238 113 4MB
English Pages 64 [60] Year 2006
At.
/
""
«•"
¿ > -
y
'
s
V r" p
.. ií 0 ,i K v
r ¡f.»
111**'
ì
'
>r •o
o
r--
,í; 'lis540 >7 . i « v%. /
-.'i,
j * . ..A C ^ 'i a -i, Ö -3? «T h.
f ¡
X,
--»
'
•e-.. M , W. M \\
-
O/ • %
Í*
'
O' -
-y'S
?ï- ?'
O"
t
ANALECTA GORGIANA
Volume 21
General Editor
George Anton Kiraz Analecta Gorgiana is a collection of long essays and short monographs which are consistently cited by modern scholars but previously difficult to find because of their original appearance in obscure publications. Now conveniently published, these essays are not only vital for our understanding of the history of research and ideas, but are also indispensable tools for the continuation and development of on-going research. Carefully selected by a team of scholars based on their relevance to modern scholarship, these essays can now be fully utilized by scholars and proudly owned by libraries.
The Epistle of Eusebius to Carpianus
9ifudta BiHtca, Vol II
Colhtyfr Oxford Untvcrsttj Pre^ FRONTISPIECE FACSIMILE OF A PAGE OF THE VATICAN M S
OF THE PESHITTO GOSPEIS, D\TED A . B 548.
(See pp 243,270)
The Epistle of Eusebius to Carpianus A Critical Edition of the Syriac Text with an Essay on the Ammonian Sections, Eusebian Canons, and Harmonizing Tables in the Syriac Gospels
G . H . GWILLIAM
GORGIAS PRESS
2006
First Gorgias Press Edition, 2006
The special contents of this edition are copyright i,0^» ( h o c l o c o ) 3 8 .
34
36
yOoU^e-o*» P a r . 42
17224.
quis]
)ocu».o*
capitulum ipsum v a l e t . ) 3 8 4 1 3S Thes. Syr. yojus» 0» signo
a ^ - t o H / 44
cesset) P a r . hi) om. 38.
ad Carp.)
37
U > ( u t sup.) 3 8 4 1 40
»¿»cuolo»
Par. 1 7 2 1 3 .
(dixen'i)
sic ( c u m Canone) P a r . 43
46
^ > -n S
17224
1 7 2 1 3 P a r . (hoc loco); 41
45
(sic) 1 7 2 1 3 .
47
U
U-.»
yooufcOka?
nec p e r d a t u r ] ^ o f c o o
J^-qj n e x u s ] J o - t o (lectio) 38 4 1 P a r .
(numeri movebuntur) Par. 48
cf.
(quomodo) 26.
38
et (ut v i d . ) P a r . 39
columnas,
J.eTi^-> P a r . — i d e m ,
q. Canon 4 1 .
Euseb.
30
00.? 2 6 .
j^M.) ( p r i m u m [ v e r b u m ] c a p i t u l i — f o r t a s s e
17213.
17224.
29
17224.
(nec
( s i c ) } i .1
o>
(qui sunt
. t r u - i i n o i ) E u s e b i i ] u»CLL>3;flN. ^ n t n o /
o i s o ? (quam scripsit
17213.
(sic) >ivi-ifno/
Jjcoa?
Jja*.&9
jao-cian.^/
-i^a?
y c i . N ^ o } ? ( D o m i n i m e i E u s e b i i epis. de e x p l i c . C a n o n i s E u a n g e l i i sancti) 3 8 . 49
^ X ?
(quae [est] de expl.) P a r .
Om. £ » JtoS
de expl. Canonum
41.
[5]
•:• r i ' . l . T » * !
a_5Q.il,
rdJcvic.T
r d u a A
r d ^ O o l i ^ a r V
K f . s . a i K
^lij
Ci*
r e ^ c A
% ^ OM
6 1
crirs.-t
r ^ i *73:yn
COCLO'TSO
^CULD
^ . à x i
)
0
)
M
o 0
O
«
1
u
u
VMM»
a .
rf
n.ffl fi
O^LO
(^¿-0
eoo
eoo
^
uJO
o » m ri
o»3j
u
UM ao
• J r fvs
j^CLO
O.VÌ 0
'J OfcflO
}£>
u OtJ
•Si
OV-D
n
\ o
U a
oca JjS
O S
^ ^
u a
jD
J^O
^
oxo»
•csi0-0
aro»
i f ì t l
«ÌS?
« J Jj
CLCO»
o t i a
^ 0*3
V*
O^ti-O
OS
On. g
'J
V V
at-o
r>
h
m * ì »»
t n
yn
n n
J U
w A CIA.
V
Ni>.
wm)
»
tds O^k.
Ot*.
.ft f»
w OWk
POS
jj
J»
ari».
o» n vi».
[6]
TABULAE
7
CANONÜM.
Canon primus in quo quatuor Euangelistae concinuerunt inter se. M a t t ai
Markos 3 2 6
7 8 12 17 18 87 89 109 119 39 158 170 171 176 178 194 201 250 251 2^4 266 321 322 J
323 328 331 332 333 336 337 339 342 346
7 9 10 26 28 168 1x9 36 48 65 66 80 83 97 103 143 144 146
Luka 6 7 10 ir 15 16 46 48 285 141 55 97 25 27 "5 117 154 119 265 266 270
55 186 187
275 296
188
91 299 308 306
r
193 196 197 198 200 201 203 206 210
297
3°7 3°3 305 319 315 322
Juchanan 2 30 10 6 12 15 33 17 16 18 46 47 165 49 r 3 2 142 ixi 130 68 41 55 58 62 20 23 39 82 121 120 26 87 95 103 25 57 1 1 2 109 105 114 135 144 146 218 64 72 74 76 180 149 51 66
[7]
8
rcücu-cn r d u ö A rdncA OA«.
{AuCU
co e t n i c a Q-.» •»I »
Otä-ß JU
W f
OVO» CO»
f
N».
V f f . t
A» 0^» —ix» pò
Ot.Na.1». i.. VI ».
»» O» CU»
I.-V°I ». OIm.
If
Oj j ¿oí
. tri». Ofcfitt*.
U*, >m ». |iin»i
r
V' «j» QJ »
tOA. Jim».
r2'
JÄ«,
OS)
W» «Ar
00» mm» CUS» > i» m » U» c^v»
.X» liSuk C.q». JSUW
r
W-* ¿V *** 3»
«¿o» r ONaN.n. 't
\^10/ ^ImOi
' i oL IMll
jjSQ^t.
71, U ySLLO yxX*.
>0300^0
w&OO
[8]
TABULAE
CANONUM.
