad fruit. The good tree
cannot give bad fruits, nor cannot bring forth bad fruit, nor
the bad tree give good fruits. : the bad tree bring forth good fruit.
The good man from the good 1 The good man from the good
treasures in his heart treasures in his heart
bringeth forth and speaketh bringeth forth
good things, and the bad good things, and the bad
man from the superfluities man from the bad treasures
of his heart bringeth forth in his heart bringeth forth
and speaketh evil things, evil things,
because from the 7 ` and from the
superfluities of the heart superfluities of the heart

the lips speak. the lips speak.

292 Notes on Select Passages.

Roughly speaking, this is Matt vii 16-18 followed by Lk vi 45. Here, as elsewhere,
it must be remembered that the wording of the Arabic Diatessaron has been almost
wholly assimilated to the Peshitta, so that the comparison with Aphraates can only be
made as far as the order of the passages is concerned.

vii 14 On the rare word 4 ‘a bier,’ see p. 80. On the doubled Neavicxe,
attested by Aphraates and Ephraim, see pp. 131, 194.

vii 39 On ܡܝ‎ contracted in S for + ܡܢ‎ see p. 42, note.

viii 27 For the construction of ܒܥܐ ܗܘܐ‎ xo ado, compare
ܘܟܠ ܡܢܗܡ ܢܗܡ ܗܘܐ‎ ‘and was always bellowing’ (Life of Simeon Stylites 393”,
quoted in Néldeke § 217).

viii 29 <as\, <v04 aca\ SC, a clear instance of vo being treated as 11880.
when used of an unclean ‘spirit’ (i.e. a wavtx.): see further p. 44 and the Notes on
Mk v 8, Joh iii 6. It is possible that ave was the original reading here of the
Ev. da-Mepharreshe, as D and € actually attest daporiw for rvevpar, Yet dapoviy can
hardly be the original reading, because the Soudvoy is never personally addressed as
such; it is always spoken to as mvetpa.

viii 31 There can be little doubt that the mention of Gehenna in C, together with
the other striking coincidences in this passage with J/oesinger 75, comes from
assimilation to the Diatessaron, and that on the whole the text of S preserves the
genuine text of the Lv. da-Mepharreshe: see also p. 222.

viii 43 On the reading of S, which is that of B and the Armenian, and practically
also of D and the Sahidic, see p. 227.

viii 45 On the punctuation in C%, see p. 15.
viii 46,48, 50 On ܥܢܐ ܘܐܡܪ‎ in S, see p. 91.

viiido <heas ܡܢ ܕܒܝܬ ܪܒ‎ C (=syr.vg) is obviously right, and should have
been translated ‘from the household of the chief of the synagogue’: the Greek is rapa
TOU apxiovvayusyou.

ix 10 The best text (ie. N°B LX 33, the Egyptian versions, and practically D)
puts the Feeding of the 5000 cis réAw xadovpévyy ByOoadd. Instead of this we find in
&*& (69) 157 and C cis rérov épnuov without any mention of Bethsaida, i.e. the clause
is assimilated to the parallel in Mk vi 31= Matt xiv 31. Ciasca’s Arabic Diatessaron
xviii 21 is equally silent as to Bethsaida, so that we may conjecture that C here
reproduces the text of Tatian. Most documents combine the two readings, either by
adding the name Bethsaida to «is rémov epyuov (lat.vt-vg syr.vg), or by reading with the
majority of Greek mss and the later versions «is rérov epypoy wéAews kahovpevys 13700.

The most natural and obvious way of regarding the text of S, which has

me tus ܠܬܪܥܐ ܕܡܕܝܢܬܐ ܕܡܬܩܪܝܐ‎
to the gate of a city called Beth 600,

S. Luke vi 48-45—ix 35. 293

is to treat it as an independent attempt to avoid “the difficulty of associating the
incident with a ‘city’” (Westcott and Hort’s Introduction §143). I do not think it
probable that the translator of the Av. da-Mepharreshe confused wiAqv and )ܐܡ‎ or
that he worked from a Greek text in which the confusion had been made. It is more
likely that the text of § has been misread, or that the scribe of S miswrote the first
word, and that instead of <sAh\ the Av. da-Mepharreshe really had <ahe<\,
Codd. 1-118-131-209 and cod. 700 read eis térov rédews kad. B. This group of Mss
often preserve a Greek text agreeing with that from which the Hv. da-Mephurreshe was
translated, and if we read <4h<\ § will agree verbally with them here.

The reading is important textually, because it is the nearest approach to an
attestation by an ancient version of any of the ‘conflate’ readings which occupy so
prominent a position in Dr Hort’s theories about the history of the text of the New
Testament. The very qualified support which S here seems to give to the ‘received
text’ only throws into stronger relief its marked disagreement with the ‘received text’
in all the other seven cases of conflation which Dr Hort brought forward.

ix 23 On the spelling «Ahv<= in S, see p. 51.

. The phrase ‘take up his cross daily’ seems to have caused difficulty in ancient
times. It is omitted by Da/, while the decisive word ‘daily,’ by which the passage in
0. Luke differs from the parallel passage in the other Gospels, is omitted by the large
majority of Greek mss and by every Old Latin text. It is therefore not surprising to
find that ‘daily’ is omitted by S, though found in Cand syr.vg.

The presence of spas\s in syr.vg of course explains the insertion of ‘daily’ in the
Arabic Diatessaron. In the absence of any serious evidence to the contrary, such as a
quotation from Aphraates or Ephraim, we may conjecture that the earlier texts of
Tatian’s Harmony followed the Old Latin in omitting ‘daily,’ that S in omitting the
word is following the then current text of the Diatessaron, and finally that C here gives
us the true reading of the Hv. da-Mepharreshe. That C is not corrected from syr.vg is
certain, for it has ܒܦܠܝܘܡ̄‎ for »ܙ ' ܘ»‎ while syr.vg has ܦܠܝܘܡ̄‎ without =; moreover
Chas ܨܠܝܒܗ‎ for ‘his cross’ while syr.vg (with S$’) has the more ordinary term ܙܩܝܠܗ‎
(see the Note on Lk xxiv 7). One ms of syr.vg, Mr Gwilliam’s 13, omits pals, a fact
in which some may be inclined to detect a last echo of the use of the Diatessaron.

The retention of xa 7yépav in Lk ix 9818 one of the few passages where the so-called
‘received text’ does not reproduce the reading most current in the later Byzantine
Empire. It was doubtless 8. Jerome who first introduced in the West the phrase ‘ take
up his cross daily’ (Hier. ad Principiam i 955), and it was probably the presence of
cotidie in the Vulgate which led Erasmus to admit xa” juépay into the printed text, in
agreement with cod. 1 but against the evidence of the common run of Greek authorities.

ix 35 The reading of S, ,ܒܪܝ ܓܒܝܐ‎ represents 6 vids pov 6 éxhedeypévos, found
here in NB LS (1) » ff ܐ‎ gat aur sah boh arm. Most documents read o vids pov ܘ‎
dyarnrés as in Matt and Mk, and at the Baptism. The reading of C, ܒܪܝ ܘܚܒܝܒܝ‎
‘My Son and My Beloved,’ is evidently derived from a reminiscence of the parallel
passages in the Syriac (if not from the Diatessaron itself), rather than from a direct

comparison with Greek Mss.

294 Notes on Select Passages.

Here, as in Joh i 34 and perhaps in Joh iii 16 the expression ‘Chosen Son’ has been
removed in many texts, so as to avoid a form of words which might favour an
‘adoptionist’ theory of our Lord’s Nature.

ix 58 For a justification of rendering ܐܢ‎ in S by ‘if’ or ‘though’ (and not
‘ verily’), see p. 73 and the other examples of similar constructions there collected.

ix 61 go and shew it] The Greek has drordgacda, but it is difficult to avoid the
suspicion that S and 0 get their rendering from the Latin renuntiare or ire nuntiare.
The verb drordccecOa is translated in Syriac texts by ܫܪܐ‎ ‘dismiss’ in Mk vi 46,
2 Cor ii 13; by ܫܒܩ‎ ‘leave’ in Lk xiv 33; and by ܝܗܒ ܫܠܡܐ‎ ‘give salaam (or,
greeting)’ in Ac xviii 18. In Lk ix 61 itself syr.vg has ܐܫܠܡ‎ Airc, ie. ‘that I go
and make my salaam,’ an admirable rendering of the Greek. In Latin texts of the
Gospels nuntiare and renuntiare (in the sense of ‘send back a message’) are used where
the Greek has drayyé\\ewv and the Syriac +a» ‘shew,’ e.g. Matt ii 8, xi 4, xiv 12,
Mk vi 30, Lk vii 22; while here and in Lk xiv 33 renuntiare (in the sense of ‘renounce’)
is used for drordcceoOu. Several Latin texts, including g, have here ire nuntiare,
which is still nearer S and C. I venture therefore to suggest that the Mv. da-
Mepharreshe in Lk ix 61 reproduces the text of the Diatessaron, and that tbe
Diatessaron may have been based in this passage upon a text that had been altered to
suit the supposed meaning of the current Latin version’.

ix 62 For Ephraim’s quotation, see p. 132.

x6 For ci ܐܘ‎ pyye, Shas “An ܐܢ‎ (sic, see vol. i, p. 550). On this use of ܕܠܐ‎
for ‘else,’ see pp. 67, 68 note.

x17 On ܝܫܘܒܥܝܢ‎ (S$), see p. 48.
X34 On ܡܚܐܘ̈ܬܐ‎ see p. 43.

x 41,42 Apart from general considerations derived from N.T. textual criticism,
there can be little doubt that S gives here the true reading of the Lv. da-Mepharreshe.
The text of C appears to be the work of the same clumsy hand that tried to patch up
Joh iv 24. »shoal ܨܦܬܝ ܘܛܘܪܒܐ ܕܝܠܝ ܐܝܬ‎ is an unnecessarily awkward rendering
of pepypvas kal tupBdly. 1116 words look like a ae note (perhaps ܘܛܘܪ ܒܐ‎ ahs ܨ‎
ܐܝܬ ܠܘܬܦܝ‎ (, which was misread by a scribe when incorporated into the 6
ܛܘܪܒܐ‎ is a mere transliteration of rupBa(Lev): it is not a Syriac word.

It should be noted that the 8e or yap after Mapidp at the beginning of ver. 42, which
is an integral part of both the longer readings, is not represented in C any more than in
S. See also pp. 219, 242.

xi 8 On the construction implied in S*, see p. 72.
xi15 On the spelling of ‘ Beelzebub,’ see p. 204.

xi25f. The text of S can be taken in two ways: either (1) ‘when the unclean
spirit came, it found the house swept. * Then it goeth,’ &c.; or (2) ‘when the unclean

1 See also pp. 208, 234, and Dr Rendel Harris’s Study of Codex Bezae, p. 255.

S. Luke ix 35—xi 35, 36. 295

spirit came and found the house swept, *then it goeth,’ &c. The change of tense at the
beginning of ver. 26 shews that the apodosis comes there, and that (2) is the right
construction.

The general meaning of the whole passage is surely “This is what happened once
upon a time to a certain person: even so shall it be to this evil generation,” to adapt
the phraseology of Matt xii 45°. But when it was regarded as a revelation concerning
demoniacs and evil spirits it seemed necessary to accentuate the negligence of the un-
fortunate patient, im order to justify his second seizure. The First Evangelist had
added the word ܘܛܬܐܘ )ܗ‎ +, and this is interpolated into Lk xi 25 by many Greek mss,
including B, and apparently Origen. The Hv. da-Mepharreshe escaped this corruption,
but attained the same result by giving a hypothetical turn to the whole figure, both
here and in Matt xii 437

xi 33 On the reading of S, see p. 251. This passage is one of the few where the
mosaic of the Diatessaron appears to be better preserved in the Latin Code Fuldensis
than in Ciasca’s Arabic. The Arabic (viii 42) presents only a simple transcript of
Matt ¥ 15, but fuld (p. 46) has Megue accendunt lucernam et ponunt eam sub modio
neque sub lecto NEQUE IN LOCO ABSCONDITO neque sub uaso sed super candelabrum ut et
luceat omnibus qui in domo sunt. ‘The foundation of this also is Matt ¥ 15 (italics), but
what is in small capitals comes from Lk xi 33 and what is in ordinary type corresponds
to Lk vii 16. The ‘bushel,’ the ‘bed,’ and the ‘concealed place’ are mentioned by A 14
in this order, which is doubtless that of Tatian. The ‘bushel’ is rightly omitted by S
in Lk xi 33: it is a detail that belongs to Matt and Mk, not to Lk. It has been
interpolated into C’ as into most Greek mss, but the Greek mss put it after the ‘ concealed
place,’ while in Cit comes before.

xi 35,36 The best Western mss (Dabe ffir) simply substitute Matt vi 23° for
these somewhat obscure verses. C has Lk xi 35, but substitutes Matt vi 23” for the
following verse. The Latin Vulgate and / have the ordinary text, but f adds at the end
a form of Lk xi 36 agreeing with S. The remaining Latin Ms € agrees with S.

