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 9781463212070

Citation preview

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>