MATTAI
MABKOS
LUKA
353
216
326
89
358 361
220
329
185
221
331
194
364
225
333
198
365 368
226
334
190
229
342
372
233
338
78 196
373
234
335
192
336
199
374
JTTCHANAN
377
235 238
379 382
239 242
383
243
356
207
357 360
212
345
200
348
202
351
2l6
387
246
389
248
391
249 250
361
208
369
209
254 256
364
224
367
228
258
371
2 2Ó
392 396 398 399 400 406
259 266
365
225
370 376
233
268
412
271
413 414
272
379 380
274 278
381 386
238 24O
279 280
387 388
243
420 421
281
390
247
419
283
204
220
408
418
182
222
234 230 23Ó
244
Explicit Canon primus apud quem quatuor Euangelistae concinuerunt inter Mattai, Markos, Luka, Juchanan,
[9]
r^JCUa.T •:• rC'n.ijjA
rdwöA
io
O i o i x . a o l l s o r n Ô ç û A ^ J G r i ' r ^ à A à ì cnrj.i ç i ï è v i „^cuxj
n¿x>al
Q9 0 . £ 3 t S } C Jo
V ÛW)
w
rilo a i ^ jCCUO
M»* Uo
«
JCX O>AO
aNo ot¿.
QJ j J » m » ft
o»2
^
*
'j*
ao
otj )»
OüD
c X » ys>
u Oy*
?
Jj y UM
f COÛ
» f0
t3 a3
u
>-1.. fi JjLO
tue
cu» W-* »
OU»
e âJ ao
C»3» eoo» £ - » » J^-O
•n.n.o JL>
A» 0)X> aX»
Jus uJ
otiXO uAs
d^C»
Î-'
Ol-»»
w Ol» O.JS *J
1o Ai.»
/
13
«Jß» J^» w«iß» VÛ0» am)
|*CSL0 »mn cum fi
¿3 o J3 AO
f
CL0 uJ3
u
i^foi
Qji. j
Ii
câ» JL^o
^ u «J»
«SST4-
X>v
£ OJ>
fi
jj
J^O
v»
]»
K
ovLO axs CL0 J¿
w
»AO ...-i n o.\o uAo fJSUJ opo-o Josxo
aas J^s
oOJ3 CLL0
OtJ
U0
[10]
ii
TABULAE
CANONUM.
Canon secundus in quo tres E u a n g e l i s t a e dixerunt efc concinuerunt inter se. Mattai
Mattai
ATarkos
19
Mabkos 11
18
Ltjka
161
50
98
Ltjka
29
15
41
i63
57
194
32
37
60
167
53
214
40
125
213
172
73
112
42
51
99 160
173
75
14
66
54
75
177
82
116
77
18
78
23
180
85
42
4 30
197
99
44 56 173
82
20
32
200
102
118
84
60
103
205
104
120 236
86
61
104
207
106
121
88
27
47 93
209
108
123
90
29
49
212
112
124
91
31
50
213
114
125 127
92
32
51 215
216
116
93
33
52
218
118
128
94
63
106
219
122
228
96
67
94
232
127
225
99
68
107
234
128
246
100
40
235
130
147 248
102
69
108 135
58
236
131
181 249
104
70
109
237
132
250
106
71
no
239
133
251
no
170
224
1
87
128
53
136
34
139
177 286
240
134
201
242
135
252
214
244
137
309
53
245
138
311
i38
19 2
2°5
35
54
247
140
254
140
21 38
33
248
141
263
144
42
153
260
152
272
M5
43
155
262
153
273
147
44
176
269
156
276
155
46
102
272
161
279
156
47
96
273
160
278
157
55
101
276
162
165 280
c a
[11]
rciiäinn f^QCvl
rdjjäA
Q0CU3V53
«O*.
•:•
i%
rdacA
COCUJÍÍO
là»
f '
Jja*.
Ot-L»,
oim ¡i
fM.
J.m « .
am-D
t^C*».
J1 o G*
J3»
h
V • 1
0. f l » .
l\
X*
r
u. t IW
JO
d-COA.
n ' Jt J^O
< J >
Oa.
W *
>»» n*\ ».
I^LO
¿L
OJX1Ì
^Cû»
o
4 »L
0»2L0
Jt J^j«,
CLiJk.
r2¡S>
wJ>
• f
ii.'S».
O»
U
OO&A.
cuL j ri'èAàì
rCèAiu
cran
rclncA CL2-0 >->So CLXO O>X a3
NX
• 1r V rt
w
»
reiocA
Uoi
o» ^
j-SCLO
(
J-
ti
l»
cvlLsn
çluCl» CI.Nfl
¡S>
cacé*
rd^fiali^öre'
r^èAèn
JJi»
caa.i
COCUJTSO
?>
OM»
».
SM oto
'11 «as
OS eoo»
1 o. U-.
co»
^ojjd
M r
...an
rdxzaïrï'.i
ojU3
co C l a x o n
feâO*.
o X j
Ì
opaa
r* m n
i^ca.0 fia osait.o
U..V1».
l^OVO J«LO jaO
om».
e
fc*«
«ÍUk. OtâJb
«ÍS 3 * cu»
i
i^tlB
à
3"° "3a
[12]
TABULAE MATTAI
LUKA
MAEKOS
163 165
CANONUM. MATTAI
MABKOS
LUKA
296
166 171
281 269 283 284 287
37°
214 218 228 231
297
172
239
375
236
337
173
289 290
376
237
339
240 247
358
279
290 291
298 300 302 306 308
329 338 345 348
367
233
179 181 185
292
395
253
294
402
184
403
184 194 202 209 212
258
262 263 264 269 270 276
175
316
355
380 388
177
3I3
351
404 409 411 416
300 302 321 320
324 327 340 344
346
352
362 368 372 374 375 377 383
325
Canon tertius in quo tres Euangelistae concinuerunt inter se. MATTAI
LUKA
JÜCHANAN
I
17
74
81
138
83 84
43
79
81 112
77
R 3
MATTAI
118
5
¡33 1
34
LUKA
241 144 145
44
JUCHAXAX I2Ó 35
136
172
8 53 70 86 97 100 166 17S
140 163
C a n o n quartus in quo i t e r u m tres Euangelistae d i s e r u n t et concinuerunt inter se. MATTAI
MAEKOS
15
8
JUCHANAN 14
340
1
25
13
181 246
86 139
60 101 159
259
150
151
326
189 190 191
330
195
324 325
MATTAI
3
344
157
" 5
117 90 118 80 143
349 352
161
174
357
362 3Ó3 394
MAREOS
JÜCHANAN
204 208
128
213 215 219 222
124 188 232
223 252
184 223
176
79 134
•:•
•:•
c c s a i ï - o evAìsa
PC'.IXMA r e i n a l
r d L i c U f l . i
r ¿ a o \
14
r¿^7úaA^tJ0r>
•s
JA
•l"*! p fS y ^cvir:
•:• K\i:ui\ cusjJjt. rdoaX
V
cocujtso »enei
QOCUJTS»
rdncA
3
r*
J'
QoCixiTsa JL co
J^»
aS> LI
rdocA
úOB JjO» «JM»
o
JU 02 ovß Ai.