The three aberrant texts run as follows :—

8 / 7
Thy body also, therefore si ergo corpus tuum si enim corpus quod in te est
what time there is in it no lucernam non habens lucidam lucernam non habuerit lucentem
lamp that shineth, tibi
becometh darkened ; obscurum est’ tenebrosa est:
80 quanto magis quanto magis autem
what time thy lamp be- cum lucerna luceat lucerna tua fulgens
cometh bright,
it shineth for thee. inluminat te. lucebit tibi.

A comparison of these three texts with the ordinary Greek suggests that the common
original may have been «i obv ¥0 ܗ‎ cov Adyvov gutevov yy exov éorl ܐܘܗ‎ ovTws
(or, ܗܘܐ‎ paddov) dtav 6 Adxvos dotpawy pwrity oe. But I fear that I cannot claim that
this is much more lucid than the obscurity of the Recetved Text of the verse.

See also p. 243.

296 Notes on Select Passages.

xii 5 The spelling ܡܢ‎ (for ܐܝܢ‎ ‘yea’) here found in S occurs now and then
elsewhere, ¢.g. in the colophon to the upper writing of the Sinai Palimpsest itself
(aera ܐܢ‎ fol. 181). But the normal spelling »< occurs several times in S, so that
this passage is not decisive evidence for the meaning of ܪܐܢ‎ in Lk ix 58 S.

xii 19 For the readings of Ephraim, see p. 133; for the Book of Martyrs, see
p. 157.

xii31 ‘The first letter of ܡܦܝܠ‎ appears to me to have been erased from the text
of S, before the ms became a palimpsest. It is now quite illegible.

xii 36 The allusion to this verse in Thos*® is discussed on p. 103.
xii 45,46 On the construction here found both in S and in C, see p. 71.

xii46 The use of the word dyorouety in this verse and in the parallel Matt xxiv 51
affords one of the strongest arguments that the common source of Matt and Lk was in
Greek. Such an exceedingly peculiar punishment as dichotomy is out of place here, and
the word is probably 4 mere misrendering of some Aramaic equivalent for the Biblical
M5 ‘to cut off.’

The difficulty appears to have been felt by S or its ancestor, but the remedy
attempted was to connect d:xoropyjoes with 76 pépos aitod. But the corrector’s marks
seem to have been misunderstood, and so we get ܘܢܣܝܡܝܗܝ‎ mus ܘܢܦܠܓܝܗܝ‎ instead
of ܘܢܦܠܓܝܗ ܡܢܬܗ ܘܢܣܝܡܝܗ‎ , ie. feminine suffixes.

xii 55 On the significance of Ephraim’s quotation, see pp. 134, 148, 192.

xiii 10, 11 - On the construction, see pp. 69, 70.

xiii 34 Instances where the contracted forms are used with pronouns of the
2nd person are collected on p. 42.

xiv15 ܫܪܘܬܐ‎ ‘breakfast’ corresponds to apicrov. On the reading, see p. 225.

xiv 16-24 For the allusions in Thos” and in Aphraates, see pp. 101, 102.

xiv 34 The point in S after ܬܦܠܦܗ‎ is anomalous. It is possibly meant to indicate
that the final ܗ‎ is audible. In Matt v 13 we find mash so written in C, and
similarly A’ in Wright, pp. 271 bis, 333 bis, 335, 457.

xv 7 ‘more than over.’ On this curiously loose Syriac construction, see p. 60.

xv 16 On the ‘husks of the sea,’ see p. 82. It should be noticed that in this
verse ® supports the ordinary Greek reading yepioa: tiv KovAav adrod, which is also that
of lat.eur, while C appears to attest the yopracOjvac of NBD 1-131 13&¢ ef The
distribution of the evidence suggests that S represents the text of the Diatessaron in
this passage. See also on xvi 21.

On the particle rox, see p. 50.‏ 11 ܐ¥×

xvi21 Note that S translates xoprac@jvar here by ‘fill his belly,’ probably under
the influence of xv 16. From the same verse comes the clause ‘No man was giving
to him,’ found in Aphraates, in the Ferrar Group and in a few Latin mss. It is hardly
necessary to postulate direct corruption from the Diatessaron in such a case as this.

S. Luke xii 5—xvii 11. 297

xvi 24 ܨ ܒܥܗ‎ ‘his finger’ is found in S and syr.vg, in agreement with the
Greek tod daxr¥Aov adrod. A383 paraphrases, but in A 43 and in Eph. Lamy iv 381
we find ܪܗ‎ © ‘his little finger,’ a picturesque rendering which must certainly come
from the Diatessaron. See above, pp. 136, 184.

xvi 25. On the rendering of wapaxaXcirat, see pp. 136, 196.
xvii 7 ܚܩܠ.ܐ‎ occurs here only in the Hv. da-Mepharreshe : see pp. 57, 78.

xvii 10 On ܡ̈ܫܝ̈ܐ‎ here translated ‘riff-raff,’ see p. 82 7.

xvii 11 The Greek has dujpyero dia pécov Sapaplas cat Tadsdaias, to which the
Old Latin (but not D or lat.vg) adds et Hiericho. The Syriac for the town ‘Samaria’
is ܫܡܪܝܢ‎ (Joh iv 7), but for the district ‘Samaria’ we find ܫܡܪ̈ܝܐ‎ bus, ie. ‘the
land of the Samaritans.’ Now ܒܝܬ‎ also means ‘between,’ so that the logically accurate
Syriac for ‘between 099 and Galilee’ would be ܫܡܪ̈ܝܐ ܓܥܠܝܠܐ‎ tus
But such a doubling of the ܒܝܬ‎ was felt to be awkward, and the actual reading of
Syr.vg is wisi sine, dus am ܥܒܪ‎

If we translate without reference to the Greek we can render this ‘he was crossing
Samaria to Galilee,’ which is geographically improbable and is open to the objection that
‘to cross’ is generally, though not invariably, followed by = or ܥܠ‎ to express ‘ over.’
If on the other hand we feel that ܒܝܬ‎ and 8& pécov cannot be dissociated we must
render ‘he was crossing between the Samaritans and Galilee,’ which is as awkward
in Syriac as in English, so awkward indeed that it can only be regarded as a piece
of patching.

The reading of S C very cleverly avoids the difficulties. By reading

ܥܒܪ ܗܘܐ ܒܝܬ ܫܡܪ̈ܝܐ ܠܓܠܝ̈ܠܝܐ [ܠܐܝܪܝܚܘ]
he crossed between the Samaritans and the Galilaeans [to Jericho]‏

the doubled ܒܝܬ‎ is avoided by substituting in each case ‘Samaritans’ and ‘Galilaeans’

for ‘Samaria’ and ‘Galilee.’ The final word ܠܰܐܝܪܺܝܚܘ‎ is absent from S, and so

probably does not belong to the original text of the Hv. da-Mepharreshe. But without

this word the Syriac might very well be translated ‘he crossed Samaria to the Galilaeans.’

To avoid this misconception therefore C adds from the context a mention of Jericho.
But though it is natural to translate the text of C

he crossed between the Samaritans and the Galilaeans to Jericho,

it is equally within the rules of Syriac Grammar (Wold. § 251; see above, p. 62)
to render it

he crossed between the Samaritans and the Galilaeans anv Jericho,

though this is the less natural construction, because ‘Samaritans’ and ‘Galilaeans’ are
not co-ordinate with the town ‘Jericho.’ But this second rendering is in agreement
with the Old Latin.

The natural inference to be drawn, if this variation stood alone, would be that the

B, II. 38

298 Notes on Select Passages.

reading of the Old Latin mss was derived from a misunderstanding of the Syriac gloss.
This is highly improbable. On general grounds it is likely that the interpolation
et Hiericho arose in the West, was adopted in the Diatessaron, and carried over
into C (not 8); and that it is merely the accident of Syriac idiom which makes the
interpolated text more forcible in Syriac than in Latin. In any case the variant teaches
us not to lay too much weight on the converse argument derived from Lk ix 617.

xvii 1? The reading of S is certain (see vol. i, p. 552) so far as the omission
of >: is concerned ; in other words, S and ¢ agree with D and the Old Latin in reading -
oyto! instead of oyyxo! or 0¥)101-

xvii 21 As stated on p. 198, this verse is noteworthy for the fact that the
Peshitta and the Hv. da-Mepharreshe and the Diatessaron are all extant and all
different. It may therefore be not out of place to point out that the Homily ascribed
to Ephraim which contains a quotation of this verse agreeing with the Peshitta
(Ed. Rom. vi 550) is not really by 0. Ephraim, but should be ascribed to Isaac of
Antioch on the sufficient authority of B.M. Add. 14607, a ms of the 6th century.

xviii 5 On the construction, see p. 73.

For érwmdly we ¢ and syr.vg. have ܡܗܪܐ ܠܝ‎ ‘annoy me,’ a very good rendering.
Shas 3ve¢h ‘will take hold of me.’ This must be meant for the alternative reading
bromadly (G* 13&¢ al™"*). In 1 Cor ix 27 there is a similar variety of reading in the
Greek, and here the Sinai Arabic text published by Mrs Gibson has ܢܝܟܢ‎ Sine!
‘T will take hold of my body,’ to render tromdlw pov rd capa.

xviii 25 On ܓ ܪ‎ (for ܓܝܪ‎ ( in S, see p. 51.
xviii 30 On the reading, see p. 194.

xix 44 the day of thy greatness] The Greek is rév kapov rHs érucxomps cov. On
this very curious rendering Cureton remarks (Preface, p. lix): ‘The translator here,
at the same time that he betrays a want of knowledge of the Greek language, seems
also to indicate that he performed his task at a period when the episcopal office was
held in the highest dignity.’ I cannot but think Cureton right in believing that the
translator here understood émoxom? in the sense of ‘the office of an érickomos,’ but
his inference about the time when the translator lived is indefinite: the ércxozos,
wherever there has been a Christian officer called by that title, has been at all times
the head of the ecclesiastical system, whether as resident Bishop or travelling Visitor.
This word <ha=4 is not the conventional ecclesiastical equivalent for éruxomy, and
so its use points to an early rather than to a late date. As a matter of fact, NAVD
is actually used in the Targums for the Hebrew MMWp in the technical sense of ‘the
dignity conferred by ordination,’ e.g. Num xviii 8, Lev vii 25 (35). Agreements with
Jewish Aramaic such as these belong to the earliest stratum of Christian Syriac.

On the reading of ¢ and the Peshitta, see p. 222.

1 The greater part of this Note will be found in the present writer’s Supplementary Notes to
the Second Edition of Westcott and Hort’s Introduction (Appendix, p. 145).

S. Luke xvii 11—xxi 35. 299

xx 17 On the particle sax, see p. 50.

In the phrase cis ܘܐ‎ ywrias the last word is rendered <duar by all Syriac
authorities in Matt xxi 42, Mk xii 10. This is the natural rendering, as may be seen
from Matt vi 5, and is probably implied in Moesinger 193. But in Lk xx 17 S has
ܠܪܝܫ ܩܪܢ݇ܐ‎ for cis ܘܬ‎ ywrias, as in the Peshitta of Ac iv 11, 0 has ܠܪܫܗ ܕܒܢܝܢܐ‎
as in the Peshitta of Ps cxviii 22, while syr.vg has ܨܠܪܝܫ ܩܪܢܐ ܕܙܘܝܬܐ‎ a conflation of
S with the rendering found in the other Gospels.

The Book of Acts in syr.vg has been much less drastically revised than the Gospels,
so that we may fairly take the agreement of S and Ac iv 11 as an indication that
S has here preserved the original rendering. The text of C, on the other hand, can
hardly be anything else than an assimilation of the Gospel text to that of the Psalms.

xx 29 The spelling <s+ax is quite legible in the photograph of 8. As mentioned
on p. 48 this spelling is characteristic of several forms of Palestinian Aramaic, but in
Edessene it does not seem to be known outside the Sinai Palimpsest.

xx 34 The only correct translation of ܘܡܘܠܕܝܢ‎ eals, here read by S and ©
is ‘beget and are begotten,’ as Cureton translated it. The first word is masculine and
active ; the second word by itself might be active or passive, but both the context
and the readings of the Greek mss shew that it is intended for a passive. The
Ev. da-Mepharreshe therefore supports yervaow kat yevvevrae with a ¢ el Irenaeus and
Cyprian, against the yevyvavra: cai yevvdow attested by D fig. The accident that the
latter reading is attested by the Greek ms D has given it an undeserved prominence.
The reading of S C and its allies is certainly the earlier form of the Western text, and
I incline to regard it as a genuine clause of 8. Luke’s Gospel.

xxi 11 In view of the many notable variations in the extant Syriac texts of
this verse it is worth pointing out that an allusion to it in the Chronicle of Joshua
Stylites xlix (Wright, p. 45") contains the definitely Peshitta phrase <a%awa hia
‘terrors and panics.’

