Sermon on Saint Thomas, the Beloved Apostle: A Syriac Catholic Panegyric from Seventeenth Century Malabar 9781463239022, 1463239025

Citation preview

Sermon on Saint Thomas, theBeloved Apostle

Gorgias Eastern Christian Studies

54 Series Editors George Anton Kiraz István Perczel Lorenzo Perrone Samuel Rubenson

*RUJLDV (DVWHUQ &KULVWLDQ 6WXGLHV brings to the scholarly world the underrepresented field of Eastern Christianity. This series consists of monographs, edited collections, texts and translations of the documents of Eastern Christianity, as well as studies of topics relevant to the world of historic Orthodoxy and early Christianity.

Sermon on Saint Thomas, theBeloved Apostle

A Syriac Catholic Panegyric from SeventeenthCentury Malabar

(GLWHGDQG7ranslatHGZLWKDQIntroduction by

Radu Mustaţă

gp 2019

Gorgias Press LLC, 954 River Road, Piscataway, NJ, 08854, USA www.gorgiaspress.com Copyright © 2019 by Gorgias Press LLC All rights reserved under International and Pan-American Copyright Conventions. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, scanning or otherwise without the prior written permission of Gorgias Press LLC. ‫ܕ‬

1

2019

ISBN 978-1-4632-3902-2

ISSN 1539-1507

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A Cataloging-in-Publication Record is Available from the Library of Congress. Printed in the United States of America

TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents ..................................................................................... v Acknowledgments .................................................................................. vii Introduction .............................................................................................. 1 Historical context ............................................................................ 1 The manuscripts in the context of Syriac Indian manuscript studies .................................................................. 6 Survey of previous research ..................................................... 7 Mannanam Syriacus 46 and Thrissur Syriacus 17........................ 9 The homily: sources, exegesis, elements of contextualization and authorship ....................................... 11 Authorship ................................................................................ 11 Analysis of the biblical sources ............................................. 12 The other sources .................................................................... 20 Exegesis and theological meaning ........................................ 32 Other elements of contextualization .................................... 37 Possible author......................................................................... 40 Conclusion ................................................................................ 45 Language ......................................................................................... 46 Lexical choice ........................................................................... 46 Morphosyntax and syntax ...................................................... 47 Phonetics and orthography .................................................... 49 Homily in Praise of Saint Thomas: Edition of the Text ......................... 53 Note on the edition of the text ................................................... 53 Abbreviations and conventional signs ....................................... 55 Homily in Praise of Saint Thomas: Translation ........................................ 75 References................................................................................................ 91 I. Sources ........................................................................................ 91 Manuscripts .............................................................................. 91 Editions and translations ........................................................ 91 II. Secondary literature ................................................................. 94 v

vi

SERMON ON SAINT THOMAS, THE BELOVED APOSTLE

Appendix.................................................................................................. 97 Appendix 1: Description and cataloging of Codex Mannanam Syriacus 46 by István Perczel ............................ 97 Appendix 2: Description and cataloging of Codex Thrissur Syriacus 17 .............................................................................103

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The present study is a revised version of a master’s thesis defended at the Department of Medieval Studies at the Central European University, Budapest, in 2014. It could have never been written without the full support, commitment and encouragement of my supervisor and malfono, Prof. István Perczel, to whom I owe my knowledge of Syriac and my interest in this part of the Christian heritage. His erudition, patience and kindness made my studies a wonderful experience (both instructive and pleasant), for which I am deeply indebted to him. I would also like to thank all his colleagues and collaborators who generously offered me their materials and suggestions; I am especially thankful to Dr. David Taylor (University of Oxford) and to Dr. Ines Županov (EHESS, Paris) who read an earlier draft of this work and made important comments and observations, which helped improve its quality. For the manuscript material used and edited in the present work I am greatly indebted to His Eminence Mar Aprem, The Metropolitan Bishop of the Church of the East in Malabar and India, to Rev. Dr. Ignatius Payyappilly, the Chief Archivist of the Ernakulam-Angamaly Diocesan Archives of the Syro-Malabar Church, and Prof. István Perczel. The collation of the second manuscript has been done during a field trip in Kerala, in the winter of 2016–2017, funded by the European Research Council (ERC) and the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program (grant agreement n° 647467 — JEWSEAST), for which I am also very grateful. I would like to thank all my professors and friends from the Department of Medieval Studies at CEU who supported me during my studies. I am especially grateful to Prof. Volker Menze by whose help I was able to spend a couple of months in a Syriac monastery and to improve my knowledge of Syriac from malfone. My deepest gratitude goes to Prof. Luigi Miraglia and to the other vii

viii

SERMON ON SAINT THOMAS, THE BELOVED APOSTLE

professors from Accademia Vivarium Novum (Rome), who offered me the unique opportunity to spend one academic year (2012– 2013) in the respublica litterarum. The revision of this work was mostly done in the summer of 2015, when I had the privilege of studying Kthobonoyo in the Syriac monastery of St. Ephrem the Syrian in Glane (the Netherlands). I am profoundly indebted to His Eminence Mor Polycarpus Augin Ayidin and to my malfono, Raban Said Çakıcı, for their hospitality and dedication and for sharing with me the treasures of Syriac spirituality. Learning from the gudo was in many ways rewarding and certainly the most vibrant and uplifting contact which I had with the poetry of Mor Aphrem, Mor Yaqub and Mor Balai. I would also like to thank my colleague Leslie Carr-Riegel for proofreading a part of this work and Gorgias Press for accepting it for publication. Last but not least, I would like to thank my family for their support.

Sermon on Saint Thomas, the Beloved Apostle A Syriac Catholic Panegyric from Seventeenth Century Malabar Edited and Translated, with an Introduction by Radu Mustaţă

Do not delete the following information about this document. Version 1.0 Document Template: Template book.dot. Document Word Count: 12772 Document Page Count: 118 To Abouna Said, with gratitude

INTRODUCTION HISTORICAL CONTEXT Little is known of the history of Christianity in India before the coming of the Portuguese at the end of the fifteenth century. As there is scarce evidence concerning the preceding period, oral tradition plays an important part in the making of the collective memory of this religious community. The indigenous Malabar Christians, known as “the Saint Thomas Christians” — whose foundation accounts trace back the origin of their Church to Judas Thomas, the apostle of Christ — are well documented only starting with the times immediately preceding the Portuguese period (the end of the fifteenth century), when these Christians appear as a strongly Syriacized community. Together with Portuguese, Latin, and Malayalam sources, the Syriac material plays a paramount role in reconstructing the history of these Christians and their interaction with the Portuguese colonizers and the Catholic missionaries, though the study of this material is still in an incipient stage. Research undertaken in the field of Christianity in Malabar during the sixteenth and the beginning of the seventeenth centuries reveals a multifaceted relationship between the local Syrian Christian population and the Catholic missionaries — a relationship which evolved in a milieu described as “competitive” on missionary grounds.1 It was in this environment that the Catholic missionaries I. Županov, “One Civility, but Multiple Religions: Jesuit Mission among St. Thomas Christians in India (16th–17th Centuries),” Journal of Early Modern History 9.3–4 (2005): 284–325; I. Perczel, Accommodationist Strategies at the Malabar Coast: Competition or Complementarity?, in Ines Županov and P.A. Fabre (eds.), The Rites Controversies in the Early Modern World, (Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2018): 191–232. 1

1

2

SERMON ON SAINT THOMAS, THE BELOVED APOSTLE

learned to experiment and adapt their evangelizing methods, depending on “the missionary context, the local geography of the sacred, and the political environment.”2 As noted by Perczel in a recent study, the religious situation of the area was influenced and shaped by manifold agents and contending forces, including the local Hindu kings, the Portuguese authorities residing in Fort Cochin and Cranganore, the local non-Christian population (Hindus, Jews and Muslims), various groups of Catholic missionaries (among whom the Jesuits, active in South India since 1542, were the most influential), and the papacy.3 In addition, the local Christian community, divided into two high castes of Hindu society (Northists, or Vadakkumbhagar, and Southists, or Thekkumbhagar), was keen to preserve its Syrian rites and jurisdiction.4 The functioning of its ecclesiastical life was ensured by itinerant bishops, who were sent to Malabar by the Church of the East, and by both the Eastern Christian and Chaldean ecclesiastical prelates after 1552.5 Within this space for mission and conversion, the need to adapt the Christian message to the exigencies of the local Hindu society was already reflected in the way the Eastern Syrian ecclesiastical prelates approached the indigenous Christian communities of Malabar. The Saint Thomas Christians, perfectly integrated in the social structures and culture of Hindu society, provided a model for the accommodationist strategies of the Catholic missionaries who became active in the area during the sixteenth century, especially for that of the Jesuits. In this context, “separating the social from the religious,”6 and developing a “permissive and flexible attitude towards the diversity of pre-Christian social customs”7 be-

I. Županov, ibid., 284. I. Perczel, Accommodationist Strategies…, 191–192. 4 Ibid., 193–195. 5 See ibid., «Cosmopolitanisme de la Mer d’Arabie: Les chrétiens de saint Thomas face à l’expansion portugaise en Inde,» C. Lefèvre, I. G. Županov et al. (eds.), Cosmopolitismes en Asie du Sud, Sources, itinéraires, langues (XVIe–XVIIIe siècle): 143–169. 6 I. Županov, One Civility, But Multiple Religions…, 288. 7 Ibid., 287. 2 3

INTRODUCTION

3

came a central and much debated issue in enhancing the Catholic missionary achievement. The religious situation of the Syrian Christians of Malabar was further complicated by the Portuguese royal patronage (Padroado real) regime, which, on the basis of a set of privileges granted to the Portuguese crown by the pope, had the right to appoint bishops in its subjected lands.8 Accordingly, the Padroado authorities attempted to control the religious life of the Saint Thomas Christians by detaining the Eastern Syrian/Chaldean prelates from Malabar on charges of heresy and by imposing Tridentine Catholicism on this Syrian Christian community. These attempts at “Latinization” can be traced in the decrees of the local synods and councils through the second half of the sixteenth century, culminating in the renowned Synod of Diamper (1599), which mandated the purging and burning of the Syriac “Nestorian” books from Malabar and disrupted the ties between the Indian Christians and the Chaldean Patriarchal See of Babylon by imposing the authority of the Latin archbishop of Goa. In the turmoil of all these controversies and competitions, it should be noted that the need to adapt for missionary purposes (accommodatio) “was not invented by the Jesuits alone, […] but it was a strategy developed by the Indian Christians, their Syrian prelates and the European missionaries together, in their very strife but also cooperation.”9 Accordingly, accommodatio was endowed with different meaning by the European missionaries than by the Syrian Christians of Malabar. While from the viewpoint of the Jesuits it referred to the need to negotiate and establish the boundaries between religious and social practice,10 the Syrian Christians regarded While the institution of the royal patronage was established by a series of papal bulls during the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, the most important for the present discussion is the bull Aequum reputamus, through which Pope Paul III instituted Goa as a bishopric subjected to the ius patonatus of the Portuguese Crown; see P. Aranha, Il Cristianesimo Latina in India nel XVI Secolo, (Rome: FrancoAngeli, 2006): 115–118. 9 I. Perczel, Accommodationist Strategies…, 195. 10 Ibid. See as well I. G. Županov, “Le repli du religieux. Les missionaries jésuites du 17e siècle entre la théologie chrétienne et une 8

4

SERMON ON SAINT THOMAS, THE BELOVED APOSTLE

accommodatio as a strategy for safeguarding the local community’s identity by making dogmatic concessions.11 Within this intricate relationship in which “often what was judged as socio-cultural by the Jesuit accommodationist practice and theory, was more important for the local Christians than dogmatic confession,”12 a controversy developed over the use of Chaldean rites. This was mostly reflected in the attachment of the local Christians to their Syrian bishops and in the struggle to preserve Syriac books and the Syriac language within the cult, contrary to the Portuguese authorities’ attempts to Latinize the Church; all these elements were constituents of the Christian identity of the Saint Thomas Christians. Syriac was not only the liturgical language of the Syrian Christians of Malabar, but it was also the language of a learned priestly elite. It was the language of communication between the Middle Eastern Syrian prelates and the Indian Christians of Malabar; and together with Malayalam and Portuguese, it became a means of communication between the Indian Christians and the European missionaries:13 Syriac was also the language of communication between the West Asian and the European missionaries […]; finally it became the language of a Kulturkampf among the missionaries. Whatever they articulated for the local Christianity, they had to articulate it in Syriac, in competition with the parallel missions. Thus, a more traditional Syriac culture, that of the Church of the East/Chaldean Church, was competing with a newly invented and ingeniously formulated modern missionary culture in Syriac. In this way Syriac acquired, additionally to its traditional status of being the Sanskrit of the Christian priests and

éthique païenne.” Annales. Histoire, Sciences Sociales 51, No. 6 (1996): 1201– 1223. 11 I. Perczel, Accommodationist Strategies…, 196. 12 Ibid. 13 Ibid., 194–195.

INTRODUCTION

5

the language of communication with the West Asian Churches, the role of “Latin of the East.”14

Being itself an expression of the principle of accommodatio, this new missionary culture in Syriac, which was meant to conform to the Tridentine orthodoxy, was mostly taken over by the Jesuits. In the seminary they founded at Vaipicotta for the training of the future priests of the Saint Thomas Christians, the teaching of Syriac was entrusted from 1587 to the Catalonian Jesuit Francisco Roz, who became the first European Archbishop of Angamaly and Cranganore (1599–1624). Roz was also the defender of Roberto de Nobili, the great accommodationist missionary who initiated the Madurai mission in South India; and in the aftermath of the Synod of Diamper (1599), he was appointed to oversee the correction of the books of the Saint Thomas Christians. The Syriac compositions coming from him and his Syriacist disciples encompass both translations (mostly from Latin) and original creations, including a translation of the biblical Book of Revelation made on the basis of the Latin text of the Vulgate, commentaries on the scriptural books belonging to Dionysius the Carthusian, a Syriac version of PseudoDionysius’ Mystical Theology made on the basis of the Latin translation of Ambrogio Traversari, translations of Latin apocrypha, original treatises and sermons on various subjects,15 and Syriac humanistic poetry.16 It is precisely to this group of Syriac compositions that the homily in praise of Saint Thomas the Apostle edited, translated and analyzed in this study belongs.

Ibid., 195. For an overall picture on these genres, see ibid., “Classical Syriac as a Modern Lingua Franca in South India between 1600 and 2006,” ARAM 21 (2009): 289–321. 16 Ibid., “Alexander of the Port/Kadavil Chandy Kattanar: A Syriac Poet and Disciple of the Jesuits in Seventeenth Century India,” Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 14 (2014): 30–49. 14 15

6

SERMON ON SAINT THOMAS, THE BELOVED APOSTLE

THE MANUSCRIPTS IN THE CONTEXT OF SYRIAC INDIAN MANUSCRIPT STUDIES

The homily in praise of Saint Thomas was written in Syriac by a Catholic missionary and is an important witness to the interaction between the Syrian Indian Christians and the Western Catholic missionaries. It is preserved in two manuscripts from Kerala: folios 68r.–71r. of the Codex Syriacus 4617 preserved in the library of St. Joseph’s Monastery in Mannanam, Kottayam District, and folios 180r.–187r. of the Codex Syriacus 17 kept in the collection of the Metropolitan Palace of the Church of the East in Thrissur. The Mannanam manuscript is part of a collection of 111 Syriac manuscripts. Fr. E. Thelly, who provided the first handlist of the library in “Syriac Manuscripts in Mannanam Library,”18 notes that “this collection is a witness to the Malabar tradition with its transformation after the Synod of Diamper (1599) and especially in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries,”19 and emphasizes its importance for the history of the Malabar Liturgy and the evolution of the East Syrian liturgical tradition on the Malabar Coast.20 Perczel, who organized the digitization of the collection and is preparing its detailed catalogue, reports that the collection comprises much more than this and includes Syriac humanistic poetry written in India during the seventeenth century, letters of sixteenth- and seventeenth-century Catholic missionaries, a church history based on original documents from the eighteenth century, a letter collection with abundant seventeenth- to nineteenth-century material, Erasmian-style polemical dialogues written in Malayalam by a

The numbering corresponds to the checklist of the Mannanam library made during the digitization of the library by the Association for the Preservation of the Saint Thomas Christian Heritage (APSTCH), an NGO based in Ernakulam, Kerala. The original shelfmark of the MS is 090–252–S. 18 E., Thelly, “Syriac Manuscripts in Mannanam Library,” Journal of Eastern Christian Studies 84 (2004): 257–270. 19 Ibid., 257. 20 Ibid. 17

INTRODUCTION

7

Catholic missionary in the early eighteenth century, and more.21 The Thrissur manuscript is in a book of Catholic sermons for feast days; the richness and importance of the collection to which it belongs, for both Syriac Indian and Middle Eastern Christianity, has been emphasized several times by His Eminence Mar Aprem the Metropolitan.22 Survey of previous research There is no “standard literature” concerning the history of Indian Christianity, but only sparse literature partly published in India.23 The lack of a comprehensive monograph on the Christians of Saint Thomas and the need for a systematic bibliography in this field has already been pointed out.24 When it comes to the manuscript studies of the Syriac heritage of this Christian community, the existing catalogues (made by both Europeans and Indian scholars), with very few exceptions, do not correspond to present-day scholarly standards, being rather checklists than proper catalogues. The only reliable options are “Catalogue des manuscrits syriaques de la collection du Saint Ephrem Ecumenical Research Institute (Kottayam),” made by A. Desreumaux, F. Briquel-Chatonnet and J. Thekeparampil and published in Le Muséon, vol. 110, no. 3–4 (1997): 383–446; David Taylor’s catalogue of the collection of

I. Perczel, work on catalog of the library in progress. See also ibid. “Garshuni Malayalam: A Witness to an Early Stage of Indian Christian Literature,” Hugoye: Journal of Syriac Studies 17.2 (2014): 287–293 and ibid., Alexander of the Port… . 22 The most recent overview of the collection has been published in Dr. Mar Aprem Metropolitan, Assyrian Manuscripts in India, Thrissur: Mar Narsai Press, 2011. 23 Perczel, “Language of Religion. Language of the People, Languages of the Documents: The Legendary History of the Saint Thomas Christians of Kerala,” Language of Religion, Language of the People: Medieval Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, ed. E. Bremer, (München: Wilhelm Fink Verlag; 2006): 387. 24 Ibid. 21

8

SERMON ON SAINT THOMAS, THE BELOVED APOSTLE

Thozhiyur; and István Perczel’s catalogue of the Mannanam collection. Both of the last two are under preparation.25 However, if one is to make a chronological survey of the scholarly literature dealing with the Syriac manuscripts of India, one should start with E. R. Hambye’s article, “Some Syriac Libraries of Kerala (Malabar), India: Notes and Comments,”, A Tribute to Arthur Vööbus, ed. R. H. Fischer, (Chicago: The Lutheran School of Theology, 1977): 35–47, which contains brief descriptions of three libraries: the Konat collection, the Thrissur Chaldean Syrian collection and Mannanam. Apart from this, the fundamental work which might be used as a point of departure into this field is J. P. M. van der Ploeg’s book, The Christians of St. Thomas in South India and Their Syriac Manuscripts,26 which consists of a general overview of Indian Church history on the basis of manuscript evidence, without providing a systematic survey of the Indian manuscript collections. One should mention as well the contribution of D. L. McConaughy,27 who considered some of the manuscripts neglected by Van der Ploeg. Another important contribution has been provided by H. Kaufhold, who published a study on the Syriac manuscripts with juridical content in the South Indian libraries,28 also providing a thorough description of seventeen manuscripts. In 2002, I. Perczel published an article, “Syriac Manuscripts in India: The Present State of the Cataloguing Process,”29 which offers a comprehensive Ibid., “Syriac Manuscripts in India: The Present State of the Cataloguing Process,” The Harp. A Review of Syriac and Oriental Ecumenical Studies 15 (2002): 291. 26 Rome and Bangalore: Center for Indian and Inter-Religious Studies and Dharmaram Publications, 1983. 27 “An Update on the Syriac MSS Collections in South India,“ Oriens Christianus 71 (1987): 208–212; “Syriac Manuscripts in India: The Library of St Thomas Apostolic Seminary,” Orientalia Christiana Periodica 52 (1986): 432–434. 28 Syrische Handschriften juristischen Inhalts in südindischen Bibliotheken, vol. 535, (Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1989). 29 The Harp: A Review of Syriac and Oriental Ecumenical Studies, 15 (2002): 289–297 — Festschrift for Mar Aprem, Kottayam, Kerala, India. 25

INTRODUCTION

9

picture of the state of research in the field of Syriac Indian manuscript studies at that time. Now, after so many years of digitization of material and preparation of catalogues, the situation has substantially changed. Mannanam Syriacus 46 and Thrissur Syriacus 17 A very brief mention of manuscript Mannanam Syriacus 46 is to be found in the aforementioned report published by Fr. E. Thelly. According to Fr. Thelly, the manuscript registered under the shelfmark 090–252–S contains “sermons, plus some advice for the penitents,” and is said to be written in “Karšūnī,”30 a description which proves to be vague and somewhat imprecise when compared to the actual content of the manuscript. However, a detailed codicological description of the manuscript is provided by Perczel in his still-unpublished catalogue of the Syriac manuscripts from the Mannanam library. Perczel also emphasized in a recent article the value of the material contained in this manuscript as a source of inspiration for the indigenous poet Alexander the Indian’s poem On the Syriac Language.31 The manuscript (registered with shelf mark 090–252–S) contains 244 folios and has outer dimensions of 280x190x40 mm. Although there is no colophon in the manuscript, it has been dated to the early seventeenth century (after 1607). According to Perczel, the main clue for this dating is a letter collection which is dated to the end of the sixteenth or the beginning of the seventeenth century, which must have been recent at the time when the manuscript was copied. Another clue to the dating is the type of paper used by the scribe. The manuscript comprises texts written either in Syriac or in Garshuni Malayalam, most of which are Catholic material: sermons, commentaries, Saints’ Lives; some of them are translated from Latin while others are original creations. In addition, the manuscript contains a collection of letters from the end of the six30

E. Thelly, “Literary Works 3,” Syriac Manuscripts in Mannanam...,

31

I. Perczel, Alexander of the Port…, 41–43.

268.

10

SERMON ON SAINT THOMAS, THE BELOVED APOSTLE

teenth and the beginning of the seventeenth century and Malayalam services and prayers. Besides this, the manuscript also contains translations of Western theological material, such as the works of Dionysius the Carthusian, and is an important witness to the Jesuit mission in India. It includes, among others, some letters of the Jesuit missionaries, the decisions of the Third Provincial Synod of Goa (1585) translated from Portuguese into Syriac, and homilies written in Garshuni Malayalam.32 Codex Syriacus Thrissur 17 is a nineteenth-century collection of Catholic sermons containing 436 folios and with outer dimensions of 190x140x45 mm. In addition to Syriac sermons on feast days and various other occasions, it contains a hymn by Giwargis Warda on the childhood of Christ, several Garshuni Malayalam sermons (one of them on the Rogation of the Ninevites), an epitome made on the basis of selected passages from Eusebius of Caesarea’s Ecclesiastical History (most likely translated from Latin), a hymn by Gabriel of Mosul on the Great Lent, etc. The manuscript was briefly mentioned by J.P.M. van de Ploeg in his study,33 and its content was partly described by His Eminence Mar Aprem the Metropolitan in His Grace’s checklist.34 I have provided a detailed description of the content of the manuscript in the second appendix of the present book. Considering the importance of the missionary material contained in the two manuscripts discussed above, the present study focuses on the homily in praise of Saint Thomas, which is a brilliant and vivid piece of Catholic accommodationist discourse from the beginning of the seventeenth century. It is the result of a complex blending of scriptural, patristic and literary sources, both in Latin and Syriac, which are gathered together according to the classical canons of the encomiastic discourse. The author of the text Ibid., unpublished description of the manuscript; for the cataloguing of the manuscript see Appendix 2. 33 The Christians of St. Thomas…, 145. 34 Mar Aprem, “Syriac Manuscripts in Trichur,” in R. Lavenant S.J. (ed.), III Symposium Syriacum (1980). Les contacts du monde syriaque avec les autres cultures (Goslar 7–11 Septembre 1980), Orientalia Christiana Analecta 221 (Rome: 1983): 359–360; ibid., Assyrian Manuscripts…, 16. 32

INTRODUCTION

11

brings into focus the exceptionality of Saint Thomas by putting together a rich exegetical and rhetorical apparatus, which gives birth to a beautiful, speculative and non-scholastic theological thinking. As the philological analysis provided in this study will show, the homily reflects and exemplifies the way in which the Catholic missionaries approached Syriac theological writing in the aftermath of the diocesan Synod of Diamper (1599) while competing or involving themselves in disputes with their Eastern Syriac or Chaldean contenders. The text also shows important peculiarities of the post-Diamper Syriac Catholic compositions from Malabar, which might be of interest to both Syriacists and historians working on the Saint Thomas Christians or on the South Indian Catholic missions.

THE HOMILY: SOURCES, EXEGESIS, ELEMENTS OF CONTEXTUALIZATION AND AUTHORSHIP

Authorship Written in the solemn high style specific to the Asianic encomiastic genre, the homily in praise of Saint Thomas must have been written by a Catholic missionary endowed with a noticeable training in the classical literature and rhetoric and possessing a good (though to a certain extent artificial) knowledge of the Syriac language. As will be detailed in the introduction to the text edition, the main features of this author’s Syriac are the excessive use of the construct state and a preference for infinitives in expressing final clauses. In addition, the author shows a special preference for the Greek “Syriacized” words instead of their Syriac synonyms — a peculiar note of the high style. In addition to the beauty of the ideas expressed in the text, a series of figures of speech are skillfully handled — especially in the exordium — in order to increase the solemnity of the discourse; these include the ternary structures (tríkola), rhetorical interrogations, gradations, and comparisons. For this reason, the reader might have the impression of reading Latin classical rhetoric expressed in Syriac words. Some parts of the text make sense syntactically only if one tries to understand them according to some formae mentis specific to Latin rather than through the grammatical norms of classical Syriac. In addition to this, the author proves to have an excellent knowledge of the biblical accounts — manifesting a peculiar taste

12

SERMON ON SAINT THOMAS, THE BELOVED APOSTLE

for Old-Testamentary erudition — and of Western theology. He also demonstrates an original method for handling the patristic exegetical apparatus. The author’s ability to gather all these elements into a coherent account makes out of this sermon a remarkable piece of accommodationist missionary discourse and a beautiful literary work. As I will try to demonstrate later, the main features of the homily are as follows: the tendency to use Latin sources (while often knowing the vocabulary of their Syriac counterparts); a noticeable reliance on the Book of Revelation; and an original, non-scholastic, speculative theological thought (with a peculiar predilection for the Pseudo-Areopagitic corpus). For a proper understanding of the way in which the author builds up his discourse, and in order to be able to contextualize the ideological backbone of the homily, one should examine the internal evidence of the quoted sources. In order to do so, I will first focus on the biblical evidence and then on the manuscript’s patristic and classical references. Analysis of the biblical sources As one might expect, most of the biblical references are adjusted to the content and circumstances of the homily, so that they do not correspond completely to their Syriac or Latin models. Nonetheless, semantic, morphological and syntactical analysis suggests that the author was acquainted with both the Latin text of the Vulgate35 and the Syriac version of the Peshitta.36 To illustrate how the For the present comparison, I used both the Clementine Vulgate Biblia Sacra iuxta Vulgatam Clementinam, ed. M. Tuveedale (London: 2005) and the pre-Tridentine text Biblia Sacra Vulgata, vol. 1–2, ed. B. Sischer, I. Gribomont et al. (Stuttgart: Württembergische Bibelanstalt, 1969). Since the differences between the readings of the two editions are very few (as far as it concerns the verses of the present comparison), I have always listed the readings of the Clementine edition, indicating in the footnotes whenever the pre-Tridentine text differs in any respect. 36 For the present comparison, I used the editions published by the Leiden Peshitta Institute for the Old Testament; in addition, I have also used the Old Testament edition published by the Trinitarian Bible Society (London: 1913). For the New Testament quotations, I used the following 35

INTRODUCTION

13

mechanisms of translation work at this level, I have chosen a few relevant examples which bear witness to the combination of Syriac and Latin biblical traditions in the text of the homily. Two approaches are discernable in the way the author handles biblical quotations: (1) in a few instances, he preserves the reading of the Peshitta version; (2) in most cases, however, he adapts the Syriac text to mirror-translate the Latin version of the Vulgate. Preservation of readings from the Peshitta Judges 14:14 Vulgata Clementina: de comedente exiuit cibus, et de forti egressa est dulcedo. Homily in praise of St. Thomas (69va): “which food came from the eater, and which sweet came from the bitter?” (ǟǗNJ݂ njLJ̇ ƣDžǁ‫ ܐ‬njLJ ݂ ܵ ƣܵƾDžƴܼܿ ǟǗNJ݂ njLJ̇ ƥǠƽܼ ǠLJܼ ܿ njLJ‫ܘ‬ ݂ ƣDžǁ‫) ܼܐܘ‬. Peshitta: ‫ ܘ‬. ‫ܐܘ‬ ‫ ܐ‬. Despite the rephrasing of the biblical verse within the homily, it is clear that it reproduces the wording of the Peshitta; both the homily and the Peshitta version adopt the reading “the sweet rose from the bitter” ( ), while the Vulgate provides a different reading: de forti egressa est dulcedo (“sweetness rose from the mighty one”).

———

Psalm 44:3 Vulgata Clementina: diffusa est gratia in labiis tuis: propterea benedixit te Deus in æternum. Homily in praise of St. Thomas (71va): “mercy was poured out Ʋǂǎܸ NJ‫ܸܐܬ‬ on your lips; thereupon, God blessed you forever” (ƣLjƴ‫ܪ‬ ܹ ܿ ܵ ǃǁǠƦܿ ƣNJܵ ‫ ܵܗ‬džƻLJ ‫ܬܟ‬ƲǗ ljDžǔDŽ ƤƱDŽ‫ܐ‬ ܼ ܸ ܼ ̈ Ǎܸ džǓܼ ). Peshitta (Psalm 45:3 II): ‫ܗ‬ .‫̈ ܬܟ‬ ‫ܐܬ‬ ‫ܐ‬ .

edition: The New Testament in Syriac (London: British and Foreign Bible Society, 1905–1920).

14

SERMON ON SAINT THOMAS, THE BELOVED APOSTLE

In this case, the homily provides the reading of the Peshitta; in contrast to the Vulgate, which reads gratia (“grace”), the Syriac version has the reading (“mercy”).

———

John 10:11. Vulgata Clementina: bonus pastor animam suam dat pro ovibus suis37. Homily in praise of St. Thomas (70va): “the good shepherd, ̈ džƻLJ ƱǢǗNJܿ ljǍ‫ܕ‬ ܵ who put his soul for [his] flock” (ƱNjǓ ܸ ܹ ܼ ܵ ƣƧƺܵ ƣܵƾǓ‫)ܪ‬. Peshitta: ‫ܪ‬. ܼ ܼ ‫ܡ‬ ܼ In this case, it seems that the author of the homily paraphrases the verse from the Peshitta version, as suggested by the use of the veris used), whereas bal form ljǍܵ (in the Peshitta, the participle ‫ܡ‬ the Vulgate provides the reading dat.38 Adaptation of the text of the Peshitta in order to mirror-translate readings of the Vulgate Siracides 50:6–10 Vulgata Clementina: Quasi stella matutina in medio nebulæ, et quasi luna plena, in diebus suis lucet: et quasi sol refulgens, sic ille effulsit in templo Dei. Quasi arcus refulgens inter nebulas gloriæ,39 et quasi flos rosarum in diebus uernis,40 et quasi lilia quæ sunt in transitu aquæ, et quasi thus redolens in diebus æstatis: quasi ignis effulgens, et thus ardens in igne:41 quasi uas auri solidum, ornatum omni lapide pretioso. Homily in praise of Saint Thomas (68ra): “as a star among the clouds, as the moon in the spring, as the sun shining over palaces, as a rainbow illuminating over the clouds, as the blades of the field, The pre-Tridentine version omits suis. Apparently, the handling of the New Testament corresponds to that represented by the Synod of Diamper, inspired by Francisco Roz. Ninety percent was left intact, only the Peshitta had to be corrected where it diverged substantially from the Vulgate. I would like to thank Prof. I. Perczel for making me aware of this aspect. 39 The pre-Tridentine version reads instead: effulgens in nebulam gloriae. 40 The pre-Tridentine version reads ueris instead of uernis. 41 The pre-Tridentine version reads in igni instead of in igne. 37 38

INTRODUCTION

15

as the cedars of Lebanon with their high branches, as the lily of the king at the springs of water, as the incense in the censer, as a lace of gold adorned with precious stones, whose shape is beautiful” ܿ ܿ ܿ ܵ ܿ ܵ ܿ 42 ܵ ܵ ܵ ǡ ǃƽ‫ܘܐ‬ (džǓܼ ƣƵܵ ƾܼ NJ‫ ܕܕ‬ƣǢLj ܼ .njǎܵ ƾܼ NJ ƿLJƲ̈ ƾƦ ƥ‫ܪ‬ƱǍܼ ܿ ǃƽ‫ ܼܘܐ‬.ƣNjܹ NjǓ ǤNjƾ ܸ ܼ Ʀܼ ƣƧǁƲǁ ǃƽ‫ܼܘܐ‬

ܿ ܿ ܿ ܵ ܿ ƣDžƧǡ ܿ ܿ ܵ ̈ ܵ ܵ ܵ DŽ‫ ܕ‬Ƥ‫ܙ‬ǯ‫ ܐ‬ǃƽ‫ܘܐ‬ ̈ ǃƽ‫ܘܐ‬ njNjƧ ܼ ƣDžǞƴ‫ܕ‬ ܼ ‫܆‬ƣNjܹ NjǓ43džǓܼ ‫ܪ‬ƱNjLJ‫ܕ‬ ܼ ܿ ܼ ƤǤǢǝܸ ܿ ǃƽ‫ ܼܘܐ‬.ƣNJܹ Ưܵ ǖ‫ܐ‬ ܸ ܹܵ ܵ ܿ ܿ ܵ ܵ ܿ ܿ ܵ ̈ .ƣLJǠƾǖܹ ƲƪƦ ƤǤNJƲƧDŽ ǃƽ‫܆ ܼܘܐ‬ƣ̈ƾLJ ƿǓƲƧ ƣǂDžLJ‫ܕ‬ ܼ ܼ LjƦ ܼ ܿ ƣNjǡܸ Ʋǡ ǃƽ‫ ܼܘܐ‬.ǫƲǖƲǔƦ ܿ ̈ ƣǖƢǂܹ Ʀ ǤƦǜLJ‫ܘ‬ .ƤǤܵ ܼ ƧƷ ..Ǡƾܼ Ǘǡܼܿ ‫ܟ‬ǤǗLJ‫ ܕ‬ƣƧƴ‫ ܕܕ‬ƣǞǓܸ ǃƽ‫) ܼܘܐ‬. ܹ ܼܼ Peshitta44 (Siracides 50:6–9): ‫ ܘܐ‬. ̈ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܕܕ‬ ̈ ܿ ܿ ̈ ‫ܘܐ‬ ‫ ܘܐ‬. ‫ܕ‬ ̈ ‫ܘ‬. ‫ܟ‬ . ̈ ܿ

̈

̈ ‫ ܘܐ‬. ̈ ‫ܘܐ‬ ‫ܕ‬ ̈ ‫ ܘܐ ܪ‬. ‫ܕ‬ ‫ܕܕ‬

‫ܐ‬ ‫ܪ‬ ‫ܘܐ‬ ‫ ܘܐ‬. ̈ ̈‫ܐ‬ ‫ܕ‬

In this case, the difference between the Latin and the Syriac versions is quite major, so that one has the impression of reading two distinct texts. As a comparison between the three texts might suggest, the author of the homily in praise of St. Thomas clearly follows the reading of the Peshitta version, sometimes distorting it because of the orality of his speech. However, in some places the author retranslates words from the Latin into Syriac and introduces those words into the text of the Peshitta. For instance, while the Latin version reads quasi arcus refulgens inter nebulas gloriæ, and the Peshitta reads: ̈ ‫“( ܐ‬as the rainbow in the clouds”), ܵ ܿ ‫ܐ‬ the author of the homily adopts the hybrid reading: ܼ ܸ ܵ ܿ ܿ ܼ ‫“( ܕ ܼ ܪ‬as a rainbow illuminating over the clouds”). Beܹ sides this, it is noteworthy that while the Peshitta attributes this comparison to “Simeon the son of Natanias” ( ‫ܢ‬ ) and the Vulgate attributes it to “Simon the son of Onias” (Simon, Oniae filius), the homily in praise of St. Thomas refers to the same biblical character as ‫ܢ‬ (“Simeon the son of Onias”), thus following the Vulgate.

———

ܵ ƲNJ ƨǁƲǁ. T reads instead: ƤƱƩ ܼ ܼ ܿ ܿ . T reads instead: ƣǂDžLJܼ ܿ Ǥܼ Njܼܿ ǡƲǡ 44 For the Syriac version of Siracides, I used the following edition: La sabiduría del escriba. Wisdom of the Scribe, ed. N. Calduch Benages, J. Ferrer et al. (Estella (Navara): Biblioteca Midrásica, 2003). 42 43

16

SERMON ON SAINT THOMAS, THE BELOVED APOSTLE

Isaiah 49:2–3 Vulgata Clementina: et posuit me sicut sagittam electam: in pharetra sua abscondit me. Et dixit mihi : Servus meus es tu Israel, quia in te gloriabor. Homily in praise of St. Thomas (70rb): “the Lord hid me in his quiver, he placed me as a chosen arrow, and told me: ‘You are my ܿ servant, Israel, because in you I will be ܿ glorified’” (ƿNjƾܼ ܿ Ǣƺܼ ܿ ljDŽܼ ƣܵƽǠLJ

ܵ ܿ ‫ܝ‬ƯƧǓܿ ƿDŽ ǠLJ‫ ܘܐ‬ƣܵƾƧƩ ƥ‫ܪ‬ƢƩ ǃƽ‫ ܿܐ‬ƿNjLjܿ Ǎ‫ܘ‬ ܵ džƻLJܸ džܹƽǠǎ ǃƦ‫ܕ‬ ƽܼ ǤNJ‫ܐ‬ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܸ ܼ ܹ ܼ ܵ ƱǝǠ ܹ ƻǞƦ ܹ ܿ ܿ ƶƦܼ Ǥǡ‫) ܸܐ‬. Peshitta: ‫ܝ‬ ‫ܐ‬

‫ܕ‬

‫ ܘܐ‬. ‫ܪ‬ ‫ ܐ‬. ‫ܐ‬.

‫܆ܘ‬

‫ܪ‬

‫ܐ‬

As a comparison of the three versions indicates, the author of the homily translated these verses from the Vulgate into Syriac. It is not clear whether ܼ ܿ ܼ ܿ is a mirror-translation of abscondit me; the Peshitta reads ‫ ܪ‬, and all three readings mean “he hid me”. ܿ ܵ ‫ܹ ܪ‬ ‫ܐ‬ However, ܵ ܼ ܿ ܼ ܿ is a clear mirror-translation of ܼ posuit me sicut sagittam electam, while the Peshitta reads ‫ܐ‬ ܵ‫ܕ‬ ‫ܪ‬ (“made me as a chosen arrow”). Again, ܸ ܼܿ ܿ ‫ܐ‬ ܸ is a mirror-translation of quia in te gloriabor, while the Peshitta reads ‫ܐ‬ ‫“( ܕ‬in whom I am glorified”).

———

Genesis 49:9 Vulgata Clementina: ad prædam […] ascendisti requiescens accubuisti ut leo. Homily in praise of St. Thomas (70va): “you rose up towards ܿ DžǍ ܿ ܿ ‫܆ ܿܘ‬Ƥ‫ܬ‬Ƴ ܵ ƧDŽ ljDŽ ǤǞ the prey and lay down like a lion” (ǃƽ‫ ܐ‬ǤǔƦ‫ܪ‬ ܸ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܸ ܵƣƽ‫)ܕܐܪ‬. . Peshitta: ‫ ܼ ܟ ܘܪ ܼ ܐ ܐܪ‬. ܼ [...] It is clear here that the author of the homily translated the verse ܿ DžǍ is a mirror-translation of ad ܵ ƧDŽ ǤǞ from the Latin. While Ƥ‫ܬ‬Ƴ ܸ ܼ ܸ prædam […] ascendisti, the Peshitta version reads in the same place (“you rose from the slaughter”). From a syntactiܼ [...] cal point of view, the verse as provided in the homily more closely ܿ Ǎ and Ǥǔ ܿ Ʀ‫ܪ‬ ܿ resembles the Vulgate (ǤǞDž ܸ ܼ are mirror-translations of ascendisti and accubuisti) while the Peshitta switches the person of the (“you rose from predicate: ‫ ܼ ܟ ܘܪ ܼ ܐ ܐܪ‬. ܼ [...] the slaughter; he stooped down and crouched as a lion”).

———

INTRODUCTION

17

Psalm 120:6 Vulgata Clementina: per diem sol non uret te, neque luna per noctem. Homily in praise of Saint Thomas (72ra): “the sun will not hurt ܵ ǡ ƣLjܵ Ljܵ ƽƢƦ us during the day, nor the moon during the night” (ƣDŽ ƣǢLj ܸ ܼ ܵ ܿ ܿ ƣܵƾDžDžܸ Ʀ ƥ‫ܪ‬ƱǍ ƣDžǖ‫ ܘܐ‬njDŽ ǃƾǂNJܼ ). Peshitta (Psalm 121:6): ‫ܪ‬ ‫ ܐܦ‬. . It is clear that the author of the homily paraphrases the reading of this verse according to the version in the Peshitta: the Syriac text reads “the sun will not hurt you” ( ), whereas the Vulgate provides the reading sol non uret te (“the sun will not burn you”). The passage also shows that the author of the homily mis(“will hurt you”); he did not nounderstood the verbal form tice the use of the second-person, singular, masculine, objective pronoun and understood this form as a PAEL imperfect of a supposedly ‫ ܟ‬verbal root. Besides the examples provided above, the homily also contains some passages in which it is clear that the author, in recounting the biblical episodes, made use of the wording of the Peshitta in order to retranslate into Syriac the Clementine Vulgate. Thus, while recounting the story of Balaam and the angel (Numbers 22:22– 32),45 the author used the words from the Peshitta version in order to retranslate the story as he knew it from the Vulgate. For instance, the author clearly read verse 22 from the Peshitta: ‫ܘ‬ ‫ܘܪ ܕ ܘ‬ ‫ܕ‬ (which literally means “and the angel of the Lord stood in the way, in order to be an adversary to him”); then he translated from Latin into Syriac the following part of verse 23: asina […] avertit se de itinere (“the ass turned aside (“adverfrom the way”). Because he understood the word sary”), quoted above, as a PEAL feminine, singular, active-voice as a Syriac participle, he later used the non-existent verbal root translation of the Latin auertere in the following sentence: ܸ

45

71vb–72ra.