[16]
TABULAE
i7 MATTAI
MABKOS
MATTAI
CANO NUM. MABKOS
MATTAI
MABKOS
81
221
123
341
121 X65
205
121
231
126
343
58
207
243
136
347
211
169
64
145
354
217
175 179
257
77
258
149
366
227
84
263 270
154 157 167
369 37i 381 384 386
230
87
97
183 184 185
89
292
91
295
l88
92
299
174
93
301
176
393
251
96
3°3
178
397
255
98
307
180
401
261
100
3°9 312
182
405
265
183
407
267 275
190 193 X96 198 206
105
2X0
2 14
169
no
327
192
415
" 5
334
199
426
Canon septimus in quo duo Euangelistae concinuerunt inter MATTAI
JTTCHANABT
MATTAI
JUCHAKAN
MATTAI
5
94
203
21
350
26
24
204
251
359
33
56
227
251
423
143 151
93
249
1 2 2
425
28
253
92
191
37
293
170
40 84
232 241 244 245
288
se. JTJCHANAN 187 186 246
249
Canon octavus in quo duo Euangelistae concinuerunt inter se. MABKOS
17
LTJKA 29
19 22
3I
24
43
39
34
LUKA
MABKOS
LUKA
74 78
" 3 114
164
282
260
317
95 107
126
277
384
122
284
391
120
129
285
393
286
395 401
MABKOS
2
57 100
129
62
105
142
247 264
72
in
158
277
S
290
[17]
rìLlcUort rcl*jö,\ •:• nï'n.T.jjA cubali, ndJ^cal^-lör?
.XO» OJ33 j
'r
cnrs.i rd^ï-èM «^a.i.13
çlijCV« rila cd uu»ÛO> SLCOf o» fr*^ a*.
»as» u»
S
u»
J^OJS
AJÍ». _»cdo:JCU¿1=D OCT3.1 ^èuTa.i K'Hfia.*-.!
o*J>
a oat
fr^
fr**
oé^rC
OJU.
QJ» iJ»
J^j te»
0> w*» u J-» OJ) OS» uS)
il» 0^0
0
eu
^
?
0
t» • Vi p
ya
HS? 01, ^m 0 o. fn fî
á
U»
u
opo
7°
fr*>
vnr
A
u»
aj
i fr*
CkX
u
gu3
eoo fr»
[18]
19
TABULAE CANONUM. Canon nonus in quo duo Euangelistae concinuerunt inter se.
LUKA
LTJKA
JTJCHANAN
LUKA
36
256
3M
266 268 270
392
38
257 261
349
206
396
248 253
354
210
397
359 382
214
398
255 259 264
239
399
262
39 271 298
JUCHANAN
98 147
J TJCHANAX 242
Canon decimus Mattati, qui ipse solus de rebus diversis scripsifc et dixit. MATTAI 2
56
4
59
6
64
131 135 137
186
255
320
199
261
202
264
335 356
16
68
141
208
268
360
27
72
148
211
271
36 38 41 43 45 47 49
83 95
150
217 222
378 385 39°
101
154 159
274 277
226
281
410
108
162
228
283
HI
166
230
287
417 422
113 X20
168
233
294
424
174
241
5I
127
182
252
315 317
Canon decimus Marki, qui solus de rebus diversis dixit et scripsit. MARKOS
25 3° 41 45 49
90
ri3
224
117
257
76
94 101
124
79
109
148
273 282
88
in
159
287
56 59
289
D 3
[19]
. rdlcU-Q.i A L » ! ^J.V»
20
AJW -»cnartcuArj oco.T r d n a l . i
^ain
rf\aa
r í i a a X •• : OÙ» OU-A> (jj^aa*. O m».
fr» J^LO
«JW f*
CUJb >•1 1 > H' i^a*.
UISHI
L oi
V f
fioi
OiJf
>>
Jjj
0»
vi*
kcoo
U»
t^ 0»3
•Ol
oí nei
»eng)
?
v-3
Ut
Uo
OtdBO
omo
i «5 Cxû
CAJS
f
oan.i .AMCU.I K'-iai^-.t - a i a
lu
omi JL.»
*
coi
•aèia.K' *n."tJ5a "Tax» Ajk.
kSCuA.
V' cu»
"s?
¡soi
m*i m 9
' l fi
oNn
fO
' f
O»
O^A.
OpOJ
Oi
Joaa OCCLO
f OJ •J
1
lu»
èCO
f® OjO
OVCO Jxo
CU£
ovi»
fr-*
U»
u,
• •s * e\ .-LO 1n u»JL0
coo coo
J®
[20]
TABULAE
21
CANONUM.