At the end of the verse S stands almost alone with D and € among ‘ Western’
authorities in omitting kal yepaves.

xxi 18 This verse is contained in S, but omitted by C and Marcion. The text
of Marcion, however, has elsewhere no special affinity with the Old Syriac, so that the
coincidence here is probably accidental.

xxi25 On the renderings of dopia, see p. 83.

xxi35 Both Sand Chave <hx<s FA ud ܐܝܟ‎ for ws tayls yap ܬܘܗ ܘ)»ܗ»*ܧ‎
(or éreAevoeras), and the same rendering reappears in the Harclean. It is in fact
a natural and literal translation of the Greek. But the Peshitta has #X\ <u ܐܝܟ ܨ‎
Bae! for as a springe it shall spring.’

The origin of this striking and peculiar rendering is quite obscure. The meaning
of the verb ܝܨ ܠܦܢ‎ is attested by Aphraates 296' us ܠܗ‎ us ܟ‎ ‘the snare closes upon it,’
a phrase independent of Lk xxi 35. It may possibly have stood in the Diatessaron, but
the passage is not extant in any early Syriac authority.

300 Notes on Select Passages.

xxii 3 For the spelling of the name ‘Iscariot,’ see on Joh vi 71.

xxii 17-20 In agreement with Westcott and Hort I assume that the true text
of these verses is that preserved in Codex Bezae. The reasons for this view are set
forth in Dr Hort’s well-known Note on the passage and do not need repetition here.
Thus we have as the original form from which all the variants start :

“And He received a cup and gave thanks and said: ‘Take this and divide
it among yourselves, “for I say unto you I will not drink from henceforth of the
fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come.’

a And He took bread, and gave thanks and brake it and gave to them, saying :
‘This is my body.’

[followed immediately by ™‘But behold, the hand of him, &c....... 71

The Old Latin mss ® (6) (e) fl support D, but 4 and e put ver. 19* before vv. 17, 18,
so that the Bread may come before the Cup, as in the other accounts of the Last
Supper. Most mss, including & and B, after ‘This is my body’ add “*” ‘ which is given
for you: this do in remembrance of me.’ *And the cup likewise after supper, saying :
‘This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is shed for you.’” These words are
taken either direct from 1 Cor xi 23°-25, as Westcott and Hort suggest, or from
a liturgical text itself based on S. Paul.

The Syriac evidence is more complicated. We have to consider, besides the Peshitta
and the Hv. da-Mepharreshe, the texts of the Diatessaron and of the Liturgy. The
Peshitta only differs from the ‘ Received Text’ by the omission of ev. 17 and 18. It does
not agree in language with the Peshitta text of 1 Cor, and its genesis is (I think)
best explained by supposing it to be a revision of a text like that of S, in which ver. 19
immediately followed ver. 16. Very likely vv. 17 and 18 stood in the Greek ms used by
the reviser, but he passed them over either by accident or design.

The kind of text used in Syriac Liturgies during the 4th century is not improbably
represented by the quotation in Aphraates 221, a combination of Matt and 1 Cor.
It runs as follows:

After Judas went forth from them (¢f Joh xiii 30), He took bread and blessed
and gave to His disciples and said to them: ‘This is my body; take, eat of it all of
you'.’

And also over the wine thus He blessed and said to them: ‘This is my
blood, the new covenant that for many is shed to forgiveness of sins: thus be
ye doing for my memory whenever ye be gathered together.’

The last words are practically equivalent to 1 Cor xi 25°, but they agree still closer
with the end of the words of institution as printed in the Nestorian ‘Liturgy of
Theodore,’ the present form of which dates from the 6th century’. That the quotation
in Aphraates is not taken straight from the Diatessaron appears from the fact that
it does not contain the portions of our Lord’s words at the Supper which are quoted
by Ephraim (Moesinger 222). Aphraates omits ‘and brake’ after ‘blessed,’ and he has

1 For this phrase, see e.g. the Canon Missae, the Anaphora of Nestorius and the Coptic
Anaphora published by Giorgi.

2 It was ‘translated’ by Mar Aba the Catholicos. See Canon Maclean’s Syriac edition, p. ܠܘ‎

S. Luke xxii 3—xxii 17-20. 301

nothing to correspond with ‘I will not drink from henceforth of this fruit of the vine
until the kingdom of my Father’ (so Moesinger 222).

The narrative of the Supper in the Diatessaron, apart from these extracts, is very
hard to ascertain. The Arabic (xlv 12-16) gives Matt xxvi 26-29 (=Mk xiv 22-25)
followed by Lk xxii 19 ‘and so be doing for my memory.’ But we cannot trust the
details where they agree in text with the Peshitta, and possibly the true text of the
Diatessaron contained more elements derived from 0. Luke. But obviously 8S. Luke’s
account, in which the Cup comes before the Bread, was not made the basis of the
narrative.

We have now to consider how best to explain the text of S and C, on the assumption
that the Diatessaron and probably a liturgical text resembling Aphraates 221 was known
to the translator. Two questions of importance arise: (1) Is the Hv. da-Mepharreshe
more faithfully preserved in ® or in C at this point? and (2) What Greek text was
known to the translator ?

I have come to the conclusion that C is here the more faithful text, and that there is
no indication that either S or Cis based on the longer Greek text. The text of S may
be arranged thus :—

1 Cor xi 23, 24 And He took bread “and gave thanks over it and brake and
gave to them and said:

‘This is my body that for you [I give];
So be doing for my memory.’

25 * And [after they supped] he took a cup and gave thanks over it and said:

Lk xxii 17> ‘Take this; divide among yourselves.

Matt xxvi 28* [This is my blood, the new covenant.]

Lk xxii 18 [For] I say to you, that from now I shall not drink of this *fruit*,
until the kingdom of God come.’

The words in brackets are omitted by C, and in line 7 instead of ‘fruit’ C has
‘produce of the vine.’

The first four lines practically reproduce 1 Cor xi 23°-25* (in the true text)’. On’
the other hand, line 5 is Lk xxii 17", and line 7 is Lk xxii 18”. Thus both S and C
definitely attest Lk xxii 17, 18, which is the passage peculiar to the Third Gospel. 'The
main reason that I consider the text of C here the earlier is that C is more faithful both
to Lk and to 1 Cor: this might very well be the work of an editor combining documents
for the first time, but a later scribe, revising a text by a Greek ms would have only
assimilated the text before him to one Biblical passage. Assuming then C to be the
more original, the passages in square brackets must be regarded as interpolations in the
Ev. da-Mepharreshe. Yn line 2 ‘I give’ comes neither from 8. Luke nor from 8. Paul;
it is a reminiscence of Joh vi 51, inserted to lighten the syntax. In line 4 ‘after they
supped’ is of course from 1 Cor xi 25, but without ocavrws. Line 6 ‘This is my blood,
the new covenant’ corresponds to Matt xxvi 28*, and it has a place in Aphraates 221.
In line 7 ‘for’ is inserted so a8 to avoid having so many clauses without any conjunction :
it ig indeed found in all mss of Lk xxii 18 but C, but omissions of this sort are very
common both in S and C. In the same line ‘fruit’ is a much more commonplace word

1 The earliest Syriac form of 1 Cor is indicated here by the Armenian version.

302 Notes on Select Passages.

than ܨ ܐܕܝܫܐ‎ a term specially appropriate here as is clear from the Peshitta text of
Judg ix 13: probably ‘fruit’ was meant as a substitute for ' produce,’ but in the process
of substitution ‘ of the vine’ was accidentally deleted also.

Taking C as our basis, it is not difficult to account for the additions found in S.
To explain the genesis of @ is more difficult, chiefly because the exact wording of the
Diatessaron in its original form is unknown to us. But the words ‘that (is) for you’
after ‘This is my body’ definitely belong to 1 Cor xi 24 and not to the interpolated form
of Lk xxii 19. All the mss which have the longer form of Lk xxii 19 have 16 trép iuay
8:S6pevov, and it is hardly likely, if C had got this passage from the interpolated form

of Lk xxii 19, that it would have had only ܕܥܠ ܐܦܿܝܦܘܢ‎ I conclude therefore that
the words came from S. Paul’s account, probably through the medium of the Diatessaron,
and that the Greek text of the Gospels known to the translator of the Hv. da-
Mepharreshe here agreed in essentials with that approved by Westcott and Hort. The
Ew. da-Mepharreshe here, as in so many other passages, may be not a simple translation
from the Greek, but an adaptation of the language of the Diatessaron to agree more or
less with the Greek text. At the same time it is quite likely that neither S nor C may
give an uncorrupted text. It is possible that both S and C have been independently
assimilated to the Diatessaron, and that the original form of the Hv. da-Mepharreshe
may have been still nearer that approved by Westcott and Hort.

xxii 37 The 1 which is inserted by S before ܥܬܝܕܐ‎ is probably nothing more
than a scribe’s blunder: see p. 69, note.

xxii 48 For a discussion of the meaning and origin of the Syriac phrase
,ܒܪܗ ܕܓܒܪ̈ܐ‎ here found in C, see the Note on Matt xii 40. In S we find
ܕܐܢܫܐ‎ 45. There is no doubt as to the reading of the Palimpsest, but of course
this ungrammatical expression is due to the error of some scribe.

I venture to suggest that the ܠܒܪ ܕܐܢܫܐ‎ of § is a mistake, not for the common-
place ܠܒܪܗ ܕܐܢܫܐ‎ but for ܐܢܫܐ‎ 4=\, and that the sense intended was

Judas, with a kiss thou dost betray a man!

Two distinct questions are here raised. There is the question of what 0. Luke wrote
and the question of what the original words may have been. With regard to the first
question, I do not think we can follow the lead of the Sinai Palimpsest. The fact that
there is no various reading in the Greek is not in itself decisive, because the Latin
filium hominis is essentially neutral between vidv dvOpurov and tov vidv rod dvOpdrov,
But we should not expect to find vids dvOpwrov used by 8. Luke in the sense of
avOpwrros.

We cannot doubt therefore that 8. Luke wrote ܬ ܐܘܬܤ‎ tov vidv rod 0 ܕܘܡ‎
rapasidws, and that he understood The Son of Man to have the same meaning that it
has in Lk xxii 69. But assuming the saying not to be the invention of the Evangelist,
what was its original form? ‘I'o what Aramaic phrase does it correspond? Here
perhaps the Semitic tact of the ancestor of S may indicate the truth. The technical
terminology of Lk xxii 69 is surely out of place here, and I venture to think that we
shall do well, not to interpret 6 vids rod avOpurov here in some artificial sense, but boldly

S. Luke xxii 17-20—xxiii 9>-12. 303

to substitute for it a simple dvOpwros when we try to realise the actual scene. The
same I feel sure is true of Matt xii 32 and Mk ii 10, 28. In all these cases the
reference is not to the Messiah gua Messiah, but to man gua man. The Sabbath was
made for man, therefore a man is lord of the Sabbath; to speak against a man is
pardonable, but to resist the Spirit of God is unpardonable. It is the same in Lk xxii
48: the crime of Judas is not so much that it was the Messiah whom he betrayed, as
that he betrayed a man by means of a kiss.

xxii 52 orpartyyovs tot ieood] The ‘Captains of the Temple’ appear to have been a
kind of Jewish sanctuary police. In Acts we hear of the Captain of the Temple (in the
singular), and his satellites (Ac iv 1, ¥ 24; 26). The ordinary text also has «ai
otparnyois in Lk xxii 4, but the word is omitted there by D lat.vt as well as by SC and
the Aithiopic. In xxii 52 the words otparyyois tod tepod are doubtless genuine, but S
renders them by <\a:\i\eo under the influence of the Diatessaron, for according to
Tatian the arrest of our Lord was made with the help of Roman soldiery (Diat*" xlviii 22,
confirmed by Moesinger 235). This view was appareutly founded on the theory
that the ozeipay of Joh xviii 3 implied an Imperial Cohort. The reading of ©
ܐܣܛܪ̈ܛܝܘܛ ܐ ܕܗܝܟܠ ܐܐ‎ , looks like a conflation of S with the Greek text, made by a
reviser who saw that rod fepod was left out in the Syriac rendering. But ܐܣܛܪ̈ܛܝܘܛ ܐܐ‎
Le. otpatidrat, is hardly an appropriate rendering of otparyyo’. The Peshitta, both here
and in ver. 4, has ܕܗܝܦܠ̈ܐ‎ <A ܪ̈ܒܝ‎

xxii 54 On the names given to 0. Peter by the various Syriac texts, see pp. 92-96.
The Greek here has 6 dé Ilérpos.

