The New Testament in Syriac Peshitta Version: Based on the Collations of John Pinkerton and on the B.F.B.S. Text with a Critical Apparatus and an Introduction to the History of the Text 9781463244798, 1463244797

Citation preview

T HE N EW T ESTAMENT IN S YRIAC P ESHIṬTA V ERSION T HE P AULINE E PISTLES

T HE N EW T ESTAMENT IN S YRIAC P ESHIṬTA V ERSION V OL . III

T HE P AULINE E PISTLES B A S E D O N T HE C O LLA T IO N S O F J O H N P I N K E RT ON A N D O N T HE B.F.B.S. T E X T W IT H A C R I T I CA L A P P A RA T U S A ND A N I NT R O DU C T I O N T O T HE H I S T O RY OF T HE T E X T BY

A NDREAS J UCKEL I NETJE P ARLEVLIET -F LESSEMAN

gp 2023

Gorgias Press LLC, 954 River Road, Piscataway, NJ, 08854, USA www.gorgiaspress.com Copyright © 2023 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.

‫ܝ‬

1

2023

ISBN 978-1-4632-4479-8

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

D IRK J AN P ARLEVLIET 1936 – 2006

T ABLE

C ONTENTS

OF

Preface Bibliography

ix xvi I.

P R E V I O U S E D I T I O NS 1. J. Pinkerton: The ‘lost’ collations (1912–1916) 2. Pupils of A. Vööbus: The quest for the Old Syriac (1971–1992) 3. ‘The Aramaic New Testament’: Printing ancient manuscripts (1983) 4. B. Aland: Das Neue Testament in syrischer Überlieferung (1986–2002) 5. The Mor Gabriel Study Bible (1998–2007) 6. ‘Sources Syriaques’: A Polyglot based on Syriac (2010) 7. G. Kiraz: Syriac–English New Testament (2020)

xxv xxviii xxix xxix xxx xxx xxxi

II.

BASED

E D I T O R IA L C R I T I C I S M O N T H E H IS T O R Y O F T HE

TEXT

1. Eastern standard text a) The Eastern (ecclesiastical) character of the standard text b) The ancient and distinctive character of the standard text c) The absorbent character of the standard text 2. History of the text a) Textual stages & periods of transmission b) History of the text & history of transmission c) Textual history & recensio textus 3. Editorial criticism a) Editorial criticism & textual criticism b) Editorial criticism & systematic approach c) Editorial criticism & printed edition 4. Textual history and ‘majority vote of manuscripts’ a) Gwilliam’s editorial criticism b) Missing the Eastern textual tradition c) Inspiration III.

T HE B IF UR C A T IO N 1. Identification of the textual traditions Table: Significantly attested variant units

OF

xxxii xxxii xxxiii xxxiii xxxiv xxxiv xxxv xxxv xxxvi xxxvi xxxvi xxxvii xxxvii xxxviii xxxix xli

T E X T UA L T R A D IT I ON S xlii

viii

Table of Contents

2. Identification of witnesses to the Eastern and Western textual tradition 3. The attestation of the Western textual tradition Table: The Western readings of the bifurcation 4. The Text in the pre-‘masoretic’ stage 5. Graph: The history of the text

li lii lx lxii

IV.

E D I T IO N 1. Manuscripts A. Codices from the pre-‘masoretic’/Byzantine period B. Codices from the ‘masoretic’/Islamic period B.1 The early ‘masoretic’/Islamic period B.2 The late ‘masoretic’/Islamic period 2. Text & Apparatus 3. Scribal errors

lxiii lxvii lxxvi lxxvi lxxxvi xciv xcviii

A P P E N D IC E S 1. Subscriptions 2. Lectionaries 3. Six ‘Masoretic’ Manuscripts 4. Printed Editions

cvii cxxvii cxlvi clvi

S Y R IA C T E X T Romans 1Corinthians 2Corinthians Galatians Ephesians Philippians Colossians 1Thessalonians 2Thessalonians 1Timothy 2Timothy Titus Philemon Hebrews

1 61 121 165 185 207 221 235 249 257 273 285 293 297

PREFACE The Peshiṭta (of the Old and New Testament) is the Queen of the Syriac versions, whoever approaches her should not hesitate to invest a lifetime’s worth of love and devotion. The authority and dignity of the Peshiṭta derive from the fact, that this version is the unrivalled monument of Syriac-Aramaic identity, a mirror of the history and language of the Syrians for more than fifteen centuries. There is no other Syriac monument of similar significance for the Syriac culture past or present. The abundance of manuscripts, and a remarkable conformity of the text, are the outstanding features of this Queen, which both reflect the century-long transmission and integrity of the text. While the Peshiṭta Gospels are available in the Pusey-Gwilliam volume of 1901, the sequel volume of the remaining NT parts received only a promising but incomplete edition, i.e. the Peshiṭta of Acts and the Pauline epistles in the handsome volume of the British and Foreign Bible Society (BFBS), issued in 1920. Although the BFBS volume is a provisional edition, the texts of Acts and the Pauline epistles are critical ones of striking quality, based on the collations of John Pinkerton (1882–1916). After Pinkerton’s untimely death, and by permission of Clarendon Press (the original publisher), a text based on these collations was issued by the Bible Society and became the standard text of Acts and the Pauline epistles, though without a critical apparatus. The nature of the hand-written collations certainly contributed to their fate. After the collations entered the then British Museum in 1932 as Ms or. 11,360, they fell into oblivion but received a note in the short preface to the BFBS volume. This note also relates the Praxapostolos to the Gospel volume of 1901 as being prepared ‘on similar lines’. Obviously, the tiresome preparatory editorial work had already been done but was only inaccessible; so why do it once more when the text of the edition was available in print? The editorial approach Only few scholars knew about the existence of Pinkerton’s collations in the British Library; a broader public was informed in 1998 by R. Grierson, who worked on a critical edition of Acts. 1 Before that date, the focus of all editorial approaches2 to the Corpus Paulinum was on attaching a critical apparatus (usually much larger than Pinkerton’s) to the BFBS text. After the ‘rediscovery’ of Pinkerton’s collations, the access to the now considerably increased number of manuscripts put the BFBS text in the focus. Since this text is based on the majority vote of Pinkerton’s manuscripts, enhanced collations would disturb the tuning, resulting in new majorities and necessitating changing the BFBS text. One more reason for rethinking Pinkerton’s original design of the project was the standards of the Pusey-Gwilliam-volume of the Gospels (1901), to which the ‘second volume’ was obliged. Before he could meet these standards, Pinkerton was called to 1 2

GRIERSON, ‘Without Note or Comment’ (1998). The edition was not published. These approaches were mainly executed by pupils of A. Vööbus, see below sec. I,2.

x

Preface

military service in WW I; 3 all he could do was to prepare and leave a clean copy of his work for others to continue. While the standards of the Gospel volume include four witnesses to the ‘Syriac Masora’ and three printed editions of the Textus receptus, Pinkerton could only include one witness to the ‘Syriac Masora’ but no printed edition. Finally, the majority vote of manuscripts, the basic editorial principle inherited from the Gospel volume, could not work well with the comparatively small number of witnesses included in Pinkerton’s collation; additional manuscripts would have to strengthen or to update the majority vote. After more than one hundred years, the task of resuming the ‘second volume’ could not leave the original design untouched but would have to upgrade the project to at least the standards of the Gospel volume. This was the starting point and original intention of the present new edition of the Corpus Paulinum. The collations of some fifty manuscripts, however, cast doubt on the ability of the Gospel volume to guide our editorial approach. Gwilliam’s full use of fortytwo manuscripts from the 5th–8th centuries is in fact restricted to eight constant witnesses, while the remaining witnesses are quoted only in a selective way. This use of manuscripts reflects the special purpose of the Gospel volume: to give proof to the ‘substantial identity’ of the early Peshiṭta Gospels with the Textus receptus as printed in the editio princeps of 1555 (which is constantly quoted in the Gospel volume). Accordingly, manuscripts from the 9th–16th centuries are almost completely absent. Due to his stated purpose, Gwilliam was not interested in showing how the Textus receptus became the final stage of the textual history but was satisfied with stating its ‘substantial identity’ with the early text. Gwilliam’s basic editorial principle of editing—the majority vote of manuscripts—participates in the issues caused by his restricted use of manuscripts. Restricted to the earliest witnesses, the majority vote refers not to ‘history’ but to ‘antiquity’; new majorities are expected to come up when the number of manuscripts is increased (esp. by late ones). This is exactly what we experienced when collating manuscripts of the Corpus Paulinum beyond Pinkerton’s choice. Therefore, upgrading the project to the standards of the Gospel volume was abandoned and replaced by editing along historical lines. Nevertheless, the Gospel volume greatly inspired our editorial work. First, a historical framework had to be established to balance the absence of text-historical terms in Gwilliam’s approach to the Gospels (even the term ‘majority vote’ is not from him but from M. Black). For describing the history of the text, we introduced the ‘Byzantine period’ and the ‘Islamic period’ of transmission, which coincide with the pre-‘masoretic’ and ‘masoretic’ stages of the text respectively. The significance of the ‘Syriac Masora’ for the textual history we duly acknowledged by our ‘East-West-bifurcation’ of textual tradi3 GRIERSON, ‘Without Note or Comment’ (1998) 92: ‘Although clergy were exempt from the general military callup, and Pinkerton’s eyesight was defective in any case, he enlisted in the 1st Royal Scots and requested active service. Training greatly reduced the time he could spend on the edition, and he was soon posted to Saloniki to see action in the Balkan theatre. He entrusted the project to Tritton, and offered his earlier services as a gift if he were not to return. On October 1916, he was killed in action …’

Preface

xi

tions. This bifurcation is dissolved by ‘standardization’ in favour of the ‘Eastern standard text’, i.e. by adaptation of the Western to the Eastern tradition. Next, the majority vote of manuscripts on which the text of the Gospel volume is based, inspired us to introduce ‘editorial criticism’ (to be distinguished from ‘textual criticism’) for establishing the text to print (the recensio textus) by a mechanical rule. In the present edition, this rule is the rejection of the (future) Eastern standard text, when the early text is split. This rule is drawn from the history of the text and prepares the stage for ‘textual criticism’, i.e. for decisions on the ‘originality’ of individual readings or variants. Finally, the well-known conformity of the text inspired us to understand the history of the text as the history of conformity. Not surprisingly, the early conformity (as already evidenced in the Gospel volume) became enhanced and fixed by standardization during the Islamic period. The later manuscripts contributed much to the evidence of the textual history. Continuity The text of the present edition is not too dissimilar from the BFBS text. Within the one hundred chapters of the Corpus Paulinum, there are only 76 differences, all minor ones. The substantial identity of the texts derives from the fact that both recensiones coincide by using the same early manuscripts, on which Pinkerton’s majority vote of manuscript is based. Using the BFBS text as the collation base, no major differences were to be expected. The substantial identity with the BFBS text is important for keeping the present edition in line with earlier research, esp. with the Concordance of G. Kiraz.4 Our edition gives proof to the high quality of John Pinkerton’s work, which was accessible only in the disguise of the BFBS text thus far. All we had to do was to replace the disguise with the original design, though adapting this design to the scholarly requirements of today. The continuity with the BFBS text extends also to the presentation in vocalized Serṭā incl. quššāyā/rukkākhā. This presentation is adopted from the Western ‘Syriac Masora’, which transformed the ancient vocalization by diacritical points into the system of five Greek vowels; for lexicography, this way of presenting the text is the most useful. During collation, the editors of the present edition paid carefully attention to the correct correspondence of the old system with the new one; quoted vocalization variants are few. To some degree, the Gospel volume is echoed by the inclusion of additional Peshiṭtabased materials, i.e. of five lectionaries, seven ‘masoretic’ manuscripts, and nine printed editions. In divergence from Gwilliam’s procedure, these materials are not fully presented in the apparatus of the present edition but in Appendices. Only when they agree with existing variants, are lectionaries and ‘masoretic’ manuscripts quoted in the apparatus; the printed editions are completely excluded from the apparatus. The individual character of these materials recommended this cautious approach. By their selective and abridged way of quoting texts, lectionaries and ‘masoretic’ manuscripts 4

KIRAZ, Concordance (1993).

xii

Preface

offer individual variants and textual transmissions of their own, which should be distinguished from the mainstream of the Peshiṭta text. Quotations from Syriac authors and Patristic translations are not included; the volumes of J. Kerschensteiner (1970) and B. Aland (1991–2002) offer abundant materials. The aim of this new edition is not to present all manuscripts but to cover all historical lines (except orthography) of the textual transmission up to and including the Textus receptus. Additional manuscripts may bring to light new variants but are expected to confirm the East-West-bifurcation of textual traditions and the standardization in favour of the Eastern standard text.5 While the strong Eastern side of the bifurcation is sufficiently represented, a better representation of the faint Western side is much to be desired. The former is attested in great abundance, the latter in great paucity, being obliterated by adaptation to the Eastern tradition. The history and the fate of the Western tradition is the story of this book. The history of the project At the beginning of the 1990s, Inetje Parlevliet-Flesseman, the co-editor of the present edition, used Pinkerton’s collations6 for her doctoraal-scriptie on the Epistle to the Galatians in the Peshiṭta version, supervised by Tjitze Baarda (1932–2017). After publication,7 the original plan was to continue under the same supervisor with a doctoral dissertation on the Peshiṭta of the Epistle to the Romans, making further use of Pinkerton’s collations. When the supervisor retired (1997), he entrusted the present writer with the task of supervising. However, a severe illness of Inetje’s husband drastically reduced the time she could spend on finalizing the dissertation; his eventual death in 2006 dealt a definitive blow to the dissertation. Inetje decided to continue Peshiṭta research and our cooperation. Since she had acquired remarkable skills in collating Syriac manuscripts, we decided to resume together Pinkerton’s work on the ‘second volume’, the sequel to the PuseyGwilliam volume of the Gospels. In those times, we believed this work to be nothing more than a collation project. Unfortunately, attempts failed to give the project a permanent home at the University of Münster. Without institutional backing, we shared the delightful and sorrowful moments of a private project, which had its centre in Inetje’s home at Almelo-NL. Some of my fondest memories are of our many working meetings at Almelo! Our work received a new foundation when G. Kiraz offered to install the project at ‘Beth Mardutho/The Syriac Institute’-NJ, of which he is the founder and director; we gratefully accepted this offer. Now we had access to technical and material resources (esp. to microfilms and digitized manuscripts) we were lacking before. However, the growing This view was strengthened by comparison with Gudorf’s edition of Hebrews, which offers additional (late) manuscripts. 6 About the existence of the collations, she was informed by Willem Baars. 7 INETJE E. PARLEVLIET-FLESSEMAN, De tekst van de Pesjitta in de brief aan de Galaten. Een voorlopige studie (Amsterdam, July 1993). 5

Preface

xiii

size of the project became a new source of distress: it developed from a collation project towards a completely new editorial approach, which required a thorough previous study.8 In about 2010, we had to decide how to go on: publishing Pinkerton’s now remarkably enhanced collations by attaching them to the BFBS text, or producing a completely new edition based on the history of the text? The above-mentioned necessity of changing the BFBS text after enhancing the collations was decisive in producing a completely new edition, including a thorough study of the textual history. It was my task to give shape to this edition, bringing to conclusion all the results of our co-operation. I underestimated the amount of time and research that this project would require, and regrettably, thorough work on the finalization of this task was possible only after my retirement at the end of 2019. The delay of the completion,9 however, was not disadvantageous for the project itself; it allowed us to include the important studies of J. Loopstra on the ‘Syriac Masora’, and of P. Géhin on the restoration of dispersed Sinaitic manuscripts.10 Inetje was the backbone of the project, constantly collating and working on the evidence of the textual history. It is on her patience, commitment, and painstaking work that the present edition is founded. Doing the first collation, she did not leave much work for my second collation. In times when I could not work on the project, the flow of data from her side never stopped and reminded me to come back to the Corpus Paulinum as soon as possible. During the time when I was working on the introduction and on the appendices of the edition, she continued collating manuscripts of Acts and of the Gospels, thus preparing the ground for future sequels to our project. Meanwhile, her patience duly extended not only to the additional collations but also to her co-editor’s work on the introduction. I am so grateful for her patience! One more thing the reader should know. As soon as I learned about the illness of Inetje’s husband, I suggested she interrupt or even stop her work on the then dissertation. She vehemently refused, declaring that working on the Peshiṭta was the ‘cane’ that made her stand upright in this difficult time. By giving her Peshiṭta research this intimate connection with her husband, her research received a personal dimension far beyond the usual scientific concern. The memory of DirkJan is the major source of Inetje’s amazing commitment to Peshiṭta research up to the present day. Nothing better (horribile dictu! ) could have happened to Peshiṭta research! It was for this reason that I suggested we dedicate the volume to DirkJan.

A preliminary survey of our results is in JUCKEL, A Guide (2012) 105–163; IDEM, La Peshitta du Nouveau Testament (2017) 115–147. 9 There were four major reasons for the delay: 1) the general private character of the project, which allowed both editors to work on it only at home, 2) the compilation of the four Appendices, 3) the design of a new layout incl. new mss sigla, which necessitated transcribing the critical apparatus completely, 4) research in Acts and the Gospels to find out whether our editorial criticism is applicable to these NT corpora too. 10 For the research of both see the Bibliography. 8

xiv

Preface

Acknowledgements My search for manuscripts received much help, and the present edition much inspiration, from my visits to the Syriac-Orthodox Church in Syria (since 1991) and to the Chaldean Church in Iraq (1989). At Damascus, H. H. Ignatius Zakkay I. (*1933; 1980–2014), late Patriarch of Antioch and All the East, directed my attention to Ms 12/1 of the Patriarchal Library (now SOPD 346; IIn3 of the present edition), which is the most important witness to the Western textual tradition of the Peshiṭta New Testament. I gratefully remember the kindness and help of the Patriarch’s then First Secretary Abuna Kyriaqos (1933–2011), who became bishop Julius Kuriakose of the Syriac-Orthodox Church in India. H. H. Ignatius Aphrem II, the present Patriarch of Antioch and All the East, kindly permitted digitized images of Ms SOPD 346 to be sent to me. — In Baghdad, I enjoyed the help of the unforgettable Chaldean priests Albert Abouna (1928–2021), Yousef Ḥabbi (1938–2000), and Jacques Isḥaq (at present retired Archbishop of the Chaldean Church). Abuna Sharbel, then Abbot of the Monastery at Baghdad/Dora, put the monastery’s library at my disposal and allowed me to photograph Ms syr. 24 (IIIn4 of the present edition). A few days before his lamented death, I was privileged to meet H. H. Paul II. Cheikho (*1906; 1958–1989), Patriarch of Babylon of the Chaldean Catholic Church. The present edition is a token of gratitude for the hospitality and help I experienced from the servants of that revered Queen, of whom I was going to become a servant myself. G. Kiraz gave the project a new foundation and a perspective for the future. He kindly installed the project at ‘Beth Mardutho/The Syriac Institute’ in New Jersey, which is now the hub for the much broader editorial project of reediting the complete NT Peshiṭta. He also provided photographs of the important Ms Mardin 35/2 (IIIn6), and the BFBS text in electronic form. I am grateful for his generous help, encouragement, and patience! Martin Schøyen (Oslo), Takamitsu Muraoka (Leiden), and Paul Géhin (Paris) contributed to the project by directing my attention to dispersed folios of Sinaitic manuscripts respectively. By sending photographs, M. Schøyen permitted me to study and to use Ms 2530 (part of Ms Sin. syr. 3; Ip1 in the present edition) of his collection. T. Muraoka kindly informed me about folios of Ms Sin. syr. 5 (Ip7) that found their way to Japan and arranged photographs to be sent to me. P. Géhin’s indefatigable research filled up further textual gaps in Mss Sin. syr. 3 (Ip1) and 5 (Ip7). A textual gap of Ms BL Add 14,481 (Ip10, from Dayr al-Suryān) was filled up by the help of Lucas van Rompay (now ’s-Hertogenbosch-NL), who kindly supplied me with pictures of a folio preserved at New York. The generous help of these scholars I gratefully acknowledge.11 Special thanks are due to the scholars who helped me in St. Petersburg (2014) to get access to Ms n. s. 3 (Ip8) in the National Library of Russia. Irina F. Popova, Director of the Institute of Oriental Manuscripts (Russian Academy of Science-St. Petersburg), and 11

For details see the descriptions of the manuscripts.

Preface

xv

Natalia Smelova, then affiliated to the same Institute (presently at Oslo University, Theological Faculty), paved the way to the National Library by providing the required recommendations. In the reading room, Olga Vasilieva (head of the Oriental Manuscript Department) and Boris Zaikovskiy, were extremely helpful. They kindly put the requested manuscripts at my disposal. Based on the sample of Galatians, Sebastian Brock (Oxford) was so kind to give me his opinion of the Syriac layout of the present edition. His helpful comments were much appreciated. On my request, David Taylor (Oxford) promptly sent copies of Gwilliam’s groundbreaking articles on the Peshiṭta, which in 2002 were inaccessible in Germany. He also spared no efforts to trace and to communicate to me John Pinkerton’s date of birth. I owe to him a debt of gratitude. The staff of Gorgias Press in New Jersey cared for the final shaping of the book with much expertise. Melonie Smierer-Lee (Cambridge) corrected and improved the English of the introduction and of the appendices, I am grateful for her kind help. The work on this edition started, when only few Syriac manuscript were accessible online. It was always an exciting moment to see the original manuscripts in the European libraries and in the Syriac-Orthodox Monastery of St. Mark (Jerusalem). I am indebted to the many unknown persons who served me in the reading rooms. MÜNSTER, 20TH OF SEPTEMBER 2022

ANDREAS JUCKEL

B I B L I OG R A P H Y ADLER, Jacob Georg Christian. Novi Testamenti Versiones Syriacae. Simplex, Philoxeniana, Hierosolymitana. Copenhagen: Schultz, 1789. ALAND, NTsyr I = ALAND, Barbara. Das Neue Testament in syrischer Überlieferung I: Die großen Katholischen Briefe. Arbeiten zur neutestamentlichen Textforschung 7. Berlin– New York: de Gruyter, 1986. ALAND/JUCKEL, NTsyr II = ALAND, Barbara / JUCKEL, Andreas. Das Neue Testament in syrischer Überlieferung. II, 1–3: Die Paulinischen Briefe. Arbeiten zur neutestamentlichen Textforschung 14, 23, 32. Berlin–New York: de Gruyter, 1991, 1995, 2002. ASSEMANUS, Joseph S. Bibliothecae Apostolicae Vaticanae codicum manuscriptorum Catalogus in tres partes distributus; partus I,2 complectens codices chaldaicos sive syriacos. Romae 1758; Piscataway: Gorgias Press, 2010. BARDENHEWER, Otto. Geschichte der altkirchlichen Literatur, vol. 1–4. Freiburg: Herder 1913–1932; Darmstadt: Wiss. Buchgesellschaft, 22007. BARNES, William E. Apparatus Criticus to Chronicles in the Peshitta Version with a Discussion of the Value of the Codex Ambrosianus. Cambridge: University Press, 1897. — The Peshitta Psalter According to the West Syrian Text, edited with an Apparatus Criticus. Cambridge: University Press, 1904. BAUMSTARK, Anton. “Dir liturgischen Handschriften des jakobitischen Markusklosters in Jerusalem.” Oriens Christianus n. s. 1 (1911): 103–115; 286–314; n. s. 2 (1912) 120. BAUMSTARK, Anton/GRAF, Georg/ RÜCKER, Adolf. “Die literarischen Handschriften des jakobitischen Markusklosters in Jerusalem.” Oriens Christianus n. s. 2 (1912): 120– 130; 317–333; n. s. 3 (1913):128–134; 311–327. BAUMSTARK, Anton. Orientalische Manuskripte. Arabische, syrische, griechische, armenische, persische Handschriften des 7–18 Jahrhunderts. Katalog 500 des Antiquariats Hiersemann. Leipzig 1922. — Geschichte der syrischen Literatur mit Ausschluß der christlich-palästinensischen Texte. Bonn: A. Marcus und E. Webers, 1922; de Gruyter 1968. Bibliotheca Palatina. Katalog zur Ausstellung vom 8. Juli bis 2. November 1986 Heiliggeistkirche Heidelberg. Edited by Elmar Mittler et alii., vol. 1 (Textband ) & 2 (Bildband ). Heidelberg: Edition Braus, 1986. BLACK, Matthew. “The Text of the Peshitta Tetraeuangelium.” Pages 20–27 in Studia Paulina in honorem Johannis de Zwaan septuagenarii. Edited by J. N. Sevenester and W. C. van Unnik. Haarlem: De Erven F. Bohn N. V., 1953. — “The Syriac Versional Tradition.” Pages 120–159 in Die alten Übersetzungen des Neuen Testaments, die Kirchenväterzitate und Lektionare. Edited by Kurt Aland. Arbeiten zur neutestamentlichen Textforschung 5. Berlin–New York: de Gruyter, 1972. BRIQUEL-CHATONNET, Françoise. Manuscrits syriaques de la Bibliothèque nationale de France (nos 356-435, entrés depuis 1911), de la bibliothèque Méjanes d’Aix-en-Provences, de la Bibliothèque municipale de Lyon et de la Bibliothèque nationale et universitaire de Strasbourg. Paris: BnF, 1997.

Bibliography

xvii

BROCK, Sebastian. “The Syriac Euthalian Material and the Philoxenian Version of the New Testament.” Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 70 (1979): 120–130. — Catalogue of Syriac Fragments (New Finds) in the Library of the Monastery of Saint Catherine, Mount Sinai. Athens: Mount Sinai Foundation, 1995. — The Bible in Syriac Tradition. Piscataway: Gorgias Press, 22006. — “Introduction to the Gorgias Edition.” Pages iii–xii in The Syriac Bible According to the Mosul Edition, vol. 1 (OT). Edited by Clemens Joseph David. Piscataway: Gorgias Press, 2010. BROCK, Sebastian/VAN ROMPAY, Lucas. Catalogue of the Syriac Manuscripts and Fragments in the Library of Deir al-Surian, Wadi al-Natrun (Egypt). Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 227. Louvain: Peeters, 2014. BROCK, Sebastian/WITAKOWSKI, Witold. The Hidden Pearl. The Syrian Orthodox Church and its Ancient Aramaic Heritage, vol. III: At the Turn of the Third Millennium. The Syrian Orthodox Witness. Roma: Trans World Film Italia, 2001. BROVENDER, Chaim. The Syriac Shemahe Mss: A Typological and Comparative Study. Ph. D. dissertation, Hebrew University, 1976 (in Hebrew). BUCK, Erwin. Manuscript Studies in the Syriac Versions of Romans. S.T.D. dissertation, Lutheran School of Theology at Chicago, 1978. CASEY, Robert P. “New Testament Manuscripts in the Pierpont Morgan Library.” Journal of Theological Studies n. s. 2 (1951): 64–68. CHABOT, Jean-Baptiste. “Inventaire des fragments de manuscrits syriaques conservés à la Bibliothèque Ambrosienne à Milan.” Le Muséon 49 (1936): 37–54. CLARK, Kenneth W. Checklist of Manuscripts in St. Catherine’s Monastery, Mount Sinai. Washington: 1952. CLEMONS, James Th. Studies in the Syriac Text of Galatians. Ph. D. dissertation, Duke University, 1963. — “A Checklist of Syriac manuscripts in the United States and Canada.” Orientalia Christiana Periodica 32 (1966): 224–251; 478–522. COAKLEY, J. F. “A Catalogue of the Syriac Manuscripts in the John Rylands Library.” Bulletin of the John Rylands Library 75 (1993): 105–207. COAKLEY, J. F./ TAYLOR, David G. K. “Syriac Books Printed at the Dominican Press, Mosul.” Pages 71–110 in Malphono w-Rabo d-Malphone. Studies in Honor of Sebastian P. Brock. Edited by George. A. Kiraz. Piscataway: Gorgias Press, 2008. COAKLEY, J. F. “When were the Five Greek Vowel-Signs Introduced into Syriac Writing?” Journal of Semitic Studies 56 (2011): 307–325. COXE, H. O. Catalogus codicum manuscriptorum qui in collegiis aulisque Oxoniensibus hodie adservantur, pars 1. Oxford 1852. DANKER, Frederick W. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Christian Literature (3rd edition). Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press, 2000. DARLOW, T. H. /MOULE, H. F. Historical Catalogue of the Printed Editions of Holy Scripture in the Library of the British and Foreign Bible Society, vol. I–II,1–3. London: BFBS 1903; New York: Kraus Reprint Corp., 1963.

xviii

Bibliography

DEPUYDT, Leo. “Classsical Syriac Manuscripts at Yale University: A Checklist.” Hugoye, Journal of Syriac Studies 9,2 (2006): 173–188. DIETTRICH, Gustav. Ein Apparatus criticus zur Pešitto zum Propheten Jesaia. Gießen: Töpelmann, 1905. DOBSCHUETZ, Ernst von. “Euthaliusstudien.” Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte 19 (1899): 107–154. DOLABANI, Filoksinos Y. Catalogue of Syriac Manuscripts in St. Mark’s Monastery (Dairo dMor Marqos). Edited by Mar Gregorios Yohanna Ibrahim, Metropolitan of Aleppo. Damascus: Sidawi Printing House, 1994. DUVAL, Rubens. La littérature syriaque des origines jusqu’ à la fin de cette littérature après la conquête par les Arabes au XIIIe siècle. Paris: F. Vieweg, 31907. FIEY, Maurice. Assyrie chrétienne. Contribution à l’étude de l’histoire et de la géographie ecclésiastiques et monastiques de nord de l’Iraq, vol. I–III. Beyrouth: Imprimerie catholique, 1965– 1968. FISCHER, Robert H. A Tribute to Arthur Vööbus. Studies in Early Christian Literature and Its environment, Primarily in the Syrian East. Chicago: Lutheran School of Theology, 1977. FREITAG, Walter H. P. Studies on First Corinthians in Syriac. S.T.D. dissertation, Lutheran School of Theology at Chicago, 1971. GEDSH = Gorgias Encyclopedic Dictionary of the Syriac Heritage. Edited by Sebastian P. BROCK, Aaron M. BUTTS, George A. KIRAZ, Lucas van ROMPAY. Piscataway: Gorgias Press, 2011. GÉHIN, Paul. “Manuscrits sinaїtiques dispersés III: les fragments syriaques de Londres et de Birmingham.” Oriens Christianus 94 (2010): 14–57. — “Les fragments sinaïtiques de l’Ambr. A 296 inf. sur parchemin de contenu biblique et liturgique.” Pages 231–262 in Gli studi orientalistici in Ambrosiana nella cornice del IV Centenario (1609–2009). Edited by C. Baffioni et alii. Milan: Bulzoni, 2012. — Les manuscrits syriaques de parchemin du Sinaï et leurs Membra disjecta. CSCO 665 (subs. 136). Louvain: Peeters, 2017. GOTTSTEIN, Moshe H. “A list of some uncatalogued Syriac Biblical manuscripts.” Bulletin of the John Rylands Library 37 (1955): 429–445. GRIERSON, Rodrick. “‘Without Note or Comment’: British Library Or. 11360 and the Text of the Peshitta New Testament.” Oriens Christianus 82 (1998): 88–98. GUDORF, Michael E. Research in the Early Syriac Text of the Epistle to the Hebrews. Ph. D. dissertation, Faculty of the Division of the Humanities at Chicago, 1992. GWILLIAM, George H. “An Account of a Syriac Biblical Manuscript of the fifth century, with special reference to its bearing on the text of the Syriac version of the Gospels.” Studia Biblica et Ecclesiastica 1 (1885): 151–74. — “The Ammonian Sections, the Eusebian Canons, and harmonizing tables in the Syriac Tetraevangelium, with notices of Peshitto and other MSS. which exhibit these accessories of the text.” Studia Biblica et Ecclesiastica 2 (1890): 241–72. — “The Materials for the criticism of the Peshitto New Testament, with specimens of the Syriac Massorah.” Studia Biblica et Ecclesiastica 3 (1891): 47–104.

Bibliography

xix

— “The Place of the Peshitto version in the apparatus criticus of the Greek New Testament.” Studia Biblica et Ecclesiastica 5 (1903): 189–237. GWYNN, John. The Apocalypse of St. John in a Syriac Version Hitherto Unknown. Dublin & London 1897; Amsterdam: Philo Press, 1981. — Remnants of the Later Syriac Versions of the Bible, part I: New Testament. The Four Minor Catholic Epistles in the Original Philoxenian Version of the Sixth Century and the History of the Woman Taken in Adultery (John 7,53–8,12). London 1909; Amsterdam: Philo Press, 1973. HADDAD, Petrus/ISAAC, Jacques. Syriac and Arabic Manuscripts in the Library of the Chaldean Monastery Baghdad. Publications of the Iraqi Academy, Syriac Corporation; Catalogues of the Syriac Manuscripts in Iraq III,1. Baghdad: Iraqi Academy Press, 1988. HATCH, William H. P. An Album of Dated Syriac Manuscripts. Boston: 1946. With a New Foreword by Lucas van Rompay. Piscataway: Gorgias Press, 2002. HEIDE, Martin. “Die syrische Apokalypse oder Offenbarung an Johannes. Kritische Edition der harklensischen Textzeugen.” Pages 81–187 in Studien zum Text der Apokalypse II. Edited by Marcus Sigismund and Darius Müller. Unter Mitarbeit von Mathias Geigenfeind. Arbeiten zur neutestamentlichen Textforschung 50. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2017. HEIMING, Odilo. “Ein Jakobitisches Doppellektionar des Jahres 824 aus Harran in den Handschriften British Museum Add. 14485 bis 14487.” Vol. II, pages 768-799 in Kyriakon. Festschrift Johannes Quasten in Two Volumes. Edited by Patrick Granfield and Josef A. Jungmann. Münster: Aschendorff, 1970. HILL, Peter A. L. “The Harklean Passion Harmony.” Parole de l’Orient 31 (2006): 213– 230. HORT, Fenton, J. A. see Westcott, Brooke F. JUCKEL, Andreas. “Ms Schøyen 2530/Sin. syr. 3 and the New Testament Peshiṭta.” Hugoye, Journal of Syriac Studies 6,2 (2003): 311–336. — “The ‘Syriac Masora’ and the New Testament Peshitta”. Pages 107–121 in The Peshitta: Its Use in Literature and Liturgy. Papers Read at the Third Peshitta Symposium. Edited by Bas ter Haar Romeny. Monographs of the Peshitta Institute Leiden 15. Leiden: Brill, 2006. — “Research on the Old Syriac Heritage of the Peshiṭta Gospels. A Collation of Ms Bibl. Nationale Syr. 30 (Paris).” Hugoye, Journal of Syriac Studies 12,1 (2009): 41–115. — “A Guide to Manuscripts of the Peshitta New Testament.” Hugoye, Journal of Syriac Studies 15,1 (2012): 79–163. — “Bemerkungen zur Peschitta-Ausgabe der British and Foreign Bible Society.” Pages 207–224 in Orientalia Christiana. Festschrift für Hubert Kaufhold zum 70. Geburtstag. Edited by Peter Bruns and Heinz O. Luthe. Eichstätter Beiträge zum Christlichen Orient 3. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2013. — “The Textus Receptus of the New Testament Peshiṭta in the printed editions.” Parole de l’Orient 41 (2015; Mélanges offerts à l’Abbé Élie Khalifé-Hachem): 205–221.

xx

Bibliography

— “La Peshitta du Nouveau Testament (Corpus Paulinum): Histoire du texte et histoire de la transmission.” Pages 115–147 in Le Nouveau Testament en syriaque. Edited by JeanClaude Haelewyck. Études syriaques 14. Paris: Geuthner, 2017. KAISER, Ursula U. “Brian Walton und die Londoner Polyglotte. Ein Beispiel für die bisweilen schwierigen äußeren Umstände von Editions- und Übersetzungsprojekten.” Pages 425–437 in For the Children, Perfect Instruction. Studies in Honor of Hans-Martin Schenke on the Occasion of the Berliner Arbeitskreis für koptisch-gnostische Schriften’s Thirtieth Year. Edited by Hans-Gebhard Bethge et alii. Nag Hammadi and Manichean Studies 54. Leiden: Brill, 2002. KAMIL, Murad. Catalogue of All Manuscripts in the Monastery of St. Catherine on Mount Sinai. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1970. KAWERAU, Peter. Amerika und die Orientalischen Kirchen. Ursprung und Anfang der amerikanischen Mission unter den Nationalkirchen Westasiens. Arbeiten zur Kirchengeschichte 31. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1958. — Die Jakobitische Kirche im Zeitalter der Syrischen Renaissance. Idee und Wirklichkeit. Berliner Byzantinische Arbeiten 3. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1960. KERSCHENSTEINER, Josef. Der altsyrische Paulustext. CSCO 315 (subs. 37). Louvain: Peeters, 1970. KESSEL, Grigory. “Manuscript Collection of the Syrian Orthodox Church Meryemana in Diyarbakır: A Preliminary Survey.” Pages 79–123 in Manuscripta Syriaca. Des sources de première main. Edited by Françoise Briquel-Chatonnet and Muriel Debié. Cahiers d’études syriaques 4. Paris: Geuthner, 2015. KIRAZ, George A. Concordance to the Syriac New Testament, vol. 1–6. Leiden: Brill, 1993. — Comparative Edition of the Syriac Gospels. Aligning the Sinaiticus, Curetonianus, Peshîṭtâ & Ḥarklean Versions, vol. 1–4. New Testament Tools and Studies 21/1-4. Leiden: Brill, 1996. — “Challenges in Syriac Text Editions Using the DOS-based Word Processor MultiLingual Scholar,” Pages 447–461 in The Letter Before the Spirit. The Importance of Text Editions for the Study of the Reception of Aristotle. Edited by Aafke M. I. van Oppenraay and Resianne Fontaine. Aristoteles Semitico-Latinus 22. Leiden: Brill, 2012. — Syriac–English New Testament. The Traditional Syriac Peshitta Text and the Antioch Bible English Translation. Piscataway: Gorgias Press, 2020. KNAPPE, Wolf D. The Captivity Letters in the Syriac Tradition. S.T.D. dissertation, Lutheran School of Theology at Chicago, 1977. LANTSCHOOT, Arnald van. Inventaire des manuscrits syriaques des fonds Vatican (490-631) Barberini oriental et Neofiti. Studi e Testi 243. Città del Vaticano: BAV, 1965. LAVENANT, René/BROCK, Sebastian P./ SAMIR, S. Khalil. “Catalogue des manuscrits de la bibliothèque du Patriarcat Syrien Orthodoxe à Ḥomṣ (auj. à Damas).” Parole de l’Orient 19 (1994): 555–661. Le Nouveau Testament syriaque. La Peshttta: Interlinéaire Syriaque-Arabe. Sources syriaques 3. Antélias-Libanon: Centre d’Études et de Recherches Orientales, 2010. LEROY, Jules. Les manuscrits syriaques à peintures conservés dans les bibliothèques d’Europe et d’Orient. Contribution à l’étude de l’iconographie de langue syriaque, vol. 1–2. Paris: 1964.