Canon decimus Lukae, qui ipse solus de rebus diversis dixit et scripsit. LUKA
I 3 5 9 13 24 26 28 35 37 40 59 65 74 85
89 92 95 130 132 138 142 148 150 158 162 167 172 178 180
183 185 187 191 193 197 202 204 206 208 210 212 218 220 222
1
226 232 234 238 240 244 253 255 257 259 261 268 288 291 293
295 301 3°4 310 313 316 318 323 328 33° 332 34i 343 347 350
353 355 363 366 373 378 385 389 394 400 4.02
Canon decimus Juchanan, qui ipse solus de rebus diversis scripsit. JUCHANAN
4 7 9 11 13 19 22 27 29 32 34 36 38 42 45
48 5° 52 54 59 61 63 65 67 69 7i 73 75 77 81
83 85 88 9i 96 99 102 104 106 108 no "3 1x6 1x9 "3
125 127 129 131 133 137 139 141 145 148 150 152 154 156 158
160 162 164 167 169 171 173 175 177 179 181 183 189 191 193
237 24I 245 250 252 254 258 260 263 265 267 269 271
195 197 201 203 205 211 213 2X5 217 219 221 227 229 23I 235
[21]
A N N O T A T I O N E S . Can. I. Tit. ^ o o M t s ^ » / 38 41 Par.; quae sequuntur in 38, legi nequeunt. n v>\..n n \ \ d i x e r u n t et concinuerunt Par.; eadem in Can. I subscriptione, 41. Hujus tabulae pars ( Jj> [250 etc.] ad finem) deest Par. Pp. 8, g . . . yoJ-o pX*. Explicit Canon . . . Tabulis aliis alia hujusmodi a Libraris subscripta sunt. Cann. I I , IV, Y I , V I I , V I I I , IX, Titt. in quo] ? ubi Par. Can. I I I . Tit. o\\..io J ^ x & X ^ o / I^W ubi tres Euangelistae dixerunt et concinuerunt Par. Can. IV. Tit.] omittunt o o\\n> o o l iterum dixerunt et 38 Par. Can. VI. Tit.] om. ooL iterum 38 Par. Cann. V I I I , I X , Titt.] cuetXuvo ^ W ^ dixerunt et concinuerunt 38 Par. Can. X . Mat., Can. X. Mar., desunt Par. Mat. Tit. v>o et dixit om. 38. Mar. Titulum om. 38; est subscriptio hujusmodi, oo? k£DQ_oi_»> ^ \». ofco/ y^a «oio)n»\3 Explicit Canon autem Marhi qui ipse solus de rebus diver sis scripsit. Luk. Tit. S olS-o/ scripsit de reb. div., om. dixit. Juch. Tit. . . . »; yQ i.o Canon autem Juchanan... 38. Lukae, Juchanan, Titt.] ¡S->i oot? ubi ipse singulatim Par. In disponendis hujus editionis Sectionibus et Canonibus et Concordiis, ubi inter Codices discrepat, antiquissimos, praesertim cod. 40, secuti sumus. Tabulae Canonum, quas P. E. Pusey ex cod. 26 transcripserat, recognitae et accommodatae ad nostrum Sectionum et Canonum ordinem, congruunt cum Indicibus Concordiarum, quas textui subjecimus. Vide etiam Tabulam p. 520. .. r i u . i a \ rlTr.i i a Pp. 486, 487 adde Concordxam , L 1 1 J J - L 7 J ) ^ ut ostenditur, pp. 32, 200, 334.
r M t n 5o
rJu.1 cu
L13 J
L17 J
J-
De Sectionibus Majoribus ( U - j ) vide p. 1 1 3 n. 23, p. 1 2 1 n., p. 174 n., p. 224 n. 14, p. 258 n. 46, p. 359 n. 7, p. 4 1 5 n. 20, p. 455 n. 23. Codex 23 suum Sectionum ordinem habet. Notarum paucae, foliis amissis, desiderantur; paucae in exscribendo praeteritae videntur; ceteras in hujus editionis margines retulimus. Vide p. 44 marg. sinist., p. 397 n. 45, p. 5 3 1 n. 2 1 .
[22]
THE AMMONIAN SECTIONS, EUSEBIAN CANONS, AND HARMONIZING TABLES IN THE SYEIAC TETRAEVANGELIÜM, WITH
NOTICES
OF P E 8 H I T T O
AND
OTHER
MSS.
WHICH
E X H I B I T T H E S E A C C E S S O R I E S OF T H E T E X T . G . H . GWILLIAM
IT is proposed in the following paper to give an account of the form in which the (so-called) Ammonian Sections and the Eusebian Canons are exhibited in M S S . of the Peshitto Version of the Four Gospels.
The Greek form of this system
of division and reference is well known, the symbols being expressed along the margin of the Greek text in such common editions as those of Mill, of Lloyd, and of Tischendorf; but the Syriae form has never been printed in any edition of the Syriac text.
I t was known from J. G. C. Adler's
Versiones Syriacae that Peshitto and Philoxenian (or rather Charelean) M S S . frequently exhibit these divisions, and have tables of Canons prefixed, while some of the facsimiles appended to his book show a marginal notation of Section and Canon, like that found in Greek codices.
So it has, perhaps,
been assumed that the two systems, which are constructed on the same principle, differ only in unimportant details: certainly but little attention has been paid to the Syriac form, although it derives its origin from a very remote period The editio princeps of the Peshitto (Widmanstadt, Vienna, The late Dean Burgon claimed to have been the first to direct the attention of Biblical scholars in general to the Syriac Ammonian Sections and Eusebian Canons. He has given a brief but clear account of them in h¡3 Last Twelve Verses of 8t. Mark, App. G. The late P. E. Pusey set them out on the margins of his Widmanstadt from the MSS. which he had collated for his projected revision of the text. They will be printed in the edition of the Peshitto Gospels, now in preparation at the Clarendon Press. 1
VOL. I I .
R
[23]
242
Syriac Form of Ammonian
Sections
155.5) may be supposed to imitate on its pages the very form of the M S . matter from which the type was set up, for such was the practice of the early printers.
So "Widmanstadt's
headings and subscriptions, his inserted liturgical rubrics, and his marginal ornaments, were doubtless copied from his M S S . The ordinary division into chapters is indicated by small figures, placed in the margin so as not to disturb the Syriac paragraphs.
Perhaps he was hardly acquainted with Robert
Stephen's verses.
But with all this careful distribution of the
text, there is no indication of the Sections and the Canons. I t must be concluded that the editor's M S S . did not exhibit them. They are not so frequently found in later Peshitto M S S . as they are in the earlier copies, and the MSS. employed in preparing the editio princeps of the Peshitto were certainly of a late tj^pe, whatever their date and origin 1 .
I t seems useless
to enquire further about them, nor would their recovery be of much importance; for we can be in no doubt of their character.
I t is patent on the printed pages of Widmanstadt 2 .
The century and a half which followed the period of the first editing of the Peshitto gave birth to several other editions, in part little more than reprints, but in part also improved by the use of other MS. evidence 3.
But as yet no
notice was taken of the Syriac Sections and Canons.
Then
in 1742 S. E. Assemani published his Catalogus Bibliothecae Mediceae.
The first pages of this magnificently printed work
are devoted to a full description of the most ancient MS. of the Holy Gospels in the Yersio Simplex which that Library contains, the celebrated Codex Florentinus, which is dated A. Gr. 897, i. e. A. d. 586.
He states that the Epistle
of Eusebius to Carpianus is prefixed, but does not print the text of it, although he sets out in full the Tables of the 1 Inter alia may be mentioned A . ) for jk.», aa the word is spelled in all old i"»-, in old MSS. usually j; ™ . o r the full form MSS.; ^ - •/ very rare; u paragogic appended to 3rd per. fem. pi., as o o t o . 3 See Appendix I. 5 Besides the well-known authorities—Wichelhaus, Scrivener's Introduction, Leusden and Schaaf sPreface—see a valuable article on The Printed Editions of the Syriac New Testament in the Church Quarterly Seview, vol. xxvi, July, 1888.