xxii 59 ܓܠܝܠ ܐ‎ S, meaning ‘Galilaean’: see p. 46.

xxiii 2 ‘King Messiah.’ On the more accurate equivalent for this well-known
Jewish phrase, see p. 58.

xxiii6 & ܓܠܝܠܝܐ‎ § meaning ‘Galilee’: see p. 46.

xxiii 9°-12 The omission of these verses is a curious and unexplained phenomenon
of the text of S. Possibly it is somehow connected with the awkward wording of
xxiii 5, 6, where the omission of necessary words seems to indicate that the ancestor of
S has been mutilated about this point. Unfortunately the African Latin of the verses
has to be gathered wholly from the late Ms ¢, as € seems to have been corrected from a
commonplace source throughout the greater part of Lk xxi. 16 is therefore noteworthy
that both at the beginning and at the end of the great omission in S we find a variation
from the common text in c. At the end of xxiii 9 ¢ adds quasi non audiens, which
corresponds to am ܬܡܢ‎ am ܕܠܐ‎ am ܐܝܟ‎ in 0 but is not attested by any
other Ms, and for xxiii 12 ¢ has Cum essent autem in dissensionem Pilatus et Herodes
fucti sunt amici in illa die [nam antea inimici erant ad inwicem]. The last clause is
probably interpolated into ¢ from the Vulgate, but the rest corresponds to a well-known
singular reading of D. Thus the passage omitted by S was one in which early Western

304 Notes on Select Passages.

texts presented great variations from the mass of the later Greek mss. But beyond this
it is difficult to make any assertion with confidence, for there can be little doubt that the

passage as a whole is a genuine portion of Lk.

xxiii 19,25 On ܗܛܪ̈ܘܬܐ‎ and ܗܪ̈ܣܣ‎ see p. 79,/, where it is suggested that the
original word may have been ܣܛܗܝܪܘܬܐ‎ ‘sedition.’

xxiii 21 On the verbal suffixes in S, see pp. 54-56.

xxiii 345 For the reading of S) see pp. 195, 2157.
xxiii 38 On <n\~ ‘tablet, see pp. 79, 138, 201.

xxiii 43 In this verse S agrees with syr.vg in having ‘in the Paradise’ for ܗ‎ @
mapadeiow, while C and the Diatessaron have ‘in the Garden of Eden’: see pp. 109, 138.
S also agrees with syr.vg against C in joining ojpepov with per’ éuod éoy and not with
"Any ܬܘܗ‎ A€yw, but in this second case the other authorities are divided. Ephraim
(Moes. 244, 245) quotes the words of Jesus three times and each time without the
prefixed ‘To-day,’ as in C and in A 437. But he says also “Our Lord shortened His
distant liberalities and gave a near promise, To-day and not at the End....Thus through
a robber was Paradise opened.”

The punctuation attested by C is referred to but not approved by Barsalibi, who says
Gn his Commentary on 8. Matthew): “Some hold that when He said To-day, it was not
of that Friday that He said that in it the robber should be in Paradise, but at the end of
the world; and they read the passage Amen, amen (sic), to-day, adding a colon
ܬܚܬܝܐ)‎ isa), and afterwards With Me thou shalt be in Paradise, i.e. at the end of
the world.” But possibly this is an extract from some Greek commentator, for in Greek
no change would be required in the text if this view were adopted, while in Syriac it
involves the transposition of ܪ‎ from before 1s»0» to before ܥܡܝ‎

xxiii 48 The quotations given in the apparatus from Addui 27 and Moesinger 245
make it evident that some reference to the ‘judgement’ or ‘desolation’ of Jerusalem
stood in the Diatessaron as well as the cry ‘Woe to us! What hath befallen us?’

The full reading is preserved in a slightly corrupted form by Cod. Sangermanensis (q),
which adds to the ordinary text at the end of the verse: dicentes uae uobis quae facta
sunt hodiae propter peccata nostra. adpropinquauit enim desolatio hierusalem. Here
uobis is obviously a mistake for nobis, and I have little doubt that hodiae is a corruption
of nobis also.

The same cry of Woe appears in the Gospel of Peter (§ 7) where we read (after Christ
has been taken down from the Cross and His burial): tore of Iovdator cat of mperBvrepor
Kal ot tepets iddvTes olov Kaxov éavtois éroinoay ܐܐ ܘܛ ܘܳܐ‎ KowTerOan Kat A€eyew Odal rats
dpaptias qpav: Pyywev {¥ Kpiots Kal 76 TéAos “Iepovcadyu. This sentence and the form of
text found in the Diatessaron obviously have a common origin: possibly indeed the
Gospel of Peter is the original source of the reading.

S. Luke xxiii 9°-12—xxiv 48, 44. 305

xxiv 7 ܛܠܒ.‎ go. The agreement of S and C with syr.vg makes this a convenient
point to draw attention to the way in which ܠܒ‎ ¢ ‘to crucify’ and ܨ ܠܝܒܐ‎ ‘Cross’ are

constantly avoided in S, Sm and ܙܒܝܦܐ‎ being used instead. The noun <=: ܨ‎ does
not occur in S, sss being used in all the eleven places where S is extant. In syr.vg
ܠܝܒܐ‎ occurs 15 out of 17 times, while in C ܨ ܠܝܒܐ‎ occurs 4 times out of 6, viz.
Matt x 38, xix 21 (an interpolation), Lk ix 23, xiv 27. Its use in Matt xix 21
(=Mk x 21) is supported by Aphraates 392, so that ܨ ܠܝܒܐ‎ appears to have had a
place in the Diatessaron.

The verb cravpody occurs 33 or 34 times in the Gospels. By far the commoner
Syriac rendering is sm, but ܠܒ‎ ¢ occurs here in all extant texts. In Joh xix, where
syr.vg alone is extant, ܨܠܒ‎ is used for ‘crucify, crucify,’ in ve. 05, 15%, although
elsewhere in the chapter -\=v alone occurs. In Mk ix 12 8 has =\\, 93 for egovdernj,
while syr.vg has =: ܢܬܠ‎ , a word which elsewhere stands rather for drrodokydlev, It
looks almost as if the one Syriac word were derived by mere confusion from the other.
In that case we should suppose syr.vg to have retained the genuine reading of the
Ev. da-Mepharreshe wnchanged and the ܨ ܛܠܒ‎ of S would be a mere corruption of
Aha,

The avoidance of ܨ ܠܝܒܐ‎ in S is probably nothing more than a translator’s trick,
like the avoidance of ܐܠܦܐ‎ ‘ship’ and ܢܘܚܡܐ‎ ‘resurrection.’ I have been unable to
make out any difference in meaning between “Sam and ,ܟ ܠܝܒܐ‎ any more than there
is between Rood and Cross. Both words seem ultimately to mean ‘a stake.’

xxiv 12 For the reading, see pp. 231, At the end of the verse ܘܐܙܠ ܠܘܬܗ‎
should have been translated ‘and he went to his house,’ not ‘and he went away’:
of Joh 1 39.

xxiv 43,44 The translation given of the text of S and C is a possible one, but
the Latin evidence and that of Clement convinces me that there is no asyndeton at the
beginning of ver. 44 and that the translation ought to run:

# And they gave him a portion of fish broiled [and of honey-comb]. “And while he
took and.ate before their eyes [and took up that which was over and gave to them]
“he said to them....

The square brackets represent the portions of text found in C, but rightly omitted by
S with D and ¢ as well as NB and A.

Clement of Alexandria (p. 174) definitely quotes the passage thus: érédwxey airg
ixOvos ܘܗܘ‎ pépos: “Kal payav evwmov adrdv “etwev adrois.... Of the Latins b and f
have in vv. 43, 44, Ht manducans coram ipsis “dixit ad eos, while e and the text
underlying ¢ have Et accepit coram illis. “Kt diwit illis. Possibly therefore D is right
in reading xai elev at the beginning of ver. 44, and the Eimer dé of most Greek mss is a
stylistic alteration to make a paragraph begin with ver. 44.

8. JOHN.

Word retains its usual‏ ܡܠܬܐ We see from the text of @ in i 14 that‏ ± ܐ
gender, even when used in the theological sense, and the text of C is borne out by the‏
quotations of Aphraates and 8. Ephraim. At the same time the Subject of the Prologue‏
is treated as masculine, as is clear from the opening words of the second verse. As,‏
is‏ ܡܠܬܐ therefore, in the first clause of the first verse the verb is masculine and‏
as the predicate, not as the subject. The grammatical‏ ܡܠܬܐ feminine it is best to take‏
subject, who is at the same time the Subject of the Gospel itself, is unnamed ; but it is‏
asserted that He was the Word.‏

It is commonly said that ܡܠܬܐ‎ when it means ‘God, the Word,’ is treated as
masculine, and this is true of later Syriac usage, beginning with Rabbula and the
Peshitta itself. But it is not true of the Hv. da-Mepharreshe or of Syriac writers before
Rabbula.

Now if ܡܠܬܐ‎ be feminine throughout the Prologue to this Gospel, the reason for
the insertion of ܗܘ‎ in the latter clauses of i 1 becomes clear. It is not a mere
equivalent for the Greek article, but the actual nominative of the verbs, and ܡܠܬܐ‎ is
in apposition to it. This indeed is recognised by syr.vg, for the words are pointed
ܡܠܬܐ‎ om ie. 6 mellethd, not ܗܘ ܡܠܬܐ‎ i.e. haw melléthd. Mr Gwilliam therefore
is wrong in translating the words by ‘ipsum Verbum’; it should be ‘Ipse, Verbum,’ in
each case.

The theological doctrine associated by 0. Ephraim with the name of the Word is
best illustrated by the long extracts from his (lost) Homily on Joh i 1, which are quoted
in Lamy 11 511 and in my S. Kphraim’s Quotations from the Gospel, pp. 64, 65.

i 3, 4 On the text of S. Ephraim’s quotations of i 3%, see above p. 139. As
regards the vexed question of the punctuation of i 3°, 4, it is evident that C ends ». 3
with oid ¢, beginning ®, 4 with 6 yéyovey &v at7d Cun éorw. Syr.vg corrects éorw into
nv and otherwise alters the wording, but continues to join $ yéyovey with év airé and not
with the preceding oddé ¢, At a later period the punctuation was changed, but at the
expense of grammar. See the present writer’s Note in the Jowrn. of Theol. Studies
iv 486, and Mr Gwilliam’s Reply iv 606. I leave it to my readers to judge for
themselves whether in the sentence

ܟܠ mars‏ ܗܘܐ ܘܒܠܥܕܘ̈ܗܝ ܐܦܠܐ ܚܕܐ hom‏ ܡܕܡ ܕܗܘܐ ܒܗ am ais‏

they will put the stop after ܗܘܬ‎ with the late Professor R. L. Bensly and the most
ancient Mss, or place it before ܒܗ‎ with Mr Gwilliam and the modern custom.

i114 It has been shewn above on Johi1 and also on pp. 44, 109, 140, that up to
the time of Rabbula our Syriac authorities always treat ܡܠܬܐ‎ ‘the Word’ as feminine,
and translate odpé by ܦܠܪ̈ܐ‎ ‘body,’ not ܒܗܣܪ̈ܐ‎ ‘flesh’; after Rabbula we find ܡܠܬܐ‎

S. ܚ‎ i 1—i 18. 307

in this theological sense treated as masculine, and odpé rendered in this verse by 4m,
although in the corresponding places in Joh vi syr.vg still has “4Ne for odpé, like
Sand C.

But all our authorities, including syr.vg, translate éoxjvwcer ܧ‎ qyiv by ܐܓܢܬ ܒܢ‎
or ܐܓܢ ܡܢ‎ . It is difficult to ascertain the exact meaning of this phrase, because
almost all the instances in Syriac literature of Ks construed with = are direct
allusions to this very passage. The only exception I can find is a passage in a Homily
ascribed to Ephraim (Hd. Rom. vi 439), where we read ܐܓܢܝܗܝ ܒܪܝܫ ܥܪܣܟ‎ i.e.
Make him rest in the best part of thy bed. This is part of the Christian’s duty to his
brother on a journey.

Here Wx< retains its proper transitive force. More often it has the middle sense of
‘causing oneself to rest,’ like ay )ܦ‎ 81 in Arabic, or the English phrase ‘to put up in a
place. But << thus used generally takes ܠܠ‎ after it, as in Acts ¥ 15.