18

SERMON ON SAINT THOMAS, THE BELOVED APOSTLE

ܵ ܵ ‫“( ܕ‬since [the beast] was turning aside from ܵ ‫ܐܘܪ‬ ܼ ‫ܗܘܬ‬ ܼ ̤ 46 [its] way”). Again, when referring to the story concerning the slaughter of the Ephraimites (Judges 12), the author of the homily refers to them as ܹ ‫ܐ ܵܬ‬, a non-existent word in Syriac, which uses instead ̈ ‫ܐ‬.47 However, the reading ܹ ‫ ܐ ܵܬ‬is only a “Syriacisation” of the Latin Ephrathæi, which is to be found in the parallel passage of the Vulgate. On this basis of all this evidence, it is clear that the author of the homily knew the biblical text in both its Latin and Syriac versions. In addition to the distortions made in order to adapt the biblical text to the content of the homily, the author’s occasional tendency to “correct” the Syriac text of the Peshitta according to the version of the Vulgate is also noticeable. In addition to this, the reference to the angel from the tenth chapter of the Book of Revelation, could not have come but from the Vulgate, since the Apocalypse was not included in the biblical canon of the Church of the East. This is precisely why the second decree of the third action of the diocesan Synod of Diamper (1599) prescribed the translation into Syriac of the biblical books which were missing from the canon of the Church of the East (including the Apocalypse) and the correction of the others.48 In fact, several Later, the scribe of T apparently no longer understood the logic of ܵ Ǎ‫ܕ‬ ܵ into ƣܵƾƸ̇ Ǎ‫ܕ‬. ܵ this translation and corrected the form ƣNjƸ 47 See e.g. Judges 12:6. 48 “Declara o Synodo que nos livros do novo testament de que usa este Bispado escritos em lingua Suriana, ou Suriaca faltãô no Evangelho de S. João o principio do Capitulo oitavo […], e assi mais faltão nos ditos livros a 2 Epistola de São Pedro, a 2 e 3 de São João, e a de São Judas, e o Apocalypsi de São João […] e no testamento velho faltão os livros de Esther, Thobias, e a Sabedoria, os quaes todos manda que se trensladem e as partes que faltão se restituão á sua pureza pelos livros emendados Caldaicos, e conforme a edição Latina . e vulgar de que usa a Sancta Madre Igreja, pera que tenna esta Igreja as Sanctas Escripturas inteiras, e uze dellas com todas suas partes, como forão escritas, e se lêm em toda a Igreja universal, o que o Synodo pede ao Reverendo Padre Francisco Ròz da Companhia de Jesu mestre da lingua Suriana no Collegio de Vaipicotta 46

INTRODUCTION

19

Syriac manuscripts from Malabar contain a Syriac version of the Book of Revelation, which mirror-translates the Latin version of the Vulgate and must have been the one prescribed at Diamper. If one is to compare the passage from 10:1–2, 9–10 as reflected in the text of the homily with the aforementioned Latinized Syriac version, one cannot help but notice that there are many semantic and syntactic differences between the two versions. Thus, the text of the homily reads: for Saint John the Evangelist recounts that he saw an angel, whose face was shining as the sun and his feet, as the flame of the fire, were stepping one of them over the dry land and the other one over the sea. In his hand he was keeping a small book, which he gave to Saint John to eat. It was sweet as honܿ ey in his mouth and bitter in his stomach (ƣǢܵ ƽܼ Ưǝ ǠƾܹƩ ƣNJܹ ǤLJ ܼ

ܵ ܿ ܿ ܿ ܵ ǡ ǃƽ‫ ܼ ܿܐ‬ǫƲ̈ ǖ‫ܪܢ ܐ‬ƱNj ܵ LJܼ Ưǁܼ Ưƴܼ ƣǁƢDžLjDŽ ƤƳƴ‫ܕ‬ ƣƻǎDžƪNJ‫ ܸܐ ܼܿܘ‬njNjƴƲƽܿ .ƣǢLj ܿ ܸܿ ܵ ܿ ܿ ̈ ܵ ̈ Ƥ‫ܬ‬Ǡܹ ƴ‫ ܼܘܐ‬ƣǢƧƽܼ džǓܼ ljDŽ ƥƯƴ ‫ ܗܘܝ܆‬njǁ‫ ܕܪ‬ƥ‫ܪ‬ƲNJ‫ܕ‬ ܼ ƤǤƾܼ ƦƱDžǡ ǃƽ‫ ܼܐ‬ǫƲDžƩǯ‫ܘ‬ ܵ ‫ܗ‬ƯƽƢƦ Ƥ‫ ܗܘ‬Ưƾƴ‫ ܘܐ‬ƣLjܵ ƽܿ džǓܿ ̇Ƥ‫ ܘܗܘ‬.njNjƴƲƽܿ ƣǢƽܼ ƯǞDŽܼ ƱDžܹ ǁ‫ ܕܐܘ‬ƥ‫ܪ‬ƲǓ‫ܙ‬ ܿ ƣƦܵ Ǥǁ ݂ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܵ ǠƽǠLJܿ ƱǍǠǁܿ ƲƪƦ‫ ܘ‬ƣǢƦ ܵ ‫ ܕ‬ǃƽ‫ ܼ ܿܐ‬ƣDžܵ ƴܿ ƱLJƲǗƦ), .ƣNJ‫ܗ‬ ܼ ܹ ܼ ܼ ܹ ܼ ܹ

while the aforementioned version of the Book of Revelation provides for the corresponding passage the following reading: ܿ ܵ ܵ ܵ ܿ ܵ [...] ܵ ܼ ܿ ‫ܗܘ‬ ܼ ܿ ܼ ܹ ‫ܼܘ‬ ܼ ܹ ‫ܕ‬ ܼ ܼ ܹ ‫ܐ‬ ܵ ݂ ܵ ܿ ̈ ܿ ܿ ܵ ܿ ܵ ‫ܼ ܕ ܕ ܼ ܪ ܼܘ ܼ ܹ ܗ‬ ܸ‫ܘ‬ ܼ ܹ ‫ܘܐ ܗܝ ܼܐ ܼ ܕ‬ ܼ ‫ܗܝ ܼܐ‬ ܵ ܵ ܵ ‫ܕܿ ܵ ܿ ܿ ܵ ܘ‬ ܵ‫ܘ‬. ܿ ܵ ܵ ܼܿ ‫ܪ‬ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܹ ܹ ܸ ܼ ܿ ܿ ܵ ܿ ܵ ܿ ܿ ܿ ‫ܝ܆ ܿܘ‬ ܵ ܼ ܼܿ ܼ ܿ ‫ܘܐ‬ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܼ ‫ ܼܘ‬.‫ܼ ܵ ܆‬ ܸ [...] ܼ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܿ ܵ ܼ ܵ ܼ ܹ ܸ ‫ ܘ‬.. ܵ ܼ ‫ܐ ܼ ܕ‬ ܵ ܼ ‫ܼܿܘ‬ ܵ ܼܿ ‫ܸ ܹܘ‬ ‫݂ ܐ ܼ ܹܗ‬ ܼ ܹ ܵ ܿ ܵ ܿ ܵ ܿ ܵ ‫ܼܐ ܕ‬ ܵ ܼܿ ‫ܵ ܼܘ ܼ ܹ ܗ܆ ܘܐ ܼ ܼ ܘܗܝ ܗܘ‬ ܼܿ ‫ܕ‬ ܼ ܹ ܼ ܵ‫ܘ ܵ ܿܕ ܿ ܿ ܗ܆ ܿ ܬ‬ ܵ ܿ ‫ܗܘܬ‬ 49. ܼ ܼ ܹ ܼ ܼ ܼ

deste Bispado queira fazer, e tomar isto a seu cargo pelo grande conhecimento que tem destas linguas, e das divinas Escripturas” ( J. H. da Cunha Rivara (ed.), Archivo Portuguez-Oriental. Fasciculo 4, (New Dehli: Asian Educational Services, 1992): 314–315). 49 For the present reference, I used the manuscript Mannanam Syriacus 62, ff. 14r–v.14v–15r; the punctuation and the spelling in the quoted passage are those of the scribe without further emendation.

20

SERMON ON SAINT THOMAS, THE BELOVED APOSTLE

Some of the differences between the two versions might be due to the orality of the speech and to the adaptation of the biblical text to the content of the homily. As emphasized above, the author generally shows a clear preference for preserving the literal reading of the Vulgate while making use of the wording of the Peshitta; this is not the case here because of the lack of a Syriac version of the Apocalypse in the Church of the East. In this context, the unexpected difference between the quoted versions might suggest that the Syriac version of the Book of Revelation, prescribed by the Diamperitan synod, was still not complete at the time when the homily was composed. The other sources Apart from the biblical text, the main source which the preacher refers to is “Mar Abdia’s book on the history of Mar Thoma”, which one might easily identify with the Latin adaptation of the Acts of Thomas.50 Most of the accounts related to the apostle’s deeds and martyrdom in India, as present in the homily, seem to correspond with this version.51 Titled De rebus Beati Thomae Apostoli per Indiam gestis, it is a simplified reworking of the Acts of Thomas. The criteria for how this selection was done are programmatically stated by the compiler/translator in the beginning of his account: porro legisse me memini quendam librum, in quo iter eius52 in Indiam, atque res ibi gestae explanantur: qui quod ab aliquibus ob uerbositatem non recipitur, superuacaneis omissis, ea memorabo quae fide certa constant, ac legentibus grata sint, atque ecclesiam roborare possunt.53 However, there are two references which could not have entered the text of the homily through this Latin version attributed to Pseudo-Abdias. On the one hand, the legend concerning the chief cupbearer who slapped the apostle, as present in the homily, does not actually correspond to the account of Pseudo-Abdias, who For the present discussion, I used W. Lazius’s edition quoted above: De rebus Beati Thomae Apostoli… . 51 Concerning the passages taken from the Pseudo-Abdias account, see the references on the translation of the text. 52 I.e., of Thomas. 53 Pseudo-Abdias 103a. 50

INTRODUCTION

21

states that the cupbearer slapped Saint Thomas because he was gazing at a Hebrew maiden playing the flute.54 In contrast to this, the author of the homily states that “one of those serving to the tables slapped the apostle on his cheeks, because he was not eating, but was uplifted by the song of a maiden who was glorifying God.”55 The same version can actually be found in a hagiographical piece on the life of Saint Thomas56 by James of Voragine, whose Portuguese translation was incorporated into the Flos Sanctorum, published in Lisbon in 1513.57 It is also interesting to notice that while recounting this legend, the author of the homily asserts that the cupbearer was torn into pieces by a leopard ( )58 and not by a lion as the three versions of the Acts of Thomas (Greek, Latin and Syriac) and James of Voragine’s account state. One might think that he chose this shift in narrating the legend because within the homily the symbol of the lion is presented in tight connection with Saint Thomas. On the other hand, the story of the speaking ass to which the homily refers59 is omitted from both PsudoAbdias and James of Voragine’s accounts, but it constitutes the

Aderat uero his nuptiis atque puella ex Hebraeis, comcinens calamo: quae cum audisset beatum Thomam, orantem atque benedicentem Deum, intellexit de sua esse regione, atque intendebat in eum iugiter, nec desistebat ab admiratione uultus eius. Sed atque ille intelligens Hebream esse, libentissime aspiciebat eam. Haec uidens pincerna conuiuii, zelo ductus, dedit alapam Apostolo dicens: Vt quid tu sic intendis in mulierem? (ibid.,104a). 55 69vb. 56 Puella autem Hebraea fistulam in manu gerens unumquemque laude aliqua commendabat uidensque apostolum intellexit, hunc esse Hebraeum eo quod non manducaret, sed oculos ad celum fixos haberet. Cumque puella coram eo Hebraice caneret dicens: Vnus est deus Hebraeorum, qui creauit omnia et fundauit maria, apostolus ipsa hec eadem uerba repetere satagebat. Videns autem pincerna quod non manducaret nec biberet, sed tantum oculos fixos ad celum haberet, apostolum dei in maxillam percussit. (James of Voragine, De Sancto Thoma…,V, 25–27). 57 F. M. Rogers, The Quest for Eastern Christians: Travels and Rumor in the Age of Discovery, (Mineapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1962): 141. 58 68vb. 59 71vb. 54

22

SERMON ON SAINT THOMAS, THE BELOVED APOSTLE

fourth act in the Syriac Acts of Thomas.60 The author might have been acquainted with all these sources, although the account of the speaking ass is also present in the hymnography of the Syriac memorial service for the feast of the Apostle. For instance, one anܵ them ( ܵ ܼ ) belonging to the first session of the memorial serܵ ܵ ܿ ܵ ܵ ܿ ܿ ܿ ܵ ܼ vice reads: ( . ܹ ܿ ܼ ܿ ܼ ܿ ‫ܼ ܬ ܬܐܘ‬ ܼܿ ‫ܬ‬ ܼ ̣ ܸ ܸ ̣ ‫ܕܐ‬ ̣ ‫ܼܐ‬ ܿ ܵ ܵ ܵ ܵ ܿ ̇ ‫ ܕ‬. ܵ ‫ܼܿܕ ̣ ܵ ܘ ܵ ܵ ܕ‬ ܼ ‫ ܼܿ ܹ ܼܪ ܵ ܼܕ‬. ܹ ܸ̈ ܼܿ ܼܿ ̣ ܼ ̣ ܸ ̣ ܿ ܿ ܵ ܿ . ܼ ܼ ܸ ܹ ܼ ) “through the word which he delivered to the ass, Thomas the Apostle made the barbarians wonder, as they saw the unspeaking creature uttering words by the great power of Christ, to whose name the whole creation is subjected.”61 With regards to the other patristic references, he quotes the renowned saying from Tertullian’s Apologeticum: semen est sanguis Christianorum,62 which he misattributes to Ambrose. While interpreting the symbolism of the lion, he relies on the information provided by the Physiologus, which might have been available in both its Syriac and Latin versions.63 The same story about the lion was incorporated into the medieval bestiaries; thus, the phrase “as the philosophers say, the peculiar feature of the lion is sleeping, while its eyes are opened”64 might recall in one’s memory a quoting from Hugh of St. Victor’s De bestiis et aliis rebus libri IV: secunda natura leonis est quod cum dormit oculos apertos habere uidetur. Quod bene dicitur de Christo in Canticis Canticorum: Ego dormio et cor meum uigilat.65

For an English translation of the fourth act in the Syriac Acts of Thomas, see “The Acts of Juda Thomas (or the Twin), the Apostle,” trans. W. Wright, in Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles, vol. 2, (London: Williams and Norgate, 1871): 179–182. 61 Mar Thoma Darmo (ed.), Ktābā daqdām wadbātar wadḥudrā wadkaškol wa dgazzā uqālā dʿudrānē ʿam ktābā dmazmorē, Vol. 3, (Trichur: Mar Narsai Press, 19932): 647. 62 Tertullian, Apologeticum: 50.13. 63 On the presence of the story of the lion in the Syriac manuscript tradition of the Physiologus, see the table in J. P. N. Land, Anecdota Syriaca, vol. 4, (Leiden: Brill, 1875): 136. 64 70va. 65 PL 177, 57B-C. 60

INTRODUCTION

23

Additionally, the content of the homily suggests that the author was acquainted with the writings of Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite. Thus, in the first paragraph of the exordium, it is stated that Saint Thomas is “a seraph in the body and a cherub in the flesh, an altar of wisdom and the throne of the divinity,”66 which might be an allusion to Pseudo-Dionysius’s On the Celestial Hierarchy, chapter VII, where the Seraphs, the Cherubs and the Thrones are the three angelic ranks immediately following God.67 The influence of the Areopagitical corpus can be grasped as well from the follow68ra. “The Celestial Hierarchy,” 7. 4( 212A-D): “this first group is particularly worthy of communing with God and of sharing in his work. It imitates, as far as possible, the beauty of God’s condition and activity. Knowing many divine things in superior a fashion it can have a proper share of the divine knowledge and understanding. Hence, theology has transmitted to the men of earth those hymns sung by the first ranks of the angels whose gloriously transcendent enlightenment is thereby made manifest. […] When the first rank has directly and properly received its due understanding of God’s Word, from the divine goodness itself, then it passes this on, as befits a benevolent hierarchy, to those next in line. The teaching, briefly, amounts to this. It is right and good that the revered Godhead which in fact is beyond all acclamation, and deserves all acclamation, is known and praised by those minds which receive God, as far as possible. To the extent that they conform to God they are divine place of the Godhead’s rest, as scripture says (Isaiah 66:1). And this first group passes on the word that Godhead is a monad, that it is one in three persons, that its splendid providence for all reaches from the most exalted beings in heaven above to the lowliest creatures on earth. It is the cause and source beyond every source for every being and its transcendently draws everything into its perennial embrace,” Pseudo-Dionysius. Complete Works, trans. C. Luibheid (Paulist Press: New York and Mahwah, 1986). It is true though, that the description as a “cherub in the flesh” was widely adopted in the Church of the East as an epithet for a holy man (see, for instace, the colophon of the manuscript containing the second part of the works of Isaac of Nineveh, Sebastian Brock (ed.), Isaac of Nineveh (Isaac the Syrian), ‘The Second Part’, Chapters IV–XLI, CSCO 554, (Leuven: Peeters, 1995): XVII. I would like to thank Prof. D. Taylor from the University of Oxford for making me aware of this aspect. 66 67

24

SERMON ON SAINT THOMAS, THE BELOVED APOSTLE

ing statement: “The book from the hand of the angel is small, since the divine Gospel — as blessed Bartholomew the apostle says — is broad and large, and again, it is short and narrow.”68 This is a clear reference to the Mystical Theology.69 The author of the homily also inserts in his account an anecdote on Alexander the Great,70 for which he might have drawn inspiration from Plutarch’s Moralia.71 Apart from these sources, the text refers to an account about Saint Thomas by Mar Papa the Patriach (d. between 317–325; bishop of Seleucia-Ctesiphon), according to a history of Equilinus,72 “the bishop of the Romans,”73 which should refer to the Catalogue of Saints, written by Peter de Natali, bishop of Equilio (d. between 1400–1406). However, there is no mention of this kind about Saint Thomas or Mar Papa in Equilinus’ compilation of saints’ lives.

69ra. “The Mystical Theology,” 1. 3(1000 B-C): “this, at least is what was taught by the blessed Bartholomew. He says that the word of God is vast and minuscule, that the Gospel is wide-ranging and yet restricted. To me it seems that in this he is extraordinarily shrewd, for he has grasped that the good cause of all is both eloquent and taciturn, indeed wordless. It has neither word nor act of understanding, since it is on a plane above this, and it is made manifest only to those who travel through foul and fair, who pass beyond the summit of every holy ascent, who leave behind them every divine light, every voice, every word from heaven, and who plunge into the darkness where, as scripture proclaims, there dwells the One who is beyond all things,” Pseudo-Dionysios. Complete Works… . 70 69rb. 71 Plutarch, On Tranquility of Mind, 4:1: “Alexander wept when he heard Anaxarchus’ discourse about an infinite number of worlds, and when his friends inquired what ailed him, ‘Is it not worthy of tears,’ he said, ‘that, when the number of worlds is infinite, we have not yet become lords of a single one?’” (W. C. Helmbold transl.). 72 In the manuscript Mannanam Syriacus 46, his name is misspelled as ܿ Aquilinus (‫ܣ‬ƲNjܿ ƾܼ Džǝ‫)ܐ‬, ܼ which makes the identification of the author/account even more difficult. 73 79ra. 68 69

INTRODUCTION

25

Such an account of Saint Thomas is also cannot be found in the collection of spurious letters attributed to Mar Papa, the translation of which was published by Oscar Braun.74 The reference to the name of this East Syrian prelate is in itself intriguing; within the Synodicon orientale, there is a report on a synod held by the Church of the East in 424 CE, during the patriarchate of Mar Dadisho I. According to this report, the synod forbade the Eastern bishops to complain about or denounce the Patriarch Catholicos to other Western ecclesiastic authorities. The synod is also said to have strengthened the position of the Eastern prelate by deciding that he should not be subjected to the authority of other Christian bishops but to Christ alone. It is important to mention that the report mostly relies on the example of Mar Papa and on the tensions between him and his rivals as a means of legitimizing the increased authority of the Eastern Catholicos Patriarch over the whole Eastern Church and denying the intervention of any external ecclesiastical authority in matters related to the Church of the East.75 In fact, it is very likely that, in the eyes of a sixteenth/seventeenthcentury Catholic missionary, Mar Papa might have been perceived as symbolically embodying the preeminence of the Catholicos Patriarch over the Church of the East and as a possible threat to the claims of the papal primate. While there is no clear mention of Papa the Patriarch in the lists of the condemned Eastern Syriac authorities from the Synod of Diamper, J.P.M. van der Ploeg records the case of the Kashkol preserved in the manuscript collection of the library in the home of the Metropolitan of the Church of the East in Thrissur, which is relevant for the present discussion. The manuscript was copied in 1584 CE, in Kothamangalam; afterwards, because of the Synod of

Oscar Braun, “Der Brizfweschsel des Katholikos Papa von Seleucia: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der ostsyrischen Kirche im vierten Jahrhundert,” Zeitschrift für katholische Theologie 18.1(1894): 163–182, 546– 565. 75 For the Syriac version of the report and its French translation, see J.-B.Chabot (ed.), Synodicon orientale ou recueil de synods Nestoriens, (Paris: Imprimerie nationale, 1902): 43–53, 285–298. 74

26

SERMON ON SAINT THOMAS, THE BELOVED APOSTLE

Diamper, some corrections were introduced.76 For this reason, the name of Mar Papa was erased from one of the litanies.77 However, an implicit condemnation of Mar Papa might be assumed from the fourteenth decree of the third action of the same synod, which states the following: Item o livro que chamão dos Synodos, no qual está huma carta fingida do Summo Pontifice Caio con firmas falsas de outros muytos Prelados occidentales, dirigida aos de Babylonia, em que confessão e dizem que a Igreja de Babylonia não deve sogeição á Igreja Romana, e que ella com todas as que lhe são sogeitas são immediatas a Christo sem deverem reverencia ao Pontifice Romano; noutra parte diz que os da Igreja Romana deixarão a Fé, e perverterão os Canones dos Apostolos por força darmas dos Imperatores hereges [...] que os Bispos que seguem a Nestor se hão de estimar muyto, e aponta muitos delles a que chama Santos, e diz que suas reliquias hão de ser venerandas.78

The book referred to and condemned in the decree should have been the Nomocanon of Metropolitan Adisho of Nisibis, whose ninth Mēmrā is entitled “On those [things that belong to] the high rank of the Patriarchate and its excellency and on those that are J. P. M. van der Ploeg imprecisely asserts that the manuscript was corrected “in some few places according to the directives of Diamper”(The Christians of St. Thomas in South India and Their Syriac Manuscripts, (Bangalore: Dharmaram Publications, 1983): 141); however, I. Perczel emphasizes that although the manuscript should have been emended after the Diamperitan synod, this did not happen; Perczel notes that the manuscript “bears the traces of later liturgical usage, bearing also marks of a few interventions of a later hand, which tried to emend the most clearly diphysite verses in the anthems” (“Some New Documents on the Struggle of the Saint Thomas Christians to Maintain the Chaldean Rite and Jurisdiction,” P. Bruns and H. O. Lutte (eds.), Sonderdruck aus Orientalia Christiana. Festschrift für Hubert Kaufhold zum 70. Geburtstag, (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2013): 420). 77 J.P.M. van der Ploeg, The Christians of St. Thomas…, 142. 78 J. H. da Cunha Rivara (ed.), Archivo Portuguez-Oriental..., 332. 76

INTRODUCTION

27

due to him, as well as those that befit his dignity.”79 The fifth chapter of the aforementioned mēmrā has the title “On which are the canons that show the authority ( ) which the Patriarch posseses over various affairs of the Christians, and on the honor which is due to him from the whole [Christian] community,” and it contains several letters and canons. Among these, one should mention a “Synodal letter which the Patriarchs of the inhabitants of the West sent to those of the East”80 and “another letter which our Western Fathers wrote for the consolation of Papa the Patriarch”;81 this should be precisely the one condemned at Diamper, as a canon following it ascribes it to “Gaius, the Patriarch of Rome; Peter, the Patriarch of Alexandria; Paul, the Patriarch of Antioch; and Flavian, the Patriarch of Ephesus.”82 The same chapter also contains See H. Kaufhold, “Introduction,” I. Perczel (ed.), The Nomocanon of Abdisho of Nisibis. A Facsimile Edition of Ms. 64 from the Collection of the Church of the East in Thrissur, (New Jersey: Gorgias Press, 2005): XLI. 80 I. Perczel (ed.), The Nomocanon…, ff. 400–409. The text was also published with a Latin translation in A. Mai (ed.), Scriptorum Veterum Noua Collectio, vol. 10, (Rome: Typis Collegii Urbani, 1838): 161–163, 323–325. 81 Content of the letter: “It is written in it in this way: [Concerning] that which was said by our spiritual Fathers, [namely] that the judgement of the Patriarch of the East should be reserved to our Patriarchs. Because a couple of times it has been ascertained from close examination that the accusers of the Patriarchs were found guilty in therir charges, and that the Patriarchs stood innocent, we have established now, through the power and living Word of God, that the metropolitans, together with the bishops and the Christians who are in the East, may not raise and hand down charges against their Patriarchs to our Fathers who are in the West, either by word or by writing. And if they would pronounce [charges against him] again, as they have pronounced until now, we are answering them that the Patriarch is the judge of all the Christians who are in the East, and that Christ is the judge of the Patriarch”.(I. Perczel (ed.), The Nomocanon, ff. 409–410; A. Mai (ed.), Scriptorum Veterum…, 163–164, 325–326) 82 I. Perczel (ed.), The Nomocanon…, ff. 411–412; A. Mai (ed.), Scriptorum Veterum…, 164, 326. 79

28

SERMON ON SAINT THOMAS, THE BELOVED APOSTLE

an extract from the report on the synod held during the patriarchate of Dadisho I, in 424, which I referred to above.83 In this context, the ‘new identity’ of Mar Papa as “a man who went from India to Rome, as the Roman bishop named Equilinus relates in his history” must have been invented by the author of the homily in an attempt to convince his audience of the primacy of the Roman pontiff over the Church of the East. In fact, the account of Saint Thomas attributed to Mar Papa, in which the Saint was apparently seen in the church on Easter night while giving Communion to the believers, is again a distortion of a miracle account which was inserted in one of the stories about the legendary Prester John. The narrative dating from the middle of the twelth century is entitled De Aduentu Patriarchae Indorum ad Urbem sub Calisto Papa Secundo, and it reports an encounter which presumably took place between John “the Patriarch of the Indians” and Pope Calixt the Second in Rome in 1122. In the original version, the miracle account regarding Saint Thomas is described as taking place not during the Easter night, but during the feast day of the Apostle, stating the following: Taliter igitur deposito atque in cathedra apostoli corpore collocato, continuo sacri ministri Dei festo pertinencia ineunt officia. Sed ubi eucharistiae percipiendae tempus aduenerit, sanctificatas in altari hostias patriarcha in aurea patena componit et magna cum reverencia ad locum, ubi apostolus sedet, eas defert, atque inclinatis genibus apostolo ipsas offert. Ipse autem per dispensationem creatoris extensa manu dextera ita provide suscipit eas, ut non mortuus sed omnino uiuens esse credatur. Susceptas etiam in palma extensa conseruat, singulas singulis largiturus. Vniversus nam fidelium populus, uirorum ac mulierium, cum multa reverencia ac formidine unus post alterum accedens singulas singuli hostias de manu apostoli ore sumunt, apostolo porrigente. Si quis uero infidelis uel erroneus seu alia peccati macula infectus comunicandus I. Perczel (ed.), The Nomocanon…, ff. 412–414; A. Mai (ed.), Scriptorum Veterum…, 164–165, 326–327. 83

INTRODUCTION

29

accesserit, ipso quidem praesente uidentibus cunctis statim cum hostia apostolus manum retrahit et claudit, nec quamdiu ipse praesens fuerit eam aperit.84

In comparing this version with the one provided by the homily, it becomes clear that the author of the latter distorted the miracle story in order to make his audience observe the Tridentine discipline on the need to receive the Eucharist once a year, during Lent or at Easter, as was established at Diamper.85 As I mentioned above, such a miracle account is not to be found in the Catalogue of Saints compiled by Peter de Natali. The only analogous story related to Saint Thomas and contained in the aforementioned collection concerns the translatio of the Apostle’s relics from India to Edessa. According to this story, every year, during the vigil of the feast of St. Thomas, the sepulcher containing the relics of the Apostle in Edessa was opened. The archbishop would place in the hand of the Apostle a dried branch of grape vine, and the following morning he would find the branch green and bearing a cluster of grapes.86 As the legends surrounding the figure of Prester John had been multiplying since the twelfth century in the Latin West,87 the “De Adventu Patriarchae Indorum ad Vrbem sub Calisto Papa IIo,” 41–45, K. Brewer (ed.), Prester John: The Legend and its Sources, (Burlington: Ashgate, 2015): 31. 85 See the second and third decrees of the fifth action of the Synod of Diamper (J. H. da Cunha Rivara (ed.), Archivo Portuguez-Oriental..., 373– 375). 86 Petrus de Natalibus Venetus, “Translatio corporis sancti Tome,” Sanctorum catalogus, vitas, passiones et miracula commodissime annectens, (Lyon: 1543): f. CXIII. 87 The same Eucharistic miracle related to Saint Thomas is refferd to, for instance, in one of the sermons on the feast of the Apostle by Dionysius the Carthusian, an author who was much read and translated into Syriac by the Jesuits in South India; see s.e. Dionysius the Chartusian Doctor Ecstaticus, “Sermo tertius de R. Thomae integritate, et duodecim uirtutum gradibus quibus populum instruxit; deque stupendis circa corpus eius exhibitis diuinitus miraculis,” Opera omnia, vol. 31, (Tournai: Typis Cartusiae S. M. de Pratis, 1906): 87–88. 84

30

SERMON ON SAINT THOMAS, THE BELOVED APOSTLE

author of the homily might have simply taken the miracle story about Saint Thomas giving the communion from an unspecified source, afterwards misattributing it to Equilinus. However, my conjecture is that the reference to Equilinus might have come from the Life of St. Thomas the Apostle, as it appears in the edition of the Flos Sanctorum redacted and compiled by Pedro de Ribadeneira, which was first issued in 1599 and 1601. It is in this hagiographical piece that the two miracle stories mentioned above were both included. While attributing the account about the cluster of grapes to Equilinus,88 Ribadeneyra ascribes the other, concerning the Apostle giving the communion to the believers, to “some authors.”89 Most likely, the author of the homily in praise of St. Thomas might have referred to Equilinus for the sake of “being more precise” in front of his audience. Moreover, in the Spanish version of Ribadeneira’s Life of St. Thomas, the name of Peter de Natali is misspelled as “Aquilino”, the same as in the homily in praise of St. Thomas (which ܿ while later, when provides the reading “Aquilinus” ‫)ܐ ܼ ܿ ܣ‬, ܼ Ribadeneyra’s work was translated from Spanish into Latin, the translator corrected the name of de Natali as “Equilinus.”90 Accordingly, if this hypothesis is correct, the homily in praise of St. Thomas should have been written after 1601. On the basis of the evidence discussed above, it is clear that the author of the homily deliberately ascribed to Mar Papa the identity of Prester John. Mar Papa might have been considered among the “Nestorian bishops”91 who enjoyed popular veneration in Malabar, as the Diamperitan decree quoted above suggests.92 In Pedro de Ribadeneira, “La vida de santo Tome, Apostol,” Flos Sanctorum, o libro de las vidas de los Santos. Primeira parte, (Madrid: 1616): 881. 89 Ibid., 882. 90 Ibid., “Vita S. Thomae Apostoli,” Flos sanctorum seu uitae et res gestae sanctorum, (Cologne: Apud Franciscum Metternich, 1700): 665. 91 Although the East Syrian prelate died in the first half of the fourth century. 92 Among the “heretical” teachings comprised in Abdisho of Nisibis’s Nomocanon, the fourteenth decree of the third action of the synod also mentions: “que os Bispos que seguem a Nestor se hão de estimar muyto, e aponta muitos delles a que chama Santos, e diz que suas reliquias 88

INTRODUCTION

31

this case the most the preacher could have done in order to “correct” the “mistakes” of the Indian believers was to make use of this type of accommodatio and shift their attention from Babylon to Rome. From a liturgical point of view, some expressions which are to be found in the text of the homily in praise of Saint Thomas mirror sentences or collocations from the memorial service of the Apostle as it appears in the Catholic version reformed by Francisco Roz S. J. This seems to be the case in the following excerpt from the exordium of the homily: But what are we going to say about the one whose history is surpassing all discourse? And with what shall we compare the one to whom there is no likeness, whose stories are amazing, whose miracles are admirable, whose deeds are frightening, whose actions are immense, whose conduct is sublime, and whose life is our salvation and is making us divine ܿ ܿ ܿ ܿ ǫƲ̈ DžǓ njNjƽǠLJ‫ ܿܐ‬ƣNjܵ LJܵ ƣDŽ‫ܐ‬ […]? ( .ƥǠLJƢLJܸ džǁ njLJܼ ƿܼ Dž ܼ ƱƦܹ Ǡǡ‫ܕ‬ ܸ ܼ ܼ ǔLJ

ܿ ܿ ƣNjܵ LjDŽ‫ܘ‬ ̈ ܵ ܿ ‫ܢ‬Ʊƾܼ LJ‫ܗ ܬ‬Ǥܹ ܵƾǔǡ‫ܘܬ‬ .ƱDŽܹ Ǥƾܼ DŽܼ ƣƾLJ‫ܘ ܕܕܘ‬ƱDŽ njNjƾLJܹ ƯLJ ܼ ܵ̈ ܵ ܵ LJ ‫ܬܗ‬ǠLJ‫ܘܬ ̈ܕ‬ ܵ ƲǍ‫ ܘ‬njƾDžƾƴ‫ ܕ‬ǫ‫ܘ‬ƯƧǓ‫ܘ‬ ̈ ǫ‫ܘ‬ǠƦ‫ ܘܕܘ‬njƾƦܹ ‫ ܪܘܪ‬ǫƲ̈ NJǠǓ .‫ܢ‬ƱLJǤ ܼ ܵ ܼ ܼ ܸ ܸ ܿ ܿ ܵ ̈ ܿ 93 njƾܼ NJƱDŽƢLJ‫ ܘ‬njNjܼ ƾƵLJܼ ǫƲƾƴ‫ܘ‬ ܼ njƾLJܹ ‫)ܪ‬.

As a comparison might suggest, the highlighted passages from the quoted fragment are paraphrasing the first anthem ( ܵ ܵ ‫ )ܗ‬from the service for the night ( ܵ ܹ ) of the feast of Saint Thomas, in its Catholic revised version, which is missing from the same service according to the East Syriac Ḥudrā:94 ܿ ̈ ‫ܵܬܘ ̈ ܗ ܘ‬ ܿ ܿ ܵ ‫ܗܪܗ ܕ‬ ( ܼ ܿ ‫ܼܬܪ‬ ܸ ܹ ܼ ‫ܼܕ ܿ ܼ ܬܐܘ ܵ ܀‬ ܵ ܿ ‫̇ܗ ܪ ܿ ܀ ܼܿ ܼ ܼܿ ܿ ܘ‬ ‫ܪ ܵ ܕ ܿܬ‬ ܹ ܼ ܸ ܿ ܿ ܵ ܼ ‫ܬ‬ ܸ ‫“ )ܕܐ ܀ ܘ‬Come, sons ܼ ܼ ‫ܼ ܗ ܼܬ ܼ ܹ ܗ ܕ‬ of India, foster-children of Thomas the Apostle, the light of

hão de ser venerandas” (J. H. da Cunha Rivara (ed.), Archivo PortuguezOriental..., 332). 93 68ra. ̈ 94 Apparently, this whole range of anthems (ƤǤǂǖ‫)ܗ‬ for the memorial service of Saint Thomas are missing from the East Syriac Ḥudrā; for comparison, see the Darmo Ḥudrā, 641–643.

32

SERMON ON SAINT THOMAS, THE BELOVED APOSTLE world, the shepherd of the Church, its great treasure! His history is sublime and it cannot be comprised by the human speech, his beauty is becoming, and his story is greatly amazing.”95

The reference to the life of the Saint Thomas as “our salvation” (literally “our saviour”, ܼܿ ܼ ܿ ) might reflect the fact that the revised Catholic memorial service bears the title: ( ܵ ܼ ‫ܿ ܕ ܹ ܕ ܕ‬ ‫ܸܬ‬ ܿ ‫ܬܐܘ‬ ‫ܝ‬ ) “Service of the feast ‫ܼ ܼ ܼܵ ܘ ܿ ܼ ܵ ܕ ̇ ܸܗ ܿܘ‬ ܼ of Blessed Mar Toma, the illustrious Apostle and Saviour of the whole India.”96 Exegesis and theological meaning All these references are blended in an allegorized theological discourse, which enhances a peculiar type of accommodatio whose aim is to hint at the superiority of Saint Thomas — “the savior of the Indians” — among the apostles and at his angelic status and divine life as mirroring and re-enacting the example of Christ. The highly rhetorical and allegorizing style of the homily encourages all sorts

For the present quotation, I used the text from Codex Parisinus Syriacus 25, from Bibliothèque nationale de France, f. 218v. The manuscript is a Chaldean breviary which belonged to Mar Chandi Parampil (1663–87), the first indigenous Catholic bishop of the Saint Thomas Christians. A detailed discussion of the manuscript is provided by Fr. Van den Ploeg, The Christians of St. Thomas…, 231–244. According to I. Perczel, who studied the manuscript, the “prayers of Middle Eastern origin were supplemented by a number of feasts belonging to the liturgical reform of Francisco Roz” (unpublished study of the manuscript). On the content of the manuscript see H. Zotenberg, Catalogue des manuscrits syriaques et sabéens (mandaïtes) de la Bibliothèque Nationale, (Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, 1874): 9b–10a. The same version of the memorial service is found in other Syriac liturgical manuscripts from Malabar, such as the codices: Mannanam Syriacus 14, Mannanam Syriacus 23, and Mannanam Syriacus 59. For the quoted passage, see: ManSyr 14, f. 125v; ManSyr 23, ff.34v–35r; and ManSyr 59, 115v. 96 See BnF Syriacus 25, f. 217v; ManSyr 14, f. 124v; ManSyr 23, f.33v and ManSyr 59, 114v. 95

INTRODUCTION

33

of exegetical and theological speculations, which the following paragraphs will attempt to map out. Though preserving the doctrine of the Catholic Church, one cannot help but notice that the biblical and patristic exempla provided in the homily support a very powerful image of the patron saint of the Indian Church by endowing him with a quasi-messianic status. Saint Thomas “reconciled humanity with divinity, and in various ways led the mortals so as to follow […] God.”97 His proximity to God is expressed by his inclusion within the highest triad of angels, according to the Areopagitical theology:98 “he is a seraph in the body and a cherub in the flesh, an altar of wisdom and the throne of the divinity.”99 In corporeal terms, his proximity to God is expressed by the touching of Christ’s side; in accordance with the patristic tradition, this gesture is interpreted as an argument for rejecting any docetic teaching.100 However, what the author envisages through the invective he directs against “all heresies” here is not Docetism, but rather the “Nestorian” teaching. This becomes clear by comparing the way in which Christ’s apparition to Thomas is presented in the homily and in the fourtheenth decree of the third action of the Synod of Diamper. Amid the condemned books which the decree mentiones, there is an Eastern Christian “Explanation of the Gospels,” which I. Perczel has identified with Ishodad of Merw’s Commentary on the Gospels.101 One of the reasons that the decree criticizes this book is its interpretation of Christ’s appearance to Thomas: “que quando 68rb. The Celestial Hierarchy, ch. 7. 99 68ra. 100 For instance, “[Saint Thomas] received strength from the side of our Lord; he who touched it and said: ‘My Lord and my God!’ In the likeness of the dove which Noah sent out from the ark in order to bring in its beak the olive twig, that is to say, the life-giving tidings of the humanity and divinity of our Lord and God, he came to announce the peace to our parents. The bow, from which the arrow [i.e. St. Thomas] was released, is the humanity of our Lord, who for our salvation was stretched out on the holy cross.” 101 I. Perczel, Some New Documents…, 422–423. 97 98

34

SERMON ON SAINT THOMAS, THE BELOVED APOSTLE

São Thomé disse metendo a mão no lado a Christo, Senhor meu, e Deos meu, não fallava com Christo, porque aquelle que via resuscitado não era Deos, mas foy exclamação feita a Deos por ver aquella maravilha.”102 The parallel passage from Ishodad of Merw’s Commentary on the Gospel according to St. John reads: Thomas said, My Lord and My God, he spoke from the wonder that seized him; and not having even before believed that He was risen from the dead, he now calls Him Lord and God. Thus, he was called Didymus (the Twin) at first, because perhaps he was born a Twin, and was called at last Thomas. The Interpreter [i.e. Theodor of Mopsuestia] says he had not called Him Lord and God; for it was not the sign of the Resurrection that teaches him that He who rose is also God; but as in presence of the miracle that was wrought, he glorified God, wondering at the stupendous things that he saw.103

It is in response to this interpretation that the author of the homily writes the following: if you want to look into the splendor and the rays that were risen from this blessed one, when our Lord looked at him, took his hand, and put it into the side of Christ, [then] listen, my brothers, to his words, when he confessed with tears: “My Lord and my God,” because [the meaning of] the whole image is revealed. It was through this faith that [the apostle] expelled every error of paganism and the manifold heresy, and he openly put to shame the dark powers of the world. This104 is the book in which the entire economy of Christ was written [68vb] which this blessed one taught to the Indians and to countless [other] peoples.105

St. Thomas’s angelic position is also underlined by the interpretation given to the angel from the tenth chapter of the Apocalypse. If J. H. da Cunha Rivara (ed.), Archivo Portuguez-Oriental..., 334. Transl. by M. Dunlop Gibson (Ead. (ed.), The Commentaries of Isho’dad of Merw, Bishop of Ḥadatha, vol. 1(Cambridge: CUP, 1911): 286. 104 I.e. the confession of Saint Thomas. 105 68va–b. 102 103

INTRODUCTION

35

St. John the Evangelist, the beloved apostle of Christ, is sent to preach by the angel, Saint Thomas is more than an apostle; he is like the angel himself. His superiority among the apostles is suggested by a “continuation”/“re-making” of the Gospel account concerning the appearance of Christ among the apostles after his resurrection in light of John 11:16. According to the homily, Thomas was not among the apostles when Christ revealed himself to them through the closed doors106 because unlike them, he was not afraid to follow Jesus until death and, for this reason, did not hide himself from the Jews. The homily associates St. Thomas with the lion, the symbol of Christ according to the biblical and late antique and medieval tradition of the Physiologus and of the bestiaries. One of the foundational texts for this interpretation (Genesis 49:9) links Judah (the son of Jacob the patriarch) to the lion, and St. Thomas, like Christ — although this connection is not explicitly expressed in the text — “was from the tribe of Judah.”107 The analogy between the Apostle and the lion gives the occasion for a digression on an allegorical interpretation of the riddle of Samson (Judges 14:14): “Food rose from the one who was eating and sweet rose from the bitter.” While the “bitterness” and the “sweetness” are interpreted as the miracles (consisting of either healing or punishment) performed by St. Thomas, “the food risen from the one who was eating” is interpreted as the conversion of “many peoples” towards Christ, as well as the sacrament of the Eucharist. Stressing the missionary lives of the apostles, the author of the homily states that they are spiritual “arrows” released by Christ in order to propagate the Christian faith. However, among them, St. Thomas enjoys a special status: he is a “chosen arrow”; he “is the arrow of Jonathan,108 which did not turn backwards, but achieved everything which its hurler [in this context, the human nature of Christ109] commissioned to it.”110 Like the lion, which sleeps with John 20, 19–29. 70ra. 108 2 Kings 1:22. 109 See above note 157. 110 70rb. 106 107

36

SERMON ON SAINT THOMAS, THE BELOVED APOSTLE

its eyes opened, St. Thomas is the guardian saint of a persecuted Church — settled among Muslims, Jews, and pagans — which identifies itself with the words of Tertullian: semen est sanguis Christianorum.111 In the same register, the apostle is said to be the pillar of cloud and of fire which guided Israel at the exodus from Egyptian slavery. Perhaps the most interesting exegetical element which enters this accommodationist theology consists of establishing a typological112 relationship between the emptying (kénosis) of Christ and St. Thomas’ self-effacement as a carpenter slave in India: Behold, my brothers, the eagerness of the Apostle’s love! In the likeness of Christ, “he emptied himself, assumed the likeness of the slave,” and came to India, under the appearance of a craftsman, in order to found the Indian Church, so as to save us in it, through baptism; just as Noah saved the human race from the commotion of the flood. Consider, my beloved, this mystery which I am telling you — that is to say, that of the Wisdom of God, who is the Word, the Son of God! She is the craftsmanship of everything, and as Solomon says in the Proverbs, [71ra] “She built a house and hewed seven pillars,” that is to say, the Catholic Church, and firmed it on the seven sacraments. And since She revealed and showed Herself to the world in the appearance of a woodworker — as it is written in the divine Gospels: “is this not the carpenter?” — he sent afterwards the blessed one in the same appearance towards us.113

The typological link between Saint Thomas and Christ is even further emphasized through the parallelism between the flood of Noah and baptism, which is a locus classicus of typological exegesis since the catechesis of the primary Church. The author puts in the same range of týpoi Saint Thomas, Noah, Moses, and Solomon so as to conclude: “So, those who were well known and renowned saviors Apologeticum, 50.13. The text refers to the “mystery of the Wisdom of God,” but in the Syriac mystery (Ƥ‫ )ܐܪܙ‬has as well the technical exegetical meaning of the Greek týpos. 113 70vb–71ra. 111 112

INTRODUCTION

37

in the world were craftsmen as well, in the likeness of the true Savior, Christ our Lord. For this reason, Thomas, the savior of the Indians, revealed himself in India, in the appearance of a carpenter.”114 These are some of the main elements around which the preacher builds up the image of the apostle of the Indian Church. Besides the rhetoric of the text, besides the allegories and all the other powerful images handled by means of the exegetical apparatus, the homily seems to testify to a flourishing cult of the Apostle, which is presented according to the imagery and propaganda of the Portuguese missionaries. Other elements of contextualization Apart from the exegetical side, the homily in praise of Saint Thomas reflects a pronounced emphasis on the Catholic doctrine on the sacraments, which might be connected to the Tridentine renewal. For instance, the author interprets a passage from Proverbs 9:1 — “[wisdom] built a house and hewed seven pillars” — as a reference to the Catholic Church and the seven sacraments. The text’s missionary context also explains the emphasis put here and elsewhere on baptism and confirmation, while the Eucharist is referred to in the following passage, which I have already discussed above: Again, was it not the true food and the heavenly bread which Mar Thoma was sharing with the believers every year on the day of Easter, when he was seen in the church, in front of everybody, and gave the sacraments to those worthy, and was skipping over those defiled, as recounts Mar Papa the Patriarch.115

The repeated references to “we, the Indians” clearly point to an Indian audience. It is not clear whether the appellative “brothers” applies to a clerical or lay audience. Even the criticism from the end of the homily preserves the ambiguity concerning this aspect of its audience: “the pagans are instructing and admonishing them 114 115

71ra. 70ra.