[24]
and Eusebian Canons.
243
Canons, with their curious ornamentation. No remark is made on the differences between the Syriac and the Greek systems, although it would he obvious to any one who should compare the numbers of the Sections in any table, with those in the corresponding Greek table, that the systems are by no means identical. But in describing another codex (Plut. 1, No. 58), Assemani {op. cit. p. 25) speaks of a 'distinctio Evangeliorum in versiculos, seu parvas sectiones ab Eusebio editas, quae apud Syros aliae sunt ab iis quae in MSS. Graeeis et Aegyptiacis codicibus conspiciantur V From the materials collected by the late Mr. P. E. Pusey, supplemented by my own researches, we can now determine what were the peculiarities of the Syriac system. The following specimen will suffice to illustrate and explain the differences between the Greek and the Syriac forms. W e select the first eleven verses of St. Mark, as affording a convenient and instructive comparison between the two systems. The reader is also referred to the facsimile which forms the frontispiece to the present volume, and which is described in Appendix II.
a 'Apxh T0® eiayyeAiou 'lrjcrov XpiarotS, vtov rod ©eoC" £ '£ls yeypcnrTcu kv rois Trpo a i r o o r e ' A A a ) TOP ayyeXov /not; ITpd Ttpocrdirov crov, os KaraiKevacrei ri/v oSov crov ijXTTporrOiv rj ¡3oS>vros ev rfj tprjfitp, 'Eroiftatrare rrjv oSov Kvpiov' evOeias iroieire ras rpijiovs avrov.' y 'Eyevero 'IcoavvrjS f3aTrri(wv iv rrj epjffxo), Kal Krjpvatrtav ¡3a.T r Tier p. a juer avoids els cupecrtv ap-apriGiv. K a t ¿¿ETTOP€V(TO vpos AVROv itatra RJ 'Iovhaia X®Pa> Ka' o-oXvpuTar Kal e/3aTrri(ovro Naires ev r.m ->
Joot
• Jot^j •jp.S ».>0/ o J L s yOfoNao .;oom? í ^ooi^öi^o
cüo
«3 ,)»op
w x j Î o . J L s L î j J Jí-Xco» loot
U-.»
c^ko?
JLaaX
^ i t i M
joot
onfc—/
Loot Jjaájo yOotii. Joot
.yi\v>8
.«»~i\
Joot
i in \ i j o
JLi^»
lib
Ljji
. K o t o l n f i ' o ? IJSÏA. )ÌM.}
^¿o
Us?o
]ot . ^ ¿ ¡ o Joot )ì2l3SO
• U.ÍCLO» J L o ü >
? o
opt
• Ji-s? 4 IwJxa y o a l . v i s / UÌ
J
Il n->o*N
.uotöjMä
|Ll/ j ó * . 11? O Ol .uXSO yjj..^-»^? -»is-=> ìli
o 'J
Vf^^t
yCLD; V I N I
]'l(' yo-iot
OOt
j
]ooto
^
.fiNnn? | w 0 3 0
¿
j&oocL^a
ju.o>o , ] L i ¿ j t . oj5>Ì«jjoJ» JjU.
o °
• «oioXX •H ^ltlCU ..
.. M 0
.).->.->«»
Oot k o ? '.Jujä*.
pébCVA
J
ooaaisa
Ì
i®
1 0
joot JL0O
M
0
1 M
» ot
ta*
t»
cv.
0
U
lu
« ou
M
M cu
Of
JU
cu
M**
)
[26]
and Eusebian Canons.
245
I t m a y be convenient to add t h e version of the above from Leusden and Schaaf [Nov. Test. Syr. c. Vers. Lat. 1708],changing also t h e Syriac numeral letters for their equivalents in figures. 1
2
3 4
5
6 1
7 8 4
Principium Euangelii Jeau Christi Filii Dei » Sicut Bcriptum est in Esaia Propheta: Ecce, ego mitto nuncium meum ante faciem tuam, qui praeparabit viam tuam « Vox clamantis in deserto; Parate viam Domini, et exaequate Bemitas ejus « Johannes in deserto baptizabat, et praedicabat baptismum resipiscentiae in remissionem peccatorum • E t exibat ad eum universa regio Judaeae, et omnes Hierosolymitae, et baptizabat eos in Jordane flumine, quum confiterentur peccata sua « Ipse autem Johannes indutus erat vestimento pili camelorum, et cinctus erat zona pellicea in lumbis suis : et cibus ejus erat locustae et mel sylvestre * E t praedicabat, ac dicebat; Ecce, post me venit qui validior est me, is cui non sum dignus ut me incurvans solvam corrigias calceamentorum ejus. Ego baptizavi vos aqua « Ipse verb baptizabit vos Spiritu sancto ^ o
a / - . f c j - ^ s o i.Nvi «vi »3 j o o j k o ^ o t ^ â
)oop»
]ia^/ .'yOot^vaö? I t - i ö ) fco/ â / "^»lo -.yOOMÍS-^»/ J l ^ e o X ^ ö i ? ÇÎO «u ç^O**.»? •• Htl\» OINTIN
-
.)J/ W¿/ J»;*.
•.JjoiaÄ ^ U o
y . / .çJc»2>.» I l ^ o ö p
•jl^^k. çii. ^IITIJ
j ^ ^ o o t * Oot
^so ^.vi •» »? ^wkot ot_s fc».} °i » n i x s ^ é ; J J - . / «atoja;* u&oo
ÏCOJÔLO
). I . i ~ö
|;mV
*. juOCtX ycu-o
SLSOXa-O ûXXao t ^ w N ^ ë / yOOMfcsi*s>»/ • çLuQ.» |u3ûX
•OOOCJJSO ulios
O f l \ > . 001 Jfcs^J.» la-./ *ç*»l? yO I p « JjsaX
l-OQ-X ofcoO
)».
C-2Û «sol J k X l »
U , / -.jfc^l»
Io J j s o X wfcœ
riviN». oot ^-.ïL» ) a . / '.ta.vi«»» yuLo
^ s o f i u o wkoo
f i f i S » . o o l ^.»1» la-./ *•]&»»? yCLLo
ul^o
o f i N « o o l ç.»l» Ja^/ •-
* (j3qX Ot M. u O t *• Jtot
çio ); «vi ^
."It-flo
i o » O t V ì \ f l » \ l^ßjjk. yOi^X^o/ 0)\t-> '.jLLULaO coto ,>m.i-l I O? yO_LA» joojko» woiolcuwl 1^-./
^
256
Syriac Form of Ammonian
35
I• IV .U»,_o
juot 00)
Sections
IOUCLLO ].ITI V
^O
X =>
Pi--^
001 yO 1 n ->;
loiCX . J l ^ k l *
y O l f l - » JfcOi.1 y l o
.^.»Lf
yOln-)» ts^.wll' « uxuaic
l^
^-»L y ! o
); m \ \
0
®?
l^o«^
U »
^
•.otjjso^ 0 0 L O O J •.
nVISi».