As (As with = is so uncommon, we may fairly conclude that the preposition had
no very definite connotation and we must deduce the meaning from the Greek it
represents and from the context. I have uniformly rendered the phrase ‘sojourned
among us,’ but I venture to think that the translator wished to express rather the
dwelling of the Word zm a human tabernacle than the sojourn of the Word among
human beings. The verb cxnvoty is used elsewhere four times in the New Testament,
viz. Rey. vil 15, xii 12, xiii 6, xxi 8. In Rev xii 12, xiii 6, where it is followed by ¢ it
is used simply for to ‘inhabit’ a country, and the Syriac has ܫܪܐ‎ with =. In
Rev xxi 3 it is used of God dwelling with (werd) men, and the Syriac has ܫܪܐ‎ with
ܥܡ‎ , In Rev vii 15 it is used with )»̄ܘ‎ of the Divine Shekinah, and there we find
ܐܓܢ‎ with ,ܥܠ‎ I have therefore come to the conclusion that ܒܢ‎ S“X<....<his
means ‘The Word...sojourned in our nature, rather than ‘sojourned among men,’ and
that ‘cast its influence in us’ 18 wrong.

i118 For povoyevyjs, syr.vg has everywhere “+7u., except in Heb xi17. It also
is used in Lk viii 42, ix 38, by S and C. Here, however, and in Joh iii 16, 18, C has
ܨ ܟܢܢܝܕܝܐܟ‎ supported by S in iii 16. The meaning is the same, but su» passes perhaps
rather more easily into a substantive and appears to be so used in Joh iii 18 syr.vg,
where for els 76 dvopa Tod povoyevods viod Tod Oeod we find ܕܝܚܝܕܝܐ ܒܪܗ ܕܐܠܗܐ‎ Amz,
which I should be inclined to translate ‘in the name of the Only-begotten, the Son of
God,’ treating ܠܒܐ‎ as a substantive. C treats povoyevots as an adjective, for it
renders the phrase au» ܕܐܠܗܐ‎ mina amr, with <a at the end. But the
original Syriac rendering of this verse may have been <tu> i512 ܒܫܡܗ‎ as in S,
ie. ‘in the name of the approved Son.’ No other extant authority supports S here, but
Joh i 34 shews that there was a tendency to eliminate readings which seemed to savour
of ‘ Adoptionism.’

In Joh i 18 there is no question that povoyerjs is genuine; usually we have to choose
between povoyerys Geos and 6 povoyevys vids. But though C with <i> <u» clearly
supports 6 povoyevijs vids and syr.vg with ܝܚܝܕܝ̈ܐ ܐܠܗܐ‎ clearly supports [0] povoyerijs
Geds, the Diatessaron appears to have read [6] ;)»ܘ ܘܐ‎ without either vids or Geos. 6
direct quotation in Ephraim’s Commentary (Moesinger 3) is borne out by the allusion in
Aphraates 115, and it is further attested in Latin by gat, one of the group of Vulgate

308 Notes on Select Passages.

Mss with ‘mixed’ texts that we have elsewhere found to agree with Diatessaron readings ;
see above on Joh x 8 (p. 196).

It is very unfortunate that the leaf of S which contained the Prologue to the Fourth
Gospel should be missing, but I venture to think it probable that if it had been
preserved we should have found that it read ܝܢܢܝܕܝܐ ܐܠܗܐ‎ like syr.vg. In cases
where the Old Syriac, or one branch of it, agreed with the Alexandrian text (to call the
non-Western non-Constantinopolitan text by its truer name), we often find that the
Peshitta retains the reading unchanged, but there are hardly any instances of the
Peshitta taking the Alexandrian side when the Old Syriac supports a reading attested
both by the Western and the Constantinopolitan authorities. In Joh 1:18 povoyevijs beds
is supported only by NBC*L 33 boh aeth in addition to syr.vg and certain Fathers: the
presence of syr.vg in this group can only be explained on the hypothesis that it retains
unaltered an older Syriac text. At the same time the verse has been otherwise revised
into closer conformity with the Greek: ܕܐܝܬܘܗܝ ܒܥܘܒܐ ܕܐܒܘܗܝ‎ am does
not sound so primitive a rendering of o dv <is tov ܐܘܡ )ܘܬ‎ tod warpds as the simple
ܕܡܢ ܥܘܒܗ ܕ݀ܐܒܘܗܝ‎ of €

The fact that C supports 6 povoyerys vios presents no difficulty, as there are many
other examples in C of revision from later Greek texts. What has happened here is
exactly what has happened in Mk xvi 9-20 and Lk x 41, 42, to name the most obvious
instances. Probably the ancestor of C before it was revised had ܝܢܝܕ[ ܝ ]ܐܡ‎ alone, like the
Diatessaron.

i28 ܒܝܬ ܥܒܪܐ‎ , The seydimé marking the plural are here, as in so many other
words, not legible in S, but there is no reason to suppose that they were originally
absent. Possibly the place-name was intended by the translator to sound significant,
so that

Am ܒܝܬ ܥܡܪ̈ܐ ܒܥܒܪ̈ܘܗܝ ܕܝܘܪܕܢܢ‎
would convey the meaning a¢ Overstrand, over Jordan River, rather than at Beth-
‘Ebré or at Beth-‘Ebdré. Jn Greek ByGeBapa is found in 13&¢ and A-262, but the
Syriac pronunciation is more probably indicated by the Armenian P&/Fuppuy, i.e.
Bethabré or Bethebré, without a vowel between 6 and ry. The true Diatessaron reading
is unknown, the Arabic having Bethany in agreement with the Peshitta.

This reading of the Lv. da-Mepharreshe would be hardly worth separate notice but
for the suspicion that the reading ByOaBapa for ByOarvia was first introduced into the
Greek text of the Gospel by Origen. It might therefore be urged that the Hv. da-
Mepharreshe was later than Origen, later therefore than about 230 ap.’ But this is
extremely unlikely in itself, in view of the general character of the text. It is equally
unlikely that any reading adopted by Origen should have been derived by him from a
Syriac source.

We must therefore assume that Bethabara (or its equivalent) was adopted by the
Ev. da-Mepharreshe and by Origen from a common source. This source seems to have
been not documentary evidence, but local identification. In Origen’s case this is
distinctly stated (Orig. in Joan. iv 140, ed. Brooke i 158): he tells us that he is

1 See Baethgen, Zvangelienfragmente, p. 83.

S. John i 18—iii 5. 309

sure we ought to read not Bethania but Bethabara, yevopevor ܧ‎ tots rérous él ioropiav
tav ixvav “Inood «al trav pabyrav adrod Kai rév rpopyrov. That a similar archaeological
interest underlies the Old Syriac is obvious, otherwise we should never have had the
identifications of Kava with Cdtné, of Nofapér with Ndsrath, or the careful spelling
of the Syriac equivalents for ByOavia, BnOpayy, ByOlabd, ByOcaidd, Xopagetv, and other
comparatively obscure names. Whether the identifications implied are always correct
is another matter; but it is evident that a serious attempt has been made to give the
names correctly, in marked contrast to the Western indifference of the Latin texts.

The Old Syriac version of the Gospels is the earliest evidence we possess for the
beginnings of the cult of the Holy Places, a cult which attained so great a vogue
in the fourth and succeeding centuries. The cult, of course, was not really archaeo-
logical, but was grounded in the wish to obtain the special benefit of each sacred spot.
It is therefore interesting to note that among the first places to attract notice was
the reputed scene of the Baptism of Jesus. It was here that many of the faithful
went to receive baptism themselves, a custom which goes back to the sources of the
Onomastica (Lagarde OS 108, 240), i.e. to the times of Origen. Among those who
were so baptized was Rabbula, afterwards bishop of Edessa.

The identification of the scene of the Baptism with the traditional site five Roman
miles from the mouth of the Jordan does not seem to find favour with modern scholars.
What the tradition was based on it is impossible to say, but in any case it had very
little to do with the literary tradition of the Fourth Gospel. We cannot doubt that
the author of the Fourth Gospel wrote ‘Bethany beyond Jordan.’ On the other hand
we have the cult of ‘Bethabara,’ developed before the time of Origen, perhaps at a
pre-Christian holy place. The cult led to the identification of ‘Bethany’ with ‘ Bethabara,’
and finally it influenced some texts of the Gospel.

i 34 ܓܒܝܗ ܕܐܠܗܐ‎ is the reading both of S and of C, corresponding to
5 éxAextds Tod Oeot, the reading of &* al’ e. Most documents have 6 vids rod Geod, the
‘European’ Latin variously combining the two readings.

The accession of S to the list of authorities for ékAexrés ought, I think, to incline
us to accept it. Its disappearance is only too easily accounted for, as there appears
to have been an unwillingness to call our Lord ‘the Chosen of God.’ It appeared to
be an ‘Adoptionist’ phrase, or at least to imply that there was a time or state in
which He existed before God chose Him. Thus in Lk ix 35 dyaryrés is substituted
for éxAeAeypévos in all documents except S and NBLE 1 274™ a f# ܐ‎ vg.codd aeg
aeth arm.

This evident dislike on the part of later scribes and editors to words which seem
to imply choice or approval of Jesus Christ by the Father may lead us to look favourably
on the reading of S in Joh iii 18 where it has ‘the approved Son’ ܒܢܚܝܪ̈ܐ)‎ i=)
though all other authorities have rot povoyevois viod tot 0660, ‘The text now represented
only by S would have provoked alteration, and the language of iii 16, where rov vidv
rov povoyery is certainly genuine, contained materials for a safe alternative.

iii 5 ‘from spirit and water’] The Greek is ݈ܐ‎ véaros cat mvevparos, and this is
followed in Moes. 189. In ,ܐ‎ 8, where the best text has é« 70d mvevuaros only (but &

310 Notes on Select Passages.

and the Old Latin have éx rod vdatos ܐܘܬ‎ rod mvedparos), S has ‘from water and spirit’
and C has ‘from water and from spirit.’ These variations in rendering, and the
transposition of ‘spirit’ and ‘water’ by S in ©. 5, may be explained if we suppose that
the original form of the Hv. da-Mepharreshe (or the Greek text underlying it) omitted
the mention of ‘water’ in each case. See Professor Lake’s inaugural address at Leiden
(Jan. 27, 1904), in which it is argued that ܘ‎ vdaros «al is an early interpretative gloss
in Joh iii 5, and that the text known to Justin Martyr was still free from it.

iii 6 “That which is born from flesh is flesh, because from flesh it is born (a); and
that which is born from spirit is spirit, because God is a spirit (8), and from Glod it hath
been born (y).” Calling a, B and y the three clauses omitted by virtually all our
Greek mss (D is deficient here), we may arrange their attestation as follows:

aBy = ¢ aj vg.codd Tert. Carn. Chr § 18

B(only)=S m aur Hil */,
u B = effr vg.cod Amb
a (only) = bl § ܟ‎

ay = 161*

Nemesianus of Thubunae has 6 y, which we may take as virtually an attestation for all
three glosses, but Cyprian ܕ/‎ omits them all.

It is very difficult to account for the distribution of the evidence. But for S it
might have been thought that all three glosses belonged together, and this is probably
true so far as the West is concerned. We see from their omission in Cyprian that they
were recognised as accretions and therefore excised from the more careful texts ; what
has happened completely in Cyprian has happened more or less with most of the
Old Latin texts. But we may fairly take the evidence of S to shew that in the East
B had a place in the text before a and y were added.

As 18 well known, 0. Ambrose (de Spir. 111 11) accuses the Arians of having cut
out the clause guia Deus spiritus est from this verse. The accusation is very likely true
in the sense that some Arian scholars may have excised the clause for the same reason
that S. Jerome suppressed it in the Vulgate, viz. that approved and standard Greek mss
did not contain the words. But even if the presence of the clause in S be not held
sufficient to establish its authenticity, we may at least use it to shew that neither
S itself nor its immediate ancestor has been deliberately mutilated at important dogmatic
passages, an accusation that has been actually made on the ground of the unfortunate
loss of the leaves containing the end of 0. Matthew and the beginning of 8. John.