Bibliography

xxi

LEVI DELLA VIDA, Georgio. Ricerche sulla formazione del più antico fondo dei manuscritti orientali della Bilioteca Vaticana. Studi e testi 92. Città del Vaticano: BAV, 1939. LIETZMANN, Hans. Zeitrechnung der römischen Kaiserzeit, des Mittelalters und der Neuzeit für die Jahre 1–2000 n. Chr. 4. Auflage, durchgesehen von Kurt Aland. Berlin: 11934; de Gruyter, 41984. List of Old Testament Peshiṭta Manuscripts (preliminary issue), edited by the Peshiṭta Institute Leiden University. Leiden: Brill, 1961. LOOPSTRA, Jonathan A. Patristic Selections in the “Masoretic” Handbook of the Qarqaptā Tradition. Vol. I of II: Study. Ph. D. dissertation, Catholic University of America, 2009. — An East Syrian Manuscript of the Syriac ‘Masora’ Dated to 899 CE, vol. 1: A Facsimile Reproduction of British Library, Add. MS 12138; vol. 2: Introduction, List of Sample Texts, and Indices to Marginal Notes in British Library, Additional MS 12138. Piscataway: Gorgias Press, 2014/2015. — “Le Nouveau Testament dans les manuscrits syriaques massorétiques – où en sommes-nous?” Pages 181–201 in Le Nouveau Testament en syriaque. Edited by JeanClaude Haelewyck. Études syriaques 14. Paris: Geuthner, 2017. — The Patristic “Masora”: A Study of Patristic Collections in Syriac Handbooks from the Near East. CSCO 689 (syri 265). Louvain: Peeters, 2020. MACLER, Frédéric. Notice des manuscrits syriaques conservés dans la bibliothèque du couvent des Syriens jacobites de Jérusalem. Paris: Firmin-Didot, 1920. MACOMBER, William F. Final Inventory of the Microfilmed Manuscripts of the St. Mark’s Convent Jerusalem. Manuscripts in Syriac, Garshuni, Arabic. April 16, 1990. Provo: Brigham Young University, 1995. MAI, Angelo. Codices chaldaici sive syriaci Vaticani Assemaniani. Scriptorum veterum Nova Collectio e Vaticanis codicibus edita 5. Romae: Typis Vaticanis, 1831. Manuel de critique textuelle du Nouveau Testament. Introduction générale. Par Ch.-B. Amphoux, G. Dorival, J. K. Elliott, J.-Cl. Haelewyck, D. Pastorelli et J. Reynard. Avec les collaborations de A. Boud’hors, D. Gonnet et D. Lafleur. Sous la direction de ChristianBernard Amphoux. Langues et cultures anciennes 22. Bruxelles: Éditions Safran, 2014. MARTIN, Jean Pierre Paulin. “Tradition karkaphienne, ou la Massore chez les Syriens.” Journal asiatique 14 (6e série) 1868: 245–379. — “Histoire de la ponctuation ou de la Massore chez les Syriens.” Journal asiatique 5 (7e série) 1875: 81–208. MCCONAUGHY, “The Text of Acts in MS Bibl. Nationale Syr. 30.” Hugoye, Journal of Syriac Studies 24,2 (2021): 453–90. METZGER, Bruce M. The Early Versions of the New Testament. Their Origin, Transmission and Limitations. Oxford: University Press, 1977. MINGANA, Alphonse. Catalogue of the Mingana Collection of Manuscripts, vol. 1–3. Cambridge: Heffer, 1936; Piscataway: Gorgias Press, 2008. MURAOKA, Takamitsu. “A Fragment of an Old Peshiṭta Manuscript to the New Testament Discovered in Japan.” Ancient Near Eastern Studies 41 (2004): 218–222.

xxii

Bibliography

NAU, François. “Notices des manuscrits syriaques, éthiopiens et mandéens entrés à la Bibliothèque Nationale de Paris depuis l’édition des catalogues.” Revue de l’Orient chrétien 6 (2e série) 1911: 271–323. — “Corrections et additions au catalogue des manuscrits syriaques de Paris.” Journal asiatique 5 (11e série) 1915: 487–536. PARLEVLIET-FLESSEMAN, Inetje E. De tekst van de Pesjitta in de brief aan de Galaten. Een voorlopige studie (Amsterdam, July 1993). PHILOTHÉE du Sinaï, Nouveaux manuscrits syriaques du Sinaï. Athènes: Fondation du Mont Sinaï, 2008. PIGULEWSKAJA, Nina V. “Manuscrits syriaques bibliques de Léningrad.” Revue Biblique 46 (1937): 83–92; 225–230; 392–400; 556–562; 47 (1938): 83–88; 214–226. PUSEY, Philipp E. /GWILLIAM, George H. Tetraeuangelium Sanctum. Oxford: Clarendon, 1901. RAHLFS, Alfred. “Beiträge zur Textkritik der Peshita.” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 9 (1989): 161–210. ROSEN, Friedrich/ FORSHALL, Josiah. Catalogus codicum manuscriptorum orientalium qui in Museo Britannico asservantur, pars 1: Codices Syriacos et Carshunicos amplectens. London: 1838. ROSS, Arthur M. Studies in the Thessalonian Epistles in Syriac. S.T.D. dissertation, Lutheran School of Theology at Chicago, 1983. SACHAU, C. Eduard. Verzeichnis der syrischen Handschriften, vol. 1–2. Verzeichnisse der Königlichen Bibliothek zu Berlin 23. Berlin: Asher, 1899. SCHER, Addai. Catalogue des manuscrits syriaques et arabes conservés dans la bibliothèque épiscopale de Séert (Kurdistan) avec notes bibliographiques. Mosul: Imprimerie des Pères Dominicains, 1905. — “Notice sur les manuscrits syriaques conservés dans la bibliothèque du couvent des Chaldéens de Notre-Dame-des Semences.” Journal asiatique 7 (10e série): 1906: 479– 512; 8 (10e série): 55–82. SCHÖNFELDER, J. M. Pages 109–119 (Syriac manuscripts) in Verzeichniß der orientalischen Handschriften der K. Hof- und Staatsbibliothek in München; mit Ausschluß der hebraeischen, arabischen und persischen. Catalogus codicum manuscriptorum bibliothecae regiae Monacensis I/4, ed. Joseph Aumer et alii. München 1875; Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1970. SEGAL, J. B. The Diacritical Point and the Accents in Syriac. Oxford: University Press 1953; Piscataway: Gorgias Press, 22004. SMITH LEWIS, Agnes. Catalogue of the Syriac MSS. in the Convent of S. Catharine on Mount Sinai. Studia Sinaitica 1. London: 1894. SODEN, Hermann Freiherr von. Die Schriften des Neuen Testaments in ihrer ältesten erreichbaren Textgestalt hergestellt auf Grund ihrer Textgeschichte, vol. I,1–3: Untersuchungen, vol. II: Text und Apparat. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1902 (21911)–1913. TEULE, Herman et alii. The Syriac Renaissance. Eastern Christian Studies 9. Leuven: Peeters, 2010. Tetraeuangelium Sanctum (1901), see PUSEY, Philipp E. /GWILLIAM, George H.

Bibliography

xxiii

The Aramaic-English Interlinear New Testament. Vol. 1: Matthew–John (1988); vol. II Acts–Philemon (1988); vol. III Hebrews–Revelation (1989). New Knoxville-OH: American Christian Press–The Way International. The Aramaic New Testament. Estrangelo Script. Based on the Peshitta and Harklean Versions. New Knoxville-OH: American Christian Press–The Way International s. a. [1983]. The Concordance to the Peshitta Version of the Aramaic New Testament. — English Dictionary. Supplement to the Concordance to the Peshitta Version of the Aramaic New Testament. New Knoxville-OH: American Christian Press–The Way International, 1985. The New Testament of Our Lord Jesus Christ. Text According to the Peshitto of Mardin. Prepared in the Monastery of Mor Gabriel in Cooperation with the United Bible Societies. Istanbul: Gospels 1998, the complete Bible 2007. TROUPEAU, Gérard. “Note sur les manuscrits de Séert conservés à la Bibliothèque Nationale de Paris.” Pages 207–208 in Travaux de l’Institut Catholique de Paris 10. Paris : Bloud & Gay, 1964. VÖÖBUS, Arthur. “Nouvelles sources de l’Octateuch Clémentin syriaque.” Le Muséon 86 (1973): 105–109. — The Apocalypse in the Harklean Version. CSCO 400 (subs. 56). Louvain: Peeters, 1978. — Studies in the History of the Gospel Text in Syriac II. CSCO 496 (subs. 79). Louvain: Peeters, 1987. VOSTÉ, Jacques-Marie. Catalogue de la Bibliothèque syro-chaldéenne du Couvent de Notre-Dame des Semences près d’Alqosh (Iraq). Rome-Paris: Geuthner, 1929. — “La Pešittā de Mossoul et la révision catholique des anciennes versions orientales de la Bible.” Pages 59–94 in Miscellanea Giovanni Mercati I: Bibbia – Letteratura christiana antica. Studi et Testi 21. Città del Vaticano: BAV, 1946. WEIGELT, Morris A. Diatessaric Harmonies of the Passion Narrative in the Harklean Syriac Version. Th. D., Princeton Theological Seminary, 1969. WEISS, Theodor. Zur ostsyrischen Laut- und Akzentlehre auf Grund der ostsyrischen MassorahHandschrift des British Museum. Mit Facsimiles von 50 Seiten der Londoner Handschrift. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1933. WESTCOTT, Brooke F./HORT, Fenton J. A. The New Testament in the Original Greek. vol. 1: Text; vol. 2: Introduction. Cambridge: Macmillan, 1881; Akad. Druck- und Verlagsanstalt Graz, 1974. WHITE, Joseph. Sacrorum Evangeliorum versio syriaca Philoxeniana, vol. 1–2. Oxonii 1778. WILKINSON, Robert J. Orientalism, Aramaic and Kabbalah in the Catholic Reformation. The First Printing of the Syriac New Testament. Leiden: Brill, 2007. — “Immanuel Tremellius’ 1569 Edition of the Syriac New Testament.” Journal of Ecclesiastical History 58 (2007): 9–25. WILLARD, Louis Ch. A Critical Study of the Euthalian Apparatus. Arbeiten zur neutestamentlichen Textforschung 41. Berlin–New York: de Gruyter, 22009. WRIGHT, William. A Short History of Syriac Literature. London: Adam and Charles Black, 1894; Piscataway: Gorgias Press, 2001.

xxiv

Bibliography

— Catalogue of Syriac Manuscripts in the British Museum, Acquired Since the Year 1838, vol. 13. London: 1870–1872. WRIGHT, William/ COOK, Stanley A. Catalogue of the Syriac Manuscripts in the Library of the University of Cambridge. Cambridge: University Press, 1901; Piscataway: Gorgias Press, 2002. YOHANNA, Samer S. The Gospel of Mark in the Syriac Harklean Version. An Edition Based on the Earliest Witnesses. Biblica et Orientalia 52. Roma: Gregorian & Biblical Press, 2015. ZACAGNI, L. A. Collectanea monumentorum veterum ecclesiae Graece, vol. I: Rome 1698 (reprinted in the Migne series: PG 85, 627–790). ZOTENBERG, Hermann. Manuscrits orientaux. Catalogues des manuscrits syriaques et sabéens (mandaïtes) de la Bibliothèque Nationale. Paris: Imprimerie nationale, 1874. Sigla of Manuscripts: The manuscripts and their sigla, which are frequently mentioned in the Introduction to the edition, are presented on page lxiii–lxvi, and are explained on page xcv–xcviii.

I. P R E V I OU S E D I T I ON S European scholars received the complete Peshiṭta New Testament via the edition prepared by Mushe of Mardin and J. A. Widmanstadt (Vienna 1555, the first printed Syriac book). The text of this editio princeps is based on two unidentified manuscripts of West Syrian or Maronite provenance; 1 it became the Textus receptus, which in subsequent editions of the 17th–19th centuries was reproduced with few corrections and modifications.2 In those times, improvement of the textual foundation was made without any ‘critical’ intention of the editors; the main concern was the best possible presentation of the Syriac text in Syriac or Hebrew type and with Latin translation. The edition of M. Trost (1621) had already included variant readings of four earlier editions; and that of J. Leusden & C. Schaaf (1708) appended the variants of twelve earlier editions.3 In 1789, J. G. Chr. Adler directed scholars’ attention to dated Peshiṭta codices of the first millennium.4 In the 19th century, when access to Syriac manuscripts became somewhat easier for European scholars, S. Lee used manuscripts (though still late ones) for his NT edition of 1816. Late local manu-scripts were the base for the editions printed in the Middle East, as the Urmia editions (NT 1846, OT 1852) by the American Presbyterian Mission, and the Syrian-Catholic Moṣul edition (1887−91) by the Dominicans. The 20th century began with the first (and thus far, the last) critical edition of the Gospels (1901); and continued with a Praxapostolos, prepared between 1912 and 1916, which did not receive the desired final form when it was printed in 1920. 1. J. Pinkerton: The ‘lost’ collations a) Praxapostolos: The ‘second volume’ Research on the early Peshiṭta text started around 1870, when Ph. E. Pusey (1830–1880) engaged in collations for a critical edition of the Gospels based on a considerable number of early manuscripts; G. H. Gwilliam (1846–1913) accomplished the edition in 1901.5 For the first time, an edition did not reproduce the text of a given manuscript but offered a recensio textus and claimed to present the Peshiṭta Gospels as a piece of literature in its On the editio princeps see below in Appendix 4, and WILKINSON, Orientalism (2007), where the manuscripts are discussed on p. 172 note 3. Our analysis of the text confirms a West Syrian origin with a participation in the Eastern standard text (based on 238 test units, see below p. xlii) of 81%. 2 A description of the main editions in D ARLOW/MOULE, Catalogue (1903) II,1 1–36; II,3 1526–53. A collation of the main editions can be found below in Appendix 4. 3 In DARLOW/MOULE, Catalogue II.3 (1903) 1537 this edition is called a critical one, probably because of the variant readings. Most of the variants, however, refer to vocalization and orthography. 4 ADLER, Novi Testamenti versiones syriacae (1789) 1–42. Among the codices mentioned are Mss Vat. Syr. 12 (548 AD), Vat. Syr. 13 (736 AD), and Plut. I,56 at Florence (the ‘Rabbula Codex’, 586 AD). 5 PUSEY/GWILLIAM, Tetraeuangelium Sanctum (1901). 1

xxvi

Introduction

earliest form. The ‘second volume’ with the Praxapostolos was being prepared on the same lines as the Gospel volume but was left incomplete after the deaths of Gwilliam and his co-editor J. Pinkerton (5th of May 1882–Oct. 1916). However, the collations of a dozen of 5th–9th-cent. manuscripts were accomplished and could be used for establishing a majority text that was issued by the British and Foreign Bible Society (BFBS) in 1920. In this BFBS edition, the Gospels of the Pusey-Gwilliam-volume,6 the established text of the Praxapostolos, and the non-Peshiṭta texts published by J. Gwynn 1897 (Revelation) and 1909 (Minor Cath. Epistles), are put together in a handsome complete Syriac New Testament printed in vocalized Serṭā type, but all without critical apparatus.7 The hand-written collations of the Praxapostolos did not find their way into the archives of the BFBS but were acquired in 1932 by the then British Museum from A. S. Tritton.8 They were classified as ‘Ms Or. 11,360’ and fell into oblivion since no record appeared in any printed catalogue. Although scholars voiced their interest in the whereabouts of the collations,9 their re-introduction to scholarship was limited to R. Grierson’s project of editing Acts in the 90s of the last century.10 As the present edition The Gospel text was taken from the 1905 edition of the BFBS, which omitted the apparatus of the 1901 edition. For the sake of completeness, Lk 22:17–18 and Jn 7:53–8:11 (both not extant in the Peshiṭta) were introduced (but put with square brackets) into the 1905 edition from Lee’s edition of 1816 and taken over into the BFBS volume. For the same reason the BFBS volume also adopts Acts 15:34 and 28:29 (as footnotes) from Lee’s edition. 7 In the preface of the BFBS volume, R. Kilgour, editorial superintendent of the BFBS, writes: ‘In 1905 the British and Foreign Bible Society published an edition of the Gospels in Syriac reprinted by permission from a revised text of the Peshitta Version which had been prepared by the late Rev. G. H. Gwilliam, B. D., with a Latin translation and critical apparatus, and issued by the Clarendon Press in 1901. To these have now been added the books from Acts to Revelation, thus completing the New Testament. By special arrangement with the Delegates of the Clarendon Press, the text of the Acts of the Apostles, the General Epistle of James, the First Epistle General of Peter, the First Epistle General of John, and the Pauline Epistles (including Hebrews), follows a critical revision of the Peshitta originally undertaken by Mr. Gwilliam for the Clarendon Press as a completion of his edition of the Gospels (1901), and prepared on similar lines. In the collation of manuscript in the British Museum Library, and in the correction of the proofs, the editor [i.e. R. Kilgour] received assistance from the Rev. J. Pinkerton, B. D., who carried on and completed this work after Mr. Gwilliam’s death in 1913.’ 8 Details are given in GRIERSON, ‘Without Note or Comment’ (1998) 93. 9 BLACK, The Syriac Versional Tradition (1972) 139: ‘In view especially of the pre-history of the Peshiṭta in an ‘Old Syriac’ Vorlage for the Acts and Epistles, the question of a critical edition of the Peshiṭta Acts and Epistles becomes an urgent one. Important manuscript materials were collected by the Rev G. H. Gwilliam (continuing his work on the Gospels which appeared as his Tetraevangelium Sanctum, published by the Clarendon Press) and J. Pinkerton and utilised in the edition of the text published by the BFBS. But there is no introduction to this edition; no grounds for choice of readings are given; and there is no apparatus criticus. (…) we urgently need a critical edition of the Peshitta Syriac for Acts and the Epistles.’ ― In a letter dated 23. 04. 1990 and sent on request of Mrs. I. E. Parlevliet-Flesseman, Rev. Dr. Vrej Nersessian, then Manuscript Keeper in the Oriental Collections of the British Library, gave her details about Ms Or. 11,360. It was W. Baars, who directed her attention to the hand-written collations. 10 GRIERSON, ‘Without Note or Comment’ (1998) 98 note 64: ‘An edition of the Peshiṭta Acts is now in preparation by the author, with an apparatus indicating variants attested by over sixty 6

I. Previous Editions

xxvii

resumes the work of J. Pinkerton and is based upon the BFBS text, we shall come back to Ms BL or. 11,360 in sec. IV.2. b) The Gospels: Majority vote of manuscripts The established majority text of the Corpus Paulinum, which seems to be a temporary solution in view of the scant material it is based upon, receives a serious background from its relation to the editorial principle of the Gospel volume issued in 1901. In a series of articles11 published during the preparatory work on the Gospels, Gwilliam advocated a substantially uncorrupted Peshiṭta text that implicitly recommended a majority-based text as the self-evident method of editing. Gwilliam’s main concern (as well as Pusey’s) was the test of the Textus receptus printed in the Widmanstadt edition: To what degree did the Textus receptus of the Peshiṭta agree with the earliest codices? Gwilliam’s result was ‘(…) that the Syriac New Testament was not tampered with in the middle ages, but was read substantially by the ancient Syriac Church as Widmanstadt printed it.’ 12 The outstanding feature of the Peshiṭta is—according to Gwilliam—that ‘the ancient codices, and of both schools [i.e., Eastern and Western], agree so remarkably, that seldom is the true reading left doubtful.’13 The ‘critical’ effect of this editorial policy Gwilliam expected not from the majority vote as such but from the antiquity of the materials he used: his recensio textus of the Gospels is based on forty-two manuscripts mainly of the 5th–8th century that with few exceptions are extant in the ‘Tattam Collection’ (i.e., the ‘Nitrian Collection’ from Dayr al-Suryān in Egypt) of the then British Museum. ‘The conclusion is that in our oldest Peshitto MSS. we can read the New Testament as it was known to the Syrians of the fourth century.’14 Gwilliam’s results were a major reason for the absence of new editorial approaches to the NT Peshiṭta for more than one hundred years. The texts connected to Gwilliam and Pinkerton (esp. the BFBS volume) were reprinted throughout the 20th century or were adopted unchanged by most of the NT projects mentioned on the following pages. The present editorial approach to the Corpus Paulinum is much indebted to Gwilliam’s manuscripts preserved in London, Paris, Berlin, and other libraries.’ This edition was not published. 11 The articles were published in Studia Biblica et Ecclesiastica, Essays Chiefly in Biblical and Patristic Criticism: ‘An Account of a Syriac Biblical Manuscript of the fifth century, with special reference to its bearing on the text of the Syriac version of the Gospels’, vol. 1 (1885), 151–74. ― ‘The Ammonian Sections, the Eusebian Canons, and harmonizing tables in the Syriac Tetraevangelium, with notices of Peshitto and other MSS. which exhibit these accessories of the text’, vol. 2 (1890), 241–72. ― ‘The Materials for the criticism of the Peshitto New Testament, with specimens of the Syriac Massorah’, vol. 3 (1891), 47–104. ― ‘The Place of the Peshitto version in the Apparatus Criticus of the Greek New Testament’, vol. 5 (Oxford 1903), 189–237. All articles were reprinted by Gorgias Press in 2006. ― In 2002 the present writer failed to receive copies of Gwilliam’s articles by way of the German University loan system. D. G. K. Taylor (then in Birmingham) kindly sent photocopies on my request. 12 Studia Biblica et Ecclesiastica 1 (1885) 163. 13 Tetraeuangelium Sanctum (1901), praefatio vi. 14 Studia Biblica et Ecclesiastica 3 (1891) 66–67.

xxviii

Introduction

approach to the Gospels; however, it will try to improve his approach by turning the editorial principle of ‘majority vote of manuscripts’ into a history of the text. 2. Pupils of A. Vööbus: The quest for the Old Syriac (1971–1992) A series of unpublished dissertations on single Pauline Epistles began in 1971.15 After decades of research on the Peshiṭta Gospels, these dissertations initiated a turn towards the Corpus Paulinum. With the exception of the earlier dissertation of J. T. Clemons (1929−2011), 16 they were all stimulated and supervised by A. Vööbus (1909−1988). Their basic concern was to substantiate Vööbus’ view of the continuous role of the Old Syriac version in the history of the Syriac New Testament; and to contest the Rabbulan authorship of the Peshiṭta, which was introduced by F. C. Burkitt (1864‒1935) into the scholarly discussion. All these dissertations reproduce the BFBS text. The books of Clemons and Gudorf are complete editions of Galatians and Hebrews respectively; extensive collations of Peshiṭta manuscripts and patristic materials are added. The remaining dissertations are mainly interested in the Old Syriac background of the Peshiṭta and provide collations for selected chapters only: Freitag for 1Cor 7&15; Knappe for Eph 4, Php 2, and Col 1; Buck for Rom 8; Ross for 1Th 1&4, and 2Th 1. The innovative feature introduced to research by these dissertations is a systematic approach to the source materials of the Corpus Paulinum, and the inclusion of quotations. From the present-day point of view, there are two issues that point to the limitations of the materials collected in the dissertations. The first issue is the decision to leave the BFBS text untouched. An immensely enlarged number of manuscripts could have been used for critical reflection and improvement of the text. Gudorf is the only one to devote a chapter to possible or even necessary changes of the text. The second issue concerns the overestimation of the patristic materials compiled in the dissertations, especially of the materials from the Greek-to-Syriac translations. These materials are charged with filling the gap that is left by the absence of Old Syriac manuscripts of the Corpus Paulinum. Although the single authors of the dissertations discuss the reliability of patristic quotations at some length, disagreement with the Peshiṭta text is readily assessed as an antePeshiṭta textual tradition. The ambiguity of the material itself (Peshiṭta, Old Syriac or independent translation from the Greek?) is—unsurprisingly—hardly settled in a definitive way. According to the ante-Peshiṭta quotations collected by Kerschensteiner,17 these materials are not too dissimilar from the early Peshiṭta text of this Corpus. This is an obstacle to the identification of ante-Peshiṭta quotations in patristic sources (including translations).

FREITAG, Studies (1971). The dissertations that followed were KNAPPE, The Captivity Letters (1977); BUCK, Manuscript Studies (1978); ROSS, Studies (1983); GUDORF, Research (1992). 16 CLEMONS, Studies (1963). 17 KERSCHENSTEINER, Paulustext (1970). 15

I. Previous Editions

xxix

3. ‘The Aramaic New Testament’: Printing ancient manuscripts (1983) In 1983 ‘The Way International’, New Knoxville-Ohio, published a complete Peshiṭta New Testament printed in Esṭrangela.18 For the single corpora of the New Testament, the printed text reproduces ancient manuscripts, which are specified in the introduction.19 There is no apparatus. The Corpus Paulinum gives the text of Ms BL Add. 14,475 (5th/6th cent.; Ip3 in our edition). This choice was not bad, as Ip3 is a good representative of the pre-‘masoretic’ stage of the Corpus Paulinum. The portion Rom 1:1–18, which is defective in the basic manuscript, is replaced by Ms BL Add. 14,470 (5th/6th cent.; In1 in edition; of similar quality as Ip3). The printing is attractive; unfortunately, all diacritical points of the manuscripts are omitted. The reader is not informed that fol 1–8 (Rom 1:7–3:25) and fol. 180–208 (Heb 1:6–end) of the basic manuscript are supplements of the 10th century. According to the preface signed by V. P. Wierwille, the motivation to produce the volume derived from contact with G. M. Lamsa.20 The claim voiced in the introduction for advancing Biblical scholarship, mainly refers to the alleged Aramaic primacy of the New Testament; however, the true contribution to Biblical scholarship is the Concordance.21 4. ‘Das NT in syrischer Überlieferung’: Comparative editions (1986–2002) The project Das Neue Testament in syrischer Überlieferung was initiated by Barbara Aland22 and issued by the Institute for New Testament Textual Research (University of Münster). The broader scope of the volumes was to collect and to prepare the Syriac data for inclusion in the Greek Editio Critica Major of the NT prepared in the same Institute. The Syriac Major Catholic Epistles23 and the Corpus Paulinum 24 are published thus far. In view of the present edition, three features of the project deserve special attention: 1) The Old Syriac (i.e., ante-Peshiṭta) quotations, mainly from Afrahaṭ, Ephrem, and the Book of Steps (Liber Graduum), are aligned with the Peshiṭta. By this alignment it became unmistakably clear that the ante-Peshiṭta Corpus Paulinum is not as different from the traditional Peshiṭta as the Old Syriac Gospels. 2) The core of the presentation is not 18 The Aramaic New Testament. Esṭrangelo Script. Based on the Peshiṭta and Harklean Versions (1983). Actually, no Harklean texts are reproduced; the Minor Catholic Epistles and Revelation follow the texts published by J. Gwynn (as is correctly stated in the introduction). In 1985, The Concordance to the Peshiṭta Version of the Aramaic New Testament followed; and an English Dictionary, which is an English-Syriac word list of 59 pages. 19 In the Gospels, the main witness is BL Add. 14,453; in Acts/cath. Epp. BL Add. 14,473. 20 ‘His [i.e., Lamsa’s] knowledge of textual history plus the findings of other twentieth-century scholars indicated that Aramaic rather than Greek was the original language of the New Testament’ (p. vii). 21 Remarkable is also The Aramaic-English Interlinear New Testament (1988–1989), which is based on the text of the Aramaic New Testament alongside with a word-to-word English translation. 22 From the beginning, G. S. Wendt (1944–2011) served the project as a member of the Institute; with vol. II,2 the co-operation of Mrs. I. E. Parlevliet-Flesseman started. 23 ALAND, NTsyr I (1986). 24 ALAND/JUCKEL, NTsyr II (1991–2002).

xxx

Introduction

the Peshiṭta but the Ḥarklean, and the pre-history of this version reflected by the quotations in the Miaphysite translations of the 6th-century. Therefore, no comprehensive presentation of the Peshiṭta is intended. Nevertheless, the Peshiṭta line is based on thirteen manuscripts, among which are ten from the 5th–7th century. The printed text does not adopt the BFBS text but reproduces a single witness (Ms BL Add. 14,470 of the 5th/6th; In1 in our edition). This decision derives from the chronological order of the aligned texts. The chosen manuscript dates from the times of Philoxenus (d. 523). 3) The quotations are useful for tracing the dissemination of Peshiṭta variants in the textual history of the Syriac Bible, thus increasing the attestation of a given variant. Basically, they can preserve Peshiṭta variants that are not attested by any manuscript of the version; however, identification of a genuine Peshiṭta variant is hardly possible. 5. The Mor Gabriel Study Bible (1998–2007) The primary purpose of this complete NT 25 is to serve a Syriac readership, ‘to fulfil the need of seminarians, theologians, teachers of the Christian faith, and readers who are eager to study the Bible’ (preface viii). The text is based on Ms 35/2 (12th/13th, IIIn6 in our edition)26 of the Syriac-Orthodox Bishopric in Mardin. Missing portions are added from the text of the BFBS volume. A special feature are variant readings in the footnotes, taken from the Old Syriac (Burkitt, Smith Lewis), Peshiṭta (text of BFBS) Philoxenian (Gwynn), and the Harklean (White). At the end of the volume, extracts from the commentaries of the Church Fathers ( ̈ ) are compiled. The printing is superb 27. The text is divided into paragraphs throughout, each with a title. Cross references and the synoptic parallels are given. 6. ‘Sources Syriaques’: A Polyglot based on Syriac (2010) Since 2005 the project Sources Syriaques has been running in Antélias-Lebanon under the direction of the ‘Centre d’Études et de Recherches Orientales’ (CERO). 28 The purpose of the project is to promote the knowledge of fundamental Syriac texts in the original language and by translation into modern languages, especially into Arabic. The Syriac reproduces the text of the BFBS volume including the non-Peshiṭta texts prepared by J. Gwynn. An introduction in Arabic, French, and German sketches the history of the Peshiṭta. An Appendix gives variant readings of all writings that pertain to the Peshiṭta canon. Included are two Arabic translations on facing pages, a very literal interlinear translation, and an idiomatic translation, both in Modern Standard Arabic. Once the 25 The New Testament of Our Lord Jesus Christ. Text According to the Peshitto of Mardin. Prepared in the Monastery of Mor Gabriel in Cooperation with the United Bible Societies (Gospels 1998, the complete Bible 2007). The team responsible for the Bible in the Monastery of Ṭur ‛Abdin (Turkey) consists of İsa Gülten, Kuryakos Ergün, Yusuf Beğtas, and İsa Doğdu. 26 See below the description of IIIn6 (p. lxxxvii); and in Appendix 4 the collation of ‘U’. 27 See KIRAZ, Challenges (2012), who describes the genius behind the typesetting. 28 Le Nouveau Testament syriaque. La Peshiṭta: Interlinéaire Syriaque-Arabe (2010).

I. Previous Editions

xxxi

translations into modern languages are accomplished and presented together with the Syriac text on facing pages, the project will have produced a modern Polyglot of the New Testament based on Syriac. 7. G. Kiraz: ‘Syriac-English New Testament’ (2020) This Syriac-English edition by George A. Kiraz29 reproduces the BFBS volume, slightly adapting the archaic spelling to the contemporary West Syriac spelling. The subtitle reads: ‘The Traditional Syriac Peshiṭta Text and the Antioch Bible English Translation’. Since the ‘critical’ text of the BFBS volume is basically reproduced, the term ‘traditional’ here is not used in the historical sense but refers to the ‘substantial identity’ (Gwilliam) of the early Peshiṭta with the Textus receptus brought to Europe by Mushe of Mardin in the 16th century. The annotated English translation is taken from the ‘Antioch Bible’, an editorial project inaugurated by the same author. The introduction sketches the Peshiṭta in history from its beginnings up to and including the Textus receptus and the first critical edition. The Syriac text is divided into paragraphs throughout, each provided with a title. This volume successfully brings together tradition and scholarship and will become the standard hand-edition of the Peshiṭta NT.

29 KIRAZ (ed.), Syriac–English New Testament. The Traditional Syriac Peshitta Text and the Antioch Bible English Translation. Piscataway: Gorgias Press, 2020.

II. E D I T O R I A L C R I T I C I S M B A S E D O N T H E H I S T OR Y OF T H E T E X T The history of the Peshiṭta New Testament is marked by a standard text, which became dominant by association with the Eastern textual tradition. This text is fully developed since the 7th/8th centuries as one side of the East-West-bifurcation of textual traditions and reflected in a condensed form by the Eastern and Western ‘Syriac Masora’ of the 9th/10th centuries. While the Eastern textual tradition is almost invariably consistent from its beginning, the Western one is increasingly standardized by adaptation to the Eastern up to and including the 12th century. By consistency and growing dominance, the Eastern standard text is the appropriate starting point for entering the textual history of the Peshiṭta and for fixing the thread of ‘editorial criticism’. The editor’s task is not to offer a ‘definite’ or ‘original’ Peshiṭta text but to establish his or her recensio textus by a mechanical rule drawn from the history of the text. In editorial practice of abundantly transmitted texts, two popular mechanical rules exist: the recensio based on a single ‘best’ manuscript, and the ‘majority vote of manuscripts.’ In this chapter, we will outline the features of the standard text and the (third) mechanical rule for establishing our own recensio. 1. Eastern standard text The general conformity of the Peshiṭta is the common heritage of the still undivided Syriac Church; the standard text is a distinct feature based on the general conformity, enhancing this conformity since the 7th/8th centuries and becoming the backbone of the textual history. Identification of the standard text is provided by 238 significant variant units, which give proof of its coherent attestation (see below the list p. xlii). There are three characteristics of the standard text, which provide methodological elements for ‘editorial criticism’ and for establishing our recensio textus: a) The Eastern (ecclesiastical) character of the standard text Once the significant variant units were identified by collation, colophons proved the standard text as being mainly transmitted in manuscripts of Eastern provenance. In the Corpus Paulinum, the small number of five witnesses IIn1.2.7.10, and IIIn4 substantiate the Eastern provenance by colophons.1 In addition, support by an (almost) identical variant pattern of In2, Ix1, IIn4.5.6.8.11.12.13, IIIn1.3.5, IIIx1 IIIp1 (all without colophons) leaves beyond doubt that the Eastern standard text (EST) originates in the 6th/7th centuries and 1 See below the description of the manuscripts. ― Additional late witnesses of the EST give proof of the Eastern affiliation (they are not quoted in the present edition): Ms or. 2695 of the British Library (1514 AG/599 AH = 1202 AD), written in the Monastery of Mar Išo‛ya(h)b/Mar Ya‛qub (North of Dehok, FIEY, Assyrie chrétienne II [1965] 707–37); and Ms or. 5265 of the British Library (1556 AG = 1244/45 AD), written in the Monastery of Mar Michael near Moṣul (FIEY, Assyrie chrétienne II [1965] 660–71).

II. Editorial Criticism

xxxiii

is a continuous textual tradition. The indisputable witness of colophons is necessary for determining the Eastern ecclesiastical provenance, since prior to the 12th century, the Eastern ecclesiastical affiliation of Syriac manuscripts cannot be established by palaeography with certainty. 2 . The collations also provide evidence for a different textual tradition (here labelled ‘Western’) in the first millennium, which contrasts with the Eastern textual tradition. The justification of using here the terms ‘Eastern’ and ‘Western’ textual traditions derives from the ‘Syriac Masora’ (see below Appendix 3), which offers the historical substantiation for both textual traditions. b) The ancient and distinctive character of the standard text The EST is fully developed up to and including the 7th/8th centuries. The two 6th/7thc. witnesses In2, Ix1, which share most of the 238 significant readings with 5th/6th-century manuscripts, are the earliest witnesses to the standard text and testify to its ancient character. However, the additional feature of exclusive agreements between In2, Ix1 (significant readings not shared with 5th/6th-c. manuscripts)3 reflects a distinctive (secondary) formation of the EST. The formation of the EST earlier to the 7th century remains obscure. A recensional character is unlikely because of the minor importance of the significant readings. More likely is the selection of a single manuscript (‘archetype’) at the origin of the EST. The Western textual tradition4 is without variant pattern of its own— contrasting with the EST is the only distinctive feature. Providing the background for the EST, it rather echoes the earliest textual variations than gives a distinctive formation of its own. Nevertheless, the ‘Syriac Masora’ (see below in Appendix 3 ) will give proof of the Western textual tradition as a consistent figure in history. c) The absorbent character of the standard text Since the 7th/8th centuries, the East-West-bifurcation of textual traditions embedded in conformity is given. Up to and including the 12th century (and beyond), standardization has operated to dissolve the East-West-bifurcation in favour of the EST, thus enhancing textual conformity. The EST is the condition, not the result, of standard ization: the Western textual tradition continually suffers adaptation to the EST and In his Catalogue, W. WRIGHT several times uses the term ‘Nestorian Esṭrangela’ (e. g. I 52b, 53b, 58a, 60a). This term, however, cannot be taken as a distinct Eastern script but simply denotes the Esṭrangela of manuscripts, which are Eastern according to their colophons. On p. 58a, however, the term is used for the script of a 9th-century manuscript without colophon. ― In his Catalogue of the manuscripts in the Cambridge University Library, WRIGHT frequently uses the term ‘Nesṭorian Serṭa’, e. g. for the script of the Mss Add. 1973, 1975–1979, 1995. Here the term denotes the cursive script of witnesses, which are Eastern by their colophons. — In their Catalogue (2014) xxi–xxii, S. BROCK and L. v. ROMPAY introduce a basic five-fold classification for catching the variety of different scripts. This classification implicitly refers to the ecclesiastical affiliation of the manuscripts by assigning a ‘developed, or later Serto’ to the ‘12th century onwards’. 3 The 47 distinctive agreements are marked in the list of Significantly Attested Variant Units (below p. xlii). 4 The Western Readings of the Bifurcation are given in a special list (below p. lii). 2

xxxiv

Introduction

becomes a variety of the standard text, perceivable by the slightly reduced percentage of participation in the EST of its witnesses. From the 12th century, the bifurcation of textual traditions has been replaced by the bifurcation of palaeographical traditions. 2. History of the text The history of the text is the formation and dissolution of the East-West-bifurcation of textual traditions. While access to the beginning formation is hardly given, the bifurcation itself and its dissolution are traceable throughout the centuries. The EST provides the backbone of the textual history, the adaptation of the Western textual tradition to the EST provides the dynamic of standardization. The continuous reduction of the EastWest-bifurcation in favour of the EST (i.e. the enhancement of the conformity) is conditioned by different periods in the history of the Syriac Churches. a) Textual stages & periods of transmission There is a ‘masoretic’ stage in the textual history since the 7th/8th centuries, which coincides with the Islamic period of the Syrians as the period of transmission. We distinguish the early period from the 7th to the 11th-century, and the late period from the 12th to the 16th century (and beyond). The earlier period is the time of codification of the Eastern and Western cultural heritage, and when the Abbasides reach the height of their culture. The later period is the time of the so-called ‘Syriac Renaissance’.5 And there is a non-standardized pre-‘masoretic’ textual stage of the 5th–7th century, which is the time when the Syrians establish themselves in the Sasanian and Byzantine Empire and develop Eastern and Western branches, divided by a serious political border. Since in both Churches this time is very fertile in producing Greek-to-Syriac translations, we call it the Byzantine period of the Syrian Church(es).6 During this Byzantine period, the East-Westbifurcation is under formation. Textual stages

Periods of transmission

Times

Characteristics

pre-‘masoretic’

Aramaic

ca 150–400

Bardaiṣan, Diat., Old Syriac

pre-‘masoretic’ early ‘masoretic’ late ‘masoretic’

Byzantine early Islamic late Islamic

ca 400–700 ca 700–1100 from ca 1100

from P to Jacob of Edessa the flourishing Abbasids the ‘Syriac Renaissance’

BAUMSTARK, Geschichte (1922) 285–326; KAWERAU, Die Jakobitische Kirche (1960); TEULE et alii, The Syriac Renaissance (2010). 6 The time of the Diatessaron and of the Old Syriac may be designated the ‘Aramaic’ Period (ca 150–400 AD). 5

II. Editorial Criticism

xxxv

b) History of the text & history of transmission In the present edition, the term ‘history of the text’ denotes the development of the text from an early conformity in the Byzantine period to an enhanced and standardized conformity in the Islamic period. ‘History of transmission’ denotes the formation of the text by history. We are relating (the pre-‘masoretic’ and ‘masoretic’) stages of textual development to the (Byzantine and Islamic) periods of the Syrian Church(es), understanding the textual development as issue and part of these periods. By linking manuscripts with periods of transmission and linking variants with the formative conditions of these periods, ‘history of the text’ and ‘history of transmission’ are two aspects of the same textual development. c) Textual history & recensio textus The conformity of the 5th/6th-c. witnesses may derive from the ‘pre-schismatic’ stage of the text as the earliest stage in the textual history; on the extent of variation in this stage, no decision is possible since all available 5th/6th-c. witnesses originate from the time when the ecclesiastical split was already a matter of fact. The textual scenery provided by the 5th/6th-c. transmission implies a process of diversification (partly by Greek influence) of an early conformity.7 This process turns into the opposite from the 7th/8th centuries when under Islam the EST and standardization irresistably advance. While the conformity of the pre-‘masoretic’ stage derives from the ‘original’ or ‘pre-schismatic’ text (both are theoretical figures), the enhancement of conformity during the ‘masoretic’ stage derives from standardization, now reflecting the growing identity of the Eastern with the Western textual tradition. The recensio of the present edition is based on this identity of both textual traditions. In case of ‘significant’8 textual split, the recensio is built on the rejection of the (future) ESTreading, even though most of these readings are already extant in the pre-‘masoretic’ stage. This mechanical rule issues from the history of the text: we consider the distinct formation of the EST as an early, though secondary, development within the pre‘masoretic’ stage. In contrast to the majority vote of manuscripts, this recensio will remain unaffected by additional witnesses of any date.