J k ~ o o » ^001 •S('
j j f i j k o » oov=>
fi-joy
001
ya-Lo»
jou.:»
OM>-ii ^ . V l . f n ? ).l'« 1MB L o X ¡SJ? o j j s o 45 . . . T ' C ^ ^
un.j-ito;
OWO? ^
.)*>? )!•! v i \
mN^o/
^ o c u a . » » loJLso
o
"^js^ISoo
ILsc?
55
1
Jloi-.«»
•>)jojlo» ) j a A . a S
j^so to/
I c & i k o i 00»
yojoi ^ o
1-1«.CU»
ko/
001
&OQJ39 |*SOO Kj/
n-n.ml./ JoJho
„•)»*. .«*» l a J ^ ,
fco/ } 1 > | VI
'.yOou^^s*/ l ^ m N ^ o l l
yOonN.^?
^»yiN,» ;
ot^.
.tsj/
.mjQJLD» J l i »
50 y Q a o S v i - i
H n i
l ^ o j k o i ; yQjjs
|l2£L9 O/ \-L.\>
yOoti». 00
-.yooc^?
^O
»a«ac
V i a
^aaS^j
II
yOot-l^jsjV
y c a a j ). 1 . 1 * 0 ? JJ/ Jqajo
l^-aLi^oi
•..m.-imoj» J l ; ^ ?
1
yOj/
V««^-
1 The text is mainly that of the Tetraev. Flor. I of A. D. ¡86. P . E. P u s e y liad transcribed a p a r t : an entire copy has been supplied by Dr. Teloni, to whom, as well as to other scholars, who have helped me in many ways, I here express my thanks. The variations exhibited by our other authorities, and in home cases received, are trivial, and hardly worth mentioning here. I have ventured to make one emendation. T h e Florentine M S S . both read (1. 2), \ \ for and our other authorities are unfortunately all mutilated
at the commencement of the Epistle. N o doubt, from the concurrence of three (''s, one has fallen out. The later Florentine codex may very likely be a copy of the earlier one, or of the prototype of both. The mechanical method of the Syriac professional scribe, although it has tended to preserve the text with something of the accuracy of printing, yet sometimes favoured the transmission of errors, for not all copies were subjected to the careful revision which some received. I f instead of intulit, we retain we must r e n d e r — ' multa, ut videtur, industria et amore laboris multo hoc [opus] ingressus est et Evangelium,' etc.; but the Syriac context does not naturally express the instrumental ablative, nor does this rendering suit the Greek.
[38]
and Eusebicm Canons.
257
EPISTOLA QUAM SCKIPSIT EUSEBIUS AD CARPIANUM DE EXPLICATIONE CANONUM QUOS FECIT.
Eusebius Carpiano fratri et dilecto meo in Domino nostro, Salutem ! Ammonius Alexandrinus, multam, ufc videtur, industriam, et amorem laboris multum huic [operi] intulit, et Evangelium Diatessaron nobis reliquit. Operam enim impcndit multam in Evangelium Mattai ; et sectionum, quae restabant, Evangelistarum trium sociorum ejus eas comparavit, quae sibi concordant, secuit, ad hunc modum collocavit 1 : ita u t fiat u t necessario perdatur nexus ordinatorum verborum Evangelistarum ex composita eorum [verborum] lectione per id ipsum quod fecit. Itaque, ut conservetur corpus totum completum piene, necnon ordo verborum Evangelistarum quattuor, et u t tu cognoscas loca verborum Illorum, ubicunque sibi concordaverint, en tibi sunt numeri inscripti, super Evangelistas singulos, in locis idoneis: ut amicus veritatis fateor, nos a labore viri illius, quem supra diximus, occasionem nactos esse ; et alia ratione decem Canones tibi designavi, qui infra inscribuntur. Canon primus : hoc continentur numeri [locorum] ubi multa conjuncte quattuor Evangelistae dixerunt, et sibi concordaverunt, Mattai, Marcus, Lucas, Juclianan. Canon secundus : ubi tres sibi concordaverunt, Mattai, Marcus, Lucas. Canon tertius : ubi item tres sibi concordaverunt, Mattai, Lucas, Juchanan. Canon quartus : ubi item tres sibi concordaverunt, Mattai, Marcus, Juchanan. Canon quintus : ubi duo sibi concordaverunt, Mattai, Lucas. Canon sextus : ubi item duo sibi concordaverunt, Mattai, Marcus. Canon septimus: ubi item duo sibi concordaverunt, Mattai, Juchanan. Canon octavus : ubi duo item sibi concordaverunt, Marcus, Lucas. Canon nonus: ubi duo item sibi concordaverunt, Lucas, Juchanan. Canon decimus : ubi unusquisque ex Evangelistis quattuor singulatim, de rebus diversis, ipse solus scripsit, Mattai, Marcus, Lucas, Juchanan. Ita se habet res (Janonum ; eorum autem clara expositio haec 3 est :—In unoquoque e quattuor Evangelistis numerorum ordo ponitur; ab uno incipit, et duobus, et tribus; et usque procedit 1
Yel, hoc modo collocavit,
ita ut
fiat.
Ua-./ .(xaot VOL. I I .
S
Codex autem interpungit ut supra,
258
Syriac Form oj Ammonian
Sections
ipse numerus, per totum Evangelium, ad finem libri.
E t unicui-
que e numeris subest signum Canonis, minio depictum : et hoc 35 indicai apud quem e decern Canonibus sit liic numerus ; et ita quidem, quasi dicat aliquis, [i. e.
exemplitjralia\si
designetur unus,
liqueat apud Canonem primum esse ; et si duo, apud Canonem secundum ; et si tres, apud Canonem tertium : ad liunc modum usque [exitum] decern Canonum. S i igitur evolvas unum e quattuor Evangelistis, et t i b i sumas 40 prima [capituli] verba, undecunque placeat ; u t cognoscas quis ex Evangelistis eadem verba dixerit, utrum quattuor, an tres, an duo ; atque u t cognoscas loca verborum Illorum, in quibus sibi coneordaverint : sume numerum Canonis minio depictum quem ante te habes, 45 ad signum [capituli] quod sumpsisti ; et recurrens ad numeros qui in principio libri jacent, intra columnas parvas, eundem quaere in eo Canone quem signum minio depictum tibi ostendit, et inveni numeros inscriptos [quibus significatur] quis aut quam multi ex Evangelistis dixerint de eo [loco] cujus signum habes :
deinde
statini disces qui sint numeri principii [capituli] quod quaeris, e x eis numeris qui intra librum ipsum inscripti sunt, in margine foliorum.
