« ÎnapoiContinuați »
xx. 9. Of the night of Passion Monday, at the second ministration. xxi. 5. Of the night of Passion Tuesday, at the second minis
tration; and of the Feast of the Cross, at the oblation. xxi. 25. Of the third ministration of Passion Wednesday, at night;
and of the Supplications. xxii. I. Of the Thursday of the mysteries, at night, the third time. xxii. 31. Of the Thursday of the mysteries, at the third hour. xxii. 39. Of the night of the Crucifixion, at the first ministration. xxii. 65. Of the third hour of the Crucifixion.
[Two leaves gone here.]
Of the Saturday of Lazarus, at the oblation.
rection, at vespers.
Of the third Sunday after Epiphany, at vespers.
and the adoration of Pentecost.
1. Of the twelfth Sunday of Resurrection, at vespers.
Of the vigil of the brethren, at the oblation; and of the
departed, at matins. v. 30. Of the third Sunday after Epiphany, at matins; and Thurs
day of the mysteries, at midday.
Of the oblation, of any day.
Of the twenty-second of the Resurrection, at matins.
Of the oblation, of any day.
Of the third hour of the fourth Wednesday of the earth
quakes; and the twenty-sixth Sunday of the Resur
rection, at matins.
Of the Thursday evening of the mysteries; and the twenty
eighth of the Resurrection, at matins.
Of the night of Passion Tuesday, at the fourth ministration. viii. 28. Of the Wednesday of the earthquakes, at the ninth hour.
LESSON. 27. John viii. 39. Of Stephen, at the oblation. 28.
Of the sixth Sunday of Lent, at matins; and of the thirty
fourth of Resurrection, at matins. 1. Of the Doctors (teachers) Basillius [sic] and Gregorius;
and thirty-fifth of the Resurrection, at matins.
Of the consecration of a church, at matins. 31. xi. I. Of the Saturday of Lazarus; and of Peace (or Rest) for
the departed. 32.
xi. 39. Of Lazarus, at matins. 33.
xi. 47. Of the Wednesday of the earthquakes, at matins. 34. xi. 55. Of the Thursday of the mysteries, at night, and at the first
Of the Sunday of Hosannas, at the oblation.
xii. 23. Of Passion Tuesday, at midday. 37.
Of the Washing [of the feet), of Thursday of the mysteries. xiii. 20. Of the night of Wednesday of the earthquakes, at the
second ministration. xiv. 1.
of the ninth hour of Passion Monday. 40.
xiv. 15. Of the vespers of the Sunday of Pentecost.
XV. 20. Of Pentecost, at matins. 33 [sic]'. xvi. 16. Of Pentecost, at oblation. 34. John xvi. 23. Of the twentieth Sunday of the Resurrection, at matins. 35.
xvii. I. Of the seventh of the Resurrection, at vespers. 36. xvii. 12. Of the night of Thursday of the mysteries, at the fourth
ministration. 37. xviii. 1. Of the night of the Crucifixion, at the second ministration.
xviii. 28. Of the Friday of the Crucifixion, at matins.
else oblation. The number 38 is repeated at xix. 26,
but without a lesson note.)
xx. 19. Of the dawn of New Sunday. 41 (sic—bis]. xx. 26. Of matins of New Sunday. 42. John
Of New Sunday, at the oblation. 43. xxi. 15. Of Simeon Cephas; of Bishops. (Also a red qof in the
margin, as at xix. 7.)
With regard to text, this MS. coincides almost exactly with the American editions (Urms and New York, both Amer. Bib. Soc.), as well as with that of the original Widmanstadt edition of 1555; and steers clear of the numerous variations of sundry European editions
From this point to the end, the numbers are all too small by ten.
(especially English) which were introduced on inferior authority or on mere conjecture. Except in printer's slips on the one hand, or manifest errors on the other, the coincidence of the American and the Widmanstadt text with that of this MS. is so close that collation becomes very monotonous, and is confined mostly to noting peculiarities of punctuation and spelling. A collation of either with the far too highly praised text of Lee or Greenfield would disclose many more differences.