7 The diversification of the early conformity is reflected by ‘harmonization’, e.g. in the greeting formulas of the Epistles, see Eph 1:1, Col 1:2, 2Th 1:3, Tit 1:4. Additional harmonization we meet Rom 8:25.27, 13:12; 1Co 2:1, 11:29; 2Co 1:8 (twice), 3:14, 5:21, 13:1; Gal 3:11.22, 5:22, 6:4; Eph 1:8, 4:13, 6:4; Php 2:11; Col 1:14, 4:1.4; 1Th 3:13; 2Th 2:17; 1Tm 5:14; 2Tm 2:1; Heb 4:7 (twice). 8 ‘Significant’ means variants pertaining to the 238 significant test units given in the list p. xlii. ‘Insignificant’ textual split, usually attested by few witnesses only and not extant for all periods of transmission, are not subjected to ‘editorial criticism’.

xxxvi

Introduction

3. Editorial criticism Editorial criticism supplies the historical knowledge of documents, which is indispensable for textual criticism.9 Transforming this knowledge into a ‘critical’ arrangement of the text to edit, the editor applies a mechanical rule based on the history of the text. a) Editorial criticism & textual criticism The task of this editorial criticism is to distinguish10 the historical lines of the textual transmission, considering the pre-‘masoretic’ and ‘masoretic’ stages of the text, and the Byzantine and Islamic periods of history. By using history as the framing for the recensio, editorial criticism can only present the earliest stage of text, leaving the decision on the ‘originality’ of single variants within this earliest stage to textual criticism. Editorial criticism is the preparatory stage of textual criticism. b) Editorial criticism & systematic approach A systematic approach to the textual materials of the Peshiṭta NT is possible without full collation of (ideally) all manuscripts. In the Corpus Paulinum, the abundance of manuscripts is connected to the ‘masoretic’ textual stage, while the pre-‘masoretic’ stage is presently attested by the small number of some fifteen witnesses only. The huge number of at least one hundred 8th–16th-c. manuscripts of the ‘masoretic’ textual stage is a challenge for the collator(s). Nevertheless, identifying manuscripts with EST without full collation was achieved by an abridged collation procedure based on the series of 238 significant variant units (see below the list p. xlii). By this procedure, identified witnesses to the EST from the early and late ‘masoretic’ period were included in the edition, thus contributing to exposing the standard text. By the same procedure, manuscripts of originally Western descent were identified and included. As the EST in the late ‘masoretic’ period is abundantly attested, we preferred standardized manuscripts of originally Western descent, restricting the attestation of the EST to IIIn4. Since the focus of the edition is on the standardization of the text during history, i.e. on the adaptation of the Western textual tradition to the EST, only a selection of lectionaries and ‘masoretic’ manuscripts is included in the present edition.11 The editorial criticism behind this decision considers the independent textual history of lectionaries and ‘masoretic’ manuscripts respectively, which both should not charge the apparatus of the present edition with secondary materials that are liable to alterations by their selective ‘Knowledge of documents should precede final judgement upon readings’, HORT, The New Testament in the Original Greek, vol. 2 (1881) 31. The required knowledge is the classification of documents according to their respective place within the history of the text. 10 It should be remembered that the primary meaning of kr…nein is ‘to set apart so as to distinguish, separate’, DANKER, Greek-English Lexicon ( 32000) 567. 11 See below Appendix 2 and 3. — Quotations from the Corpus Paulinum are extant in ALAND, NTSyr II (1991–2002). The original plan to include the quotations in a selective way in the present edition (incl. those collected by KERSCHENSTEINER, Paulustext 1970 ), we abandoned for the sake of space. 9

II. Editorial Criticism

xxxvii

and abridged character. 12 The included five lectionaries (4 Western, 1 Eastern) and ‘masoretic’ manuscripts (6 Western, 1 Eastern) were selected in accordance with the focus of the edition, i.e. to give proof of the East-West-bifurcation of textual traditions and to reflect the textual standardization. c) Editorial criticism & printed edition The natural way of presenting the history of the text in a printed edition is to give the ‘pre-schismatic’ text, which is largely available by the undivided text of the pre‘masoretic’ stage as the common origin of the Eastern and Western textual traditions. The bifurcation of textual traditions and its dissolution in favour of the EST by standardization during the ‘masoretic’ stage is delegated to the apparatus. Being the result of editorial criticism, the claim of this edition is to represent the essential historical lines of the textual history. 13 Due to the ‘representative’ character of the edition, additional evidence for the essential features is welcome. Especially support for non-Eastern (‘Western’) variants from the ‘masoretic’/ Islamic period is much to be desired. The historical lines of the textual history are visualized by special features in the critical apparatus of the present edition: The witnesses of the pre-‘masoretic’/ Byzantine and ‘masoretic’/ Islamic periods of the textual history are marked by fixing a Roman numeral to all sigla;14 and Western witnesses of the early ‘masoretic’ textual stage (when the East-West-bifurcation is most developed) are in italics.15 By distinguishing stages and periods of the textual history and marking witnesses of the Western textual tradition, the process of standardization during history is explicitly inscribed into the apparatus. 4. Textual history and ‘majority vote of mss’ (Gospels, 1901; B.F.B.S, 1920) The present edition resumes Gwilliam’s and Pinkerton’s efforts16 to edit the Praxapostolos as a sequel to the Pusey-Gwilliam volume of the Gospels (1901). Despite the increased number of witnesses and refined editorial criticism, there are only 76 differences between the present edition and the BFBS text, which is based on the ‘majority vote’ of a dozen manuscripts. Within the one hundred chapters of the Corpus Paulinum, sixty-two of these differences refer to the agreement of the BFBS text with the EST, the remaining

Nevertheless, agreement with existing variants and remarkable readings of the selected lectionaries and ‘masoretic’ manuscripts are included in the apparatus of the present edition. The variants are fully collected in Appendix 2 & 3. 13 Orthography is not included and deserves a documentation and study of its own. 14 E. g., In1 is a manuscript, which originates from the pre-‘masoretic’/Byzantine period; IIn7 one from the ‘masoretic’/early Islamic period, IIIn4 one from the ‘masoretic’/ late Islamic period. 15 Except for the late witnesses to the Western ‘Syriac Masora’, no Western witnesses are marked in the late ‘masoretic’ stage. In this stage, the bifurcation of textual traditions is almost obliterated by the dominance of the EST and replaced by the bifurcation of an Eastern and Western palaeographical tradition since the 12th century. 16 These efforts are preserved in the hand-written collation of Ms BL Add 11,360, which is based on a dozen of manuscripts, see below p. xciv–xcv. 12

xxxviii

Introduction

differences to grammatical forms and (printing) errors.17 While the text of both editions is substantially the same, the major difference is the critical apparatus. The main reason for the almost identical texts in the Corpus Paulinum is Pinkerton’s use of six witnesses from the 5th–7th centuries, and of the single Eastern witness to the ‘Syriac Masora’, which also belong to the most prominent witnesses of our edition. However, the majority vote of manuscripts on which the BFBS text is based, offers only an artificial majority vote drawn from a small number of early witnesses. Therefore, the far-reaching identity with our text is no surprise. Nevertheless, the question should be raised as to whether the editorial principle of ‘majority vote of manuscripts’ is an appropriate editorial technique for meeting the historical lines of the Peshiṭta. As the majorityprinciple derives from the Gospel volume (1901), Gwilliam’s editorial criticism is in the focus of the question. a) Gwilliam’s editorial criticism Gwilliam’s expertise and acumen can best be seen in his article of 189118, which gives an outline of the materials on which his editorial criticism of the Gospels is based. The materials Gwilliam surveys are the most ancient Peshiṭta codices in European libraries (I), and witnesses to the ‘Syriac Masora’, which he discusses at some length (II); he points to affinities between the oldest Peshiṭta codices and the texts quoted by the 4th-c. writers Aphrahaṭ and Ephrem (III), to prove the existence of the Peshiṭta already in the fourth century;19 he admits a minor impact of the East-West-division of the Syrians on the ancient codices (IV);20 and rejects the view that the Peshiṭta was formed by revision(s)21 or by descent from the Curetonian manuscript (V).22 But in (VI) he reports with much 17 The remaining 14 differences are Rom 15,8; 1Co 15,54 (twice); 2Co 4,6; 12,2; Gal 3,17; Php 1,26/27; 4,18; Heb 4,6; 6,9; 8,8; 8,9; 12,3; 12,25. All 76 differences are marked ‘BS’ in the apparatus. 18 ‘The Materials for the criticism of the Peshitto New Testament, with specimens of the Syriac Massorah’, Studia Biblica et Ecclesiastica 3 (1891) 47–104. 19 ‘These [ancient Peshiṭta codices] in actual age are approximate to the times of Ephraim and Aphraates, while they are the representatives of a text which was at least current in the days of those writers … There are no grounds whatever for the suspicion that such MSS. as Add. 14,459 or 17,117 belong to the ‘first edition’, so to speak, of the Peshitto.’ (66). 20 ‘At a later period Nestorian MSS. presented marked characteristics, partly in readings, still more in vowel-marks, and in handwriting and ornamentation … In the sixth and following centuries the schism was completed, and between the Eastern and Western copies of those times differences may be discovered which point to different streams of tradition in the monasteries, while the text itself is undoubtedly the same’ (67–68). The conclusion is ‘(i) That there were two distinct streams of tradition in the transmission of the vernacular of the Syriac Church. And yet – (ii) That only one text is supported by the two lines of evidence’ (71–72). 21 ‘We find hardly a trace of ‘the several successive revisions’ to which it is supposed the Syriac vernacular New Testament was subjected; rather does it present itself in our copies in a perfected and matured condition. If the ‘revisions’ ever really took place, time has swept away nearly all the chips and shavings of the work’ (84). 22 ‘Isolated passages may be adduced in evidence of greater or less similarity. The problem is to account for the many divergences. Whatever be the relative dates of the two Versions [i.e. of

II. Editorial Criticism

xxxix

approval Pusey’s view ‘that there were distinct traces of revision of the Peshitto made about the time when Add. 14,448 [dated by Wright 699–700 AD] was written, but that such revision extended only to the grammatical forms’ (87).23 And when decisions have to be made between Eastern and Western variants (VII), ‘we give the preference to the (so-called) Jacobite reading. But each case must be judged on its own merits’ (91).24 b) Missing the Eastern textual tradition ‘Two distinct streams of tradition’ but ‘only one text’ is the tenor of Gwilliam’s editorial criticism, which results in a recensio based on the ‘majority vote of manuscripts’.25 Although Gwilliam’s editorial criticism refers to the Gospels, and ours to the Corpus Paulinum, some agreements between both catch the eye. The most obvious agreement is the East-West-division of manuscripts, and the assumed secondary character of the Eastern tradition. The agreement even extents to the indistinct, and thus more ancient (‘pre-Nestorian’), character of the Western tradition, and to the Eastern revisional traces since the 7th century. No doubt, Gwilliam’s editorial criticism is based on the East-Westdivision of the Syrians; but it is restricted to the conformity current in the 5th–7th centuries and reduces ‘history’ to ‘modernization’ and ‘modifications in form and spelling’, i.e. to the inevitable outward changes of the ‘one text’ in a different ecclesiastical milieu. This secondary and non-revisional character of the Eastern tradition could not —according to Gwillilam—play a decisive role in the textual history, not even in the light of the ‘Syriac Masora’, which ‘had attained maturity in the century which succeeded

the Peshiṭta and the Curetonian], the above passage is alone sufficient to exhibit the width of the gulf which lies between them’ (86). 23 ‘The MSS. of the Eastern School … began to assume their distinctive form during the seventh century … The text was slightly modernized by the adoption of such modifications in form and spelling as those which are collected in classes 2 and 3 out of our specimen given above [p. 68–71]. During this period those differences of pronunciation were noted and fixed which are recorded in the Massoretic works of East and West. Individual possessors of particular codices, as in the case of Cod. 8 [Add 17,114; 6th/7th], corrected their copies to some slight extent in accordance with what was deemed the better type in their own neighbourhood. Thus arose the few variants which are found, and such as have been noted in our specimen’ (87–88). 24 The reason for this preference is that distinct ‘Nestorian’ readings are of secondary character (or are superseded by the number of ‘Jacobite’ witnesses). On p. 72 Gwilliam discusses Cod. 8 [Add 17,114; 6th/7th], a codex with ‘Nestorian’ corrections, for illustration. He sees the original scribe of Cod. 8 working when ‘the differences between the [Eastern and Western] Schools were not finally established in his time. If so, it will follow that the Nestorian type is the result of correction and revision, and therefore that the Jacobite is the older’ (72). This means, the corrections were introduced into a text still neither ‘Jacobite’ nor ‘Nestorian.’ A few lines later, Gwilliam calls the 5th-c. manuscripts BL Add. 14,459, Add. 14,470, and Add. 17,117 ‘rather preNestorian than Jacobite.’ 25 Gwilliam himself did not use the term ‘majority vote of manuscripts’; it was coined by BLACK, Peshitta Tetraeuangelium (1953) 26. However, Tetraeuangelium (1901) vii Gwilliam says: ‘Textus Syriaci verba ad fidem testium multorum, eorumque et bonae notae et magnae vetustatis, recensui.’

xl

Introduction

the era of the youngest of our best copies of the Peshitto (64)’.26 According to Gwilliam, there is no real history of the text. For three reasons Gwilliam missed the true significance of the Eastern textual tradition for the history of the text. 1) Gwilliam’s concern (as well as Pusey’s) was not the textual history of the Peshiṭta Gospels but the integrity of the early text and the ‘substantial’ agreement with the Textus receptus. In our terms, the Byzantine period is well documented, the Islamic period not.27 Comparing the earliest text with the Textus receptus, Gwilliam missed the textual history in between (the enhancement of early conformity by the later one) and the proper understanding of how the Textus receptus reached its final form. By restricted inclusion of Eastern witnesses, and by only selective collation of manuscripts in general, Gwilliam missed the true extent and significance of the Eastern textual tradition for standardization. 2) At the end of the 19th century, knowledge about the revisional relation between the Old Syriac and the Peshiṭta was still in its infancy; hence Gwilliam’s emphasis on the antiquity and intactness of the text. The origins of the Peshiṭta he could imagine only in terms of an ‘Ur-Peshiṭta’,28 the history of the Peshiṭta only in terms of textual ‘modernization’. His emphasis on the unrevised character of the text made Gwilliam miss the conformity enhanced by standardization and based on the Eastern textual tradition. 3) Finally, Gwilliam was the first to edit a Syriac text with a recensio based on an abundant manuscript attestation. Being without model he could follow,29 he adopted the majority vote of manuscripts. This simple but conclusive way of mastering the abundance of manuscripts may be the reason for the absence of explicit editorial criticism, i.e. of editorial terms and definitions.30 Gwilliam’s decision for the majority vote may be 26 ‘But, owing to more favourable circumstances [i.e. owing to the availability of ancient codices], we do not depend on it [i.e. the Syriac Massorah] for our Peshitto text, although it has a great value in questions of pronunciation, of accentuation, and of interpunction’ (65). 27 Among Gwilliam’s forty-two codices (mainly from the 5th/8th century), eight only are constant witnesses and the backbone of the edition. Six Eastern manuscripts are included, but one only sufficiently quoted in the apparatus. See the analysis (p. viii*–xiii*) of the use and restricted exploitation of manuscripts in the introduction to the reprint (2003) of the Tetraeuangelium (1901). 28 ‘An Ur-Peshitto may once have existed, and perhaps it provided the Evangelia out of which Tatian constructed his Harmony; but its ancient text still waits for the patient investigator or the lucky discoverer (…). Meanwhile, it is certainly premature to treat Cureton’s MS. as the basis of the Peshitto, and to quote it habitually as the ‘Old Syriac’. That term might fitly be applied to so much of the text of the Curetonian as could be shown to be older than the Peshitto text; but to apply it without reserve to the text of Add. 14,451 [i.e. the Curetonian Ms] is to beg the question’ (90). 29 Editorial approaches to a critical edition of the Peshiṭta OT started around the turn from the 19th to the 20th centuries. The inclusion of existing printed editions of the Textus receptus and of an abundant manuscript attestation resulted in extensive outlines of editorial criticism previous to the expected editions: BARNES, Apparatus Criticus to Chronicles (1897), ID., Peshitta Psalter (1904), DIETTRICH, Ein Apparatus criticus (1905). See also RAHLFS, Beiträge (1889). 30 Gwilliam never used the terms ‘majority text’ or ‘majority vote,’ the term ‘original text’ is represented by ‘true reading’.

II. Editorial Criticism

xli

related to stemmatic-genealogical reasoning, identifying textual conformity with textual integrity.31 However, without proper understanding of the Eastern textual tradition, this simple and conclusive way of editing missed the difference between the pre-‘masoretic’ and ‘masoretic’ conformity. c) Inspiration Coming back to the question, whether the editorial principle of ‘majority vote of manuscripts’ is appropriate for meeting the historical lines of the Peshiṭta, the answer must be given in the negative. It is not really drawn from ‘history’ but rather from ‘antiquity’ only (i.e. from the earliest witnesses). Ignoring the true extent and significance of the Eastern tradition as a textual tradition and as the backbone of the textual history, the majority vote obscures both the textual bifurcation and standardization. Nevertheless, Gwilliam’s ‘substantial identity’ (of the early text with the Textus receptus) is full of inspiration. It invites one to put the focus on editorial criticism by putting this identity into a historical perspective and describing it as a history of conformity. In addition, Gwilliam’s emphasis on the version’s antiquity and intactness inspires one to reassess the Peshiṭta’s conformity. There was no doubt from the beginning that the Peshiṭta as an abundantly attested text developed by enhancing conformity, i.e. by standardization. Finally, conformity opened a perspective on the reasoned reduction of the abundant, late, and identical materials. Gwilliam’ genius paved the way for others to follow and to update.

Based on the ‘substantial identity’ of the Textus receptus with the early text, Gwilliam’s recensio is intended as a more authentic and more ‘original’ incarnation of the former. Therefore, it was no option for Gwilliam to print the Textus receptus, against which the manuscripts were collated, as the recensio. 31

III. T H E B I F U R C A T I O N O F T E X T UA L T R A D I T I O NS The Eastern standard text (EST) is the backbone of the textual history and overwhelmingly attested from the 7th to the 16th centuries (and beyond). Since the beginning of the ‘masoretic’ textual stage in the 7th/8th centuries, the bifurcation into an Eastern and Western textual tradition is fully developed and substantiated by the ‘Syriac Masora’ in the 9th/10th centuries. This chapter gives details about the identification of both textual traditions. 1. Identification of the textual traditions In the Corpus Paulinum, the identification of the textual traditions is based on 238 variant units, which reveal a significant split into a textual bifurcation since the 7th/8th century. The bifurcation is significantly attested by a consistent Eastern majority on the one hand, and by a less consistent non-Eastern (‘Western’) minority of witnesses on the other. The Eastern ecclesiastical affiliation of the major textual tradition is proved by colophons (IIn1, IIn2, IIn7, IIn10, and IIIn4) and by textual identity throughout the centuries. The Western affiliation of the minor textual tradition is supported by the ‘Syriac Masora’; the consistency is given only by contrast with the Eastern textual tradition. Due to the defective conditions of the codices, only two witnesses of the second millennium (IIIn6, IIIn7) show a Western affiliation by colophon. Attested by a comparatively small number of witnesses only, and constantly affected by the EST (standardization), this textual tradition needs explicit identification as part of the textual bifurcation. Before this identification is provided, the bifurcation itself is presented in the table of the 238 significant variant units.1 Significantly Attested Variant Units (The East-West-Bifurcation) The following table gives the 238 variant units, which reflect a significant East-West-bifurcation. The first reading gives the (Western) text of our edition; the second reading gives the EST. ― Additional useful information is given by the three adjacent columns: Column A: Replacement of the BFBS text in our edition (62 times in this list; for additional 14 times see p. xxxviii ftn 18; fields without ‘x’: BFBS text identical with our edition. Column B: The Eastern (‘e’) and/or Western (‘w’) ‘Masora’ is extant in the apparatus of the edition (with 6 exceptions, ‘e’ reads the EST, ‘w’ not always the Western reading); fields without ‘e’ or ‘w’: no text in the ‘Masora’. Column C: In2 and Ix1 are the only early witnesses to the EST (47 times). ‘x/ ’ = Ix1 lac ‘ /x’ = In2 lac ‘x/x’ = both witnesses extant; fields without ‘x’: EST attested by at least one pre-‘masoretic’ witness different from In2 and Ix1. 1 JUCKEL, A Guide (2012) 105–163. In this article, the number of significantly attested variant units is still 227. Meanwhile, by full inclusion of IIn3, and of IIn14, eleven additional variant units could be identified (#8, 49, 65, 70, 89, 159, 160, 182, 199, 217, 219).

III. Bifurcation of Textual Traditions

#

Places

1

Rom 1,13

2

Rom 2,1

3

Rom 3,2

4

Rom 4,16

5

Rom 6,4

6

Rom 6,13

7

Rom 7,19

8

Rom 8:17

9

Rom 8,23

10

Rom 8,36

11

Rom 8,39

12

Rom 8,39

13

Rom 9,5

14

Rom 9,7

15

Rom 9,19

16

Rom 9,26

17

Rom 10,3

18

Rom 11,9

19

Rom 11,16

20

Rom 11,20

21

Rom 11,24

22

Rom 11,25

23

Rom 12,2

24

Rom 12,3

25

Rom 13,1

26

Rom 13,4

27

Rom 13,8

28

Rom 13,9

29

Rom 13,9

30

Rom 13,11

31

Rom 13,12

Text of the Edition ↔ Eastern Standard Text

‫ܕܬܕ ܢ ܐ ̈ ↔ ܐ ̈ ܕܬܕ ܢ‬ ‫ܘܐܦ ↔ ܐܦ‬ ‫↔ ܕܐܬܗ‬ ‫ܕܐܬܗ‬ ‫ܕ ܘ ↔ܘ ܘ‬ ‫ ↔ ܐܬ ܢ‬+ ‫ܘܐܦ ↔ ܐܦ‬ ̇ ↔ + ‫ܗܘ‬ ‫ܐܦ ↔ ܘܐܦ‬ ‫ܪ ↔ܘ ܪ‬ ‫↔ ܐܬ‬ ‫ܘܐܬ‬ ‫ܘܐܦ ↔ ܐ‬ ‫↔ܬ‬ ‫ܕܬ‬ ‫↔ܕ‬ ‫ܘܐܦ ↔ ܐ‬ ‫↔ܕ‬ ‫ܕ‬ ‫↔ܕ‬ ↔ ‫ܕ‬ ‫ܘ ↔ܕ ܘ‬ 1‫ܐܢ ↔ ܘܐܢ‬ ‫↔ ܗ ܐܬ‬ ‫ܐܬ‬ ‫̣ܗ ܢ ↔ ̇ܗ ܢ‬ ↔ ‫ܕ‬ ‫↔ܨ‬ ‫ܨ‬ 2‫ܕܬܗܘܘܢ ↔ ܬܗܘܘܢ‬ ̈ ↔ ↔ ̈

xliii

A

B

C

e/w

x x x/ x

e e e

x/

w x x/ x

‫ܗ‬

‫ܗ↔ ܗ‬ ‫ܐܦ ↔ ܘܐܦ‬ ‫ܠ ܘ ܬ ܪ↔ܕ ܬ ܪ ܘ ܬ ܠ‬ ‫ܘܐܦ ↔ ܐܦ‬ ‫ܗ‬ ↔ ‫ܗ‬

e e

x

e

x e w

‫ܕ ܬ‬

w x

x/

e x/

xliv

Introduction Text of the Edition ↔ Eastern Standard Text

#

Places

32

Rom 14,2

33

Rom 14,8

34

Rom 14,20

35

Rom 15,20

36

Rom 15,29

37

1Co 1,10

38

1Co 1,24

39

1Co 3,10

40

1Co 4,9

41

1Co 4,9

42

1Co 4,19

43

1Co 5,2

44

1Co 5,3

45

1Co 5,10

46

1Co 6,18

47

1Co 7,15

48

1Co 7,28

1

49

1Co 7,32

50

1Co 8,2

51

1Co 8,6

52

1Co 8,7

53

1Co 9,7

54

1Co 9,7

‫ ↔ ܐ ܕ‬1-4-2-3 ‫ܕ̣ ܥ ܡ ↔ ܕ̇ ܥ ܡ‬ ‫ܐܦ ↔ ܘܐܦ‬ ↔+ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܬ‬ ↔ ‫ܬ‬ ̈ ↔

55

1Co 9,10

56

1Co 9,25

57

1Co 10,10

58

1Co 10,17

59

1Co 10,24

60

1Co 11,9

61

1Co 11,12

62

1Co 11,16

63

1Co 11,17

64

1Co 11,25

‫ܗܘ‬ ↔ om ‫ܗܘ‬ 1‫ܢ‬ ↔ + ‫ܗܘ‬ ̈ ↔ ‫↔ ܕܐ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫↔ܕ‬ ‫ܕܬܗܘܘܢ ↔ ܬܗܘܘܢ‬ ↔ + ‫ܗܘ‬ ̇ ‫̇ ↔ܐ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ↔ ‫ܕ‬ ̈ ‫̈ ↔ܘ‬ ‫̇ܕܗ ܢ ↔ ܕܗ‬ ̣ ↔ ̇ ̣ ↔ ̇

A

B

C

e/w x/ x

e w e w x

e

↔

1

↔+ ↔ om

x

‫↔ܕ‬

‫ܗܘ‬ ‫ܕ‬

x e/w e/w

↔

‫↔ܐ‬

‫ܐܦ ↔ ܘܐ‬ ‫ ↔ܐ‬+ ‫ܗ‬ ↔ + ‫ܐܦ‬ ‫ܐܦ ↔ ܘܐ‬ ‫ ↔ ܗܘ‬om ‫ܗܘ‬ ‫ܐ ↔ ܕܐ‬ ‫ܘܬ‬ ↔ + ‫ܗܘ‬ ‫↔ ܕܐ‬ ‫ܕܐ‬

e/w

x/

e

x/

e/w

‫ܐ‬

e e/w e x

x

e

x

e

x

III. Bifurcation of Textual Traditions #

Text of the Edition ↔ Eastern Standard Text

Places

‫̈ ܝ‬

xlv A

B

65

1Co 12,28

‫ܝ‬

66

1Co 13,5

3

67

1Co 13,12

68

1Co 14,19

69

1Co 14,37

70

1Co 15,4

71

1Co 15,9

↔ om

72

1Co 15,12

↔

73

1Co 15,14

74

1Co 15,27

↔ + ‫ܗܝ‬

e

75

1Co 15,39

e

76

1Co 15,41

77

1Co 15,55

78

1Co 16,1

79

1Co 16,6

80

1Co 16,8

81

1Co 16,24

82

2Co 3,2

83

2Co 3,3

84

2Co 3,14

85

2Co 4,4

86

2Co 4,8

‫↔ܕ‬ 2 ‫ ↔ ܘܐ‬+ ‫ܗܘ‬ ‫ܗܝ ↔ ܐܘ ܐ ܗܝ‬ ‫ܕ‬ ‫↔ܕ‬ ‫ܕܐ ܘܢ ↔ ܘܐ ܘܢ‬ ‫↔ܕ‬ ‫ ↔ ܥ‬+ ‫ܐ‬ ‫↔ܕ‬ ‫ܘܢ‬ ↔ ‫ܐ ܘܢ‬ ‫̈ ܘܢ‬ ↔ ‫̈ ܘܢ‬ ‫↔ܕ ܗ ܕ‬ ↔ ‫ܕ‬

87

2Co 4,10

88

2Co 4,13

89

2Co 4,16

90

2Co 4,18

91

2Co 5,11

92

2Co 6,16

93

2Co 7,2

94

2Co 7,6

95

2Co 7,9

96

2Co 7,14

97

2Co 7,15

↔

C

x

‫↔ܘ‬ ‫ܬ ↔ ̈ ܬ‬ ‫↔ܐ‬ ‫ ↔ܐ‬+ ‫ܕ‬ ‫ܘ ↔ ܘܕ‬

e x

w w

x

e

x x/x

‫ܕ‬

‫ܘܐܦ ↔ ܐܦ‬

x/x

x/x

‫ܘܐ‬ ‫ܕ ܕ‬

x

e

x

w w

x/x

e x/x e/w e

‫ܕ‬

e x/x

↔ +

‫ܘܐܦ ↔ ܐܦ‬

x/x

3

↔ tr ↔

̈

x

‫ܕ‬

x/x

↔ + ‫ܗܘ‬

‫↔ܕ‬ ̈ ‫ܐ ̈ ↔ܐ‬ ‫↔ ܢ‬ ‫ܬ‬ ↔ + ‫ܗܘ‬ ‫ܡ‬ ‫ܡ ↔ܕ‬ ‫ܘܐܦ ↔ ܐܦ‬

x

w

2

e/w e/w w

‫ܕ‬

e /x

xlvi

Introduction Text of the Edition ↔ Eastern Standard Text

#

Places

98

2Co 8,14

99

2Co 8,18

100

2Co 8,21

101

2Co 9,3

102

2Co 9,5

103

2Co 9,6

104

2Co 9,7

105

2Co 9,8

106

2Co 10,7

107

2Co 10,8

108

2Co 11,16

109

2Co 11,18

110

2Co 11,19

111

2Co 12,2

112

2Co 12,9

113

2Co 12,10

114

2Co 12,11

115

2Co 12,18

116

2Co 13,1

117

2Co 13,2

118

2Co 13,4

119

2Co 13,9

120

Gal 1,10

121

Gal 1,14

122

Gal 1,14

123

Gal 1,21

124

Gal 2,4

125

Gal 2,5

126

Gal 2,12

‫ܗܘ‬

127

Gal 2,15

1

128

Gal 2,20

129

Gal 3,4

130

Gal 4,7

‫̇ܕܗ ܢ ↔ ܕܗ‬ ↔ + ‫ܐܦ‬ ↔ ‫ܕ‬ ‫ܪܢ‬ ↔ ‫ܪ‬ ̈ ‫ܐ ̈ ↔ܐ‬ 2 ‫↔ ܪ‬ ‫ܪ‬ ‫ܐܦ‬ ↔ + ‫ܗܘ‬ ‫↔ܕ‬ ‫ ↔ ̣ܕܗܘ ܕ‬+ ‫ܗܘ‬ ‫ܢ ↔ܕ‬ ‫ܕ‬ ↔ ‫ܕ‬ ‫ܘܐܦ ↔ ܐܦ‬ ‫ ↔ ܗܘ‬om ‫ܗܘ‬ ‫ܕܬ‬ ↔ ‫ܕ‬ ‫ ↔ ܗܘ‬om ‫ܗܘ‬ ‫ܕܘ ↔ ܕܘ‬ ‫ܐ ↔ ܘܐ‬ ‫ܡ ↔ ܡ‬ ̇ ↔ ‫ܐ ܕܐܬ‬ ‫ܕܐܬ ܐ‬ ‫ܕ‬ ‫ܐܦ ܗ ↔ ܘܐܦ ܗ‬ ‫ܐܦ ↔ ܘܐܦ‬ ‫ܐܦ‬ ↔ ‫ܕ ܘܐܦ‬ ‫↔ܕ‬ ̈ ̈ ↔ ̈

A

e/w

1

/x /x

x

e/w e

/x

e

e

/x /x

‫ܘ‬

x

/x e/w e e /x w

/x /x /x

e e e/w

↔

x

̣ ‫ܕܕ‬ \

C

/x

‫ܕܐ ܗܘܘ ↔ ܕܐ ܗܘ‬ ‫ܪ‬ ↔ ‫ܪ‬ ‫ܘ‬ ‫ܘ‬ ‫ܘ ↔ܕ‬ ‫ܕ‬ ̇ ‫ܗܘ ↔ ܕܕ‬ ↔ ‫ܐܢ‬ \ ‫↔ ܕܐ‬ ‫ ↔ ܐ‬+ ‫ܗܘ‬ ↔ +‫ܥ‬

B

e w

‫ܕܐ‬

e x

III. Bifurcation of Textual Traditions #

Text of the Edition ↔ Eastern Standard Text

Places

xlvii A

B

‫↔ܕ‬

131

Gal 4,20

132

Gal 5,3

↔

133

Gal 5,13

↔

̈

C /x

‫ܕ‬

w

x/x

e

x/x

x

↔

134

Gal 5,17

135

Gal 6,3

136

Gal 6,14

137

Gal 6,17

138

Eph 1,8

↔ +‫ܕܪܘܚ‬

139

Eph 1,15

140

Eph 2,2

141

Eph 2,12

‫ ↔ ܕ ܬ‬+ ‫ܘܢ‬ ‫ܕܐܐܪ ܕܪܘ ܇ ↔ ܕܐܐܪ ܘܕܪܘ ܇‬ ‫ܕܘ ↔ ܕܘ‬

142

Eph 4,30

143

Eph 4,30

144

Eph 5,23

145

Eph 5,29

146

Eph 6,8

147

Eph 6,8

148

Php 1,12

149

Php 1,19

150

Php 2,6

151

Php 2,18

152

Php 3,19

153

Php 3,19

154

Php 3,20

155

Php 4,1

156

Php 4,12

157

Col 3,1

158

Col 3,5

159

Col 3,6

160

Col 3,7

161

Col 3,17

162

Col 4,13

163

Col 4,16

‫ܐ‬

↔

‫ܐ‬

‫ ↔ ܐ‬+ ‫ܐܢ‬ ‫ ↔ ܥ‬+ x x

↔ ↔

̇

‫ܪ ̇ ↔ܪ‬ ‫↔ܕ‬ ‫ܕܐܦ‬ ‫ܥ‬ ‫ܥ ↔ ̣ܗܘ‬ ‫̇ܗܘ ܗܘ‬ ‫ܗܘ‬ ↔ om ‫ܗܘ‬ ̇‫̣ܐܬ ↔ ܐܬ‬ ̈ ↔ + ‫ܗܘ‬ ‫ܕ ↔ ܗܕ‬ ‫ܘܐܦ ↔ ܐܦ‬ ‫̇ܗ ܢ ܕ ܬܗܘܢ ↔ ܕ ܬܗܘܢ‬ ‫̇ܗ ܢ ↔ ܗ‬ 1

x x

w /x w /x

↔

‫ܘܬܝ ↔ ܘ ܘܬܝ‬ ‫ܘܐܦ ↔ ̱ܗܘ ܐܦ‬ ‫̣ ܒ ↔ܳ ܒ‬ ‫ܬ ↔ܘ ܬ‬ ‫ܗ ܗܘ‬ ↔ > ‫ܗܘ‬ ‫ܘܢ ܗܘ ܘܢ‬ ‫ܗܘ ܘܢ > ↔ ܗ‬ ̈ ‫↔ܘ‬ ‫ܘ‬ ‫̇ܗ ܢ ↔ ܗ‬ ̈ ↔

/x e w w e x x x

e e/w

xlviii #

Introduction Places

Text of the Edition ↔ Eastern Standard Text

̈ ‫ܐ ̈ ↔ܐ‬ ܶ ܰ ‫ܘ ̣ ↔ܘ‬ ̈ ‫ܐ ̈ ↔ܐ‬ ‫↔ܐ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫↔ܕ‬ ̈ ↔

164

1Th 2,17

165

1Th 3,13

166

1Th 4,1

167

1Th 4,1

168

1Th 4,15

169

1Th 5,3

170

2Th 1,3

171

2Th 1,7

‫ܥ‬

172

2Th 2,4

173

2Th 2,13

174

2Th 3,1

175

2Th 3,5

176

2Th 3,6

‫↔ܕ‬ ‫ܕܕ‬ ̈ ‫ܐ ̈ ↔ܐ‬ ̈ ‫ܐ ̈ ↔ܐ‬ ‫ܬܗ‬ ‫ܬܗ ↔ ܘ‬ ̈ ↔ ̈

177

2Th 3,6

178

2Th 3,18

179

1Tm 3,1

180

1Tm 3,8

181

1Tm 4,9

182

1Tm 5,16

183

1Tm 6,10

184

1Tm 6,10

185

2Tm 1,12

186

2Tm 2,2

187

2Tm 2,16

188

2Tm 2,16

189

2Tm 3,5

190

2Tm 3,6

191

2Tm 3,7

192

2Tm 3,15

193

2Tm 3,17

194

2Tm 3,17

195

2Tm 4,1

196

2Tm 4,3

A

B

C

e e/w x e

‫ܕ‬ e/w ↔

e

↔ +

x e/w x

‫ܘ‬ x

‫↔ܕ‬ ‫ܘܢ‬ ̈

‫ܕ‬ ↔ + ̈ ‫ܐ‬

w e

̈ ↔ ‫ܘܐܦ ↔ ܐܦ‬ ‫ ↔ ܘ‬+ ‫ܗܝ‬ ‫ܘ ↔ܕ‬ ‫↔ܕ‬ ↔ ̇ ‫ܗܕ‬ ↔ ‫ܗ‬ ‫̣ܗ ↔ ܗ‬ ‫↔ܘ‬ ‫↔ ̇ܗ ܢ‬ ‫ܗ‬ ↔ ̇‫ـ‬ ‫̇ܗ ܢ ↔ ܗ‬ ̈ ↔ ‫ܥ ↔ܕ ܥ‬ ‫↔ܘ‬ ↔

̈ ‫↔ ̈ ܘ‬ ‫↔ ̈ܬ‬

x x x x w w

x/x

e

x/x

x e w e/w

‫ܕ‬

x/x e

‫ܘ‬ ̈ ‫̈ ܘ‬ ‫ܬ‬

e x x

e/w

III. Bifurcation of Textual Traditions #

Places

Text of the Edition ↔ Eastern Standard Text

197

2Tm 4,17

‫↔ ܕܐܬ‬

198

2Tm 4,22

↔

199

Tit 1,3

200

Tit 1,4

201

Tit 1,5

202

Tit 1,11

203

Tit 2,5

204

Tit 3,7

205

Tit 3,8

206

Phm 25

207

Heb 1,14

208

Heb 2,10

209

Heb 2,16

210

Heb 2,17

211

Heb 3,6

212

Heb 3,7

213

Heb 3,11

214

Heb 3,11

215

Heb 3,16

216

Heb 5,5

217

Heb 6,6

218

Heb 7,4

219

Heb 7,16

220

Heb 7,27

221

Heb 8,5

222

Heb 8,6

223

Heb 9,17

224

Heb 9,24

225

Heb 10,5

226

Heb 10,9

227

Heb 10,11

xlix A

B

‫ܘܐܬ‬

̇ ‫ܘ ̣ ↔ܘ ̣ ـ‬ ‫ܐ ܢ ↔ܐ‬ ‫ ↔ ܗܘ‬om ‫ܗܘ‬ ‫̇ܗ ܢ ↔ ܗ‬ ̈ ‫ܢ‬ ‫̈ ܢ ↔ܘ‬ ̈ ↔ ̈ ‫ܕ‬ ̈ ↔ ̈ ‫ܕ‬ ‫ ↔ ܪܘ ܢ‬+ ̈ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܘ ↔ ܪܘ‬ ↔ ̈

C x/x

e x x/x e x

‫ܘ‬

̇ ̈ ‫ܗܘ ܬ ܐ‬ ̇ ‫ܙܪ ܕܐ ܗܡ‬ ‫ܗܘ‬ ↔ ‫ܙܪ ܕܐ ܗܡ‬ ‫̈ ܐ‬ ̣ ‫ܗ‬ ↔ ‫ܗܕ‬ ‫ܘܐ ܘܗܝ ↔ ܕܐ ܘܗܝ‬ ‫↔ܕ‬ ‫ܕ‬ ‫ܐ ↔ ܘܐ‬ ↔ ‫ܕ‬ ‫̇ܗ ܢ ↔ ܗ‬ ‫ܝ ↔ܕ ܝ‬ ‫ܕ ܕܪ ↔ ܘ ܕܪ‬ ‫ܕ‬ ↔ ‫ܘ‬ ̈ ‫ܕ ̈ ↔ܕ‬ ‫↔ ܪܒ‬ ̈ ‫↔ܘ‬ ‫ܘ‬ ‫ܘܐܦ ↔ ܐܦ‬ ↔ + ‫ܗܘ‬ ̇ ↔ ‫↔ܘ‬ ‫ܘ‬ ‫ܘ ̇ܪܗ ↔ ܘ ܪܗ‬ ‫̣ܗ ܢ ↔ ̣ܗ ܢ ̣ ܢ‬ ‫̣ܗ ܢ‬

e/w

x

e

x/

e

x/

e

x/

x

‫ܗܘ‬ ‫ܗܘ‬

x /x x e x e

/x

x x e /x x

e

x w

x/x

l

Introduction #

Places

228

Heb 10,16

229

Heb 10,25

230

Heb 10,28

231

Heb 10,29

232

Heb 10,33

233

Heb 10,34

234

Heb 11,6

235

Heb 11,17

236

Heb 11,34

237

Heb 12,5

238

Heb 12,6

Text of the Edition ↔ Eastern Standard Text

‫ܪ ↔ ܪ‬ ‫ܕ̇ ܒ ↔ܕ ̣ ܒ‬ ̇ ‫ܕ ̣ ↔ܕ‬ ̇ ‫ܕ ↔ܕ‬ ‫ܘܐܦ ↔ ܐܦ‬ ‫ ↔ ܗܘ‬om ‫ܗܘ‬ ‫↔ ܐ‬ ‫̇ܗܘ ↔ ̇ ܘ‬ ↔ ̈ ̇‫ܐ̣ ܢ ↔ܐ‬ ̇ ‫ ↔ ܕܪ‬+

A

B

C

x w x

e/w

x x/

‫ܐ‬ e e x

e

It is not difficult to perceive the minor importance of the textual variations presented in the above table. About 25% refer to the variation of the b-d-w-l letters (e. g. #8–14), almost 20% to the addition or omission of conjunctions, particles, and copulative pronouns (e. g. #5, 7, 32, 47, 52, 145–147, 159–160), and ca 10% to the exchange of ‫ ܕ‬and (e. g. #17, 22, 36, 56) and of plural and singular (e. g. #3, 20, 25) respectively. Further variations refer to transpositions (e. g. #1, 29, 31), suffixes (e. g. #23, 94, 107), pronouns e. g. #21, 98, 153), and to grammatical forms of the verb (e. g. #43, 44, 50, 83). Few variations are of major importance, but not impressive: #15, 65, 77, 111, 116, 132, and 209. Can these 238 variations be significant markers of ‘different’ textual traditions? It is just the minor importance of these variant units that qualifies them for being markers of different textual traditions. We can be sure that each side of the variant units did not attract the attention of the scribes but was copied without notice or reflection; this granted their intact transmission as markers of the East-West-bifurcation up to and including the ‘Syriac Masora’ of the 9th/10th centuries. This granted also textual changes in favour of the EST (standardization) being operated by unnoticed contamination, not by revision. The slowly growing dominance of the EST crept into the Western textual tradition by century-long transmission and continuous copying, not by text-critical reflection. Variants of greater importance exist outside the series of 238 variant units but are without evidence regarding the East-West-bifurcation. The proof for the significance of the variant units is definitively given by their indisputable East-West-attestation. Even the slight ‘variations’ quoted in #39, 121, 167, 176, 212, and 212 offer a clear clustering. This clustering did not come up by chance but is the genuine result of the transmission of the Peshiṭta and of the bifurcation of textual traditions. The term ‘bifurcation’ (of texts, of textual traditions) is chosen for exposing the significance of the split itself into two lines of textual traditions as against the insignificance of the variant units themselves.