38

SERMON ON SAINT THOMAS, THE BELOVED APOSTLE

concerning the law of God, and so, from time to time, many laymen are correcting the clergymen. Alas for us, for our time, and for our sins! Therefore, let us be careful, my brothers, not to anger the master of our instruction.”116 However, though it mostly relies on the Latin Acts of Thomas, the sermon seems to be delivered to an audience acquainted with the sacred geography of the burial place of the Apostle. This is suggested, for instance, by the fact that while describing the miraculous healing of the son of the king, which is placed in the end of the Acts, the preacher states that “the king went with his heir and they worshiped at the grave, the spring of relief, and through the touch of the dust that was in it, the boy was healed.”117 Among the mentioned elements, what draws one’s attention is the “spring of healing,” which is not to be found in the original accounts of the Acts of Thomas. One might think that this spring of healing was part of the pilgrimage complex developed and promoted by the Portuguese around the alleged burial of the Apostle at Meliapor, during the sixteenth century. In addition to this, the way in which the Church is presented corresponds to the worldview of the Jesuit missionaries. In this respect, it is noteworthy that the Christian Church is presented as re-enacting the apostolic age and that stress is placed on the cult of the martyrs, according to the renowned saying of Tertullian: semen est sanguis Christianorum118 (explicitly quoted in the homily under the name of Ambrose). Furthermore, the Apostle himself is presented almost as a missionary. The analogy between St. Thomas, in his apostolic zeal, and Alexander the Great, who was eager to conquer and rule even other worlds besides the existing one,119 is meant to 71vb. 69va. 118 Tertullian, Apologeticum…, 50.13. 119 “The pagan histories recount about Alexander, the great king of the Greeks, that after he had subdued almost all the world, he asked one of the philosophers whether there was any other world to conquer. [The philosopher] replied that there was none, and because of this answer the king, exalted in his heart, became very sad. He had thought about subduing and subjecting many more lands and worlds, if there would have been 116 117

INTRODUCTION

39

associate the preaching of the Apostle with the early modern missions, since unus non sufficit orbis is a topos in the missionary literature of the age. As mentioned above, St. Thomas is said to have come to India in order to “expel every error of the paganism and the manifold heresy”; additionally, the missionary itinerary of Saint Thomas combined the metropolitan sees of the Church of the East120 with the itinerary of the Portuguese expansion in the Orient: Mar Thoma preached to and taught the Persians, and among the people of Herat, and of Merw, and of Parthia, to the Bactrians, to the Babylonians, to the Socotrans, to the Indians, to the Chinese, to the Ethiopians, and also to the Magi, who were worshipers of our Lord. He baptized and confirmed them.121

The apocalyptic imagery of the homily (the asserted resemblance between Saint Thomas and the angel from the tenth chapter of the Book of Revelation) might be understood as well in the wider register of the messianic and apocalyptic ideology which animated the expansion of the Portuguese crown in the Orient. Last but not least, the preacher goes quite far in the direction of accommodating the Catholic teaching to the dyophysitism of its audience. This tendency appears, for example, when the preacher says that the quiver from which the arrow (that is, Saint Thomas) found any outside this one. In the same way, our apostle asked to pass to adjacent [69va] lands, where there were people to whom he was preaching and whom he taught and so he had reached to the end of the earth and he subjected everybody under the yoke of the Lord’s cross. And he wanted to find other [men] and was seeking after different lands in which the divine Gospel had not [yet] been preached; his vigor lessened and came to an end. However, the fervor of his heart, his love, willingness and desire for the virtuous deeds did not cease” (69rb–va). 120 As reflected, for instance, in the list provided by Metropolitan Abdisho of Soba’s Poem Which Contains a Recount of the Whole Ecclesiastical ̈ ƣƦǤǁ ̈ Books (ƣƾNJ‫ܬ‬ƯǓ ‫ܘܢ‬ƱDžǁ‫ ܕ‬ƣNjƾNjLJ ƱƦ Ǥƽ‫ ܕܐ‬ƥǠLJƢLJ); see J. S. Assemani, Bibliotheca Orientalis Clementino-Vaticana III.1. De Scriptoribus Syris Nestorianis (Rome: Typis Sacrae Congregationis de Propaganda Fide, 1725): 347. 121 68vb.

40

SERMON ON SAINT THOMAS, THE BELOVED APOSTLE

was taken to be shot by the archer (apparently Christ’s divine nature) is Christ’s human nature. The same is suggested by the idea that Saint Thomas “has reconciled godhead and humankind,” while the churches are called “the palaces of the divinity and humanity of our Lord.” Apparently, this idea was part of the accommodation of Francisco Roz, the first Latin archbishop of Angamali (1599–1624): he wanted to bring Catholic theology as close as possible to his audience. This peculiarity can be better understood if one considers that, starting with the report De erroribus Nestorianorum qui in hac India Orientali uersantur, in which the author makes an inventory of the problematic dogmatic formulas which he found in the “Nestorian” books,122 and continuing with the decrees of the diocesan Synod of Diamper, the idea that in the “Nestorian” books Jesus is “erroneusly” called “temple of the Divinity” is persistently recalled. Possible author On the basis of all these elements, one can reach the conclusion that the author of the homily must have been a Catholic missionary — most likely a Jesuit, as the imagery and the accommodationist means used in the homily seem to suggest. As the internal evidence of the text shows, he was acquainted with both the Latin and the Syriac text of the Bible, sometimes using the wording of the latter in order to retranslate the former. It remains an open question whether the author used a bilingual source (Latin and Syriac) for the accounts he provided from the Acts of Thomas. He also made use of the Spanish version of the Life of Saint Thomas, from Pedro de Ribadeneyra’s Flos Sanctorum; this is intriguing, as the only Spaniard Syriacist missionary from Malabar at that time was Francisco Roz. The author must have also had a good training in Catholic Western theology (as testify his quotes from such authorities as Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite, Tertullian, and the texts of the Physiologus — which might have been available in both its Latin and Syriac versions — or of the medieval bestiaries). Besides the comSee J. Castets S.J. and I. Hausherr S.J. (eds.), Francisco Roz, De erroribus Nestorianorum qui in hac India orientali versantur. Inédit latin-syriaque de la fin de 1586 ou du début de 1587, Orientalia Christiana 40 (Rome: Pontificium Institutum Orientalium Studiorum, 1928): 15–35. 122

INTRODUCTION

41

plex exegetical apparatus, a good training in rhetoric and a classical education of the author can also be inferred from the text. The textual state of the homily reflects one important dynamic mentioned in the introduction of this study, namely the attempts of the Catholic missionaries to translate some of the Latin material into Syriac in order to approach the community of the Saint Thomas Christians (as, for example, with the correction of the Syriac Bible according to the version of the Vulgate). Since the references to the Book of Revelation do not correspond with the Syriac version which was prescribed by and created in the aftermath of the Diamperitan synod (1599), the text of the homily must also have been written before this version was completed. Additionally, the homily must have been composed after 1601, since — as already mentioned — one of the author’s sources is the Life of St. Thomas the Apostle, from Pedro de Ribadeneira’s Flos Sanctorum.123 The Diamperitan echos which are to be found in the text suggest an author who was very well acquainted with the local ecclesiastical context. He must have been quite familiar with the Syriac books which were circulating among the St. Thomas Christians at that time, and he was attempting to accommodate Tridentine Catholicism to the Syriac Christians of Malabar. This is especially reflected in how he handles and engages in theological disputes with the Eastern Syriac sources quoted or referred to. The homily also testifies to an author who was familiar with the reform of the Syriac

Since the manuscript itself does not provide any colophon, the text cannot be more precisely dated. On the basis of its letter collection, the year 1607 has been established as a terminus post quem of the copying of the manuscript. According to I. Perczel, the letter collection (dating from the end of the sixteenth and beginning of the seventeenth century) should have been quite recent at the time of the copying of the manuscript; an early seventeenth-century dating is supported by the quality of its paper. Besides this, the plethora of spelling mistakes which are to be found in the text of the homily suggests that the text was recopied several times before making its way into the present manuscript, while some of the sermons contained in the manuscript belong to the second half of the sixteenth century (see the appendix). 123

42

SERMON ON SAINT THOMAS, THE BELOVED APOSTLE

liturgical books, carried out under the supervision of the same Francisco Roz. Taking into account that Syriac was not understood by the unlearned people, one might suppose that the text of the sermon may have been prepared for teaching purposes — for the instruction of the pupils of a seminary, for example. As mentioned before, a seminary was founded by the Jesuits at Vaipikotta in 1577 — “the chief centre of the Jesuits among the Thomas Christians”124 — which provided good training in Latin, Syriac and Malayalam. The most prominent Syriac teacher there at that time was the same Catalan Jesuit who became the first European Archbishop of Angamali at the end of the year 1599.125 About him, F. Andrea, bishop of Cochin, wrote the following in 1598: Li vicivo meta legha per terra ferma vi è un seminario del’istessi Christiani di S. Thomaso sotto la cura dei Padri della Compa. Ove vi’è un Padre che per saper assai bene la lingua Caldea [i.e. Syriac] ha purgato i libri dagli errori e bestemia di Nestorio; e ditto Prè con gli altri della Compa. Han molto bene aiutato I sacerdoti di questi Christiani di S. Thomaso che sono purtroppo bisognosi et idioti, tante egli è diligente et possiede bene il linguaggio del paese et è buon Theologo et amato da tutti et hà molta autorita appresso di loro.126

It is known that the Jesuit missionaries from Vaipikotta were entrusted with purging the books of the Thomas Christians of what they considered to be Nestorian heresy.127 The enterprise of transRev. Dr. Placid J. Podipara C.M.I., “Portuguese Religious Conquests in Malabar under the Diocese of Cochin during the Sixteenth Century,” in Dr. Thomas Kalayil (ed.), Collected Works…, 242. 125 Concerning Roz’s episcopal ministry, see J. Thekkedath, History of Christianity in India. From the Middle of the Sixteenth to the End of the Seventeenth Century (1542–1700), vol. 2 (Bangalore: Church History Association of India, 1988): 75–79. 126 F. Andrea, “Relazione del Vescovatto di Cochino,” apud Rev. Dr. Placid J. Podipara C.M.I., Portuguese Religious Conquests in Malabar…, 241– 242. 127 Ibid., 242. 124

INTRODUCTION

43

lating Catholic liturgical books from Latin into Syriac, according to the Latin rite, was prescribed since 1585 by the seventh decree of the third action of the third provincial council of Goa.128 It was in the aftermath of the same council that Roz was appointed as “advisor and helper” of Mar Abraham, the Chaldean metropolitan of this Christian community,129 for the correction of doctrinal “mistakes” in their Syriac books. This process of purging any “Nestorian” teaching from the Syriac books of the Malabar Christians and of translating new material into Syriac, under the direction of the Catalan Jesuit, was intensified after the Diamperitan synod. As a teacher of Syriac, he created around himself a circle of literate Syriacist pupils, of whom the best known example is the poet Alexander of the Port (Kadavil Chandy Kattanar), who wrote humanistic and religious Syriac poetry.130 Among Chandy’s poetical works, Memra 7, on the foll. 106v–116r from the Codex Syriacus Mannanam 63, is a panegyric in praise of his teacher. The content of the poem has been discussed by I. Perczel; and as it provides some insights relevant to the present discussion, I find it necessary to quote Perczel’s analysis and summary of the poem: The author speaks as an eyewitness of the life of Francisco Roz, composing his panegyrics right after the burial of the bishop, that is, in 1624. The poem is a double acrostic, going from Alap to Taw and, then, again, from Taw to Alap. It narrates Roz’s life from his childhood, which he spent in Catalunia, where he got the vocation to become a Jesuit (išō'āyā in Syriac). Later, God gave him the Spirit to go to India in readiness, and so he arrived in the port of Goa. As soon as he disembarked from the ship, he went to the church of his Companions, dedicated to the Blessed Mary, where he prayed for the success of his mission. As a philosopher and wise theologian, he was teaching the people in a voice of thunder. He put to shame all those who taught his people differently and perversely and he conquered See J. H. da Cunha Rivara (ed.), Archivo Portuguez-Oriental..., 149. See J. Thekkedath, History of Christianity…, 54. 130 See I. Perczel, Alexander of the Port... 128 129

44

SERMON ON SAINT THOMAS, THE BELOVED APOSTLE them all. Being the glorious Archbishop of all India, upon those whom he had called he conferred the lofty priesthood in great solemnity and in order. He was sitting on the glorious See of the wonderful Apostle Thomas, of this admirable diocese. He was shepherding the Christians of Saint Thomas as a true, righteous and elect shepherd who put his soul alien of all apostasy for the sheep of his diocese. Alien to any avarice or greed, he nourished all the poor. And here, under the letter semkhat of the second acrostic comes a very important information: while in India, Roz translated many books from Latin into Syriac and from Syriac to Latin, those which were without error, not haphazardly. All the Christians called this chaste patron second Thomas and an Apostle-bishop. He was a divine tongue, who has made known the mysteries of the Hebrews, the Syrians, the Greeks and the Latins. He also learned many languages of the world, in order to fight against the corporeal adversaries, so also the Indian (that is, Malayalam) and other languages. He preached to the evil pagans and these converted from their erring. The author does not say all this as a false witness, as it is the custom among the pagans, but as a true eyewitness. Mar Franciscus’ end has come in the company of his disciples. So clerics belonging to the Jesuit order carried his divine body and placed it in a tomb befitting him. They took a bone from the dead body and placed it in the sanctuary (as a relic).131

In addition to the general information which it provides, and despite the limitations imposed on it by the encomiastic genre, Kadavil Chandy’s memrā on Mar Franciscus alludes to the attempt of the missionaries to depict themselves as alias St. Thomases and, conversely, to depict St. Thomas as one of the missionaries, a topic around which the homily in praise of St. Thomas edited in this study is also centered. In addition to this, I. Perczel advanced the hypothesis that

131

Ibid., 37–38.

INTRODUCTION

45

the predilection for Pseudo-Dionysius and for an abstruse theological speculation based on his teaching is one of the unmistakable marks of Roz authorship, whom I would also identify as the author of a Syriac translation, base on Ambrogio Traversari’s Latin translation, of Pseudo-Dionysius’ Mystical Theology.132

While there is need for further research in order substantiate this hypothesis, one might conclude, on a philological and ideological basis, that the homily in praise of Saint Thomas edited, translated, described and analyzed in the present study is a remarkable piece of accommodationist writing. Paternity might be ascribed to a learned Syriacist and theologian (most likely a Jesuit) who was able to handle Latin, Syriac, Spanish and Portuguese sources skillfully and who was active in Malabar during the times following the Synod of Diamper. The sermon most likely belongs to one of the students or teachers from Vaipikotta, perhaps to Francisco Roz himself, although there is no absolute proof for this. Conclusion The research in the present study intends to advance knowledge about the interaction between Catholic missionaries and the Saint Thomas Christians in the beginning of the seventeenth century one step further. The homily in praise of St. Thomas not only testifies to the ways in which a preacher was building up a spiritual bond with his audience by promoting the cult of Saint Thomas; it is also an important contribution to the understanding of the Syriac Indian literary heritage of that time, which has been little researched. As philological analysis has shown, the sermon belongs to the new body of missionary literature written in Syriac in the age surrounding the Synod of Diamper. It is the result of a complex and skillful blending of scriptural, patristic and literary sources, both in Latin and Syriac. The text of the homily encapsulates major theological changes and reforms which were meant to be implemented in the ecclesiastic life of the Saint Thomas Christians under the agency of the Catholic missionaries during the second half of the 132

Ibid., 42.

46

SERMON ON SAINT THOMAS, THE BELOVED APOSTLE

sixteenth century and in the aftermath of the Synod of Diamper. This is particularly highlighted by the use of Scripture, the Catholic innovations inserted into the cult, the emphasis on Tridentine liturgical practice and discipline, and the theological polemics which were meant to respond to and contend with the Eastern Syriac sources of authority. As mirrored in the homily, the need to accommodate the Catholic doctrine to the Syrian Christians of Malabar is not limited to equivocal theological formulas; it goes as far as redefining the identity of “Nestorian” saints by ascribing to them a behavior conformed to Catholic orthodoxy. It remains to further scholarship to establish whether some of these peculiarities, both textual and ideological, are paradigmatic for the ensemble of Syriac missionary literature of the age or whether they merely reflect the talent of a learned and skillful accommodationist author.

LANGUAGE Our homily is written in a solemn and highly rhetorical style, which, from the perspective of classical Syriac, is to a certain extent artificial. The reader may often get the impression that the author has tried to transpose Latin constructions or Ciceronian rhetorical figures into Syriac (which makes this text even more interesting). Since a linguistic study on the Syriac literature of the age is a desideratum, it is often difficult to determine what is peculiar to the homily in praise of St. Thomas and what belongs to the Syriac Catholic compositions of the age. The following lines attempt to summarize the main linguistic peculiarities of the text, giving generalities about its curiosities. Lexical choice The author of the text has a tendency to create denominative verbal forms such as: ‫ܟ‬ƢDžLJ‫“ ܐܬ‬he became like an angel” < ƣǁƢDžLJ, or to use already existant but less common denominative predicate conܵ njƾܼ NjܵƾƵLJܼ ܿ ǫƲ̈ ƾƴܼܿ “his life is vivifying and makstructions, as in: njƾܼ NJƱDŽƢLJ‫ܘ‬ ing [us] divine.” The celebratory terminology of the text includes ܵ ܿ such verbs as ‫ܕܘ‬ ܼ ǠƸDžLJ ܼ “to chant, celebrate in song,” which is quite often encountered in the Syriac Indian compositions of the age — for instance in the poetry of Kadavil Chandy Kattanar. Some of the lexical structures of the text are pleonastic: for instance, the adver-

INTRODUCTION

47

ܵ , a combination of bial expression ƣǂLjƽ‫ ܐ‬njLJ̣ or the adjective ƣܵƾNjƾLjDžǔDŽ ܿܵ ܵ the nominal adverbialized form ljDžܼ ǔDŽ and the adjective ƣܵƾNjܵ ƾܼ LjDžǓ. A distinctive lexical feature of the text is its “Latinisms.” Most of the Latinized expressions of the text have been discussed in the analysis of its sources. Some of the names present in the text are the ܿ ǡ clear result of the mirror-translation of Latin sources: thus, ‫ܢ‬ƲǔLj ܹ ܿ ǠƦܿ instead of ƣܵƾNJƲǓ ‫ܢ‬ mirror-translates the Latin Siܼ ܵ of ‫ ܐ‬is meant to correspond to mon, Oniae filius; ƣܹƽ‫ܬ‬ǰǖ‫ ܐ‬instead ܵ ܿ an ܿ ƪƦ the Latin Ephrathæi; ‫ܘܣ‬Ǡ ‫ ܸܐ‬is a Latinization of the Syriac ܼ ܿ ‫;ܐ‬ ܼ ܿ ܿ interesting example is the hybrid ‫ ܼܬ ܼܕܝ‬, a combination of the Syriac ܿ and the Latin Thaddeus. A Latin forma mentis is to be noticed in ‫ܐ ܼܿܕܝ‬ ܼ ܵ ܵ ǝܿ ƤǤNjƽƯLJ some of the unusual expressions used in the text: ƤǤƾLJƯ ܼ ܼܵ ܿ might be a translation of the Latin urbs capitalis, while Ƥ‫ܬ‬ƲNjܼ LJܵ ‫ܕܐܘ‬ ܼ ƣǓ‫ܘ‬Ưܵƽ might correspond to the Latin artis peritus. The Western toponyms are usually rendered into Syriac on the basis of their vernacular names and not on the basis of their Latin correspondents; for inܿ stance, njDžܼ ƾܼ LJ is fashioned upon the Italian Milano, and not on the basis of the Latin Mediolanum. This seems to be a general tendency in the Syriac Indian compositions of the age, as suggested, for instance, by the recurrent expression ‫ܣ‬ƲƸNJ‫ܕܘܣ ܕܬܪ‬ƱNJƲǍ, “the Council of Trentos” [i.e. Trento] and not “of Tridentum.” One of the common marks of the high style in the homily is the skillful use of Greek words. Most of the Greek words that appear in the text had been long been assimilated into Syriac, but it seems the author intended to make use of such terms for the sake of solemnity. This is ܿ the case when the author refers to St. Thomas as ἅγιος ( ‫ܝ‬ǠLJܵ ‫ܣ‬Ʋܿ ƾܼ Ʃ‫ܼܐ‬ ܵƣLJ‫)ܬـ ܿܐܘ‬, or depicts him as an ἀγωνιστής (ƣƸǎ ܿ ‫) ܵܐ‬, or when he reܵ NJܹ ƲƩ ܼܿ ܵ peatedly plays with the terms Ƥ‫ܬ‬ƯǓ ܹ and ƣܵƾǎDžܹ ǝ‫( ܼܐ‬ἐκκλησία) in order to designate the Indian Church; it is also noteworthy that he preܿ Ʒܿ (Τάρταρος) and not ‫ ܠ‬. fers to use the term ‫ܘܣ‬ǠƷǠ ܼ Morphosyntax and syntax At the morphosyntactic level, the text shows fluctuations in the use of the nominal states after quantifiers. Although this is a feature to be found in many Syriac compositions from various periods, below are provided a few examples, in order to give an idea of their use in ܵ the homily: ƤǤƽ‫ ܿ ܼܙ‬njDžƽܼ ‫ ܐ‬džǂDŽ ܼ Ƥ‫ܬ‬Ʋǂ ܼ ƾܼ ǁǠƦ ƥ‫ܪ‬Ǥƾܼ ܿ ܿ LJ [...] ‫ܬܗ‬ƲLjƾܼ ǎƦ, but ƥǠǞƽܼ ‫ܘܐ‬ ̈ ܿ ‫ܢ‬ǯƿǞƽܼ ƣǖܹ Ƣǁܹ džǁ njLJ݂ [...] ‫ ܹܬܗ‬ƲNjƸDŽ njƽǤƵƽ‫ ܹܬܗ ܪ‬ƲNJǠƧƾǎLJ‫ܕ‬ ƣƧܹ ̈ ƺܸ ܼ ܿ Ʋǡ ܼ ‫ ( ;)ܕ‬džǁ njLJ ܼ ̈ ܵ ݂ ܵ ܼ ̈ ܼܵ ܵ ܵ ‫ܪ‬, but Ǐƽ‫ܕ‬ǠǗƦ‫ ܕ‬ƣNjǡ ̈ ܵ Ʋǡ ܿ ܿ ̈ ̈njƾܼ NJǤƵƽ ܵ džǁ njLJ݂ njƽƯƵLJ‫ܘ‬ Ƥ‫ ܵܘ ܼܬ‬ƢܹƩ ܹ ܼ njƽƢƽ‫ ܘ‬njƽƢǖ .‫ܬܗ‬ƲDŽ ܼ ‫ܘ‬ǤƦ‫ܕ‬ ܼ ܹ ƣܵƽǠLJ etc. An example of hypercorrection in the use of the absolute

48

SERMON ON SAINT THOMAS, THE BELOVED APOSTLE

state is the construction ƣǁ‫ ܕܘ‬ƣǁ‫ܘ‬ƯƦ instead of the more common ‫ܘܟ ܕܘܟ‬ƯƦ; it shows the intention of the author to reconstruct the absolute state of the noun ƤǤǁ‫ ܕܘ‬on the basis of its emphatic form ending in Ƥ‫ܬ‬-.

One of the main syntactic features of the text is the abundance of infinitival constructions used to express completive, final and consecutive clauses. The author clearly prefers such constructions over the use of analogous subordinate clauses with imperfect or perfect verbal forms. This tendency is to be noted especially in those passages which are meant to mirror the Western classicizing rhetorical style: the rules of the Latin rhetorical rhythmic prose and of the internal rhyme of a phrase ending in a tríkolon or a gradatio support such usage. A few examples are provided in the following list: ܵ

ܿ ܿ ƲǡƯǞLjDŽ‫ܘ‬ ܵ ܵ ǔܹ DŽ njDŽ ƣDŽܹ ‫ܵܘ‬ ܼܿ DŽܼ ܿ ƣNJܵ ‫ ܵܗ‬ƥ‫ܕ‬Ƣ ;‫ܕܘ‬ǠƻDžLjDŽ‫ܘ‬ ƲǎDžܵ ǞLj ƲƾƪƵLj ܼ ܼ DŽ‫ܘ‬ ܼ ܿ ̇ ;ƲǎDž ܼ ǝǤ ܼ LjDŽ ܸ ‫ܙܕܩ‬ ܿ ܿ LjDŽ ǫ ƣDžƻǓܿ ƣNJܵ ‫ ܵܗ‬ƣNjܵ Ʀܵ Ʋƺ džǓܿ ‫ܕܘ‬Ʋܵ ǎLj ܵ ‫ܿܐ‬ ܵ ܵ DŽܼ ‫ ̇ܙܕܩ‬ƣNjǂƽ ƣܵƾNJǠǎƦ ƣNjǢDŽܸ ‫ ܘ‬ƲDžǁǤǎ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܸ ݂ ̇ ܿ ܿ ܵ ;ǟǗǍ ƣDŽ ƲƾNJǤLj ܼ DŽܼ ܿ DŽܿ ‫ ܹܪܗ‬Ưǡܿ ; ‫ܘ‬Ǡܼ Ƨܵ ǎLj ܼ ܼ ܼ ܿ ܵ ܵ ƤǤǓǯ ܵ ‫ ܿܐ‬Ǥƾƴ‫ܘ ܿܕܬ‬ƯƧǔǢLjDŽ‫ܘ‬ ̈ Ǔ‫ܘ‬ ܿ Ǎܿ ܿ ܵ ̈ LjDž ‫ܗܘ‬ Ǡ Ƨ ƾ ƪǍ ƣ ƲǢƧ ǂLj DŽ Ƥ njƾܼ ƵǁǤǢLJ‫ܕ‬ ‫ܢ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ƤƢ ݂ ܼ ܹ ܼ ܼ ܹ ܼ ܼ ܸ ܸ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܼ ;ƣNJܵ ‫ ܵܗ‬njLJ݂ ǠƧDŽ .‫݂ܗܘܘ‬ ̇ Ưǁ‫ܘ‬ ܵ ;ƣNJǰƴƢDŽ njƾDŽܹ ‫ ܵܗ‬njLJ݂ ǠƻǍ Ƥ‫ ݂ܗܘ‬ƣƦ‫ܨ‬ ܼܿ ܼ ǞǔLJ ܼ ܿ ƲƧ ܿ ܿ ܵ ܵ ̈ ܿ ܿ ܿ ܿ ܿ ܿ ܵ ܿ ܵ NJܹ ƲƩ ;ƣܹ̈ƾǁƲǢƴܸ ƣNjܹ ƻDŽƲǡ ܼ LjDŽ ܼ ‫ ܐ‬ǃƽ‫ܩ ܘ ܸܐ ܼܙܕ ܼܪܙ ܼܐ‬Ƴܼ ƴ‫ܬ‬ ܼ džƧǝ ܼ ƲDŽ ܼ Ʋǡ ܼ ǤǁǤ ܸ ƥǠƾܼ Ǘǡ ƣƻǎ ܼ ‫ܸܐ‬ ܿ ܵܵ ܿ Ƥ‫ܘܬ‬ǯ‫ܘ‬Ʋǁܵ ƲDžƻǞLj ܿ ܿ ‫ ܿܘ‬ƣLjLj̈ ǔƦ ܿ ܿ ܵ ܵ ܵƲܼ ƾƵLjDŽ DŽܼ ‫܆‬ƣNjƦƲƺ ƣƵƾܼ Džǡ ƨǎNJ ݂ ܼ Ƥ‫ ܼܬ‬ƲDž ܼ ƾܼ Džǝܼ njLJ‫ ܬ‬njLJ‫ܕ‬ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܹ ܼ ܼܼ ; ƣƵܵ ƾܼ ǢLjƦܼ ܿ ‫ܢ‬ƲNJܿ ‫ܸܐ‬ ܿ ܵ ܵ ܿ Džǡ ‫ܘܐܦ‬ ܵ ܵ LJܼ ܿ ‫ܢ‬ƲLjƾ ‫ܘ‬Ǥ ƲǍ ܹ ܼ ƦǜLjDŽ‫ܘ‬ ܼ ǤǢLjDŽܼ ƤƱDŽ‫ ܐ‬njLJ݂ ǘDžܹ ƽ‫ ܕ‬.Ƥ‫ܬ‬ƲNjܼ LJ‫ ܼܐܘ‬ǠƦ ƣǂDž ܿ ܿ ǢLjDŽ‫ܘ‬ ;ƤƱDŽ‫ ܐ‬džǂƽ‫ܗ‬ ƲDžDžǂ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܿ ܿ ܿ ̈ ܿ ܵ ǢLj ܿ ܵ ljǓܼ ܿ ‫ܢ‬ƲNJܿ ‫ ܸܐ‬ƲǞƦܵ ƯLjDŽ. ܵ DŽ‫ܘ‬ ܿ ƽ‫ ܐ‬Ƥ‫܆ ̈ܨܨ‬ƥ‫ ̈ܕ‬Ưƴ ܵ ; ‫ܘܢ‬ƱƽǤ Ʋǖ ‫ܬ‬Ʋ ‫ܢ‬ ƲNJ ‫ܐ‬ Ʋǂ ǂǎLj DŽ ܸ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܼ ƣǎܹ ƾǝܼ ܼ ܹ ܹ ܹ ܵ ܵ ܵ ܿ ܿ ܵ ܵ ;ƣƵƾܼ Džǡ Ƥ‫ ݂ܗܘ‬ǠƧܼ ǎLJ ܼ ƣNjǁܼ ‫ ܗ‬ƨƺ Ưǁ‫ ܕ‬.‫ܘ‬Ǡܼ LJ‫ܕ‬ǤLjDŽ ܸ ƣܹƽƢܵƽ‫ܘ‬ ܿ ܵ ܿ ܿ ܵ ‫ܕ‬ǠǗƦ‫ ܕ‬ǃƽ‫ܼ ܿܐ‬ ;njLjܼ Ǔܼ ƤƱDŽ‫ ܐ‬ƲDž ܼ DžLjLjDŽܼ njNjƾܼ ƵǂǢLJܸ ƣǎƽ ܹ ܿ ;ƣDžƧܿ ǡܸ Ǥƽܼ ƢǞƾܼ Ǣǖ ƲDžDžLjLjDŽܼ ‫ ݂ܗܘܘ‬njƾܼ ǓƯƽ̇ ƣDŽ ܿ ܿ ܵ .Ʋƽǜܵ ǖǤǑLjDŽ ܿ ‫ ܿܕ‬njNjܿ ƽƯƧǓ‫ܕ‬ ܿ ‫ܡ‬ƲLjDžǂDŽ‫ܕ‬ ƣDŽ‫ܘ‬ .ljDžܸ ǢNJ njNjƾƦܹ ‫ ܸܐܢ ܵܨ‬ƱNjܹ LJ‫ܕ‬ ܼ ܼ ܼܼ ܸ ܼ ܼ ܼ

Sometimes, nominal artificial constructions with abstract nouns present a similar syntactic pattern, as in the following example: ƣDŽ‫ܕ‬ ܿ LJ. ̇ ‫ܪܘ‬ƱNjLjDŽ‫ܕ‬ ܿ ܵ ܵ ǡ ‫ ܗܘ‬ƣܵƽǠLJ‫ ܕ‬džƻLJ .‫ܬܗ‬ ܵ Ǥǎ Ʊ ̇ ǢLj ܸ ܼ ܸ ܼ ܼ ƣǢLjǡܸ ƣǞNJ ܼ ܸ

INTRODUCTION

49

Phonetics and orthography In terms of phonetics and orthography, the text shows many confusions between vowels and quantities; seyāme are many times missing where needed, misused or overused. The following list contains all such occurrences. Whenever the number of occurrences of a form is not indicated in brackets, that form was used only once in the text. The list is relying on the readings of the manuscript Mannanam Syriacus 46, which is taken as the base text for the present edition.133 In many cases, the version provided by the manuscript Thrissur Syriacus 17 contains more correct parallel readings; occasionally, though, it provides analogous mistakes while the version from the Mannanam codex might be more correct. Phonetic confusion ܵ ܿ for ƿDžܿ ǔLJ ܿ ܿ ܵ ܿ ܵ 1. ā instead of a: ‫ܬܢ‬ƯǓ ܸ for ‫ ܼܬܢ‬ƯǓܸ ; njNjLJܸ for njNjܼ LJܸ ; ƿܼ DžǔLJ ܼ ܼ ܼ ; ܿ ܿ ܵ ܿ ܵ ܿ ܵ ܵ Ǥܼ ƦǜLJ for Ǥܼ ƦǜLJ ܼ LJܸ ; ƯƧǔLJܸ for ƯƧǔ ܼ ; ‫ܗܜ‬ǠLJܸ for ‫ܗܜ‬Ǡ ܼ ; ǤLJ‫ ܪ‬for ǤLJ‫ܪ‬ ܼ LJܸ ; ܿ (three occurrences); ƣDžƻǓܵ for ƣDžƻǓܿ ; ƣܵƾDžƩܵ for ܵ for njLjǓ njLjǓ ܼ ܼ ܿ ܵ for ܵ for ‫ ; ̈ܗ ܼܿܘܝ‬ƤǤܵ Ǟܵ ƾܼ ƴ‫ ܵܪ‬for ƤǤܵ Ǟܵ ƾܼ ƴǯܼܿ ; ƲǢƧ ƣܵƾDžƩܼ ; ƣǁܹ ƢDžLJܵ for ƣǁܹ ƢDž̈ LJܼ ܿ ; ‫ܗܘܝ‬ ܼ ǂLJ ܿ ܿ ܵ ܵ for ܿ ܵ ƲǢƧ ܼ ; njǁ‫ ܗ‬for njǁ‫ܗ‬ ܼ (three occurrences); ƣܵƾDžƴ for ƣܵƾDžƴܼ ; džǞǡ ܼ ǂLJ ܿ ܿ ܵ ܿ ܵ ̈ ̈ ܵ ܵ džǞǡ ƿNjƾܼ ܿ Ǣƺܼ ܿ ; njLjǍ for ƿNjLjܼ Ǎ; ‫ܢ‬ƱDŽ‫ ܼܐ‬for ܼ ;ܿ ǫƲƾƴܵ for ǫƲƾƴܼܿ ; ƿNjܵƾǢƺܼ ܿ for ܿ ܵ ܿ ܵ NJܸ ‫ܢ‬ƱDŽ ܼ ‫( ܼܐ‬threeܵ occurrences);ܵ njDŽ for njDŽܼ (two occurrences); njǝǠǗ ܿ ܿ ܿ ܵ ܿ ܿ ܵ occurrences); ƿܼ ǁǤǗLJ LJܼ (three for njǝǠǗ ܼ ̈ ܿ NJܸ ; ƤǤܼ ƽܼ ‫ܕ‬ƲLjǔLJ for ƤǤܼ ƽܼ ‫ܕ‬ƲLjǔ ܼ ̈ ̈ ܿ ܿ ܵ ܵ ܿ ܿ for ƿǁܼ ܿ ǤǗLJ ܼ ‫ ܸܐ‬for ƲNjƾܼ ܿ Ʀ‫ܬ‬ ܼ ‫ ; ܸܐ‬ƣǗǂ ܹ NJ for ƣǗǂ ܹ NJܼ ; ‫ ݀ܬ‬Ǥƾܼ Ʀ‫ ܐ‬for ‫ ݀ܬ‬Ǥܼ ƾܼ Ʀ‫ܗ ;ܐ‬Ǥܹ ܵƽ‫ܪܕ‬ ܼ ; njܵƾƦ‫ܬ‬ ܿ ܿ ܵ ܵ ܿ for ‫ܗ‬Ǥܹ ƽܼ ‫ ;ܪܕ‬njNjǗDŽƲƽܼ for njNjܼ ǗDŽƲƽܼ ; ƣƻǎƾܼ DžLJ for ƣƻǎƾܼ DžLJܼ .

ܿ

ܵ

ܿ

ܵ

ܵ ǂƦ‫ܪ‬ ܵ ܵ ; ƣNJǰǖ‫ ܐ‬for ƣNJƯ̈ ǖ‫ ;ܐ‬Ƥ‫ ܐܬ‬for Ƥ‫ ;ܐܬ‬Ǡƴܿ 2. a instead of ā: ƣNJƱ ܼ ܿ for ܿ ƣNJƱǂƦ‫ܪ‬ ܼ ܹ ܼܵ ܹ ܼ ̈ ܿ ܿ ܿ ǤǔLJ̈ ‫ ;ܕ‬Ƥ‫ܬ‬ǯƳƩܿ for Ƥ‫ܬ‬ǯƳƩܵ ; ƣǝǠƽܿ ܵ ܵ ܵ ܵ ‫ ܹܕ‬for ‫ܗܘܢ‬ for Ǡƴ; njƾLJ‫ ܼܕ‬for njƾLJ‫ܗܘܢ ;ܕ‬Ǥܼ ǔLJ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܿ ܿ ܹ ܵ ܵ for ƣǝǠܵƽ; ‫ ܼܐܦ‬for ‫( ܐܦ‬six occurrences); ‫ܪܒ‬Ʋǝ ܼ for ‫ܪܒ‬Ʋǝ (two occur̈ ǡܼܿ for rences); ƨƺܼ ܿ for ƨƺܵ (five occurrences); Ƥ‫ܬ‬Ǡƽܼ ܿ for Ƥ‫ܬ‬Ǡܵƽ; Ƥ‫ܬ‬ƲǞ ܵ ܵ ܿ ܿ ܵ ܵ ܵ ܿ ܿ ܿ Ʃܿ ̈ ̈ Ƥ‫ܬ‬ƲǞǡ; ‫ܘܢ‬Ǥ ƾ Ǔ‫ܘܕ‬ for ‫ܢ‬ ‫ܘ‬Ǥ ƾ Ǔ‫ܘܕ‬ ǤǢ LJ ; Ƥ for Ƥ Ǥ DŽ ; ƣ ǡ ƲǢ ‫ܘ‬ǤƦ ǤǢ LJ Ǥ DŽ ‫ܘ‬ǤƦ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܸ ܹ ܼ ܸ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܵ ܵ ܿ ܵ Ǔܵ ; njǁ‫ ܿܕܪ‬for njǁǯ‫ ; ܵܕ‬njLjƵ ܵ DŽܿ for njLjܵ Ƶ̈ DŽܵ ; ƥ‫ܪ‬ƲǢ ܿ ǖܿ for ƣǡܹ Ʋܿ Ǣ̈ Ʃ; ƣLjDž Ǔ for ƣLjDž ܼ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܿ ǖܵ ; ‫ܬܗ‬Ʋƾƻǡܿ for ‫ܬܗ‬Ʋƾƻǡܵ ; njƽ‫ܕ‬ǯܿ for njƽ‫ܕ‬ǯܵ ; ‫ܬ‬Ʋǁ ܵ ‫ ܼܿܗ‬for ‫ܬ‬Ʋǁ ܵ ‫; ܵܗ‬ for ƥ‫ܪ‬ƲǢ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܹ ܹ ܹ ܹ ܿ ܵ ܵ ܵ Ǔܼ ܿ for ƣ̈ƾLjDž ̈ܵ ܵ ƣܹƾLjDž ܹ Ǔ; ‫ܢ‬Ǥܼ Ǟܵ Ǔܼ for ‫ܢ‬Ǥܼ ǞǓ. 3. misspellings of a/ā as e/ē most likely influenced by the proܵ LJ for ‫ܢ‬Ʊܵ LJǤ ̈ LJܿ ; Ƥ‫ ܵܬ‬Ʋܵ ƩǠǗLJ for nunciation of Malayalam: ‫ܢ‬ƱLJǤ ܼ ܸ ܸ 133

On this matter, see the “Note on the edition of the text.”