E t quum enumerationi versuum cum Canonibus eorum
50 institeris, invenies Evangelistas illos quattuor, in verbis suis sibi concordantes, Mattai, Marcus, Lucas, Juchanan. Itaque hi numeri apponuntur ne verba E v a n g e l i s t a r u m quattuor abscindantur a verbis sequentibus, nee perdatur nexus ordinis eorum ; tantum ut numeri mutentur, alius in alium, quibus indicetur E v a n 55 gelistas sibi concordare, et perstet lectio ordinata verborum quattuor Illorum integra, qui sunt Mattai, Marcum, Lucani, Juchanan. E x p l i c i t Epistola Eusebii de explicatione Canonum.
The earlier part of this Syriac version of Eusebius' Epistle is a fair rendering of the original, but the latter part has become a paraphrase in the attempt to make the somewhat obscure Greek intelligible. Two places should be noticed. The Greek corresponding to 11. 11, 13 is:—rovs oUeiovs (KatTTov evayyfXiirrov ronovs, iv ols Kara TG>V avrS>v RIVI\Or\TTAV iXaX?j0a)s dutiv. The translator has punctuated after rjvéx.' 6r\i\a\ridios tintlv to what follows— . . . Evangelistas singulos, in locis idoneis: ut amicus veritatis fateor nos a labore illius . . . .—Again, and more worthy of remark, ¿(poppas is represented by JiO^x,— . . . nos occasionem
[40]
and Eusebian Canons.
259
nactos esse—and the meaning intended is, that Eusebius worked out his scheme in consequence of what Ammonius had attempted.
This agrees with the rendering ' h i n t ' in
Last Twelve Verses, p. 1 2 7 1 . Fabricius, writing of the Eusebian Sections and Canons 2 , did not overstate the case when he remarked, ' frequens illorum usus fuit in Ecclesiis Orientis pariter et Oecidentis, ut ex Codd. M S S . Bib. in variis versionibus notarunt viri docti.' Although now superseded by the modern marginal references (which are but a further development and much wider extension of the same principle), they were considered in former ages important accessories of the text 3 .
W e have spoken of
the use made of them by the Copts, and in the Gothic Version.
They were derived to the Ethiopic apparently from
an Arabic
source — of course in the Greek f o r m \
The
Armenian Evangelia for the most part exhibit them.
They
are found in Latin MSS., in a minority of those of the earlier type 5, and in a majority of those of Jerome's revision.
To
some of the latter a version of the Epistle to Carpianus is prefixed, which is also paraphrased by Jerome in his Ejridola ad Damasum 6. The case of the Philoxenian, and its Charclean. revision, i^ more immediately connected with our main subject.
Of the
two Codices Hidleiani, in the Library of New College, which 1 F o r Eusebius, and his relation to the work of Ammonius, see Mill's Prolegomena (ss. 658-666, 738-744, ed. Küster, 1723). Other authorities are cited by L l o y d , Nov. Test. Gr. (ed. 1883, p. xi). ' Bxbliotheca Graeca, v. 4. 15. H e gives a version of the Epistle, which Migne ( P a t r o l . Gr.) has reproduced. See also Wordsworth's N. T. i. 6. 3 T a k i n g some fifty Syriac Evangelia, described in Brit. Muc. Syr. Cat. p. i, as a sample of works of this class, we find that Peshitto MSS. were usually furnished with these accessories during the sixth, seventh, and eighth centuries. Charclean M S S . exhibit them at a much later period (e. g. the Paris M S , written in the Edessene Monastery of Beth Achsenaja, A.D. 1212), but not, I think, those of the Peshitto text. 4
Catalogue
Codd. Orient. Mus. Brit. P . iii, ed. A . Dilhnann, 1847.
Cod. Rhedig. (Z), seventh century, has a Foot-Harmony according to C. E . Gregory in Tisch. Test. Gr. Proleg. p. 144. * See Bishop Wordsworth's N. T. i. 3: for details in regard to the Armenian M S S . I am indebted to Professor Margoliouth. 5
s a
[41]
260
Syriac Form of A mmonian
Sections
were used for the editio princeps of the Versio Syriaca PMloxeniana [Oxford, 1778], the older (parchment) M S . does not contain any of these accessories, except that the text is divided by red stars into Sections, which seem to correspond to the (Greek) Ammonian. was ascribed
by
The later (paper) codex, which
L e e 1 to the
ninth century, gives
the
Greek scheme, and, besides, a version of Eusebius' Epistle, adapted to the archetype in the same way as the text of the Gospels has been accommodated to the Greek 2 . On the other hand, a Vatican MS. of uncertain date, but certainly ancient (Vat. 268, formerly Assem. 1 1 — n o t 9, as Adler). perhaps marks the custom of the transition period, before the Greek system was wholly adopted in the Grecized Charclean.
Its Sections
are on the Syriac plan, and are compared with those of the great Florentine codex by S. E. Assemani 3 .
Another Floren-
tine MS. of the year 757 exhibits what is apparently a mixed system, the numbers being Mat. 360, Mark 240, Luke 348, John 232. In the judgment of Adler 4 , but not of Bernstein s , this MS. is a copy of the Ante-Charclean text. 1 See his note in the volume itself; but in Coxe's Catalogue it is ascribed to the eleventh century. I agree with Professor Margoliouth that the latter is the more probable date. 3
The Epistle begins t h u s : — f !
...
.
j l a ^ a — «3 •• U i j J 0 0 1 ifi-i». I ^ s i l w o ?
jna^jaza?
o'ot y C u ^ k o t ^ i o /
li'ftV
The last paragraph is . — yQJoi . l ^ m . N ^ J ' j o / W ^OOM
yQjcx} ) I . I v i V i ^
.vi.tn yCu'o)
»3
001 t I.I , VI-> I j s i d ^o
...No»
• )w.i-VI
Jjs-iowa j f l ^ i w wOOl
fco/
•
«
^OP u,. T>V>
These passages will suffice for proof of the above statement. 3 A p . White, Vers. Syr. Philox. Torn. ii. p. 642. Assemani was misled by the epigraph at the end of St. John, which alludes to the history of this V e r sion, and thought this codex itself was written by Thomas of Charkel. See Adler, op. cit. p. 63 (he gives a facsimile in his Tab. v i ) ; Bernstein, JSeil. Ecang. lies Johannes, 1853, Krit. Anmerk. p. a. According to Adler (whom Tischendorf quotes, N.T., St. Luke, p. 738, ed. 1869), the numbers are Mat. 426, Mark 200, Luke 402, John 232. Mark 200 is probably a slip for 290. I f John 232 be correct, the Greek Sections have been introduced into the last Gospel.