III. Bifurcation of Textual Traditions

li

2. Identification of witnesses to the Eastern and Western textual traditions Once the two textual traditions are substantiated by identification of 238 significantly attested variant units, the percentage of participation in the EST can be traced for every witness of the ‘masoretic’/Islamic period. In the early ‘masoretic’/Islamic period, the resulting percentages show the witnesses to the EST with more than 95%, contrasting the witnesses to the Western textual tradition (WTT) with ca 30–50%. In the late ‘masoretic’/ Islamic period, the Western affiliation becomes obscured by continuous influence of the EST and shows percentages of ca 75%–90%. The result of standardization is the formation of an almost identical text common to both Syrian Churches since the 12th century. For editorial criticism, the 238 significantly attested variations are the test units for identification of EST-witnesses by abridged collation procedure. This procedure also provided the identification of descendants from the Western tradition for full collation and inclusion in the present edition. The following tables offer the percentages for all manuscripts from the ‘masoretic’/Islamic period used in the present edition. EST-witnesses from the early ‘masoretic’ stage used for the present edition: 1. row: the sigla of the witnesses; 2. row: number of extant valid test units (max. 238, in some mss reduced by lacunae or supplements)/number of EST-reading; 3. row: the percentages of participation in the EST IIn1

IIn2

IIn4

IIn5

IIn6

IIn7

IIn8

IIn10

IIn11

IIn12

IIn13

IIx3

228/ 223

235/ 229

234/ 231

238/ 233

238/ 234

238/ 236

124/ 124

238/ 238

169/ 167

236/ 231

238/ 232

147/ 142

97,80

97,44

98,71

97,89

98,31

99,15

100

100

98,81

97,88

97,47

96,59

WTT-witnesses from the early ‘masoretic’ stage used for the present edition: IIn3

IIn9

IIn14

IIx1

IIx2

IIp1

IIp2

233/ 70

238/ 62

44/ 16

223/ 67

195/ 77

232/ 117

35/ 9

30,04

26,05

36,36

30,04

39,48

50,43

25,71

Witnesses from the late ‘masoretic’ stage used for the present edition: IIIn1

IIIn2

IIIn3

IIIn4

IIIn5

IIIn6

IIIn7

IIIn8

IIIn9

IIIn10

IIIn11

234/ 212

235/ 116

196/ 170

238/ 233

232/ 208

227/ 152

238/ 197

238/ 201

238/ 208

238/ 212

238/ 185

90,59

49,36

86,73

97,89

89,65

66,96

82,77

84,45

87,39

89,07

77,73

lii

Introduction

IIIn12

IIIx1

IIIp1

184/ 150

238/ 200

114/ 106

81,52

84,03

92,98

In this table, IIIn4 is the only witness of original ‘Eastern’ affiliation, while the percentages of the remaining eleven witnesses reflect individual shifts from the Western to the Eastern textual tradition during history. IIIn2 is still almost unaffected by the EST; IIIn6 and IIIn11 reflect a rather slow process of standardization. 3. The attestation of the Western textual tradition Based on the 238 variant units, the following table presents the attestation of the Western textual tradition, on which the present edition is based. Both the early and late ‘masoretic’ stages are covered in the table to prove the existence of a distinct non-Eastern (‘Western’) textual tradition beside the EST, which is faded out by standardization during the ‘masoretic’/Islamic period. The Western Readings of the Bifurcation The Western witnesses from the Early ‘masoretic’ textual stage: IIn3 (complete) — IIn9 (complete) — IIn14 (Php and 2Tm–Heb 6,9) — IIx1 (lac 2Cor 1,11–2,8) — IIx2 (lac Rom 1,1–9,9 and Rom 10,8– 1Co 6,11) — IIp1 (complete) — IIp2 (text only Rom 1,1–3,26 and Heb 2,6-end) — IIq1.2.3.4 (pericopes only, see Appendix 2) — IIIn12 (readable only in 184 variant units, see p. xcii) — IIm1.2.3.4 & IIIm5.6 (mss of the ‘Syriac Masora’, see Appendix 3). ○ = no WTT-reading is available among the mss collated thus far, either for the early (e. g. Rom 13,1) or late (e. g. Rom 6,13) ‘masoretic’ textual stage, or for both stages (e.g. Col 3,17). In the latter case, the WTT-reading is identical with the pre-‘masoretic’ lemma of the present edition and may come up by collation of further witnesses. #

Places

1

Rom 1,13

2

Rom 2,1

3

Rom 3,2

4

Rom 4,16

5

Rom 6,4

6

Rom 6,13

7

Rom 7,19

8

Rom 8,17

9

Rom 8,23

10

Rom 8,36

Western Textual Trad. in the early ‘mas.’ stage

and in the late ‘mas.’ stage

‫ܐ ̈ ܕܬܕ ܢ‬ ‫ܐܦ‬ ‫ܕܐܬܗ‬ ‫ܘ ܘ‬ ‫ܐܬ ܢ‬ ‫ܐܦ‬ ̇ ‫ܘܐܦ‬ ‫ܘ ܪ‬ ‫ܐܬ‬

○

IIn3.9 IIn3.9 IIn3.9

x1s p2

x1 p1.2 m1.2.3.4 IIn3.9 IIn3.9

x1

x1* p1

IIn9

x1 q4

IIn3.9 IIx1* IIn3.9 IIn3.5*.9.13c. IIx1

IIIn6 IIIn3.6.8

x1

IIIm5mg.6

IIIn10.12 IIIn6.10.12

○ IIIn2.8

x1

○

q4

IIIn3c.5*.6.7.8.11

IIn9

IIIn12

x1

III. Bifurcation of Textual Traditions #

Places

11

Rom 8,39

12

Rom 8,39

13

Rom 9,5

14

Rom 9,7

15

Rom 9,19

16

Rom 9,26

17

Rom 10,3

18

Rom 11,9

liii

Western Textual Trad. in the early ‘mas.’ stage

‫ܐ‬

IIn3.5*.9

‫ܬ‬

and in the late ‘mas.’ stage

x1 q3

IIn3.9.13

‫ܕ‬

IIn3.9

‫ܐ‬

p1 q3

IIn3.9

‫ܕ‬ ‫ܕ‬

IIn3.9

x1 p1

x1.2 q4 m1.2.3.4

IIn3.9

x1*.2 p1 q4

IIn3.4*.9

IIIn2.3.6.8 IIIn3.7.8.9.11.12 IIIn1.2.3.7.8.10 IIIn3.8

IIIn3 IIIn2.6.11

IIn13

IIIn2.5.10

19 20

Rom 11,20

21

Rom 11,24

22

Rom 11,25

23

Rom 12,2

24

Rom 12,3

25

Rom 13,1

○

26

Rom 13,4

IIn9

IIIn8.12

27

Rom 13,8

x1* p1

IIIn2.11

28

Rom 13,9

29

Rom 13,9

‫ܐܬ‬

‫ܗ‬

IIp1

‫̇ܗ ܢ‬ IIx1

2

‫ܨ‬ ‫ܬܗܘܘܢ‬

‫ܗ‬ ‫ܘܐܦ‬ ‫ܠ‬

IIn3.9 IIn3.9

‫ܪܘ ܬ‬

q4

○

○

○

p1

IIn3.9*

IIIn6

○

x1 q4

○

x1 p1 q4 m1.2.3.4

‫ܕ ܬ‬

IIIn6

x1*

IIn3.9 IIn3

x1

x1*.2 x1 q4

x1* p1 q4

x1

IIIn2 IIIm5.6

‫ܕ ܘ‬ 1 Rom 11,16 ‫ܘܐܢ‬

IIn3.9

x1c

IIIn1.2.3.8

IIIn2.3.6

x1

m5.6

IIIn2c.7.11

m5.6

IIm1.2.3.4

30

Rom 13,11

31

Rom 13,12

32

Rom 14,2

‫ܐܦ‬

IIn9

‫ܗ‬

IIn3.9

x1* p1 q4

○ IIIn2.12

34

‫ܗܘ‬ 1‫ܢ‬ Rom 14,8 ̈ Rom 14,20

35

Rom 15,20

‫ܕܐ‬

IIx1

p1

IIIn2.3c.7.8.9

36

Rom 15,29

IIn3.9

p1

IIIn2.6

37

1Co 1,10

‫ܕ‬ ‫ܬܗܘܘܢ‬

IIx1

p1

IIIn1.5.10

38

1Co 1,24

IIn3.9

x1

○

39

1Co 3,10

IIn3

p1

○

40

1Co 4,9

41

1Co 4,9

42

1Co 4,19

33

IIx1* IIn3.9

̇

x1* p1 q4 m3tx.4

IIn3.9

‫ܘ‬ ‫ܕܗ‬

IIIn2.11

IIn3.9

q4

○

‫ܐ‬

̈

IIIn2

x1 p1 m1.2.3.4 IIn3.9

x1* p1

IIn3*.9

p1

IIIn2.6.7

m6

m5.6

IIIn2.3.7.8.12

○

x1

x1

liv

Introduction #

Places

Western Textual Trad. in the early ‘mas.’ stage

43

1Co 5,2

̣

44

1Co 5,3

̣

45

1Co 5,10

46

1Co 6,18

47

1Co 7,15

48

1Co 7,28

49

1Co 7,32

50

1Co 8,2

51

1Co 8,6

52

1Co 8,7

53

1Co 9,7

54

1Co 9,7

55

1Co 9,10

56

1Co 9,25

57

1Co 10,10

58

1Co 10,17

59

1Co 10,24

60

1Co 11,9

61

1Co 11,12

62

1Co 11,16

63

1Co 11,17

64

1Co 11,25

65

1Co 12,28

‫ܝ‬

66

1Co 13,5

3

67

1Co 13,12

68

1Co 14,19

‫ܐ‬

69

1Co 14,37

70

1Co 15,4

‫ܐ‬ ‫ܘܕ‬

71

1Co 15,9

72

1Co 15,12

73

1Co 15,14

74

1Co 15,27

75

1Co 15,39

IIn3.9

x1* m1.2.3.4

IIn3.9

1

‫ܕ‬

1

IIn3.9

‫ܕ‬ ‫ܕ̇ ܥ ܡ‬ ‫ܘܐܦ‬

‫ܐ‬

x1* p1 IIn9

p1

○

IIx1.2c

IIIn6

x1*.2 p1

IIIn2

x1*

x1.2 p1

IIn3

x1 m2

x1 p1 m1.3.4 IIn3.9

‫ܗܘ‬ ‫ܕ‬

IIn3.9

‫ܐ‬

IIn8.9

‫ܗܘ‬ ‫ܕܐ‬ ‫ܘܬ‬

x2 p1 m

○ IIIn2.6.7.11

IIIn2.7c

IIIn2.6

m5

IIIn2.6

IIn3.9

x1.2 p1

IIIn2.6.7

x3 p1

‫ܘ‬

x1.2mg

IIx1.2

p1

x1c m1mg.3mg.4mg IIn3.9 IIn3.9

x1*.2 x1 p1

IIIn6.7.9r

○ IIIn6

○ IIIn1.2.3.6.10 IIIn10.12

IIIn2.6

x1.2* q4

○

IIn3.9

x1c.2 p1

○

IIn3

○

IIn3.9

x1.2 p1

5mg

○

IIn9

x1.2

x1 m5.6

IIIn2.3.6

○

x1*.2* p1

m5.6

IIIn2.4.5.8.12

x1.2 p1

IIn7.9

IIn3

IIIn2.6

IIn3.9

IIn3.7.9

‫̈ ܬ‬

IIIn1.6.7.8.9.11.12

○

p1 m

x1

IIIn2

IIn3

IIn3c.9

‫ܕ‬

x1s.2*

IIn5*

‫ܕܐ‬

‫ܐܦ‬

x2 p1

IIn3.9

‫ܘܐ‬

x2c

x1.2c p1 m1.2.3.4 IIn3.9

‫ܘܐ‬ ‫ܐ‬

x1

IIIn2.4.6.8

x1.2 m m1.2.3.4

IIn3.9

IIIn2

x1 m5.6

p1

IIn3.9

‫ܬ‬

IIIn2.7.9

IIn3.9

IIn3.9 IIn2.3

and in the late ‘mas.’ stage

IIIn8.12

IIn3.9

x1*.2 p1

IIIn2.7*.9*

IIn3.9

x1.2c p1

IIIn2.6.9*

x1

x1 m5.6

III. Bifurcation of Textual Traditions #

Places

76

1Co 15,41

77

1Co 15,55

78

1Co 16,1

79

1Co 16,6

80

1Co 16,8

81

1Co 16,24

82

2Co 3,2

83

2Co 3,3

84

2Co 3,14

85

2Co 4,4

86

lv

Western Textual Trad. in the early ‘mas.’ stage

and in the late ‘mas.’ stage

‫ܘܐ‬ ‫ܐܘ ܐ ܗܝ‬ ‫ܕ‬ ‫ܕ‬ ‫ܘܐ ܘܢ‬ ‫ܕ‬ ‫ܥ‬ ‫ܕ‬ ‫ܘܢ‬ ‫̈ ܘܢ‬ ‫ܕ ܗܕ‬

x1*.2

○

IIn9

○

p1

○

2

IIn3.9

IIn3.9 IIn9

x1 p1 m1.2.3.4

IIn3.9

x1.2 p1 m4 IIn3.9

IIn3.6.9.10.13

x1.2*

x1.2 p1

x2c p1 m4

IIn11 IIn3.9

x1.2 p1 q2

IIIn7

m5.6

IIIn2.6

m6

IIIn2 IIIn2.6.7.11 IIIn1.2.3.5.6.7.8.9.10 IIIn2.9r.11

x1c

IIn3.9

x1.2 p1

IIIn2

2Co 4,8

IIn3.9

x1.2 p1

IIIn2.6

87

2Co 4,10

IIn3.9

x1.2 p1

○

88

2Co 4,13

IIn3.9

x1.2 p1

IIIn2.3.5.9.10

89

2Co 4,16

90

2Co 4,18

91

2Co 5,11

92

2Co 6,16

93

2Co 7,2

94

2Co 7,6

95

2Co 7,9

96

2Co 7,14

97

2Co 7,15

98

2Co 8,14

99

2Co 8,18

100

2Co 8,21

101

2Co 9,3

102

2Co 9,5

103

2Co 9,6

104

2Co 9,7

105

2Co 9,8

106

2Co 10,7

107

2Co 10,8

108

2Co 11,16

‫ܐܦ‬

3

IIn9 IIn3.9.12

̈

IIn3.9

x1

IIIn2.7

x1 p1 q1

IIIn2.6

x1.2* p1 m1.2

‫ܕ‬

2

̈ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܢ‬ ‫ܬ‬ ‫ܡ‬ ‫ܐܦ‬ ‫ܕܗ‬

IIn3.9 IIn3.9.12

x1c.2

○

‫ܕ‬

x1

IIn3.9

x1.2 p1

IIIn2.11

IIn3.9

x1.2 p1

IIIn2.6

IIn3.9

IIn3.9

‫ܪܢ‬ ̈ ‫ܐ‬

x1 p1

IIIn2

x1.2* p1

IIIn2

x1 p1 m1.2.3.4 IIn3.9

x1.2 p1

IIn3.9

‫ܪ‬

IIn3.9

IIn3.9

‫̣ܕܗܘ ܕ‬ ‫ܕ‬

IIn3.9

x1 p1

x1.2* p1

IIn3.9

‫ܕ‬

IIIn2.3.6.7.8.9.11 IIIn1r.2

IIn3.9

2

IIIn6.12

IIn3*.9

x1*.2*

x1.2 p1

x1*.2* p1

IIn3.9

x1*.2 p1

IIn3.9

x1.2 p1

x1

○

IIx1.2

x1.2 p1 m m1.2.3.4

x1 m6

IIIn2.6.7.9

m5.6

IIIn2 IIIn2.6.8.11

○ IIIn11 IIIn6 IIIn2.7 IIIn2

○

x1

m5.6

lvi

Introduction #

Places

109

2Co 11,18

110

2Co 11,19

111

2Co 12,2

112

2Co 12,9

113

2Co 12,10

114

2Co 12,11

115

2Co 12,18

116

2Co 13,1

117

2Co 13,2

118

2Co 13,4

119

2Co 13,9

120

Gal 1,10

121

Gal 1,14

122

Gal 1,14

123

Gal 1,21

124

Gal 2,4

Western Textual Trad. in the early ‘mas.’ stage

and in the late ‘mas.’ stage

‫ܐܦ‬ ‫ܗܘ‬

x1.2 p1

IIIn6

IIn4*

IIIn7

‫ܕܬ‬

127

Gal 2,15

1

128

Gal 2,20

129

Gal 3,4

130

Gal 4,7

131

Gal 4,20

132

Gal 5,3

133

Gal 5,13

Gal 6,14

137

Gal 6,17

138

Eph 1,8

139

Eph 1,15

140

Eph 2,2

141

Eph 2,12

IIn3.9 IIn3.9

x2 p1

x1.2* p1

x1.2 p1 q5

x1.2 p1

IIn3.9

x1c.2.3* IIn9

IIn3.6*.9

x1

x3 m1.2.3.4

̇ ‫ܕܕ‬ IIn3.9

IIn3.9

‫ܕ‬

IIIn2.10.11

x1.2 p1

○

x1.2 p1

IIn3.9

x1.2

x1.2 q4

IIn3

x1.2*

IIn9

x1.2

IIn9

x2

m5.6

IIIn2.6.8.11.12

○

x1.2 p1c

IIn3*.9

IIIn2.6.9.11

IIIn2*

IIn13

x1

IIIn9*.11

x1*

○

IIn9

IIIn2.11

IIIn2.6

x1*.2 m1.2.3.4

IIn3

IIIn10.12

IIm4

x2

m5.6

IIIn2.11

x1*

̈

‫ܕ ܬ‬ ‫ܕܐܐܪ ܘܕܪܘ ܇‬ ‫ܕܘ‬

○

x1.2

IIn3.9

‫ܐ‬ ‫ܥ‬

IIIn2

IIIn7.11

x1 p1 m

IIn3*.9

‫ܐ‬

IIIn2.7.11

○

x1*.2 p1 ○

IIn3.9

IIIm5.6

IIn3.9

IIn3.9

1

IIIn9r

IIIn2.6.7.11

IIn3.9

‫\ܕܐ‬ ‫ܐ‬

IIIn2.12

x2 p1 m1.2.3.4

IIn3.9

‫ܗܘ‬

136

x1.2.3 p1

IIn3.9

IIn3.9

x2

x2 p1 m1.2.3

IIn3.9

‫ܕܐ ܗܘ‬ ‫ܪ‬ ‫ܘ‬ ‫ܕ‬

Gal 2,12

Gal 6,3

IIn3.9

‫ܡ‬ ̇ ‫ܕܐܬ ܐ‬ ‫ܘܐܦ ܗ‬ ‫ܘܐܦ‬ ‫ܐܦ‬ ‫ܕ‬ ̈ ̈

126

135

x1.2 p1 IIn3.9

‫ܕܘ‬ ‫ܘܐ‬

Gal 2,5

Gal 5,17

IIn3.9

‫ܗܘ‬

125

134

IIn9

IIIn2.6 IIIn7mg

m5.6

IIIn6 IIIn1.2.3.5.6.7.9.10 IIIn2.6 IIIn2 IIIn2 IIIn11 IIIn11

○ IIIn2.6.9.11

III. Bifurcation of Textual Traditions #

Places

Western Textual Trad. in the early ‘mas.’ stage

142

Eph 4,30

IIn3.9

143

Eph 4,30

IIn9

144

Eph 5,23

145

Eph 5,29

146

Eph 6,8

147

Eph 6,8

148

Php 1,12

149

Php 1,19

150

Php 2,6

151

Php 2,18

152

Php 3,19

153

Php 3,19

154

Php 3,20

155

Php 4,1

156

Php 4,12

157

Col 3,1

158

Col 3,5

159

Col 3,6

160

Col 3,7

161

Col 3,17

162

Col 4,13

163

Col 4,16

164 165

1Th 2,17 1Th 3,13

166

1Th 4,1

167

1Th 4,1

168

1Th 4,15

169

1Th 5,3

170

2Th 1,3

171

2Th 1,7

172

2Th 2,4

173

2Th 2,13

174

2Th 3,1

lvii

x1.2

x2 q5

‫ܪ‬

1

and in the late ‘mas.’ stage

IIn3

‫ܕ‬ ‫ܥ‬ ‫ܗܘ‬ ‫̇ܐܬ‬ ̈

‫̣ܗܘ‬

x1.2

IIn3.9

x1.2

IIIn5*

x1c.2*

IIn3.9.14*

x2

x1*.2*

x1 m1.2.3.4

IIn1.3.14 IIn3.9.14*

IIn3.9.14*

IIn1*.3.9.14

x1.2

x1.2 p1

IIn3.9.14*

‫ܘ ܘܬܝ‬ ‫̱ܗܘ ܐܦ‬ ‫ܳ ܒ‬ ‫ܘ ܬ‬ ‫ܗ ܗܘ‬ ‫ܘܢ ܗܘ ܘܢ‬ ‫ܘ‬ ‫ܗ‬

x1c p1

IIn9

x1 p1 q4

x1.2 p1 q4 ○ IIn9

x1*.2

IIm1.3.4

̈ ‫ܐ‬ ܶ ܰ ‫ܘ‬

IIn3.9 IIn9

IIn3 IIn3.9

‫ܕ‬ ̈

IIn3 IIn5.9

x3

x1*.2

x2c q1

x1.2 m m2.4

IIn3*.9

‫ܥ‬ ‫ܕ‬ ̈ ‫ܐ‬ ̈ ‫ܐ‬

x1.2.3

x1.2 m1tx.2.3

̈ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܐ‬

○ ○ x1

IIIn2.3*.12

m5

IIIn1.2.3.6*.8.9

x1 m5tx.6

IIIn2 IIIn2.7 IIIn7

○ IIIn2 IIIn7.11.12 IIIn6.11

m5.6

x1

IIIn1.3.5.6.9.10

x1 m5

IIIn5.11 IIIn11 IIIn3.5.6.7.8.9.10.12 IIIn1.2.3.5.6c.7.10

○

IIn3

○

○

○

x1.2 p1

m5.6

IIIn2.3.6

x1.2 p1

IIx2 IIn3.9.11

IIIn2

IIIn8

x2 p1

x1

IIIn2.11

○ m1.2tx.4

‫ܗ‬

IIIn8.9

IIIn2

IIn3.9

x1

IIIn2.7.9.11

x1.2 p1

x1*.2 m3.4

IIn3.9

IIIn8 IIIn11

IIn9

‫ܗܕ‬ ‫ܐܦ‬ ‫ܕ ܬܗܘܢ‬ ‫ܗ‬

IIIn2.7.8.10

IIn9

IIn3.9

IIn3.9.14*

IIIn2.11

IIIn9 IIIn12

p1

x1 m5.6

lviii

Introduction #

Places

175

2Th 3,5

176

2Th 3,6

177

2Th 3,6

178

2Th 3,18

Western Textual Trad. in the early ‘mas.’ stage

and in the late ‘mas.’ stage

‫ܬܗ‬ ̈

IIIn2.7.8.11

‫ܘ‬

IIn9

‫ܕ‬

179

1Tm 3,1

‫ܘܢ‬ ̈

180

1Tm 3,8

‫ܐܦ‬

181

1Tm 4,9

182

1Tm 5,16

‫ܘ‬

2Tm 1,12

‫ܗܕ‬

186

2Tm 2,2

187

2Tm 2,16

188

2Tm 2,16

‫ܗ‬ ‫ܘ‬ ‫̇ܗ ܢ‬

189

2Tm 3,5

2Tm 3,17

194

2Tm 3,17

195

2Tm 4,1

196

2Tm 4,3

187

2Tm 4,17

198

2Tm 4,22

199

Tit 1,3

200

Tit 1,4

201

Tit 1,5

202

Tit 1,11

x1 p1 IIp1

IIn3.9

IIIn2.6.9

IIn3.4*.5.9.14

x1.2 p1

IIIn2.11

x1.2.3 p1

IIn3.9.14*

x1.2

205

Tit 3,8

206

Phm 25

‫ܢ‬

207

Heb 1,14

‫ܪܘ‬ ‫ܪܘ‬

○ IIIn9mg.10.11 IIIn2 IIIn2 IIIn2

IIn3c.14*

IIIn6

IIn1.6 IIn3.9

IIIn5.6.7.10.12

x1

m1.2.4

x1.2 p1 q5 IIx2

Tit 3,7

IIIn6

IIIn8c

IIn3.9

204

○

x1.2 p1

‫ܘ‬

Tit 2,5

IIIn6.11

IIn3.9.14

IIn3.9.14*

203

○

IIx2*

IIn3*.14

̇‫ܘ ̣ ـ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܗܘ‬ ‫ܗ‬ ̈ ‫ܢ‬ ‫ܘ‬ ̈ ̈

IIIn2.3.6

IIIm5

‫ܗ‬

̈ ‫̈ ܘ‬ ‫̈ܬ‬ ‫ܕܐܬ‬

○

x1* m1.3.4

IIn3

‫ܕ ܥ‬

IIIn5.6.10.11.12

IIIn9r

m1.2.4

p1

IIIn2.10

p1

IIIn2.11.12 IIIn9.12

IIn9.14

x1* p1

○

IIn3.9.14*

x1.2 p1

IIIn2.9r

IIn3.9.14*

x1.2 p1

IIIn2.7.9r

IIn9c

x1* p1 m1.2.3.4

IIn9 IIn3.9.14

IIIn2

IIn9

○

○

○

x2.3

○

x1*.2*

IIn1.3c

p2

x1

m5.6

○

IIn3c

2Tm 3,6

193

x1.2 p1

IIn9

185

2Tm 3,15

x1* p1

x2 p1 q3

IIn3.9

‫ܕ‬ ‫ܕ‬

1Tm 6,10

192

IIn3.9

x1

IIp1

184

2Tm 3,7

x1 m1.2.3.4

IIn2.3.9.13

̈

1Tm 6,10

191

x1.2 p1

IIn9

183

190

IIn2.3.9

IIIn2 IIIn10

m5.6

x1 m5.6

III. Bifurcation of Textual Traditions # 208

Places

Heb 2,16

210

Heb 2,17

211

Heb 3,6

212

Heb 3,7

213

Heb 3,11

214

Heb 3,11

215

Heb 3,16

216

Heb 5,5

217

Heb 6,6

218

Heb 7,4

219

Heb 7,16

220

Heb 7,27

221

Heb 8,5

222

Heb 8,6

223

Heb 9,17

224

Heb 9,24

225

Heb 10,9

227

Heb 10,11

228

Heb 10,16

229

Heb 10,25

230

Heb 10,28

231

Heb 10,29

232

Heb 10,33

233

Heb 10,34

234

Heb 11,6

235

Heb 11,17

236

Heb 11,34

238

IIn3.7*.14*

̇ ̈ ‫ܙܪ ܕܐ ܗܡ‬ ̇ ‫ܗܘ‬

Heb 12,5 Heb 12,6

‫ܬ ܐ‬

‫ܗ‬ ‫ܕܐ ܘܗܝ‬ ‫ܕ‬ ‫ܘܐ‬

‫ܗܘ‬

‫ܗ‬ ‫ܕ ܝ‬ ‫ܘ ܕܪ‬ ‫ܕ‬ ̈ ‫ܕ‬ ‫ܪܒ‬ ̈ ‫ܘ‬ ‫ܐܦ‬

IIn3.7*.9.14*

‫ܗܘ‬

x1*.2 p1.2 IIn9

IIn9.13.14*

x1 q5

x1.2 p1.2

IIn3.14* IIn3.9.14

IIn3.9.14* IIn3.5.9 IIn9.14*

IIn9

and in the late ‘mas.’ stage

x1.2 p1.2

p1

x1.2 p2

IIn3

x1.2

x1*.2 p2

x1s.2 p1.2

IIn3.9

x1s.2 p2 x1s.2 p2

x1s p1.2 q2.5

IIn3.9

p1.2 q2.5 x1s.2 p2

‫ܘ‬

IIn3 IIn4.6.12.13

○ IIIn2 IIIn1.2.5.6.11.12

IIIn11.m5.6 IIIn2.3.7.8.9r

x2 p1.2 m2.3.4 ○

IIIn3.8

IIIn1.2.5.6.7.8.10

x1 m5.6

IIIn9r

IIIn2

IIn3

IIIn1.6

p2

x1 m5tx.6

IIIn1.2.4.5.6.7.8.11.12

x1s p2

x1s

x1 p1

IIIn5.6.7.8.9.10.12

IIIn2

IIn3

x1 p1

○

IIn3.6.9

x2

x1

IIIm5.6

IIIn2

IIn3.9

x1

IIIn2

x1s p1.2

IIn3*.9

x1

IIIn2.5.6.12

p1

x1s.2* p2

IIn9

p1

IIIn1.2.5.6.8.10

○

̇‫ܐ‬ ̇ ‫ܕܪ‬

IIIn2.11

p2

x2c p2 m1mg.3mg.4tx IIn3*.9

IIIn9

IIIn2.8.12

x1s.2* p2 m1.3.4 IIn9

IIn2

IIIn2.11.12

IIIn2.11

IIn9

IIn3.9

IIIn2.3.9r

IIn3.9

IIn3.12

‫ܘ ܪܗ‬ ‫̣ܗ ܢ ̣ ܢ‬ ‫ܪ‬ ‫ܕ̣ ܒ‬ ̇ ‫ܕ‬ ̇ ‫ܕ‬ ‫ܐܦ‬ ‫ܗܘ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫̇ܘ‬

IIIn2.7*

IIIn2

x1s.2* p2c m1.2.3.4

̇

IIIn2.11.12

x1s.2 p2 q3.4

IIn3

Heb 10,5

226

237

Western Textual Trad. in the early ‘mas.’ stage

Heb 2,10

209

lix

p1

IIIn1.6.7.8.10.12 IIIn2.6.7.12 IIIn6.11

x1 p1

lx

Introduction

This table gives the Western side of the significantly attested bifurcation of textual traditions, on which the recensio of the present edition is based. Explicit identification of witnesses was given in sec. III.3; here we direct the attention to the coherence of the Western tradition as well as to its fading-out during history. Identification of a distinct Western textual tradition is possible from the early ‘masoretic’ stage onwards (i.e. since the 7th/8th centuries). Despite their small number, these witnesses testify to the existence and coherence of this tradition, and it is also substantiated by the ‘Syriac Masora’ in the 9th/10th centuries. A remarkable feature is the thorough attestation of the Western tradition in the early ‘masoretic’ stage (with several original Western reading corrected to the EST ), while in the late ‘masoretic’ stage the attestation is considerably reduced (to mainly IIIn2 IIIn6 IIIn7 IIIn12 respectively). The reduced attestation is the result of the advancing EST and standardization, which slowly dissolve the bifurcation of textual traditions in favour of the EST. One more remarkable feature is the lack of attestation in one or both ‘masoretic’ stages (marked by ‘○’ in the table). To some extent, and in the early stage, this may be due to the small number of Western witnesses identified and included thus far in the present edition; in the late ‘masoretic’ stage, it certainly is the effect of standardization, which excluded variants of the Western textual tradition from further transmission. 4. The text in the pre-‘masoretic’ stage The formation of textual traditions in the pre-‘masoretic’ textual stage is obscured by the small number of only 15 early witnesses and is hardly traceable in greater detail. Looking back from the textual scenery of the 7th/8th century, the EST is a distinctive and fully developed textual tradition at the end of the pre-‘masoretic’/Byzantine period. However, the attestation of the EST at the end of this period is restricted to two witnesses only (In2, Ix1). In spite of their extensive lacunae, both witnesses give an almost identical text and can be assigned to the end of the pre-‘masoretic’ textual stage without doubt.2 Beside these two witnesses, 191 out of the 238 significantly attested EST-readings exist already in 5th/6th-c. manuscripts, arbitrarily scattered and without reflecting the formation or a ‘pre-history’ of the EST. The remaining 47 EST-readings, however, are the property of In2 and Ix1. 3 Within the incoherent early variants, these 47 EST-readings reflect a coherent feature of the future EST. The origin of this feature could either be the selection of a specific manuscript as the ‘archetype’ of the EST; or the Sasanian Empire as a textual milieu of its own in the 5th/6th centuries. Since most of the 238 EST-readings (including the special 47) are only minor variations, they hardly reflect a ‘revisional’ or ‘recensional’ activity. Within the pre-‘masoretic’ textual stage, the attestation of the 238 corresponding future Western readings shares the general incoherence with most of the future Eastern is dated between 699/701 AD; Ix1 is written in a beautiful Esṭrangela of the old type. They are marked in column C of the Table p. xlii.

2 In2 3

III. Bifurcation of Textual Traditions

lxi

readings. At the end of this period in the 7th century, the future Western variants that correspond to the EST-readings receive ‘coherence’ only by contrasting the EST. Lacking formative coherence of its own, these corresponding variants are rather the background than the rival of the EST under formation. This may have contributed to the decline of this future Western textual tradition during history. No help for tracing a ‘pre-history’ of either textual tradition comes from the agreement with the future EST-readings provided by the pre-‘masoretic’ witnesses. While In2 and Ix1 fix the beginning of the EST with 98,64% and 96,12% in the 7th century, the remaining pre-‘masoretic’ manuscripts offer less than 40%. This is no agreement at all but reflects the common ‘pre-schismatic’ heritage. Almost identical percentages (e. g. Ip4 and Ip5) are accidental and without genealogical evidence, because the manuscripts do not exclusively share enough variant units in the same way as In2 Ix1. However, comparison of the earliest manuscripts with the future EST is useful for providing an idea about the still unregularized textual scenery in the 5th/6th centuries, which is the background for the formation of the EST. At the same time, this comparison shows the still unregularized character of the early conformity, which becomes regularized by standardization since the 8th century. The following table gives the witnesses of the pre-‘masoretic’ periods and their percentages of agreement with the future EST: In1

In2

Ix1

Ip1

Ip2

Ip3

Ip4

Ip5

Ip6

Ip7

Ip8

Ip9

228/ 76

148/ 146

155/ 149

213/ 68

219/ 74

202/ 49

231/ 63

229/ 62

187/ 58

218/ 83

175/ 61

235/ 61

33,33

98,64

96,12

31,92

33,78

24,25

27,27

27,07

31,01

38,07

34,85

25,95

Ip10

Ip11

Ip12

166/ 46

191/ 50

44/ 12

27,71

26,17

27,27

The conclusion is that the undivided text in the pre-‘masoretic’ manuscripts may continue the pre-schismatic text of the 5th century, which is only a theoretical figure. The variants in pre-‘masoretic’ manuscripts are either inherited from pre-schismatic times or reflect the beginning formation of the East-West-bifurcation during the Byzantine period.

lxii

Introduction

5. Graph: The history of the text The following graph gives a summary of the textual history outlined in the previous chapters. TEXTUAL STAGES

PERIODS OF TRANSMISSION

5th

5th

6th PRE-‘MASORETIC’

7th 8th 9th 10th ‘Syriac Masora’ 11th 12th 13th

‘MASORETIC’

BYZANTINE Western Textual Tradition

6th

7th Eastern Textual Tradition Eastern Standard Text

14th

8th 9th early Islamic

11th ISLAMIC

12th 13th

late Islamic

15th

10th

14th 15th 16th

16th

Textus receptus 1555

Conditioned by textual stages and periods of transmission, the history of the text is marked by the bifurcation of textual traditions. The East-West-bifurcation develops during the Byzantine period, resulting in a dominant Eastern textual tradition, and in a dominated Western textual tradition at the end of the 7th century. The historical substantiation of both textual traditions is provided by the ‘Syriac Masora’ of the 9th/10th centuries. The textual history since the 8th century operates as the dissolution of the bifurcation by standardization in favour of the Eastern textual tradition. From the 12th century, the bifurcation of textual traditions is replaced by the bifurcation of palaeographical traditions. The Textus receptus of 1555 is based on standardized witnesses of Western descent.