This negative fact is to be taken as evidence of the general excellence of the MS., as representing a text certainly very ancient, and received alike in all the divergent Syrian churches. Besides this, it may be added that the MS. is very carefully written, with comparatively few slips of the scribe ; and in the great majority of cases, those slips are corrected either by the scribe himself or by a contemporary hand.
As might be expected, this MS. omits the passages not ordinarily found in Syriac MSS., or which are bracketed in the better printed editions after they were once introduced; such as John vii. 53-viii. 11 ; Luke xxii. 17, 18. As to those actually erroneous readings preferred by the Syrians, such as “heavy” for “burning" in Luke xxiv.-32, this MS. follows the Widmanstadt and the American editions. Another case (not erroneous, however), all the more interesting from its disappearance from most other editions, even in the various readings, is
les for woj, as a rendering of passouví in John xx. 16.
The main differences between this MS. and the American (New York, 1874) edition are in the spelling of the Syriac words for Jews, Herod, Herodias, Rome, Peter, Soldier, Israel, Andrew, and other transliterated or foreign words; the exchange of a longer for a shorter grammatical form, or the reverse; the writing of compound words as separate ones, and the reverse ; some slight variations in spelling; the addition or omission of a prefix waw, or of a prefix dolath, or of a waw in the termination, with effect either nil or idiomatic only, and in the punctuation. Rarely there is an exchange of one equivalent for another, e.g., Mark viii. 9. moon for coordol; or of the pronoun for the noun, e.g., Mark v. 46, Läras for 201 ; or of one word for
, v another of nearly the same purport but different meaning, e.g., Mark x. 50, 121 for $71. Of additions, there is scarcely anything worse than that of “Amen" before “I say " in Luke xiii. 25; or of transpositions, anything worse than “Elias and Moses” for “Moses and Elias " in Mark ix. 4 ; while the worst omission left uncorrected by
; ܐܢܘܢ ,
the scribe appears to be in Mark i. 6, of the words for “and was there in the wilderness" (homoiotelenton of one line).
I have full material for presenting further differences, having carefully collated the whole MS. ; but I do not suppose that a detailed statement of the results is called for in this article.
Luke xxiv. 32 in Syriac.
BY PROF. I. H. HALL, PH.D.
N the Proceedings of the American Oriental Society of October,
1880, pp. xxxvi., xxxvii., I have shown that the reading of the Curetonian Syriac, of “heavy” for “burning,” in Luke xxiv. 32, said by Scrivener (Plain Introd. to N. T. Criticism, 2d ed., p. 285 ; 3d ed., p. 324) to be “a variation supported only by those precarious allies the Thebaic and (apparently) the American versions," is not only the Peshitto and the Harklensian reading, but the reading known and preferred by the Nestorian and Jacobite ecclesiastics, and the common one in use by the Syrians. Sundry conjectures have been indulged in as to the Greek which underlay this variant; though it consists only in a point placed at the top of a letter instead of the bottom, making the letter rish instead of dolath. But on examining the Peshitto, the origin of the first scribe's error is manifest. In verse 25 of the same chapter, the same Syriac phrase (with the rish) is used to render Bpades tō kapdia, and it was most natural for the Syrian scribe to suppose that the disciples, in verse 32, were repeating the same expression, and that the dolath in the translator's draught, or other correct copy, was probably an oversight. Of course the error is that of a copyist only; for the translator, with the Greek before him, would not be misled. It is plain, too, that the Syriac word for “heavy” in verse 32, stands, in the Syriac mind, for an imaginary Greek Bpadeia, and for nothing else. The Syrian reader supposes the disciples to be repeating and applying to themselves the reproach of Christ uttered in verse 25; and it is not strange that the Syrians, when apprised of the true reading, should still prefer their common one of “heavy." See, on this point, Dr. Justin Perkins's Eight Years in Persia, pp. 16, 17. A comparison of the Peshitto rendering of Luke xxi. 34 (the phrase βαρηθώσιν υμών αι καρδίαι) will throw a little more light on the general subject
It should be said, however, that the real error probably goes back to the time when the Syriac dolath and rish were indistinguishable; and