In a minor point S may indeed have suffered. It differs from the Western texts
in gloss 8 by adding the adjective ‘living’ to ‘ Spirit,’ reading

ܡܛܠ ܕܐܠܗܐ ܪܘܚܐ am‏ ܚܝ ܐ

There is rather an unusual distance between the last two letters, and the photograph
suggests to me that possibly a letter has been washed out. Now xva4 is almost
invariably feminine in the Old Syriac (see on Mk v 8, Lk viii 29), and when it means
the Holy Spirit it is always feminine, save in this passage. Perhaps therefore S read

S. John iii 5—iii 31, 32. 311

originally ܢܝܬܐ‎ to agree with ,ܪܘܚܐ‎ As the text stands it might be translated
‘Because God the Spirit is living.’ See also p. 44, note’.

iii 13 Note that neither in S or C, nor in the Diatessaron, is there any attestation
for the ordinary form of the clause 6 dv ¢ rd otpavd.

iii 16 On the rendering of povoyejs, see the Note on Joh i 18. In reading
‘to send’ instead of ‘to give’ S agrees with ¢ ff aur; while Moesinger 258 in omitting
the word agrees with &*, but this is probably a mere coincidence. The éwxev of
Cand the ordinary text is no doubt genuine. In fact it invites change, for it suggests
the question ‘to whom ?’

iii 18 The rendering of rod povoyevois viod Trot 0600 by ܒܪܐ ܒܢܚܪ̈ܐ‎ in S is very
curious. There is no trace of the omission of rod 060 elsewhere or of a variant éxAexrod
for povoyevots. The elimination of éxAexrés and éxAeAeypevos elsewhere in the Gospels
when applied to our Lord, together with the occurrence of povoyevys in Joh 111 16, makes
it not improbable that S has preserved the true reading of this passage: see further
on Joh i 18.

iii 22, 23 The Greek is quite clear: it reads 0:6006 per’ airadv wai éBamrilev,
Fy ¿ Kal Iwavvys Barricwy év Aivdv, so that C gives the correct translation. The text of
S is in confusion, caused by the use of 152% for datpiBew, ܥܡܪ‎ ‘to dwell’ and ܥܡܕ‎
‘to be baptized’ appear to have been mistaken one for the other in the ancestor of S.
Possibly @ has been emended from the Greek: yet in Joh xi 54 S also renders diarpiBew
by ܐܬܗܦܟܟ‎

A somewhat similar variant is to be found in v. 18, where ܡܚܝܒ‎ ‘guilty’ is
substituted by C for ܦܝܢ‎ ‘judged’ (= xéxpurar), perhaps to avoid confusion with ܪܝܢ‎ ‘but.’
In this latter case, however, the text of S is both grammatical and correct.

There seem to have been many opinions as to the meaning of ,ܘܐ‎ S and Arabic
versions generally think of ‘Fish Well,’ C and syr.vg of ‘Dove Well,’ Eusebius
(OS 177) has mny7 duvapews and Jerome fons corum. The Palestinian Syriac Lectionary

hag ܥܝܢܘ‎

iii 25 ܥܡ ܝܗܘܕܝܐ‎ S. The plural points are not legible in S, so that it is
impossible to discover whether S read pera “Iovdatwy with C or pera “Iovdaiov with

syr.vg and the majority of Greek mss.

iii 31, 32 The text here adopted by Westcott and Hort is 6 é« tot otpavod
eoxdpevos [erdvw ܘܗܢܐ‎ éoriv:| ܘ‎ éwpaxev Kai qxovoev [rotro] paprupe, but the words
I have bracketed are omitted by C in company with N*D 1&c 565 latt.

I give below (1) the text of S”, (2) what I see in the photograph and (3) a

suggested restoration.

312 Notes on Select Passages.

Words and letters visible

Sed in the photograph S$ conjecturally restored
ܕܡܢ݀‎ ura Mam... 5 ua ܡܡܠܠ ܘܐܝܢܐ ܕܡܢ ܘܫܕܩܘ‎
ܫܡܝܐ ܐܬܐ ܠܥܠ‎ hd ܫܡܝܐ ܗܘ ܐܬܐ 2 ܡܝܐ ...ܘ‎

8
ܡܕܡ wwr‏ ܘܫܡܥ ܣܗܕ rer ere re‏ ܒܢ ܝ ܀ 66 ee‏
ܘܣܗܕܘܬܗ ܠܐ ܟܠ 62 ܘܬܗ ܠܐ ܟܠ ® 3 < ܟܠ
7 ܐܢܫ ܡܩ ܠ Va 85 9 ee errr eft‏

It will be noticed that even when we suppose S to have had the shorter reading
found in C there is hardly room for all the words. Probably ܘܫܡܠ‎ was omitted.
It is impossible to get the words required for the longer reading into the space, so
that in this case also we are justified in supposing that the Old Syriac sides with
X* and D and not with B and the Received Text (see above, p. 232).

iv 1 In the various reading between 6 xvpios and 6 “Iyoots in the first part of
the verse S is, strictly speaking, neutral, as in the early part of the Fourth Gospel
S regularly uses ‘our Lord’ for ‘Jesus’ (see above, p. 97). On the other hand, it
clearly attests 7 before “Iwévvys, and omits the second ‘Ijoods found in the Greek
before wAciovas pabnras.

The ܕ‎ put before ܬܠܡܝܕܐ‎ in S must surely be wrong. I should be inclined
to omit it and to read

ܕܫܡܥܘ ܦܪܝܫܐ ܕܥܒܕ | 25h‏ ܣܓܝܐܐ | ܘܡܥܡܕ ܗܘܐ ܝܬܝܪ | ܡܢ ܝܘܚܢܢ
On the construction, see p. 70.‏ , ܘܫܒܩܗ 3 iv‏

iv 9 On the reading of S, see p. 254.

iv 24 On the texts of S and C, see p. 218/.

iv 25 On the relation of S and C to the Diatessaron in this passage, see p. 214.

iv 35 ‘The Sinai fragments of the Acts of ‘Thomas are said to have ܚܘܪܝ‎ ny
for ܚܘܪ‎ shod, and Mrs Lewis’s edition does not recognise the ܘ‎ before aay ܡܢ‎
I certainly thought however that the ~ did not stand on the extreme right of the
line, i.e. that a letter now illegible stood before the =. The form Amy (pl.) is not
recognised by Néldeke, and +4» is a form we should not have expected in so early
ams: possibly the ܝ‎ may have been added later, as is so often the case with these
3rd fem. pl. perfects.

¥ 3, 4 On the reading of the Diatessaron, see pp. 196, 6

¥ 18, 19 On the reading of 8, see vol. i, p. 553. The photograph is illegible
and the doubts I have expressed as to ܘܡܫܘ̈ܐ‎ and the end of v. 19 are purely
subjective. But I am confident that S has not been correctly deciphered here, and
that its readings agree much more closely with C than the printed text testifies.

ܨܐ

S. John iii 31, 32—vi 30 ff 313

¥ 27, 28 The Peshitta has ams #ܠܐ ܬܬܕܡܪܘܢ‎ zinta ܗܘ ܕܝܢ‎ mis,
i.e. it connects the words That He is the Son of Man with Wonder not at this which
immediately follows, instead of joining the clause to the rest of v. 27, as in C.

In this view of the passage syr.vg sides with S. Chrysostom, while the alternative
adopted by ¢ by the Old Latin and by Origen, was that defended by Paul of Samosata.
8. Chrysostom says (viii 264): “Paul of Samosata does not interpret the passage thus,
but ‘He gave him authority to do judgement, because he is son of man.’ But it has
no coherence punctuated thus, for it is not because He is Man that He received
judicial authority, or why did He forbid all men to be judges? But since He is Son
of the ineffable Substance, therefore is He judge. Thus therefore we must read: ‘That
He is Son of Man, wonder not at this’.” The Peshitta, and the Armenian also, took
the advice of S. Chrysostom, but the English versions follow the tradition championed
by the great heresiarch of Antioch.

See also p. 225.

vi 4 In view of Dr Hort’s Note on this verse suggesting that 7d macyo is an
early interpolation, it is advisable to ascertain as accurately as possible what text
the Syriac renderings represent. The transmitted Greek text is #v 0¢ éyyts 7d ܕܐ‎
n €opty tév “Iovdaiwy. With this C agrees, rendering 70 racya by wm (see above,
p. 79). In S we find 73 ܘܘܫ‎ 7 é ray I. rendered by ܥܕܥܝܕܐ ܕܦܛܝܪ̈ܐ ܕܝ̈ܗܵܘܖܝ>‎ the
Feast of the Unleavened Bread of the Jews, and this is practically supported by
syr.vg, except that syr.vg has oes Passover instead of ia Unleavened Bread.

At first sight we may be tempted to treat this as a clear case of interpolation.
The word corresponding to 76 macya differs in each of our three authorities, so that
we might conclude that it had been separately inserted into each. On reflexion,
however, I do not think that view probable. I now think that S preserves the
original text of the Lv. da-Mepharreshe, and that it is merely a characteristically
loose rendering of the ordinary Greek text.

It is certainly very curious that while WS occurs in the Synoptic Gospels for
ro ,ܨ ܘܛ ܗܘܐ‎ in S. John S renders it by <ts\s. Yet this is the case in Joh ii 23,
vi 4, xii 1, xill i, xvi 28. S omits the term in xi 55 and is not extant in ii 13,
xix 14. In all these cases <v¢& is substituted by syr.vg. That S should have
ils and syr.vg <ve in Joh vi 4, where the Greek has 76 ,ܕܘ )ܐ‎ is therefore
normal. At the same time syr.vg supports S in rendering 70 racxa ¥ éopty as if it
were 7 éopry tov macxa. But in 80 rendering, S is only doing what it has already
done in Joh ii 23, where ܗ‎ 76 mdoxa ܗ‎ tH éopr# is rendered ‘in the days of the
Feast of unleavened Bread.’

Thus S in this verse gives a characteristic paraphrase of the ordinary Greek text,
syr.vg gives a more or less revised version of S, while C represents an independent
revision from the Greek. But all three texts go back to a Greek text which contained
7o ,ܗ ܗܐ‎ and therefore they cannot add anything to Dr Hort’s ingenious plea for its
omission.

vi 30ff. On the absence of punctuation here in 0, see p. 14 and the plates,
pp. 38, 39.

B. Il. 40

314 Notes on Select Passages.

vi 40 On the form ܘܐܕܩܝܡܘܗܝ‎ in S, see p. 55.

vi 63 The text of S is obviously an interpretative paraphrase: so far as I know,
no trace is found of it elsewhere. The text of C implies the insertion of 7 before
» oapé or else the omission of 76 before the first rvedya (as in &*). In the latter
case v<vo+ must be regarded as in the apodosis, so that the meaning is ‘That
which gives life is rveta, otherwise oapé matters nothing.’

In S x<vo4 is certainly in the apodosis: see on Joh il and iii 6. “suena is fem.
agreeing with <uo4, but om is masc. The subject therefore must be understood
from the previous sentence, i.e. it must be the ‘Son of Man’ mentioned in © 62.

vi 71 The name of ‘Judas Iscariot’ is always spelt <\aitsw in S The
name occurs eleven times in the Gospels, but it so happens that only in three places
C is extant. One of these is Joh xiv 22, where ‘Iscariot’ is omitted both by S and
by ¢ The other two are Lk xxii 3 and Joh vi 71, and in both C has ܝܐܣܩܪܝܘܛܐ‎

The mss of syr.vg are divided. \astse@ is much the commonest form, but
ܐܣܩܪܝܘܛܐ‎ occurs 7/; in Gwilliam’s 20, and ¥/,, in Gwilliam’s 14. \astne
oceurs */;5 in 14, and */, in 15*, and ܕ‎ in the very ancient ms called 18 by Gwilliam.
The form \osts0< occurs once in Gwilliam’s 3 4 9 17 19 23 and twice in 36;
of more importance perhaps is the fact that <\asisw< occurs in Aphraates B,
p. 404, where the other ms has the ordinary spelling ,ܗܣ ܦܪܝܘܛ ܡ‎ There is so little
variation as a rule in the Syriac spellings of proper names, that it seemed worth
while to draw attention to these, but it is difficult to discover any principle under-
lying them. It is fairly evident that the Syriac versions do not profess to interpret
the name ‘Iscariot.’

vii 37 The point found both in 8 and in C after ܘܢܫܬ݀ܐ‎ shews that the Syriac
exegetical tradition here agreed with that of the English Bible; thus it differed from
that current in early times in the West, whereby ‘whosoever believeth in me’ was treated
as the subject of ‘let him drink,’ and the latter part of the verse was interpreted of
our Lord, not of the believer.

vii 49 ܢܘܛܢܐ‎ the mob (so C). As explained in vol. i, p. 554, and vol. ii,
pp. 81, 83, the reading of S is now known to be a5 praters, possibly a miswriting
of ܒܪ̈ܝܐ‎ outsiders, as in Mk iv 11.

viii 57 On the reading, see p. 228.
ix 34 On the use of aim with suffixes to express ddws, see pp. 59, 251.