IV. EDITION 1. Manuscripts The manuscripts are selected according to following criteria: age; colophon and date extant. complete Peshitṭa NT, for further use in sequel volumes; fragments are excluded (an exception due to age is Ip12). Western descent. In the II◌-section (early ‘masoretic’/Islamic period), and in the III◌section (late ‘masoretic’/Islamic period), the Eastern or Western descent was determined by using the significant variant units (p. xlii) as test units.

1. 2. 3.

NT corpora & text corpora New Testament Praxapostolos (i.e. Acts/cath. epp., and/or Corpus Paulinum) Corpus Paulinum masoretic ms lectionary

n x p m q

Hugoye 15: NTSyr: Gw/Pin:

The Ms-sigla used in Hugoye 15,1 (2012) 79–163. The Mss-sigla in Das NT in syrischer Überlieferung, vol. I (1986) & II,1-3 (1991–2002). The Mss-sigla used by Pusey-Gwilliam in Tetraeuangeliun Sanctum (1901), and by J. Pinkerton in his hand-written collation of the Praxapostolos (BL or. 11,360).

A.

CODICES FROM THE PRE-‘MASORETIC’ /BYZANTINE PERIOD (5TH–7TH) Sigla

Manuscripts

Our date AD

Catal. date AD

Hugoye 15

NT Syr

Gw/ Pin

5th/6th

6n1

P4

17

699/701

699/700

7n1

P5

33

P16

In1

BL Add 14,470 (London)

In2

BL Add 14,448 (London)

Ix1

Bayer. Staatsbibl. München syr. 8

6th/7th

6th

7x1

Sin. Syr. 3 (St Catherine’s Mon.) + Schøyen Coll. Ms 2530 + Bibl. Ambrosiana, frgm. 30

5th/6th

?

6p1

Ip1

BL Add 14,478 (London)

5th/6th

622 by err

6p2

Ip3

BL Add 14,475 (London)

5th/6th

6th

6p3

P13

47

Ip4

BL Add 14,476 (London)

5th/6th

5th/6th

6p4

P10

44

Ip5

BL Add 14,479 (London)

533/534

534

6p5

P12

46

Ip6

BL Add 14,480 (London)

5th/6th

5th/6th

6p6

P11

45

Ip2

5th

P18 55

lxiv Sigla

Introduction Manuscripts

Our date AD

Catal. date AD

Hugoye 15

NT Syr

Gw/ Pin

6p7

P2

7p1

P15

54

7p2

P17

56

5th/6th

Ip7

Sin. Syr. 5 (St Catherine’s Mon.) + Hiersemann, Catal. 500/no. 36 + BL or. 8607/I (fol 1–11) suppl + Bibl. Ambrosiana, frgm. 31

6th 7th th 9 /10th 5th/6th

Ip8

Syr. n. s. 3 (St Petersburg)

6th/7th

5th

Ip9

BL Add 14,477 (London)

6th/7th

6th/7th

6th/7th

Ip10

BL Add 14,481 (London) + Dayr al-Suryān syr. frgm. 22 + Metropolitan Museum (N. Y.), Byzant. Depart. 21.148.17

Ip11

BL Add 17,122 (London)

6th/7th

6th

7p3

Ip12

BL Add 14,468 (London) fol 1-20

6th/7th

7th

7p4

6th/7th

53

B.

CODICES FROM THE ‘MASORETIC’ /ISLAMIC PERIOD (8TH–16TH +) B.1 THE EARLY ‘MASORETIC’ PERIOD (8TH–11TH) Sigla in italics are Mss of non-Eastern descent

Sigla

Manuscripts

Our date AD

Catal. date AD

Hugoye 15

NT Syr

Gw/ Pin

P20

16

IIn1

BL Add 7157 (London)

767/68

768

8n1

IIn2

PPMorgan 236 (New York)

759/60

749/50

8n2

II

SOPD 346 (olim 12/1) Damascus

7th/8th

before10th

8n3

IIn4

Mingana syr. 103 (Birmingham)

8th/9th

ca 790

9n1

IIn5

Sin.Syr. 17 (St Catherine’s Mon.)

8th/9th

9th

9n2

IIn6

Sachau 3 (Berlin)

8th/9th

9th

9n3

IIn7

BnF (Paris) syr. 342

894/895

894

9n4

IIn8

BnF (Paris) syr. 361 (fol 33-211)

8th/9th

8th/9th

9n5

II

n9

Sin.Syr. 54 (St Catherine’s Mon.)

8th/9th

8th

9n6

IIn10

Beinecke Coll. syr. 6 (New Haven)

917/18

10n1

n3

IV. Edition: Manuscripts Sigla

Manuscripts

lxv

Our date AD

Catal. date AD

Hugoye 15

IIn11

BnF (Paris) syr. 360

8th/9th

9th

10n2

IIn12

BnF (Paris) syr. 343

8th/9th

9th

10n3

IIn13

BnF (Paris) syr. 28

10th/11th

10th/11th

11n1

n14

BnF (Paris) syr. 341

8th/9th

8th

x1

Sin.Syr. 15 (St Catherine’s Mon.) + Mingana syr. 634

8th/9th

8th

9x1

II

x2

BL Add 14,474 (London)

8th/9th

9th

9x2

IIx3

Sachau 201 (Berlin)

8th/9th

8th/9th

9x3

p1

BL Add 17,123 (London)

9th/10th

9th/10th

10p1

p2

BL Add 14,475 (London) fol. 1-8/180–208

9th/10th

10th

10p2

II

II

II

II

NT Syr

Gw/ Pin

57

P13

LECTIONARIES Sigla in italics are Mss of non-Eastern descent

Sigla

Manuscripts

Our date AD

Catal. date AD

Hugoye 15

NT Syr

Gw/ Pin

Catal. date AD

Hugoye 15

NT Syr

Gw/ Pin

899

mas

IIq1

BL Add 14,485 (London)

824

IIq2

BL Add 14,486 (London)

824

IIq3

BL Add 14,487 (London)

824

IIq4

BL Add 12,139 (London)

9th/10th

9th/10th

IIq5

BL Add 14,491 (London)

9th/10th

9th/10th

MANUSCRIPTS OF THE ‘SYRIAC MASORA’ Sigla in italics are Mss of non-Eastern descent

Sigla

Manuscripts

Our date AD

IIm

BL Add 12,138 (London)

IIm1

Vat. syr. 152 (Città del Vatic.)

IIm2

Barb. or. 118 (Città del Vatic.)

10th/11th

ca 1000

IIm3

BL Add 12,178 (London)

9th/10th

9th/10th

IIm4

Mar Tuma 16 (Moṣul)

979/80

1014

lxvi

Introduction

B.2 THE LATE ‘MASORETIC’ PERIOD (12TH–16TH) Sigla

Manuscripts

Our date AD

Catal. date AD

Hugoye 15

IIIn1

BnF (Paris) syr. 29

11th/12th

12th

12n1

IIIn2

BnF (Paris) syr. 30

11th/12th

?

12n2

IIIn3

Vat. Syr. 266 (Città del Vatic.)

11th/12th

7th

12n3

IIIn4

O.A.O.C. 24 (Alqoš/Iraq)

1199/1200

1200

12n4

IIIn5

J. Rylands Univ. Libr. syr. 2 (Manchester)

12th/13th

12th

13n1

IIIn6

Syriac-Orth. 35/2 (Mardin)

12th/13th

IIIn7

BL Add. 17,124 (London)

1233/1234

1234

13n2

IIIn8

St. Mark syr. 31 (Jerusalem)

15th/16th

16th

16n1

IIIn9

Vat. Syr. 16 (Città del Vatic.)

12th/13th

13th

IIIn10

Meryem Ana 1/1(Diyarbakır)

NT: 1498

1497

IIIn11

New College 334 (Oxford)

11th/12th

11th

IIIn12

Oo. 1.1,2 (‘Buchanan Bible’), Cambridge University Library

12th/13th

12

IIIx1

Vat. Syr. 470 (Città del Vatic.)

11th/12th

12th

13x1

IIIp1

BnF (Paris) syr. 361 (fol. 212–56)

12th/13th

13th

13p1

NT Syr

Gw/ Pin

P3

12

58

MANUSCRIPTS OF THE ‘SYRIAC MASORA’ Sigla in italics are Mss of non-Eastern descent

Sigla

Manuscripts

Our date AD

Catal. date AD

IIIm5

BnF (Paris) syr. 64

12th/13th

11th

IIIm6

St. Mark syr. 42 (Jerusalem)

16th/17th

16th/17th

Hugoye 15

NT Syr

Gw/ Pin

A.

CODICES FROM THE PRE-‘MASORETIC’ /BYZANTINE PERIOD (5TH – 7TH)

I

n1 | BRITISH LIBRARY ADD 14,470 LONDON

5th/6th, 176 fols, ca 23,5 x 15 cm, 2 cols, 40–48 li Parchment codex of the complete Peshiṭta NT; from the ‘Nitrian Collection’. A later hand (the same which produced the supplements) introduced corrections to the text and alterations of diacritical points and accents. Acts/Cath. Epp. after the Corpus of Pauline epistles is unusual in a Peshiṭta manuscript (also in IIx2, IIIn10 and IIIn12). The subscription at the end of the text confirms this order:

‫ܘܣ‬

‫܆ ܘܕ‬

‫ܒ‬

‫ܕ‬

̈

‫ܘ‬

‫ܬ ܬ‬

‫܆ ܘܐ‬

‫ܘ‬

‫ܘ‬

‫ܢ‬

‫ܒ ܐܘ‬ .

‫܆ ܘܕ‬

Date

5th/6th: Wright, Gwilliam, Buck, Aland, Gudorf ― 6th: Clemons

Text

Gospels 2va–88ra; Rom 88rb–98ra, 1Co 98ra–108ra, 2Co 108ra-114va, Gal 114va-118ra, Eph 118ra-121rb, Php 121rb-123vb, Col 123vb-125vb, 1Th 125vb–128ra, 2Th 128ra–129ra, 1Tm 129ra–132ra, 2Tm 132ra–133vb, Tit 133vb–135ra, Phm 135ra–135va, Heb 135va– 143ra; Acts, Cath. Epp. 143rb–176vb

Suppl 12 fols fol 96: Rom 13:4 –15:10 163: Acts: 13,1 ‫ܗܝ‬ –23,10 ‫ܪ‬

‫ | ܐܬ‬fol 101: 1Co 6:20 ‫– ̇ܗ ܢ‬7:40

‫ | ܐ‬fol 154–

, all the same 9th/10th Esṭrangela.

Catalogue(s) and other literature WRIGHT, Catalogue 1 (1870) 40 (LXIII) ― PUSEY-GWILLIAM, Tetraeuangelium (1901) no. 17 ― CLEMONS, Studies (1963) 48 ― FREITAG, Studies (1971) 290 ― BUCK, Manuscript Studies (1978) 30 ― GUDORF, Research (1992) 20 ― The text of this manuscript is printed in full in ALAND, NTSYR I (1986) and II (1991–2002) (‘P4’) ― in The Aramaic NT (1983) Rom 1:1−18 is based on this codex.

I

n2 | BRITISH LIBRARY ADD 14,448 LONDON

1012 AG/80 AH (= 699/701 AD), 209 fols, ca 23x15 cm, 1 col, 26–32 li Defective parchment codex of a Peshiṭta NT; from the ‘Nitrian Collection’. Date

699/700: Wright, Gudorf, Buck, Aland ― ca 700: Clemons ― end of 7th: Gwilliam Wright’s deciphering of the colophon is correct (1012 AG/80 Hiğra), but there is no chronological overlap between both dates: 1012 AG 1.10.700−30.9.701; 80 Hiğra 9.3.699−25.2.700 (LIETZMANN, Zeitrechnung [ 41984] 33). Wright gives the date 699/700.

Text

Gospels 1r–115v; Acts/cath. Epp. 116r–164r; Rom 164r–177v, 1Co 177v–191r, 2Co 191r– 194v (defective), Gal 195r–196v (defective), Eph 196v (def.), Php−1Tm is lost, 2Tm 197r– 199r (defective), Tit 199r–201r, Phm 201rv, Heb 201v–209v (defective)

lxviii Lac

Introduction in the Corpus Paulinum: after fol 194: 2Co 6:15 ‫ܕ‬ −Gal 4:22 ‫ | ܕ ܗܡ‬after fol 196: Eph 1:17 ‫ ܘܕ‬−2Tm 1:4 ‫ | ܘ ܕ ܐ‬after fol 204: Heb 7:4 ‫ ܐ ̈ ܬ‬−9:21 ‫ܐܦ‬

Catalogue(s) and other literature WRIGHT, Catalogue 1 (1870) 41–42 (LXIV) ― PUSEY-GWILLIAM, Tetraeuangelium (1901) no. 33 ― CLEMONS, Studies (1963) 48 ― BUCK, Manuscript Studies (1978) 32 ― GUDORF, Research (1992) 20 ― ALAND, NTSYR I (1986) (‘P5’). I

x1 | BAYERISCHE STAATSBIBLIOTHEK, MÜNCHEN MS SYR 8

6th/7th, 51 fols, ca 26x18 cm, 1 col, 35–38 li Mutilated parchment codex of the Apostolos; only small portions of Acts and the cath. Epistles are preserved; the Corpus of Pauline Epistles starts 1Co 9:17. Beautiful old Esṭrangela. An early hand added elements of the Euthalian apparatus, i.e., testimonies and qefalaia/titles in the margins, and the numbers of the qeryāne, qefalaia, testimonies, and petgāme in the subscription to every epistle. – The correct sequence of folios is fol 1–8. 11. 10. 9. 12–14. 21. 15–20. 22–51. Date

6th: Schönfelder, Clemons, Aland

Text

fol 1 Acts 21:39–22:25, fol 2 Acts 28:11–end; Jas 1:1–2 — 1Co (starting 9:17 2 ) 3r– 8v (defective), 2Co 8v–19r, Gal 19r–25r, Eph 25r–28v (defective), Php 28v–32r, Col 32r– 35r, 1Th 35r–38v, 2Th 38r–39v, 1Tm 39v–42v (defective), 2Tm 42v–45v, Tit 45v–47v, Phm 47v (defective), Heb 48r–51v (breaking off 10:2 )

Lac

after fol 2: Rm–1Co 9:17 ‫ | ܕ‬after fol 27: Eph 4:29 ‫ܢ‬ –5:33 ‫ | ܐܦ ܐ ܘܢ‬after fol 39: 1Tm 1:5 −2:14 | after fol 47: Phm 9 ‫– ܕܐ ܝ‬Heb 5:2 ‫ܘ‬

Catalogue(s) and other literature SCHÖNFELDER, Verzeichnis (1875) 115 ― CLEMONS, Studies (1963) 56 ― ALAND, NTSYR II (1991–2002) (‘P16’). I

p1 | ST CATHERINE’S MONASTERY, SINAI SIN SYR 3

5th/6th, 103 fols, ca 28,5 x 21 cm, 2 cols, 24–25 li Defective parchment codex of the Pauline Epistles. Date

5th: Chabot ― 6th: Gudorf ― 7th: Clark, Clemons, Kamil, Buck, Ross. Gudorf, Research 215 justifies his 6th-cent. dating: ‘This manuscript may actually be older than the seventh-century approximation provided by Clark and Lewis. The high quality of the large, regular Esṭrangela characters and the presence of numerous archaic spellings allow for such a possibility.’ SMITH LEWIS, however, gives no date at all.

Single leaves a) 1 fragment with Rom 6:12 [ ‫– ]ܗ‬13 ‫ ܙ‬/7:2 ̇ ‫ـ‬ Syriac pag.) and 5 leaves with Rom 7:3 ‫– ܬܗܘ‬10:7 Schøyen Collection (Ms no. 2530) at Oslo/London;

–3 ‫ܬ ܐܢ‬ (fol. 7 acc. to the late (fols. 8–12) are located in the

b) 1 fragment from the ‘new finds’ (sparagmaton 20, ed. BROCK, Catalogue 185) with Rom 6:14 ‫ܬܗ‬ ‫– ] ܘ[ܘܢ‬16 ‫ܘ[ܐܢ‬ ‫ ]ܐܢ‬/17 –21 [‫ܬܗ‬ ‫ܐ] ܘܢ‬, belonging to the same leaf as the fragment mentioned under a);

IV. Edition: Manuscripts

lxix

c) 1 single leaf is in the Biblioteca Ambrosiana, Milano (CHABOT, Inventaire [1936] no. 30) with Rom 10:7 ̈ –11:6 ‫( ܐܢ ܕ‬fol. 13). Collations of Ms Schøyen 2530 and of Ms Sin. syr. 3 against the BFBS text were published by A. JUCKEL, ‘Ms Schøyen 2530/Sin. syr. 3 and the New Testament Peshiṭta ’, Hugoye, Journal of Syriac Studies 6,2 (2003) 311–336. The Milano leave is included in ALAND, NTSYR II,1 (1991) (‘P18’).

Alas, no further fragments or folios of Ms Sin. syr. 3 are included in the catalogue of the Sinaitic ‘new finds’ published by SR. PHILOTHEA in 2008. According to the present state of restoration, fols. 1–6 (Syriac), the remaining fragments of fol 7, and the remaining fragments of fols. 14–16 are still missing. The first fully preserved fol of Ms Sin. syr. 3 is no. 17 (= no. 3 of the modern pagination). Plates

www.schoyencollection.com BROCK, Catalogue 185 (sparagmaton no. 20) GÉHIN, Les fragments sinaitiques 245 (planche 4)

Text

Rom 1ra (starting 11:6 ‫ܬ‬ )–7va, 1Co 7va–30ra, 2Co 30ra–44vb, Gal 44vb–52ra, Eph 52ra–59rb, Php 59rb–64ra, Col 64rb–68vb, 1Th 68vb–72vb, 2Th 72vb–75ra, 1Tm 75ra– 80vb, 2Tm 80vb–84vb, Tit 84vb–87rb, Phm 87rb–88rb, Heb 88rb–103vb

Suppl

fol 96–97: Heb 9:4 2 ̈

Lac

Rom 1:1–6:11 ‫ܥ‬

‫– ܕܕ‬10:15 ‫ ܪܘ‬in (Melkite) Serṭā of the 11th/12th

| 6:21

–7:2 ‫ܗܝ‬

‫ | ܐ‬12:7 2 ‫– ܘܐ‬13:6

Minor defects (not quoted in the edition) Rom 11:6 ‫ܬ‬ –7 ‫ܘܢ‬ | 11:10 ‫– ܘܢ‬13 ‫ܝ‬ ‫ | ܘܢ‬11:24 ‫ܢ‬ –25 ̈ ‫ | ܕ‬11:28 ‫– ܐ ̈ ܬ‬30 12:3 ‫– ܐ‬5 ‫ܐܦ‬

‫ܕ‬

| 11:16 ‫– ܕ‬18 ‫ | ܐ‬11:22 –23 | 11:34 ‫– ܗܘ‬12:1 ‫ܐ ܗ‬ |

Catalogue(s) and other literature SMITH LEWIS, Catalogue (1894) no. 3 (p. 2) ― CHABOT, Inventaire (1936) no. 30 ― CLARK, Checklist (1952) 17 ― CLEMONS, Studies (1963) 66 ― KAMIL, Catalogue (1970) no. 52 (p. 152) ― BUCK, Manuscript Studies (1978) 33 ― ROSS, Studies (1983) 14 ― GUDORF, Research (1992) 27 ― BROCK, Catalogue (1995) 185 ― GÉHIN, Les fragments sinaitiques (2012) 243–44; IDEM, Les manuscrits syriaques (2017) 30–31. I

p2 | BRITISH LIBRARY ADD 14,478 LONDON

5th/6th, 143 fols, ca 23x14 cm, 1 col, 23–28 li Defective parchment codex of the Pauline Epistles; from the ‘Nitrian Collection’. Date

622 AD: Wright, Clemons, Buck, Freitag, Gudorf ― 621-622 AD: Hatch These dates are erroneous and derive from Wright’s misunderstanding of the dated (933 AG) owner’s note on fol 143r as the colophon of the manuscript, cf the text in WRIGHT Catalogue 1 (1870) 91. More appropriate is the information in the Catalogue of Additions to the Manuscripts in the British Museum in the Years MDCCCXLI−MDCCCXLV (London, 1850), 71: ‘The Epistles of St. Paul, Peshito version; imperfect. A note at the end states, that the book was purchased by one John, son of Sergius, in the year of Alexandria [in the ms: Alexandros] 933 (A.D. 622). On vellum, of the VIth century. Quarto’. There is a thorough correction of the text (not according to the Eastern standard text) by the hand which wrote the owner’s note; the same hand added testimonia in the margins.

Plate

HATCH, Album (1946) XLII

lxx Text

Introduction Rom 1v–27v, 1Co 27v–53v (defective), 2Co 54r–68r (defective), Gal 68r–77r, Eph 77v–86r, Php 86r–91v (defective), Col 91v–96r (defective), 1Th 96v–101v, 2Th 101v–104v, 1Tm 104v–112r, 2Tm 112r–117v, Tit 117v–120v Phm 120v–122r, Heb 122r–142v

Suppl fol 1–2: Rom 1:1–9 ‫ܕ ܐ‬ (textual overlap suppl./original vs 9–18) | fol 20–21 (Rom 12:8 ‫ܗ‬ – 13:6 (textual overlap suppl./original 13:6–14). Both suppl. are made of paper and are written by a late 13th/14th hand. Lac

after fol 52: 1Co 15:48 − 16:6 ‫ | ܘܐ ܘܢ‬after fol 53: 1Co 16:22 ‫ ܥ‬− 2Co 1:10 ‫| ̇ܗܘ‬ after fol 55: 2Co 2:17 − 3:14 ‫ | ܐ‬after fol 56: 2Co 4:10 ‫ܢ‬ − 6:2 ‫ | ܘܗ‬after fol 86: ̇ Php 1:14 ‫ ܕ ܢ‬−1:30 ‫ | ܐ ܗܘ‬after fol 94: Col 3:4 ‫ ܕ‬− 3:20

Catalogue(s) and other literature: WRIGHT, Catalogue 1 (1870) 90–92 (CXLI) ― CLEMONS, Studies (1963) 50 ― FREITAG, Studies (1971) 290 ― BUCK, Manuscript Studies (1978) 33 ― GUDORF, Research (1992) 22.

I

p3 | BRITISH LIBRARY ADD 14,475 (fol 9–179) LONDON

5th/6th, 208 fols, ca 32 x 26,5 cm, 2 cols, 17–20 li Supplemented parchment codex of the Pauline Epistles; from the ‘Nitrian Collection’. Date

6th: Wright, Clemons, Freitag, Buck, Aland, Gudorf

Text

Rom (starting 3:26 ‫ܬ‬ ) 9ra–38va, 1Co 38va–76vb, 2Co 76vb–101va, Gal 101va–113vb, Eph 113vb–126ra, Php 126ra–135ra, Col 135ra–143ra, 1Th 143ra–150va, 2Th 150va–155ra, 1Tm 155ra–165vb, 2Tm 165vb–172vb, Tit 173ra–177va, Phm 177va–179rb, Heb 179rb– 208rb, the original ms breaks off Heb 1:6 ̣‫ܐ‬

Suppl fol 1–8 (Rom 1:7 –3:26 ‫ܬ‬ one word overlap), and fol 180–208 (Heb 1:6 ‫ܕ‬ one word overlap – end), both parchment, ca 9th/10th = IIp2 in the present edition. Lac

̣‫ܐ‬

Rom 1:1–7 ‫ܥ‬

Catalogue(s) and other literature WRIGHT, Catalogue 1 (1870) 86–87 (CXXXVI) ― CLEMONS, Studies (1963) 50 ― FREITAG, Studies (1971) 290 ― BUCK, Manuscript Studies (1978) 31 ― GUDORF, Research (1992) 21 ― ALAND, NTSYR II (1991–2002) (‘P13’) ― in The Aramaic NT (1983), Rom 1:19–Heb is reproduced from this codex (Rom 1:1–18 is in a 10th-cent. supplement and reproduced from In1). I

p4 | BRITISH LIBRARY ADD 14,476 LONDON

5th/6th,

110 fols, ca 28 x 21,5 cm, 2 cols, 24–28 li Parchment codex of the Corpus of Pauline Epistles; from the ‘Nitrian Collection’. Date

5th/6th: Wright, Freitag, Buck, Aland, Gudorf ― 6th: Clemons

Text

Rom (starting 6:22 ) 1ra–14ra, 1Co 14rb–35ra, 2Co 35ra–49ra, Gal 49ra–56rv, Eph 56rv– 63rv, Php 63rv–68va, Col 68va–73rb, 1Th 73rb–77vb, 2Th 77vb–80rb, 1Tm 80rb–86rb, 2Tm 86rb–90va, Tit 90va–92vb, Phm 93ra–93vb, Heb 94ra–110r

Suppl fol 17: 1Co 3:13 paper.

− 4:10

‫ܘ‬, ca 8th/9th | fol 110: Heb 13:23 ‫ܢ‬

− end, modern hand,

IV. Edition: Manuscripts Lac

The first quire is missing (Rom 1:1– 6:22 ‫ܢ‬

lxxi

)

Catalogue(s) and other literature WRIGHT, Catalogue 1 (1870) 84 (CXXXIII) ― CLEMONS, Studies (1963) 49 ― FREITAG, Studies (1971) 290 ― BUCK, Manuscript Studies (1978) 31 ― GUDORF, Research (1992) 21 ― ALAND, NTSYR II (1991–2002) (‘P10’). I

p5 | BRITISH LIBRARY ADD 14,479 LONDON

845 AG (= 533/34 AD), 101 fols, ca 23 x 14 cm, 1 col, 25–33 li Parchment codex of the Corpus of Pauline Epistles; from the ‘Nitrian Collection’. Date fol 101r

... ‫ܕ ̈ ܬ‬

‫ܘ‬

‫ܐܪܕ‬ ‫ܘ‬

‫ܣ‬ ‫ܘܐ‬

‫ܬ‬

‫ܕ‬

‫ܬ ܐܪ‬ ‫ܕ‬

‫ܗ ܐ‬ ‫ܘܪܗܝ‬

‫ܒ‬ ‫ܗ‬

Plate

HATCH, Album (1946) XVI

Text

Rom (original text starting 1:10 ‫ܬ ܢ‬ ‫ )ܕܐܬ‬1r–21r, 1Co 21r–41v, 2Co 41v–54v, Gal 54v– 60v, Eph 60v–66v, Php 66v–70v, Col 70v–74r, 1Th 74r–77v, 2Th 77v–79v, 1Tm 79v–83v, 2Tm 83v–86v, Tit 87r–88v, Phm 88v–89v, Heb 89v–101v

Suppl

fol 1: Rom 1:1–10 ‫ ܕ‬recto, and the same text verso, ca 12th/13th | fol 29: 1Co 7:35 ‫– ܪ‬9:1 ‫ | ܗܘ ܘܢ‬fol 38: 1Co 14:31 – 15:16 , both paper, ca 12th/13th.

‫ܐ ܘܢ‬

Catalogue(s) and other literature WRIGHT, Catalogue 1 (1870) 86 (CXXXV) ― GWILLIAM The Materials (1891) 50–51 ― BUCK, Manuscript Studies (1978) 31 ― GUDORF, Research (1983) 22 ― ALAND, NTSYR II (1991– 2002) (‘P12’).

I

p6 | BRITISH LIBRARY ADD 14,480 LONDON

5th/6th, 128 fols, ca 25 x 20 cm, 2 cols, 21–26 li Heavily supplemented parchment codex of the Pauline Epistles; from the ‘Nitrian Collection’. Date 5th/6th: Wright, Clemons, Freitag, Buck, Gudorf, Aland Text

Rom 1ra–25va, 1Co 25vb–48rb, 2Co 48rb–62vb, Gal 63ra–71ra, Eph 71ra–79ra, Php 79ra– 84vb, Col 84vb–90ra, 1Th 90ra–95rb, 2Th 95rb–98ra, 1Tm 98ra–104vb, 2Tm 105ra–109vb, Tit 109vb–112rb, Phm 112rb–113rb, Heb 113va–128vb (breaking off 12:5 ‫)ܕ‬

Suppl a) 6th/7th, parchment, Esṭrangela fol 1–10: Rom 1:1–7:4 ‫ܗ‬ | fol 12–13: Rom 8:13 2‫ܐ ܘܢ‬ 16:1 –18 ‫ܢ‬ ‫ܘܕ‬ b) 12th/13th, paper, Serṭā fol 11: Rom 7:4 ‫– ܕ‬8:13 ‫ܐ ܘܢ‬ | fol 14: Rom 9:11 1Co 3:11 –4:6 ‫ | ܘܐ‬fol 40–46: 1Co 10:25 ‫ܢ‬ –15:58 –16 ‫ܢ‬ c) 9th/10th, Serṭā fol 62: 2Co 12:11 ‫ܗܘ ܘܢ‬

–13:13 end

–9:11

| fol 47: 1Co

–27 ‫ | ܕ‬fol 29–30: | fol 55: 2Co 7:3 ‫ܗܘ‬

lxxii

Introduction

Catalogue(s) and other literature WRIGHT, Catalogue 1 (1870) 84–85 (CXXXIV) ― CLEMONS, Studies (1963) 49 ― FREITAG, Studies (1971) 290 ― BUCK, Manuscript Studies (1978) 31 ― GUDORF, Research (1992) 22 ― ALAND, NTSYR II (1991–2002) (‘P11’).

I

p7 | ST CATHERINE’S MONASTERY, SINAI SIN SYR 5

5th/6th,

178 fols, ca 26 x 20 cm, 2 cols, 23–24 li

Defective parchment codex of the Pauline Epistles (fols 1–103), supplemented by Acts, 7 cath. Epp., liturgical lists and tables (fols 104–178). Date

6th: SLewis, Clark, Kamil, Buck, Ross, Gudorf, Vööbus, Aland ― 7th: Baumstark, Orientalische Handschriften (Katalog 500 Hiersemann), Clemons

Dislocated portions a) 11 leaves (fol. 1–11) of Ms BL Or. 8607, of which fol. 1–10 give Rom 1:1–6:9 ̈ | fol 11 Rom 11,4 – 22 ̇ ‫ ; ܬ‬Palimpsests, Pls is the upper text, 9th/10th irregular Esṭrangela. b) 7 leaves: Rom 6:9 ‫– ܘܬܘܒ‬11:4 ‫ ܘܐܬ‬were preserved in the Kouyasan Temple (Japan) and were identified by T. MURAOKA, who published a collation of the text. These leaves Baumstark described in Katalog 500/no. 36 of the antiquarian K. W. Hiersemann at Leipzig (Germany) in 1922. Now in private possession in Sweden. BUCK 33: “… and after some interesting detective work I have been able to establish that it [scil. the fragment of 7 leaves] was purchased by the University Library of Louvain, but was lost when that Library was destroyed by fire in 1940.” ― How the leaves found their way to Japan and to Sweden is unknown. c) 7 leaves (dossier Chabot 31) at the Ambrosian Library, Milan: Heb 10:28 the last fol. is a palimpsest. Plate

‫– ܘܬ‬end;

Baumstark, Orientalische Handschriften (Katalog 500 Hiersemann), Tafel xv

Text of the old part Rom (starting 11,22 ‫ܬ‬ ) 1ra–8ra, 1Co 8ra–31ra, 2Co 31ra–46ra, Gal 46ra–53va, Eph 53va–60vb, Php 60vb–66ra, Col 66ra–70vb, 1Th 71ra–75va, 2Th 75va–78ra, 1Tm 78ra– 84va, 2Tm 84va–88vb, Tit 88vb–91ra, Phm 91ra–92va, Heb 92va–103vb (breaking off 10:28 ‫ܡ ܬ‬ ) Text of the younger part (paper, late Melkite hand): Acts 104ra–140rb, Jas 140rb–143rb, 1Pet 143rb–146vb, 1Jn 146vb (breaking off 1:1–7); a different late (Melkite) hand continues with: 2Pet 147ra– 150ra, 1Jn 150vb–155ra (from fol. 154 a late Serṭā hand), 2Jn 155ra–155vb, 3Jn 155vb– 156rb, Jud 156rb–157vb; liturgical list and tables by a late Melkite hand 158ra–178rb. Minor supplements fol 2: Rom 12:4 ‫– ܘܢ‬13:3 ‫ | ܨ ̇ ܐ‬fol. 5: Rom 15:3 – 21 ‫ | ܘ‬the first fol. of the dossier Chabot 31 at Milan Heb 10:28 ‫ – ܘܬ‬11:6 ‫ ܘ‬, all parchment leaves of the same 7th/8th regular Esṭrangela;

IV. Edition: Manuscripts

lxxiii

fol 17: 1Co 7:36 – 9:1 1‫ | ܐܘ‬fol. 22: 1Co 11:17 ‫ܬܘܢ‬ –12:2 2‫ | ܗܘ ܘܢ‬the last fol. of the dossier Chabot 31 at Milan Heb 13:23 ‫ܐܘܣ‬ – end, are parchment leaves of the same 9th/10th hand that produced fol. 1–11 of Ms BL Or. 8607. Lac

Thanks to the research of T. Muraoka and P. Géhin, the Corpus P. is completely restored.

Catalogue(s) and other literature SMITH LEWIS, Catalogue (1894) no. 5 (p. 2) ― BAUMSTARK, Orientalische Handschriften (1922) 18 (no. 36) ― CLARK, Checklist (1952) 17 ― CLEMONS, Studies (1963) 67 ― KAMIL, Catalogue (1970) no. 53 (p. 152) ― BUCK, Manuscript Studies (1978) 31 and 33 ― GUDORF, Research (1992) 27–28 ― ROSS, Studies (1983) 12 ― VÖÖBUS, History II (1987) 191 ― ALAND, NTSYR I (1986) and II (1991–2002) (‘P2’) ― in GWYNN, Remnants (1909), the Sinaitic manuscript is Cod. 18 on page li-ii ― T. MURAOKA, A Fragment of an Old Peshiṭta Manuscript (2004) 218–222 ― GÉHIN, Manuscrits sinaїtiques dispersés III (2010) 14–57. I

p8 |NATIONAL LIBRARY OF RUSSIA ST PETERSBURG MS N S SYR 3

6th/7th, 112 fols, ca 26 x 21 cm, 2 cols, 23–24 li Parchment codex of the Pauline Epistles. According to an undated note on fol 2r, the Ms belonged to the Monastery of the Syrians in the Sketis (Dayr al-Suryān in Egypt). A second note, reporting an earthquake, is dated 1027 AG (715/16 AD). The Ms was sold to the then Imperial Public Library at St. Petersburg by M. Pacho, who in the year 1847 acquired Mss from Dayr alSuryān for the then British Museum. The text is divided into lessons, the rubrication inside the text is by the original hand. The inscription seems to indicate a lectionary, but the text is complete:

.

‫ܣ‬

‫ܕ‬

‫ܒ‬

‫ܥ‬

‫ܕ ܢ‬

Date

5th/6th: Buck (reporting Pigulewskaja’s dating) – The Esṭrangela is old but not of the archaic type as in Ip1.2.3.4. Also, the presence of complete rubrication hints at the date in the 6th/7th.

Text

Rom 3va–30rb, 1Co 30rb–56rb, 2Co 56rb–70vb, Gal 70vb–79ra, Eph 79ra–87ra, Php 87ra– 93rb, Col 93rb–98vb, 1Th 98vb–104rb, 2Th 104rb–107rb, 1Tm 107rb (defective from 2:5 until Heb 11:27).

Lac

2Co 7:1 ̈

–14 ‫ | ܐܦ‬1Tm 2:5

‫ – ܕ‬Heb 11:27 ‫ܕ‬

Catalogue(s) and other literature WRIGHT, Catalogue 3 (1872) xv ― PIGULEWSKAJA, Manuscrits syriaques (1937) 397–400 ― BUCK, Manuscript Studies (1978) 30. I

p9 | BRITISH LIBRARY ADD 14,477 LONDON

6th/7th, 116 fols, ca 25x17 cm, 2 cols, 27–31 li Parchment codex of the Pauline Epistles; from the ‘Nitrian Collection’. Date

6th/7th: Wright, Freitag, Buck, Aland, Gudorf — 7th: Clemons

Text

Rom 1va–23ra, 1Co 23rb–44rb, 2Co 44rb–57vb, Gal 57vb–64va, Eph 64vb–71rb, Php 71va–76rb, Col 76va–80vb, 1Th 81ra–85ra, 2Th 85rb–87rb, 1Tm 87va–93rb, 2Tm 93rb– 97rb, Tit 97rb–99vb, Phm 99vb–100vb, Heb 101ra–116va

lxxiv

Introduction

Suppl fol 37–38: 1Co 12:10 5

–14:6 ‫ ܐܬ‬, paper, 12th/13th

Catalogue(s) and other literature WRIGHT, Catalogue 1 (1870) 88–89 (CXXXVIII) ― CLEMONS, Studies (1963) 50 ― FREITAG, Studies (1971) 290 ― BUCK, Manuscript Studies (1978) 33 ― GUDORF, Research (1992) 21– 22 ― ALAND, NTSYR II (1991–2002) (‘P15’).

I

p10 | BRITISH LIBRARY ADD 14,481 LONDON

6th/7th, 91 fols, ca 18x11 cm, 1 col, 25–29 li Very defective parchment codex of the Pauline Epistles; from the ‘Nitrian Collection’. Date

6th/7th: Wright, Freitag, Buck, Aland, Gudorf ― 7th: Clemons, Brock/van Rompay

Plate

BROCK/VAN ROMPAY, Catalogue (2014) 650–51 (fragm. 22).

Dislocated single leaves: a) 1 fol Rom 13:9 ‫– ܘܐܢ ܐ‬14:14 ‫ܥ‬ ROMPAY, Catalogue (2014) 386.

is fragm. 22 of Dayr al-Suryān (Egypt), BROCK/VAN

b) 1 fol Rom 14:14 ‫– ܕ ܡ‬15:12 ̣ ‫ܐ‬ (Byzantine Department 21.148. 17).