50

SERMON ON SAINT THOMAS, THE BELOVED APOSTLE

ܿ (two occurrences); ƣƻǎDžƪNJ‫ ܸܐܘ‬for ܵ ‫ܕ‬Ǡǖ for ƣǎƽ ܵ ‫ܕ‬Ǡǖ Ƥ‫ ܵܬ‬Ʋܵ ƩǰǗLJܼ ܿ ; ƣǎƽ ܹ ܼܿ ܵ ܿ ܵ ‫ ; ܿܐܘ ܵܪ‬džǂƽ‫ ܗ‬or džǂƽܹ ‫ ܿܗ‬for ܿ ƣƻǎDžƪNJ‫ ; ܸܐ ܼܘ‬ƣǔܹ ƾܼ ǡ‫ ܹܪ‬for ƣǔܹ ƾܼ ǡǯܼ ; ƤǤƽ ‫ ܐܘ ܹܪ‬for ƤǤƽ ܹ ܸ ܼ ܼܿ (two occurrences); ‫ܣ‬ƲNJܿ ‫ܘ‬ƯNJ ܿ Ʋǝ for ‫ܣ‬ƲNJܿ ‫ܘ‬ƯNJ ܿ Ʋܿ ǝ; ƣƽǰƻǝ for ƣƽǰƻǝ džǂƽ‫ܗ‬ ܼܹ ܹ ܹ ܹܹ ܹ ܼܿ ; ܿ džܹƽƢƾǝƳƴܸ for džܹƽƢƾǝƳƴܼ . Seyāme 1. lack of seyāme and of any other plural marker (the category of ̈ ; ƤǤƾǁܵ ƲǢƴ ܿ number is deduced from the context): ƣDžƧǡ for ƣDžƧǡ ̈ ̈ ܿ ܵ ܿ ܿ ܵ DŽܸ for ƣ̈ƾƻǎ ܵ DŽܸ ; ƣǢNJ‫ ܐ‬for ƣǢNJ‫ ;ܐ‬ƣNjܵƽƳƴǤ for ƤǤ̈ƾǁƲǢƴ; ƣƾƻǎ ܼ LJܸ for ƣNjܵƽƳƴǤ ܼ LJܸ ; ܿ ̈ ; ƣܵƾƻǡ for ̈ ƤƢƾܼ ƪǍ for ƤƢƾܼ ƪǍ; ƣƻƽǠǁƲNJ for ƣƻƽǰǁƲNJ; ǮǓƯƽ for ǮǓƯƽ ܵ ܵ ƱDŽ ܵ ‫ ܿܐ‬for ƤǤܵ ̈ƽƱDŽ ܵ ‫ ; ܿܐ‬ƣǁƢDžLJ for ƣǁƢDžLJ ̈ ƣ̈ƾƻǡ; ƤǤƽ . ܼ ܼ 2. the seyāme are missing, but a different plural marker is used: ̈ ; ǫƲNJǠǓ ܵ ƲǍ for ǫƲNJǰǓ ܵ ƲǍ; ǫ‫ܘ‬Ǡܵ Ʀ‫ܕܘ‬ ܵ for ǫ‫ܘ‬ǰܵ Ʀ‫ܕܘ‬ ܵ ; ‫ܗ‬Ǥܹ ܵƾǔǡ‫ ܬ‬for ‫ܗ‬Ǥܹ ܵƾǔǡ‫ܬ‬ ܼ ܼ ܵ ܵ ܿ ̈ ‫ܢ‬Ʊƾܼ LJ‫ ܬ‬for ‫ܢ‬Ʊ̈ƾܼ LJ‫ܢ ;ܬ‬ƱLJǤLJܸ for ܵ ‫ܢ‬ƱLJǤLJܼ ; ܵ ‫ܢ‬Ǡƾܼ LJ‫ ܐ‬for ‫ܢ‬ǰƾܼ LJ‫ ܐܪܙܝ ;ܐ‬for ̈ ̈ ܿ for ‫ܙܝ‬ǯ‫ ;ܐ‬Ƥ‫ ܵܬ‬Ʋܵ ƩǠǗLJܸ for Ƥ‫ ܵܬ‬Ʋܵ ƩǰǗLJܼ ܿ ; njܵƽƢǖ for njܵƽƢǖ; njܵƽƢܵƽ for njܵƽƢܵƽ; njܵƽƯƵLJ ܵ ‫ ܪ‬for njƾNJǤƵƽ ܵ ǯܼ ; ƣDžƧܿ ǡ ܼܿ ; ƣǖܹ Ƣǁܹ for ƣǖܹ Ƣǁܹ̈ (three occurrences); njƾܼ NJǤƵƽ ܵnjƽƯ̈ ƵLJ ܹ ܼ ܹ ܹ ܸ ܵ ܵ ܿ ܿ̈ ܵ ܿ ƣNjܹ̈ Njܵ Ǔܼ ܿ ; ‫ܪܢ‬ƱNjLJ for ‫ܢ‬ǯƱNjLJܼ ܿ ; njǁ‫ ܼܿܕܪ‬for njǁǯ‫ ; ܵܕ‬ƣDž LJܸ for for ƣDž ܼ ܹ Ƨǡܸ ; ƣNjܹ NjǓܼ for ܹ ܿ ܵƽ; ǫƲǞܵ ƾDŽ‫ ܿܙ‬for ǫƲǞܵ ̈ƾDŽ‫ ; ܿܙ‬ǫƲDžƩ‫ܪ‬ ܵ ܹƩ for Ƥ‫ܘ ̈ܬ‬Ƣ ܵ ܹƩ; njƾܼ LJƲܵƽ for nj̈ƾLJƲ ƣDžܹ LJܸ ̈ ; Ƥ‫ܘܬ‬Ƣ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܼ ̈ ܵ for ‫ ; ̈ܗ ܼ ܼܿܘܝ‬ƣܹƽ‫ܘ‬ƯNJ ܵ ‫ܹܗ‬ for ǫƲDžƩǯ; ƣǁܹ ƢDžLJܵ for ƣǁܹ ƢDžLJܼ ܿ ; njܵƾLJ‫ ܼܿܕ‬for njܵƾLJ̈ ‫ܗܘܝ ; ܵܕ‬ ̇ ̇ ̈ ̈ ܵ ܵ ܵ for ƣܹƽ‫ܘ‬ƯNJ‫( ܹܗ‬three occurrences); Ʊƾǖܹ ƲǍ for Ʊƾǖܹ ƲǍ (two occurrencܵ ܿ ܵ ̈ ܿ ܵ ܿ ܿ ܿ ; ƤǤDžDž ܵ ǖܼܿ ; ǫ‫ܕܘ‬ƲƪǍ es); ƣܹƾƦܵ ‫ܬ‬Ǡǖܼ for ƣܹƽ‫ܬܘ‬ǰ for ǫ‫ ̈ܕܘ‬ƲƪǍ ܼ ܵ Ǔܼ ܵ for ƤǤܼ ܵ DžDžǓܼ ܿ ; ܿ ܿ ܿ ܵ ̈ ܿ ܿ ܿ ǤǔLJ ܿ ܵ ܵ ‫ܗܘܢ‬ ܼ ܼ ‫ ܹܕ‬for ‫ܗܘܢ‬Ǥܼ ǔLJ‫ܢ ; ܹܕ‬ǠƦǤǎLJܸ for ‫ܢ‬ǰƦǤǎLJܸ ; ƤǤǞƾܼ ƴ‫ ܪ‬for ƤǤǞƾܼ ƴǯܼ ; ̈ ܿ ܿ ̈ ƴܼܿ ; ܿ ̈ ̈ njƽܼ ‫ܪ‬ƲǓ‫ ܙ‬njƾܼ Njǡ for njƽܼ ǯƲǓ‫ ܙ‬njƾܼ Njǡ; ƣܹƾƻƴ for ƣܹƾƻƴ; ƣNjܹ ǡܸ ‫ܬ‬Ʋƾƴܼ for ƣNjܹ ǡܸ ‫ܬ‬Ʋƾ ̈ ܵ ܵ ܿ ܵ ܵ ̈ ̈ ƣܹƽ‫ܘܕ‬Ʊƽܼ for ƣܹƽ‫ܘܕ‬Ʊƽܼ ; ‫ܗ‬ǤLJƲǡ for ‫ܗ‬ǤLJƲǡ ܼ ; ƥƯƪ ܹ NJܸ for ƥƯƪ ܹ NJܸ ; ƣǖܹ ƲǎDž̈ ƾܼ ǖ for ܵ ‫ ܿܐ‬for ƤǤǓǯ ܵ ܼ ‫ ; ܿܐ‬njǎܵ ƾƧǍ for ̈ ƾܼ ǖ; ƤǤǓ‫ܪ‬ ܵ Ʋǡ ܵ Ʋǡ ƣǖܹ Ʋܿ ǎDž njǎܵ ̈ƾܼ ƧǍ; ƣNjܹ ƻDŽ ܼ ܼܵ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܵ for ƣNjܹ ƻDŽ ܵ ܵ ̈ ܵ Ʋǖ ܿ ܿ ܵ ܵ ̈ ܵ LjDž Ǔ Ǔ for ƣ ; ǫƲ DŽ Ʋƻ ǝ for ǫƲ DŽ Ʋ ƻ ǝ ; ǫƲ ƾ NJ (two occurrences); ƣLjDž ܹ ܹ ܼ ̈ ܼ ; ‫ܗ‬Ǥܵƾǔǡ‫ ܿܬ‬for ‫ܗ‬Ǥܵƾǔǡ̈ ‫ ; ܿܬ‬ƤƢLjܹ ƺܿ for ƤƢLjܹ ̈ ƺܿ ; ƥ‫ܪ‬ƢܹƩ for ƥǯƢܹƩ; for ǫƲܵƾNJܵ Ʋǖ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܿ ܿ ƴ for ƣ̈ƾǁܵ ƲǢ ܵ ǔܸ Ʀ for ǫƲ̈ Ƨܵ ƦƯDž ܵ ǔܸ Ʀ; ƣǔܹ ƾܼ ǡ‫ ܹܪ‬for ƣǔܹ ƾܼ ǡǯܼܿ ; ƣܹƾǁܵ ƲǢ ǫƲƧܵ ƦƯDž ܹ ƴܸ ; ܸ ̈ ܵ ܵ ̈ ܵ ܵ ƣǓܹ ƲLjǡ for ƣǓܹ ƲLjǡ;ܿ ƣƧܹ ƦƯDžǔܸ Ʀܿ for ƣƧܹ ƦƯDžǔܸ Ʀ (two occurrences); ܵ ܿ ̈ܵ ܿ ܵ ‫ ܪܘ‬for ƣƾNjƴ ܵ ƣܹƾNjƴ ܼ ܹ ‫ܘ‬ǯܼ ; ƿƩܼ ‫ ܪܐ‬for ƿƩܼ ‫ܐ‬ǯ; njƵܵ ƽܼ Ǥǖ for njƵܵ ̈ƽܼ Ǥǖ;ƣNJܹ Ǥǁ‫ ܼܐ‬for ƣNJܹ Ǥǁ‫; ܼܐ‬ ܿ ƣNjܹ ܵƾƻǍǠܸ ǁ for ƣNjܹ ܵƾƻǍǰǁ ܸ (two occurrences); njƾܼ Njܵƾܼ ǂNJܸ for nj̈ƾܼ Njܵƾܼ ǂNJܸ ; ƣDŽܹ ǤLJܼ for ̈ ܿ ܵ ܵ ̈ ܵ ܵ ̈ ܿ ܿ ̈ ƣDŽܹ ǤLJܼ ; ƤǤܼ ǝ‫ ܸܙܕ‬for ƤǤܼ ǝ‫ ; ܸܙܕ‬ǫƲLjƾܼ ƺ for ǫƲLjƾܼ ƺ; ƣƧܹ ƾƧƴܼ for ƣƧܹ ƾƧƴܼ ; ƣǡ‫ܕ‬ ܹ Ʋǝ ܼ for ƣǡܹ ‫ ̈ܕ‬Ʋǝ for ƤƱܹ ̈ƾܼ LJ‫ ;ܬ‬ƣܹƽ‫ܪ‬ǜLJܸ for ƣܹƽǯǜLJܸ ; ƣǔܹ ƽƯƽܼ for ƣǔܹ ƽƯ̈ ƽܼ ; ƣNjܹ Ʀܵ Ʋƺ ܼ ; ƤƱܹ ƾܼ LJ‫ܬ‬ ܼ ܿ ܵ ܵ ̈ ; njǂƦ ܵ ‫ܪ‬Ǥ ; njDžƾǎǖ for njDž̈ƾܼ ǎǖ; ƤǤܼ ܵƽƱDŽ‫ ܐ‬for ƤǤܼ ܵƽƱDŽ‫ܐ‬ for ƣNjܹ̈ Ʀܵ Ʋƺ ܼ LJܸ for ܿ ܿ ܼ ܵ ܼܿ ܵ ܵ ܿ ̈ ܵ ܿ for ܿ ܵnjǂƦ̈ ‫ܪ‬Ǥ ̈ ; ƿ ǁǤ for ƿ ǁ Ǥ ; Ƥ for Ƥ Ǥ DŽ ; ƣ Nj Ljƽ ǗLJ ǗLJ ‫ܘ‬ǤƦ LJ Ǥ DŽ ‫ܘ‬ǤƦ ܼ ܼ ܸ ܼܵ ܼ ܹ ƱLJ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܵ ܼ ܼܵ ܿ ̈ ܵ ƣNjܹ LjƽƱLJ ܼ ; ƣǝܹ ǠǍ for ƣǝܹ ǰǍ; ƤǤƾNjƴ‫ ܼܪܘ‬for ƤǤܵƾNjƴ‫ܘ‬ǯܼ ; ƣNjܹ ƾDžܸƩ for ƣNjܹ ̈ƾDžܸƩ; ƥ‫ ܹܕ‬Ưƴ ܵ ܿ ܿ ̈ ܿ for ƥ‫ ܹܕ‬Ưƴ(two occurrences); ƣǎ ܹ ƾǝܼ for ƣǎܹ ̈ƾǝܼ ; Ƥ‫ ܹܨ ܵ ܹܨ‬for Ƥ‫ܵ ; ܹ ̈ܨ ܹܨ‬ƤǤܼ ܵƾƻƴܼ forܿ ܿ ܿ ; ƣƧܵƽ‫ܬ‬ ̈ Ǎܵ ; ƣNJǠƦƯLJ ܿ ̈ ̈ ̈ ܵ ƤǤܼ ƾƻƴܼ ; njƾܼ NJ‫ ܙ‬njƾܼ NJ‫ ܙ‬for njƾܼ NJ‫ ܙ‬njƾܼ NJ‫ ;ܙ‬ƥ‫ܕ‬Ʊ Ǎܵ ܿfor ƥ‫ܕ‬Ʊ ܹ ܵ ܼ for ƣNJܹ ǰƦƯLJ ܼ ܹ̈ ܼ ܹ ܹ ܿ ܿ ܿ Ʃ for ƣǡ̈ ƲǢ for ƣƧܹ ̈ ܵƽ‫ ; ܼܬ‬ƣܹƽƯܵ ƾܼ Ƶƽܼ for ƣܹ̈ƽƯܵ ƾܼ Ƶƽܼ ; ƣǡܹ ƲǢ ܼ ܹ Ʃ; ƣƧܹ ǁƲǁܵ for ƣƧܹ ǁƲǁܵ ;

INTRODUCTION

51

ܵ ܵ ܵ Džǖ ̇ Ǔ‫ ܿܬܪ‬for Ʊƾ ̇ Ǔǯ‫ ; ܿܬ‬ƣƾDžܵ ƽǠǎ ܵ LJܼ ܿ for ƣǡ̈ ܹ ƲDž ܵ LJܼ ܿ ; Ʊƾ ƣǢܹ ƧDž ƽܼ for ƣܹƾDžܵ ܹ ƽǰǎƽܼ ; ƣܹƽǤǢ ܹ ܹ ܹ ܹ ܹ ܼ ܼ ܵ ܵ ܿ ܿ ܿ ܵ ̈ ܵ ܵ ̈ ܿ ‫ ܸܐ‬for ǖ; ƣܹƾǡƲǁ for ƣܹƾǡƲǁ ; Ƥ‫ ܼܬ‬Ǡƾܼ Ǟƽܼ for Ƥ‫ ܼܬ‬ǰƾܼ Ǟƽܼ ; ƿDžDžܼ LJ‫ܬ‬ for ƣܹƽǤǢDž ܼ ܹ ܼ ܼ ܵ ܿ LJ for njDžܵ Dž̈ LJǤ ܿ ܿ ܿ LJ; njLjƵ ܵ DŽܿ for njLjܵ Ƶ̈ DŽܵ ; ƤǤܵƾDžǔLJ ̈ Džܼ ܿ LJ‫ܬ‬ ƿDž ܼ for ܼ ‫ ; ܸܐ‬njDžDž ܼ ܸ ܼܵ ܵ ܵ LJǤ ܼܵ ܸ ܿ ܿ ̈ ̈ ܵ ܵ ܿ ܵ ܵ ƤǤƾDžǔܼ LJ; ƣܵ Ljܹ ƩǤǖܸ for ƣܵ Ljܹ ƩǤǖܸ ; ƣܹƽǠƦǠƦܼ for ƣܹƽǠƦǰƦܼ ; ƣܹƾNjƻǍ ƣǍܹ ƲNJ for ƣǍܹ Ʋ̈ NJܵ ܵ Ǎܵ ; ƣNjǗDžLJܿ for ƣNj̈ ǗDžLJܿ (two occurrences); ƣƾLjDž ܵ ܵ ܵ ܿ ƣܹ̈ƾNjƻ ܹ ܼ ܹ ܼ ܹ ܵ Ǔܼ for ƣܹ̈ƾLjDžǓ; ܵ ܿ ̈ ܵ ܵ ܵ ܵ ƣܹƽƳƴ for ƣܹ̈ƽƳƴ; ƣNJܹ Ǡƴ‫ ܐ‬for ƣNJܹ ǰƴ‫ܢ ;ܐ‬Ǥܼ ǞǓܼ for ‫ܢ‬Ǥܼ ǞǓ; njƾܼ ƧƦƯDžǔܸ Ʀ for ̈ ǔƦ. njƾƧܼ ܿ Ʀܵ ƯDž ܸ 3. overuse or misuse of seyāme: ǫƲ̈ DžǓ for ǫƲDžǓ (four occurrences); ǫƲ̈ DžƩǯ for ǫƲDžƩǯ (two occurrences); ƱǍܹ ǰǁ for ƱǍܹ Ǡǁ; ƣܵƽǯ‫ܐ‬ for ƣܵƽ‫ ;ܐܪ‬ƣƵ̈ ƾܼ Džǡ for ƣƵܵ ƾܼ Džǡ; ƤǤNj̈ ƾܼ ǂǡ for ƤǤNjƾܼ ǂǡ; Ƥ‫ܬ‬Ʊ̈ƾܼ LJ‫ ܬ‬for Ƥ‫ܬ‬Ʊƾܼ LJ‫;ܬ‬ ܵ for ƣܵƾNJǠLJ ܵ ; ǫ‫ܘ‬Ǥ ̈ for ‫ܗ‬ƯƧǓ; ƣܵƾNJǰLJ ̈ ƽ‫ ܐ‬for ǫ‫ܘ‬Ǥƽܼ ‫ ;ܐ‬ƤƢ̈ƾܼ ƪǍ for ƤƢƾܼ ƪǍ; ‫ܗ‬Ưܹ ƧǓ ܹ ̈ ܿ ܿ ܿ ܵ ܼ̈ ̈ ܵ ̈ ƣDžǎǖǤ ܼ LJܸ for ƣDžܹ ǎǖǤ ܼ LJܸ ; njƽ‫ ܹܕ‬ǯܼ for njƽ‫ ;ܪ ܹܕ‬njƽƱƸƴ for nj̈ƽƱƸƴ.

HOMILY IN PRAISE OF SAINT THOMAS: EDITION OF THE TEXT

NOTE ON THE EDITION OF THE TEXT The present edition is a semi-diplomatic one: it is based on the version from Codex Mannanam Syriacus 46 (=M), which seems to contain an earlier version of the text than the one provided by the manuscript Thrissur Syriacus 17 (=T). Moreover, the latter codex preserves the text only fragmentarily.1 In some places, the version provided by T bears witness to a later redaction. Such a revision of the text is most visible in the list of peoples whom Saint Thomas is supposed to have evangelized (which, in the T version, has been notably augmented)2 and in the insertion of the short history about the preaching of Addai the Apostle — whose name is spelled as ܿ “Thaddeus” (‫ — ) ܼܬ ܼܿܕܝ‬which is missing from M.3 Besides this, T shows a preference for repeating and developing biblical quotations, while M occasionally provides only their incipit. Compared to M, T also shows a tendency to develop the proper names of saints — for instance, M repeatedly provides the reading ƣLJ‫ܘ‬ǩ, while T reads in the same place: ƣLJ‫ܘ‬ǩ ‫ܝ‬ǠLJ ƣǢƽƯǝ. The propensity for haplology can be also noticed in the syntax of T. All these differences have been noted in the critical apparatus. Nevertheless, the T version helped correct many corrupted passages from M. The scribe who copied the T version seems to have been aware that the text of the homily is longer. For this reason, he left the second part of f. 187r and f. 187v empty; these were later filled with different content by two different hands (see appendix 2). 2 See 68vb. 3 See ibid. 1

53

54

SERMON ON SAINT THOMAS, THE BELOVED APOSTLE

Since the vocalization of the text is inconsistent in both M and T, I preferred to provide a corrected version made on the basis of M, while always supplying the corresponding reading of T in the critical apparatus in order to avoid a hybrid text.4 Due to the numerous confusions between ā and a, and between a and e (which are specific to the Indian scribes),5 as well as to the inconsistent use of the seyāme, I chose to make a semi-diplomatic edition based on the M version; a purely diplomatic edition based on the same version would have been difficult to read. Because recording all occurrences of confusion between ā and a and of the anomalous use of seyāme would have made the critical apparatus unwieldy, I chose to uniformize and tacitly correct all such forms in the edited text according to the grammatical rules of classical Syriac; all these forms and the number of their occurrences in the text have been collected and recorded in the language section, in the introduction to the text. I have not usually corrected the morphological mistakes when they seemed to belong to the author (like the misuse of the states, the anomalous verbal forms, and the confusions of gender). The pronominal confusions of gender have been corrected only in those cases when, without the emendations, the text would have become very difficult to understand. With few exceptions (which are marked in the text), the edition mirrors the punctuation used by the version M. The edition does not record the punctuation of T since, on the one hand, it would have overly increased the numbers of critical notes and, on the other hand, the punctuation (in both M and T) does not reflect the division between the sentences/phrases. My choices concerning the division of the phrases can be grasped from the translation.

The confusions between ā and a and between a and e, as reflected in the T version, have not been included in the critical apparatus when the M version provided a correct reading; this would have increased endlessly the number of critical notes, and it is not the aim of the present edition to provide an exhaustive picture concerning the vocalization of T. The same can be said about the misuse of rukkākhā and quššāyā in the T version. 5 See the “Introduction to the text edition.” 4

EDITION OF THE TEXT

55

Additionally, I did not correct the misuse of rukkākhā and quššāyā6 since this would have doubled the number of critical notes. All the other interventions into the text are recorded in the critical notes.

ABBREVIATIONS AND CONVENTIONAL SIGNS abbr. = in abbreuiatura a.c. = ante correctionem coni. = conieci del. = deleuit ego = personal intervention of the editor into the text em. = emendaui ind. = indicaui iter. = iterauit om. = omisit M = Codex Syriacus Mannanam 46 mg. = in margine om. = ommisit p. c. = post correctionem secl. = seclusi s. l. = supra lineam stat. abs. = status absolutus T = Codex Thrissur Syriacus 17 ut uid. = ut uidetur […] = interpolation = addition of the editor †…† = unintelligible passage

Sometimes the misuse of rukkākhā and quššāyā serves as witness to an Indian pronunciation. 6

1

ܿ ‫ܝ‬ǠLJ‫ ܕ‬ƣDžDžLjLJ džǓ‫]܀‬ [‫܀‬ƣƧƾƧƴ ƣƵƾܼ Džǡ ƣLJܵ ‫ܘ‬ǩ

ܿ ̈ nj̈ƽƱDžǂƦ‫ ܕ‬džƾǁ‫ ܵܗ‬2ƨƷ Ưǁ[68ra] ܵ ƣLJܵ ‫ ܿܘ‬Ƣ‫ܝ ܬـ‬ǠLJܵ ‫ܣ‬Ʋܿ ƾܼ Ʃ‫ ܼܕܐ‬ƣNJܵ ‫ ܵܗ‬ƣNJǠǁ‫ܕܘ‬ Ƥ‫ܬ‬ƯǓ ܹ ܵ ܿ ܿ ܵܵ ܵ ܿ ܵ ƲƾƪƵLj LJܸ ƣƧƾܼ Ƨƴܼܿ ƣƵƾDžǡ ܼ ܿ DŽܼ ƣNJ‫ ܗ‬ƥ‫ܕ‬Ƣǔܹ DŽ njDŽ ƣDŽܹ ‫ ܵܘ‬džǁ njLJܼ Ǡƽܼ Ǥƽܼ ܿ ‫ܡ‬ǠƦ .ƶƽܼ ܿ ‫ܕ‬Ƴ ܿ 3 ܵ ܵ 4 ܵ ܵ ܿ ܵ ̈njƽƱƦƢDŽ‫ܗܘ ܘ‬ džƻLJܸ .‫ܕܘ‬ǠƻDžLjDŽ‫ܘ‬ ƲǎDžǞLj ̣ njDžƽܼ ‫ ܕ‬ƣNJ‫ ܗ‬ƣƵƾܼ Džǡ‫ܕ‬ ܼ ܼ DŽ‫ܘ‬ ܼ ƲǡƯǞLjDŽ‫ܘ‬ ܿ 7 ܵ ܵ ܿ njǝ‫ ܘܬ‬5‫ܣ‬Ǥǡ‫ ܿܬܢ ܘ‬ƯǔDŽ‫ ܿܘ‬ƯLjDŽ‫ܗܘ ܿܬ‬ ƣNJ‫ ܗ‬ƣNjLJƲƽ njƽܼ ƯǓƯǔLJ 6ƣNJܹ ǯ‫ܘܕܐܚ‬ džDžܹ ǂǡ‫ܘ‬ ܸ ܼ ܼ ܸ ܼ ̣ ܼ ܸ ܸ ܼ ܿ njLJ ƿDžܿ ǔLJ ܿ ܿ ǫƲ̈ DžǓ njNjƽǠLJ‫ ̇ܐ‬ƣNjܵ LJܵ ƣDŽ‫܆ ܐ‬8ƲǎDžǝǤ ܿ LjDŽ ‫ ̇ܙܕܩ‬njNjܿ LJ ǠƽǤƽܿ džǁ ݂ ܼ ܼ ܼ ƱƦܹ Ǡǡ‫ܕ‬ ܸ ܼܸ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܸ ܼ ܿ ܿ ƣNjܵ LjDŽ‫ܘ‬ ̈ ܵ ̇ ̈ƾܼ LJ‫ܗ ܬ‬Ǥܹ ܵƾǔǡ‫ܘܬ‬ ‫ܬܗ‬ǠLJ‫ܘܬ ̈ܕ‬ .ƱDŽܹ Ǥƾܼ DŽܼ ƣƾLJ‫ ܕܕܘ‬9‫ܘ‬ƱDŽ njNjƾLJܹ ƯLJ .ƥǠLJƢLJܸ ܸ ‫ܢ‬Ʊ ܼ ̈ LJܿ ܵ ƲǍ‫ ܘ‬njƾDžƾƴ‫ ܕ‬ǫ‫ܘ‬ƯƧǓ‫ܘ‬ ܵ ̈ ܼܿ njƾLJܹ ‫ ܵܪ‬ǫ‫ ̈ܘ‬Ǡܵ Ʀ‫ܘܕܘ‬ ǫƲ̈ ƾƴ‫ܘ‬ njƾƦܹ ‫ ܪܘܪ‬11ǫƲ̈ NJǠǓ .10‫ܢ‬Ʊܵ LJǤ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܿ ܵܵ 15 ܵ 14 ܵ 13 ܵ 12 ܵ ܿ ܵ ܿ ƤǤLjǂƴܸ ‫ܣ ܕ‬ƲNJ‫ ܘܬܪܘ‬.. ƣNJǠƪǖܼ ƣƦ‫ܘ‬Ǡǁ‫ ܘ‬ƣNJǠǎƦܸ ƣǖǠǍ ‫܆‬njƾܼ NJƱDŽƢLJ‫ ܘ‬njƾܼ NjƾƵLJܼ ܵ ǂƦ‫ܪ‬ ܿ ǡ 17ƣNJƱ ܿ ƽ ǠLJ‫ ܸܐ‬ǤƽƢܵƽƢܵƽ ‫܆‬16Ƥ‫ܘܬ‬ƱDŽ‫ ܕܐ‬ƣܵƾǍ‫ܪ‬Ʋǁ ܵ ǠƦܼ ܿ ‫ܢ‬ƲǔLj džǓܼ ܿ ƥǠƾܼ Ǎ ǠƦܼ ܿ ‫ܥ‬ƲǢ ܹ ܿ ܿ ܼ 18 ̈ ܵ ܼ ܿ ܵ ܼܵ ܿ ܵ ܵ ǡ ǃƽ‫ ܘܐ‬njǎܵ ƾNJ ƿLJƲ̈ ƾƦ ƥ‫ܪ‬ƱǍܿ ǃƽ‫ܘܐ‬ ܿ Ʀܼ ƣƧǁƲǁ ǃƽ‫ ܼܘܐ‬.ƣܵƾNJƲǓ ƣƵܵ ƾܼ NJ‫ ܕܕ‬ƣǢLj . ƣNjܹ NjǓ ǤNjƾ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܸ ܼ ܼ ܿ ܿ ܿ ܵ ܿ ܿ ܵ 19 ̈ ܵ ܿ ̈ ܵ ̈ ܿ ƣDžƧǡ ǃƽ‫܆ ܼܘܐ‬ƣNjܹ NjǓ džǓܼ ‫ܪ‬ƱNjLJ‫ܕ‬ Ƥ‫ ܹܙ‬ǯ‫ ܐ‬ǃƽ‫ ܼܘܐ‬ƣDžǞƴ‫ܕ‬ ܼ ƤǤǢܿ ǝܸ ǃƽ‫ ܼܘܐ‬. ƣNJܹ Ưǖ‫ ܐ‬džǓܼ ܿ ܼ ̈ ܵ ܵƤǤNJƲƧDŽ 21 ܵ 20 ̈ ܿ ܿ ܵ ܵ ܿ ܿ .ǫƲǖƲǔƦ njNjƧDŽܸ ‫ܕ‬ ǃƽ‫܆ ܼܘܐ‬ƣƾLJ ƿǓƲƧ ƣǂDžLJܼ ܕ‬ƣNjǡܸ Ʋǡ ǃƽ‫ܼܘܐ‬ ܼ ܼ LjƦ ܿ ‫ܝ‬ǠLJ‫ ܕ‬ƣDžDžLjLJ džǓ‫܀‬. M om., T (mg.) ‫܀‬ƣƧƾƧƴ ƣƵƾܼ Džǡ ƣLJܵ ‫ܘ‬ǩ M ƨƷ‫ ܕ‬ut uid.; T ƨƷ ܼ Ưǁ. ܵ 3 M ƲǡƯǞLjDŽ‫;ܘ‬ T om.. ܿ ܵ ܿ DŽ‫ܘ‬. ܿ ܿ Mpc ƲǎDžܵ ǞLj ܿ ܿ 4 Mac ǏDžܵ ǞLj ܼ ܼ DžǞLj ܼ ܼ ܼ DŽ; ܼ DŽܼ (mg.); T Ʋǎ ܿ 5 M ‫ܣ‬Ǥǡ‫ ;ܘ‬T ‫ܣ‬Ǥǡ. ܸ ܸ ܼ ܿ ܿ ܿ ac pc 6 Em. ƣNJǯ‫ܘܕܐܚ‬ ܼ (s. l.); T ƣNJǰƴ‫ܘܕܐ‬. ܹ ܼ ; M ƣNJܹ Ǡƴ‫ ; ܼܘܐ‬M ƣNJܹ Ǡƴ‫ܘܕܐ‬ 7 M ƣNJܵ ‫ ܵܗ‬ƣNjLJƲƽ; T ƣNJ‫ ܗ‬ƣLJƲƽ. ܵ ܿ ܿ ܿ 8 Coni. ƲǎDžǝǤ ܼ LjDŽ; ܼ ܼ LjDŽ; ܸ M ;ƲLjDž ܼ ǁǤ ܸ T ƲLj ܼ Džǁܼ Ǥܼ LjDŽ. ܸ ܿ ܵ ̇ ̇ ܵ 9 M ‫ܘ‬ƱDŽ njNjƾLJܹ ƯLJ ; T ‫ܘ‬ƱDŽ ƱDŽ nj Njƾ LJ ƯLJ . ܹ ܼ ܵ ܵ LJǤ ܿ ̈ ̈ LJ); 10 Em. (‫ܢ‬Ʊ ܼ M (‫ܢ‬ƱLJǤLJ); ܸ T (‫ܢ‬ƱLJǤLJ). ܵ ƲǍ‫ ;ܘ‬Mac ƲNJǠǓ ܵ ƲǎƦ; T Mpc (mg.) ǫƲNJǠǓ ܵ ƲǎƦ. 11 Em. ǫƲ̈ NJǠǓ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܿ T njƾNjܵƾƵLJ. 12 Em. njNjܿ ܵƾƵLJܿ ; M njƾǢܵƾƵLJ; ܼ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܵ ܵ ܵ ܵ Ʀ ƣǖܵ ǠǍ 13 Em. ƣNJǠǎ ; M ƣNJܹ ǠǎƦܸ ƣǖܹ ǠǍ; T ƣNJǠǎƦܸ ƣǖǠǍ. ܸ ܵ ܿ ܵ ܿ ܿ ܵ ܵ ǖܿ ƣƦ‫ܘ‬Ǡǁ‫ ;ܘ‬M ƣNJǠƪǖܿ ƣƦ‫ܘ‬Ǡǁ‫ܘ‬ ̈ 14 Em. ƣNJǠƪ ; T ƣNJǠƪǖܼ ƣƦ‫ܘ‬Ǡǁܼ ‫ ܼܘ‬. ܼ ܹ ܼ ܵ ƴ‫ ;ܕ‬Mpc ƤǤLjǂ ܵ ƴ‫( ܕ‬mg.); T ƤǤLjǂƴ‫ܕ‬. 15 Mac ǤLjǂ ܼܸ ܸ ܸ ܵ ƴ‫ܣ ܕ‬ƲNJ‫ܘܬܪܘ‬ ܿ ; T ƤǤLjǂܼ ƴ‫ ܕ‬ƣܵƾǍ‫ܪ‬Ʋǁ‫ ܘ‬.Ƥ‫ܘܬ‬ƱDŽ‫ܣ ܼ ܿܕܐ‬ƲNJܿ ‫ܪܘ‬ ܿ ‫ܘܬ‬. 16 M Ƥ‫ܘܬ‬ƱDŽ‫ ܕܐ‬ƣܵƾǍ‫ܪ‬Ʋǁ ƤǤLjǂ ܼ ܸ ܸ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܿ ̈ ܵ ǂƦ‫;ܪ‬ ܵ ܿ ܿ ܵ 17 Em. ƣNJƱ M ƣNJƱǂƦ‫;ܪ‬ ܼ T ƣNJƱǂƦ‫ ܼܪ‬. ܿ ̈ ܵ ܿ ܵ ܵ ܿ ܵ ܿ ܵ 18 M ƣNjNjǓ ǃƽܼ ‫ ܼܐ‬. ܹ ǤNjƾ ܼ Ʀܼ ƣƧǁƲǁ ǃƽ‫ ; ܼܘܐ‬T ƣNjNjǓ Ǥܼ NjƾƦܼ ƤƱƩƲNJܼ ƨǁƲǁ ܼ 19 Em. ƣNJƯ̈ ǖ‫ ; ܵܐ‬M ƣNJǯ‫ ; ܿܐܦ‬T ƣNJƯ̈ ǖ‫ ܿܐ‬. ܹ ܹ ܼ ܹ ܼ ܵ ܵ ܵ ; Mpc .ǫƲ̈ ǖƲǔƦ ܵ (mg.); T .ǫƲ̈ ǖƲ 20 Mac Ʋ̈ ǖƲǔƦ ǔƦ . ܿ LJܿ ǤNjܿ ǡƲǡ ܿ ; T ƣǂDž ܿ ; M ƣǂDž ܿ ܵ LJܼ ܿ ƣNjܵ ǡܸ Ʋǡ ܵ LJܼ ܿ ܕ‬ƣNjܵ ǡܸ Ʋǡ 21 Coni. ƣǂDž ܼ ܼܼ . 1 2

57

58

SERMON ON SAINT THOMAS, THE BELOVED APOSTLE

ܵ ܿ ܵ ܵ ǖ ƲƪƦ ܿ ̈ ƣǖƢǂܹ̈ Ʀ ǤƦǜLJ‫ܘ‬ njǖܹ ‫ ܕܐ‬.ƤǤܵ ܼ ƧƷ ..Ǡƾܼ Ǘǡܼܿ 23‫ܟ‬ǤǗLJ‫ ܕ‬ƣƦ‫ ܕܕܗ‬ƣǞǓܸ ǃƽ‫ ܼܘܐ‬.22ƣLJǠƾ ܹ ܿ ܹ ܼܼ 26 ̇ ܿ ǠƦܿ džǓ‫ܕ‬ ‫ܬܗ‬ƲLjƾܼ ǎƦ‫܆ ܕ‬ǫƲDžǓ njNjƾܼ DžDžLjLJ 25ƣNjLJ ƣDž‫ ܸܐـ‬24.‫ܢ‬ǰƾܼ LJ‫ ܐ‬ƣܵƾNJƲǓ ܼ ܼ ܵ 28 27 ܿ ܿ ‫ܬܗ‬ ƲNjLjƴǠLJ‫ܕ‬ ‫ܙ‬ njDž ƽ ‫ܐ‬ njLJ݂ ‫ ܹܬܗ‬ƲNjƸDŽ Ʋǡ‫ܕ‬ ƥǠǞ ƽ ‫ܘܐ‬ .Ƥ Ǥƽ dž ǂDŽ Ƥ‫ܬ‬ Ʋǂ ƾ ǁǠƦ ƥ‫ܪ‬Ǥ ƾ LJ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܼ ̈ ܿ 32 31 ̈ 29 ܵ ‫ ܹܬܗ‬ƲNJǠƧƾǎLJ‫ܕ‬ ‫܆‬30‫ܢ‬ǯƿǞƽܼ ܿ ƣǖܹ ܿ Ƣǁܹ džǁ njLJ‫ܘ‬ ƣƧܹ ƺ‫ܘ‬ ƤǤܵ ܼ Ʀܿ ‫ ܹܨ‬džǁ ݂ [68rb] ƣܵƾƦ‫ܕܗ‬ ܼ ܸ ܿ njLJ 33njƽǤƵƽ‫ܪ‬ ܿ njLJ ǤLJ‫ܪ‬ ܿ 34 ̈ ܵ ܿ 35‫ܘܬܗ‬ǠƧNjƩ ‫ܬ‬ƲƾDžǔLJ‫ܘ‬ .njNjƧDŽܸ ‫ܙܝ‬ǯ‫ ܐ‬džǁ njƾܼ NJǤƵƽ‫ ܹܪ‬džǁ ݂ ݂ ܼ ܼ ܼ ̈ ܵ ܵ ܼ ̈ ܼܵ ܵ ܼ 37 ܼ ܿ 38 ܵ ܿ 36 ܵ ܵ ܿ ̈ ܵ ܿ ̈ ܵ nj ‫ܬܗ‬ ƲDŽ ‫ܘ‬ǤƦ‫ܕ‬ Ƥ ‫ܬ‬ ‫ܘ‬ Ƣ Ʃ ‫ܘ‬ ƽƢ ƽ‫ܘ‬ nj ƣNjǡƲǡ džǁ njLJ݂ njƽƯƵLJ‫ܘ‬ ƽƢ ǖ . Ƥ LJ‫ܘ‬ ƩǰǗ ‫ܬ‬ Ʋ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܹ ܼ ܵ ܿdžǁ njLJ ƣNjǗ ܵ 40 39 ܿ ܵ ܿ ܿ ܿ ǂDŽ ‫ܬܗ܆‬ƲNJܼ ǠƦƯLJ‫ܘܬܗ ܘ‬ǠƾǢǁ ‫ܬ‬ƲƾDž ݂ ܼ ܿ ƣǔƧǎLJ ܼ ƣܵƽǠLJ Ǐƽ‫ܕ‬ǠǗƦ‫ܕ‬ ܼ ܼ ܵ LJ‫ܘ‬ ܹ ܵ ܵ ܼ ܵ ܵ ̈ ܵ ܵ ܿ ܿ ljƾܼ Ǎ‫ ܕ‬ƤǤǢǝܸ ǃƽ‫ܕ ܼܐ‬ƲƵDžƦ ƣLjDžǡ‫ ܕ‬Ƥ‫ ܐܬ‬Ƥ‫ ܗܘ‬ƣDŽ‫܆ ܘ‬ƣǢNJ‫ ܐ‬ljƵܸ DŽ ƥ‫ܪ‬ƲƧǓ‫ܕ‬ ƣDžܹ Ƨܿ ǡ̈ ܸ ܿ ܿ ܵ ̈ܵ ܿ ܵ 41 ܿ ܵ ܵ ǗLJ‫ܘ‬ ‫ ܪܕܝ‬.Ǥƽܼ ƢǁǤ ljǓܼ ܿ Ƥ‫ܬ‬ƲǢ ܼ ܿ Ƥ‫ܘܬ‬ƱDŽ‫ܐ‬ ܼ ܼ NJ‫ ܐ‬njܸƾǡܼ ƣDŽ‫܆ ܸܐ‬ƣܵƾLjǢƦ ƣNjܹ NjǓܼ džǓܼ ƤƱDŽ‫ܐ‬ 42 ܿ ̈ ܵ ܿ ܵ ‫܆ ܘܕܨ‬ƣܹƽ‫ܘ‬ƯNJ‫ ܹܗ‬njƾDžǓ Ǡƽܼ Ǥƽ‫ ܘ‬.‫ܢ‬Ʋǖ‫ܕ‬Ǡ ‫ܪ‬ǤƦ‫ ܕ‬Ƥ‫ܬ‬Ʋ̈ ƾLjDŽ ܼ ƶNJܼ ‫ ܕ‬ƣǢLjǡܸ njLJܸ ܼ NJܸ ܿ ‫ܢ‬ƱDŽ‫ܐ‬ ܿ ܿ ܿ 45 44 43 ܿ LjDŽ ܿ ܿ ‫ܪܢ‬ƱNJ‫ ܼܐ‬Ưǁܼ .ƥǠƧNjƩܼ ǃƽ‫ ܼܐ‬Ʊƴܹ ‫ܗܜ ܼܐܘܪ‬Ǡ džǓܼ ƤǤܼ ƾܼ NjܵƾƵLJܼ ‫ܬܗ‬ǠƧǍ‫ܕ‬ ƥ‫ܗܪ‬ƲNjƦ ܼ ܸ ܼ ܹ ܵ ܵ ܵ ǖ ƲƪƦ M ƣLJǠƾ ; T ƣLJǰƾܼ ǖ ƲƪƦ‫ܕ‬ ܹ ܼ . ܵ ܿ Em. ‫ܟ‬ǤǗLJ‫ ;ܕ‬M ‫ܬܟ‬ƲLJ‫;ܕ‬ ܼ ܼ T ‫ܟ‬ǤǗLJ‫ܕ‬. ܿ ܵ ܿ njǖ‫ܕܐ‬ ܿ ܿ ܵ ܿ ǠƦܿ džǓ‫ܕ‬ ܿ ǠƦܿ džǓ‫ܕ‬ 24 M .‫ܢ‬ǠƾLJ‫ ܐ‬ƣܵƾNJƲǓ ‫ܢ܇‬ǰƾܼ LJ‫ ܐ‬ƣƾNJƲǓ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܹ ; T Ƥ‫ܪܘ ܼܬ‬Ǥ ܼ ƾܼ ܿ LJ‫ ܼܕ‬ƤǤƦ‫ܘܪ‬ǯ ܼ ܼ njǖܸ ‫ܼܕܐ‬ ܿ ܿ ܵ .njƾܼ ǝƯƧLJ ܼ njƵƾܼ Džǡ‫ ܼܕ‬. 25 M ƣNjLJ; T ƣܵƾLJ. ̇ ܿ 26 Em. (‫ܬܗ‬ƲLj ƾܼ ǎƦ‫ ;)ܕ‬M (‫ܬܗ‬ƲLjƾܼ ǎƦ‫ ;)ܕ‬T (‫ܬܗ‬ƲLj ܼ ƾܼ ǎƦ‫)ܕ‬. ܼ ܿ ܿ ܵ ǠLJ 27 M ‫ܬܗ‬ƲNjLjƴǠLJ‫ ;ܕ‬T ‫ܬܗ‬ƲNjLjƴ ܼ ‫ܘ‬.ܼ ܼ ܹ ܼ ܿ ܿ Ƥ‫ܬ‬ƲǂƾǁǠƦ; Tac džǂDŽ Ƥ‫ܬ‬Ʋǂƾǁܿ ǠƦ ܿ ; Tpc 28 Em. džǂDŽ Ƥ‫ܬ‬ƲǂƾǁǠƦ; M džǔDŽ ܼ ܼ ǁܼ ƯƦ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܼ ƤǤܼ ǂƾ ܼ ܿ ܿ džǂDŽ ܼ Ƥ‫ ܼܬ‬Ʋǂ ܼ (del.). ܼ ƾܼ ǁǠƦ ܵ ܵ ‫ܕ‬.ܿ 29 M ƣܵƾƦ‫;ܕܗ‬ T ƣƾNjƦ‫ܗ‬ ܼ 30 Mac ‫ܢ‬ǯǟƽܿ ; Mpc ‫ܢ‬ǯƿǞƽܿ (s. l.); T ‫ܢ‬ǯƿǞƽܿ . ܼ ܼ ܼ ܼ 31 M ƣƧ̈ ƺ‫ ;ܘ‬T ƣƧܿ ƺ‫ܘ‬. ܹ ܸ ܿ ܿ ‫ܕ‬.ܿ 32 Mac ƲNJǠƧƾǎLJ‫ ; ܕ‬Mpc ‫ܬܗ‬ƲNJǠƧƾǎLJ‫( ܕ‬mg.); T ‫ܬܗ‬ƲNJǠƧƾ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܹ ܼ ܹ ܼ ǎLJ ܵ ‫ ;ܪ‬T njƽǤƵƽ‫ܪ‬. 33 Em. njƽǤƵƽ‫ ;ܪ‬M ‫ܢ‬ǤƵƽ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܹ ܼ ܿ ; T njƾNj̈ Ljǎ ܵ ‫ ܪ‬džǁ ̈ܵ ܵ 34 M njƾNJǤƵƽ džǁ. ܼ ܿ Ʀܸ ‫ ܘ‬:njƾܼ NJǤƵƽ‫ܪ‬ ܼ ܼ ܹܿ ܿ 35 Mac ‫ܘ‬ǠƧNjƩ; Mpc ‫ܘܬܗ‬ǠƧNjƩ (mg.); T ‫ܘܬܗ‬ǠƧƩ. ܼ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܹ ܼ ܼܼ ܵ Ʋܵ ƩǰǗLJܿ ; M Ƥ‫ ܵܬ‬Ʋܵ ƩǠǗLJ. 36 T Ƥ‫ܬ‬ ܸ ܼ ܼ 37 Em. ‫ܬܗ‬ƲDŽ‫ܘ‬ǤƦ‫ ;ܕ‬M ‫ܬܗ‬ƲDŽ‫ܘ‬ǤƦ‫ ;ܘ‬T ‫ܬܗ‬ƲDŽ‫ܘ‬ǤƦ‫ܕ‬. ܼ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܹ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܵ Ʋǡ; ̈ ܿ T ƣNjǡƲǡ. 38 M ƣNjǡ ܿ Ǘܿ Ʀ‫ܕ‬.ܿ 39 Mac Ǐǎƽ‫ܕ‬ǠǗƦ‫ ;ܕ‬Mpc Ǐƽ‫ܕ‬ǠǗƦ‫( ܕ‬del.); T Ǐƽ‫ܕ‬Ǡ ܹܵ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܵ ܹ pc ܿܿ 40 Mac ‫ܬ‬ƲNJǠƦƯLJ ; M ‫ܬܗ܆‬ƲNJܼ ǠƦƯLJ (mg.); T ‫ ܹܬܗ‬ƲNJǠ ܼ ܼ ƦƯLJ. ܼ ܿ T Ǥƽ‫ܐ‬ǠƽǠǡܿ njƾǡܿ . 41 M njƾǡ; ܸ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܸܼ ܼ ܸ ܼ ܿ . 42 T ǠƽǤƽ‫ ;ܘ‬M ǠƽǤƽ ‫ܐܘ‬ ܼ ܼ ܿ 43 M ‫ܪܢ‬ƱNJ‫;ܐ‬ ܼ T ‫ܢ‬ǯƱNJ‫ܐ‬. ܿ 44 M ‫ܬܗ‬ǠƧǍ‫ ;ܕ‬T Ƥ‫ܬ‬ǠƧǍ‫ܕ‬. ܹ ܼ ܼ ܿ Mpc ƤǤƾNjܵƾƵLJܿ (mg.); T ƤǤƾNjܵƾƵLJ.ܿ 45 Mac ǤƾNjܵƾƵLJ; ܼ ܼ ܼܼ ܼ ܼܼ ܼ 22 23