* Op. cit. p. 55.
5
Op. cit. p. 2.
[42]
and Etisebian
Canons.
261
The variations in the notation of Sections and Canons in the above-named MSS. are in marked contrast with the consistency of those of the Peshitto. From the testimony of the latter we infer that the Syrian system was universally, and alone, received, wherever the Peshitto Version was in use, at least as early as the sixth century. Earlier diplomatic evidence is lacking: the very few MSS. 1 of the Holy Gospels which can be assigned with any probability to the preceding century, are not furnished with these divisions. Others, however, which have perished, might have exhibited them. And indirect evidence can be adduced. For it is known that many of the works of Eusebius were translated into Syriac at a very early period. There is a version of his 'Ecclesiastical History' in a MS. dated 462 of our era, and now preserved in the Imperial Library of' St. Petersburg. I n the British Museum, we find in the Cod. Acid. 13,150 2 , among other translations from Greek authors, Eusebius' Theophania, History of the Palestinian Martyrs, and Panegyric on the Martyrs. This MS. is dated, according to our era, 411 or 413 ; but we must go back still earlier for the date of the first appearance of these writings of Eusebius in their Syriac dress. The codex is a Collection of Treatises; it is not an autograph Translation of Eusebius; in fact, the text affords in itself evidence of having passed through the hands of successive scribes 3 . I t is reasonable to suppose that the works of Eusebius were in part, if not in whole, translated into Syriac within the lifetime of the author 4 ; and for the place of such translations we turn, of ' Such as Cod. Add. Mus. Brit. 14,459 Studia Biblica, 1885, No. V I I I ; , Add. 1 7 , 1 1 7 , 'fifth, or beginning of sixth century;' Add. 14,453 and 14,470, ' fifth or sixth century;' Catalogue British Museum. 1 Cat. Syr. MSS. in Brit. Mus. ii. p. 631. Cureton, Festal Letters of A thanasius, p. xv f. 3 See Lightfoot, op. cit.; Wright, art. 'Syriac Literature' in Encyclopaedia Britannica, 9th ed.—'opus plenissimum, 1237 notae inarginales,' Nestle, Syr. Gr. * See (in reference to the Ecclesiastical History) A . Merx, Atti del iv Congr. intern, degli Orientalisti.
[43]
262
Syriac Form of A mmonian Sections
course, to Edessa, and its famous school.
In that city was
written the Coil. Arid. 12,150, and here, besides the great original writers, like Ephrem, flourished such students as Maanes, the translator of Theodore of Mopsuestia, and Proba, the Nestorian translator of Aristotle 1 .
One of the Bishops
of this eminent Syrian See, Rabula, who died in 435, corresponded with Cyril of Alexandria 2 , and received from him copies of his works for translation and publication at Edessa ;l . I t is not unreasonable to suppose that Eusebius also had a friend 4 to undertake a similar office for him in the city, which, a century before Rabula's time, had already become a chief centre of Syriac culture and biblical study.
We conclude
then that the critical work of Eusebius upon the Tetraevangelium was quickly known among the Doctors of the School of Edessa.
And it is reasonable to suppose that their
expansion of Eusebius' scheme was published before the dissolution of the school under the Emperor Zeno, towards the close of the fifth century; for we have already seen that diplomatic evidence shows that the Peshitto text was circulated in copies furnished with the Sections and Canons early in the sixth century, if not in the fifth. I t is also significant that the majority of the oldest codices which exhibit the Sections and Canons are of Western, or Monopbysite origin 5 .
That they are also found in some later
Nestorian MSS. may perhaps indicate that these accessories were the common property of the Syrian Church, before the 1
See Wright, op. eit.;
Etheridge's Syrian
Churches.
• Overbeck, Opera Selecta (Ephraemi aliorumque), 1865. 5 In a seventh century Brit. Mus. MS. (Add. 14,557, fol. 97) we find, amongst other translations of Greek writings, the Treatise De Recta Fide, t. ix. col. 1133 in Patrol. Gr. lxxvi, with the following inscription :—' The Tract on the H u manity of our Lord, which Cyril, Bishop of Alexandria, addressed to the Emperor Theodosius, and sent a copy thereof to the holy Kabula, Bishop of Edessa, and he translated it from Greek into Aramaean,' i. e. the Edessene dialect, cf. Thes. Syr. col. 389. 4 Eusebius seems to have known Syriac : certainly he had access to Edessene writers.—Hint. Eccl. i. 13. * Our eleven codices (pp. 250-252) are a fair specimen of the different Collections. Only one, No. 11, is certainly of Nestorian origin. No. 10 I should class with it, but its notation of Sections, etc., is incomplete.
[44]
263
and Eusebian Canons.
rupture of the fifth century, and the establishment of the Nestorian School at Nisibis 1 .
But, on the other hand, it
is certain that these rival bodies were not unwilling to borrow, and to imitate each other's critical methods 2 .
But on either
supposition, it is clear that the exegetical studies necessary for the elaboration of the Syrian harmonizing system, must have been pursued at a very early period among the Syriacspeaking Christians. gima verba
Their diligence in comparing the
ijisis-
of the Tetraevangelium (for their scheme demanded
an independent compilation, although on a borrowed 3 design) is, perhaps, in favourable contrast with those other characteristics by which the rival sects of Eastern Christendom are more commonly known. The subject investigated, while in itself possibly of minor importance, has suggested notices and considerations which, it is believed, are here brought together for the first time. But besides such points of antiquarian interest, the Syriac system of Sections and Canons has an absolute critical value, (I) as a witness to the integrity and antiquity of the Peshitto t e x t ; and (II) as showing the estimate in which that text 1 F o r this city, see Thesaurus Syr. (E. P a y n e Smith), col. 2440. A n account of the • Syrorum schola in N i s i b i ' was given by Junilius Africanus in the sixth century—quoted i n Westcott's Canon of the N. T., A p . D, p. 506. 2 The (sectiones majores) of which there are in Mat. 22, in Mark 13, in L u k e 23, in J o h n 20, are found a prima manu in the Nestorian codices, Add. 14,460 (A. D. 600), 14,448 (apparently a.D. 699-700); they were added by later possessors to the Jacobite codices, Add. 14,4?°. l7'117>