‫ ܐ‬in the Metropolitan Museum, New York

Text

Rom 1r–12v (defective), 1Co 13r–24r (defective), 2Co 24r–35v (defective), Gal 36rv (defective), Eph 37r–41v (defective), Php 42r–45v (defective), Col 46r–52r, 1Th 52r–57r, 2Th 57r–59v, 1Tm 59v–66r, 2Tm 66r–70v, Tit 70v–73v, Phm 73v–74v, Heb 74v–91v (defective).

Lac

before fol 1: Rom 1:1−13 ‫ | ܬ ܢ‬after fol 6: Rom 5:13 −7:19 1 ‫ | ܕܐ‬after fol 7: Rom 8:11 1 ‫ ܪܘ‬−8:27 ‫ | ܕܪܘ‬after fol 12: Rom 11:30 ‫ ܐ‬−13:9 ‫ | ܬܪܓ‬after the two ̈ dislocated leaves: 15:12 ‫– ܕ ܘ‬1Co 3:17 ‫ | ܐ ܢ‬after fol 14: 1Co 5:10 ‫ ܐܘ‬−6:15 ‫ܗܕ‬ ‫ | ܕ‬after fol 15: 1Co 7:14 ‫ ܕ‬−11:20 ‫ܐ ܘܢ‬ ‫ | ܐ‬after fol 16: 1Co 12:5 ‫ܘܢ‬ ‫ܐ‬ −12:25 ‫ | ܬܗܘ‬after fol 31: 2Co 8:7 ‫ ܘ‬−10:2 ‫ | ܐܬܐ‬after fol 35: 2Co 12:19 ̈ −Gal ̈ | after fol 44: Php 2:25 ‫ ܐ‬−3:11 5:22 ‫ | ܘܬ‬after fol 36: Eph 1:1−2:19 ‫|ܐ‬ after fol 74: Heb 1:1−2:4

Minor defects (not quoted in the edition) fol 23r: 1Co 16:11 ‫ܐ‬ –12 ̈ ‫ | ܐ‬fol 23v 1Co 16:19 ‫ܗܘܢ‬ ‫– ܕ‬21 ‫ | ܐ ܕ‬fol 27r 2Co 3:14 –17 ‫ | ܪܘܬ ܗܝ‬fol 27v 2Co 4:5 ‫– ܢ‬7 ‫ | ܕ‬fol 34r 2Co 11:20 ‫ܢ‬ –22 2‫| ܐܢ‬ 2 fol 34v 2Co 11:27 –29 ‫ | ܘ ܐ‬fol 35r 2Co 12:6 –7 ‫ | ܘܕ‬fol 35v 2Co 12.14 ̈ – 15 ‫ܐ‬ Catalogue(s) and other literature WRIGHT, Catalogue 1 (1870) 90 (CXXXIX) ― CLEMONS, Studies (1963) 50 ― FREITAG, Studies (1971) 290 ― BUCK, Manuscript Studies (1978) 33 ― GUDORF, Research (1992) 22–23 ― BROCK/VAN ROMPAY, Catalogue (2014) 386; 650–51 – ALAND, NTSYR II (1991–2002) (‘P17’).

IV. Edition: Manuscripts I

lxxv

p11 | BRITISH LIBRARY ADD 17,122 LONDON

6th/7th, 129 fols, ca 22,5x14 cm, 1 col, 23–27 li Parchment codex of the Pauline Epistles; from the ‘Nitrian Collection’. Date

6th: Wright, Clemons, Freitag, Buck, Aland, Gudorf

Text

Rom 1v–27r, 1Co 27r–54r, 2Co 54r–59v (defective), Gal 60r–61v (defective) Eph 61v–70v, Php 70v–77r, Col 77r–82r (defective), 1Th 82r–88r, 2Th 88r–91r, 1Tm 91r–99r, 2Tm 99r– 104r, Tit 104r–107v, Phm 107v–109r, Heb 109r–129v (breaking off 13:21 ‫)ܐ‬

Lac

after fol 59: 2Co 5:12

–Gal 5:18 ‫ | ܗܘ ܘܢ‬after fol 80: Col 3:5 ‫ܬ‬

‫ ܘ‬−3:22 ‫̇ܗ ܢ‬

Catalogue(s) and other literature WRIGHT, Catalogue 1 (1870) 87–88 (CXXXVII) ― CLEMONS, Studies (1963) 50 ― FREITAG, Studies (1971) 290 ― BUCK, Manuscript Studies (1978) 31 ― GUDORF, Research (1992) 24 ― ALAND, NTSYR II (1991–2002) (‘P14’). I

p12 | BRITISH LIBRARY ADD 14,468 (fol 1–20) LONDON

6th/7th,

20 fols, ca 22x14 cm, 2 cols, 29–33 li Fragmentary parchment codex of the Pauline Epistles; from the ‘Nitrian Collection’. Date

7th: Wright, Clemons, Freitag, Buck

Text

fol 1v: Rom 1:1–16 ‫ | ܘܐܢ‬fol 2–4: Rom 7:11 ‫ ܘ‬−9:25 ‫ | ܘ ـ ܐܬܪ‬fol 5–8: Rom 16:16 −1Co 4:17 ‫ | ܐܘ ܝ‬fol 9–20: 1Co 10:26 ‫̇ܗ‬ −2Co 5:17 ‫ܗܝ‬

Catalogue(s) and other literature WRIGHT, Catalogue 1 (1870) 92–93 (CXLIII) ― CLEMONS, Studies (1963) 50 ― FREITAG, Studies (1971) 290 ― BUCK, Manuscript Studies (1978) 33.

B.

CODICES FROM THE ‘MASORETIC’ /ISLAMIC PERIOD (8TH –16TH) B.1 THE EARLY ‘MASORETIC’ PERIOD (8TH –11TH) Sigla in italics indicate codices with text of non-Eastern descent II

n1 | BRITISH LIBRARY ADD 7157 LONDON

1079 AG (= 767/68 AD), 197 fols, ca 21,5x15,5 cm, 2 cols, 35–39 li Parchment codex of a complete Peshiṭta NT; with Euthalian apparatus by the original hand, appended to the end of the codex. Accomplished in the Monastery of Mar Sabrišo‛ (Beth Qoqā), FIEY, Assyrie chrétienne 1 (1965) 130–157. Date (fol 193rb)

‫ܝ‬

‫ܪ‬

‫ܕ‬

‫ܗ ܕ‬

‫̈ ܆‬

‫ܘܬ‬ ‫ܘ‬ ... ‫ܙܐ ܪ‬

‫ܗ‬

‫ܐܬ ܒ ܕ‬ ‫ܥ ܕܗܘ‬

‫ܕ‬

Plate

HATCH, Album (1946) CLXIII

Text

Gospels 1–99vb; Acts/Cath. Epp. 99vb–137vb, Rom 137vb–148vb, 1Co 148vb–158rb (def.), 2Co 158rb–165ra (def), Gal 165ra–168vb, Eph 168vb–171rb (def.), Php 171rb–173vb, Col 173vb–176ra, 1Th 176ra–178ra, 2Th 178ra–179rb, 1Tm 179vb–182rb, 2Tm 182rb–184rb, Tit 184rb–185va, Phm 185va–186ra, Heb 186ra–193rb, Euthalian apparatus 193v–197v.

Suppl fol 1–3 Mt 3:2 ‫–ܬܘ‬5:16 ‫ | ܐ ܗܘܢ‬fol 5 Mt 7:18 15th/16th (Rosen/Forshall), paper, 1 col Lac

̈

– 8:24 ‫ܗܘ‬

before fol 1: Mt 1:1−3:2 ̇ ‫ | ܘܐ‬after fol 151: 1Co 6:19 ‫ܢ‬ ‫ ܕ‬− 7:37 162 2Co 8:19 ‫ ܕ‬− 9:12 | after fol 170 Eph 4:29 ‫ ܕܬܬܠ‬− 6:11

‫ ܕ‬both of

| defect of fol

‫ܘ‬

Catalogue(s) and other literature ROSEN/FORSHALL, Catalogus (1838) 15–18 (XIII) ― WRIGHT, Catalogue 3 (1872) 1203 ― PUSEY-GWILLIAM, Tetraeuangelium (1901) no. 16 ― CLEMONS, Studies (1963) 47 ― BUCK, Manuscript Studies (1978) 34 ― GUDORF, Research (1992) 19 ― ALAND, NTSYR II (1991– 2002) (‘P20’) ― VON DOBSCHUETZ, Euthaliusstudien (1899) 107―154; BROCK, The Syriac Euthalian material (1979).

II

n2 | THE PIERPONT MORGAN LIBRARY, NEW YORK M236

1071 AG (= 759/60 AD), 200 fols, ca 24x14,5 cm, 1 col, 37–38 li Parchment codex of the Peshiṭta NT, confusedly dated 1061 AG (= 749/50 AD) and 142 AH (14. 5. 759−21. 4. 760; cf LIETZMANN, Zeitrechnung [ 41984] 35). The Catholicos of the East Jacob (II), who was the head of his Church from 754–773, is mentioned in the colophon; accordingtly, the Greek date is to be corrected to 1071 AG (= 759/60 AD).

IV. Edition: Manuscripts

lxxvii

Date (fol 200v)

̈ ͔Ͷ͸ ͔ͻ‫͔͗ ܗ‬ΕͲ ͺ͵ΕΒ‫ܐ‬ ‫ͣܣ‬ΈͯͶͯ· Α͗ ‫ͳͣܬܗ ܕܐ͵ͳͿͼ͠ܪܘܣ‬Ͷ͹͵ ͖ͥ͠‫ͮͽ ܘ‬ΕΒ‫ ܘ‬Ή͵‫ ܐ‬ΕͼΓ͗ ͔ͯͥ ̈ ̈ ̈ ... ͖Αͯ΄ ͔ͯ΄‫Ͱ ܪ‬͸ͣͯ͗‫ ܘ‬.Α͚‫ͣ͵ͩͼ͔ ܕ͗ͼͰ ܗ‬Γ͵ ͽͮ‫͓͕ ܘܐܪ͗΅ͯͽ ܘܬܪܬ‬͸ ΕͼΓ͗‫ ܘ‬.͔ͯͻͣͮ‫ܕ‬ ͔ͳͶ͸ ͔ͯͻ‫͠ܘ‬Ώ͸ ... ͔ͦͻ͠͸‫Ͳͯ΀ ܕ‬ΑͮΑͩ· ͔Ώͯ͵‫ܘ‬ΕΎ ‫ͣܒ‬Ώ΅ͮ ‫ܝ‬Α͸

Text

Gospels 2v/90v, Acts/cath. Epp. 90v–132v ― Rom 132v–144v, 1Co 144v–156v, 2Co 156v– 164r, Gal 164r–168v, Eph 168v–172v, Php 172v–175v, Col 175v–178v, 1Th 178v–181r, 2Th 181r–182v, 1Tm 182v–186r, 2Tm 186r–188v, Tit 188v–190r, Phm 190rv, Heb 190– 200v

Catalogue(s) and other literature CASEY, New Testament Manuscripts (1951) 66–67 ― CLEMONS, Studies (1963) 57; Checklist (1966) 493 (no. 286) ― BUCK, Manuscript Studies (1978) 34 ― ROSS, Studies (1983) 15 ― GUDORF, Research (1992) 31–32 ― VÖÖBUS, History II (1987) 187. II

n3 | SYRIAC-ORTHODOX PATRIARCHATE, DAMASCUS MS 346 (olim 12/1)

7th/8th, 239 fols, ca 28x17 cm, 2 cols, 36–38 li Parchment codex of a complete Peshiṭta NT, previously unquoted. Neat and beautiful Esṭrangela, broad line spacing, broad margins. It is not certain, whether this codex is from the end of the pre‘masoretic’/Byzantine period (7th) or from the beginning of the ‘masoretic’/Islamic period (8th). Palaeographically, it is closer to some early witnesses of the later period (esp. to Ms DS fragm. 2 and to Ms Sin. syr. 15, both 8th/9th) than to the old Esṭrangela of the earlier period. The absence of adaptations to the Eastern standard text, however, is a feature inherited from the pre‘masoretic’/Byzantine period. – There is a double pagination, both modern: a bold red one in Syriac on every page, and one (pencil) in the left corner of the recto. Date

earlier than 10th: Lavenant-Brock-Samir

Text

Mt starting 1:19 , Mk 34vb/ , Lk 57rb/ , Jn 92va/ , Acts, cath. Epp. 120ra/ ‫— ܪ‬ Rom 167va/ , 1Co 180vb/ , 2Co 194rb/ , Gal 203ra/‫ ܙ‬, Eph 207va/‫ܬܘ‬, Php 211vb/ ‫ܬ‬, Col 215ra/ ‫ܬ‬, 1Th 217va/ ‫ܬ‬, 2Th 220ra/ ‫ܬ‬, 1Tm 221va/ ‫ܬ‬, 2Tm 225ra/ ‫ܬ‬, Tit 227rb/ ‫( ܬ‬breaking off 2:3 ̈ ‫ ܘ ܘ‬227vb/), Phm (starting vs 7 ‫ܬ‬ 230ra/ ‫)ܬ‬, Heb 230rb/ ‫( ܬ‬ending 12:11 ‫ ܕܕ ܘܬ‬fol 238vb/‫)ܬܣ‬. The last fol (239/ ‫ )ܬ –ܬ‬is misplaced and belongs after fol 234/ ‫ܬ –ܬ‬ before fol 1 Mt 1:1–18 ‫ | ܪܘ ܕ ܕ‬after fol 227/ ‫ ܬ‬Tit 2:3 ̈ ‫– ـ‬Phm 7 | after fol

Lac

238/‫ ܬܣ‬Heb 12:11 ‫ – ܗܝ ܐ‬end Catalogue(s) and other literature LAVENANT-BROCK-SAMIR, Catalogue (1994) 603 ― BROCK/VAN ROMPAY, Catalogue (2014) 603–604 (DS fragm. 2). II

n4 | SELLY OAK COLLEGES, BIRMINGHAM MINGANA SYR. 103

8th/9th, 203 fols, ca 25x17cm, 1 col, 34–37 li Parchment codex of the Peshiṭta NT, few supplements from a 16th-cent. restoration. Date

‘About A.D. 790’: Mingana, Buck and Vööbus (both reporting Mingana) ― 8th: Clemons

lxxviii Text

Introduction Gospels 1r–108r, Acts/cath. Epp. 108r–143v ― Rom 143v–154r, 1Co 154r–164v, 2Co 164v– 171v, Gal 171v–175r, Eph 175r–179r, Php 179r–181v, Col 181v–183v, 1Th 184r–186r, 2Th 186r–187v, 1Tm 187v–190r, 2Tm 190r–192r, Tit 192r–193v, Phm 193v–194r, Heb 194r– 203r

Suppl (paper, ca 16th) fol 1–5 Mt 1:1–6:42 ‫̱ܗܝ‬

‫ | ܬ‬fol 200–203 Heb 11:8 ‫ܐܬ ܝ‬

― end

Catalogue(s) and other literature MINGANA, Catalogue 1 (1936) 251-52 ― CLEMONS, Studies (1963) 37 ― BUCK, Manuscript Studies (1978) 35 ― GUDORF, Research (1992) 33 ― VÖÖBUS, History II (1987) 188.

II

n5 | ST CATHERINE’S MONASTERY, SINAI SIN SYR 17

8th/9th, 163 fols, ca 22x15 cm, 2 cols, 36–44 li Parchment codex of a complete Peshiṭta NT; written by two different hands (A & B). To supplement a mutilated NT codex, a scribe produced the lost text (a total of 32 fols) by skilfully imitating the layout and the script of that mutilated 8th/9th codex. The supplemented text may not be much later than the original part. At fol 160rb the supplementation is mentioned: ‫ܬ‬ ‫ܕ‬ ‫ ܕܐܬ ܬ‬. As the textual character of both parts is identical (both EST ), part B is not quoted as a supplement in the present edition. — The text starts on fol 2 with Mt 1:20 ( ‫)ܕ ܕ‬, fol 1 is taken from the commentary on 1Corinthians of John Chrysostom (header on 1v: ‫ܕ ܬ‬ ‫ ;)ܕܐ ܬ‬cf P. GÉHIN, Manuscrits sinaїtiques dispersés III 38 note 54. Fols 161–63 are three additional fols of 1 col, unidentified. Date

9th: SLewis, Clark, Kamil, Clemons, Buck, Ross, Gudorf, Vööbus (all without distinguishing the two different parts of the manuscript)

Text

Gospels 2ra–88ra, Acts, cath Epp. 88rb–115ra, Rom 115 ra–123ra, 1Co 123ra–131ra, 2Co 131ra–136rb, Gal 136rb–138vb, Eph 138vb–141rb, Php 141rb–143rb, Col 143rb–145ra, 1Th 145ra–147ra, 2Th 147ra–148ra, 1Tm 148ra–150rb, 2Tm 150rb–151vb, Tit 151vb– 152vb, Phm 152vb–153rb, Heb 153rb–160rb

The texts of part B (2 cols, 37–40 li, broader line spacing than the text of part A) fol 1: Comm. on 1Co/Mt 1:20 ‫ ܕ ܕ‬−fol 16 Mt 19:8 ‫ܬ‬ | fol 22: Mt 24:43 ‫̇ ܥ ܗܘ ܗ‬ − 25:41 ̈ ‫ܢ‬ ‫ | ܙ‬fol 92–103: Acts 5:23 − 22:4 ‫ | ܐ‬fol 144– ̇ − Heb end 160: Col 2:9 Catalogue(s) and other literature: SMITH LEWIS, Catalogue (1894) no. 17 (p. 39) ― CLARK, Checklist (1952) 17 ― CLEMONS, Studies (1963) 67 ― KAMIL, Catalogue (1970) no. 51 (p. 152) ― BUCK, Manuscript Studies (1978) 39 ― ROSS, Studies (1983) 15 ― GUDORF, Research (1992) 28 ― VÖÖBUS, History II (1987) 107–08; 188 ― GÉHIN, Manuscrits sinaїtiques dispersés III (2010) 37–38. II

n6 | STAATSBIBLIOTHEK BERLIN SACHAU 3

8th/9th, 149 fols, ca 22x15 cm, 1 col, 30–33 li Parchment codex of a complete Peshiṭta NT, defective in the Gospels & Acts/cath. Epp. Date: 9th: Sachau, Clemons, Freitag, Buck

IV. Edition: Manuscripts Text

lxxix

Gospels & Acts/cath. Epp (fols in disorder & text incomplete) 1–73v; Rom 73v–86v, 1Co 86v–100v, 2Co 100v–109r, Gal 109r–114r, Eph 114r–118v, Php 118v–122r, Col 122r–125v, 1Th 125v–128v, 2Th 128v–130r, 1Tm 130r–134r, 2Tm 134r–137r, Tit 137r–138v, Phm 138v–139r, Heb 139r–149v (breaking off 13,17 ‫ܢ‬ ).

Catalogue(s) and other literature SACHAU, Verzeichnis 1 (1899) 5–6 ― CLEMONS, Studies (1963) 36 ― FREITAG, Studies (1971) 291 ― BUCK, Manuscript Studies (1978) 36 ― GUDORF, Research (1992) 30 ― VÖÖBUS, History II (1987) 165. II

n7 | BIBLIOTHEQUE NATIONALE, PARIS MS SYR 342 (olim SÉERT 7)

1205 AG/281 AH (= 894 AD), 254 fols, ca 25x16 cm, 1 col, 30–35 li Parchment codex of a complete Peshiṭta NT. There is an appendix after the colophon (250r) with biographical information on the Apostles, the Evangelists, and other persons (cf IIn12 and IIIn4). The codex was copied in the monastery of Rabban Jauseph in the neighbourhood of the city of Balad ( ‫ܘܐܘ‬ ‫ܕ‬ ‫ܕܪ‬ ). The scribe’s name is Ṣlibha Zkha ( ‫ܙ‬ ‫) ܨ‬. On the localisation of the monastery FIEY, Assyrie chrétienne 2 (1965) 558–64. Fiey doubts the identity of Ms syr. 342 in Paris with Ms syr. 7 at Séert, because Nau’s Notices were published in 1911, when Ms syr. 7 seemed to be in the still existing library at Séert (562, note 7). However, from G. Troupeau’s ‘Note sur les manuscripts de Séert conservés à la Bibliothèque nationale de Paris’ (1964) scholars know that Mgr. A. Scher sold several manuscripts from the library at Séert to the Bibl. Nationale at Paris before 1911; cf also F. Briquel-Chatonnet, Manuscrits syriaques p. 8. Date

No month of 1205 AG is given, the Hiğra date 281 (13. 3. 894−1. 3. 895; LIETZMANN, Zeitrechnung [ 41984] 39) points to 894 AD.

Plate

HATCH, Album (1946) CLXV

Text

Gospels 1v–122v, Acts/cath Epp, 123r–170r, Rom 170r–184v, 1Co 184v–199v, 2Co 199v– 209r, Gal 209r–214r, Eph 214r–219r, Php 219r–222v, Col 222v–225v, 1Th 225v–228v, 2Th 228v–230r, 1Tm 230r–234r, 2Tm 234r–236v, Tit 236v–238r, Phm 238v–239r, Heb 239r– 250r – Appendix on the genealogies and fates of the Apostles etc. (cf IIn12 IIIn4) 250r–253:

̈ ‫̈ ܘܢ ܘ ̈ ܬ ܘܢ ܕ‬

‫ܘ‬

̈ ‫ܕܘ‬

‫ܘ‬

‫ܬ ܕ‬

‫ܬܘܒ‬ ‫̈ ܀‬

Suppl fol 1–10 (in Mt ); 59–67 (in Lk ); 252–54 (in the appendix on genealogies). Catalogue(s) and other literature SCHER, Catalogue Séert (1905) 8 ― NAU, Notices (1911) 297–99 ― GOTTSTEIN, List (1954– 55) 437 ― CLEMONS, Studies (1963) 62 ― BUCK, Manuscript Studies (1978) 37― GUDORF, Research (1992) 26 ― VÖÖBUS, History II (1987) 193–94. II

n8 | BIBLIOTHEQUE NATIONALE, PARIS MS SYR 361 (olim SÉERT 9), fol 33–211

8th/9th, fols 33−211, ca 25x17 cm, 2 cols, 25–35 li Mutilated parchment codex of a complete Peshiṭta NT (fol 33−211), which was supplemented in the 12th/13th cent. (fols 212−256 = IIIp1, see below), and in the 15th/16th cent. (fols 1−32).

lxxx

Introduction

Date

of the original part: 6th/7th: A. Scher (“L’écriture … antérieure au VIIe siècle”), Vööbus (reported by Buck 41, note 6) ― 6th/10th Buck ― 8th/9th: Briquel-Chatonnet ― 10th: Gottstein, Clemons, Vööbus, History II. The most probable date is the 8th/9th.

Text

of the original hand: Mt 27:10−Jn 34r–118r, Acts/cath. Epp. 118r–169v, Rom 170ra–184vb, 1Co 184vb–200vb, 2Co 200vb–211ra, Gal 211ra–211v ‫ ܪܘܬ‬2:4

Suppl a) fol 1–32: Mt 1:1–27:10 (15th/16th); b) fol 212−256: Gal 2:4

‫ ܕܐ‬−Heb end (12th/13th) = IIIp1 in the present edition.

Catalogue(s) and other literature SCHER, Catalogue Séert (1905) 8–9 ― GOTTSTEIN, List (1954–55) 438 ― CLEMONS, Studies (1963) 63 ― BUCK, Manuscript Studies (1978) 41 ― VÖÖBUS, History II (1987) 103–04 ― GUDORF, Research (1992) 27 ― BRIQUEL-CHATONNET, Manuscrits syriaques (1997) 27–29. II

n9 | ST CATHERINE’S MONASTERY, SINAI SIN SYR 54

8th/9th, 185 fols, ca 25x16 cm, 2 cols (partly 1 col), 38–41 li Parchment codex of a complete Peshiṭta New Testament. Prefixed are 16 fols of Arabic text; the Syriac text starts Mt 9:18 ‫ ܘܬ‬on fol 17. Only on fols 17−27 the original scribe used a lay-out of 1 col. Date

8th: SLewis, Clark, Kamil, Clemons, Buck, Ross, Gudorf, Vööbus

Text

Gospels 17ra–93rb, Acts/cath. Epp. 93rb–127rb, Rom 127va–137rb, 1Co 137va–147vb, 2Co 147vb–154vb, Gal 155ra–158rb, Eph 158va–161vb, Php 161vb–164rb, Col 164rb–166va, 1Th 166va–168vb, 2Th 168vb–170ra, 1Tm 170ra–173ra, 2Tm 173ra–175ra, Tit 175ra– 176va Phm 176va–177ra, Heb 177ra–185vb

Catalogue(s) and other literature SMITH LEWIS, Catalogue (1894) no. 54 (p. 51) ― Clark, Checklist (1952) 18 ― CLEMONS, Studies (1963) 67 ― KAMIL, Catalogue (1970) no. 40 (p. 152) ― BUCK, Manuscript Studies (1978) 35 ― ROSS, Studies (1983) 15 ― GUDORF, Research (1992) 28 ― VÖÖBUS, History II (1987) 106–07 ― GÉHIN, Manuscrits sinaїtiques dispersés III (2010) 38–39. II

n10 | YALE UNIVERSITY (NEW HAVEN) BEINECKE COLLECTION MS SYR 6

1229 AG/305 AH (= 917/18 AD), 210 fols, ca 24x16,5 cm, 1 col, 31–35 li Parchment codex of a complete Peshiṭta NT; consisting of 20 quires of 10 fols (no pagination). Date

no month of 1229 AG is given, the Hiğra date 305 corresponds to 24.6.917−13.6.918, cf LIETZMANN, Zeitrechnung [ 41984] 40. The colophon fol 218v:

ܸ ‫ܕ‬ ‫ܨܠ‬

‫ܘ ܬ ܘ‬

.

‫ܘ‬ ‫ܬ‬

̈ ‫ܕ‬

‫ܬ‬ ‫ܘ‬. .

‫ܘܐܬܬܪܨ‬ ̇

‫ܘܐܬ‬

‫ܪܘ‬ ‫ܪ‬

‫ܘ‬

‫ܝܐ‬

‫ ܕܐ‬. ‫ܘ‬ ‫ܪ ܕ‬

‫ܗ ܘܐ‬ ‫ܐ ܪܝ ܕ‬ ‫ܪܘܣ‬ ‫ܬ ܕ‬ ‫ܕ‬ ‫ܝ‬ ‫ܕܘ‬ ̈ ‫ܢ‬ ‫ܘ‬

On the Monastery of Mar Eliyah near Moṣul: FIEY, Assyrie chrétienne 2 (1965) 639–59. Plate

HATCH, Album (1946) CLXVII

IV. Edition: Manuscripts

lxxxi

Text (according to quire/folio): Gospels 11–113v (Mt with lacunae and supplements), Acts/Cath. Epp 113v–154v, Rom 154v–166r, 1Co 166r–177v, 2Co 177v–185r, Gal 185r–9r, Eph 189r–193v, Php 193v–6v, Col 196v–9r, 1Th 199r–201r, 2Th 201r–2v, 1Tm 202v–5v, 2Tm 205v–7v, Tit 207v–9r, Phm 209rv, Heb 209v–218v Catalogue(s) and other literature CLEMONS, Studies (1963) 57; Checklist (1966) no. 249 (p. 487) ― BUCK, Manuscript Studies (1978) 41 ― ROSS, Studies (1983) 15 ― GUDORF, Research (1992) 33 ― DEPUYDT, Classsical Syriac Manuscripts (2006) 173–188. II

n11 | BIBLIOTHEQUE NATIONALE, PARIS MS SYR 360 (olim SÉERT 8)

9th/10th,

166 fols, ca 25x16,5 cm, 1 col, 28 li Parchment codex of a complete Peshiṭta NT, defective at the beginning and at the end. Date

8th/9th: Scher (“antérieure au Xe siècle”), Vööbus (reported by Buck p. 41, note 3) ― 8th/10th: Buck ― ca 9th: Briquel-Chatonnet ― 9th/10th: Vööbus, History II, 189 ― 10th: Gottstein, Clemons

Text

Gospels 1–55v, Acts/Cath. Epp. 55v–108v, Rom 108v–124r, 1Co 124r–138r (defective), 2Co 138r–147r (defective), Gal 147r–152r, Eph 152r–157r, Php 157r–160v, Col 160v–161v (defective), 1Th 162r–165r, 2Th 165r–166v, 1Tm 166v, breaking off at 1:9 ‫̇ ܥ‬

Lac

Mt & Mk are lacking completely, Lk is very defective | after fol 132: 1Co 11:11 12:7 ‫ܐ ܕ‬ | after fol 140: 2Co 4:15 ‫– ܕ‬6:5 ‫ | ܘ‬after fol 160: Col 1:9 ‫ | ܕܗܘ‬after fol 166: 1Tm 1:9 ̈ ‫– ܕ‬end of Heb

– –3:14

Catalogue(s) and other literature: SCHER, Catalogue Séert (1905) 8 ― GOTTSTEIN, List (1954–55) 438 ― CLEMONS, Studies (1963) 63 ― BUCK, Manuscript Studies (1978) 41 — BRIQUEL-CHATONNET, Manuscrits syriaques (1997) 26–27 ― VÖÖBUS, History II (1987) 189.

II

n12 | BIBLIOTHEQUE NATIONALE, PARIS MS SYR 343 (olim SÉERT 11)

9th/10th, 239 fols, ca 26x19 cm, 2 cols, 32–36 li Parchment codex of a complete Peshiṭta NT. Appended is biographical information on the Apostles, the Evangelists, and other persons (cf IIn7 and IIIn4) Date

9th: Scher (“L’écriture est d’avant le Xe siècle”), Nau, Vööbus (reported by Buck 38, note 2) ― 9th/10th: Buck ― 10th: Gottstein, Clemons, Vööbus History II

Text (in 1Tm – Tit some folios misplaced): The original text starts on fol 55 with Lk 1:22 ‫ܘܢ‬ ‫ ― ܗܘ ܕ‬86vb, Jn 87ra–111vb, Acts 112ra–146ra, Jas 146ra–149rb, 1Pet 149rb–153ra, 1Jn 153ra–156va, Rom 156va–169v, 1Co 169v–182vb, 2Co 182vb–191vb, Gal 191vb–196va, Eph 196va–201ra, Php 201rb– 204va, Col 204va–207vb, 1Th 207vb–210vb, 2Th 210vb–212rb, 1Tm 212va–215vb+220va, 2Tm 220va–221vb+217+216rb, Tit 216va+219+218rb, Phm 218rb–vb+222ra, Heb 222ra–233ra Fol 112r (after Jn ) biographical information on the four Evangelists (in ornamental frame).

lxxxii

Introduction

Suppl (all paper, ca 14th acc. to F. Nau; but more likely from the hand of Rabban ‛Abdallah, who wrote the note dated 1919 AG = 1607/08 AD): a) fol 1–54: Mt –Lk 1:1–22 ‫ܘܢ‬ (overlapping with the beginning of the original) | fol 231: Heb 11:34 ̈ ‫ ܕ‬− 12:20 ‫ | ܪ‬fol 233 Heb 13:19 ‫ – ܗܕ‬end; b) fol 233ra–34vb: Table of lections: ‫ܢܕ‬ ‫̈ ܘܕܐܘ‬ ‫ܕ‬ ‫ܕ‬ ‫ܪܘ‬ c) fol 235–38: Biographical information on the Apostles, Evangelists, and other persons:

‫ܬܗܘܢ‬

‫ܘܢ ܘ‬

‫ܕ‬

Colophon of the supplement fol. 238v

‫ܥ‬

. ‫ܕ‬

̈ ‫ܕܘ‬

‫̇ܗܘ‬

‫̈ ܘ‬

.

‫ܕ‬

‫ܢ ̇ܗܘ‬

̇ ‫ܢ‬

‫ܬܘ‬ ‫ܪ‬.

‫ܐܨ‬

‫ܬ ܕ‬ ...

‫ܬ ܗܕ‬ ‫̇ܗܘ ܐ‬

̇

‫ܬܘܒ‬ ̇ ‫ܬܗ ܘܕ‬ ‫ܝ‬

Catalogue(s) and other literature: SCHER, Catalogue Séert (1905) 9 ― NAU, Notices (1911) 299–300 ― GOTTSTEIN, List (1954– 55) 437–38 ― CLEMONS, Studies (1963) 62 ― BUCK, Manuscript Studies (1978) 38 ― GUDORF, Research (1983) 27 ― VÖÖBUS, History II (1987) 101–103; 188. II

n13 | BIBLIOTHEQUE NATIONALE, PARIS MS SYR 28

10th/11th,

222 fols, ca 20 x 13,5 cm, 1 col, 27–34 li Parchment codex of the Peshiṭta NT.

Date

10th/11th: Zotenberg, Buck, Vööbus ― 11th: Clemons

Text

Mt 1v–29v, Mk 29v–47v, Lk 47v–77r, Jn 77r–101r, Acts 101r–137v, Jas 137v–140v, 1Pet 140v–144v, 1Jn 144v–148r ― Rom 148v–162r, 1Co 162r–176r, 2Co 176r–185r, Gal 185r– 190r, Eph 190r–194v, Php 194v–198r, Col 198r–201r, 1Th 201r–204r, 2Th 204r–205r, 1Tm 205v–208v, 2Tm 208v–211r, Tit 211r–212v, Phm 212v–213r, Heb 213r–222r

Catalogue(s) and other literature: ZOTENBERG, Catalogues (1874) 12 ― CLEMONS, Studies (1963) 60 ― BUCK, Manuscript Studies (1978) 44 ― GUDORF, Research (1992) 25 ― VÖÖBUS, History II (1987) 63–68. II

n14 | BIBLIOTHEQUE NATIONALE, PARIS MS SYR 341 (olim SÉERT 2)

8th/9th, 253 fols, ca 31 x 23 cm, 3 col, 58–60 li Parchment codex of the Peshiṭta OT (incl. the Apocrypha) and NT (only 7 fols remaining). 22 illustrations (mainly personalities from the OT ). Supplemented by paper leaves of the 14th century. Scher’s short description of Ms Séert 2 does not fully match the Paris Ms, the identification, however, is possible (List of OT Peshiṭta Mss [1961] 70; LEROY, Les manuscrits syriaques 1 [1964] 212). SCHER: ‘Le Nouveau Testament manque; il n’en reste qu’une feuille, à la première page de laquelle se trouve la fin de la dernière Épître de Saint Paul à Timothée, et à la dernière page son Épître à Tite.’ This statement doubtless refers to fol 250, which is one of the 7 fols with NT text. Date

6th/8th: Leroy (p. 214) ― 7th: Vööbus (History II 75 ftn 38) ― 7th/8th: Vööbus (History II) 106, Nau ― before 8th: Scher ― 8th/9th: Gottstein, Baars, Gudorf ― 9th: Clemons

Text from the NT fol 246: Mk 12:35 ‫ – ] [ ܘ‬14:70 fol 246 bis: Lk 234:28 ‫ – ]ܐܙܠ[ ܗܘ‬Jn 2:22 |

(with large gaps) |

IV. Edition: Manuscripts

lxxxiii

fol 247: Jn 12:22 ‫ܣ‬ [‫ – ]ܘܐܬ ̣ܗܘ‬15:16 ‫| ܠ‬ fol 248: end of Acts (7 lines, illegible) – Jac 5:16 ‫ـ ̈ ܬ ܢ‬ | fol 249: readable from Php 1:13 ‫ – ـ ̇ ܘ‬Col 1:17 [ ‫| ܘܗ]ܘ‬ fol 250: 2Tm 1:16 ‫ܪܘܣ‬ ‫ܗ ܕܐ‬ – Tit subscr. | fol 251 Phm 1 – Heb 6:9 ‫ܢ‬ Lac

Rom 1:1 – Php 1:13 ‫ܪ‬ | Php 1:23 – 2:3 ‫ | ܐ‬Php 2:25 ‫ܝ‬ ‫ – ܕ‬27 1‫ | ܐܦ‬Php 3:15 ̈ ‫ܢ–ܗ‬ | Col 1:17 ‫ܡ‬ ‫ – ܕ‬2Tm 1:16 | Heb 6:9 ‫ – ܐ‬end.

Catalogue(s) and other literature: SCHER, Catalogue Séert (1905) no 2 (p. 5–6) ― NAU, Notices (1911) 277 ― GOTTSTEIN, List (1954–55) 431–32 ― List of OT Peshiṭta Mss (1961) 37 ― CLEMONS, Studies (1963) 62 ― LEROY, Manuscrits syriaques 1 (1964) 208–19 ― GUDORF, Research (1992) 26 ― VÖÖBUS, History II (1987) 106 ― OTP-Siglum: 8a1.

II

x1 | ST CATHERINE’S MONASTERY, SINAI SIN SYR 15

8th/9th,

257 fols, ca 23x16 cm, small Esṭrang., 2 cols, 29–30 li

This parchment codex consists of three different portions, which were joined and connected by supplemental folios. Part I: fol 1–120, Acts/7 cath. Epp, 6th/7th, 1 col, 22–24 li. Part II: fol 121–227, Corpus of Pauline Epp., 8th/9th, 2 cols, 28–32 li. Part III: Supplements in Melkite Serṭā of the 12th/13th, 15–16 li, containing the Minor cath. Epp fols 104–109/114–120), parts of 1Co & Heb (cf below), and tables at the end. Date of part II 8th: SLewis, Clark, Kamil, Clemons, Buck, Ross (all not distinguishing the certainly older part I from part II). Text

Acts (starting 2:27 ‫ܠ‬ ‫ )ܕ ̇ ܐ‬1r–87r, Js 87r–95r, 1Pet 95r–103v, 2Pet 104r– 109r, 1Jn 110r–117r, 2Jn 117rv, 3Jn 118rv, Jud 118v–120v ― Rom 121va–139rb, 1Co 139rb– 158rb, 2Co 158rb–167rb, Gal 167rb–173rb, Eph 173va–179ra, Php 179rb–183va, Col 183va–187rb, 1Th 187va–191rb, 2Th 191rb–193rb, 1Tm 193rb–198rb, 2Tm 198rb–201vb, Tit 201vb–204ra, Phm 204ra–205ra, Heb 205ra–227v (breaking off after ‫ܐ‬, no subscription ― Tables 228r–243v

Single leaves Two fols of Sin syr. 15 were identified in Birmingham (Ms Mingana syr. 634) by P. Géhin: 2Co 2:8 ‫ܢ‬ − 4:18 2 ̈ ‫ܕ‬ Suppl in part II ̇ ‫ – ܘ‬5:16 ‫ܬ‬ a) fol 123: Rom 2:1 ‫ܕܕܐܢ ܐ‬ – 2:27 ̇ ‫ | ܕ‬fol 126: Rom 4:17 ‫ | ܕ‬fol 227: Heb 13:5 ‫ – ̣ܗܘ‬25 | 2 cols, 26–29 li, Esṭrangela (bolder than the one of the original text). These supplements were created to fill up small lacunae and belong to the end of the first millennium; b) fol 148–149: 1Co 10:7 – 10:32 ‫ | ܕ ܬܘ‬fol 208–25: Heb 4:15 . Melkite Serṭā of the 12th/13th, 1 col., 15–16 li;

‫ܢ‬ Lac

after fol 158: 2Co 1:11 ‫ܗ‬

‫ܗ‬

− 2:8 ‫ܕܬ ܪܘܢ‬

‫ – ܕ‬13:5

‫ܕܐ‬

lxxxiv

Introduction

Catalogue(s) and other literature SMITH LEWIS, Catalogue (1894) no. 15 (p. 17–18) ― CLARK, Checklist (1952) 17 ― CLEMONS, Studies (1963) 67 ― KAMIL, Catalogue (1970) no. 54 (p. 152) ― BUCK, Manuscript Studies (1978) 34–35 ― ROSS, Studies (1983) 14 ― GUDORF, Research (1992) 28 ― GÉHIN, Les manuscrits syriaques (2017) 52; IDEM, Manuscrits sinaїtiques dispersés III (2010) 26–27 & 38. II

x2 | BRITISH LIBRARY ADD 14,474 LONDON

8th/9th,

140 fols, ca 21x16 cm, 1 col, 24–30 li

This parchment codex consists of two parts copied by the same hand, which is very similar to the one of Ms BL Add. 14,582 (the greater part of which is dated 816 AD; cf HATCH, Album [1946] XCVII). Part I: Praxapostolos ― Part II: Homilies of Jacob of Sarug (fol. 116v–133v) and of Severus of Antioch (fol. 134r–140). Date

9th: Wright, Clemons, Buck, Gudorf, Aland, Vööbus

Text

of part I: Rom 1rv (1 fol only), 1Co 2r–12v (defective), 2Co 12v–22v, Gal 22v–27v, Eph 27v– 32v, Php 32v–36r, Col 36v–39v, 1Th 39v–42v, 2Th 42v–44r, 1Tm 44r–48r, 2Tm 48r–50v, Tit 50v–52v, Phm 52v–53r, Heb 53r–61v (last word 12:2 ‫ ― ) ܬܬ‬Acts 62r–98v, 7 cath. Epp. 98v–116v (Jas, 2Pet & 1Jn in the Ḥarklean version, 1Pet in the Peshiṭta version, 2/3 Jn & Jude in the Philox. version).