EDITION OF THE TEXT

59

47 46 ̈ ܿ ܿ ܼ̄ ƣܵƾDžDžܸ Ʀ‫ ܘ‬njLjǓ ƣNJƯǖ‫ܐ‬ Ƥ‫ܬ‬ƲǢNJ‫ܘܐ‬ Ƥ‫ܘܬ‬ƱDŽ‫ܕܐ‬ ܼ ƣLjƴ ܹ ǯ ƯƧǔ ܼ LjDŽ ܸ .‫ܢ‬ǠLJ ƿǢLJ‫ܕ‬ ܼܿ ܼ ܿ 48 ܿ ‫ܡ‬Ưǝܿ 49ƥǠǗǡܵ ܕ‬ƣƧǁƲǁ ܿ .njƾDžǓ ǫƲǖ‫ܐ‬ ܵ ̈ ‫ܪ‬ƱNJ‫ ܼܐ‬ƣƾǖ‫ܕܪܕܘ‬ njDŽ ‫ܩ‬Ưܹ Ʀ‫ܘ‬ ‫ܬ‬ ƲLJƯ Ʀ‫ܘ‬ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܿ .njǁ‫ ܘ‬.Ƥ‫ܬ‬Ǡ ܿ ƽǠǡ Ƥ‫ܬ‬ƲǞƽ‫ ܕܙܕ‬ƣǢLj ܵ ‫ ܿܐ‬.njǁ‫ ܘ‬.Ʊܹ NjLJ ‫ܪ ܗܘ‬ƲǓ‫ܙ‬ ܵ ܵ ܿ ܵ ƣNjǂƽ ƣ LjƵ ǖ džǁ ǡ ƣ Ƶ ƾ ǢLjDŽ ܼ ܹ ܹܸ ̣ ܸ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܿ ܸ ܼܿ ܿ DŽܿ ƣܵƾNJǠǎƦ ܿ LjDŽ ܵ ܵ DŽܼ ‫̇ܙܕܩ‬ ƲƾNJܵ ǤLj ƣNjǢDŽܸ ‫ ܘ‬ƲDžǁǤǎ ǫ݂ ƣDžƻǓܼ ܿ ƣNJܵ ‫ ܵܗ‬ƣNjܵ Ʀܵ Ʋƺ džǓܼ ‫ܕܘ‬Ʋܵ ǎLj ܼ ܸ ܼ ܼ ̇ ܿ ܵ 50 ܵ ܵ ܵ ̈ ܿ ƣDžܹ LJ‫ܘ‬ ƣDžƾ . ǃǢƴǤ ܹ ƣNJ‫ܢ ܘܗܘ‬ǯƿǎƴ ܸ LJܸ ƣNjƦܵ Ʋƺ‫ܕ‬ ܼ ƣǡ‫ܕ‬Ʋǝ ܼ ‫ܝ‬ǯ‫ܕ‬ƱƦ ܸ ܿ ǟǗǍܿ ƣDŽ ܼ ܵ ƴܼ ܿ ƱDžǁ‫ܘ‬ ܵ 51ƣƻǎDžƪNJ‫ ܸܐ ܼܿܘ‬njNjƴƲƽܿ ƣǢܵ ƽܼ Ưǝ ǠƾܹƩ ƣNJܹ ǤLJ ‫܆‬ǠǓ‫ܕ‬Ƴ ‫ܢ‬ǯƱNjLJܼ Ưǁܼܿ Ưƴܼܿ ƣǁƢDžLjDŽ ƤƳƴ‫ܕ‬ ܼ LJܸ ܼ ܿ ܿ 52 ̈ ܵ ǡ ǃƽ‫ ܿܐ‬ǫƲ̈ ǖ‫ܐ‬ ̈ ‫ܘ‬ .ƣ ǢLj ƤǤ ƾ ƦƱDžǡ ǃƽ ǯ ‫ܐ‬ ǫƲDžƩ džǓܼ ljDŽ ƥƯƴ ‫ ܗܘܝ ܆‬njǁ‫ ܵܕܪ‬ƥ‫ܪ‬ƲNJ‫ܕ‬ ܼ ܼ ܸ ܼ ܼ ܿ ܵ ܿ ܵ ‫ܗ‬ƯƽƢƦ Ƥ‫ ܗܘ‬Ưƾƴ‫[ ܘܐ‬68va] ƣLjܵ ƽܿ džǓܿ Ƥ‫ܬ‬Ǡƴ‫ܘܐ‬ ܿ ƣƦܵ Ǥǁ ƣǢƽܼ ƯǞDŽܼ ƱDžܹ ǁ‫ ܕܐܘ‬ƥ‫ܪ‬ƲǓ‫ܙ‬ ƣǢƧƽܼ ݂ ܼ ܹ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܿ .55ƣNJ‫ܗ‬ ܵ ǠƽǠLJܿ ƱǍǠǁܿ ƲƪƦ‫ ܘ‬ƣǢƦ ܵ ‫ ܕ‬ǃƽ‫ ܿܐ‬ƣܵƾDžƴܿ 54ƱLJƲǗƦ 53Ƥ‫ܘܗܘ‬ .njNjƴ Ʋƽܿ ‫ ܹܪܗ‬Ưǡ‫ܘ‬ ݂ ܼ ܼܿ ܼ ܹ ܼ ܹ ܼ ܼ ܹ 56 ܿ 57 ܵ ܿ ܿ ܿ ܵ ܵ ǃƽ‫ ܼܐ‬džƧܸ ǝܼ Ưǁ‫ ܘ‬.ǫ‫ܘ‬ǯ‫ܘܒ‬ƯƦ ‫ܟ‬ƢDžLJ‫ ܕ ܸܐܬ‬ƣLJ‫ܘ‬Ƣ‫ܝ ܬـ‬ǠLJ‫ ܕ‬Ƥ‫ܬ‬ƲLJ‫ܕ‬ ܼ ܼ DŽܼ ܼ Ƥ‫ ܗ‬.‫ܘ‬Ǡܼ ƧǎLj ܵ ܵ ܵ 58 ܿ ܿ ܵ njLJ݂ ‫ܪ‬ƱNJ‫ܬ‬ ƤǤǓƯƽ .Ʊƴܹ ‫ ܼܪܘ‬ƲƪƦ .ƤǤǞƽܼ ǠLJ ƤǤƽܼ ƳƵLjƦ‫ܕ‬ ܼ ‫ ܘ ܸܐ‬.‫ܢ‬ǠLJ‫ ܕ‬Ƥ‫ܬ‬Ǡƽܼ Ǡǡ ƤǤLjƾǝ‫ܕ‬ ܼ ܼ ܵ Ʊǖ‫ܨܘ‬Ǡǖ ܵ ǡ njLJ݂ ƨƺܵ ǣLjǡ‫ ܿܐ‬.ƱNjǖ‫ ܕ‬ǣƩܿ 59‫ ݂ܗܘ‬.ƱDŽ ‫ܝ‬Ƴƴ‫ܢ ܕ ܸܐܬ‬ǠLJ‫ܕ‬ ܿ ܵ ǜƦ ‫܆‬ƣǢLj ƣƵLJ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܸ ܸ ܹ ܹ ܿ ܿ 60 ܵ ܵ ܿ ܵ 61 ̇ ̈ ܿ ‫ܘܐ‬ ܵ ƣǢNj̈ƾNjƦ‫ ܕ‬Ƥ‫ܬ‬Ʋ̈ ƧDŽ ljƴ‫ܘܐ‬ .62njǢܵ DŽܸ ǠLJ‫ ̇ܐ‬.ƣǓ‫ܕܐܪ‬ Ʊƾǖܹ ƲǎDŽ ƣLJƯǓ ƣܵ ƾǓƲǢƽܼ ܼ ܼ ܸ ܸ ܼ .‫ܪ‬ƱNJ ܵƤǤƴƲƧǡ ܿ ‫ ܬ‬njLJ݂ .‫ ݂ܗܘܘ‬njƾǗDžƴǤǢLJ ƱDžƽ‫ ܕ‬Ƥ‫ܬ‬ƲLJƯƦ Ʊ̇ Ʀܵ ‫ܢ‬ǠLjƦ‫܆ ܕ‬ƣNjܵ ƾLJ‫ ܐ‬ƣƩ‫ܪ‬ ƱƦ‫ܕ‬ ܹ ܼ ܸ ܼ ܼ ܸ ܼܿ 64 63 ܵ ܵ ܿ ܿ ܿ ܿ ܿ ܵ ‫܆‬ƤǤƾܼ ǁ‫ ܕ‬ƱǢǗ ݂ ǃƽ‫ ܼܐ‬ƤǤƴƲƧǡǤDŽ ܼ njǁ‫ ܗ‬.ƣƽǠLJ‫ ܕ‬Ʊƴܹ ‫ ܼܪܘ‬njLJ‫ܕ‬ ܹܵ NJܼ džƧܸ ǝܼ Ưǁܼ ƣNjƦƲƺ ܸ ̇ Ƥ‫ܬ‬ƲǞƽ‫ ܕܙܕ‬ƣǢLj ܵ ǡ‫ ܕ‬ǫƲ̈ Ǟܵ ƾDŽ‫ܿܙ‬ ̈ ܹƩ ǣƧܸ DŽ‫܆ ܘ ܸܐܬ‬Ƥ‫ܗܘ‬ ܵ ‫ܢ‬ǠLJ‫ܬܗ ܕ‬ƲLJƯƦ ƱƦ ‫ܟ‬Ǡܸ ǁ‫ ܘ ܸܐܬ‬.Ƥ‫ܘܬ‬Ƣ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܹ ܼ ܼ ̇ ܿ ̈ Džܸ Ʀ 65ƣƵܵ ƾܼ ǢLJ‫ܬܗ ܕ‬ƲLJ‫ܕ‬ džƾƦܹ ‫ ܸܬ‬ƱDžǂƦ .ƤƢ̈ƾƪ ܼ ܼ ǏǗܸ ƺܼ ܿ ‫܆‬ƣǁܵ ‫ ܼܕܘ‬ƣǁܵ ‫ܘ‬ƯƦ‫ܘ‬ ܼ Ǎܼ ƣǢ̈ƽƯǝ‫ ܕ‬Ƥ‫ܬ‬ƲƧ

ܿ Em. ƣNJƯ̈ ǖ‫ ;ܐ‬M ƣNJǯ‫ ;ܐܦ‬T ƣNJƯ̈ ǖ‫ ܼܐ‬. M ƿǢLJ‫ܕ‬ (abbr.); T ƣƵƾܼ ǢLJ‫ܕ‬. ܼ pc ܿ ܿ ܿ 48 Mac ƲLJƯƦ; ܼ ܼ M ‫ܬ‬ƲLJƯ ܼ Ʀ;ܼ T ‫ ܼܬ‬ƲLJƯ ܼ Ʀ‫ܘ‬. ܼ ܵ ܵ ܕ‬ƣƧǁƲǁ ܵ ܵ ܵ 49 Em. ƥǠǗǡ . ; M ƥǠǗǡ ƣƧǁƲǁ ; T ƥǠǗǡܼܿ ƨǁƲǁ ܼ 50 M ǃǢƴǤLJ; T ǃǢƴܿ ǤLJ. ܼ ܼܸ ܸ ܸ ܵ ܹƪNJ‫ ܸܐ ܼܿܘ‬. 51 Em. ƣƻǎDžƪNJ‫ ;ܐ ܿܘ‬M ƣƻǎDžƪNJ‫ ;ܐܘ‬T ƣƻǎDž ܼܸ ܹܸ 52 Em. ‫ ;ܗ ̈ܘܝ‬M ‫ܗ ܿܘܝ‬.; T ‫ܗ݂ ܵܘܝ‬. ܼ ̇ 53 T Ƥ‫;ܘܗܘ‬ ݂ M Ƥ‫ܘܗܘ‬. 54 Mac ‫ܡ‬ƲǗƦ; T Mpc ƱLJƲǗƦ (mg.). ܹ ܼ ܹ ܼ ܵ ǠƽǠLJܿ ; T Ƥ‫ ݂ܗܘ‬ǠƽǠLJ. 55 M ƣNJ‫ܗ‬ ܼ ܼ ܿ ‫ ܼ ܿܕܐ‬. 56 M ƣLJ‫ܝ ܬـܐܘ‬ǠLJ‫ ;ܕ‬T ƣLJܵ ‫ ܿܘ‬ǩܿ ‫ܝ‬ǠLJ ‫ܣ‬ƲƾƩ 57 Em. (‫ܟ‬ƢDžLJ‫ ;)ܕܐܬ‬T (‫ܟ‬ƢDžLJܿ ‫ ;)ܕܐܬ‬M (ǃDŽƢLJ‫)ܕܐܬ‬. ܸ ܸ ܼ ܼܸ ܵ ܿ ܿ Mpc ƤǤƽƳƵLjƦ‫ܕ‬ ܿ 58 Mac ƤǤƽƳLjƦ‫;ܕ‬ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܼ (s. l.); T ƤǤƽܼ ƳƵLjܼ Ʀ‫ܕ‬. 59 M ‫;ܗܘ‬ ݂ T ‫ܘܗܘ‬. ݀ ܵ ƲǢ ܿ ƽ ƣƵLJ ܹ̈ ǜƦ. ̈ 60 M ƣܵƾǓ ܼ ܵ ǜƦ ܹ ; ̇ T ƣƾǓƲǢƽ ƣƵLJ ܸ pc ܹ̈ ̈ 61 Mac ƿǖƲǎDŽ; M Ʊƾǖܹ ƲǎDŽ (mg.); T Ʊƾǖܹ ƲǎDŽ. ܵ DŽ ǠLJ‫ ; ̇ܐ‬T ƣƵ̈ ƾDžǡ džǓ ‫ܣ‬ƲDŽƲ ܿ ǖܵ ƣNjƦƲƷ ǠƾƩ ǠLJ‫ ̇ܐ‬. 62 M njǢ ܸ ܼ ܼ ܹ 63 M ƣNjܵ Ʀܵ Ʋƺ; T ƣNJ‫ ܗ‬ƣNjƦƲƺ. ܼ ܼ ܵ NJܿ (del.); T ƱǢǗNjܿ Ʀ. 64 Mac ƱǢǗNJܿ ; Mpc ƣǢǗ ܹ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܵ ƾܼ ǢLJ‫ ;ܕ‬T Ƥ‫ܬ‬ƲǞ 65 M ƣƵ ܼ ƽܼ ‫ ܕܙܕ‬ƣǢLjǡܸ ƣƵƾܼ ǢLJ‫ܕ‬. 46 47

60

SERMON ON SAINT THOMAS, THE BELOVED APOSTLE

ܿ Ʀ‫ܕܨ‬ 66 ܿ ܵ ܿ ܵ ǜƦ njƽܼ Ǡƾƴ݁ 67‫ ܿܘܢ‬Ǥƾ ƣǞܹ̈ ƾܼ DŽ‫ ܘ ܼܿܙ‬ƣƵLJ ܹ ܵ ‫ ܸܘ‬ƱNJ‫ ܘ ܸܐ‬njƾLJܼ Ʋ̈ ܵƾDŽ ƣLJƯǓ ‫ܗ ܹܪܗ‬ƲNJܼ džƧܼ ƽܼ ܿ ‫ܘ ܸܐܬ‬ ܹ 68 ̇ ܵ ܵ ܵ ܵ ܿ ܵ ƱNjܹ ǖ‫ ܕ‬ƲƪƦ ƱƾLJ‫ܗ ܘܐܪ‬Ưƽܼ ƢƦ Ưƴܼ ‫ ܘ ܸܐ‬.‫ܢ‬ǠLJ ƱƦܹ Ǡƴ Ưǁ ‫܆‬ƣNJ‫ ܗ‬ƣNjƦƲƷ njLJ݂ njƾܼ ƵNJ‫ܕܕ‬ ܿ ܼ ܿ 70 69 ̈ ̈ ̈ ܵ Ưǁ ǫƲDžLJ ƿƴ‫ܨܘܬܘ ܼܐ‬ .ƣƵƾǢLJ‫ܕ‬ njƽƱƦ‫ ܕ‬džƻLJܸ ǬDŽ‫ܝ ܼܘܐ‬ǠLJ . ƤǤǔLJƯƦ ‫ܐܘܕܝ‬ ܼ ܿ ܼ 71 ܼ ܵ ܿ ܿ 72 ̇ ܵ ܿ ܿ ܵ Ƥ‫ ܼܪܘܬ‬ƲǗǁ‫ ܕ‬ƿƾǓƲƺ džǁ ‫ܕ‬Ǡƺ ‫܆‬ƥ‫ ܗܕ‬Ƥ‫ܬ‬ƲNjLjƽƱƦ‫ܘ‬ ‫܇‬Ƥ‫ܨܘܪܬ‬ ܼ ܼ ƱDžǁ ƣƾDžƩܼ 75 ܵ ܵ ̈ Ʋǡ ƿǍǠǖ‫ ܘ‬74ƤǤƾNjƸǍ 73ƣƺƲƾǍ‫ܘܗܪ‬ ܿ ƲNJ‫ ܗ‬.Ǥƽܼ ƢܵƾDžƩ ƣLjDžǓ‫ ܕ‬ƤǤ̈ƾǁܵ ƲǢƴ ƣNjƻDŽ ܼ ܹ ܹ ܼ ܼ 76 ̇ ܿ ƱDžǁ ܿ ‫ܬܗ‬ƲNJǠƦƯLJ ܵ ƣNjܵ Ʀܵ Ʋƺ ‫ܘ‬ ‫ܕܗ‬ [ 68 vb ] ƣ Ƶ ƾ ǢLJ ‫ܕ‬ ‫ܗܘܬ‬ ƣƧƽǤǁ < ƱƦ‫ܕ‬ > ƥǠǗǍ ܼ ̤ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܸ ܿ ̇ǫ ǃƽ‫ ܼ ܿܐ‬.njܵƾNjLJ ƣDŽ‫ ܕ‬ƣLjLjǔDŽ‫ܘ‬ ̈ƣLjLjǔDŽ ƥ‫ܗܪ‬ƲNjDŽ ǠƾƩ ‫ܟ‬ǤƦƱƽ ̈ ̈ ܵ ƣܹƽ‫ܘ‬ƯNJƱDŽ ܼ ܹ ǘDŽܸ ‫ܼܐ‬ ܼ ܹ ܸ ܵ 77 ̇ ǖƲ̈ ǎDŽ ̈ ƾDžǡ‫ܘܢ ܘ‬ƳƵ ܵ ܿ NJ ƣǂܹ̈ DžLJܿ ƣǓ‫ ܕܐܪ‬Ʊƾ ܵ Ʋǖ ‫ܢ‬ƲLJ Ƥ‫ܸܬܗ ܹܘ‬ ܼ ƲǞNJ ܼ ƣNjƻ ܹ ܼ ܼ ܹ ܵ ƣLJƯǓ ƿNjǝ‫ܪ‬ ܼ ƿDŽ ܼ ܸ 80 ܿ 79 ܿ ܿ 78 ܵ ܵ ܵ ܿ ܵ ƣNJƲƽǯƱƦ‫ܘ‬ ܹ ܵ ƣܹƾǍǰǗDŽ . ǠƧܼ Ǎܼ ǠܹƾƩ ƣLJ‫ܘ‬ǩ ‫ܝ‬ǠLJ ‫ ܿܟ ܆‬ƱDŽ‫ ܐ‬ƣܵƽǠLjDŽܿ ‫ܘܢ‬Ưƪǎ ܼ NJܸ ‫ܘ‬ 81 ܵ ܵ 83ƣܹƽǰƻǞƦܼ ܿ .82ƣܹƽ‫ܬܘ‬ǰ ̈ ܼ Ǎ‫ܘ‬ ܵ NJ̈ ‫ܘܗ‬ ܵ ǖ‫ܘ‬ ܵ 84ƣܹƾDžƧܹ ̈ Ʀ‫ܘ‬ ƣܹƽ‫ܘ‬Ư ܹ ƣܹƽǠƺƲǂ ܼ ƣܹƽ‫ܘܙ‬ǰܿ LJ‫ܘ‬ ܼ ܿ ƣܹ̈ƾǞܵ ƽܼ ‫ܘܪܙ‬ ܹ ܿ 87 ܿ 86 85 ܵ ̈ ܵ ̈ ܿ ̈ ̈ ƣܹƾNjƽܼ ‫ܘܨ‬ . ‫ܪ‬Ǡǡ‫ܘ‬ ‫ܢ‬ǠLJ‫ ܕ‬ǫ‫ܕܘ‬ƲƪǍ ƣǡܹ ƲƪLj ܼ ƯLjǓ‫ܘܐ‬ ܸ ܼ DŽܼ ‫ ܘܐܦ‬.ƯLjDŽ ܸ ‫ ܬ‬ƣܹƾǡƲǁ‫ܘ‬ ܼ ܵ ܵ ƲǢDŽ‫ܘ‬ 89 ̈ ܿ 88ƣǓ‫ܘܕ‬ ܿ ܿ ‫ܬ‬ƲDžƾDžǝ‫ܕ‬ ܿ ǫƲDžƩ‫ ܕܪ‬.njNjƴƲƽܿ ǠLJ‫ ܐ‬ƣLJܵ ‫ܘ‬Ƣ‫ܬـ‬ ƣNjܵ Ʀܵ Ʋƺ‫ܕ‬ Ƥ‫ܬ‬ƲNJǠ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܼ ƧǎLJ T njƾLJܼ ܿ Ʋ̈ ܵƾDŽ; M njƾܼ LJƲܵƾDŽ. ܿ Ʀ‫;ܕܨ‬ ܿ M ‫ ܿܘܢ‬Ǥƾ ܹ ܵ T ‫ܘܢ‬ǤNJ‫ ܐ‬njƾƦ‫ ݁ܕܨ‬. 68 Mac ƯƽƢƦ; T Mpc ‫ܗ‬ƯƽƢƦ (mg.). ܼ ܼ 69 M ‫ ;ܐܘܕܝ‬T ǠLJ‫ ܵܐܘܕܝ ܘܐ‬. ݂ ܼ ܼ ̈ ̈ T ǫƲ̈ Njƾܵ Ǔܿ ‫ ܗܘܝ‬njܵƽ‫ܕ‬ǠLJ‫ ܕ‬ƤǤǔLJƯƦ 70 M ƤǤǔLJƯƦ; . ܼ ݀ ܿ ܵ 71 Em. ƣܵƾDžƩ; M ƣܵƾDžƩ; T ƣܵƾDŽ‫ܬ‬. ܼ ܿ ǁ; ܿ ǁܵ (mg.); T Ƥ‫ܪܘܬ‬ƲǗ ܿ ܼܿ ܵ Mpc Ƥ‫ ܼܪܘܬ‬ƲǗ 72 Mac ƲǗ ܼ ܼ ǁ. 73 Em. ƣƺƲƾǍ‫ ;ܗܪ‬M Ƥ‫ܬ‬ƲƾǍ‫ ;ܗܪ‬T Ƥ‫ܬ‬ƲƾǍ‫ܗܪ‬. ܼ ܹ ܼ ܹ ܼ ܹ ܵ Njܵ Ƹܵ Ǎ.ܿ 74 Em. ƤǤƾNjƸǍ ; M ƤǤƾNjƪǍ; T ƤǤƾ ܼ ܵ T ƲNJ‫ܘܗ‬. 75 M ƲNJܵ ‫;ܗ‬ 76 M ƥǠǗǍ; T ƱƦ‫ ܕ‬ƣƦǤǁ :‫ ܗ‬:ƥǠǗǍ. ܹ ܸ 77 M Ƥ‫ ;ܬܗܘ‬T Ƥ‫ܕܬܗܘ‬. ܹ ܸ ܹ ܸ ܵ ܵ ܿ ܿ ܵ džܸƽǠǎƽܼ ‫ ܕ‬ƱǢܹ ƽܼ ƯǞDŽ‫ܘ‬ 78 M ‫ܟ‬ƱDŽ‫;ܐ‬ T ǃƧƩ‫ܕ‬ ܼ ‫ܟ‬ƱDŽ‫ ܼܐ‬. ܿ ܿ T ǫ‫ܘ‬Ư ܿ ̈ ܿ 79 M ǠƧܿ Ǎ; ƾܼ LjDŽ‫ ܬ‬Ưƾܼ Ʀ‫܇ ܘ‬ƱLJƲNjǞ džƽǠǎƾDŽ Ƥ‫ ݂ܗܘ‬ƣDŽ :ǠƧܼ ܿ Ǎܼ ܿ . ݀ ƣDŽ‫ܕ܆ ܸܐ‬ƲƵDžƦ ܼ ܼ ܹ Ʀܼ ‫ܗܘ‬ ܿ ƱƦ‫;ܘ‬ ܿ ܿ 80 M ƣNJƲƽǯ T ƣNJܹ ƲǁǯƱܹ Ʀܼ ‫ܘ‬.ܼ ܹ ܿ ܿ ܵ ܿ 81 Coni. ƣƾǞܵ ̈ƽ‫;ܘܪܙ‬ ܹ ܼ ܼ M ƣܹƾǞܵ ̈ƽ‫ܕ‬ ܼ ‫ ;ܘ ܼܙ‬T ƣܹƾǝܵ ‫ܘܙܪܘ‬. ܿ ܿ ܿ ̈ ܿ ܵ ܵ ǖ‫ܘ‬ ܵ ܹܵ ǖ‫;ܘ‬ 82 Coni. ƣƽ‫ܬܘ‬ǰ ܼ .ƣܹƾƦ‫ܬ‬Ǡ ܼ . ܼ T ƣܹƽ‫ܐ‬ƯLJ‫ܘ‬ ܼ M ƣܹƾƦ‫ܬ‬Ǡǖ‫;ܘ‬ ܿ T .ƣNjǝǠ ܿ ܵ 83 M ƣƽǰƻǞƦ; ܹ ܹ ܼ ܹ ƽܼ ‫ ܘܗ‬.ƣܹƽǰƻǞƦ‫ܘ‬ ܼ . ܵ ܿ ܵ ܿ . 84 M ƣƾDžƧ̈ Ʀ‫;ܘ‬ ܹ ܹ ܵ T .ƣܹƽƯǝǠLjǍ‫ ܼܘ‬ƣܹƾDžƧƦ‫ܘ‬ ܼ 85 M ƣƾNjܵ ̈ƽ‫ ;ܘܨ‬T .ƣƾNjܵ ƽ‫ܨ‬ƢLJ‫ ܘ‬.ƣƾNjܵ ƽ‫ܘܨ‬. ܹ ܼ ܹ ܼ ܹ ܼ ܵ 86 M ‫ܢ‬ǠLJ‫ ;ܕ‬T ‫ܬܗ‬ƲƾDžƸƦ ܹ ܼ ܼ ܿ ‫ܢ‬ǠLJ‫ܕ‬. ܿ ܿ T ‫ܬܗ‬ƲǂDžLJ ƿNjƦ‫ܘ‬ ܿ ܿ ƱLjǡ‫ܗ ܿܕܕ‬ƯƾLjDŽ‫ ܿܬ‬Ưƾܿ Ʀ‫ ܘ‬.‫ܪ‬Ǡܿ ǡ‫ܘ‬ ܿ ƪܵ ƦƢܸ DŽ ‫ܬܕܝ ܐܦ‬ ̈ 87 M ‫ܪ‬Ǡǡ‫;ܘ‬ ƣǂDžLJ ‫ܘܣ‬Ǡ ܼܼ ܼ ܼ ܹ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܿ ܿ ܿ ܿ ܵ ‫܀‬ƣǂDžLjDŽ ƱNJ‫ܪܗ‬Ʋǁ ݀ ‫ܪ‬ǤƦ ܼ njLJܼ ƱLjDž ܹ ƴܸ ‫ ܼܐ‬ƣƧƾܼ DŽ‫ ܕܨ‬ƣǢƾܼ NjƦ ‫ܕܗܘ ܼܬ ܼܕܝ‬ ܼ ‫ ܼܐ‬. ܼ .‫ܢ‬ǠLjDŽ ƿNjǖ ܵ Ʋǡ; M ƣǓ‫ܕ‬Ʋ ܵ ƾǡ. 88 T ƣǓ‫ܘܕ‬ ܼ ܼ ܵ ̈ 89 Em. ǫƲDžƩ‫;ܕܪ‬ M ǫƲDžƩ‫ܪܪ‬.; T ǫƲDžƩǯ‫ܕ‬. 66 67

EDITION OF THE TEXT

61

ܵ ܵ ܵ 91 ܵ ܿ 90 ̇ 93 ܿ ‫ ̈ܗ ܿܘܝ‬nj̈ƾLJ ܵ ƥƯƧǓ‫ܘ‬ ƥǠǓƲǍ‫ܕ‬ .92ƥ‫ܪ‬ƲNJ‫ܕ‬ ‫ ܕ‬ƤƳƴ‫ ܕ‬ƣǁƢDžLJ‫ܕ‬ njLJ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܼ ƤǤƾܼ ƦƱDžǢDŽ ܿ ܵ .95ƥǠƽǜNJ .ǤƽƢDžƾDžǝ‫ܘ‬ ܿ ܿ ܿ ܿ ǤƽƢǗܵ ƽǠƴ ܿ ܿ ƣLJ ‫ܘ‬Ƣ‫ܬـ‬ ‫ܝ‬Ǡ LJ‫ܕ‬ ǏǗܸ ǝ‫ܘ‬ ܼ Ǡܿ Ƨܼ Ǎܼ njƽܼ ǯƲǓ‫ ܙ‬njܵ̈ƾܼ NjǢƦܼ ‫܆‬ljDŽ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܵ ܵ ‫ܘܨ ܹܪܗ‬ƢƦ ܵ ƤǤܼ Džܵ Dž̈ Ǔܼ ܿ ‫ܢ‬ǠLJ‫ܕ‬ ƣDŽ‫ ܕ‬ƣLjܵ Ǔܼ ƣܵƾǎDžܹ ǝ‫ ܕ ܸܐ‬ƥǠƾƺ 96ƲƪƦ .njƽ‫ ܕ‬ƲNJ‫ ܗ‬.ƣNjܵ ǍƢDŽ‫ܕ‬ ܼ 97 ܿ ̇ǫ .ƥƯǞ ܵ ƽܿ ‫ܪ‬ƲNJ ǫƲNjǢLjǢLJ ܿ ܿ‫ ܘ‬98‫ ܪܘܚ‬ǫƲǁƢDžLJ ̈ ̈ ƯƧǓ‫ܕ‬ ǃƽ‫ ܐ‬ǣNjܸ ǁ‫ܘ‬ ܼ džLjܹ ƴܼܿ ƣNjܹ LJǤLJܸ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܼ 99 ܿ ܿ ܵ ݂ 101ƣܵƾDžƴ .100ƣƦǤǁ njNjƴƲƾDŽ njƽ‫ܕ‬ Ƥ‫ܗܘ‬ .Ǡƽܼ ǠLJܼ ܿ ƱǍܹ ǠǂƦ‫܆ ܘ‬ƱLJܹ ƲǗƦ ƱDžܹ ǁ‫ܕܐܘ‬ ܼ 102 ܵ ̈ ܿ ܵ Ʋǡ ܼܿ Ƥ‫ܬ‬ƲLj ܵ ƣ̈ƾƴ‫ ܘ‬ƤƱƻƴ njǞƦ Ƥ‫ ܼܬ‬ƲƾDž ܼ ƱƦ‫ ܕ‬ƥƯƾܼ ƪǍ ‫ܢ‬ƲƾDžƪNJ‫ܕ ܸܐܘ‬ ܼ ƴ‫ܘ‬ ܼ ƾܼ ǎƦ ƣܵƽƲܿ ƵLJ ܿ ܵ Ƥ‫ܘܬ‬Ǡܼ ƽܼ ǠLJ ƱDŽܹ njƾܼ Ljƴ‫ ܪ‬Ǥƽܼ ƢNJǠǓƲǍ‫ܘ‬ ܼ ƣƵƾܼ ǢLjƦ‫ ܕ‬njƾDžܹ ƽƢDŽ ‫܆‬njƾܼ ǂƾܼ DžLJ ljDžǔDŽ‫ܕ‬ ܼ njƾܼ NjLjƽƱLJ ܿ ܿ ܿ ܿ Ǥǔܵ LJ̈ ‫ ܘܕ‬ƣ̈ƾƻƴ‫ ܕ‬Ƥ‫ܬ‬ƲƧƽǤDŽ ‫܆‬ƥǠƽǜLJ njƽ‫ܕ‬ njƽ‫ ܕ‬ƣǁƢDžLJ .‫ܢ‬ǰƦǤǎLJܸ ‫ܢ‬ƲƾDžƪNJ‫ܘ‬Ƣܸ Ʀ‫ܗܘܢ ܕ‬ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܹ ܹ ܿ ƣLjܵ ƽܿ džǓܿ Ƥ‫ܗܘ‬ ܵ ƽܿ > [ƣLjܵ ƽܿ ] džǓ‫ܘ‬ ܿ ܵ ‫ܵܕ ܹܐܫ‬ ƣLJܵ ‫ܘ‬Ƣ‫ܬـ‬ [69ra] ƣNjܵ Ʀܵ Ʋƺ‫ܕ‬ džƻLJܸ .103džƴܹ ‫ ܕ‬ƣDŽ ǣNJ‫ ܐ‬njLJ‫ܘ‬ 110 ܿ ܵ ‫ܡ‬ƯLJܸ ƤǤDžƴ ‫܆‬ljDžܹ ǡ‫ܘܪ‬ƢDŽ ‫ܢ‬ǠLJܵ ljǓܼ 111‫ܠ‬Ƴܼܿ LjDŽ ܸ ܼ ‫ ܹܕ‬. ‫ܬܗ‬ƲNjǁ Ƥ‫ ݂ܗܘ‬ƤƲܹ ƵLJ 112 ܿnjNjƴ ‫ ܐܦ‬113‫ܠ‬Ƴܿ NJ .ǫ‫ܘ‬ǰƧƵDŽ ܵ ̈ ܵ ܿ ܼ ܼ ǠLJ‫ ܗ ܸܘ ݂ܐ‬.ƱDžƻǞLjDŽ ܸ ƣܹƽ‫ܘܕ‬Ʊƽܼ ‫ ݂ܗܘܘ‬njƾǔܹ Ʀ‫ ܕ‬džƻLJ‫ܕ‬ ܸ ܼܸ ܵ ܿ ܵ ܵ ǫƲDžǓ ܵ Ʋǝ‫ ܕ‬ƣƴܵ ‫ ܕܪܘ‬114‫ܗ‬ǤƵLJ‫ܕ‬ ƱNjܹ ǖ‫ܫ ܼܿܕ‬Ƣܹ LJ‫ܘ‬ ƣǡ‫ܕ‬ ܹ ‫ܬ‬ƲLjNJ‫ܘ‬ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܹ ܼ ‫ܡ‬Ưǝ‫ ̤ܘ ܕ‬ƱNJ‫< ܘ ܹܐ‬.>ƱLjǓ ܵ ܿ ƥ‫ܪܪ‬Ʋǡ ‫ܪ‬ǤƦ ƯƧǓ ܵܵ ܵ ‫ܕܗ‬ ܿ ܵ Ưƾܼ ܿ Ʀ ‫ܬܗ܆‬ƲNjܼ Ljƽ ܼ ܼܿ .‫ܢ‬ǠLJ‫ܕ‬ ܼ ܼ ƣNjLJ .ƣNJ‫ ܗ‬ƣƵܵ ƾܼ Džǡ Ƥ‫ܢ ݂ܗܘ‬ǤDžƾƴ njǁ‫ܗ‬ ܵ ̈ 115 ܵ ܵ [69rb] .‫ܗ‬ǤLj Ʋǝ‫ ܕ‬ƣƴܵ ‫ܼܪܘ‬ ܼ Ƥ‫ ܼܬ‬Ƴƴ‫ ܘ‬. ƣǡ‫ܕ‬ ܹ ܵƾǝ ‫ܪ‬ǤƦ njƾNJܹ ‫ܪܒ ܹܐ‬Ʋǝ‫ܢ܆ ܘ‬ǠLJ‫ܗ ܕ‬ǤLJƲǡ‫ܕ‬ ܿ ܼܵ ܵ 116 ̈ ܿ ܿ ̈ ܵ njLJ݂ džƴܸ ‫ ܕ‬ƣDŽ‫ ܘ‬.ƣƾƻǎDŽܸ ‫ ܘܕ‬ƤǤƴǯ ‫ܕܐܘ‬ ƣƻNjǝܸ njLJ݂ ƿLJ‫ܗ‬ ܼ ‫ܣ‬ƲNJ‫ܘ‬ƯNJƲܹ ǝ‫ܘ‬ ܹ ܼ ‫ ܼܐ‬ƣNJ‫ ܗ‬džƻLJܸ ܿ ܿ ‫ܬܗ‬ƲLJܵ džƻLJ Ǖƽ‫ ܐ ܿܬ ܼ ܿܬܙ‬ƣDŽ‫ܘ‬ 117 ̈ ܿ ܵ .ƣLjܵ ƽܿ ‫ ܕ‬ǫƲDŽ ܿ Džǁ ̈ ƲǢƵ ƣ ƾǖ ‫ܪܕܘ‬ ‫ܢ‬ ‫ܘ‬Ʊ Ƽ ǡ‫ܘ‬ ƣǞ̈ƾܼ Njǡ‫ܘܬ‬ ܸ ܹ ܼ ܼ ܼ LJܼ ܸ ܼ ܼ ܹ ܿ ̈ 120 119 118 ܵ Ʃ‫ ܕ‬ƥǠƦ‫ ܬ‬njLJ݂ džǡ‫ܬܪ‬ ƤǤܼ ǔƾܼ Ǎ džƻLJܸ džǓ‫ ܪ‬ƣDŽ‫ܘ‬ .ƣLJǰ ‫ܐ‬ ƣDŽ‫ ܘ‬. ƥǰܹ ƽܼ ǠLJ ܿ ̈ ܵ 121ܸ ܸ ܿ ܿ ܹ ܼ 122 ܿ ̈ ƤǤ̈ƾNjƻǍܵ ܵ . ƨǢƴ ܼ ‫ ܼܐ‬ƤǤDž ܸ ܼ Ƥ‫ܬ‬ƲLj ܼ ƾܼ ǎƦ ƣƾǡƲƧƴ ܼ ƱDžǁ‫ ܘ‬.ƥǰܹ ƾܼ Ǎ‫ ܼܕܐ‬ƤǤܹ Ʀ‫ ܘ‬. ܿ ƿƪǍ ܼ Ǣǡ‫ܘ‬ ̈ ̈ ǡ ƣDŽ‫ ܵܕ‬Ʋǡ‫ܘ‬ ܿ ̈ NjƦ‫ܿܘ‬ ̈ ܼ ‫ܗ‬ǤǔNJ‫ ܨ‬nj̈ƽƱDžǁ‫ܝ ܘ‬Ưƴ ̈ LJ‫ܕ‬ Ƥ‫ܬ‬ ƲƵ ƣLJƯǓ‫ ܵܕܫ ܘܐܕ ܹܪܟ ܘ‬123ƣƾNJƯ ܹ ܹ ܼ ƥƯƪ ܼ ܹ ܹ ܸܿ ܼ ܹ ܿ 125 ܵ 124 ܵ ܵ ܵ ܵ ƣDŽ‫ ܘ‬Ƥ‫ܬ‬ƲƾDžƺǠ Ǔܼ ƣDŽ‫ ܘ‬ƣƾǖ‫ܪܕܘ‬ ܼ ܼ ƣDŽ‫ ܘ‬ƣƾǡƲƧƴ ܼ ƣDŽ‫ ܘ‬ƣNJǜDŽ‫ ܼܐܘ‬ƣDŽ . ƱܹƾNJƲǡ ܼ ‫ܡ‬ƲƾDŽ ܵ LJܵ ƣDŽ‫ܣ ܘ‬ƲNJܿ ‫ܘ‬ƯNJƲ 126 ܿ ܿ ǝ ܵ Ʋǡ [‫ܬ‬ƲLJ] ƣDŽ‫ ܘ‬Ƥ‫ܬ‬Ʋ ƣDž̈ƾƴܼܿ ƣDŽ‫ ܘ‬ƣNjܹ̈ ƻDŽ ܹ̈ LJܼ ƣDŽ‫ ܘ‬ƣܹ̈ƾƴܼܿ ܸ ܼ ƣDŽ‫ ܵ ܵܘ‬ƣǁƢDž ܿ 129 ܵ 128 127 ܿ ܵ ܵ ƲǓ .Ǭ ƤǤƽǠƦ ƣDžǖ‫ ܘܐ‬ƣǞLJ ܼ ƣDŽ‫ ܘ‬njLj̈ƾǝ ƣDŽ‫ܘ‬ ܼ ܼ ƣDŽ‫ ܘ‬ƣLJ‫ ܪܘ‬ƣDŽ‫ܢ ܘ‬Ư̈ƽܼ ǤǓ‫ܕ‬ ܼ ǡ‫ܕ‬ ܵ ƴ.ܿ ܵ ƴ;ܿ Mpc ‫ܢ‬ǤDžƾ ܵ ƴܿ (del.); T ‫ܢ‬ǤDžƾ Mac ƣNJǤDžƾ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܵ ‫ ݂ܗܘܘ‬njƽƲƵLJ ̈ ܿ ܵ ; T ‫ܬܗ‬Ʋ̈ Njǁ Em. ‫ܬܗ‬ƲNjǁ Ƥ‫ ܗܘ‬ƤƲܹ ƵLJ ܼ ; M ‫ܬܗ‬ƲNjǁ ‫ ݂ܗܘܘ‬njƽƲܹ ƵLJ ܹܵ . 111 M ‫ܠ‬Ƴܿ LjDŽ; T ‫ ܿܙܠ‬ƢLjDŽ. ܼ ܸ ܼܸ 112 M džƻLJ‫ ;ܕ‬T džƻLJ. ܸ 113 M ‫ܠ‬Ƴܿ NJ; T ‫ ܿܙܠ‬ƢNJ. ܼ ܸ ܼܸ ܿ ܿ (iter.). ܿ ܿ 114 Em. ‫ܗ‬ǤƵLJ‫;ܕ‬ ܼ ܼ T ‫ ܹܬܗ‬ǤƵLJ‫ܕ‬ ܹ LJ‫;ܕ‬ ܹ ܼ M ‫ ܹܬܗ‬ǤƵ 115 M ƣǡ‫ܕ‬Ʋǝ‫ ;ܕ‬T ƣǢƽƯǝ. ܼ ܼ 116 M ƣƻNj̈ ǝ; T ƣƻNjǝ. ܸ ܸ 117 Em. ƣ̈ƾǖ‫ ;ܪܕܘ‬M ƣܵƾǖ‫ ;ܪܕܘ‬T ƣƾǖ‫ܪܕܘ‬. ܹ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܿ 118 M ƥǰƽǠLJ; T ƥǠǁǰLJ. ܹ ܼ ܹܼ ܵ ; Tpc ƣDŽ‫ܘ‬ ܵ (del.). 119 M ƣDŽ‫ ;ܘ‬Tac ‫ܬܗ‬ƲLJܵ džƸLJ Ǖƽ‫ ܐܬܬܙ‬ƣDŽ‫ܘ‬ ܼ ܸ ܹ ܿ ܿ 120 Mac ǰƩ‫ ;ܕ‬Mpc .ƣLJǰƩ‫( ܕ‬mg.); T .ƣLJǰƩ‫ܕ‬. ܹ ܼ ܼ ܿ ܿ 121 M ƿƪǍ‫;ܐ‬ ܼ ܼ T ƿDžǍ ܼ ‫ܐ‬.ܼ ܿ M T ƨǢƴ. 122 Em. ƨǢƴ; ܼ ܸ ̈ ǡ; T ƣƾNJ‫ܕ‬Ƣǡ. ̈ 123 M ƣƾNJƯ ܹ 124 M ƱƾNJܵ Ʋǡ; T ƣƾNJܵ Ʋǡ. ܹ ܼ ܼ 125 M ƣܵƾǖ‫ ;ܪܕܘ‬T ƣƾǖ‫ܕܕܘ‬. ܼ ܼ 126 Mac ‫ܬ‬ƲLJ ƣDŽ‫ ;ܘ‬T Mpc ƣDŽ‫( ܘ‬del.). ܵ M ƣLJܵ ‫ ;ܪܘ‬T ƣLJ‫ܪܘ‬. 127 Em. ƣLJ‫;ܪܘ‬ ܼ ܿ ܵ ܵ ‫;ܘܐ‬ pc ܵ ܿ 128 Em.ƣDžǖ Mac Ƥ‫;ܘ‬ ܼ M ƣDžǖ‫( ܼܘܐ‬mg.); T ƣDžǖ‫ܘܐ‬. ܵ ; M ƤǤƽ ܵ ǰƦ; T Ƥ‫ܬ‬Ǡƴ‫ ܐ‬ƤǤƽǠƦ. 129 Em. ƤǤƽǠƦ ܸ ܼ 109 110