× 22 On the phrase Meanm bus ܐܝܩܪ‎ ag an equivalent for ra »:6ܘ» ܗ‎ see
p. 80.

xi 18 The ‘two parasangs’ which I seem to read in S may be compared with
the description of Bethany in the Jtineraries as forsitan secundo miliario a ciuitate
(‘Siluiae Peregrinatio’ § 29), or as 8. Jerome puts it willa in secundo ab Aelia
miliario (Lagarde OS 108). Two parasangs would be somewhat too far, and in any
case the use of the Persian term would be odd, but the word is certainly not ܡܝܠܝܢ‎

S. John vi 40—xiv 17. 315

xi 25 On the reading, see p. 237, and vol. i, p. 555. I think there can be little

doubt that S reads ܩܝܡܬܐ‎ , not <swai ag syr.vg, but I thought it right to indicate
the possibility of the alternative. In either case it is certain that S omits cal 7 Lewy.

xi 45,46 The forms ܗܝܡܢܘ‎ in v, 45 and ܗܝܡܢܘܢ‎ in v. 46 are both certain:
see p. 51.

xii 8 On the omission of this verse in S and Codex Bezae, see p. 238.

xii 43 There is no authority for omitting the second ri ddéar, but there is no
room for it in S. If we omit the second ܝܫܘܒܢܢܐ‎ we should also probably omit the
+ before <ca\e<: on the curiously loose construction often used in comparisons in Syriac,
see p. 60.

xii 48 The ܡܢ ܕܡܫܐܠ‎ at the beginning of this verse in S corresponds to
o dGerov in the Greek. There is no trace elsewhere of a various reading. Of the
corrections of S*’ which I have suggested, oom. ܡܢ‎ is the more natural word,
and is used for éOereiv in Gal ili 15 syr.vg; it would more accurately correspond to
droSoxpatev, ܡܢ ܕܡܒܛܠ‎ is still nearer the letters of S*, but it would mean xatapyeiy
(yet of Heb ix 26 syr.vg).

xiii 5 On the use of <im\ for ,)ܟܫ :ܙ‎ see pp. 79, 142, 201.

xiii 22) ܗܟܦܝ‎ (S”) is a quite impossible word, and the fact that the = begins a line
in S, ranging exactly with the other letters which begin lines in that column, shews that
S* simply read ܡܢ | ܦܝ ܐܡܪ‎ sa. As suggested in the footnotes to the text,
the writing visible in front of ܒܟ‎ is probably part of the word om, inserted to indicate
the grammatical correction ܡܢܘ ܠܝܟ‎ or ,ܡܢ ܗܘ ܦܝ‎ instead of ܒܝ‎ =>.

xiv ± The syntactical construction in S is the same as that of the sentence quoted
by Néldeke § 272 from Cureton’s Spicilegium 13°. ܗܕܐ ܚܘܢܝ ܘܡܬܛܦܝܣ ܐܢܐ‎
means ‘Shew me this and I will believe thee,’ 1.6. ° 7/ you shew me this, then I will
believe you.’ Similarly

ܗܝܡܢܘ alts‏ ܘܒܝ ܗܘ ܡܗܝܡܢܝܢ ܐܢܬܘܢ

means ‘ Jf you believe in God, then you will believe in Me.’

The Peshitta, on the other hand, takes w7evere as an imperative in each case,
making the sentence two independent commands joined by the copula, vz. ‘ Believe in
God and believe in Me.’ That S here correctly reproduces the Old Syriac is clear from
the evidence of Marutha, quoted above on p. 159.

xiv 17 On the gender of <vo4 Spirit, see pp. 44, 108. <\ Asis Puraclete is
masculine, but as soon as the Spirit is mentioned all the verbs referring to the Comforter

are put in the feminine.

316 Notes on Select Passages.

xiv 22 On the name Judas Thomas, see p- 146 f.
×¥ 1, 5 On ܕܫܪܪܐ‎ <i the Vineyard of Truth, see pp. 143 f,, 151, 198.

xviii 1 > ܩܕܪܘܢ ܛܘܪ‎ , This description of ‘Cedron’ is almost equally surprising
whether we take <‘a\, in its ordinary sense of ‘hill,’ or in the sense of éypés, ‘open
country,’ discussed on p. 82. Elsewhere Cedron is always the name of the torrent or the
ravine through which the torrent flows. Thus <4a\, can hardly be an editorial gloss.
Neither can it be a mere peculiarity of S, as is proved by the occurrence of Jue! ܪܟ ܙܢ‎
in Diat® xlviii 1. Probably therefore it represents a variation in the Greek rod Kedpuv,
épovs orov x.7.A. But however the reading originated, it can hardly be anything but
a mistake.

So far as the evidence goes, the Syriac versions seem to favour rot Kedpov. At least
no Syriac text supports either the Western reading rod Kédpov, followed by Tischendorf,
or that of the Received Text rév Kedpwv, followed by Westcott and Hort.

xviii 10 For the name A/alku, see also on p. 57.

xviii 13-24 In the Journal of Theological Studies ii 141 f. Mr 0. H. Turner
suggests that the leaf of ¢, which contained this passage but is now lost, having
been cut out at some very remote time, may have exhibited the order of the verses now
found in S. There is however one piece of evidence which makes against this view.
In Joh xviii 28 the majority of Latin texts most curiously have ad Caiphan for a Caipha.
This reading is the opposite of that of S. According to the ordinary text, Jesus is
examined by Annas (vv. 19—23), then taken to the house of Caiaphas (v. 24), and from
thence to the Praetorium ; according to S, Jesus is taken to Annas, sent on at once to
Caiaphas, the examination by Annas being transferred to Caiaphas, and then sent on to
the Praetorium. But according to the Latins who read ad for @ in xviii 28, Jesus does
not go to the house of Caiaphas at all, but Caiaphas appears to meet the prisoner outside
the Praetorium. Now € is among the Latin texts which read ad Caiphan instead of
a Caipha, According to €, therefore, Jesus does not meet Caiaphas until both have
arrived just outside the Praetorium ; consequently in the missing page the examination
must have been conducted by Annas, as in the ordinary text, and not by Caiaphas
himself, as in S.

It is very striking to find this rearrangement in the text of S, seeing that there is no
trace of it in our Diatessaron authorities.

xx 23 The words am ܐܢܝܕ‎ amas ܘܡܢ ܕܐܢܬܘܢ ܬܐܚܕܘܢ‎ correspond to
dv twos (or twov) Kparqre Kexpdryvra. Here both ܥܠܘܗܝ‎ and aw< are in the
singular, so they cannot refer to ‘sins.’ av< is not often followed by Ss, but
when it is it has the sense of ‘to shut’ (except in the phrase ܥܠ‎ <had ܐܚܕ‎
‘to have a grudge against’), e.g. Ps lxix 6

ames ܠ ܐ ܬܐܚܘܕ ܥܠܝ ܒܪܐ‎
Let not the pit shut its mouth upon me.

This example shews that ܠܠ‎ save may mean ‘to shut in’ as well as ‘to shut out.’

Thus we might translate in Joh xx 23 ‘He whom ye shall shut up, he is shut up.’

S. John xiv 22—xxi 15-17. 317

xxi 5 On the construction of ,ܡܕܡ ܠܡܠܥܣ ܒܗ‎ see p. 65 f.

xxi 15-17 Neither S nor syr.vg makes any distinction in these verses between
dyarav and ܐ‎ 6), but the words for the ‘Flock’ are curiously varied. The Greek words
are épvia in v. 15 and wpdéBara or wpofdaria in ve. 16 and 17. The Syriac words are
ܐܡܪܐ‎ ‘lambs’ (=dpvia), <x ‘flock,’ ܥܪ̈ܒܐ‎ ‘sheep’ and hams ‘ewes.’ Hither of
the last three might stand for zpéBara, e.g. in Matt ix 36, x 6, S has =: ܥ‎ where syr.vg
has “sis, ܣܘܐ‎ like owis in Latin, is feminine; I have regularly translated it by
‘ewe,’ but it should be clearly stated that it has not the definite indication of sex which
belongs to ‘ ewe’ in English.

The Syriac evidence may be tabulated thus

Syr.vg S A195
15 ܐܡܪ̈ܝ‎ sin ܥܢܝ‎
16 ܢܩܘ̈ܬܝ ܥܪ̈ܒܝ‎ paix )45(, stone (4?)
17 ܙܩ̈ܘܬܝ ܥܪ̈ܒܝ ܢܩܘ̈ܬܝ‎

Of the Latins, the Vulgate has agnos—agnos—oues, while acder actually use
oues in all three places, with which goes D, which has rpoBara */,. The main critical
conclusion we can draw from the Syriac evidence is that it gives no support to the
reading zpdBara in v. 15, 88 +ite~ must stand for apvia pov, and A 195 which has
ܠܠܟ‎ is not a formal quotation. An ancient (Greek) source, quoted by Theophanes
(cire, 800 aD) and by Ambrose! appears to have read dpvia—rpoBdr.a—mpoBara, and it
is not unlikely that the Syriac evidence points to the use of these terms.

Subscription of S. This is fully discussed on p. 31. It only remains to add that
©. Ephraim also speaks of the Persons of the Trinity as God and His Messiah and His
Holy Spirit in the Doxology at the end of his Commentary on Genesis (Hd. Rom. iv
115 D), where the ms reads ܘܠܡܫܝܚܗ‎ and not ܘܠܡܫܝܚܐ‎ , as I have ascertained through
the ever-ready kindness of Dr G. Mercati of the Vatican Library. The sentence
therefore runs

all‏ ܕܝܢ ...... ܠܗ ܘܠܡܫܝܚܗ ܘܠܪܘܢܚܐ ܕܩܘܕܫܗ
ܫܘܒܢܢܐ ܘܐܕܝܩܪܐ ܗ ܫܐ ܘܒܦܠܙܒܢ ܘܠܥܠܡ pols‏ ܐܡܝܢ era‏

To God, 6060: to Him and to His Messiah and to His Holy Spirit
be glory and honour, now and at all times and for ever and ever, Amen and Amen.

40—3

GENERAL INDEX TO INTRODUCTION AND NOTES.

Abba, or Abha, Commentator, 149 f., 179 n.
Abbott, Dr Edwin, 283.
‘Abd-ishé4, Vomocanon, 176.
Acts of Philip, 106 n.
Acts of Thomas, 4, 21, 44, 101-106, 125, 141,
145, 160, 170, 312.
Addai, 201, 207 £
See also Doctrine of Addat.
Adoptionism, 294, 307, 309.
Aggai, 207 £
Ambrose, 310, 317.
Amélineau, E., 251.
Antioch, 5, 162, 207 ff, 220, 225, 235, 246.
Latin Principality of Antioch, 20,
Aphraates, 4, 32, 44, 60, 100f,, 109 ff, 180 ff,
and passim.
For MSS of Aphraates, see under Codices.
Apostles, Lists of, 270 f.
Arabic Diatessaron, 4, 84, 146, 193, 200, 203 n.,
204, 209 n., 217, 238, 240, 241, 243, 247,
264 f,, 276, 281, 282, 283, 291, 301, 303
316.
Armenian Version of N.T., 59, 160, 192, 251
301 n., 308.
Arphaxad or Arphaxar, 289.
Asa[{ph], King, 203, 264.
Assemani, J. A., Bibl. Orientalis, 146, 179.
Augustine and the Jtala, 178.

7

0

Baethgen, F., Lvangelienfragmente, 198, 234.
308 n.
Balai, 150.
Baptism in the Name of the Trinity, 153
171£, 279.
Baptism of Jesus, 115 £, 156, 191, 266 f., 309.
Baptism of Naaman, 289.
Barabbas, called Jesus, 178 f., 192, 277 £
Bar Bahlul, 178, 278.
Barhebraeus, | 179.
Barsalibi, Dionysius, 3, 115, 176, 178 f., 7
266, 268, 277, 278, 282, 304.

0

?

,

Barsamyd, Acts of, 207 n.

Beelzebub, 204 f., 289.

Bensly, R. L., 17, 55, 290f., 306.

Bevan, Prof. A. A., 129, 287.

Bickell, Dr G., 52n., 150.

Burkitt, F. C., 8S. Aphraim’s Quotations from
the Gospel, 112 ff., 164n., 187, 306.

Carthage and Edessa, 244.

Catholic Epistles, in Syriac, 159, 162.
Chasda, Rabbi, 42 n.

Cheyne, Dr, 249.

Chrysostom, 313 ; his Canon of Scripture, 162.
*Church’ and ‘Synagogue’ in Syriac, 274 £
Ciasca, A: see Arabic Diatessaron.
Clement of Alexandria, 82, 225n., 238 f., 305.
Codices (readings quoted):

N, 85 ff, 94, 97 £, 192, 195, 203n., 219,
226-234, etc.

B, 85 ff, 94, 97 £, 192, 203n., 215, 226-
234, 235, 240n., 243, 247, 253, ete.

D, 35, 72, 75, 85 ff, and passim.

W4, 128, 193.

@, 85, 217, 276.

1 &&c., 59, 76, 85ff, 94, 97f, 192, 197,
203 n., 219, 233, 245-251, 277, 293, 296,
309, 311.

13 &., 36, 85 ff, 94, 97 £, 128, 142, 199,
203 n., 219, 233, 245 8, 262, 296, 298.

28, 75, 85 8: , 97 £, 128, 193, 233, 245-250.