Lac

in the Corpus Paulinum before fol. 1: Rom 1:1 – 9:9 ̇

‫ | ܐ‬after fol. 1: Rom 10:8

– 1Co 6:11 ‫ܐ‬

Catalogue(s) and other literature: WRIGHT, Catalogue 1 (1870) 76–77 (CXXI) ― CLEMONS, Studies (1963) 49 ― BUCK, Manuscript Studies (1978) 37 ― GUDORF, Research (1992) 21 ― ALAND, NTSyr I (1986) 35– 37 ― VÖÖBUS, History II (1987) 188.

II

x3 | STAATSBIBLIOTHEK BERLIN SACHAU 201

8th/9th, 220 fols, ca 25x18 cm, 2 cols, 30–33 li A parchment codex, made up of three different parts (all incomplete): I. OT Peshiṭta (Prophets), fol 1–143; II. From writings of the Syriac Patriarch Peter of Callinicus against the Coptic Pope Damian, fol 144–162; III. The Praxapostolos of the NT Peshiṭta, fol 163–220. Date

8th/9th: Sachau, Freitag, Buck

Text

of part III (the folios are in disorder; the correct sequence is 163–176, 183–185, 177–182, 186–187, etc.): Acts 5:16 – 8:36 ‫ ܘ ̣ܗ ܢ‬fol 163–168, Rom (starts 9:9 ‫ – ܐܬ ܘ ܘ‬end) 169ra–176va, 1Co 1:1–12 176va, 1Co 1:12–4:18 183ra–185vb, 1Co 4:18–10:31 177ra–182vb, 1Co 10:31–12:21 ̇ ‫ – ܘ ̇ ܕܐ‬end 188ra–190ra, Gal 190ra–195ra, Eph 186ra–187vb, 2Co 11:20 ‫ܢ‬ 195ra–200ra, Php 200ra–203va, Col 1:1–11 ‫ܬ‬ ‫ ܘ‬203va, Col 2:9 – end 204– 205vb, 1Th 205vb–208vb, 2Th 208vb–210va, 1Tm 210va–214vb, 2Tm 214vb–217va, Tit 217vb–219va, Phm 219va–220rb, Heb 1:1–2:8 ‫ ̇ ܝ ܕ‬220rb–220vb

IV. Edition: Manuscripts Lac

after fol 187: 1Co 12:21 ‫ – ܐ ܪ‬2Co 11:20 ‫ܢ‬ ‫ | ܕ ܘܬ‬after fol 220: Heb 2:8 ‫ܡ‬ ‫ – ܕ‬end.

lxxxv

‫ | ܕ‬after fol 203: Col 1:11 ‫ – ܪܘܚ‬2:9

Catalogue(s) and other literature SACHAU, Verzeichnis 1 (1899) 1 (Sachau 201) ― FREITAG, Studies (1971) 291 ― BUCK, Manuscript Studies (1978) 36 ― GUDORF, Research (1992) 33. II

p1 | BRITISH LIBRARY ADD 17,123 LONDON

9th/10th, 82 fols, ca 23,5 x 18,5 cm, 1 col, 21–32 li Parchment codex of the Pauline Epistles. The inelegance of the Esṭrangela derives from its fluent ductus, from the meagre lines of the characters, and from the variance of line spacing. Date

9th/10th: Wright, Buck, Gudorf ― 10th: Clemons

Text

Rom 1v–14r, 1Co 14r–27v, 2Co 27v–38r, Gal 38r–42v, Eph 42v–47v, Php 47v–51v, Col 51v–54v, 1Th 54v–57v, 2Th 57v–59v, 1Tm 59v–63v, 2Tm 63v–66v, Tit 66v–68v, Phm 68v– 69v, Heb 69v–82v

Catalogue(s) and other literature WRIGHT, Catalogue 1 (1870) 93 (CXLV) ― CLEMONS, Studies (1963) 50 ― BUCK, Manuscript Studies 40 ― GUDORF, Research (1992) 24. II

p2 | BRITISH LIBRARY ADD 14,475 (fols 1–8/180–208) LONDON

9th/10th, 36 fols, ca 33 x 26,5 cm, 2 cols, 16–19 li The 36 parchment folios are supplementing a 5th/6th codex of the Pauline Epistles (Ip3 in the present edition). The scribe tries to imitate the beautiful Esṭrangela of the original, this charges Wright’s dating (‘a more angular and less elegant hand of the xth cent.’) with some uncertainty. A bold note on fol. 208v, however, offers the 10th as terminus post quem for the supplementation of the codex. This note identifies the codex as the property of Dayr al-Suryān in Egypt; this makes it probable that the (still defect and non-supplemented) codex was among the manuscripts acquired by abbot Muše of Nisibis in 932 AD. Date

10th: Wright, Aland; see above Ip3

Text

Rom 1:7

–3:26 ‫ܬ‬

1ra–8va | Heb 1:6 ̣ ‫– ܐ‬end 180ra–208vb

Catalogue(s) and other literature: WRIGHT, Catalogue 1 (1870) 86–87 (CXXXVI) ― CLEMONS, Studies (1963) 50 ― BUCK, Manuscript Studies (1978) 31 ― GUDORF, Research (1992) 21 ― ALAND, NTSYR II (1991– 2002) (‘P13’) ― In The Aramaic NT (1983) the text of Rom 1:19–Heb is reproduced from codex BL Add. 14,475. On the Lectionaries and the Manuscripts of the ‘Syriac Masora’, see Appendix 2 and 3

B.2 THE LATE ‘MASORETIC’ PERIOD (12TH –16TH, and beyond ) IIIn1

| BIBLIOTHEQUE NATIONALE, PARIS MS SYR 29

11th/12th, 195 fols, 26x18 cm, 2 cols, 30– li Defective parchment codex of the Peshiṭta NT; incl. the Minor cath. Epistles Date

12th: Zotenberg, Buck (‘the excellent script suggests an earlier date’) – ‘shortly before or after 1200’: Gwynn, Clemons

Text

Gospels (defective) 1–83rb, Acts (defective)/cath. Epp. 83va–124rb, Minor cath. Epp. 124rb– 128va, Rom129ra–141ra, 1Co 141ra–154rb, 2Co 154rb–162ra, Gal 162ra–166ra, Eph 166rb–170ra, Php 170ra–173ra, Col 173ra–175va, 1Th 175va–178ra, 2Th 178rb–179va, 1Tm 179va–183ra, 2Tm 183ra–185rb, Tit 185va–186vb, Phm 186vb–187va, Heb 187va– 195vb (ending 12:19 ‫)ܘ‬.

Lac

(folio defects) only in Heb Heb 10:2 –5 | 10:11 ‫ܒ ܗܘ‬ – 17 ‫ܘܢ‬ ‫ | ܘ‬10:22 ‫ – ܪ‬27 ‫ – ܕ‬34 ‫ܬܘܢ‬ | 11:1 ‫ – ܗ ܬ‬32 | 11:36 ̈ ‫ – ܘ‬12:1 | 12:11 ‫ – ܐ‬15 ‫ | ܕ‬12:19 – end.

̈

| 10:31 | 12:3 ‫ – ܗܘܘ‬8

Catalogue(s) and other literature: ZOTENBERG, Catalogues (1874) 12 ― GWYNN, Remnants (1909) Cod. 14, xlvi-vii ― CLEMONS, Studies (1963) 60 ― BUCK, Manuscript Studies (1978) 50. IIIn2

| BIBLIOTHÈQUE NATIONALE, PARIS MS SYR 30

ante Nov. 1194, 246 fols, ca 27x19 cm, 2 cols, 32–36 li Parchment codex of the Peshiṭta NT; written by the same scribe as Ms BnF syr 41, who died in Nov. 1194 AD. 1 illustration. Date

7th: Buck (‘The excellent character of the Esṭrangela script would lead me to suggest an early date, possibly seventh century, or even earlier, but the unique character of the variant readings, of which there are a surprising number, hints at a later date’ 50, ftn 4), Gudorf ― 10th/11th: Vööbus (‘… we know on palaeographical grounds that this literary monument belongs to manuscripts produced in the tenth or eleventh centuries, most probably the latter [referring to HATCH, Album (1946) lxxv ff.]’, 43) ― ca. 1190 Leroy ― 1198 (?) Clemons

Text

Lesson tables 1–9, Mt 11v–43v, Mk 44v–63r, Lk 64r–96v, Jn 97v–124v, Acts 125v–164r, Jas 164r–167v, 1Pet 168r–172r, 1Jn 172r–175v ― Rom 176ra–189va, 1Co 189vb–201vb, 2Co 201vb–209rb, Gal 209rb–213rb, Eph 213va–217va, Php 217vb–220va, Col 220vb–223rb, 1Th 223ra–226ra, 2Th 226ra–227rb, 1Tm 227rb–230vb, 2Tm 230vb–233rb, Tit 233rb– 233vb (defective), Phm 234ra+b (defective), Heb 234ra–243vb

IV. Edition: Manuscripts Lac

lxxxvii

after fol 23: Mt 12:48–13:31 | after fol 92: Lk 22:19–53 | after fol 197: 1Co 11:28 ‫ܘ‬ ‫ܗ‬ –14:16 | after fol 233: Tit 2:5 ‫ܦ‬ –Phm 10 ‫ܝ‬ ― Minor losses by folio defects in the Gospels and in Acts.

Catalogue(s) and other literature ZOTENBERG, Catalogues (1874) 12 ― CLEMONS, Studies (1963) 61 ― LEROY, Les manuscrits syriaques 1 (1964) 256–7 ― NAU, Corrections (1911) 501-03 ― BUCK, Manuscript Studies (1978) 50 ― VÖÖBUS, History II (1987) 42-54 ― GUDORF, Research (1992) 25-26 ― JUCKEL, Research (2009) 41–115 ― MCCONAUGHY, The Text of Acts (2021) 453–90. IIIn3

| BIBLIOTECA APOSTOLICA VATICANA CITTÀ DEL VATICANO MS VAT SYR 266

11th/12th, 216 fols, ca 19x27,5 cm, 2 cols, 30–37 li Parchment codex of the Peshiṭta NT, breaking off at Hebrews 8:12 Date

7th: A. Mai (‘Is codex ad septimum Christi saeculum haud immerito videtur referendus’), Clemons, Buck, Vööbus (45, ftn 20) ― On palaeographical grounds and regarding the participation in the Eastern standard text (86,73%), this codex cannot be earlier than the 11th cent.

Text

fol 1–5 list of Gospel pericopes by later hand ( ‫ܢ‬ ‫) ܕ ܣ ܕܐܘ‬, Mt 6ra (starting Mt 4:10 ‫ܕܘܗܝ ܬ‬ ‫–)ܘ‬34rb, Mk 34rb–53rb, Lk 53va–86ra, Jn 86ra–111va, Acts 111vb– 146va, Jac 146vb–150ra, 1Pet 150ra–154ra, 1Jn 154ra–157va — Rom 157va–171rb, 1Co 171rb–184rb, 2Co 184rb–193ra, Gal 193ra–197ra, Eph 197ra–201rb, Php 201rb–204ra, Col 204rb–206vb, 1Th 206vb–209rb, 2Th 209rb–210vb, 1Tm 210vb–213vb, 2Tm 213vb– 214vb (breaking off 2:23 ‫̈ ܐ‬ ), Heb 1:2 ‫ – ̈ ܐ‬3:4 fol 215, Heb 7:5 ‫ܗܘ‬ ‫ – ܘܢ ܕ‬8:12 ‫ܐ ܢ‬ ‫ ܘܐ‬fol 216

‫ܚ‬

Lac

in the Corpus Paulinum after fol 214: 2Tm 2:23 ‫ܕܘ‬ after fol 216: Heb 8:12 ‫ܘܢ‬

‫ – ܕܕ‬Heb 1:2

‫ | ܘ‬after fol 215: Heb 3:4 ‫ – ̇ܗܘ ܕ‬7:5

‫|ܐ‬

– end

Catalogue(s) and other literature: MAI, Codices Chaldaici (1831) 4 ― CLEMONS, Studies (1963) 64 ― BUCK, Manuscript Studies (1978) 33 ― VÖÖBUS, History II (1987) 45.

IIIn4 | CHALDEAN ANTONIAN ORDER OF ST HORMIZD MONASTERY OF OUR LADY PROTECTOR OF SEEDS, AL-QOSH MS 24

1511 AG/596 AH (= 1199/1200 AD), 250 fols (no pag.), ca 25x17 cm, 1 col, 33–35 li Parchment codex of the Peshiṭta NT, previously unquoted. Starting with Mt 10:28 (the first quire is lacking). The codex was written in the Monastery of Rabban Hormizd. Date

quire 255rv

‫ ܗܪ‬...

‫ܕܘ‬

‫ܘ‬ ‫ܘܕܘ ܘ‬

‫ܘ‬ ...

‫ܕܕ ܬ ܆‬ ‫܆‬ ‫ ̣ ܕ‬... ‫ܘ ܝ ܗܘܪ ܕ‬ ‫̣ ܕ ܐ‬ . ‫ܘ‬ ‫ܘܬ‬ ‫ܕ‬ ‫̈ ܗܝ ܕ‬ .

̈ ‫܆ ̇ܗ ܕ ܪ‬ ̈ ‫ܥܕ‬

‫ܗ‬

‫ܐܬ ܒ ܕ‬ ‫ܘܕ ـ ̇ ܬ‬ ‫ܕ‬ ̈ ‫ܘ‬. ‫ܕ‬ ‫ܘ‬ ‫ܕ‬. ‫ܐ‬

lxxxviii

Introduction On the Monastery of Rabban Hormizd: FIEY, Assyrie chrétienne II (1965) 533–48.

Text

Mt (starting 10:28 ‫ܘ‬ ‫ – ܕ‬43r, Mk 43r–63r, Lk 63r–98v, Jn 98v–125v, Acts/cath. Epp. 5v 4v 4v 9r 12 –17 — Rom 17 –18 , 1Co 189r–203v, 2Co 203v–213v, Gal 213v–218v, Eph 218v–222r, Php 222r–225v, Col 225v–228v, 1Th 228v–232v, 2Th 232v–234r, 1Tm 234r–238r, 2Tm 238r–241r, Tit 241r–243r, Phm 243rv, Heb 243v–255r 255-9v (from 256r supplemented, paper; cf IIn7 and IIn12):

‫ܕܘ ̈ ܗܘܢ‬

‫ܕܐ‬

‫ܕ ܝ ܐܘ‬

‫ܬ‬

̈ ‫̈ ܘܢ ܘ ̈ ܬ ܘܢ ܕ‬

‫ܬܘܒ‬

Catalogue(s) and other literature: SCHER, Catalogue Notre-Dame-des-Semences (1906) 483 (no. x) ― VOSTÉ, Catalogue (1929) 9– 10 (no. xv) ― BUCK, Manuscript Studies (1978) 53 ― VÖÖBUS, History II (1987) 191 ― HADDAD/ ISAAC, Syriac and Arabic Manuscripts 1 (1988) 24. — On the migrations of the Chaldean collection of manuscripts: YOHANNA, The Gospel of Mark (2015) 109–111.

IIIn5

| JOHN RYLANDS UNIVERSITY LIBRARY MANCHESTER MS SYR 2

12th/13th, 250 fols, ca 27,5x19 cm, 2 cols, 31 li Parchment codex of the Peshiṭta NT, breaking off at Hebrews 11:28. Includes after the Gospels the Harklean Passiontide harmony, followed by the ‘Philoxenian’ Rev (published by Gwynn 1897). After Acts follow all seven cath. Epistles in the order 1.2.3 Jn, 1.2 Pet, Jac, Jude. Date

12th: Gwynn, Apocalypse (1897), Gottstein, Clemons, Vööbus ― 12th/13th: Gwynn, Remnants (1909) 2 (Cod. 12), Buck. GWYNN, Apocalypse (1897) cxii: ‘On the back of the modern English binding, the volume is lettered “Circ. A.D. 1000”; but on which grounds, or by what authority, this date was suggested, does not appear.’ A Ms dated 719/20 AD (plate clxii in HATCH’S Album [1946] ) with identical script could suggest even an earlier date. However, the participation of 89,65% in the Eastern standard text points to a later date in the 2nd millennium.

Text

Gospels 1–109ra, Passiontide harmony 109ra–119ra, Rev 120ra–134rb, Acts/7 cath. Epp. 134rb– 183ra — Rom 183ra–195vb, 1Co 196ra–208vb, 2Co 208vb–217ra, Gal 217ra–221rb, Eph 221rb–225va, Php 225va–229va, Col 228va–231rb, 1Th 231rb–234ra, 2Th 234ra–235rb, 1Tm 235rb–238vb, 2Tm 238vb–241rb, Tit 241rb–241vb (breaking off 1:15 ‫ܗܘ‬ ), Phm 242ra (startin 1:1 ‫–) ܐ‬242va, Heb 242va–249vb (breaking off 11:28 ‫) ̇ܗܘ‬

Lac

in the Corpus Paulinum after fol 243: Tit 1:15 ‫ܘܢ‬

‫ – ܪ‬Phm 1:1 ‫ܐܘܣ‬

‫ | ܘ‬after fol 249: Heb 11:28

‫ – ܕ‬end

Catalogue(s) and other literature GWYNN, Apocalypse (1897) cxi-cxix ― PUSEY-GWILLIAM, Tetraeuangelium (1901) no. 12 ― GWYNN, Remnants (1909) 2 (no. 12) ― GOTTSTEIN, List (1954–55) 436 ― CLEMONS, Studies (1963) 54 ― BUCK, Manuscript Studies (1978) 57 ― VÖÖBUS, History II (1987) 190 ― COAKLEY, A Catalogue (1993) 118–19. On the Harklean Passiontide harmony see WEIGELT, Harmonies (1969), and HILL, Passion Harmony (2006).

IV. Edition: Manuscripts IIIn6

lxxxix

| SYRIAC-ORTHODOX BISHOPRIC, MARDIN MS SYR 35/2

12th/13th, 302 fols (no pag.), ca 26x17 cm, 1 col, 26-31 li A Peshiṭta NT, after the Gospel of John containing the Apocalypse in the Harklean version (facsimile edition by Vööbus 1978), and the Minor cath. Epistles (after Jac, 1P Jn in the order 2P, 2-3Jn, Jude). The codex was originally composed of 31 quires (quiniones, oriental paper); defects and supplements at the beginning and at the end, and at the beginning of Acts. Extensive codicological description of the codex by Vööbus. The Corpus Paulinum (not Acts) is furnished with an Euthalian apparatus in the margins and with the Euthalian prologue preceding Romans. Date

end of 12th/beginning of 13th: Vööbus ― 13th: the team of the Mor Gabriel Monastery

Text

Mt (defective), starting 1:18 ‫ – ܕ ܕ ܥ‬44v, Mk 44v–65v, Lk 65v–109v, Jn 109v–144r, Rev 144r–1510v, Acts 161r–1910v, 7 cath. Epp. 1910v–2110v — Euthalian prologue 221r–241r, Rom 241v–253r, 1Co 253r–268r, 2Co 268r–279r, Gal 279r–284v (defective), Eph 284v–9v, Php 289v– 293r, Col 293r–6v, 1Th 296v–9v, 2Th 299v–301r, 1Tm 301r–5r, 2Tm 305r–7v, Tit 307v–9v, Phm 309v (ending 15 ‫ܕ‬ ), Heb on the last 8 fols, from 4:3 ‫ – ܕ‬12:17 ‫ܕ ܪܬ‬

Lac

in the Corpus Paulinum after 2710v: Gal 3:1 the last fol: Heb 12:17

– 26 ‫ܬ‬ ‫ – ܪ‬end.

| after 309v: Phm 15 ‫ – ܐܦ‬Heb 4:3 ‫̈ܘܗܝ‬

| after

Catalogue(s) and other literature VÖÖBUS, The Apocalypse (1978) 32–42 (codicological data of the codex) ― VÖÖBUS, History II (1987) 167, 192 ― The Mor Gabriel Edition (2007) of the NT is based on IIIn6 (below in Appendix 4, siglum ‘U’ ) ― In the critical edition of the Harklean Apocalypse published by M. HEIDE, Die syrische Apokalypse (2017), IIIn6 is the main authority.

III

n7 | BRITISH LIBRARY ADD 17,124 LONDON

1545 AG (= 1233/34 AD), 173 fols, ca 23x16,5 cm, 2 cols, 36 li Parchment codex of the NT, the Gospels in the Harklean version, the remaining parts Peshiṭta. Written in the Monastery of Naṭpha, situated above the Dayro d-Mor Ḥenanya (Dēr ul-Za‛pharan) near Mardin. According to a note on fol 68r, written by Gregory, Metropolitan of Jerusalem, and dated 15th of Feb. 1827 AG (= 1516 AD), the codex was in Dayr al-Suryān/Egypt in this time. Text

remains of Mt&Mk fol 1–5, Lk 6ra–40vb, Jn 41ra–67vb, Acts 68va–98rb, cath. Epp. 98rb– 107 — Rom 107ra–118ra, 1Co 118ra–129ra, 2Co 129ra–136rb, Gal 146rb–140rb, Eph 140rb–144rb, Php 144rb–147rb, Col 147rb–150ra, 1Th 150ra–152vb, 2Th 152vb–154ra, 1Tm 154ra–157vb, 2Tm 157vb–160rb, Tit 160rb–161vb, Phm 161vb–162va, Heb 162va– 172vb

Catalogue(s) and other literature WRIGHT, Catalogue 1 (1870) 42-44 (LXV) ― CLEMONS, Studies (1963) 48 ― BUCK, Manuscript Studies (1978) 56 ― GUDORF, Research (1992) 24 — The Gospels in this Ms are representatives of the ‘Dionysius-stage’ within the revisional development of the Harklean version, cf KIRAZ, Comparative Edition 1 (1996) xxxvi–xl.

xc

Introduction III

n8 | SYRIAC-ORTHODOX MONASTERY OF ST. MARK, JERUSALEM MS SYR 31

15th/16th, 277 fols (paper), ca 27x17 cm, 2 cols, 31 li Codex of the NT, previously unquoted. The Gospels are in the Harklean version and abundantly annotated by commentaries. After the Gospel of John, the Harklean Passiontide Harmony is added. After Acts, Jac, 1P, 1Jn (all Peshiṭta) follow the Minor cath. Epistles 2P, 2–3Jn, Jude. Extensive description of the codex in the Final Inventory of Macomber (1995). Date

16th: Macomber ― Dolabani erroneously gives the date 927 AG from the subscription of the Harklean Gospels.

Text

Gospels (Harklean) 1–136v, Passiontide Harmony 137r–148r, Acts 148v–188v, 7 cath. Epp. 188v–205r — Rom 205va–219vb, 1Co 219vb–232va, 2Co 232va–241rb, Gal 241rb–245va, Eph 245vb–248 [ Eph 5:22 ̈ – 1Th 2:16 on fols 249–256, which before pagination were ‘bound upside down and backwards to’; 1Th 2:16 ̈ – end 257–258va ], 2Th 258va–260ra, 1Tm 260ra–263vb, 2Tm 263vb–266ra, Tit 266ra–267va, Phm 267vb–268rb, Heb 268rb–276vb (breaking off 12:27 )

Catalogue(s) and other literature DOLABANI, Catalogue (1994) 151-52 ― MACOMBER, Final Inventory (1995) item 4; not in BAUMSTARK, Handschriften (1911/1912) and MACLER, Notices (1920).

III

n9 | BIBLIOTECA APOSTOLICA VATICANA, CITTÀ DEL VATICANO MS VAT SYR 16

12th/13th, 285 fols (paper), ca 26x16,5 cm, 1 col, 28 li This codex is written in the Monastery of Mar Michael near Moṣul (FIEY, Assyrie chrétienne II 1965, 660–71). The last fol with the date is lost. It was in the possession of G. Postel (1510–81) and became part of the ‘Bibliotheca Palatina’ at Heidelberg, where I. Tremellius used it for his Testamentum novum (1569; cf below in Appendix 4 ). During the Thirty Years War, the ‘Bibliotheca Palatina’ found its way to Rome (1622/23). Date

13th: Assemani, Levi della Vida, Clemons, Buck, Ross, Gudorf, Aland

Text

Mt 1–39v, Mk 39v–63v, Lk 64r–116v, Jn 116v–139, Acts 139r–183v, cath. Epp. 183v–197v — Rom 196v–213v, 1Co 213v–229v, 2Co 229v–240r, Gal 240r–245v, Eph 245v–250v, Php 250v–254v, Col 254v–258r,1Th 258r–261v, 2Th 261v–263r, 1Tm 263r–267v, 2Tm 267v– 270v, Tit 270v–272v, Phm 272v–273v, Heb 273v–285v

Catalogue(s) and other literature ASSEMANUS, BAV Catalogus I, 2 (1758) 59–61 ― LEVI DELLA VIDA, Ricerche (1939) 303– 07 ― CLEMONS, Studies (1963) 65 ― BUCK, Manuscript Studies (1978) 60 ― ROSS, Studies (1983) 17 ― GUDORF, Research (1992) 29 ― ALAND, NTSYR II (1991–2002) (‘P19’) — The history and holdings of the the ‘Bibliotheca Palatina’ are presented in Bibliotheca Palatina, Katalog (1986).

IV. Edition: Manuscripts III

xci

n10 | SYRIAC-ORTHODOX CHURCH MERYEMANA DIYARBAKIR MS 1/1

OT: 1496 AD; NT: 1498 AD, 255 fols (paper, no pag.), ca 47x30 cm, 4 col, 68–70 li A hugh codex (previously unquoted) composed of 26 quires, the first and the last are defective; containing portions of Bar ‛Ebroyo’s Awṣar rāzē (on the first four fols), the OT, Apocrypha (both Peshiṭta, 1(3)Esdras and Tobiṭ in the Syro Hexapla version), the NT (incl. seven cath. Epp: Jac, 1–2P, 1–3Jn, Jude; no Rev; and the Corpus Paulinum after John before Acts), and the Octateuch attributed to Clement of Rome. These remarkable features are also extant in IIIn12 and Ms Mar Behnām 1/1 (dated 1963 AG/1651 AD), cf FISCHER (ed.), A Tribute (1977) plate 1. The codex is written in the Monastery of Mor Ḥenanya (Dēr ul-Za‛pharan) and Mor Augin ( ‫ܘ ܝ ܐܘ‬ ‫ܕ ܝ‬ ) and dated twice: at the end of the OT (207v) Tešrīn (’)ḥrāy 1808 ̄‫ܐ‬ AG (‫ܕ ܢ‬ ‫ܐ ܝܕ‬ ), which corresponds to Nov. 1496; and on the last fol: 14th of Iyār ̈ ‫ܘܬ ܕ‬ 1809 AG ( ‫ ̈ ܐܪ‬. ̈ ‫ܘܬ‬ ), which corresponds to 14th of May 1498. Plate

KESSEL, Manuscript Collection plate 1

Text

of the NT Mt 208ra–214rd, Mk 214va–8rd, Lk 218rd–225rc, Jn 225rd–10ra, Rom 2210rc–232vc, 1Co 232vc–5rb, 2Co 235rb–6vc, Gal 236vc–7vb, Eph 237vb–8rd, Php 238rd–9ra, Col 239ra–9va, 1Th 239va–10ra, 2Th 2310ra–10rd, 1Tim 2310rd–241ra, 2Tm 241ra–1va, Tit 241va–1vd, Phm 241vd–2ra, Heb 242ra–3vd , Acts 244ra–10vd, 7 cath. Epp. 2410vd–253vd

Catalogue(s) and other literature A. VÖÖBUS, Nouvelles sources (1973) 105–109 ― KESSEL, Manuscript Collection (2015) 104– 105 ― OTP-Siglum: 15a3 ― HMML No.: DIYR 00002 ― On the Octateuch attributed to Clement of Rome: BAUMSTARK, Geschichte (1922) 252; BARDENHEWER, Geschichte 4 (1924) 273–75.

III

n11 | NEW COLLEGE, OXFORD MS 334

11th/12th, 277 fols, ca 23x15 cm, 2 cols, 27–34 li Parchment codex of the NT. The Gospels in the Harklean version, followed by the Passiontide harmony; Acts and the Corpus Paulinum are Peshiṭta. At the end of the codex is a hand-written description of the codex by Ph. Pusey: ‘Coll. Nov 334 — This Book consists of parts of two volumes bound up together : the first portion belongs

to the Harkelan (formerly called the Philoxenian) version. It consists of ornamented tables containing the Gospel lections : followed by S. Matthew : but the second quaternion is wanting. After S. Matthew 3 quaternio & about four folia are missing : & it resumes with the ninth chapter of S. Luke (all S. Mark being wanted). S. John follows S. Luke but there are about four folia missing near the beginning. After John, follows a Harmony of the Passion for the lessons for Holy Week. This occupies about 14 folia : & ends the first portion of the Book. The second portion of the Book belongs to the Peshito version & commences with the Acts of the Apostles, going on, with apparently nothing lost, till it takes off with the 12th chapter of the Epistle to the Hebrews. — Note by P. Pusey 1867’

Date

11th: Coxe

xcii Text

Introduction Gospels (Harklean): Mt 5va–34va, Mk vacat, Lk (starting 9:9 ‫ ) ܐ‬35ra–53va, Jn 53vb– 76vb, Passiontide harmony 77ra–90vb Acts/Pls (Peshiṭta): Acts 91va–124ra, cath. Epp. 124ra–133ra — Rom 133ra–145rb, 1Co 145rb–157rb, 2Co 157rb–165ra, Gal 165ra–169ra, Eph 169rb–173ra, Php 173ra–175vb, Col 175vb–178va, 1Th 178va–181ra, 2Th 181ra–182rb, 1Tm 182rb–185va, 2Tm 185va–187vb, Tit 188ra–189rb, Phm 190va–191ra, Heb 191ra–197vb (breaking off 12:7 ).

Catalogue(s) and other literature COXE, Catalogus (1852) 119 ― WHITE, Versio syriaca 1 (1778), xxv–vi (‘Codex Barsalibaeus’) ― Besides BL Add. 17,124 (IIIn7), this codex is a second witness to the ‘Dionysiusstage’ of the Harklean Gospels, cf KIRAZ, Comparative Edition 1(1996) xxxvi–xl. III

n12 | CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY MS OO 1. 1,2 (‘BUCHANAN BIBLE’)

11th/12th, 323 fols, ca 44x28 cm, 3 cols, 54–66 li Parchment codex bound in two volumes (the 2nd starting fol. 136 with Wisdom of Solomon 17,6); containing the OT, Apocrypha (both Peshiṭta, 1(3)Esdras and Tobiṭ in the Syro Hexapla version), the NT (incl. seven cath. Epp: Jac, 1P, 1Jn, 2P, 2–3Jn, Jude; no Rev; and the Corpus Paulinum after John before Acts), and the Octateuch attributed to Clement of Rome (breaking off in the sixth book). These textual features we also meet in IIIn10 and Ms Mar Behnām 1/1 (dated 1963 AG/1651 AD), cf FISCHER (ed.), A Tribute (1977) plate 1. There are 40 illustrations, mainly at the beginning of the biblical books. The supposed 12th-cent. date of the codex relies on the identification of the mentioned ‘Patriarch Michael’ (fols 131r and 141r, on the upper margin respectively) with Michael the Great (d. 1199), and on palaeographical grounds. The participation of 81,52% in the EST confirms Wright’s dating (12th cent.). Identical printed notes glued to the inside cover of each volume inform that in 1806 the codex was presented to the missionary Claudius Buchanan (1766–1815) in India by Mar Thoma VI (Dionysius I), head of the Malankara Church. As the Malankara Church was associated with the Syrian-Orthodox Church of Antioch since 1665, the codex probably reached India as ‘the gift of a former patriarch to the S. Indian church’ (WRIGHT/COOK, Catalogue 2, 1044). Large portions of the codex (esp. in vol. 2) are illegible by folio defects or by the fading-out of the script, which heavily suffered from the Indian climate. For the present edition, the codex was collated only in part to determine the participation in the EST as far as possible (the excellent digitized images provided by the University Library of Cambridge proved to be very helpful). The result: 184 significant test units could be deciphered (out of 238), 34 of which are non-Eastern (‘Western,’ in italics), and 150 of which read the EST: Rom 1:13, 2:1, 3:2, 4:16, 6:4, 6:13, 7:19, 8:17, 8:23, 8:36, 8:39, 8:39, 9:19, 9:26, 10:3, 11:16, 11:24, 12:2, 12:3, 13:1, 13:4, 13:12, 14:2, 14:8, 14:20, 15:20; 1Co 1:24, 3:10, 4:9, 5:3, 5:10, 7:28, 7:32, 8:2, 8:6, 8:7, 9:7, 9:7, 9:10, 9:25, 10:17, 10:24, 11:9, 11:12, 11:16, 11:17, 12:28, 13:5, 13:12, 14:19, 14:37, 15:4, 15:9, 15:12, 15:14, 15:39, 15:41, 15:55, 16:1, 16:6, 16:24; 2Co 3:2, 4:4, 4:8, 4:10, 4:13, 4:16, 4:18, 5:11, 6:16, 7:2, 7:6, 7:9, 7:14, 7:15, 8:18, 8:21, 9:3, 9:5, 9:6, 9:7, 12:2, 12:9, 12:10, 12:11, 12:18, 13:1, 13:2, 13:9; Gal 1:10, 1:14, 1:14, 1:21, 2:4, 2:5, 2:15, 2:20, 3:4, 4:7, 4:20, 5:3, 5:13, 6:3, 6:14, 6:17; Eph 1:8, 1:15, 2:12, 5:23, 5:29, 6:8 (twice); Php 1:12, 1:19, 2:6, 2:18, 3:19 (twice), 3:20, 4:1, 4:12; Col 3:5, 3:6, 4:13, 4:16; 1Th 2:17, 4:1 (twice), 4:15; 2Th 1:3, 1:7, 2:4, 2:13, 3:1, 3:5, 3:6, 3:6, 3:18: 1Tm 3:1, 3:8; 2Tm 2:16 (twice), 3:5, 3:6, 3:7, 3:15, 3:17 (twice), 4:1, 4:17, 4:22; Tit 1:3, 1:4, 1:5, 2:5, 3:7, 3:8; Phm 25; Heb 2:10, 2:16, 3:6, 3:7, 3:11 (twice), 3:16, 5:5, 6:6, 8:5, 9:17, 9:24, 10:5, 10:9, 10:11, 10:25, 10:28, 10;29, 10:33, 10:34, 11:6, 11:17, 11:34, 12:5, 12:6. The percentage of 81,52% reveals a standardized text of West Syrian descent, dating from the beginning of the 2nd millennium. Given this high percentage of participa-

IV. Edition: Manuscripts

xciii

tion in the EST and the large illegible portions, the codex was excluded from full collation. However, the 34 agreements with the Western textual tradition are quoted in the List of Western Readings of the Bifurcation (p. lii). By chance, almost all subscriptions to the Pauline Epistles are extant and legible; they are included in Appendix 1. Date

last quarter of the 12th century: Wright — 12th: Leroy

Text

OT&Apocrypha: Gen–4Macc 2va–230vb, 1(3)Esdras 230vb–234rc, Tobit 234rc–236vc NT: Mt 238ra–247vb, Mk 247vb–255ra, Lk 255rb–265rb, Jn 265rc–273vc — Rom 273vb [+ the displaced fols 280–282], 1Co 274vb–278rc, 2Co 278rc–283vc, Gal 283vc–285rb, Eph 285rb–286rc, Php 286rc–287rc, Col 287rc–288rc, 1Th 288rc–289ra, 2Th 289ra–va, 1Tm 289va (defective, 290rv blank), 2Tm (defective)–291va, Tit 291va–c, Phm 292ra–b, Heb 292vb–295rb — Acts, 7 cath. Epp. 306ra–310va Clementine Octateuch (breaking off in the 6th book) 310va–324v (323v)

Catalogue(s) and other literature WRIGHT/COOK, Catalogue 2 (1901) 1037–44 ― GWYNN, Remnants (1909) Cod. 9, xliv-v ― List of OT Peshiṭta Mss (1961) 4 ― CLEMONS, Studies (1963) 38 ― LEROY, Manuscrits syriaques 1 (1964) 241–53 ― BUCK, Manuscript Studies (1978) 48 ― GUDORF, Research (1992) 32 ― VÖÖBUS, History II (1987) 190–191 ― OTP-Siglum: 12a1 ― Leroy and Buck erroneously report the Letter(s) of Clement instead of the Octateuch. IIIx1

| BIBLIOTECA APOSTOLICA VATICANA CITTÀ DEL VATICANO MS VAT SYR 470

11th/12th, 110 fols, ca 22,5x16 cm, 2 cols, 33 li Parchment codex of Acts and the Corpus Paulinum. It is very likely that the Gospels were originally part of the codex, since two fols of the Passiontide Harmony by the same hand as the bulk of the Ms are preserved (fols 1–2). Text

Passiontide harmony 1r–2v, Acts 3ra–35rb, cath. Epp. 35rb–45rb — Rom 45ra–57rb, 1Co 57va–69va, 2Co 69va–77va, Gal 77va–81va, Eph 81va–85va, Php 85va–88rb, Col 88va– 91ra, 1Th 91ra–93va, 2Th 93va–94vb, 1Tm 94vb–98ra, 2Tm 98ra–100rb, Tit 100rb–101vb, Phm 101vb–102va, Heb 102va–110vb (breaking off 12:29 )

Catalogue(s) and other literature LANTSCHOOT, Inventaire (1965) 9 ― BUCK, Manuscript Studies (1978) 52 ― VÖÖBUS, History II (1987) 192.

III

p1 | BIBLIOTHEQUE NATIONALE, PARIS MS SYR 361 (olim SÉERT 9), fol 212–265

12th/13th c, fols 212−256, ca 25x17 cm, 2 cols, 29–30 li These parchment folios are supplementing an 8th/9th-cent. codex of a Peshiṭta NT (= IIn8). Date

13th: Briquel-Chatonnet; cf above IIn8.