EDITION OF THE TEXT

63

ܿ 131 130 ܿ ܿ ܿ njǁܹ ‫ ܘ‬.‫ܢ‬ǠLJ ƣƵƾܼ ǢLjƦ‫ܕ‬ ƫƾǖܼ ‫ ܐܘ‬.Ʊƺ‫ܘܬ ܪܗ‬ƳƽƳǓ ƨƺ‫ܘܐܪ‬ ܼ ƱƦܹ Ʋƴ ܼ ‫ ܿܬ‬ƲLj ܼ ƾܼ Ljƴܼܿ ܼ ܿ ܸ ܼܵܵ ܿ njƽ‫ ܕ‬ǫ ̇ .ƣܵƽ‫ ܐܪ‬132ǬƾNjƽǠǝ ̇ ƽ‫ ܐ‬ƤǤƽƲƴ‫ ܬ‬:ƣǝǠ ܿ džǓ‫ܕ‬ Ƥ‫ܬ‬Ʋƽܼ ‫ـ‬ƴ‫ ܼܿܕܪܘ‬ƱƽǤ Ǥƽܼ ƢƽƢƽ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܿ ܼ ܵ ܿ ܵƽ ‫ܢ‬ƲƩ ܼ ܿ ƤǤܵƽǰƦܹ ƤǤ̈ƾǔǡ‫< ܿܬ‬.>133ƱǢǗNJ‫ܕ‬ ܿ ƣǂDž ܿ ǎǂDž ܿ Ǔܼ džǓܼ .nj̈ƾNJܵ ǤLJ ܵ LJܼ ܿ 134‫ܪܘܣ‬Ư ƣƦ‫ܪ‬ ܹ ܼ ܼ ܵ ܼ ̇ ܿ ljDŽ ‫ܪ‬ǤƦ‫ ܕ‬.ƣƾNJܵ Ʋ̈ ܵƽ‫ܕ‬ ܿ ̈ƾǖ njLJ݂ ƯƵDŽ ܼܿ .‫ܠ‬Ƣܸ ǡܼܿ .ƱDžǁ ƣǓ‫ ܐܪ‬Ǡƽܼ Ǥƾܼ ܿ Ʀ ‫ܢ‬Ưܹ ǁ‫ܕ‬ Ǥƽܼ ‫܆ ܕ ܹܐܢ ܐ‬ƣǖܹ ƲǎDž ܼ ܹ ܼ ܿ ܿ ܵ ‫ܗܘܬ‬ 136 ܿ ‫ ܿܕ‬.Ƥ‫ܬ‬Ǡƴ‫ ܐ‬ƣǓ‫ܐܪ‬ ƣNJܵ ‫ ܵܗ‬ƣܵƾNJܵ Ʋǖ Ǥܿ ƾܼ DŽ‫ܕ‬ ƱDŽܹ ƨƽܼ ‫ ܼܘܐܬ‬.135Ʊ̇ ƾܼ ǢƧǂNJ ܼ ܼ džƻLJܸ . ‫ܡ‬ƯLJ ܼ ̤ܵ ܼ ܿ ܵ 138 ܿ ܿ 137 139 ܵ ܿ ܿ ܵ ܵ ‫ܘ‬Ưܼ ƧǔǢLjDŽ‫ ܘ‬ƲǢƧ ǠƧܼ Ǎ‫ܕ‬ ܼ DŽܼ Ƥ‫݂ܗܘ‬ ܼ . ƱƧܹ DŽܸ ‫ ܪܡ‬.ƣǂDžLjDŽ ܼ ǂLj ܼ ܿ ƨƺ ǤƽǠ ̤ ǁܸ ܵ ƤǤǓǯ ܵ ‫ ܐ‬140Ǥƾƴ‫ܿܕܬ‬ ̈ Ǔ‫ܘ‬ ̈ LjDž ƾ ƪǍ ƣ ƣƵܵ ƾܼ Džǡ njǁܼ ܿ ‫ ܵܗ‬ƣNJܵ ‫ ܵܗ‬njLJ݂ ǠƧDŽ .‫ ݂ܗܘܘ‬njƾܼ ƵǁǤǢLJ‫ܕ‬ ‫ܢ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ƤƢ ܼ ܹ ܼ ܹ ܸ ܸ ܼ ܿ 143 ܿ 142 141 ܵ ̈ ǠƧǍ‫ܕ‬ ‫ܬ‬ƢƦ ݂ .njDžƽܼ ‫ܕ‬ ܼ ƣǔƦ ܼ ܿ ƣǢNJ‫ ܐ‬Ǥƽܼ ‫ ܕܐ‬Ưǁ .njǎܵ ̈ƾܼ ƧǍ [69va] Ƥ‫ܘܬ‬ǯ ܼ ƨܼ Ǟܸ Ǔ‫ܘ‬ ܵ 145 ̇ ̈ 144 ܵ ܿ ܿ ܵ ܿ ܿ Džǁ ƯƧܿ ǔǡ‫ܘ‬ ƣƻLJ‫ܢ ܼܘ‬ƲNJܼ ‫ ܸܐ‬ƯLjDŽ‫ ܘܬ‬:‫ܘܢ‬ƱDŽ ‫ܘܢ‬Ʊ ƱƾǖƲǎDŽ ƣLJƯǓ ܸ ܼ .ƣǓ‫ܕܐܪ‬ ܵ ܵ ̇ ܿ ܵ ܵ ܿ ܵ ƣǔܹ Ʀ‫ ܘ‬.ƣNJǰƴƢDŽ njƾDŽܹ ‫ ܗ‬njLJ݂ ǠƻǍ ܼ .ƣƾNJǠLJ ƣƧƾܼ DŽ‫ ܕܨ‬ƥǠƾܼ NJ Ǥƾƴܹ ‫ܬ‬ ܼ ǞǔLJ Ƥ‫ ݂ܗܘ‬ƣƦ‫ ܨ‬Ưǁ‫ܘ‬ ܼ ƲƧ ܿ ܵ ܿ ܿ ܵ Ǡǎƴ Ƥ‫ܵܐ‬ƲDžLJ Ƥ‫ ܗܘ‬ǠƦǤǍ ƤǤܼ ܵƾNJǰƴ‫ ܐ‬146ƤǤǓǯ‫ܐ‬ Ƥ‫݂ܗܘ‬ ܹ ܼ ‫ ܸܐ‬ƣDŽ ƥƯƾܼ ƪǍ ‫ܢ‬ƲƾDžƪNJ‫ ܸܐܘ‬njƽƱƦ‫ܕ‬ ܼ ܿ ܵ ܿ ƣDŽ Ƥ‫ ܼܬ‬ǰƽܼ Ǥܼ ƽܼ ܿ džǓ‫ܕ‬ .njƽ‫ ܹܕ‬147ƱƧܹ ܿ DŽܸ ‫ܬ‬ƲLjƾܼ Ljƴ .ƿܼ ǖ‫ܘܐܘ‬ ܼ ƤǤƩ‫ܘܪ‬ ܼ ܼ ܵ ƣNjܵƾƦ‫ ܘܨ‬ƱƦܹ Ʋƴ‫ܘ‬ ܿ ̇ .džƽǠǎƽ‫ ܕ‬149ƣNjƽ‫ >ܕ< ܿܕ‬148Ƥ‫ܬ‬Ưƴ‫ ܐܘ‬nj̈ƾƴ‫ ܼ ܿܐ‬ǕLjǢ ƣܵƽ‫ܪ‬ƢDŽ ƱDžܹ ƻǝ‫ܗܘ ܕ‬ ܼ ܼ ܼ NJܸ .ljDŽܸ Ǥǡ‫ܸܐ‬ ܼ ܿ 151 ̇ ܵ ܼ ܼ ܿ 153 ܵ ܵ ܿ 152 150 ܿ ܵ ̈ ƶǂǡ ljǓܼ ƤǤƽǯƲƦ‫ܕܕ‬ ‫ܗ‬ǤLJ ƱLJƲǖ ܼ ‫ ܸܐ‬njǁ‫ܪ‬ǤƦ‫ܘ‬ ܼ ‫ܕܬ‬ ܼ ƲƪƦ ܼ ‫ܘ‬ǠƩ ܼ ܹ ƣDžƵǡ ܿ ܿ ܿ ܿ T ‫ܘܐܪܬܒ‬. Em.ƨƺ‫ܪ‬ ܼ ܼ M ‫ܪܬܒ‬ ܸ ‫;ܘܐ‬ ܼ ܸ ܸ ܿ ‫;ܘܐ‬ ܿ M ƫƾǖܼ ‫ ;ܐܘ‬T ƫƾǖ. ܿ ܿ pc ܵ ܵ 132 Mac ƱƾNjƽǠǝ; ܼ (mg.); T ǬƾNjƽǠǝ. ܼ ܼ M ǬƾNjƽܼ Ǡǝ 133 Em. ƱǢǗNJ‫ ܕ‬Ƥ‫ܬ‬ƲƾNjƴ‫ ; ܿܕܪܘ‬M ƱǢǗNJ‫ ܕ‬Ƥ‫ܬ‬Ʋƾƴ‫ ; ܿܕܪܘ‬T ƱǢǗNJ ‫ܬ‬Ʋƾƴ‫ܕܪܘ‬. ܹ ܼ ܹ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܿ ǎǂDž ܿ ܼ ܿ Mpc ‫ܪܘܣ‬Ư ܿ ǎǂDž ܿ ܿ ܿ ܿ ܿ 134 Mac ‫ܪܘ‬Ư ܼ Ǔ; ܼ Ǔܼ (mg.); T ‫ܪܘܣ‬ƯNjǎܼ ǂܼ DŽܸ ‫ܐ‬.ܼ ̇ ܿ ܿ ‫ ܿ;ܕ‬T Ʊ̇ ƾǢƧܿ ǂNJ ܿ ܿ ܿ ܿ 135 Em. Ʊ̇ ƾǢƧǂNJ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܼ ‫ ܼ;ܕ‬M Ʊƾܼ ǢƧܼ ǂNJ ܼ ܼ ‫ܕ‬.ܼ 136 M ‫ܡ‬ƯLJ; T ‫ܡ‬ǠƦ. 137 M ƱƧDŽ; T ƱƧDžƦ. ܹ ܸ ܸ pc ܿ ܿ ܿ 138 M Tac ǠƧܿ Ǎ‫;ܕ‬ ܼ ܼ T ǠƧǍ ܼ ‫ܕ‬.ܼ ܿ ܿ ܿ ܿ DŽ‫ܘ‬ ܿ DŽ‫ܘ‬ pc ܵ ǢLj ܵ ܵ DŽ‫ܘ‬ ܵ ǢLj 139 M ‫ܘ‬ƯƧǔǢLjDŽ‫;ܘ‬ Tac ‫ܘ‬Ưܼ Ƨǔ ܼ ܼ ‫ܘ‬Ưܼ ƧǔLj ܼ ; T ‫ܘ‬Ưܼ Ƨǔ ܼ ܼ (del.). ܼ ܿ T ƱNjƸDŽƲǡ Ǥƾƴ‫ܬ‬. 140 M Ǥƾƴ‫;ܕܬ‬ ܹ ܼ ܹ ܿ ܿ ܵ . ܵ ‫ܬ‬ƢƦ ܵ Ʀܵ ƨƾܼ ƧǓ‫ܘ‬ 141 T Ƥ‫ܘܬ‬ǯ ݂ ; M Ƥ‫ܪܘܬ‬Ǥ ܼ ƣǔƦ ܼ ƣǢƦ ܼ ƨܼ Ǟܸ Ǔ‫ܘ‬ 142 M Ưǁ; T Ǡǁ. ܿ ܿ 143 M ǠƧǍ‫;ܕ‬ T ǠƧǎNJ‫ܕ‬. ܼ ܼ ܿ ܵ ‫ ܼܿ;ܘ‬T ƤǤƵƾܼ ǢLJ Ƥ‫ܘ ܼܙܘܬ‬ǠǂƦ 144 M ƣƻLJ ƣƻLJ‫ܘ‬ ݂ . ̇ ƲǎDŽ; ̇ ǖƲǎDŽ. ̈ 145 Em. Ʊƾǖ M ƱƾǖƲǎDŽ; T Ʊƾ ܹ ܵ 146 Mac om. ; Mpc ƤǤǓǯ‫( ܐ‬mg.); T ƤǤǓǯ‫ܐ‬. ܼ 147 T ƱƧܿ DŽ; M ƣƧ̈ DŽ. ܹ ܸ ܹ ܸ ̈ ‫ܐܘ‬. ܿ ǡ‫ ܕ‬Ƥ‫ܬ‬Ưƴ 148 Em. Ƥ‫ܬ‬Ưƴ‫ ;ܐܘ‬M Ƥ‫ܬ‬Ǡƴ‫ ;ܐܘ‬T ‫ܢ‬ƲǢLj ܸ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܿ M ƣNjƽ‫ ܿ;ܕ‬T ƣNjƽ‫ܕ‬. ̇ 149 Em. ƣNjƽ‫;ܕܕ‬ ܼ ܼ ܿ ܿ ܿ 150 Em. ƶǂǡ ܼ ‫ ; ܸܐ‬M ƲƵǂǡ ܼ ‫ ; ܸܐ‬T ƶǂǡ‫ ܸܐ‬. 151 T Ʊ̇ LJܵ Ʋǖ; M ƱLJƲǖ. ܼ ܹ ܼ ܿ ܿ ܿ ܿ ܿ ܿ ‫;ܕܬ‬ 152 Em. ‫ܗ‬ǤLJ‫ܘ‬ǠƩ‫;ܕܬ‬ ܼ ܼ T ‫ܗ‬ǤLJ ܹ ‫ܘ‬Ǡܼ Ʃܼ ‫ܕܬ‬. ܼ ܼ ‫ܘ‬ǠƩ ܼ ܼ ܼ M ‫ܗ‬ǤLJ 130 131

64

SERMON ON SAINT THOMAS, THE BELOVED APOSTLE

155 ̇ ܿ ‫ܘܢ‬ƱDŽ ̈ ܿ ƣǢƦ ܵ ‫ ܕܕ‬154ƤǤƽǠǂǁܼ ܿ ܿ njLJ݂ .156ƣDŽǤLjƦ ǠLJ‫ܗ ܐ‬ǤƾƦ ƿNjƧDŽ ‫ܒ‬Ʊ ƽܼ ܿ ‫ ܘ‬džǞǡ‫ܕ‬ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܹ 157 ̇ ܼ ܵ ܿ 160 [ƣNjܹ ƾܼ LJƳDŽܼ ] Ƥ‫ ܵܗ‬159.ƣܵƾDžƴܼܿ ǟǗNJ݂ 158njLJ̇ ƥǠƽܼ ǠLJܼ ܿ njLJ‫ܘ‬ njLJ ƣDžǁ‫ܐ‬ ݂ ܿ ƣDžǁ‫ ܼܐܘ‬ǟǗNJ݂ ܿ ‫ܢ‬ǠLjDŽ ƿNjǖ‫ܬܗ ܐ‬ƲLJܵ ‫ܪ‬ǤƦܵ .161ƣǢƽƯǝ ǠƾƩ ܵ LjDŽ ܵ ݂ Ǥƽܼ ‫ ܕܐ‬.162Ƥ‫ܗܘ‬ ܵ ݂ ƱDžܹ ƻǝ‫ ܕ‬ƣǂDž Ƥ‫ܗܘ‬ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܹ ܵ 163ƣǂDž ܿ ƱDŽ ܵ LjDŽ ƣDŽ‫ ܘ‬165ǫƲƾǍܹ ƢNJ‫ ܕ‬ƤƢ̈ƾܼ ƪǍ ƣǎܸ ǂ̈ NJܸ 164ǟǖܸ ‫ ܕܐ‬njLJ݂ ƤƱܵ ƽܼ Ǡǁ ƿƪǍ Ƥ‫ܬ‬Ǡƽ ܼ ܼ ܿ ܿ ‫ܵܐ‬ ܿ ܿ ܵ ܿ ܿ .‫ܡ‬ƯLJ ‫ܘܬܪ‬ ‫܆‬Ƥ‫ܬ‬Ǡܵƽ ljDžƴǤ ܹ Njܼ Ʀ ‫ܫ‬Ǡǖ ܼ NJܸ ‫ ܘ‬ƣƵܵ ƾܼ Džǡ‫ ܕ‬ƤǤNjƾܼ ǂǡ džǓܼ ‫ܕ‬ƲƪǎNJܸ ‫ ܘ‬ǟǎܼ NJܸ ‫ ܕ‬ƱǢǗ ܼ ̇ 167 ܵ ǟDžǍ ܵ .ǠLJ‫ܘܐ‬ ‫ܘܪܕܝ‬ ƣƵܵ ƾܼ Džǡ ƱDŽ 166ƿDžƩ‫ܬ‬ ‫ ܘ ܸܐ‬.Ƥ‫ܗܘ‬ Ưǁ Ƥ‫ܘܗܘ‬ ݂ ƱDŽܹ ܼ ܼ ܿ Ljƽ‫ ܿܗ‬ƣDŽ 168nj̈ƽܠܝ‬ ܿ njLjƽƱLJ ܿ 169njƽǤ̈ƾLJƯDŽܿ .ǤNj džƻLJܸ ‫ ܸܙܠ‬ƣDŽ‫ ܸܐ‬:ǤNJ‫ܐ‬ ܸ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܿ ܸ ܼ ܿ ܿ 171 170 ܿ ܿ ‫ܘ‬ƯܹƪǍ‫ܬܗ ܘ‬Ǡ ‫ܥ‬ƲǢƽܼ ‫ܢ‬ǠLJܵ ܕ‬ ܼ ljƴ‫ܪ‬Ǥ ܼ NJܸ ܹ ܵƽ[Ǥƽ] ljǓܼ ƣǂDžLJܿ ‫ ܸܵܐ ܼܙܠ‬njǁܹ ‫ ܘ‬.ǃƾDžǓ ܿ 173 172 ̇ ܿ ƣNJ‫ܕܪ‬ƲǓ‫ܕ‬ ƣǓƲƧ .ƣܵƾDžƺܼ ܿ ljDžܹ ƴ‫ ܸܐܬ‬ƱƦ‫ܕ‬ ƥǠǗǓܼ ‫ܪܒ‬ƲǞ ܼ ܼ LJܼ ƤǤNjƾܼ ǂǡ džǓܼ ܼ Ʀ‫ܘ‬ ܼ ܿ ܿ ܵ LJܿ njLjƽ‫ܘܗ‬ ‫ܘ‬ƯLjǓ :ƣƵܵ ƾܼ ǢLjDŽ ƯLjDŽ‫ ܸܐܬܬ‬.ƱLjǓ ݂ ƥƯƾܼ ǡ‫ ܐ‬ƣƦܵ ƲƵƦ‫ܘ‬ ܼ ܸ ܼ ܼ ܹ ƤƢ̈ƾƪ ܼ Ǎ‫ܘ‬ ܼ ƣǂDž ܵ ܵ 175 ܵ 174 ܵ ܿ ̈ ܵ ƿǍ‫ ܐ‬Ǥƽܼ ƢNjƴ‫ ܼܪܘ‬Ǥܼ ƽܼ ƢNJǠƪǖ ‫܆‬ǫƲDŽƲƻǞDŽ‫ ܕ‬.ƥǠƽܼ ǠLJ‫[ ܕ‬69vb] Ƥ‫ܬ‬Ʋܼ ƾܼ Džƴܼܿ Ƥ‫ܗ‬ ̇ ܿ ܵܵ ܵ ƤǤNjƽܼ ƯLjƦ Ƥ‫ܘܬ‬ǤǢ ܼ LjDŽ ܸ ƣƵܵ ƾܼ Džǡ ‫ܝ‬Ǡǝ‫ܬ‬ ܼ ‫ ܸܐ‬Ưǁ .ƣNJ‫ ܗ‬ƣܵƽ‫ܘܬܗ ܕܐܪ‬Ǡܼ ƽܼ ǠLJ ǕLjǡ ǤNJ‫ ܐ‬ƣƦܹ ‫ܘܨ‬

ܿ ‫ ;ܕܕ‬Mac ǯƲƦ ܿ ‫ ;ܕܕ‬Mpc ƤǤܵƽǯƲƦ ܿ ‫( ܕܕ‬mg.); T ƤǤܵƽǯƲܿ Ʀܿ ‫ܕܕ‬. Em. ƤǤܵ ܵƽǯƲƦ ܹ ܹ ܹ ܹ ܹ ܿ ܿ ܿ ܵ Em. ƤǤƽܼ Ǡǂǁ; ܼ M ƤǤƽܼ ‫ܪ‬Ǡǁ; ܼ T ƤǤܼ ƽܼ Ǡǂǁ. ܼ ̇ T ǠLJ‫ ̇ܐ‬Ưǁ. 155 M ǠLJ‫;ܐ‬ ܿ ܿ 156 M ƣDŽǤLjƦ; ܼ .ƣDŽǤܼ LjƦ ܼ . ܼ T njǁ‫ܗ‬ ̇ M njLJ. 157 Em. njLJ; ݂ ̇ M njLJ. 158 Em. njLJ; ݂ ܵ ̇ 159 Em. .ƣܵƾDžƴܿ ǟǗNJ ݂ njLJ̇ ƥǠƽܼ ǠLJܼ ܿ njLJ‫ܘ‬ ݂ ƣDžǁ‫ ܼܐܘ‬ǟǗNJ݂ njLJ ƣDžǁ‫ ܐ‬njLJ݂ ; M ǟǗNJ݂ njLJ݂ ƣDžǁ‫ ܐ‬njLJ݂ ܼ ܵ ܿ ܿ ܵ ܵ ܵ .ƣƾDžƴ ǟǗNJ݂ njLJ݂ ƥǠƽܼ ǠLJܼ njLJ‫ܘ‬ ݂ .ƣDžǁܼ ‫ ܼܐܘ‬ǟǗNJ݂ ƣDŽƲܿ ǁ‫ܐ‬ ݂ ƣDžǁ‫ ; ܼܐܘ‬T .ƣƾDžƴܼ ǟǗNJ݂ ƥǠƽܼ ǠLJ njLJ‫ܘ‬ ܼ njLJ݂ . ܿ ac ܿ pc 160 Secl. ut glossema ƣNjƾLJƳDŽ; ܹ ܼ ܼ M om.; M ƣNjܹ ƾܼ LJƳDŽܼ (mg.); T om.. ܿ ‫ܝ‬ǠLJܵ ƣǢƽƯǝܿ . 161 M ƣǢƽƯǝ; T ƣLJ‫ܘ‬ǩ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܿ ܵ ݂ ƱDžܹ ƻǝ‫ ;ܕ‬T ƱDžܹ ƻǝ‫ܕ‬. 162 M Ƥ‫ܗܘ‬ ܼ ܿ ܵ LjDŽ 163 M ƣǂDž ܼ ƱDŽ; T ƱDŽܹ . 164 M ǟǖ‫ ܕܐ‬njLJ; T ǟǖ‫ ܕܐ‬njLJ‫ܘ‬. ݂ ݂ ܸ ܸ 165 T ǫƲƾǍƢNJ‫ ;ܕ‬Mac ƲƾǍƢNJ‫ ;ܕ‬Mpc ǫƲƾǍƢNJ‫ܕ‬. ܹ ܼ ܼ 166 M ƿDžƩ‫ ;ܘܐܬ‬T ƿDžƩ‫ܐܬ‬. ܸ ܼ ܼ ܼܸ ܿ 167 Em. ‫ ;ܘܪܕܝ‬T M ‫ܘܪܕܝ‬. ܼ ܼ ܼ ܿ 168 Em. nj̈ƾƾƴƯDŽ; M nj̈ƾƴ‫ ;ܕ‬T njƾ̈ƾƵDŽ ܼ ܼܿ ‫ܕ‬.ܼ ܿ ܿ ̈ 169 M njƽǤ̈ƾLJƯDŽ; ܼ ܼ ܼ ܼ T njƽǤƾܼ LJƯDŽ‫ܘ‬. ܿ ƽ ‫ܢ‬ǠLJ‫ܕ‬ ܵ džƻLJ ; M ‫ܥ‬ƲǢ ܿ ƾNJ ǠLjDžƻ ܵ LJ; T ƣƵƾǢLJ ‫ܥ‬ƲǢ ܿ ƾNJǠLJ‫ ܕ‬džƻLJ. 170 Em. ‫ܥ‬ƲǢ ܼ ܸ ܼ ܸ ܼ ܼ ܸ ܿ ܵƽ. 171 Mac ‫ܬܗ‬ǠܵƽǤƽ; Mpc ‫ܬܗ‬Ǡܵƽ (del.); T ‫ܬܗ‬Ǡ ܹ ܹ ܹ 172 Mac ƣNJ‫ܕ‬ƲǓ‫ ;ܕ‬Mpc ƣNJ‫ܕܪ‬ƲǓ‫( ܕ‬s. l.); T ƣNJǯ‫ܕ‬ƲǓ‫ܕ‬. ܼ ܼ ܼ 173 M ljDžƴ‫ ;ܐܬ‬T ljDžƴ‫ ܐܬ‬ƥƯƵLJ. ܹ ܸ ܹ ܼܸ ܸ 174 M Ƥ‫ ;ܗ‬T ƣNJ‫ܗ‬. ܵ ܵ ܵ ܵ 175 M ǤƽƢNjƴ ܼ ‫ ܼܪܘ‬Ǥܼ ƽܼ ƢNJǠƪǖ; T Ǥƽܼ ƢNjƴ‫ܘܪܘ‬ ܼ Ǥܼ ƽܼ ƢNJǠƪǖ. 153 154

EDITION OF THE TEXT

65

ܿ 176 ܵ ܵ ܿ ̇ ǃƽ‫ ܿܐ‬.‫ܘ‬ƯNJ‫ܕܗ‬ ܿ ܵ ‫ܗ‬Ưƾܼ LjDŽ‫ ܼ ܿܬ‬ƣܵƽƯƧǓܼ ܿ ‫ܝ‬ǠLJ ǠLJ‫ܕܐ‬ njƾDžܹ ƽ‫ ܼܐ‬njLJ݂ ǣNJ‫ ܵܐ‬ƣƵLJ ƤǤƾLJƯǝܼ ܼ ܹ ܿ ܿ ̇ ƣDŽ ƯƦ ǫƲǂ ܿ džǓܼ ܿ njƾǢLjǢLJ‫ܕ‬ ̈ ǖܼ džǓܼ ܿ ƣƵƾܼ DžǢDŽܼ ܿ 177ƥǯ‫ܘ‬Ǥǖ ܵ ݂ ƣDŽܹ ‫ ܬ‬ƣDŽ‫ ܸܐ‬.Ƥ‫ ݂ܗܘ‬džǁ‫ܐ‬ Ƥ‫ܗܘ‬ ܹ ܼ ܼ 179 ܵ ܵ 178 ܵ ܿ ܵ ܿ ܿ ܵ Ƥ‫ܬ‬Ǡƾǡ njLJ݂ ljƽܼ ‫ ܐܪ‬Ưǁ‫ ܆ ܘ‬ƣNJƱDŽ ƣLJ‫ܘ‬ǩ ǠLJ‫ܘܐ‬ ݂ .ƤƱDŽƢDŽ ‫ܗܘܬ‬ ܼ ƤǤƾܼ Džƺ‫ܕ‬ ܸ ƣƵƧǢLJ‫ܕ‬ ܿ ̈ ܿ 180 ܿ ܵ ܵ ܿ ̈ Ǔܼ ܿ ܿ ܵ ܵ :Ưƽܼ ǤǓ‫ ܕ‬ƣNjƽܼ ƯƦ ‫ܝ‬ǠƦܹ ǃƾDžǓ ܼ DŽܼ ǫ‫ܘ‬Ưƽܼ ‫ ܘܐ‬ǫƲNjƾ ܼ ‫ܣ‬ƲƵNJ ܼ ƣƽǠLJ .njǁܼ ‫ ܗ‬ƿDŽ ܼ ‫ ܼܨ‬ƣƾLjǢ 182 181 ܵ ܵ ǡ ǤƦǠǓܹ ‫ ܘ‬.ǃNjƾLjƽ‫ ܕ‬ƥƯƽƢƦ ܿ ƣǢLj ǃƽ‫ܕ‬Ǡ NJܵ ‫ ܵܗ‬ƣLjDžǔƦ ƣ̈ƾLJ Ǡǎƴ ܼ ܸ ݀ ܼ ܼ ܹ NJܸܿ .njƽܿ ‫ ܹܕ‬ƣ183 ܿ ܿ ܵ ܿ ̈ ‫ܘܢ‬ƱDžǁ ǠƦ‫ܘܬ‬ ǫƲDžǓ ƥǠLjNJܸ ‫ܡ‬Ƴܼ Ʃ‫ ܘ‬:ƣDžLjLjDŽ [ƣǔܹ ƾܼ ǎDŽܼ ] ܸ Ƥ‫ܬ‬ƲǞǡ ‫ܘ ܸܐ ܼܙܠ ܪܒ‬ ܿ 187 ܼ ܿ ‫ܘܐ‬ 186 ܵ 185 ̇ 184 ̇ƱܵƽǤƽ ܿ ܿ ܿ ܵ ̈ ܵ ܿ [‫]ܗܕ‬ ƱDŽܹ Ƥ‫݂ܗܘ‬ ƣƵLJ‫ܘ ]ܕ[ܕ‬ƱDŽ ƣNjƾܼ Ljƽܼ ƣƧDžǁܼ džǞǡ‫ܘ‬ ܼ ܼ ǫƲLJ‫ܼܗܕ‬ ܿ 188 ܿ 189 ܵ ̇ ܵ ܿ ܵ ̈ ƣǂDžLJ ‫ ܘܐܦ‬.‫ܘܢ‬ƱDžǁ Ƥ‫ܘܬ‬ǤǢ LJ ǤƾƧܹ DŽ ‫ܘ‬ǠLJ‫ܬܕ‬ ܼ ‫ ܘ ܸܐ‬.ƣǂܹ ƾܼ LjǍ ‫ܡ‬Ưǝ ƱLjǍ‫ܘ‬ ܿ ܼ ܿ ܸܵ ܿ ܵ ܵ ܵƾƦ‫ܬܗ ܕ‬ǠƧDŽ ܿ ‫ܟ‬Ǡܹ ƧNJ‫ܕ‬ ܿ ƱNjLJ ƣǔƦ‫ܘ‬ ̇ ƣLJƲ ‫ܗܘ‬ .ƣNjƦƲƺ‫ܕ‬ ǫƲDžƩǯ džǓܼ ܿ džǗNJ ‫ ܼܘ‬Ƥ‫ ܸܐܬ‬ƥ‫ܼܕܐܬܪ‬ ܼ ܼ ܹ ܸ ܼ ܼ ܹ ܵ ܿ ܵ ƦǤ 192 191 ܿ ܿ ܿ ܵ 190ƣDžǔ ƣǗǝ‫ܘܬܘ‬ ‫ܗܘܬ‬ ƥ‫ ܗܕ‬njLJ‫ܕ‬ ݂ ܼ LJܸ [‫]ܕ‬ ܼ Ƥ‫ܘܬ‬Ǡƽܼ ǠLJ ƿƴ̈ ‫ܢ ܼܐ‬ƲǓ‫ܬܕ‬ ܼ ̤ ‫ܗܘ ̤ܬ܆ ܼܘ‬ 193 ܵ ܵ ܿ ܵ ܵ njNjƾƦܹ ‫ ̤ܘ ܨ‬ƱNJ‫ ܘ ܸܐ‬.ǤǞǗ NJ ǠƾLJ‫ ܐ‬džǔܸ DŽ njLJ‫ܕ‬ ݂ Ƥ‫ ܼܬ‬ƲƾDž ܼ ܿ ƴܼ ‫ ܵ ܐܦ‬ƱNjܹܵ LJ‫ܕ‬ ܸ .ƣNJ‫ ܗ‬ƣƽ‫ ܕܐܪ‬Ƥ‫ ܵܙ‬ƲǓ‫ܘ‬ ܼ ܿ ǘƵǍ ƣNJ̤ܵ ‫ ܸ ܵܗ‬ƣNjܵ Ʀܵ Ʋƺ ܼ ƣNjǂƽ 194 ܵ ‫ ܿܐ‬Ǡǁ‫ܕ‬Ǥ ܿǠƦ‫ܘܬ‬ ܿ ƣDžǁ‫ ܐ‬njLJ‫ܕ‬ ݂ ܵ ƣDžǁ‫ܥ ܐܘ‬ƯNJܸ ‫ܕ‬ ܼ ܼ NJܸ ‫܇‬ǟǗNJ ܼ ܼ ܸܿ ܼ ܼ ܵ ǡ‫ ܕ‬195‫ܘ ܹܪܗ‬ǤǗDŽ ‫ܬܗ‬ƲDŽǜƦ ܿ ܿ .ƣǢLj ܿ ܵ ̈ Ǎ 196‫ܗ‬ǤƧܼ ǁǠ ƣƦ‫ܕܕܗ‬ džǁ 197‫ܬܗ‬ƲǍƲ ܼ ܸ ܹ ܼ LJ‫ܘ‬ ܵ ܿ ܿ ܿ ƣǔܹ ƻNJܸ ƣDŽ‫ ܘ‬.‫ܘ‬ƯNJ‫ܕܗ‬ ܹ ƣǂDžLJ njLJ݂ Ƥ‫ ݂ܗܘ‬džǢƴ‫ܬ‬ ܼ ܼ ‫ ܸܐ‬Ƥ‫ܬ‬Ʊƾܼ LJ‫[ ܬ‬70ra] Ƥ‫ܬ‬ƲNjܼ LJ‫ܘ‬ƢƦ‫ܕ‬ ܵ LJƯ ܵ LJƯ ܵ ǝ;ܿ Mpc ƤǤƾ ܵ ǝܿ (mg.); T ƤǤƾLJƯǝ. Mac Ǥƾ ܼ ܼ ܵ ܿ ܿ M ƥ‫ܘ ܹܪ‬Ǥǖ džǓܼ ; T ƥ‫ܘܪ‬Ǥ ܼ ǖ džǁ. ܵ ܵ ƾǡ; Tpc Ƥ‫ܬ‬Ǡ ܵ ƾǡ (del.). 178 M Ƥ‫ܬ‬Ǡƾǡ; Tac ƣƵƾܼ Džǡ‫ ܕ‬Ƥ‫ܬ‬Ǡ ܼ ܼ ܵ ܿ ܵ ƣLJܵ ‫ܘ‬ǩ ܿ ; T ƥǠǞ ܿ ܵ 179 M ƣNJܵ ƱDŽ ǗDŽ ܼ ƣLJ‫ܘ‬ǩ ‫ܝ‬ǠLJ ƣǢܸƽƯǝ. ܵ 180 T ‫ܝ‬ǠƦ; M ‫ܝ‬ǠƦ. ܹ 181 Em. ǃƽ‫ܕ‬ǠNJ; M ǃƾǁǠNJ; T ǃƽ‫ܕ‬ǠNJ. ܹ ܸ ܼ ܸ ܹ ܸ ܿ ܿ 182 M Ǡǎƴ; ܼ T Ǡǎƴ‫ܘ‬. ܼ ܿ pc ܿ 183 Mac ƣǔƾǎDŽ; ܹ ܼ ܼ M del.; T ƣNj̈ƾܼ LJƳDŽܼ . 184 Ego del.; T om.. ܿ ̇ 185 M ‫ܘ‬ƱDŽ ƣNjƾܼ Ljƽܼ ܿ ; T Ƥ‫ ܵܬ‬Ʋܵ Ǟܵ ǡܵ ‫ ܼܕܪ ܿܒ‬ƱNjƾܼ Ljƽܼ ܿ . ܵ ܵ 186 Em. ƣƵLJ‫;ܕ‬ M ƣƵLJ‫( ܕܕ‬iter.); T ƣƵLJ‫ܕ‬. ݂ 187 M ƱDŽ; T ƣƵƾDžǢDŽ. ܹ ܼ ܿ ܿ ‫ܘܐ‬. ܿ 188 Mac ‫ ;ܘܐܬܕ‬Mpc ‫ܘ‬ǠLJ‫ܬܕ‬ ܸ ܼ ‫( ܘ ܸܐ‬mg.); T ‫ܘ‬ǠLJܼ ‫ܬܕ‬ ܼ ܸ ܿ ܵ ac pc 189 Em. ‫;ܘܐܦ‬ M ‫;ܘܐܦ‬ ܼ T ‫ ;ܘܐܦ‬T ‫ ܘܐܦ‬njǁܸ (s.l.). ܵ ƦǤ ܵ ܿ LJ‫ ;ܕ‬T ƣDžǔƦ ܵ ǤLJ‫ܕ‬. ܿ 190 Em. ƣDžǔ ܼ LJ; ܸ M ƣDžǔƦǤ ܼ ܸ ܼܸ ܿ T ‫܀‬ƣNjǁ‫ܗ‬ 191 M ‫;ܘܗܘܬ‬ ܼ ‫ܘܗܘܬ‬ ̤ ܼ ̤ . ܵ ܵ 192 Em. ƣǗǝ ‫;ܘܬܘ‬ ܼ M ƣǗǝ‫ ;ܘܬ ܹܘ‬T ƣǗǝ‫ܘܬܘ‬. ܼ 193 M ǠƾLJ‫ ;ܐ‬T ƥǠƾLJ‫ܐ‬. ܼ ܼ ܵ ‫ ܵ;ܐ‬M ƣDžܵ ǁ‫;ܐ‬ ̇ ܵ T ƣDžǁ‫ܐ‬. 194 Em. ƣDžǁ ܵ ܿ ܿ pc ܵ ܿ ac 195 Em. ‫ܘܪܗ‬ǤǗDŽ; M ‫ܘ ܹܪܗ‬ǤǗDŽ; ܹ ܼ ܼ M ƥ‫ܘܪ‬ǤǗDŽ; ܼ T ƥǠǁܼ ǤǗ ܼ DŽ. ܿ M ‫ܗ‬ǤƦƳܿ LJ. ܿ LJ‫;ܘ‬ 196 T ‫ܗ‬ǤƧǁǠ ܹ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܹ ܼ ̈ 197 M ‫ܬܗ‬ƲǍƲǍ; T ‫ ܹܬܗ‬Ʋܵ Ǎܵ ƲǍ‫ܘ‬. ܼ 176 177

66

SERMON ON SAINT THOMAS, THE BELOVED APOSTLE

ܿ 198 ̈ ܵ ܵ džǁǤǎ ܵ ܿ ܿ ǕDžƦ‫ܕ‬ ƣǢܵ ƽܼ Ưǝ‫ ܕ‬ƤǤNj̈ ǝ‫ܘ‬ ƣNjǂƽ‫ܕܐ‬ ‫܆‬njƾDŽܹ ƱƦ ‫ܼܐܘ‬ ܼܿ NJܸ ‫ܢ܆ ܘ‬ǠLJܵ ܵ džƻLJܸ ǠƧƾ ܼ ܼ ܸ ܵ ƣܵ NJܹ ǜDŽ ܼ Ǎ‫ܘ‬ ܿ ܵܵ ܵ ǫƲ̈ ܵƾNJܵ Ʋǖ ݂ njƽ‫ ܕ‬ƣDžǁ‫ ܐܘ‬.njNjƾܼ DžDžLjLJ ܼ ǫƲDžǓ‫ ܕ‬ƣNJ‫ ܿ ܗ‬ƣܵƽ‫ ܐܪ‬ƣDžǁ‫ ܐ‬Ƥ‫ܗܘ‬ ܼ ‫܆‬ƱNjܹ LJܸ ǟǗNJ‫ܕ‬ ܵ ƲǁƢLJ ǫ ƥ‫ ܵܗܕ‬199‫ܢ‬ǠLJ‫ܕ‬ ̇ ǃƽ‫ ܐ‬ƤƢ̈ƾƪǍ ƣLjLjǓ‫ܕ‬ ܿ 201ƣNjܵ ܵƾƦ‫ ܨ‬ƯƧܿ Ǔ‫ ܕܐ‬200ƤǤDŽ ̈ ܵ ǫ .ƿNJ‫ܪ‬Ưǡ‫ܕ‬ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܸܿ ݂ ܹ ܿ ܹ ܸܵ ܸ ̈ 203 202 ܵ ‫ ܘܐܦ‬.ƤƱDŽ‫ܬ ܼܐ‬ƲDŽ ƣǢNjƾNjƦ‫ ܕ‬Ƥ‫ܬ‬ƲNjܼ ܵƾNjǖǤ LJ .‫ ܗ‬.‫ܗ‬ƯƧǓ ƣDžܹ Ljǡ‫ܕܐ‬ ܿ ܵ ܼ ܸܵ 204 ܵ ܿ ܵ .ƣNjܵ Ʀܵ Ʋƺ ܹ ƿDžLjǡܿ ƣNJܵ ƱDŽ ǃƽ ‫ܬ‬ƲLjƦ‫ܕ‬ ǠLJƢ ‫ܐ‬ Ʊ ƾ NJƲǡ ‫ܪ‬Ǥ Ʀ‫ܘ‬ ‫ܗ‬ ‫ܬ‬ƲLJ ‫ܡ‬ Ưǝ ܼ ܼ LjDŽ ܸ njNjƽǜLJ‫ܕ‬ ܼ ܹ ܼ ܼ ܹ ܹܿ ܿ ̈ ܿ ܼ ܿ 205 ̈ ܵƤ‫ ݂ܗܘ‬ƣDŽ ‫ܬܘܒ‬ ܿ ܵ džǗܸ ǡ‫ ܼܐ‬ƤƢƾƪǎDŽ ‫ܬܗ‬ƲLjDŽ ‫܆‬ljDŽܼ ‫ܢ‬ƲǢLjǡܸ ܼ .ǫܿ ƲƾƵƦ ܼ ‫ ܼܕ‬njLJ݂ ƨƺ ܼ ܿ ܵ ܿ ܿ ܿ ƣLjƵ ܵ ܵ DŽ‫ܘ‬ ̇ ƣNjܵ ܵƾLjǡ ܿ ‫ܝ‬ǠLJ Ƥ‫ܗܘ‬ ܵ ݂ ƫDžǗLJ‫ܕ‬ ‫ܗܘ‬ džǂƦ ǫƲ̈ NjLjƽƱLj DŽܼ ƣLJ‫ܘ‬ǩ ܼ ܼ .ƥǠƽܼ Ǡǡ ƣDžǁ‫ܼܐܘ‬ ܼܿ ܿ 206 ܵ ܵ ܵ ܵƾDŽ ƣNjǡ ܿ ܵ ܵ ܵ ǖܸ ‫ ܕ‬ƣLJƲ Ƥ‫ ܹܙ‬ǯ‫ ܐ‬Ƥ‫ܒ ݂ܗܘ‬Ʊܹ ܵƽ‫ ܘ‬.‫ܘܢ‬ƱDžǁ ‫ܡ‬Ưǝ ƣܵƾǎDžܹ ǝƢƦ ƤƳܹ ƴǤLJܸ Ưǁ .ƣƴǜ ܼ Ƥ‫ܗܘ‬ ܵ ܵ ܵ ܿ ܿ 208 207 ̇ ܵ ƤƢLjܹ ̈ ƻDŽ njLJ‫ܕ‬ ƿNJܼ ‫ܕܬ‬ ݂ ǣNJ‫ ܵܐ‬Ǐƾܼ ǁǠƽܼ ܿ Ǡƻǖ ‫܆‬ƣǖƢǖ ‫ܝ‬ǠLJܵ ܼ ܿ ܿ ǠƧǓ‫ ܘ‬.‫ ݂ܗܘܘ‬njƽƲܹ ǡƯDŽ ܼ ܿ ǃƽ‫ܼܐ‬ 209 ܵ ̈ ܿ ܵ ܿ ܿ ܿ ܿ ܿ ܵ ǫ‫ܘ‬Ǥƽܼ ‫ܕܐ‬ ‫ܗ‬ǤƾǔǡǤƦ ƣǖƲǞǎǖܸ ‫ ܼܐ‬ƣǓܹ ǤǢLJ‫ܕ‬ ǃƽ‫ ܐܙܠ܆ ܐ‬ƿLJ‫ܗܘ‬ǠDŽ ‫ܘ‬ƯNJ‫ܹܗ‬ ܼ ƣƾLJ‫ܪܗܘ‬ ܿ ܵ ܿ ܸ ܵ ܼ ܼܸܵ ܿ ܿ ‫ܢ‬ƲǢLj 210 ܵ ܿ ‫ܚ‬ ‫ܐܘ‬ ƥ ǠǢ ǖǤ LJ ƥ ‫ܕ‬ ƱƦ njƽƯܹ LJ ‫ܣ‬ƲNjƾܼ Džǝ‫ ܼܐ‬ƱLjǡ Ƥ ‫ܬ‬ < ‫ܕ‬ > ƣNjܵ Ʀܵ Ʋƺ dž Ǔ‫ܕ‬ ǡ‫ܕ‬ ܼ ܼ ܹ ܼ ܸܿ ܿ ܼ ܸ ܹ ܿ ܵ ܿ ܵ ܿ ܵ ܿ ‫ ܹܬܗ‬ƲDž ƣƻƧǡܼ njLJ‫ܕ‬ ݂ ƣLJ‫ܘ‬ǩ ‫ܝ‬ǠLJ ܼ njƽ‫ ܹܕ‬ƣǡ‫ ܗ‬..njNjƾܼ ǞǢǗLJ ܼ ƾܼ Džǝܼ džǓܼ ƨǞܸ ǔNJ ܼ ƥ‫ܘܕ‬Ʊƽ‫ܕ‬ ܼ ܵ Ưǁ ǠƾƩ ‫ ݂ܗܘ‬.ƣLJܵ ‫ܘ‬ǩ ܿ ‫ܝ‬ǠLJ ƣƧƾƧƴܿ ƣƵܵ ƾDžǡ‫ ܿܕ‬211.‫ ܗ‬.njDžƽ‫ ܕ‬ƣܵƽ‫ܕܐܪ‬ njLJ݂ ƥƯǡ ܹ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܿ ܿ ܿ 212 ܵ ܿ ܼ ܿ ܵ ܼܿ ‫ ܸܐ‬.ƣNJܵ ‫ ܵܗ‬ƣLjDžǓ‫ܕ‬ ǃƽ‫ ܼܐ‬213‫ܩ ܘ ܸܐ ܼܿܙܕ ܼܪܙ‬Ƴܼ ܿ ƴ‫ܬ‬ Ƥ‫ܬ‬ƲǗ ƣNjǔƺܼ ƱǢǗ ܼ ƽܼ ǜƽܼ ܿ ‫ ܘ‬ƱDžǁ ܹ ܹ NJܼ ܿ ƲDŽ 215ƲǡǤܵ ǁǤ ܼܿ LjDŽ ƥǠƾǗǡ 214ƣƻǎ ܿNJƲƩ‫ܵܐ‬ ܿ ƴ ƣNj̈ ƻDŽƲǡ džƧǝ ܵ‫ ܗܘܘ‬njƾܼ ǂǢƵLJ‫ܕ‬ ܼܿ ̈ƣܹ ƾǁܵ ƲǢ ܵ ܹܼ ܼ ܼ ܸ ܹ ܼ ܼ ܸ ܼ ܿ ܿ ܵ ƴ‫ܕ‬ ̇ ܿ ̈ ܵ ݂ ‫ܢ܆‬ǠLJܵ ƣƵܵ ƾܼ ǢLJ 216ƣNJܵ ǤDžƾ ƣNjܵ Ʀܵ Ʋƺ ܼ Ƥ‫ܗܘ‬ ܼ ܼܿ ǫ‫ܘ‬Ưܿ ƽܼ ƢƦ ƥ‫ܪ‬ƢܹƩ ǃƽ‫ ܼܘܐ‬.‫ܘ‬ƯNJ‫ ܹܗ‬ƱDžǁ [70rb] ܵ LJ .ƣǓ‫ܕܐܪ‬ ܵ ̇ ƲǎDŽ ܿ ܵ ‫ܕܝ‬Ǥǡ‫ ܘ ܸܐ‬ǠǢܿ ǁ‫ܬ‬ ܿ ƾǓ‫ܘܕ‬ǤǢ ̈ ܼܿ ‫܆ ܘ ܸܐ‬Ƥ‫ܬ‬ƲLj ‫ܘܢ‬Ǥ Ʊƾǖ ƣLJƯǓ ܼ ܼ ‫ ܘ ܸܐ‬džƾܼ ܿ ƴ‫ܬ‬ ܼ ƾܼ DžǓ ǠƦ ܼ ܸ ܵ ‫;ܐܘ‬ M ƣNJܹ̈ ǜDŽ ܼ T ƣNJǜDŽ‫ܐܘ‬. ܼ ̇ . ܵ T ‫ܢ‬ǠLJܵ ǠLJ‫ܕܐ‬ M ‫ܢ‬ǠLJ‫;ܕ‬ ܵ ƲǁƢLJ ǫ ƥ‫ ; ܵܗܕ‬T ‫ܬܝ‬ƲǁƢLJ ǭ ƥ‫ ܵܗ ܵܕ‬. 200 M ƤǤDŽ ܼܼ ܹ ݂ ܼ ܸ ݂ ܹ ܵ ܵ 201 M ƣNjܵ ܵƾƦ‫ ;ܨ‬T ƿƦ‫ܕܐ‬ ƣNj ƾƦ‫ܨ‬ . ܼ ܹ 202 Coni. .njƽ‫ ܕ‬ƲNJ‫ ;ܗ‬M T .‫( ܗ‬abbr.). ܿ 203 M ‫ ;ܘܐܦ‬T ‫ܕܐܦ‬. ܼ ܿ 204 M ‫ܬ‬ƲLjƦ‫ ;ܕ‬T ‫ܬ‬ƲLJƯƦ‫ܕ‬. ܼ ܼ ܼ ܿ ܿ 205 M džǗǡ‫;ܐ‬ ܸ ܼ T džǗܸ ǡ.ܼ ܵ T Mpc ‫ܡ‬Ưǝ ܵ (mg.). 206 Mac Ưǝ; ̈ ܿ ܵ 207 M ƤƢLjƻDŽ; ܹ ܼ T ƤƢLjƺ. ܿ ܿ T ‫ܡ‬Ưǝ ܵ ƿNJ‫ܕܬ‬ 208 M ƿNJ‫;ܕܬ‬ ܸ ܼ . ܼ ܼ ܿ ܿ T ‫ܗ‬ǤƾǔǡǤƦ. 209 M ‫ܗ‬ǤܵƾǔǡǤƦ; ܼ ܼ ܵ ‫ ;ܐܘ‬M ƤǤƴ ܵ ‫ ;ܐܘ‬T Ƥ‫ܬ‬Ưƴ‫ܐܘ‬. 210 Em. Ƥ‫ܬ‬Ưƴ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܼ 211 Coni. .njƽ‫ ܕ‬ƲNJ‫ ;ܗ‬M .‫ ;ܗ‬T :‫( ܗ‬abbr.). ܵ ƺ;ܿ T ƣܵƾǔƺ. ܵ 212 M ƣNjǔ ܼ ܿ ‫ ;ܘܐ‬T ‫ܬܕܪܙ‬ ܿ ‫ܘܐ‬. 213 M ‫ܙܕ ܿܪܙ‬ ܼܼ ܸ ܸܼ ܸ ܿ ‫ ܵ;ܐ‬T ƣƻǎNJ ܿ ‫ܐ‬.ܿ ܼ ܵ NJܹ ƲƩ ܵ ƲƩ 214 M ƣƻǎ ܼ ܵ ǁǤ ܵ ܿ LjDŽ; Mpc ƲǡǤܵ ǁǤ ܿ 215 Mac Ǥ ܼ ܸ ܼ ܼ LjDŽ ܸ (mg.); T Ʋǡ ܼ ǤǁǤܼ LjDŽ. ܸ ܵ ܵ ƴ‫;ܕ‬ pc ܵ ܵ ܿ ܿ ܿ 216 Mac ǤDžƾ ܼ ܼ (mg.); T ƣNJǤDžƾ ܼ ƴ‫ܕ‬. ܼ ܼ M ƣNJǤDžƾ ܼ ƴ‫ܕ‬ 198 199