565, 85 ff, 94, 98, 128n., 941 £, 245-251,
311.

700, 197, 203 n., 233, 245-250, 293.

713, 192.

‘Ferrar Group,’ see 13 &.

a, 85 ff, 94f, 97 £, 115, 131, 194, 203 n,
216, 219, 233, 236, 237, 240, 267, 286.

b, 85 ff, 94£, 97 £, 193, 216, 243, 286,

¢ 803.

ff, 94 £, 97 £, 136 n., 190, 216,‏ 85 ,35 ܕܘ
.316 ,292 ,233 ,219

General Index. 319

.295 ,243 ,221 ܐ
ff, 131, 190, 193.‏
J, 115, 154, 196, 203n., 219, 236, 262, 294.‏
k, 38n., 87, 110n., 119, 192£., 208n., 215 f,‏
.283 ,261 ,241 ,240 ,238 ,237 ,225
q 221, 243, 295.‏
Cod. Fuldensis, 4n., 200, 206, 282, 285, 295,‏
A* (of Aphraates), 41n., 48, 51, 53, 56,‏
111n., 143, 202 n., 257, 283, 284,‏
A® (of Aphraates), 15, 48, 51, 143, 283.‏
.296 ,283 ,53 , .ܐ 41 , 0 A?‏
Conybeare, F. C., 160, 171, 265.‏
Cureton, Dr W., 16, 274, 298, 299.‏
Cyprian, 110n., 136, 237,. 243.‏
Cyrillona, 52n., 56n., 150 ff.‏

‘Daily Bread’ in the Lord’s Prayer, 106,
117, 160, 269.

Dalman, G., 58, 286.

Dalmanutha, 249.

Diatessaron, 3, etc.: originally a Greek work,
206, 212.

See also under Arabic Diatessaron and

Ephraim.

Doctrina Apostolorum (Syriac), 107 f.

Doctrine of Addat, 152 ff., 162, 171, 173 £,
207, 304,

Doxologies, 31f., 317.

Duval, R., 58, 117, 201n., 280.

Edessa, early Bishops of, 207 £
Emendations, ancient, in the Syriac versions,
287 £
Encyclopaedia Biblica, 82, 240 n., 249, 288.
Ephraim, 112-148, 186 ff. and passim.
Armenian version of, 145, 189.
Commentary on the Diatessaron, 3, 106 n.,
115, 130, 132, 154, 179, 189 ff, 195,
and passim.
Commentary on Pauline Epp., 109 n.
Erasmus, 293.
Ethiopic Version of N.T., 160.
Eusebius, Eccles. History, 32, 147, 166, 175.
Theophania, 31n., 119, 139, 156, 166-172.
Evangelion da-Méhallété, 1, 115, 175.
Evangelion da-Mépharréshé, 1, 5, and passim :
date, 205, 210 ff.
Use of the term by Syriac writers, 33, 177 ff.

Filmer’s Patriarcha, 259.

Genealogies of Christ: see Proper Names.
Georgian MSS, 20: Version of N.T., 160.
Gibson, Mrs, 18, 298.
Gildemeister, J., 160.
Gospels; general remarks on their composi-
tion or style:
S, Matthew, 237 n., 247, 258 ff, 267, 278.
S. Mark, 242, 250.
S. Luke, 289, 302.
S. John, 186 ff, 316.
Gospel of Peter, 5, 207, 242, 304.
Goussen, Dr, 104, 270.
Guidi, Prof. I., 80, 264.
Guria and Shamona, Martyrdom of, 271.
Gwilliam, G. H., his ed. of the Peshitta, 2,
31 n., 32, 38, 40n., 41, 46, 47, 48, 49,
52 n., 53 n., 60, 67 n., 69, 72, 106 n., 150,
196, 280 n., 289, 290, 298, 306, 314.

Habbib, Martyrdom of, 155, 279.
Harclean Version, 75, 138, 288.
Harmonistic readings, not due in all cases
to the Diatessaron, 103, 106 n., 185, 239.
Harris, Dr J. Rendel, 4, 17, 20n., 28n.,
34 ff, 72, 149, 294n.
See also on Ishd‘dad.
Herodias, 250.
Hill, Dr Hamlyn, 3, 101 n., 181.
Hjelt, Dr A., 175 n., 210 ff.
Holy Places, cult of, 309.
Hort, Dr, 219, 226 ff., 250, 252, 277, 293, 313.
Hoskier, H. C., 250 n.

Ibn at-Tayyib, 4.

Ignatius, 112th Bp. of Antioch, 179.

Irenaeus, 239 n., 260, 267, 286.

Isaac of Antioch, 141, 163, 164n., 298.

Iscariot, 314.

Ishd‘dad, 3, 81, 104, 115, 140n., 179, 190n.
270.

Jacob of Serug, 106 n., 118, 268 f.

Jerome, 204, 293, 310.

Joshua Stylites, 299.

Journal of Theological Studies, 37n., 101 n.,
113n., 123n., 240n., 283, 306, 316,

Judas Thomas, the Apostle, 146 f., 207.

Judgement, the Last, 268.

Julian, Romance of, 78, 251 n.

Julian Saba, 130.

320 General Index.

Kennett, Prof. R. H., 67n., 69n., 278, 275.
Kenyon, F. G., 15.

Lagarde, P. A. de, 107 f.

Lake, Prof. K., 245, 310.

Lehir, Abbé, 169 n.

Lewis, Mrs, 17, 19 n., 34 ff, 54, 83, 134 n.,
264, 274, 290f., 312.

‘Life’ and ‘Salvation’ in Syriac, 78, 82, 287.

Liturgy of Theodore, 300.

Loftus, Dudley, 178, 266.

Ma‘arrath Mesrén, 19 f.

Maclean, Canon, 300 n.

Magnificat, authorship of, 286.

Mai, Cardinal, 167 f.

Malchus, 57.

Marcion, 299.

Marutha, Book of Martyrs, 155 ff., 170, 315.

‘Massoretic’ vocalisation, 43, 91 f.

Mercati, Dr G., 126, 139, 317.

Merx, Prof. A., 65n., 73n., 96.

Moesinger, Dr G., 3, etc. : see Ephraim, Comm.
on the Diatessaron.

Natron Valley (Nitria), 7.

Nemesianus, 310.

Nerab, Inscriptions of, 49.

Nestle, Dr G., 19 n.

Nestorians, their Canon of Scripture, 162.

Niceta, 286 n.

Nisibis, abandonment of, 114n., 143.

Néldeke, Prof. Th., 40-78, 80, 82 f., 257, 269,
292, 315.

Onkelos, 59, 129 n,
Origen, 278, 295, 308 £
‘Tractatus Origenis, 243.
Oxyrhynchus Papyri, 203 n., 235, 267, 291.

‘Palestinian’ Aramaic, 47, 48, 52, 54, 57n., 0

6ln., 65n., 80, 82, 192.
Palmyra, 57, 80.
Palit, Bp. of Edessa, 5, 207 f., 212, 214.
Paul of Samosata, 225, 313.
Perles, Meletemata Peschitthoniana, 201.
Peshitta, O.T., 100, 201 £
N.T., see Gwilliam.
Peter, the Apostle, his names, 92 ff., 119, 231.

Philoxenus, 128n., 139.

Pohlmann, Dr A., 113n., 122.

Prayer Book Version of the Psalms, 288.

Proper Names, Syriac renderings of, 57,
202 f., 257, 289, 309, 316.

Qanon, Saint, 19.

Rabbula, Bp. of Edessa, 3, 160 ff, 266, 309.
His translation of the N.T., 5, 161 ff, 176.

Rabbulae Vita, 141, 160f.

Ravenna Baptistery, 270.

‘Received Text’ of N.T., 216, 225, 230.

Robinson, Dr J. Armitage, 3, 160, 267 n.

Roediger, E., 16.

Roman Text of N.T., 235, 244, 246.

Sacy, 8. de, 274n., 281.

Serapion, Bp. of Antioch, 5, 907 £, 212.

‘Siluiae’ Peregrinatio, 314.

Smith, Dr G. A., 288.

Solomon of el-Basra, 179.

‘Son of Man,’ Syriac renderings, 154, 272,
302.

Stenning, J. F., 20n.

Stichometry in Syriac MSS, 34 ff.

Talmud Babli, 42 n., 249, 278.
Tatian, 5, 149, 198, 206, 208 f.
See also under Arabic Diatessaron and
Ephraim.
Tertullian, 136n., 262, 286.
Theodoret, 3, 162 ff, 176, 198n., 205, 264.
Timothy and Aquila, Dialogue of, 265 f.
Tixeront, Abbé L. J., 174, 206f.
Turner, C. H., 316.

Victor of Capua: see Cod. Fuldensis.
Vogiié, De, 80.

Wellhausen, Prof. J., 56, 79, 268, 282.
Westcott, Dr, 162, 260n.: see also Hort.
‘Western Non-Interpolations,’ 228 ff.
‘Western Text’ of N.T., 264.
Widmanstadius, 2, 16, 290.

Woods, F. H., 121, 129, 134.

Wright, Dr William, 16, 77n., 100.

Zahn, Prof. Th., 234.

BIBLICAL REFERENCES.

The English names and order of the Books are here retained.

GENESIS EZRA DANIEL
PAGE PAGE PAGE
Xxxli 27 “iat ww 69 ¥ 17, vii 18... 41 n., 80 vu 5... ie ... «49
xliii 10 a oe 4 vii 13... see ig? 212
NEHEMIAH vii 14... es 54, 280
ܡܝ‎ 1906 004 0 0 87
Su ܘܘܗ‎ cee 93 ee
xxi 25 ... 106n., 268 JOB vill 6 ... iss .. 83
ܐ‎ 25 Qa uae 66
LEVITICUS APOCALYPSE OF BARUCH
vil 25 (35)... ... 8 eee xiii 12 ve ae 291
ܐ(‎ 8 ... 0... 287, 290
NUMBERS 0
0 7 159, 244, 267 HOGR 66888
xv 38... es ... = 84 xliv 3 (2) ... 287, 290 ;
xviii 8 weve 298 Ixix 16 (15)... ... 316 E00ie Meth: NOTE ar
Ixxvili 2 ܡ‎ “fad 204 cross-references to passages
JunGRS xei 9 eee 203 quoted in the Introduction.
BIG gg ܝܡ‎ 088 ||| 66 539 0 9666 90
xiii 17 59 cxvili 22... ... 299 ACTS
exvili 88 www ae 61 wi 19 ... rs 82, 159
RUTH iv ll... 8 ܀܀‎ 299
CLESIASTES
11:9 6 alts 7 82 0 ` oe ue ܨ‎
iv 20,21 ... 208, 257 OP 3466 sa ܥ‎ 8 VIR BG es xy 2 6
i 91, 21 oe 9 MS 1 ea «BUD
xix 12 ܘ‎ ... 287
1 KINGS esha xxii 6... 99 ... 50 n.
xviii 41 Be, Se 2280 xxii 9 1220 1.22 125
x1 3—6 ©... 204 FE xxiii 11 he ܓ‎ 0
xli3... .. 4109:
2 xlix 14:8 ... ... 189. 0
± 9 6 2: ‫... 204 lvili 6 wea). nas, 289 E ¡14
£0303 606 60 a, 3
i16 ... 0... 77, 81, 282
ܨ‎ £ 98... Cie ake, 8
1 8 xxii 899 £ ... 0... 0 ¥ De dw aa 6
ܐܠܐ‎ 17 ... 0... ... 0 xxxil5 ws 6 xiv 17 ... 1

322
1 CORINTHIANS
PAGE
iii 22... 2 ܘ‎ 283
vil... 6 ... 9
1857 20 08 wo 298
xi 23-25 300 ff.
xv 29... 8 ae | 30k
xv 32... Kee ܗܘ‎ 51
2 CORINTHIANS
> ab ae ames aia ... 8
GALATIANS
111 10 ace awa we. 315

Biblical References.

COLOSSIANS
PAGE
1:30 ... wee wok 188
ii 21... 8686 < we 51
2 THESSALONIANS
11:3 os oe he 51
HEBREWS
1:98 ... ܨ‎ ... 8
ix 10... ons a. «=. 28.
ix 26... ܗܘܗ‎ «. 9815
Ki 17 ane ee wa 7

CATHOLIC EPISTLES

PAGE
See p. 162
JAMES
il ieee 81
1 PETER
il bee 9 was 81
APOCALYPSE
vii 15 vee .. 307

CAMBRIDGE: PRINTED BY J. AND C. F. CLAY, AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS.

ܒܒ
ܡ

: ih (
Hit i i ¦ 0 | HN 000
1 ¦ (0000 10
¦ Hf ‫: : : it i i! a i q ¦
1 SH ein HAHAH E HH
i ¦ i 00)