EDITION OF THE TEXT

67

ܿ ̇ ǃƽ‫ ܿܐ‬njƾLJ‫ܕ‬Ǥ ܵ Ʋǝ‫ ܕ‬ƣƴܵ ‫ ܪܘ‬217ǠLJ‫ܕܐ‬ ܵ ƣƵ̈ ƾDžǡ džǓܼ ܿ ƣǡ‫ܕ‬ .‫ܢ‬ǠLJ‫ܕ‬ ‫ ܿܕ‬ǠƾƩ ܼ ܹ ܼܿ LJܸ ƥǯƢܹƪDŽ ljDŽܼ ƣƵ̈ ƾܼ Džǡ ܹܼ ܼ ܼ ܿ ܼ ܹ ܿ ܿ ܿ ̈ ܿ ܿ ̈ ܵ ܵ ܵ ƲNJ>‫ ܗ‬.ƣǂDžLJ‫ܕ‬ ܼ ǫƲƧƦƯDžǔܸ Ʀ‫ܕ‬ ܼ ƣƧDžܸ Ʀ ǃƽ‫ ܼܬ‬Ʋƴ‫ܢ ܬ‬ƲDžǗ ܼ NJܸ ƣLjLjǓ njƾܼ Njƾܼ Njǡ ljDŽܼ ǃƽǯƢܹƩ ܵ ǝǤ ܿ LJ ƥ‫ܪ‬ƢƩ ǃƽ‫ ܿܕܐ‬džƻLJ ƣ̈ƾƻƴ‫ ܕ‬218.‫ ܗ‬.ƣƽ‫ ܕܐܪ‬ǃƽ‫ ܐ‬ǤǔƦ‫ܪ‬ ‫ܗ‬Ǡܹ ƧDŽ ‫ܒ‬ƲǞ ܼ ‫܆ ܼܘ‬Ƥ‫ܬ‬Ƴ ܼ ܿ ܼ ܼ Ƨܸ DŽ ljDŽ ǤǞDžܸ Ǎ . ƥ‫ܘܕ‬Ʊƽ[‫]ܕ‬ ܵ Ʀ 242ƣƻƵ 241 ܵ ܵ ܿ ܵ 240.ܘƣNjǖƲƺ‫ ܕ‬ƣƾƴƲDŽ‫ܕ‬ njLJ݂ ܼ ܵ 272 ܵ ܿ ܿ Ǔܼ ܿ ƣNJ‫ ܵܐ‬džDžLjLJ‫ܕ‬ ƤƱDŽ‫ ܕܐ‬ƤǤLjǂ ƴܸ ‫ ܕ‬Ǥƾǁܹ ‫ ܐܘ‬.‫ܢ‬ƲǂLj ƥǠƦ ƤǤDž ܸ ܼ ܼ ܼ LJܸ ǫ‫ܘ‬Ǥƽܼ ‫ ܕܐ‬ljDŽ ܿ ܿ 273 ̇ ̇ ܵ ܿ ‫ܢ‬ƲLjƾDžܸ ǡ ǠLJ‫ ܕܐ‬ǃƽ‫ܼܘܐ‬ ‫ܡ܆‬ƯLJܸ džǁ‫ ܕ‬ƱƽǤƽܼ ‫ܐ‬ Ƥ‫ ܼܬ‬ƲNjLJ .ƤƱDŽ‫ܕܐ‬ ܼ ‫ܼܐܘ‬ ܵ 275 274 ̈ ܿ ̇ ܿ ܿ ̈ .‫ܗ‬. :ƣǔƧܼ ǡܼ ƥ‫ ܹܕ‬ƲLjǓ ǤDžǎ ݀ ǖܸ ‫ ܘ‬ƤǤƾƦܼ ǤNjƦ ܼ ܼ ̤ ǫ [71ra]. ƣDŽܹ ǤLjƦ ܵ ǞƾDŽ‫ܘ‬Ǥǝ ܵ 276 ܵ ܿ ̇ ǡ‫ܘ‬ ܿ ƤǤƾ ̈ džǓܼ ܿ ‫ܪܗ‬Ǡ ܵ Ƥ‫ܬ‬ƯǔDŽ ǤƾDžƩ‫ܬ‬ ‫ ܸܐ‬277Ưǁܼ ܿ ܕ‬džƻLJ‫ܘ‬ ܼ ܼ ܸ . ƣǔƧǡܼ ƣǡܹ ‫ܕ‬Ʋǝ ̤ ܿ ̇ ܿ ܿ ܿ M Ǐƾܼ Ǎ‫ܘ‬ǠƧLJ‫ܐ‬ ǠLJ‫ ; ̇ܐ‬T njDžܼ ƾܼ LJ‫ ܕ‬ǏƾƸܹ ƾܼ DŽƲǖǠƸƾ LJܸ Ǐƾܼ Ǎ‫ܘ‬ǠƧLJ‫ܐ‬ ƣNjƦƲƷ ܼ ǠƾܹƩ ǠLJ‫ܐ‬. ac ܵ pc ܵ ܿ ܿ ܿ ܵ M ƣNjܹ ƾƻǍǠܹ ǁ‫ ܼ;ܕ‬T ƣNjܹ ƾƻǍǰǁܼ ‫ ܼܕ‬Ǡǁư; T ƣNjܹ ƾƻǍǰǁܼ ‫( ܼܕ‬del.). ܵ M ƣǓ‫ܘܪ‬. ܵ 258 T ƣǓ‫;ܙܪ‬ ܿ 259 M ‫ܗܘ‬ ݂ ‫ ;ܪܒ‬T Ʋܼ Ʀܿ ‫ܪ‬.ܼ ܵ M njƧܵ DŽ.ܵ 260 T njƧܵ ƵDŽ; ܵ ƧƦ ܿ ܿ ܿ 261 T ƤǤƾ ܼ ‫ ܼ;ܪ‬M ƤǤ̈ƾƧƦ‫ܪ‬. ܼ ܿ T ƣLJ‫ܘ‬ǩ ܿ ‫ܝ‬ǠLJܵ . 262 M ƣLJܵ ‫ܘ‬ǩ; ܿ ܿ ܿ ܵ ܵ ƱLjDžǡ ܵ ƥƯƧǓ ƱLjDžǡ 263 Em. njƧܵ ƵDŽ ܹ ‫ ; ܼܐ‬M njƧܵ DžDŽ ƱLjDžǡ ܹ ‫ ; ܼܐ‬T njƧܵ ƵDŽ ܹ ‫ ܼܘܐ‬. 264 T ƤƢƾƪǍ; M ƤƢ̈ƾƪǍ. ܼ ܵ 265 M ‫ ;ܘ ܿܙܕܩ‬T ‫ܘܙ ̇ܕܩ‬. ܼܹ 266 M Ƥ‫ܬ‬ƲNjLJܵ ‫ ;ܕܐܘ‬T ‫ܬܗ‬ƲNjLJܵ ‫ܕܐܘ‬. ܼ ܵ ܼ ܹ ܼ ܼ ܵ ܵ NJ̈ ̄ ‫ ;ܐ‬M ƣǢܵ NJܵ ‫ ܼ;ܐ‬T ƣǢ̈ NJ‫ܐ‬. 267 Em. ƣǢ ܿ ƣƦǤǂƦ. ܿ ƣƦǤǂ ܿ ƣƦǤǂ ܵ Ʀܿ ; T ƤǤ̈ƾǔǡ‫ܕܬ‬ ܵ Ʀܿ ; M ‫ܗ‬Ǥƾǔǡ 268 Em. ‫ܗ‬Ǥ̈ƾǔǡ‫ܕܬ‬ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܼܼ ܼ ܹ ܿ ‫ܕܬ‬ ܹ ܿ M Ƥ‫ܬ‬ƲLJƯƦ. 269 T Ƥ‫ܬ‬ƲLJ‫;ܘܕ‬ ܼ ܼ ܼ ̈ ǏNjƪDŽܿ ; T ǣNJ‫ ܵܐ‬ǏNjƪDŽ. 270 M ƣǢNJ‫ܐ‬ ܸ ܼ ܿ 271 T ƲNjƾܿ Ʀܿ ‫ ;ܐܬ‬M njܵƾƦ‫ܬ‬ ܼܼ ܼܸ ܼ ‫ ܸܐ‬. ܵ 272 M ƤƱDŽ‫ܕܐ‬ ƤǤLjǂ ܼ ƴܸ ‫ ;ܕ‬T ƤƱDŽ‫ܗ ܕܐ‬ǤLj ܹ ǂܼ ƴܸ ‫ܕ‬. 273 Em. Ƥ‫ܬ‬ƲNjLJ‫ ;ܐܘ‬M ƤǤƾNjLJ‫ ;ܐܘ‬T Ƥ‫ܬ‬ƲNjLJܵ ‫ܐܘ‬. ܼ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܼܼ ܼ ܿ ܿ ̈ ǤLjƦ. 274 M ƣDŽǤLjƦ; ܹ ܼ T ǫƲDŽ ܼ ܼ 275 Coni. .njƽ‫ ܕ‬ƲNJ‫ ;ܗ‬M .‫ ;ܗ‬T :‫( ܗ‬abbr.). ܵ ǡܿ ƣǡ‫ܕ‬Ʋǝ džǓܿ ‫ܪܗ‬Ǡ ̇ ǡ‫ܘ‬ ܿ ; T ƣǔܵ Ƨǡܵ ƣǡ‫ ̈ܕ‬Ʋǝ džǓܿ ‫ܪܗ‬Ǡǡ‫ܘ‬. 276 M ƣǔƧ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܹ ܼ ܼ ܹ ܼ ܼ 256 257

70

SERMON ON SAINT THOMAS, THE BELOVED APOSTLE

ܿ ܵ ܿ ܿ 278ƣNjLJ‫ ܕܐܘ‬ƣLjƾ ܵ ǂܹ ǍƢܸ Ʀ ‫܆‬ƣLjDžǔƦ ܵ ܵ ǝ‫ܕ‬ ƥǠƾLJ‫ ܕܐ‬ǃƽ‫ ܼܐ‬.ƱǢǗ .:ƣǎƾ ܼ ܼ ܹ NJܼ ǤƽƲƴ‫ܘ‬ ̤ܵ ܵ 279 ̈ ̈ ܵƣNJ‫ ܵܗ‬ƣLjƾǂǍ ܵ Ƣܸ Ʀ ƱƦ njǁܹ ‫ ܘ‬.ƥǠƪNJܿ 280ljDŽ ƣNJܵ ‫ ܵܗ‬Ƥ‫ܗܘ‬ ܿ ܵ ݂ ƣDŽ . ƥƯƾܼ ƪǍ ƫNJ‫ܘ‬Ƣܸ Ʀ ܼ ܹ ܵ ܵ ܿ 282 ܵ ܿ ‫ܕܐܦ‬ ܵ 281ƣNjܵ Ʀܵ ƲƻDŽ ƤƱDŽ‫ܕܐ‬ ‫ܗ‬Ǡܹ LJƢLjƦ Ƥ‫ܬ‬ ƲNjLJ ‫ܐܘ‬ ǠƦ ‫ܚ‬ ƲNJ Ʋ ǞƦ‫ ܘ ܸܐܬ‬.‫ ܹܪܗ‬Ưǡܼܿ ‫ܬܢ‬ƲDŽ ܼ ܸ ܼ ܼ ܿ ܵ ܵ 284 ܵ ܵ ܵ ܿ 283Ƥ‫ ܵܬ‬ƲƧǝ Ƥ‫ܬ‬ƲNjLJ ƱƧܹ DŽ‫ ܼܐ‬ƣǡܹ ƲLjDŽ‫ܘ‬ ‫ ܐܦ‬.‫ ܸܙܒ‬Ʋǡ ƣLjDžǔDŽ‫ ܘ‬.ƯƧǓ ܼ ܵ ‫ ܼܐܘ‬ƤƱDŽ‫ܐ‬ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܸ ܼ ܿ ̇ .ƱDžǁ ̇ ܵ .ƣNjܵ Ʀ‫ ܿܙ‬njǂǢLJܿ njǝ‫ ܿܬ‬ƱƦ‫ܕ‬ ܵ 285ƤƱܹ ̈ƾܼ LJ‫ ܕܬ‬ƣNJܹ̈ ƢLJ‫ܘ‬ džƽǠǎƾܼ DŽ ‫ܩ‬Ǡǖ ܼ njǁܹ ‫ ܘ‬.ƱƦܹ ljǍ‫ܕ‬ ܼ ܸ ܼ ܼܼ ܿ Džǡ ‫ ܘܐܦ‬.ƣ̈ƽ‫ܪ‬ǜLJ‫ ܕ‬Ƥ‫ܘܬ‬ƯƧǓܼ ܿ njLJ݂ ܵ LJܼ ܿ ‫ܢ‬ƲLjƾ ƤƱDŽ‫ ܐ‬njLJ݂ ǘDžܹ ƽ‫ ܕ‬.286Ƥ‫ܬ‬ƲNjܼ LJܵ ‫ ܼܐܘ‬ǠƦ ƣǂDž ܹ ܸ ܼ ܹ ܿ ܵ 287 ܿ ܿ ܵ ܵ ܵ ǢLjDŽ‫ܘ‬ ‫ܘ‬Ǥ ƦǜLjDŽ‫ܘ‬ ƲǍ dž ǂƽ‫ܗ‬ ƲDžDžǂ ƣLjDžǔDŽ ‫ܗ‬ǤLjǂ Ƶ Ʀ ƣ NJ ‫ܘܗ‬ .ƤƱDŽ‫ܐ‬ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܼ ǤǢLjDŽܼ ܿ ܼ ܹ ܸ ܿ 289 ܵ 288 ܿ ̈ ̈ ܵ ܿ ܿ ܵ Ƥ‫ ܼܬ‬ƲNjLJ ƣǝܹ ‫ܘ‬ǰǖ ‫ ܕܗܘܘ‬njƾDžܹ ƽ‫ ܼܐ‬.njƽƯLJ .‫ܪ‬ƱNJ ܼ ‫ܼܐ‬ ܼ ‫ ܼܐܘ‬ƿNjƦ ƣLjDžǔƦ ƣƧܹ ̈ƾܼ Ƨƺ‫ ܼܘ‬ƣǔܹ ƽƯƽܼ 290 ܿ ̈ ‫ ܕܗ‬ƣǝܵ ‫ܘ‬Ǡǖ ܿ ƣNJܵ ‫ ܵܗ‬džƻLJ‫ ܘ‬.‫ܢ‬ǠLJܵ ƣƵܵ ƾǢLJ ƥǠƽǠǡ ƣǝܵ ‫ܘ‬Ǡǖ‫ܕ‬ ܿ ܵ ƣLJ‫ܘ‬ǩ ƣܹƽ‫ ܵܘ‬ƯNJ Ƥ‫ܬ‬ ƲLJƯƦ .‫ܘ‬ ‫ܗܘ‬ ܹ ܸ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܵܿ ܿ ܵ ܵ 291 ܿ ܿ ̈ ܵ ‫ܬ‬ƲǂDžLjƦ‫ܘ‬ ‫܆‬ƿDžƩ‫ܬ‬ ‫ܘ ܸܐ‬ƯNJƱƦ .njƽܼ Ǡƻǖ ƣDŽ‫ ܕ‬ƣƾƵƦ ƣƾLjǡ Ƥ‫ܘܬ‬Ǡܼ ƪNJܼ ǠƦܼ ƣLjƾǂǍƢܸ Ʀ ܹ ܼ ܼ ܿ ̇ ܼ 292 ܿ ܿ ܿ Ʀܿ ܵ ܵ njDžǂDŽ ƣܵƾǎDžܹ ǝƢܸ Ʀ njƽ‫ ܕ‬ƣǓ‫ܪ‬ƢƦ ƣNjƦ ljDžǔDŽ‫ ܕ‬ƤǤƾ .ƣƵܵ ƾܼ ǢLJ‫ ܕ‬njƾܼ ƻDžܵ ǖܼ Ʊƽ Ǥܹ ƽܼ ‫ܕܐ‬ ܼ ܼ ܵ ܵ ܵ 295 294 293 ܿ ܵ ܵ ܿ ܿ ƣNjܵƾNjƧܸ DŽ‫[ ܼܘ‬njƾƧDŽ‫]ܘ‬ :ƣNJǠǝ‫ܕ‬ ƤǤǍǪܹ ǡܼ Ƥ‫ܬ‬ƯǓܹ ƥ‫ܕܗ ܹܕ‬ ܼ ƣǖƢǁܹ .ǫ‫ܘ‬Ǥƽܼ ‫ ܐ‬ƣƵܵ ܿ ƾܼ ǢLJ 296 ܵ ̇ ‫ ܕܬ‬.ƣNjƦܵ Ʋƺ ̇ ƤǤܼ ƾܼ NjƩǠLJܼ ܿ .njƽ‫ ܹܕ‬ƱǓ‫ܪ‬ ܹ ̈ ܼ ƣƵ̈ ƾܼ Džǡ‫ ܘ‬ƣ̈ƾƧNJ ƱƾDžܹ Ǔ‫ ܘ‬.ƥ‫ܪܪ‬ǤǢLJܸ ǫƲDžǓ‫ܕ‬ ܼ ܿ ܵ 298 ܵ 297 ̇ ܵ ܿ ܵ ܿ ܿ Ǥƽܼ ƢNjƴ‫ ܼܪܘ‬ƱƦ‫܆ ܕ‬ƤǤǢƽܼ Ưǝ ƤǤܼ ƽܼ ‫ܕ‬ƲLjǔLJܼ ǫ ݂ ƥ‫ ܗܕ‬.Ƥ‫ܬ‬Ǡƾܼ Ǘǡܼܿ ƿƪ ܼ Ǎܼ .ƥƯƴ [71rb] ܵ ̇ ܿ ̈ ܵ ܿ ̈ ̈ .ƣLJ‫ ܵܨܘ‬.ƣƧܹ ƺܵ ƥƯƧǔƦ‫ ܕ‬ǠƾܹƩ ƣNjܹ Lj̈ƽƱLJ ܼ .njDž̈ƾܼ ǎǖ ƣǖܹ Ƣǂܹ Ʀ njƽ‫ ܕ‬Ʊ̈ƾǍܹ ‫܆ ܸܐ‬njNjƽƯƾܼ Džƽܼ ƣƵܵ ƾܼ ǢLjƦܼ ܿ M Ưǁܼܿ džƻLJ‫ܘ‬ ܼ džƻLJ‫ܘ‬ ܸ ; T Ưǁ‫ܕ‬ ܸ . ܵ ܵ T ƣNjLJ‫;ܕܐܘ‬ ܼ M ƣNjLJ‫ܘ‬ƢƦ. ܼ ܿ ܿ ܿ ܵ 279 M ƥƯ̈ƾƪǍ ƫNJ‫ܘ‬ƢƦ ƥǠƾLJ‫ܕܐ‬ ǃƽ‫ ; ܼܐ‬T ƥƯܵ ƾܼ ƪǍ ‫ܢ‬Ʋܿ ƾܼ DžƪNJ‫ ܸܐ ܼܿܘ‬Ǡƾܼ LJ‫ ܼܕܐ‬ǃƽܼ ‫ ܼܐ‬. ܸ ܼ 280 M ljDŽ ƣNJܵ ‫ ; ܵܗ‬T ƣNJ‫ ܗ‬ljDŽܿ . ܼ ܿ ‫ܝ‬ǠLJܵ ƣNjƦƲƻDŽ. 281 M ƣNjܵ Ʀܵ ƲƻDŽ; T ƣLJ‫ܘ‬ǩ ܼ ܼ ܿ 282 T ǠƦ; M ƯƦ. ܼ ܵ ƲƧǝ; Mpc Ƥ‫ ܵܬ‬ƲƧǝ (mg.); T Ƥ‫ܬ‬ƲƧǝ. 283 Mac ‫ܬ‬ ܼ ܸ ܼ ܼ ܸ ܼ ܼ ܸ ܿ 284 M ƱƧDŽ‫ ܿܐ‬ƣǡƲLjDŽ‫ ; ܵܐܦ ܘ‬T ƱǗDŽ‫ ܐ‬ƣǡƲLJ džǓ‫ܘ‬ ܼ . ܹ ܼ ܹ ܼ ܹ ܼ ̈ ̈ LJ‫ܘ‬ ̈ ܵ ܵ 285 M ƤƱƾLJ‫ ܕܬ‬ƣNJƢ ܹܼ ܹ ; T ƤƱƾܼ LJ‫ ܬ‬ƣNJƢLJ‫ܘ‬. ܿ ܵ LJܼ ܿ ; T Ƥ‫ ݂ܗܘ‬Ƥ‫ܬ‬ƲNjLJ 286 M Ƥ‫ܬ‬ƲNjLJܵ ‫ ܐܘ‬ǠƦ ƣǂDž ܼ ܼ ܼ ‫ ܼܐܘ‬ǠƦܼ .ƤǤLjǂܼ ƴܸ ‫ ܕ‬ƣǂDžLJ. ܿ M džǂƽ‫ ;ܗ‬T džǂƽ‫ܗ‬. ܿ 287 Em. džǂƽ‫;ܗ‬ ܼ ܹ ܿ M ƣǝܵ ‫ܘ‬Ǡǖ. ܿ 288 T ƣǝ‫ܘ‬ǰǖ; ܹ ܹ ܵ ƲNjLJ‫ ;ܐܘ‬Mpc Ƥ‫ ܵܬ‬ƲNjLJ‫( ܐܘ‬mg.); T Ƥ‫ܬ‬ƲNjLJ‫ܐܘ‬. 289 Mac ‫ܬ‬ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܿ T ƣLJ‫ܘ‬ǩ ܿ ‫ܝ‬ǠLJ. 290 M ƣLJ‫ܘ‬ǩ; ܵ ܿ 291 M Ƥ‫ܘܬ‬ǠƪNJܿ ǠƦܿ ; T Ƥ‫ܘܬ‬ǠƪNJܵ ǠƦ‫ܕ‬ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܼ . ܼ ܼ 292 M ƣܵƾǎDžǝƢƦ; T ƣƾǎDžǝƢDŽ. ܹ ܸ ܿ 293 Mac ƣNjܵƾNjƧDŽ‫ ܿܘ‬njƾƧDŽ‫ ;ܘ‬Mpc ƣNjܵƾNjƧDŽ‫( ܿܘ‬del.); T ƣNjƾNjƧDŽ‫ܘ‬. ܸ ܼ ܸ ܼ ܸ ܼ ̇ (del.); M ƥ‫;ܕܗܕ‬ ܵ Tpc ƥ‫( ܕܗܕ‬s.l.). 294 Tac ǫ‫ܕ‬ ܵ Ǫǡ;ܿ Mac Ƥܹ ǤǍ ܵ Ǫǡ; ̇ ܵ ǡ.ܿ pc ̇ ܵ 295 Em. ƤǤǍ ܹܼ ܹ ܵ M ‫ܗ‬ǤǍǪܹ ǡܵ (mg.); T ‫ܗ‬ǤǍǪ ܼ ܼ ܵ ƾNjƩǠLJ;ܿ Mpc ƤǤܵ ƾNjƩǠLJܿ (mg.); T ƤǤܵ ƾNjƩǠLJ.ܿ 296 Mac Ǥ ܼ ܼ ܼܼ ܼ ܼܼ ܼ 297 M ǫ ƥ‫ ; ܵܗܕ‬T njƽ‫ ܕ‬ǫ‫ܗܕܐ‬. ݂ ݂ ܵ ƽ‫ܕ‬ƲLjǔ ܿ LJ;ܿ Mac Ǥܵ ƽ‫ܕ‬ƲLjǔ ܿ LJ; ܵ Mpc ƤǤܵ ƽ‫ܕ‬ƲLjǔ ܿ LJܵ (mg.); T ƤǤƽ‫ܕ‬ƲLjǔ ܿ LJ.ܿ 298 Em. ƤǤ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܼܼ ܼܼ ܼܼ 277 278

EDITION OF THE TEXT

71

ܵ ܿ ܵ ܿ 299Ƥ‫ܬ‬ƲǗǂNJܿ ƣǎ̈ƾƧǍ ƣǝǰǍ ܿ ܿ Ƥ‫ܬ‬Ʋǂ ܹ ‫܇ ܼܘ‬ƤǤǢƾܼ Ǣƴܼܿ Ƥ‫ܬ‬ƲDŽ‫ ܘܨ‬.Ǥƾǁܹ ܼ ܼ ƾܼ ǂLJ‫ܘ‬ ܼ ƾܼ ƧDŽ‫ ܼܘ‬Ƥ‫ ܿܬ‬Ʋǂ ܼ ܼ ܹ ܼ 300 ̈ ܿ ܿ ܿ ܿ ̈ ܵ ܵ ..ƤǤܼ ƽƱDŽ‫ ܐ‬džǓ‫ܕ‬ ƤǤƪ ܼ Ǐƽ‫ܘܪ‬ǩ‫ ܸܘ‬Ƥ‫ܪܘܬ‬Ǥ ܼ . ƤǤƾNJǰƪǖ ܼ ƾܼ LJ‫ ܕ‬ƣDžܹ ƾƴ‫ܕ‬ ܼ ƣǁǠǡ‫ܘ‬ ܼ ƾܼ Ʃǯܕ‬ ܿ ܵ ƵDŽ 301 ܵ ƣǖƢǁ̈ njǂܵ Ʀ̈ ‫ܪ‬Ǥ ܹ̈ ܿ ܵ ƣDžܹ ǎ̈ ǖǤ .ƤǤ ƾNjƴ ‫ܘ‬ǯ njƾ DŽ ‫ܗ‬ ƣNjܵ ܵƾNjƦܸ ‫ ܕ‬ƤǤƵǢ .njƾDŽܹ ‫ ܵܗ‬ƣǍ‫ܕܐ‬ LJ‫ܘ‬ ܼ ܸ ܼ LJܸ ܼ ܹ ܹ ܹ ܼ ܼ 305 304 ܵ 303 302 ̈ ܵ ܵ ܿ ܿ ܿ ܵ ̈ ‫ܢ‬ƲNJ‫ ܸܐ‬ƣNjܹ ƾDžܸƩ njƽ‫ܕ‬ ƥ‫ܪ‬ƱNjLJܼ . Ƥ‫>ܝ ‫ܗ‬. .‫ܒ‬ ƲǞ ݂ ܼƺ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܿ ܿ 330 ܵ 329 ܿ ̈ ܿ ܿ ܿ ̈ ܵ ܵ ƲNJ>‫ ܆ ܗ‬ƣǁǠǡ‫ ܘ‬ƣƽǠLJ ljƴܹ ‫ ܪ‬.‫ܗܘܢ‬Ǥƾܼ Ʀ‫ ܼܬܪ‬ƿNjƦ‫ ܼܘ‬ƣƵƾܼ Džǡ ‫ܘܢ‬Ʊƽܵ Ǥܼ ƽܼ ‫ ܕܐ‬ƣƵƾܼ ǢLJ‫ܕ‬ ܵ ܿ ܿ ƣܹƾDžܵ ܹ ƽǰǎƽܼ 331. ǠƻNjܼܿ LjDŽܼ .ƣƾDžDžܸ Ʀ .ƥ‫ܪ‬ƲNJ‫ܕ‬ ƥ‫ܕ‬ƲLjǔƦ‫ܘ‬ .ƣ Lj Lj ƽ ƢƦ ƣ Nj NjǓ‫ܕ‬ ƥ ‫ܕ‬ ƲLjǔƦ ܼ ܼ ܿ ܼ ܼ ܿܿ ܿ 364 ܿ ܵ ̈ ̈ ܵ ܿ ܵ ܿ ܵ ܿ ƣƧƾܼ Ƨƴܼ ƣƵܵ ƾܼ Džǡ ƲNJ‫ܗ‬ ‫ܒ ܼܘ‬ƱDž . njƾƧܼ ƦƯDžǔܸ ƧDŽܼ ƶDŽܼ ƯLJ ܹ ǢLJ ܼ ܼ .ƣܵƾǖܿ ‫ܪܕܘ‬ ܼ ‫ ܼܘ‬ƣNJǜDŽ‫ܘ‬ƢƦ‫ܕ‬ ܿ 365 ܿ ܿ ܿ ܵƣǢLjǡ ƣLjܵ Ljܵ ƽƢƦ‫ ܕ‬ǃƽ‫ ܿܐ‬.‫ ܼܢ‬ǤǞ̈ ܵ Ǔܵ ljƵNjܿ LJ‫ ܘ‬ƫƾǗLJ ܿ ƶƴǜLJ ܼ ܸ ܼ ܸ ܼ ‫ ܼܘ‬ƨƺǠ ܸ ܼ ܼ ‫ܼܘ‬ ܸ LJܼ .‫ܘ ܼܬܢ‬Ǡܼ ܵ ƽܼ ǜƧDŽܼ ܼ ܵ ܵ ܿ NJ .ƣܵƾDžDžƦ ƥ‫ܪ‬ƱǍ ƣDžǖ‫ ܘܐ‬njDŽ 366ǃƾǂNJܿ ƣDŽ ƤƱDŽ‫ܕܐ‬ ƱLjǡ‫ܕ‬ ܹ džƻLJܸ ƱNjܹ LJܸ džƾǁܹ ‫ ܗ‬džƴƯ ܼ ܸ ܸ ܿ 367.‫ ܗ‬.ܼ ‫ ܼܗܘ‬ƱƦ 368 ܵ ܵ ‫ ܿܘ‬.ƤƱDŽ‫ܕܐ‬ ‫ܢ‬Ǥƽܼ Ǡǝ‫ ܐܦ ܼܿܕ‬Ʊ̇ Ljǡ Ǥ ƽ ‫ܐ‬ Ʊ ǖ ƲDžƴ < ǫ‫ܘ‬ > ‫ܬ‬ ݂ ܹ ܼ ܼ ܹ ܼ ܼ ̇ ǃƽ‫ܢ† ܗܘ ܿܐ‬ƢLjܿ ƺܿ † ƣܵƽǠLJܵ .ƥƯܵ ƽƱǓܿ ܵ ‫ܕ‬ǠǗƦ‫ ܕ‬ǃƽ‫ ܼ ܿܐ‬.ƣܵƾƧNJ džܹƽƢƾǝƳƴܸ ǠLJ‫ܕܐ‬ njNjƾܼ ƵǂǢLJܸ ƣǎƽ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܵ ܼ DŽܼ ܿ ܿ LJܵ ‫ܡ‬ƲƾƦ ܿ Ǔܿ ƤƱDŽ‫ ܐ‬ƲDžDžLjLj ܿ Ǔܿ ƣǁƢDžLJ‫ܘ‬ ̈ ܿ ‫ ܹ ܿܕ‬.‫ܒ‬ƲǞ ܿ ƽܿ ‫ܗ ܕ‬ƱDŽ‫ܐ‬ Lj Lj nj ‫ܬܢ‬Ʋ njNJ‫ܪ‬ƯǔLJ‫ܘ‬ nj ܼ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܵܿ ܼ ܵ ܹ ܿ ܿ Ưǁ njƽǰƧǓ ܿ ƶǂǢ ܿ NJ ‫݂ܗܘ‬ ̈ ܵƾƦ‫ ܿܕ‬.369 ǫƲLJƲ ƣܿ Njܹ ̈ƽ‫ ܼܕܕ‬ƣƦǤǂƦܼ ǠƾܹƩ ƨƽܼ Ǥǁ njƾDžܹ LjǢLJ ܼ ܼ ܸ ܼ ܿ ܿ ܿ ܵ ܿ ƣDŽ‫ ܕ‬džƻLJܸ ƥǰƧƩܼ nj̈ƾܼ ǗDŽ‫ ܼܐ‬njƽ‫ ܼܿܘܬ ܹܪ‬njƾܼ ǔƦ‫ ܼܐܪ‬ƲDžƻǝ‫ܬ‬ ܸ ‫ ܸܐ‬.džܹƽǠǎƽܼ ‫ ܕ‬ƣNjƽ‫ܚ ܿ ܼܕ‬ǤǗNJܼ ܕ‬ ܵ ܿ ܿ .‫ ݂ܗܘܘ‬njƽܼ ǠLJ‫ ܐ‬ƣDŽ‫ ܸܐ‬.Ƥ‫ܕܘܬ‬Ǡǖ ƣDžܹ LJ‫ ܼܕ‬Ǥƾǁܹ ‫ ܐܘ‬.ƣDžƧǡܸ Ǥƽܼ ƢǞƾܼ Ǣǖ ƲDžDžLjLjDŽܼ ‫ ݂ܗܘܘ‬njƾܼ ǓƯƽ̇ ܼ ܵ ܵ ܿ ܵ ܵ ܿ ‫܆‬ƣܹ̈ƽ‫ܬ‬Ǡǖ‫ ݂ܗܘܘ ܐ‬njƽܼ ǠƧǓ ƱƦܹ ‫ ܕ‬ƥ‫ܪ‬ƱNJܼܿ Ưƽܼ ܿ džǓܼ ܿ njƽ‫ ܕ‬ƲDžƻܸ ǝ‫ܬ‬ ܼ ‫ ܸܐ‬.ƣǞƽܼ ǠǍ‫ ܘ‬ƣǞƾܼ ǗǍ .ƣDžƧǍܸ ܵ ܿ ܿ ܵ ܵ ‫ܵܗ‬ ܿ ܵ ܿ ƣܵƾNJƲǡ‫ܕ‬ ǠƾܹƩ ƣNjǁ ܼ ƥ‫ܪ‬ƱNJܼ ‫ ܕ‬Ƥ‫ܬ‬ǠƧǔLjƦ ܼ .Ƥ‫ܪܘ ܼܬ‬Ǥ ܼ ƾܼ ܿ LJ‫ ܼܕ‬ƥƯƧǓ njLJ݂ njƾܼ Ǟƾܼ ǗǍ‫ ܕ‬njƾDžܹ ƽƢDŽ ‫ܫ‬ƯƩ ܹ ܵ NJܿ ‫ܕ‬ ܿ ‫܆‬njƾܼ Ǟƽܼ ǠǍ‫ܢ ܘ‬ƲNJܿ ‫ ܸܐ‬njƾܼ ƵǂǢLJܸ Ưǁ‫ ܘ‬ƥ‫ ܹ ̈ܕ‬Ƣܹ ǡ ǠƾܹƩ .‫ܘܢ‬ƱDŽ njƾܼ Ǔ‫ ܐܪ‬.ƥǠƪǖ njLJ݂ ƣǢǗ ܼ ܿ ܿ 370 ܿ ܿ ܵ ܿ ܵ ܵ njƾǗƻ ƴܵ .Ʋƽܼ ǜǖǤǑLjDŽ njNjƾ Ʀ ‫ܨ‬ ‫ܢ‬ ‫ܐ‬ Ʊ Nj LJ‫ܕ‬ ‫܆‬ljDž ǔDŽ‫ܕ‬ ƣNJƯǞ ƾ DŽ ‫ܢ‬ ƲNJ ‫ܐ‬ nj ƽ ǠƦ ‫ܘܕ‬ ‫ܢ‬ ƲNJ ‫ܐ‬ ܸ ܸ ܸ ܼ ܹ ܹܸ ܼ ܼ ܿ ܵ 371 ܿ ܿ ܿ ܿ ‫܀‬ljDžܸ ǢNJܼ ‫ ܼܕ‬njNjܼ ƽܼ ƯƧǓ‫ܡ ܕ‬ƲLj ܼ DžǂDŽ‫ ܕ‬ƣDŽ‫ܘ‬

ܿ ‫ܘ ܿܪ‬ƢƦ. ܵ ‫ܘ ܵܪ‬ƢƦ; ܵ ‫ܘ ܿܪ‬ƢƦ; pc ܵ ܿ ܿ ܿ Mac Ǥƽ Em. ƤǤƽ (mg.); T ƤǤƽ ܼ ܿ M ƤǤƽ‫ܘ ܼܪ‬ƢƦ. ܼܿ ܵ ܵ ܿ ܿ ܿ M ƤƱDŽ‫ܘܢ ܐ‬ƱDžƦƱƽܼ ‫ ;ܕ‬T ƤƱDŽ‫ܒ ܐ‬Ʊ ܼ ƽܼ ‫ܕ‬. ܿ ƲNJǠƻNjܿ LjDŽ;ܿ M ‫ܬܗܘܢ‬ ܿ ‫ܘ‬ǠƻNjܿ LjDŽ;ܿ T ‫ܗܘܢ‬ ܿ ‫ܘܬ‬Ǡƻܵ Njܿ LjDŽ.ܿ 362 Em. ‫ܬܗܘܢ‬ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܼ 363 Hic T desinit. ܿ ̈ ǔƧDŽ;ܿ M njƾƧƦƯDž 364 Em. njƾƧܿ Ʀܵ ƯDž ܸ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܵ ǔܸ ƧDŽ. ܼ ܿ‫( ܘ‬s. l.). ܿ Mpc ƶƴǜLJ ܿ 365 Mac ‫ܚ‬ǜLJ‫;ܘ‬ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܿ NJ. 366 Em. ǃƾǂNJܿ ; M ǃƾǂ ܸ ܼ ܼ 367 Coni. .njƽ‫ ܕ‬ƲNJ‫ ;ܗ‬M .‫ܗ‬. 368 Coni. ǫ‫ܘ‬Ǥƽ‫ ;ܐ‬M ...Ǥƽ‫( ܐ‬legi nequit propter cariem). ܼ ܼ ܿ ܵ ܿ 369 Em. ƣNj̈ƽܵ ‫;ܕܕ‬ ܹ ܼ M ƣNjܵƽ‫ܕܕ‬. ܼ ܵ M njƾǗƻƴ. ܵ 370 Em. njƾǗƻƴ; ܿ ܿ ܿ ac 371 Em. ‫ܡ‬ƲLjDžǂDŽ‫;ܕ‬ M ljLjܸ DžǂDŽ‫ ;ܕ‬Mpc ‫ܡ‬Ʋܼ Ljܸ DžǂDŽ‫( ܕ‬s. l.). ܼ 360 361

HOMILY IN PRAISE OF SAINT THOMAS: TRANSLATION

[Sermon on Saint Thomas, the Beloved Apostle] [68ra] While it is good that1 this commemoration of Saint Mar Thoma, the beloved apostle, is extolled in all the churches, most of all it is fit for us to celebrate, to sanctify, to praise and to chant this feast-day, since this apostle belongs to us, he taught our fathers, he founded, established and completed our Church. And if others are also celebrating him today, it is above all right for us to praise him. But what are we going to say about the one whose history surpasses all discourse? And with what shall we compare the one to whom there is no likeness, whose stories are amazing, whose miracles are admirable, whose deeds strike fear, whose actions are grand, whose conduct is sublime, and whose life vivifies and makes us divine, who is a seraph in the body and a cherub in the flesh, an altar of wisdom and a throne of the Divinity?2 Fittingly spoke Jesus the son of Sirach about the great priest Simon, the son of Onias: as a star among the clouds,3 as the moon in spring, as the sun shining over palaces, as a rainbow illuminating the clouds, as the sheaves of the field, as the cedars of Lebanon with their high branches, as the lily of the king at the springs of water, as incense in the censer, as a necklace of gold which is beautifully arrayed and adorned with precious stones.4

The expression ‫ ܕ‬ƨƷ Ưǁ has a concessive value. See Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite, Celestial Hierarchy, 7. 3 T reads instead “as the morning star among the clouds.” 4 Cf. Siracides, 50:6–10.13. 1 2

75

76

SERMON ON SAINT THOMAS, THE BELOVED APOSTLE

For, while all this is said to us about the son of Onias,5 what do we say, then, about the pleasantness of the one whose exceeding mercy is outstanding in its gentleness more than all olive trees? And whose magnificence of authority is above all golden ornament [68rb] and all the precious stones? Whose fame of continence is more fragrant than all scents, and whose sublimity of strength is more exalted than all the cedars of Lebanon? Whose brilliancies and splendors of virginity are more becoming, more virtuous, and more gladdening than any lily which is in the Paradise of the Lord? Whose fullness of diligence and of leadership satisfies the hunger more than all the sheaves of grain, the bread of man? And he was a sign of peace, even more than the rainbow which God put over the clouds in the sky, [for] he reconciled humanity with divinity, and in various ways led mortals to follow our God. He also rose upon us, the Indians, [shinning] more than the sun, and he speedily exulted on his way as a giant,6 when he illuminated [and shone] in the light of the life-giving tidings over the palaces of the humanity and divinity of Christ, our Lord, in order to work mercy among us7. In the night of persecution he illuminated his face upon us,8 and in the likeness of the morning star he preceded and showed us Christ the sun of true righteousness. Any comparison, then, is too small for him, and so, it is hard to understand how it is proper to talk about this blessed one. The fleshly tongue is not able to recount, words fail, reason is darkened by the splendors of the holiness of the blessed-one, and every faculty becomes feeble. For Saint John the Evangelist recounts that he saw an angel, whose face was shining as the sun and whose feet were as the flames of fire, stepping one of them over dry land and the other one over the sea. [68va] In his hand he was holding a small book, which he gave Saint John to eat. It was as sweet as

T reads instead “which [things], although are said about the son of Onias, are showing the great deeds of the excellence of our apostle.” 6 Psalm 18:6. ܿ ܿ 7 Literally, “in order to do mercy with us,” njLjǓ ܼ ƣLjƴǯ ܹ ƯƧǔ ܼ LjDŽ ܸ . 8 Cf. Psalm 66:2. 5

TRANSLATION

77

honey in his mouth and bitter in his stomach, and [the angel] sent him to preach.9 Behold the likeness of Mar Thoma who has become an angel in his conduct. And when he received in his spirit, as in a pure mirror, the knowledge of the true resurrection of our Lord and he was illuminated by the person of our Lord, who appeared to him, he touched His side. He [began] shinning more than the sun10 in the splendor of Jesus, and he [i.e. Thoma] illuminated and warmed the hearts of men as far as the borders of the world. The tongue says11 that in constant meditation on our Lord,12 they were transformed in His likeness from glory into glory, as if from the Spirit of our Lord.13 Thus, when his pure soul received the rays of the sun of righteousness, the blessed one was in the likeness of our Lord, and he was clothed in delights. He went all over the world and to many places in order to imprint the image of Christ14 in the hearts of many saints. His light was transmitted up to our days, and if you want to look into the splendor and the rays that have risen from this blessed one, when our Lord looked at him, took the hand [of Thoma], and put it into His own side,15 [then] listen, my brothers, to [the Apostle’s] words, when he confessed with tears:16 “My Lord and my God,”17 because [here the meaning of] the whole image is revealed.18 It was through this faith that [the Apostle] expelled eve-

Cf. Revelation 10. Matthew 17:2. 11 T reads instead “Blessed Paul says about the apostles.” 12 Apparently a reference to the Jesuit spiritual exercises. 13 2 Corinthians 3:18. 14 T reads instead “of Christ, the Sun of righteousness.” ܵ ƾܼ ǢLJ‫ ܕ‬ƱNjܹ ǖ‫ ܕ‬ƲƪƦ). 15 Literally, “in the side of Christ” (ƣƵ 16 T reads instead “while his eyes were sheding forth tears.” 17 John 20:28. 18 T reads instead “because the meaning of the whole image depends on them [i.e. on the words of the Apostle].” Apparently, here the preacher is explaining a religious image to his audience. It seems that on the painting (a mural or a portable icon), Christ holds the hand of St. Thomas and 9

10

78

SERMON ON SAINT THOMAS, THE BELOVED APOSTLE

ry error of paganism and satanic heresy, and he openly put to shame the dark powers of the world. This19 is the book in which the entire economy of Christ was written [68vb] which this blessedone taught to the Indians and to countless [other] peoples according to the saying: “For I offered you as light to the peoples. You will be my salvation as far as the borders of the world. Kings will see and princes will rise and worship the Lord, your God.”20 For Mar Thoma preached to and taught the Persians, and among the people of Herat, and of Merw, and of Rayy, and of Parthia, to the Bactrians, to the Babylonians, to the Soqotri, to the Indians, to the Chinese, to the Ethiopians, and also to the Magi, who were worshipers of our Lord.21 He baptized and confirmed them.22 As a sign of the swiftness of the blessed Thoma’s preaching, John says that the feet of the angel whom he saw, were like flames of fire, by which the swift and sudden activity and work of Mar Thoma is praised. In a few years, he preached and gathered harvests for provision in the granary of our Lord; that is to say, he collected and brought together countless people into the sheepfold of the

puts it in the wound in his own flank. This was a traditional way of representing this gospel scene. 19 I.e. the confession of Saint Thomas. 20 Isaiah 49:6–7. T adds “worship the Lord, your God, and the Holy of Israel Who chose you.” 21 T provides here an augmented list of peoples: “For Mar Thoma did not preach only to Israel, but in person or through his disciples, [he also preached] to the Persians, and among the people of Herat, and of Merw, and of Rayy, and of Parthia, and of Media, to the Bactrians and to the Hyrcanians, to the Babylonians and the people of Smarkand, to the Socotrans, to the Indians, to the Chinese and to the inhabitants of Mahācīna, to the Ethiopians, and also to the Magi who were worshipers of our Lord in His infancy.” 22 T adds “and through his disciple, whose name is Thaddaeus, he also converted to our Lord, Abgar, the king of Edessa, and the subjects of his kingdom, after Thaddaeus had healed the king of his illness through the sign of the Cross.”

TRANSLATION

79

Church, just as God made his angels spirits and his servants burning fire.”23 And that book which [the angel] gave John to eat was sweet in his mouth and bitter in his stomach, showing the pleasantness and sweetness of the divine Gospel, in which the forgiveness of sins and eternal life are promised to those who believe in Christ, and who love him actively. The bitterness symbolizes the repentance of sinners, and their tears [as] preached in the Gospel. The angel, however, was treading over the sea and over the dry land, because the blessed [69ra] Thoma was not only proclaiming [the Gospel] on dry land, but he was also conveyed by our Lord to many remote islands. The book from the hand of the angel was small, since the divine Gospel – as blessed Bartholomew the apostle says – is broad and large, and again, it is short and narrow.24 And if you ask from where Saint Mar Thoma had such great power and strength, we answer that [he had it] from Christ, who was likened to a lion, according to the word of the blessed Jacob: “Juda, you are a lion’s whelp,”25 as a sign of kingship and power; because Saint Thoma became like our Lord in every possible respect. And rose from the scepter of Juda26 the one whom they knew, a lion of pale color – Mar Thoma is [thus] also fittingly called a lion which, as Solomon says, is the mightiest of all the wild beasts and fears no one.27 This suits well to the apostle, who, when he was showing his justice, had no fear to go together with our Lord to Jerusalem. In fact, when the Jews were seeking to kill Him, [the apostle] told to his fellows: “let us go and die together with him.”28 And if even before the descent of the Holy Spirit on him, this apostle was so mighty, so that he touched the side of our Lord, then, what did he do after the confirmation of his faith through the Holy Spirit, after seeing the marks of our Lord and touching them, after His resurrection? [69rb] Because of this [the apostle] disreHebrews 1:7. Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite, Mystical Theology, 1. 3 (1000B-C). 25 Genesis 49:9. 26 Cf. Genesis 49:10. 27 Proverbs 30:30. 28 John 11:16. 23 24

80

SERMON ON SAINT THOMAS, THE BELOVED APOSTLE

garded the dreads and perils of the ways and of robbers, and he did not fear the storms of the sea. He despised all persecutions, he was not troubled by death and bitter torments, did not falter before the crushing of [his] bones; he did not tremble before the troops of Satan, he added29 the chains and the prisons; and he counted every imprisonment as gladness; he rejoiced in the pains of [his] afflictions, he trampled and trod upon diabolical ruses and flatteries. Until the day of his departure, there was no distress, no imprisonment, no persecution, no nakedness, no peril, no death, no life, no angels, no principalities, no powers, no present things, no future things, no height, no depth, nor any creature to mitigate or dilute the strength of his course, or to cool the heat of his love for Christ, our Lord.30 Therefore, we have fittingly called him ‘lion’. As for the pale color, it is the mark of the spirituality of his soul.31 The pagan histories recount about Alexander, the great King of the Greeks, that after he had subdued almost all the world, he asked one of the philosophers whether there was any other world to conquer. [The philosopher] replied that there was none, and because of this answer the king, ambitious in his heart, became very sad. He had thought about subduing and subjecting many more lands and worlds, if there were to be found any, outside this-one.32 In the same way our apostle wanted to seek out adjacent [69va] lands as long as there were people to whom he would preach and whom he [actually] taught, and so, he reached to the ends of the earth and he subjected everybody under the yoke of the Lord’s cross. And he wanted to find other [men], and was seeking after different lands in which the divine Gospel had not [yet] been preached; his vigor lessened and came to an end. However, the fervor of his heart, his love, and willingness, and desire for the virtuous deeds did not cease.

T reads instead “he despised.” Cf. Romans 8:35–39. 31 T reads instead “it is the mark of his magnanimity.” 32 Cf. Plutarch, “On Tranquility of Mind,” Moralia, vol. 6, W. C. Helmbold (transl.), (Loeb Classical Library: No. 337, 1939): 9: 4. 29 30

TRANSLATION

81

Listen, brothers,33 to the riddle of the judge of Israel34 who killed a lion and afterwards found in the mouth of its carcass the drippings of honey together with a honeycomb,35 which he took and gave to his household, saying to them the following: “which food came from the eater, and which sweet came from the bitter?”36 For, behold, after his death the holy one [even] converted to our Lord the king who had killed him. The king had a very ill heir, for whose healing he had wasted much wealth, but to no avail. [The king] decided himself to ascend in order to worship at the apostle’s sepulcher, so that his heir might be healed. And it happened that, while he was ascending, the apostle appeared to him, reproached him, and said: “You did not believe those alive, and you believe those who are dead? But go, since our Lord Jesus will have mercy upon you.” And so, the king went with his heir and they worshiped at the grave, the spring of relief, and through the touch of the dust that was in it, the boy was healed. The king believed, and many [others] together with him converted to Christ, and with outpoured love they were baptized37. Behold the sweetness [69vb] of the bitter! He healed spiritually those who had killed him according to the body. And do you wish to hear about the bitterness of this lion? When the apostle was called to a wedding feast in the capital city of India – as Mar Abdia his disciple says – one of those serving the tables slapped the apostle on his cheeks, because he was not eating, but was uplifted by the song of a maiden who was glorifying God. Thoma spoke to him and, while raising his eyes and his hands towards heaven, he prayed in this way: “The Lord will have pity on you in the judgment which is to come, my son, but he will chastise you in this

Lit., “our brothers”. I.e. of Samson. 35 See Judges 14. 36 Ibid. 14:14. 37 W. Lazius (ed.), “De rebus Beati Thomae Apostoli per Indiam gestis,” Abdiae Babyloniae primi episcopi ab apostolis constituti, De historia certaminis apostolici libri X, (Paris, 1560): 121b; in the following references, I will refer to this work as Pseudo-Abdias. 33 34

82

SERMON ON SAINT THOMAS, THE BELOVED APOSTLE

world through your right hand.”38 The sun set, the company was in lack of water, and the chief cupbearer went to refill [the water]. A leopard rushed upon him and tore him limb from limb; a dog took the right hand of the one who had slapped [the apostle], and brought it to the house of the wedding feast, and put it before the guests. All were amazed and even the king of the place went and fell down at the feet of the blessed-one. And [the king] begged him to bless his daughter, who was married that day.39 From this, my brothers, you would be able to understand the bitterness, the power and the strength of this lion. From him rose as well the afore-mentioned sweetness. Now, if we want to know “the food that came from the eater”, we should remember how this blessed one overthrew and shattered, by means of his prayer, the altar of the Sun,40 its chariot and its mares – all of gold, which with amazing craftsmanship [70ra] had been forged by the king of India.41 We should not forget the afflictions and the dangers of the holy man, which he endured and bore for our Lord, and through these, we will be able to understand how this lion was “the eater” about whom we were speaking. The food which came from him is the conversion of many peoples, according to this saying of our Lord: “this is [My] meal: to do the will of the one who sent me in order to accomplish his work,”42 that is to say, the conversion of men to God. The blessed one accomplished this both before his death and after his departure, so that we are able to say the same thing that was said about

I.e. the hand which slapped the apostle. Cf. Pseudo-Abdias 103b–104b; the account given here more closely resembles the version of the life of Saint Thomas recounted in James of Voragine’s Legenda aurea, V, 25–27; for the present reference I used G. P. Moggioni, (ed.) Iacopo da Varaze, “De Sancto Thoma Apostolo,” Legenda aurea con le miniature del codice Ambrosiano C 240 inf., (Florence and Milan: Sismel Edizioni del Galluzzo and Biblioteca Ambrosiana, 2007). 40 T reads instead “the idol of the Sun.” 41 Ibid., 113b–114b. 42 John 4:34. 38 39

TRANSLATION

83

the death of Samson: “in his death he humbled many, more than in his lifetime.”43 Again, was it not the true food and the heavenly bread, which Mar Thoma was sharing to the believers, every year, on the day of Easter, when he was seen in the church, in front of everybody and gave the sacraments to those worthy, and was skipping over those defiled, as recounts Mar Papa the Patriarch, a man who went from India to Rome, as the Roman Bishop named Equilinus related in his history? And so, through this, is solved the riddle of Samson, which we are interpreting about the blessed Mar Thoma, who was from the tribe of Juda. Now, however, we should inquire the swiftness of our lion, that is to say, of Mar Thoma, the beloved apostle. For, after expelling from his soul all burden and worldly concern, he girded and armed himself as a good combatant, in order to fight against the dark powers which were overshadowing [70rb] all India. And the blessed young-man was as an arrow in the hands of Christ, our mighty God. He strengthened himself, labored strenuously and was released [as an arrow] as far as the borders of the world. For, you should know that the apostles resemble arrows, as the Holy Spirit says about the apostles of our Lord: “your arrows are sharp – peoples will fall down beneath you – in the heart of the king’s enemies.” That is to say, ‘of the sinners’, since the preaching of the apostles was stuck as an arrow in the hearts of the lawless listeners, the enemies of Christ the King; just as in Habakuk: “in the light of your arrows, Lord, they are going away.” For, the apostles were spiritual arrows, the teachers of the world, but the blessed Thoma is a chosen arrow, as Isaiah says: “the Lord hid me in his quiver, he placed me as a chosen arrow, and told me: ‘You are my servant, Israel, because in you I will be glorified’.” The quiver in which this arrow was kept is the side of our Lord from where this feast-day44 was shot with great impetus as far as India. This45 is the arrow of Jonathan,46 which did not turn back, Cf. Judges 16:30. T reads instead “this arrow.” 45 I.e. Thoma. 46 2 Kings 1:22. 43 44

84

SERMON ON SAINT THOMAS, THE BELOVED APOSTLE

but achieved everything which its archer commissioned for it, and which received strength from the side of our Lord, [the arrow] which touched [the side of the Lord] with his hand, and said: “My Lord and my God!”47 In the likeness of the dove which Noah sent out from the ark, he took in his mouth the olive twig,48 that is to say, the saving tidings of the humanity and divinity of our Lord and God;49 he went and announced peace to our parents. The bow, from which the arrow was shot, is the humanity of our Lord, who for our salvation was stretched out on the holy Cross. [70va] From there, the blessed apostle received the swiftness to destroy the shame [of idolatry] among the pagans, and to vivify them in Christ, the life of all. However, as the philosophers say, a peculiar feature of the lion is sleeping with its eyes opened,50 according to the word of Jacob to his son Juda: “you rose up towards the prey and lay down like a lion,”51 that is to say, keeping the gaze of the eye, so as not to miss the prey. In the same way, the blessed apostle, ever since the time he fell into the sleep of death – for, [the Lord] also called “sleep” the death of Lazar52 – has not closed his eyes, nor did he turn them away from his sons, that is, the peoples whom he taught, but he defended and guarded them from their seen and unseen enemies, up to this day. You saw that, when many wrathful people, desiring the blood of the Christians, are surrounding us, they fear, tremble and become speechless because of the frightening howl of this lion. Had we not had the succor of this blessed one, they would have swallowed us alive! And so, was fulfilled this word of the blessed DaJohn 20:28. Cf. Genesis 8:11. 49 T reads instead “the saving tidings of the divinity of our Lord and God.” 50 The fable about the lion is present in the Syriac and Latin traditions of the Physiologus; hence it entered into the tradition of the medieval bestiaries. See, for instance, Hugh of St. Victor, De bestiis et aliis rebus, PL 177, 57B-C. 51 Genesis 49:9. 52 John 11:11. 47 48

TRANSLATION

85

vid: “your law is for the fear of your right hand;” that is to say, after Thoma had brought [the good] tidings to the Gentiles, through the abundance of his wonders and heroic deeds, before and after his dormition, up to the present day, he [i.e. Thoma] frightened and is frightening them. And as “the good shepherd, who lay down his soul for [his] flock,”53 he guards them from all those who try to harm them. Truly, it is a great wonder that this Christianity is [still] surviving in the midst of paganism, Judaism and Islam, without any corruption, down to our days. And, moreover, it is growing, expanding and prospering from one day to another, due to the right hand, that is, the dreadfulness of this apostle, who announced us the law of Christ. [70vb] And it came to pass with us what is said in the Law of Moses about the sons of Israel, namely, that all of them “were growing in number and multiplying as much as their enemies were oppressing them.”54 Ambrose says that “the blood of the Christians is the seed of their growth.”55 And although the holy apostle is great, he did not resist becoming the slave of Ḥabban, the steward of the King of India, who had been sent [by the king] to Jerusalem, so as to bring for him from there a learned and experienced craftsman to build in India a palace for the king and his heirs. And so, Thoma obeyed our Lord, committed himself to Ḥabban, and came together with him to India. He received much money from the hands of the king, gave it as alms to many, and by means of those alms he built a palace in heaven for the King of India. Its craftsmanship cannot be expressed by the human tongue, its beauty is indescribable, and its price cannot be measured, as Mar Abdia recounts in his book on the histories of Mar Thoma.56 Behold, my brothers, the eagerness of the Apostle’s love! In the likeness of Christ, “he emptied himself, assumed the likeness of John 10:11. Exodus 1:12. 55 Actually, it is a quote from Tertullian, Apologeticum, 50:13; for the present reference I used C. Becker (ed.), Tertullian, Apologeticum. Verteidigung des Christentums, (Munich: Kösel-Verlag, 1952). 56 Pseudo-Abdias 105b–107a. 53 54

86

SERMON ON SAINT THOMAS, THE BELOVED APOSTLE

a slave,”57 and came to India, in the guise of a craftsman, in order to found the Indian Church, so as to save us in it, through baptism; just as Noah saved the human race from the devastasion of the flood.58 Consider, my beloved, this mystery which I am telling you – that is to say, that of the Wisdom of God, who is the Word, the Son of God! She is the craft of everything, and as Salomon says in the Proverbs, [71ra] “She built a house and hewed seven pillars,”59 that is to say, the Catholic Church, and secured it on the seven sacraments. And since She revealed and showed Herself to the world in the guise of a woodworker – as it is written in the divine Gospels: “is this not the carpenter?”60 – he sent afterwards the blessed one in the same appearance towards us. Take into account that also, Noah, the carpenter, made the ark according to the word of God, and he redeemed the world. God inspired Moses as well, with all craftsmanship,61 so as to build according to it, the tabernacle, and the stupefying vessels which he put in it. And so, he saved Israel from the Egyptian slavery. Also, Salomon the King was a craftsman, who learned from God how to found, to build and to embellish the temple of God; and with his wisdom he illuminated the world. So, those who were well known and renowned saviors in the world, were craftsmen as well, in the likeness of the true Savior, Christ our Lord. For this reason, Thoma, the savior of the Indians, revealed himself in India, in the appearance of a carpenter; and he built for all of us in the kingdom of heaven in the everlasting life, an eternal house, while in this world, he built the Church, which is the palace of Christ. The foundation for the building of this Church is Christ,62 the corner-stone, on whom it is settled; and on Him are the prophets and the blessed apostles.63 Its gate is one very beauti-

Philippians 2:7. See Genesis 7–8. 59 Proverbs 9:1. 60 E.g. Mark 6:3. 61 T reads instead “God also taught Moses all craftsmanship.” 62 1 Corinthians 3:11. 63 Ephesians 3:20. 57 58

TRANSLATION

87

ful pearl,64 [71rb] that is, the holy baptism, through which we are spiritually born in Christ. Its walls hewn in stone are the believers, who are hewn and put together by means of the good deeds, namely fasting, contrite prayer, continuous mortification, chastity, humility, abstinence from the fleshly desires, and so on, which are the powers of virtue, and by means of the contemplations of the divine things. And these spiritual stones are formed for the use of the building of these walls. Its windows are the revelations of God and the Christian teaching, which is illuminating all of us. The lime and mortar for uniting the stones is the charity with which we love one another. In order to nail, join, and fix the wooden pieces one with another, there are the nails; that is to say, the sayings of God, which are nailing and fastening the sinful souls, through the fear of God, so as not to become matter for eternal burning, in the Tartarus of Gehenna. However, from the beauty of this house are not missing the buds and flowers arrayed in all kinds of colors. Look and you will see the martyrs blossoming in red, the virgin women and men flourishing in white, and the celibates, the chaste [married people] who are shining, the superiors who are serving, the teachers who are illuminating, the preachers who are radiating, the penitents who are growing pale, the monks who are glittering, the anchorites who are justified, and the rest of those divine evangelizers who are resplendent, as “the heavens, the stars and the constellations are showing and recounting the glory [71va] of God.”65 And [David] says about the building of this Church: “its foundations [are] on his holy mountain,”66 that is to say, on Christ, the mountain of holiness, as Isaiah the prophet called Him.67 “The Lord loved the gates of Zion more than all the tents of Jacob,”68 that is to say, the first offerings of the Church of Christ, who are the apostles and their pupils. Revelation 21:21. Psalm 18:2. 66 Psalm 86:1. 67 Cf. Isaiah 11:9; 57:13; 65:25; 66:20. 68 Psalm 86:2. 64 65

88

SERMON ON SAINT THOMAS, THE BELOVED APOSTLE

“The Lord loved…” and so on, that is to say, the Israelites according to the flesh. And the prophet adds a sign for this speaking in the person of God: “I will remember Rahab and Babylon, the ones who acknowledge me,”69 that is to say, the paganism which was in Rahab, the harlot, who lodged the spies sent by Jesus, the son of Nave. For this reason, she was preserved and saved with all her household, and they were added to the people of Israel.70 And also, Babylon which [was] wretched before and [was] oppressing the sons of Israel, in slavery. “Behold the Philistines, and Tyre, the people of the Cushites,”71 among which the Indians are also included! From all these is built up the Church, which is the city72 of our God, about which it is said: “glorious things have been said about you, oh, the city of our God.”73 It does not need the sun for its illumination, since the Lord is its sun.74 The glorious [things] which have been and are still said about this city, are those great things that the blessed Mar Thoma announced and preached in it, as well as, the word of God.75 This is why are befitting him these words of the blessed David, who sings: “Mercy was poured out on your lips; thereupon, God blessed you forever.”76 For this reason, the blessed-one, with his lips “overflowing with milk and honey,”77 persuaded many peoples, both the wise and the barbarous, [71vb] and made them join our Lord. So, instead of satanic shrines of Satan, they are the temple of God, and stupefyingly beautiful. Even though the apostle brought them the good tidings and he confirmed his preaching through frequent miracles, there were still men who did not obey the faith. In order to show their foolishness, he prayed to God and God opened the mouth of an ass, which moved its tongue to speak about the sublime teachings of Psalm 86:4. Joshua 2. 71 Psalm 87:4. 72 Literally: village (ƤǤƽǠǝ). ܼ 73 Psalm 87:3. 74 See Revelation 21:23. 75 I.e. the holy Scripture. 76 Cf. Psalm 44:3. 77 Exodus 3:8; 13:5. 69 70

TRANSLATION

89

Christ in the presence of a large assembly. And it came to pass that those who did not want to believe the preaching of the apostle, believed the speech of the beast and obeyed,78 just as it had happened to Balaam about whom it is written in the Law79 that once he was saved by the ass, which he was riding, since [the beast] was turning aside from [its] way, because it saw the angel of the Lord standing [in their way]. Although he was an interpreter of dreams, he was not able to see [the angel], and the ass chastised the foolishness of the prophet,80 but afterwards his eyes were opened and he saw the angel. Likewise are the sons of baptism who, although they should be seers and teachers of the other people, and especially of the pagans, nevertheless they do not understand, nor discern at all the divine [things]. The pagans are instructing and admonishing them concerning the law of God, and so, from time to time, many laymen are correcting the clergymen. Alas for us, for our time, and for our sins! Therefore, let us be careful, my brothers, not to anger the master of our instruction that God may give us the gladness for the redemption of life. This is the angel who was given to us, in this desert of the world, to guide us in it, according to what is written in the Law about the sons of Israel: that God offered them [72ra] guardianship through the pillar of cloud during the day, and through the pillar of fire during the night.81 This is our beloved apostle who, during [our] afflictions and persecutions, sets on fire and confuses our enemies, and burns out our deficiency. He moistens, cools and raises us up from our grieving, so that “the sun will not hurt us during the day, nor the moon during the night.”82 Let us fear him, since the name of God is in him, that is to say, he is the Vicar of God. Also, the name of our city is remembered: “the Lord is […],” as Ezekiel the prophet says. As if we 78Absent

from both the account of Pseudo-Abdias and de Voragine’s Legenda aurea, this story constitutes the fourth act in the collection of the Syriac Acts of Thomas. 79 Numbers 22:22–32. 80 Lit., “by the foolishness of the prophet.” 81 Exodus 13:21. 82 Cf. Psalm 120:6.

90

SERMON ON SAINT THOMAS, THE BELOVED APOSTLE

were in Paradise, we are able to say: God is with us, the angels are with us, and our help is the God of Jacob. Let Him be our helper on the day of our death when we complete [our lives]. For, it is written in the Book of Judges,83 that in the days of Jephthah, the judge of Israel, forty-two thousand men were slain, because they were not able to pronounce easily “sheaf” (šeblā), that is to say, [ear] full of grain, but they said “straw” (seblā), [that is] empty and worthless. However, they were slain near the river, through which the Ephraimites were passing. This is how it happens to those who are devoid of the practice of virtue, in the passage through the river of the departure of the soul from the body. For, the demons are coming to meet them and, if they find them deprived [of good deeds], they capture them, and drive them into the everlasting burning. If only we would desire to be delivered from [the everlasting burning] and avoid fulfilling [the rightful punishment] for all our faults!

83

Judges 12:6.

REFERENCES I. SOURCES Manuscripts Codex Syriacus Mannanam 14. Ff. 124v–125v. Codex Syriacus Mannanam 23. Ff. 33v–35r. Codex Syriacus Mannanam 46. Ff. 68r–72r. Codex Syriacus Mannanam 59. Ff. 114v–115v. Codex Syriacus Mannanam 62. Ff. 14r–15r. Codex Syriacus Parisinus BnF 25. Ff. 217v–218v. Codex Syriacus Thrissur 17. Ff. 180r–187r. Editions and translations Abdisho of Nisibis. Carmen Ebedjesu Metropolitae Sobae et Armeniae continens catalogum Librorum omnium Ecclesiasticorum: 3–361. Ed. Assemani, Giuseppe Simone. Ed. Bibliotheca Orientalis Clementino-Vaticana. Vol. III.1. Rome: Typis Sacrae Congregationis de Propaganda Fide, 1725. ———. The Nomocanon of Abdisho of Nisibis. A Facsimile Edition of Ms. 64 from the Collection of the Church of the East in Thrissur. Eds. Perczel, I. and H. Kaufhold. New Jersey: Gorgias Press, 2005. Brewer, Keagan. Ed. Prester John: The Legend and Its Sources. Burlington: Ashgate, 2015. “The Acts of Juda Thomas (or the Twin), the Apostle.” Trans. W. Wright. In Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles, vol. 2. London: Williams and Norgate, 1871. Biblia Sacra iuxta Vulgatam Clementinam. Ed. M. Tuveedale. London: 2005.

91

92

SERMON ON SAINT THOMAS, THE BELOVED APOSTLE

Biblia Sacra Vulgata, vol. 1–2. Ed. B. Sischer, I. Gribomont et al. Stuttgart: Württembergische Bibelanstalt, 1969. Braun, Oscar. “Der Brizfweschsel des Katholikos Papa von Seleucia: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der ostsyrischen Kirche im vierten Jahrhundert.” Zeitschrift für katholische Theologie 18.1(1894): 163–182. Chabot, Jean-Baptiste. Ed. Synodicon orientale ou recueil de synods Nestoriens. Paris: Imprimerie nationale, 1902. Da Cuhna Rivara, Joaquim Heliodoro. Archivo Portuguez-Oriental. Fasciculo 4. New Dehli: Asian Educational Services, 1992. Darmo, Mar Thoma (ed.), Ktābā daqdām wadbātar wadḥudrā wadkaškol wa dgazzā uqālā dʿudrānē ʿam ktābā dmazmorē, Vol. 3. Trichur: Mar Narsai Press, 19932. De Ribadeneira, Pedro. Flos Sanctorum, o libro de las vidas de los Santos. Primeira parte. Madrid: 1616. ———. Flos sanctorum seu uitae et res gestae sanctorum. Cologne: Apud Franciscum Metternich, 1700. Dionysius the Carthusian, Doctor Ecstaticus. „De R. Thomae integritate, et duodecim virtutum gradibus quibus populum instruxit; deque stupendis circa corpus eius exhibitis divinitus miraculis.”: 85–88. In Opera omnia. Vol. 31. Tournai: Typis Cartusiae S. M. De Pratis, 1906. Isaac of Nineveh (Isaac the Syrian). The Second Part. Chapters IVXLI. Ed. Sebastian Brock. CSCO 554. Leuven: Peeters, 1995. Isho’dad of Merw. The Commentaries of Isho’dad of Merw, Bishop of Ḥadatha. Ed. and trans. M. Dunlop Gibson. Vol. 1. Cambridge: CUP, 1911. Petrus de Natalibus Venetus. Sanctorum catalogus, vitae, passiones et miracula commodissime annectens. Lyon: 1543. Roz, Francisco. De erroribus Nestorianorum qui in hac India orientali versantur. Inédit latin-syriaque de la fin de 1586 ou du début de 1587. Ed. Castets, J. and I. Hausherr. Orientalia Christiana 40. Rome: Pontificium Institutum Orientalium Studiorum, 1928. Hugh of St. Victor. De bestiis et aliis rebus. PL 177. James of Voragine. “De Sancto Thoma Apostolo.” In Legenda aurea con le miniature del codice Ambrosiano C 240 inf. Ed. Moggioni, G.

REFERENCES

93

P. Florence: Sismel Edizioni del Galluzzo and Biblioteca Ambrosiana, 2007. La sabiduría del escriba. Wisdom of the Scribe. Ed. N. Calduch Benages, J. Ferrer et al. Estella (Navara): Biblioteca Midrásica, 2003. Mai, Angelo. Ed. Scriptorum Veterum Nova Collectio. Vol. 10. Rome: Typis Collegii Urbani, 1838. Plutarch. “On Tranquility of Mind.” In Moralia, vol. 6. Trans. W. C. Helmbold. Loeb Classical Library: No. 337, 1939. Pseudo-Abdias. “De rebus Beati Thomae Apostoli per Indiam gestis,” Abdiae Babyloniae primi episcopi ab apostolis constituti, De historia certaminis apostolici libri X. Ed. W. Lazius. Paris, 1560. Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite. Pseudo-Dionysius. Complete Works. Trans. C. Luibheid. New York: Paulist Press, 1986. Tertullian. Apologeticum. Verteidigung des Christentums. Ed. C. Becker. Munich: Kӧsel-Verlag, 1952. The New Testament in Syriac. London: British and Foreign Bible Society, 1905–1920. The Old Testament in Syriac According to the Peshiṭta Version. Part I Fasc. 1. Preface. - Genesis; Exodus. Ed. Peshitta Institute. Leiden: Brill, 1977. ———. Part II Fasc. 2. Judges; Samuel. Ed. Peshitta Institute. Leiden: Brill, 1978. ———. Part II Fasc. 5. Proverbs; Wisdom of Solomon; Ecclesiastes; Song of Songs. Ed. Peshitta Institute. Leiden: Brill, 1979. ———. Part II Fasc. 3. The Book of Psalms. Ed. Peshitta Institute. Leiden: Brill, 1980. ———. Part III Fasc. 4. Dodekapropheton - Daniel-Bel-Draco. Ed. Peshitta Institute. Leiden: Brill, 1980. ———. Part I Fasc. 2. Leviticus; Numbers; Deuteronomy; Part II, Fasc. 1b. Joshua. Ed. D.J. Lane, A.P. Hayman, W.M. van Vliet, J. H. Hospers, H. J. W. Drijvers, J. E. Erbes. Leiden: Brill, 1991. ———. Part III Fasc. 1. Isaiah. Ed. S.P. Brock. Leiden: Brill, 1993. ———. Part III Fasc. 3. Ezekiel. Ed. M.J. Mulder. Leinde: Brill, 1993. ———. Part II Fasc. 4. Kings. Leiden: Brill, 2000.

94

SERMON ON SAINT THOMAS, THE BELOVED APOSTLE

II. SECONDARY LITERATURE Aranha, Paolo. Il cristianesimo latino in India nel XVI secolo. FrancoAngeli: Milan, 2006. Braun, Oscar. “Der Brizfweschsel des Katholikos Papa von Seleucia: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der ostsyrischen Kirche im vierten Jahrhundert.” Zeitschrift für katholische Theologie 18.1(1894): 546–565. Desreumaux, Alain, Françoise Briquel-Chatonnet, Jackob Thekeparampil. “Catalogue des manuscrits syriaques de la collection du Saint Ephrem Ecumenical Research Institute (Kottayam).” Le Muséon 110, No. 3–4 (1997): 383–446. Kaufhold, Hubert Syrische Handschriften juristischen Inhalts in südindischen Bibliotheken. Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1989. Land, Jan Pieter Nicolaas. Anecdota Syriaca. Vol. 4. Leiden: Brill, 1875. McConaughy, Daniel L. “Syriac Manuscripts in India: The Library of St Thomas Apostolic Seminary.” Orientalia Christiana Periodica 52 (1986): 432–434. ———. “An Update on the Syriac MSS Collections in South India.” Oriens Christianus 71 (1987): 208–212. Mooken, Mar Aprem, the Eastern Syrian Metropolitan of Malabar and India. “Syriac Manuscripts in Trichur.” III Symposium Syriacum (1980). Les contacts du monde syriaque avec les autres cultures (Goslar 7–11 Septembre 1980). Ed. R. Lavenant S.J., Orientalia Christiana Analecta 221 (Rome: 1983): 355–374. ———. Assyrian Manuscripts in India. Thrissur: Mar Narsai Press, 2011. Perczel, István. “Syriac Manuscripts in India: The Present State of the Cataloguing Process.” The Harp. A Review of Syriac and Oriental Ecumenical Studies 15 (2002): 289–298. ———. “Language of Religion. Language of the People, Languages of the Documents: The Legendary History of the Saint Thomas Christians of Kerala,” 387–428. In Language of Religion, Language of the People: Medieval Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Ed. E. Bremer. München: Wilhelm Fink Verlag; 2006.

REFERENCES

95

———. “Classical Syriac as Modern Lingua Franca in South India Between 1600 and 2006.” ARAM 21 (2009): 289–321. ———. “Some New Documents on the Struggle of the Saint Thomas Christians to Maintain the Chaldean Rite and Jurisdiction.” In Sonderdruck aus Orientalia Christiana. Festschrift für Hubert Kaufhold zum 70. Geburstag. Eds. P. Bruns and H. O. Lutte. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2013. ———.“Alexander of the Port/Kadavil Chandy Kattanar: A Syriac Poet and Disciple of the Jesuits in Seventeenth Century India,” Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 14( 2014): 30–49. ———. “Garshuni Malayalam: A Witness to an Early Stage of Indian Christian Literature.” Hugoye: Journal of Syriac Studies 17.2 (2014):263–323. ———. “Cosmopolitanisme de la Mer d’Arabie: Les chrétiens de saint Thomas face à l’expansion portugaise en Inde”: 143–169. Eds. Lefèvre, C., I.G. Županov et al. Cosmopolitismes en Asie du Sud. Sources, itinéraires, langues (XVIe-XVIIIe siècle). Paris: Éditions EHESS, Puruṣārtha – Vol. 33, 2015. ———. Accommodationist Strategies at the Malabar Coast: Competition or Complementarity? In Ines Županov and Fabre, P.-A. (eds.). The Rites Controversies in the Early Modern World. (Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2018): 191–232. Podipara, Placid J. “Portuguese Religious Conquests in Malabar under the Diocese of Cochin during the Sixteenth Century,” 236–249. In Dr. Thomas Kalayil (ed.). Collected Works of Rev. Dr. Placid J. Podipara C.M.I., vol.1. Sanjos Publications: Mannanam, Kerala, 2007 Rogers, Francis M. The Quest for Eastern Christians: Travels and Rumor in the Age of Discovery. Mineapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1962. Thekkedath, Joseph. History of Christianity in India. From the Middle of the Sixteenth to the End of the Seventeenth Century (1542–1700), vol. 2. Bangalore: Church History Association of India, 1988. Thelly, Emmanuel “Syriac Manuscripts in Mannanam Library.” Journal of Eastern Christian Studies, 84 (2004): 257–270.

96

SERMON ON SAINT THOMAS, THE BELOVED APOSTLE

Van der Ploeg, Jan P. M. The Christians of St Thomas in South India and Their Syriac Manuscripts. Bangalore: Dharmaram Publications, 1983. Van Rompay, Lukas. “Papa bar ʽAggai.” In Gorgias Dictionary of Syriac Heritage. Ed. S. P. Brock, A. M. Butts, et al. New Jersey: Gorgias Press, 2011. Zotenberg, Hermann. Catalogue des manuscrits syriaques et sabéens (mandaïtes) de la Bibliothèque Nationale. Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, 1874. Županov, Ines G. “Le repli du religieux. Les missionaries jésuites du 17e siècle entre la théologie chrétienne et une éthique païenne.” Annales. Histoire, Sciences Sociales 51, No. 6 (1996): 1201–1223. ———. “One Civility, But Multiple Religions: Jesuit Missions among St. Thomas Christians in India (16th-17th centuries).” Journal of Early Modern History 9, No. 3–4 (2005): 284–325.

APPENDIX APPENDIX 1: DESCRIPTION AND CATALOGING OF CODEX MANNANAM SYRIACUS 46 BY ISTVÁN PERCZEL MS 46 Miscellany Shelf mark: 090–252–S Bibliography: Emmanuel Thelly, Syriac Manuscripts in Mannanam, p. 268, Literary Works 3. 244 folios Date: early 17th century century; after 1607. There is no date, but the dating can be established both on the basis of the paper, which is very fine with a watermark that I have not seen before, and on that of the content. The letter collection that was copied in the MSS and which is dated to the end of the 16 th– beginning of the 17th century, must have been quite recent at the time of copying. Outer dimensions: 280x190x40 mm Languages: Syriac, Garshuni Malayalam Contents: A Catholic miscellany with sermons and commentaries (among others from Dionysius the Carthusian), saints’ Lives etc., partly original creations and partly translated from Latin. The volume also contains a number of letters from the end of the sixteenth, the beginning of the seventeenth century, as well as Malayalam services and prayers. It also contains letters of the Jesuit missionaries, homilies and treatises arguably composed by Francisco Roz SJ, the first European Archbishop of the Saint Thomas Christians, the decisions of the Third Provincial Synod of Goa translated from the Portuguese into Syriac for the use of the Indian Christians and homilies written in 97

98

SERMON ON SAINT THOMAS, THE BELOVED APOSTLE

Garshuni Malayalam. It is to be noted that this manuscript contains the translations of non-standard, highly intellectual, Latin theological literature, such as Dionysius the Carthusian, which was later widely copied in Kerala, as testified to by many manuscripts. This material indicates the desire of the missionaries to teach what they considered as best in their home theology and to also address the intellectual, not only the practical, needs of the new form of Christianity that they were eager to create. The highly intellectual, so to say “Indian Humanist,” poetry in Syriac of Alexander the Indian, transmitted in Mannanam MS Syr 63, also shows a kind of local answer to this missionary activity. This intellectual effort might be one of the reasons why these missions proved to be so durable on Indian soil, notwithstanding the difficulties and tensions they involved and the loss of Portuguese political power after 1656. Contents 2r

Sermons (ƥ‫ܘ̈ܕ‬ƲǍ) on Gospel readings for the main feasts, of Latin Catholic missionary origin.They mention such Western authorities as Epiphanius, Augustine, Gregory etc. The beginning and, so, the title is also missing On f. 37v, at the end of a sermon, the sermon is dated to 11 Ilul (September), 1567 AD.

54r

Treatise entitled: “On the glorified Trinity”

59r

Untitled note. Incipit: “The great Dionysius has said that the nature of the Good is the outpouring of its self …”

64r

Untitled note. Incipit: “The holy Catholic Church does not celebrate the birthday of a man but of our Lord Jesus, that is, of the one who was conceived without Adam’s sin and was born miraculously, as well as of her blessed Mother who was also conceived without sin…”

66r

Untitled note. Incipit: “In the beginning God created two luminaries, that is the sun and the moon, the fist to rule the day and the second to illuminate the night…

APPENDIX

99

67r

A note translated from John Chrysostom.

68r

Untitled homily for the feast day of Saint Thomas. Incipit: “Surely, then, in all the churches this memory day of the beloved Saint (agios!) Thomas the Apostle is celebrated but more than for anybody else, it is meet for us, at this festival, to celebrate, to bless, to magnify and to chant, because he is our Apostle, he taught our fathers and he founded, erected and built our Church. If others are celebrating him today, he should be magnified even more by us…”

71r

Untitled homily, beginning with an interpretation of the “woman clothed in the sun” of Rev 2, mentioning Mar Mari (Mar Behnam).

73v

Untitled note. Incipit: “After we are conceived in this world we are born and, as we are unjust, we are nourished and brought up on milk and if we become ill, we are treated by a treatment and medicines…

76v

Untitled note. Incipit: “The omnipotent God commanded to Moses on Mount Sinai to make an ark and to cover it at the outside with pure gold and to place inside it three things: the stone tablets that have in them the law written by God, the rod of Aaron the high priest, through which great and admirable ??? were produced, and the manna, which is the bread that had miraculously descended from heaven when the people was starving…

77v

“On the words of the Lord: ‘Heaven has been created…’ and the rest”

80r

“On the Gehenna” followed by a number of other untitled notes.

91v

“Sermon on the tribulations of the just” followed by a series of untitled biblical commentaries.

108

A treatise whose beginning is missing, speaking of Moses.

111r

“On the government of the Church of God from the Catholic doctors”.

100 SERMON ON SAINT THOMAS, THE BELOVED APOSTLE 113r

“On the primacy of the blessed Peter over the entire Church from the venerable gospel and its exegesis, which is from the Catholic doctors. I have written it in the church, on the 3rd of August, 1567 AD.”

118v

A treatise on the primacy of the Pope

123v

A treatise on heresies that seems to be the basis for the condemnations of Syrian Nestorian heretics in the poem of Chandy Kadavil on the Syriac language.

135v

Note on the verse “Why do your pupils break the tradition of the priests?”

136r

Treatise entitled “Demonstration on the advent of our Lord to the world from the books of the Old Testament”

145v

Demonstration on the blessed Evervirgin that she is truly the Mother of God”

148r

Scholia on the Psalms (of Dionysius the Carthusian?)

158v

“Scholia on the Song of Songs of Solomon by Mar Dionysius the Interpreter” (the Carthusian)

166v

“On the priesthood”

168r

Untitled treatise. Commentary on the Lord’s Prayer

179r

Untitled treatises on diverse subjects…

188r

“History of one of the Fathers”

189r

“History of Abba Serapion with the loin-cloth”

190v

“History of the blessed (fem.) mourner (masc.)”. History of a transvestite nun.

192r–195v

Syriac Letters, copied in order to teach Syriac letterwriting, so that the names and most of the other data have been omitted; instead of the names one reads pālan, that is, “so-and-so.” Out of the letters three, namely Letters 3, 4, 9, 11, are dated to 1603, 1604, 1607 and 1608, respectively. Letters 1 and 2 are addressed to the Archdeacon by a Catholic missionary (or by two Catholic missionaries?). Letter 1 was ap-

APPENDIX

101

parently written in the time of Mar Abraham, whom the author calls “an adversary of the Padri,” so the first terminus ante quem is 1597, the death of Mar Abraham. A tentative closer dating becomes possible by a note in the letter about the inhabitants of Parur injuring a member of the Roman Church. This probably refers to an event when non-Christians beat almost to death the first Jesuit missionary of Indian (Malayalee) origin, Pero Luis. This happened in 1579– 1580.1 So the letter must have been written not much later than in 1580. Letter 2 mentions the recent “demise of the Metropolitan of Angamaly,” that is, of Mar Abraham, so it should be dated to 1597, perhaps to September, because it says “now, in September”. The event cannot be the death of Francisco Roz, who was the first and last European Archbishop of Angamaly, because in 1605 Roz was transferred to the see of Cranganore (Kodungallur). Moreover, it seems so that the letters are copied in chronological order. The author speaks in a very respectful voice to the Archdeacon, that is, George of the Cross. Letter 3, dated 1603, is the ordination letter of a priest, named Presbyter Paulos, giving him the permission to officiatein the whole territory of India. One may surmise that the one who ordained him was Francisco Roz, then Archbishop of Angalamy. The same letter bears a note, most probably by the newly ordained Presbyter Paulos, who brought the letter to his native parish, in Chanotta (the pronunciation of this place name is unclear), his birthplace. It is interesting to see that the letters use Garshuni Malayalam (or Suryani Malayalam) for transcribing Malayalam placenames and personal names. Thus, these letters, together with the Garshuni Malayalam See Rev. H. Hosten, S. J., “Peter Louis, S. J., or the First Indian Jesuit,” Kerala Society Papers I (1928), 45–47, here 47. 1

102 SERMON ON SAINT THOMAS, THE BELOVED APOSTLE prayers included at the end of the MS, are among the earliest examples that use this script for writing Malayalam. Malayali Christian scholars have advanced the view that Suryani Malayalam was invented by the missionaries, for whom this script was much easier to read than the local scripts, namely Vattezhuttu and Kolezhuttu, given that Aryaezhuttu, the ancestor of modern Malayalam script, was not yet in use. However, as we also have a parallel script, Arabi Malayalam, using Arabic characters, one might wonder whether Garshuni Malayalam antedates the missionaries. 196r

Sermon on the Eucharist

199r

Sermon on Epiphany

202v

Sermon on Ascension day

205r

Gospel of the Purification (the Presentation to the Temple)

206r

“Third tract of the Goan Synod. Rule for the diocese of the Metropolitanate of Angamaly” These are the Syriac translation of decrees of the Third Session of the Third Provincial Synod of Goa, held in 1585. Eight translated canons are copied here. However, the translation must have been modified after the Synod of Diamper because, in the 5th decree, besides the Synod of Angamaly of 1583, it also mentions Diamper. The Syriac translation of the Portuguese text has been rather freely made and, apparently, the first and the ninth decrees have not been translated.

206r

“First decree on the sustenance of the priests”: this corresponds to Decree 2 of the Synod (See the Portuguese text in J. H. da Cunha Rivara (ed.), Archivo Portuguez-Oriental, Fasciculo 4o que contem os Concilios de Goa e o Synodo de Diamper (Nova-Goa: Imprensa Nacional, 1862, reprint: New Delhi: Asian Educational Services, 1992), p. 144–45).

APPENDIX

103

206v

“Second decree on the question of how should the clerics behave themselves”: this corresponds to Decree 3 (ibid. p. 145–46).

207v

“Third decree on the schools and the students”: This corresponds to Decree 4 (ibid. p. 146–147).

208r

“Fourth decree”: This corresponds to Decree 5 (ibid. p. 147–48).

208v

“Fifth decree”: This corresponds to Decree 6 (ibid. p. 148). “Sixth decree”: This corresponds to Decree 7 (ibid. p. 149).

209r

“Seventh decree”: This corresponds to Decree 8 (ibid. p. 149–50).

209rv

“Eighth decree”: This corresponds to Decree 10 (ibid. 151–152).

f. 210

Garshuni Malayalam texts

APPENDIX 2: DESCRIPTION AND CATALOGING OF CODEX THRISSUR SYRIACUS 17 MS 17 A book of sermons on Church feasts Bibliography: Mar Aprem, Syriac Manuscripts..., 359–360; ibid., Assyrian Manuscripts..., 16; J.P.M. van den Ploeg, The Christians of St. Thomas..., 145. Folios: 436. Date: 19th century; there is no colophon. Outer dimensions: 190x140x45mm. Languages: Syriac, Garshuni Malayalam. Script: Syriac Indian script; the titles are either rubricated or written in black ink.

104 SERMON ON SAINT THOMAS, THE BELOVED APOSTLE Note: ff. 136r–148v are written by a different hand. Contents Sermons for different feast-days 1r–10v: Title: “Sermon for the Transfiguration of our Lord” ). Incipit: ƤƱDŽ‫ܥ ܐ‬Ưƽ̇ ƨƷ Ưǁ (‫ ܵܡ‫ ܓ‬džǓ‫ ܕ‬ƥ‫>ܣ