Text

Gal 212ra starting 2:4 ‫– ) ܪܘܬ‬216va, Eph 216va–221vb, Php 221vb–225rb, Col 225rb– 229ra, 1Th 229ra–232ra, 2Th 232ra–233vb, 1Tm 233vb–238rb, 2Tm 238rb–241rb, Tit 241rb–243rb, Phm 243rb–244ra, Heb 244ra–255vb

xciv

Introduction

Catalogue(s) and other literature SCHER, Catalogue Séert (1905) 8–9 ― GOTTSTEIN, List (1954-55) 438 ― CLEMONS, Studies (1963) 63 ― BUCK, Manuscript Studies (1978) 41 ― VÖÖBUS, History II (1987) 103–04 ― GUDORF, Research (1992) 27 ― BRIQUEL-CHATONNET, Manuscrits syriaques (1997) 27–29. On the Manuscripts of the ‘Syriac Masora’, see Appendix 3

2. Text and apparatus Based on the ‘editorial criticism’ developed in sec. II and III, the present edition offers the text current in the pre-‘masoretic’/Byzantine period, when the bifurcation into an Eastern and Western textual tradition started developing. The undivided text we consider as ante-dating the East-West-bifurcation; when split, we prefer—as a mechanical rule—the reading of the future Western textual tradition to the future Eastern standard text (see above, p. xxxv). The dissolution of the bifurcation by standardization in favour of the Eastern textual tradition is given in the apparatus. Except for 76 places,1 the present edition reproduces the BFBS text, which is printed in vocalized Serṭā and furnished with quššāyā and rukkākhā. The BFBS text is established by the majority vote of about a dozen of manuscripts John Pinkerton collated against the printed edition of William Greenfield (issued by the publisher Samuel Bagster 1828), itself reprinting the text of the editio princeps of 1555. The exact number of manuscripts Pinkerton used is uncertain; there are at least 7 fully collated manuscripts, besides 5 or 7 additionally collated only in part. 2 The uncertainty arises from the double collation in Ms BL or. 11,360. As reported elsewhere,3 there are two largely identical collations of the Corpus Paulinum, both from Pinkerton’s hand. The one of fol. 35–159 is a clean copy of the earlier, rather confused one of fol. 190–237 (which in Romans still assigns capital letters to the manuscripts, before turning to the familiar numbers in 1Corinthians). 4 Surprisingly, these additional manuscripts contribute to the majority vote, although they are quoted in the earlier copy only, not in the clean copy.5 The reason for their omission in the clean copy may be the only partial collation and their supposed later origin compared to those manuscripts quoted in the clean copy. Obviously, Pinkerton himself They are given in col. A of the list p. xlii and in note 18 of p. xxxviii. The additional manuscripts are ‘53’ = BL Add 17,122; ‘54’ = BL Add 14,477; ‘55’ = BL Add 14,478; ‘56’ = BL Add 14,481; ‘57’ = BL Add 14,474. Not from Pinkerton’s hand are ‘58’ = New Coll. 334, and ‘B. S’ = Bible Society, but of unknown identity); the same hand attached ‘Bagster’ and ‘Lee’ to the lemma and to some quotations. 3 JUCKEL, Bemerkungen (2013) 209–211. 4 These numbers are included in the list of mss at the beginning of the previous chapter. 5 One example: fol. 230r (in the earlier collation), 44, 46, 53, 54, 55, 56 are quoted for the lemma ‫ =( ܕ‬BFBS and in our edition); for the variant are quoted 17, 33, 45. In the clean copy, only the bold numbers are given. 1 2

IV. Edition: Text and Apparatus

xcv

has been strengthening the majority vote by additional (partial) collations; but it was not Pinkerton himself, who established the BFBS text. This was done by the Bible Society, which itself continued strengthening the majority vote by collating Mss ‘58’ and ‘B. S.’. Besides the variant readings proper, the collation papers collected in Ms or. 11,360 consist of a wide range of additional materials. There are several lists that in nuce show the making of the text from scratch: simple stops are quoted, and paragraph stops (165r– 166v); ṣḥāḥē ( ̈ ‫ ) ܨ‬167rv; titles/ inscriptions (168rv); and a long list of vocalized proper nouns and other words (incl. quyššāyā/rukkākhā ) 169r–183v. All these materials certainly proved helpful for those who established the text of the BFBS volume. In the present edition, we largely adopted all (paragraph) stops; for a more pleasant layout, however, we turned (almost) all simple stops into paragraph stops; and reduced multiple dots (.‫܀‬.‫܀‬.‫܀‬.) to one dot (‫)܀‬. In the margins, we offer a double range of Syriac chapter numbering ( ̈ ‫) ܨ‬: the shorter starting from Romans, and the longer starting from Matthew. The biblical references (testimonia) quoted in the margins refer to the books and verse numbers of the Old Testament Peshiṭta issued at Leiden/Amsterdam. Sigla: In our edition, the sigla of the mss consist of three elements: 1. Roman number (chronological element) for the period of transmission/ stage of textual history. I◌ Byzantine period/ pre-‘masoretic’ stage 5th–7th II◌ Islamic period/ early ‘masoretic’ stage 8th–11th III◌ Islamic period/ late ‘masoretic’ stage 12th–16th + 2. NT corpora & text corpora n New Testament x Praxapostolos (i.e. Acts/cath. epp., and/or Corpus Paulinum) p Corpus Paulinum m masoretic ms(s) q lectionary 3. a number that counts mss of the same period/same content. IIm (the single witness to the Eastern ‘Masora’) is the only siglum without counting number. Examples: In1 is a ms from the Byzantine period/ pre-‘masoretic’ stage, the 1st ms of a complete NT. In2 is the 2nd complete NT from this period/stage. When attesting the same text/variant, both mss are quoted In1.2 – When mss are quoted in a range, the Roman number(s) is (are) only fixed to the first witness of each period: In1.2 p1.2.5.6.7 IIn1.2.3 p1.2 IIIn1.2.5 – Sigla of Western witnesses from the II◌-stage are in italics. In this stage, the East-West-bifurcation is most developed. – Additional elements can be fixed to the sigla, e.g. *, c, s

xcvi

Introduction

Lacunae/Supplements: Between text and apparatus, the Lac(unae) and Suppl(ements) are quoted, both starting and ending with the first and last word respectively: Lac

Suppl

Example from p. 115: Ip2 1Co 15:48 –16:6 the last word of the lacuna is given on p. 117: Ip2 1Co 15:48–16:6 ‫ܘܢ‬ on p. 116, the running lacuna is indicated by Ip2 1Co 15:48–16:6

‫ܘܐ‬

Example from p. 108: Ip5 1Co 14:31 – 15:16 (12th/13th) the last word of the supplemented text is given on p. 111: Ip5 1Co 14:31–15:16 (12th/13th) on p. 109 and 110, the running supplement is indicated by Ip5 1Co 14:31–15:16 (12th/13th)

The critical apparatus denotes textual variations provided by the manuscripts and consists of place + lemma + variant + ms(s) attestation, e. g. Place Rom 16,2 2Co 7,12 Gal 6,8

lemma

‫ܨ‬

variant

‫]ܘ‬ ‫]ܐܦ‬ ‫]̇ ܕ‬

‫ܡ‬ ‫ܘܐܦ‬ +

ms(s)

‫ܘ‬

IIIn1 Ip4.7.9.10

Ip3

¦

‫̇ ܕ‬

IIm1.2.3.4

IIIn3

x1 ¦

IIIn2.6.7

m5

‫ ܘ ̇ ܕ‬IIIn10

All mss not attached to a variant, agree with the lemma, or are included in lac(unae). Therefore, on every page the reading of all mss is known. Multiple variants that refer to the same lemma are separated by ‘¦’ If not explicitly quoted elsewhere, the corrector agrees with the lemma: Eph 4,29

‫ܬ‬

̈

]

IIx3*

By the Roman numbers (the chronological element) and sigla in italics, the historical lines of the textual history are inscribed into the apparatus: the period(s) of transmission, and (for the II◌-stage) the Western ecclesiastical affiliation. Within one and the same lemma, both historical lines are assigned to the variant(s) by the mss sigla. In most of the cases, the Eastern and Western textual traditions are identical or slightly modified (both or one of them) by variants; the 238 significantly attested variant unions, however, which reflect the East-West-bifurcation, require an explicit visualization of both textual traditions in all periods of transmission. For the sake of space, the sigla IIΣ and IIIΣ are introduced, which sum up all mss of the early (IIΣ) and late (IIIΣ) Islamic/‘masoretic’ periods respectively. These sigla include mss of both textual traditions, though most of the included mss belong to the dominant Eastern textual tradition, e. g. Gal 5,3

]

In1c.2

x1

IIΣ

(– n3.9 x1*.2 q4 m1.2.3.4 )

IIIΣ

(– n7mg m5.6)

The Eastern textual tradition (EST ) reads and is represented by IIΣ and IIIΣ. In the Byzantine/pre-‘masoretic’ period, is extant only by In1c.2 x1. Mss of the Western textual tradition (the lemma) are attested beside the Eastern tradition in all periods of transmission and distinguished from the Eastern tradition by being quoted in brackets

IV. Edition: Text and Apparatus

xcvii

(‘subtracted’ from IIΣ and IIIΣ). — Note: the Western ms IIp1 is included in IIΣ, adapted to the EST; IIn14 p2 are in Lac(unae); the still remarkably Western mss IIIn2.6 are in IIIΣ, adapted to the EST. Gal 5,13

In1

p1.2*.6.7.8]

‫ ܕ‬In2

x1 p2c.3.4.5.9 BS

IIΣ

IIIΣ

(– n6)

The mss of the Byzantine/pre-‘masoretic’ period are clearly divided and explicitly quoted, also for the lemma. The reading of the Eastern textual tradition (and of the BFBS text) is ‫ ܕ‬, which is attested by mss in all periods of transmission. The Western reading may receive a better (but never strong) attestation in the early and late Islamic/‘masoretic’ periods by additional collations; this reading was faded out by standardization. — Note: Ip10.11.12 IIn14 p2 are in Lac(unae). The still remarkably Western ms IIIn2 is in IIIΣ, adapted to the EST. — One last sample: 1Cor 15,55 ‫ܗܝ‬

‫ܐܘ ܐ‬

Ip3.4.7.9.10.11

] ‫ܗܝ‬

‫ ܘܐ‬In1.2

x1 p1.5.6s.8.12 IIΣ (– n9 ) q1.3.5

IIIΣ

Again, the mss of the Byzantine/pre-‘masoretic’ period are clearly divided and explicitly quoted, also for the lemma. The reading of the Eastern tradition is ‫ܗܝ‬ ‫ܘܐ‬, which dominates the early and late Islamic/‘masoretic’ periods. The Western reading of the lemma was faded out and survived only in one ms (IIn9 ) of the early Islamic/‘masoretic’ period. The quoted lectionaries agree with the Eastern tradition. Further attestation may come up by additional collations but will never be a strong. — Note: Ip2 IIn14 p2 are in Lac(unae). The still remarkably Western mss IIIn2.6 are in IIIΣ, adapted to the EST.

Sigla and abbreviations used in the apparatus of the edition + > *? IIΣ IIIΣ BS (no) diacr illeg incert lac lem ras in ras spat sy tr

addition omission original hand illegible (caused by correction or erasure) summing up all mss of the Early masoretic period (8th – 11th c.) summing up all mss of the Late masoretic period (12th – 16th c. and beyond) Bible Society (i.e. the text of the British and Foreign Bible Society, 1920) (no) diacritical point for grammatical specification is given illegible uncertain lacuna, text missing or mutilated text of the lemma], to which the variant in the apparatus is attached rasura, erasure something written on an erasure (by the original hand or by a corrector) spatium, space syāme transpose, transposition

xcviii

Introduction

Abbreviations attached to Mss-Sigla * c mg r s tx v

original hand corrector, correction in the margin (usually corresponding to tx ) restored by later hand (usually when the script faded out) supplement(ed) word in the text (usually corresponding to mg ) ut videtur, i.e. the text of the Ms is not completely certain

4. Scribal errors This list gives the scribal errors (e. g., all homoioteleuta and -arkta ) in all manuscripts used for the present edition. For the sake of space, they are not included in the apparatus. Especially in manuscripts from the Byzantine/ ‘masoretic’ period (chronological element: I◌) scribal errors and orthographica are sometimes difficult to distinguish. Sigla, Abbreviations: r(estored) s(upplement) sy(āme) v(aria)l(ectio) tx/mg text/marg. reading vs verse

> omit(s), omission + add(s), addition * original text c(orrected text) h(omoio)a(rkton) h(omoio)t(eleuton) Romans

‫ܘ ـ ܘ ـ ـ ܘܫ ]ܘ ـ ܘܚ ـ ܘܫ‬ ― 1,4 ‫ـ ̈ـ‬ ‫ ] ـ ـ‬no sey Ip6 ― 1,6 ‫ ] ـ ـ ܘܢ‬twice Ip7s* ― 1,7 ̈ ‫ ]ܘ‬no sy Ip7 ― 1,10 ‫ ܬ ܚ ]ܬܬ ܚ‬Ip11 ― 1,20 ‫ ܕ ܘܢ ]ܕ ܘܘܢ‬Ip7s ― Ip7 ― 1,7 ‫ܘܢ‬ ] ‫ܘܢ‬ ̈ 1,21 ‫ ܘܐ ـ ـ ]ܘܐܬ ـ ـ‬Ip7s ― 1,23 ‫ ܬ ـ ـ ـ ܗ ]ܬ ـ ـ ـ ܗ‬Ip7s ― 1,24 ‫ ] ـ ـ ܬ‬no sy IIIn10 ― 1,25 ‫]ܘ ـ ـ ـ‬ ‫ ܘ ـ ـ‬IIIn3 ― 1,25 ‫ ]ܕ ـ ـ ܘـ ـ‬sy IIIn2 ― 1,26 ‫ ]ܕ ـ ـ ـ ـ‬sy IIn6 ― 1,26 ‫ ܐܬ ـ ـ ـ ]ܐܬ ـ ـ‬IIn6 ― 1,27 IIIn3 ― 2,3 ‫ܘܐ ܪ‬/ ] ‫ܘܐ ܪܚ‬/ ‫ ܗ ] ܗ‬IIp2 ― 2,10 ‫ܘ‬... ‫ > ]ܬ‬h. t. IIIn10 ― 2,17 IIp1 ― 2,18 ‫ ܨ‬... ‫ܪ ܐ‬ ‫ ]ܘ‬tr to vs 18 after ‫ـ‬ ‫ ܕ ̣ ]ܕ‬Ip8 ― 2,20 ‫ ܘܕܕܘ ]ܘܕܪܘ‬IIIn8 ― 2,27 ‫ ܪܘܬ ] ܪ ܬ‬IIp1 ― 2,29/3,2 ‫ ـ ̈ ܗܝ ܕ‬... ‫̇ܗ‬ ‫ > ]ܐ ܕܬ‬IIp1 ― ̈ II III III I 3,9 ‫ ܐܕ ـ ]ܐ ـ‬x1 n8 ― 3,19 ‫ܡ‬ ‫ܡ ]ܕ‬ ‫ ܕ‬n8 ― 3,21 ̇ ] > p7s ― 3,22 ‫]ܐܦ‬ III II II III > h. t. n6* ― 3,29 ‫ ܐܢ ]ܐ‬n3 ― 4,10 ‫ܪ ܬ‬ ... ‫ > ] ܗܘ‬h. t. n13* n10 ― 4,11 ... ‫]ܘ‬ ‫ ܕ ܪ ܬ‬twice (h. t.) IIn3* ― 4,17/18 ̈ ‫ܕ‬ ... ‫ ] ܡ‬twice (h. t.) IIn3* ― 4,23 ‫ܕ‬ ]> IIIn7* ― 4,24 IIIn3 * ― 5,3 IIIn1 ― 5,6 ‫ ܕܗ ]ܕܗ‬IIn13 ― 5,2 ] ‫ܪ‬ ] II II III III I ‫ > ]ܐܢ‬n6* ― 5,10 ‫ ܐܬ ]ܐ‬x1s* n10 ― 5,11 ] > n7* ― 5,12 ‫ ܕ ]ܕ‬p8r ― 5,13 ‫]ܕ‬ ̈ III I II III ‫ ܗܘ > ܗܘ‬n10 ― 5,15 ‫] ܘ‬ p7s ― 5,18 ... ‫ > ]ܗ‬h. t. n13* ― 6,8 ] > n10 ― 6,21 ‫ > ]ܐܕ‬IIp1 ― 7,1 ̈ ‫ܐ ܘܢ ܐ‬ ‫ > ]ܐܘ‬IIn13* ― 7,3 ‫ܬ‬ ... ‫ܬ‬ ‫ > ]ܐܢ ܕ‬h. t. IIx1 ― 7,6 ‫]ܐܬ‬ ‫ ܐܬ ـ‬IIIn10 ― 7,6 ‫ ܕܐ ـ ܗܘܘ ]ܕܐ ـ ܗܘ‬IIIn10 ― 7,6 ‫ ـ ܘܬ ] ـ ܬܘܬ‬IIx1 IIn11 ― 7,11 ̇ ] 1,4

IIIn3

IV. Edition: Scribal errors

xcix

‫ ܐ > ] ̇ ܐ‬Ip4 ― 7,16 ‫ ܐ > ]ܨ ̇ ܐ‬IIIn2 ― 7,16 ‫ ̇ ܬ ] ̇ ܕ‬IIIn10 ― 7,16 ] > IIp1 ― IIIn2 ― 7,18 ... ‫ > ] ̇ ܥ ܐ‬h. t. IIIn11 ― 7,18 ‫ ܕܨ ̇ ]ܕܐܨ‬Ip6s ― 7,20 ̇ ‫ܕ‬ ] ̇ ‫ܕ‬ III III I 7,25 ‫ܝ‬ ] n4 ― 8,3 ‫̇ܗ‬ ]‫ܗ‬ n10 ― 8,3 ̇ ‫̇ ]ܕ‬ ‫ ܕ‬p5 ― 8,5 ... ‫]ܘܐ‬ II II III ‫ > ܪ‬h. t. n13* ― 8,20 ̇ ] n13― 8,24 ‫ـ ]ܕ‬ ‫ ܕ‬n10 ― 9,22 ‫ ]ܐܢ ܕ‬twice ܿ ܿ IIIn7 ― 9,30 III II ‫ ܐܕܪܟ ]ܐܕܪ‬n9 ― 9,32 ‫ ]ܕܬܘ‬+ ‫ܬ‬ ‫ ܘ ܕ‬n13* ― 10,1 ‫ܘ ܬ ]ܘ ܬܝ‬ IIIn6 ― 10,14 IIIn10 ― 10,18 ‫]ܗ‬ ‫]ܕ‬ ‫ ܕ‬Ip7* ― 10,20 ̣ ‫ ܘܐ ܘ ]ܘܐ‬IIIn3 ― 11,1 ] III II II ‫ > ܐـ ـ ـ ܐ ــ‬n3* ― 11,1 ‫ ܕ ـ ـ ـ ـ ـ‬... ‫ > ] ـ ܐـ ـ ـ‬n8 ― 11,3 ‫ ـ ـ ] ـ ـ ـ‬n6 ― 11,15 ‫ ـ ـ ـ ـ ـ ܬܗ ] ـ ـ ـ ـ ـ ܬܗܘܢ‬IIIn8 ― 11,17 ‫ ܘܗܘܬ ]ܘܗܘ ـ‬IIIn3 * ― 11,21 ‫ ] ـ ـ ـ ـ‬sy IIIn6 ― 11,22 IIIn8 ― 11,28 ‫ܬ‬ ]‫ܬ‬ ... ‫ܢ‬ ] > h. t. IIIn11 ― 11,31 ‫] ܐܬ‬ ‫ܐܬ‬ ̈ IIp1 ― 12,3 ‫ ܪ‬... ] > h. t. IIp1 ― 12,4 ‫ ]ܗܕ‬sg IIn13 ― 12,8 ‫ܗܘ‬ ‫̈ ܗܝ ]ܕ‬ ‫ ܕ‬IIIn9* ― 12,10/11 ‫ ܗܘ ܘܢ‬... ] > h. t. Ip2s Ip7s IIIn4 ― 12,11 ‫ ܘ ] ܘܚ‬IIx3 ― 12,14 2 ] ‫ܘ‬ IIIn10 ― 12,19 ‫ ܗܒ ]ܗ ـ‬Ip7s IIx3 IIIn3 ― 12,20 ‫ ܘ ـ ـ ـ ܝ ]ܐܘ ـ ـ ـ ܝ‬In2* ― 12,21 ‫ ܬܙ ـ ـ ܢ ]ܬܙ ـ ـ ـ ܢ‬In1 Ip4.5.6 ― 13,1 IIIn7 ― 13,2 ] ] > h. t. IIIn1* ― 13,4 ‫ ܕ‬... ‫ > ]ܐ‬h. t. IIIn7* ― 13,5 ] > IIIn7* ― 13,7 ‫ ܘܥ ] ܘ‬Ip2 ― 13,11 ‫ ܕܥ ]ܕ‬IIx1 ― 13,1 ‫ ܐܬ ܒ ]ܐܬ‬IIx3 ― 13,7 I II III ] p4 ― 13,8 ‫ܢ‬ ‫ ܬ ܢ ]ܬ‬n12* ― 13,9 ‫ ܬܐ ]ܬܪܓ‬n10 ― 13,13 ] > IIx3 ― 14,1 IIp1 ― 14,8 3‫ > ]ܘܐܢ‬IIn6* ― ‫ ܗܒ ]ܗ‬IIIn7.9 ― 14,6 ‫ܪ‬ ... ‫ > ]ܘ‬h.t. IIn11 ― 14,6 3 ‫] ܪ‬ IIIn10 ― 14,12 14,10 ‫ܟ‬ ... ‫ ]ܐܘ ܐܦ ܐ‬IIIn10 ― 14,11 ] ] ‫ ) !( ܐ ܐ‬IIIn6 ― 14,14 ‫]ܕ‬ ‫ ܕ‬IIIn10 ― 14,14 ‫ܕ‬ ‫ > ] ̇ ܘ ܗܘ‬h. t. In1s* IIIn10 ― 14,15 ] > IIIn3* ― 14,20 ̈ II III III ‫ ܕ ܘ ]ܕ ܘ‬n3* ― 15,1 ‫ـ‬ ] no sy n1 ― 15,3 ‫]ܕ‬ ‫ ܕ‬n8 ― 15,7 ] IIp1 ― 15,7 II II ‫ ܐ ]ܐ‬n10 ― 15,10/11 ‫ ܘܬܘܒ ܐ‬... ‫ > ]ܐܬ‬h. t. n3 ― 15,10 the whole II III II vs > p1 ― 15,10 ̣ ‫ ܐ ܘ ]ܐ‬n8 ― 15,11 ‫ـ ] ـ ـ‬ n6 ― 15,11 ‫ ـ ̈ـ ܝ ] ـ ̈ـ ܝ‬IIn12 ― 15,15 ‫ ܕ ـ ܕ ـ ܢ ]ܕܐ ـ ܕ ـ ܢ‬Ip6 ― 15,24 ‫ ܬ ـ ܘ ـ ]ܬ ـ ܘـ ـ‬IIIn10 ― 15,24 ‫ ܐ ـ ـ ـ ]ܐܬ ـ ـ ـ‬In2* ― 15,27 ̇] ‫ܐ‬ ̇ IIIn3 ‫ ܐ ܘ ]ܐ ܘܬ‬IIn7 ― 15,43 ... ‫ > ] ܕܪ‬h. t. Ip6s ― 16,1 ‫ܐ‬ * ― 16,3 ] ‫ ܠ‬IIIn10* ― 16,4 ] ‫ ̣ ܒ‬IIn4 IIIn3 ― 16,12 ‫]ܕ ܘ‬ ‫ ܕ‬IIx3* ― 16,13 ‫]ܘܕܐ‬ ̈ ̈ ‫ ܘܕ‬IIIn3* ― 16,16 ‫ ܕ ܕ ] ܕ‬Ip5* ― 16,17 ‫]ܘ‬ ‫ ܘ‬IIIn10 ― 16,17 ̇ ] ̇ ‫ ܕ‬IIIn3* ― 16,22 1 ‫ > ]ܐ‬IIIn7* ― 16,27 the whole vs twice (in the second > ‫ܢ‬ ) IIIn6 ― Subscription: ‫> ]ܕ ܬ‬ In2 ― ‫ܘܣ‬ I ‫ ܪܗܘ ] ܪ‬p4 IIIn10

― 7,15 1

1Corinthians

‫ܣ‬ ‫ܣ ]ܕ‬ ‫ ܕܐ‬IIIn11 ― 1,12 1 ‫ ܘܐ ]ܘܐ‬IIn8 * ― 1,21 ‫]ܕ ܘܙܘܬ‬ ̈ ‫ ܕ ܘܙܬ‬In2 ― 1,23/24 ‫ ܘܐ ـ‬... ‫ܬ‬ ] > h. t. IIIn6* ― 1,24 ] > IIn12* ― 1,26 ‫ܢ‬ ] ̈ > h. t. Ip6 ― 1,26 ̈ ‫ܢ‬ ̈ ‫ܘ‬ ‫ > ]ܘ‬h. a. IIn13* ― 1,27 ‫ ܕ ܬ‬... ̈ ] > h. t. IIn6 ― 1,27 ‫ܘܗܝ‬ IIn12 ― 1,30 ‫]ܗܘ ܕܗܘ‬ ] ‫ܘܝ‬ ̣ ̇ ‫ ̣ܗܘ ̣ܕܗܘ‬IIIn10 ― 2,1 ‫ ] ܬ ܢ‬+ ras/spat + (! ) ̈ ‫ ] ܗ‬sg IIn7 ― 2,14 Ip11c (*?) ― 2,12 ‫ ] ܘ‬no sy IIIn10 ― 2,14 ‫ ܕ ̣ ܥ ]ܕ ܥ‬IIn13 ― 3,1 ‫] ܘ‬ IIp1* ― 3,1 ‫ > ]ܐ‬IIIn10 ― 3,3 IIIn6 ― 3,6 ] ‫ ܕ ]ܪ‬IIIn10 ― 3,16 ‫ܐ ܘܢ‬ ‫ > ]ܕܗ‬IIIn11* ― 3,20 ‫]ܕ‬ ‫ ܕ‬IIIn2* ― 3,21 ‫ ] ܐ‬IIIn3 ― 3,22 ] sy Ip1 ― 4,4 ‫ ܐܙܕܕ ܝ ]ܐܙܕܕ‬IIx1 ― 4,8 ̈ ̈ ‫ ܘ ܪܘܢ ]ܘ ܪܬܘܢ‬IIIn1* ― 4,10 ] no sy IIIn10 ― 4,10 ] no sy IIn3― 4,14 ̈ ] no sy IIn6 ― 4,15 ̈ IIIx1 ― 4,18 ‫ܪܘ‬ ] ‫ ܐܬ ܪ ]ܐܬ‬IIIn9 ― 5,4 ‫ ܬܬ ]ܬܬ ܢ‬IIIn2 ― 5,10 ̈ ‫> ]ܐܘ‬ ̈ IIn3* ― 5,10 II II II 2 III ] no sy p1 ― 5,10 ] no sy n3 ― 5,12 ‫ ܕܘܢ ]ܕܘ‬x3 ― 6,1 ‫ ] ܡ‬twice n10 ― 6,2 1,11

̣ ]

̣

IIIn3*

― 1,12

c

Introduction

IIIn11 ― 6,10 ̈ ]‫ܡ‬ ‫ > ]ܐܘ‬IIIn2 ― 6,11 ‫ ܘܐܬܙܕܕ ܘܢ ]ܘܐܙܕܕ ܘܢ‬IIIn2 ― 6,15 2 ‫ ]ܗܕ‬sy IIn13 ― IIn8*v ― 7,5 ‫ܢ‬ Ip8 ― 6,17 ‫ ܪܘ ]ܪܘܚ‬IIx3 ― 6,18 ‫ ܘܩ ] ܘ‬IIx3 IIIn3 ― 7,2 ‫ܕ‬ ]‫ܕ‬ ]‫ܢ‬ II III II 7,12 ̇ ] ̇ x3 ― 7,13 ] ̇‫ـ‬ n8* ― 7,14 ‫]ܕ‬ ‫ ܕ‬n8* ― 7,28 ‫]ܘܐܢ ܬ‬ III III III III ‫ > ܐ ܬ‬h. t. n10 ― 7,28 ‫ ܕ ]ܗ‬n10 ― 7,30 ] > n1* ― 7,32 ‫ܗ‬ ] > h. t. n6― ܿ II II 7,33 ‫ ]ܘܐ ܕܐ‬+ ‫ ܐ‬x3 ― 7,38 ... ‫ > ]ܘܐ ܗ‬h. t. n13* ― 7,38 ... ̇ ] IIIx1 ― 9,6 IIn3 ― ‫ > ̇ ܒ ܘ ܗ‬h. t. IIIn10 ― 8,12 ‫ ]ܬܐ ܬܗܘܢ‬no sy Ip5s ― 9,1 ‫] ܝ‬ ] 9,10 ‫ܗܘ‬ ‫ ܕ‬IIIn9r (* tx) ― 9,20 2 ‫ ] ܘܕ‬sy IIx2 ― 9,20 ‫ ܕ ]ܕ‬IIIn10 ― 9,22 ‫ > ]ܕ‬IIIn10 ― 9,24 ‫ ܗܪܛ ]ܗܪ‬IIIn3 ― 9,27 ‫ܐ ܙܬ܇ ܐ‬ ‫ > ]ܕ‬h. t. IIIn3* ― 9,27 ‫ ܐ ܬ ]ܐ ܙܬ‬IIIn2 ― 10,1/2 .‫ܘ‬ ] II II III II ‫ > ܘ ܘܢ‬h. t. x3 ― 10,6 ‫ ]ܕ‬+ ‫ ܪ‬n8*v ― 10,8 ‫]ܘ‬ ‫ ܘ‬n3 ― 10,12 ] ‫ ܕ‬x3 ― 10,13 ‫ ـ ܢ ] ـ ـ ܢ‬Ip8 ― 10,13 ‫ > ]ـ‬IIIn2 ― 10,14 ‫ ] ـ ̈ـ ـ‬no sy IIIn2 ― 10,14 ‫ܘܩ ] ܘ‬ IIIn3 ― 10,23 ‫܉ܐ‬ ‫ܡ‬ . ‫ܡ‬ ] > h.t. IIn10* ― 10,23 2 ] > IIIn3 ― 10,32 IIp1 ― 11,5 IIIx1 ― 11,19 ‫ܢ‬ ‫̈ܘܕـ‬ ] ‫̈ܘ ـ‬ ‫]ܕ‬ ‫ ܕ‬IIIn10 ― 11,6 ]‫ܘ‬ ] IIIn10 ― 11,21 ‫ ܐܪܘܙ ]ܪܘܙ‬Ip8* ― 11,22 ‫ܘܢ‬ III I ‫ ܘܬ ܘܘܢ ]ܘܬ‬n4 ― 11,25 ‫ ܗܘ ]ܗܘ ܘܢ‬p6s ― 11,30 ] ݁ II ‫ ـ ـ‬x3 ― 11,32 ‫ ـ ܬܕـ ــ ] ـ ܕـ ـ ــ‬IIIn3 ¦ ‫ ـ ܬـ ـ ــ‬IIIn10 ― 12,1 ‫ ] ܘ ـ ـ ـ‬no sy IIIn11 ― 12,1 ̈ ‫ ]ܘ‬no sy IIIn8 ― 12,5 ‫ܘܢ‬ ‫ ܕܬܗܘܘܢ ]ܕܬܕ ܢ‬IIn13 ― 12,4 ̈ ‫ ]ܕ ܗ‬no sy IIIn10 ― 12,5 ‫ܐ ̇ ]ܐ‬ Ip11c ― 12,8 III III III ‫ܘ ] ̇ ܘ‬ n1 n10 ― 12,9 ‫ > ]ܗ ܬ ̇ ܘ‬h.t. x1* ( ‫ܕ‬ III 2 II ̇ ‫ܘ‬ ‫ ܗ ܬ‬x1c.mg) ― 12,16 ]> n12* ― 12,16 2 ] ̇ IIIn11 ― 12,19 ̈ ‫ ]ܗܕ‬sy Ip5.6s IIn7.13 IIx3 * IIp1* IIIn8 IIIx1 ¦ ‫ ܘܢ ܗܕ‬Ip9s― 12,21 ‫ ܐ ]ܐ ܝ‬Ip1 ― 12,24 ̈ ‫ ]ܗܕ‬no sy IIx3v ― 12,29 ̈ ] no sy IIIn8 ― 13,10 ‫ ܕܬܬܐܬ ]ܕܬܐܬ‬IIIn10 ― 13,11 ‫ܗܘ‬ ‫ܕ‬ ‫ > ]ܐ‬h. t. IIIn8 ― 13,11 ‫ܪ ܗܘ‬ ‫ܕ‬ ‫ > ]ܘܐ‬h. t. Ip6s ― 14,1 ‫ ܗܪܛ ]ܗܪ‬Ip9s IIIn3 ― 14,5 ‫ܢ‬ ‫ܨ ̇ ܕ ]ܨ ̇ ܐ ܕ ܕ‬ I I III ̇ ‫ ܕ ܘܢ‬p9s* ― 14,7 ‫ܪ‬ ‫ > ]ܐܢ ܐ ـ ܘܐܢ‬h.t. p4* ― 14,7 ‫ܬܗ‬ ] ‫ܬܗ‬ n11 ― 14,9 ... ‫]ܐܢ‬ ̇ ‫ ̇ܗܘ‬IIIn10 ― 14,14 ‫ ]ܪܘ‬sy IIx1 ― 14,14 ‫ܐ ܘܢ‬ > h. t. IIn13* ― 14,9 ‫ > ]ܕܐ‬IIIn10 ― 14,11 2 ‫]ܗܘ‬ ] ‫ ܥ‬Ip1 IIn6 IIIn10 ― 14,15 ‫ܘ‬ ‫ > ]ܘܐܙ‬IIIn8 ― 14,16 ‫ ܘ ] ܘܚ‬In1 Ip4.5 IIn9 IIx2* p1 IIm IIIn2 IIIn6.7.9mg.10 ― 14,22 1+2 IIIn3 ― 14,24 ‫ܢ‬ ] ‫ܢ‬ ‫ > ]ܘ‬h. t. IIIn5* ― 14,27 ‫ܢ‬ ... ‫ > ]ܘ‬h. t. IIIn10 ― 15,10 ‫ ܘ ܬܗ‬... ‫ > ]ܕ ܕ‬h. t. IIIn10 ― 15,16/17 ‫] ܘܐܢ‬ ̈ > h. t. IIp1 ― 15,17 ‫ ܘ ܘ ]ܘ‬IIn6 ― 15,19 ] no sy IIp1 ― 15,21 ‫ ܗܘ ]ܗܘ‬Ip1 ― 15,25/26 ̈ II ‫ ܘܐ‬... ‫ܗܝ‬ ] > h. a. n13 ― 15,26 ‫ ܘܐ ]ܘܐ‬IIIn10 ― 15,27 ] twice IIIn7 ― 15,28 ‫]ܘ‬ ‫ > ܕܐ‬h. t. IIIn2 ― 15,31/32 ̈ ... ‫ ) !( ܕ ]ܕ ܡ‬IIIn10 ― 15,37 ‫ܙܪܥ ܐ‬... ‫> ] ܗܘ‬ IIIn10 ― 15,54 h. t. IIIn10 ― 15,43 ‫ـ‬ ‫ > ] ܕܪ‬h. t. Ip6s ― 15,54 ‫ـ ]ܕ ـ‬ ‫]ܕܐܬ‬ ‫ ܕܐ‬IIIx1* ― 16,2 ‫ ܐ ]ܐ ܐ‬IIIn7* ― 16,6 ‫ ܬ ܘ ]ܬ ܘ‬Ip6s IIIn3 ― 16,8 ‫ܐ‬ ]> ‫ܐ‬ ̈ In2 ― 16,12 ‫ܬ ܢ‬ III I II ... ‫ > ]ܐ ܝ‬h. t. n2― 16,12 ‫ ܕ ܘ ̇ ]ܕ ܘ‬n1 ― 16,14 ‫ ]ܨ ܬ ܢ‬no sy n6 ― II III 16,17 ‫]ܕܐ‬ ‫ ܕܐ‬p1 ― 16,18 ‫ ܐ ]ܐ‬n4 ― Subscription ] ‫ ܕܬ ܬ‬Ip5

‫ܢ‬

2Corinthians

‫ ـ ـ ـ ــ‬... ‫> ] ـ ـ ܟ ܗܘ‬ ― 1,8 ‫ ܐܬܐ ـ ]ܐܬܐ ـ ܢ‬Ip4* ― 1,12 ‫ ـ ـ ܢ ] ـ ـ ܪܢ‬IIn6 ― 1,12 ‫ > ]ܘ ـ ـ ـ ـ ܬ‬IIIn7* ― 1,16 ‫ ܬ ـ ـ ـ ]ܬ ـ ܘـ ـ‬IIn5 ¦ ‫ ܬ ـ ܘـ‬IIn13 ― 2,3 ‫ > ] ـ‬IIIn10 ― 2,6 ‫ܐܬ ] ـ ܬ‬ IIIn10 ― 3,1 ‫ܬ‬ ‫ ]ܕܐ‬no sy IIIn10 ― 3,1 ‫ܢ‬ ‫]ܬ‬ ‫ ܬ‬IIIn10 ― 3,2 ] > IIIn2 ― 4,4 ‫̣ ܬ ]ܕ ̣ ܬܗ‬ IIn6 ― 4,6 III III n10 ― 4,9 ‫ ܐ‬... ] > h. t. IIIx1 ― ̣ ‫]ܗܘ ܕ‬ ̣ > h. t. n10 ― 4,9 ‫ܕܪ ] ܪܕ‬ IIp1 ― 5,5 ̇ IIIn10 ― 5,9 4,13 ] ] IIIn10 ― 5,5 ‫ܗܘ ̇ܗܘ‬ ] ‫̇ܗܘ ̇ܗܘ‬ ] 1,3

IIx1*

IV. Edition: Scribal errors

‫̈ܕ‬

ci

... ‫ > ] ̇ ܐـ‬h. t. IIn10― 5,12 ‫ܪ‬ ... ] > h. t. IIp1 ― 5,14 ‫]ܕܪ‬ ‫ ܕܪ‬IIIn11 ― 5,15 ‫ > ]ܘ‬IIIn10 ― 5,16 ] ‫ ̣ ܥ‬IIIn10 ― 5,18/19 ... ‫ > ]ܘ ̣ ܒ‬h. t. IIn13* ― II III 6,13 ] n10 ― 6,16 ‫ ܐ ܘܢ ܕ‬... ‫ܕ‬ ] > h. t. n10 ― 7,9 ‫ܐ ] ܐ‬ IIIn10 ― 8,3 ‫ܘܢ‬ III ‫ > ]ܘ‬h. t. n6 ― 8,5 ‫]ܐ‬ ‫ ܐ‬Ip5* IIx1 IIIn3 ― 8,8 ‫ܐـ‬ ] + ‫ܐـ‬ IIIn11 ― 8,10 ‫ܕ‬ II I III ] p1 ― 8,14 ‫ܬ‬ ]‫ܬ‬ p6* ― 9,2 ‫] ܓ‬ n3 ― 9,8 ‫ܡ‬ ] Ip3 ― 10,9 Ip6 ― 10,18 2 ̇ ] ‫ܡ‬ ‫ܗܘ ]ܕ‬ ‫ ܕ‬IIn13 ― 10,13 ] ‫ܬ‬ ̣ IIn13 ― 10,18 ‫ܗܝ‬ Ip6 ― 11,11 IIx2c ― 11,12 ‫ܢ‬ IIIn10 ― ] ‫ܗܝ‬ ] ] ̈ IIp1 ― 11,17 ‫ܘܬ‬ IIp1* ― 11,20 11,15 ] ̈ ‫ܘܢ ]ܕ‬ ‫ ܕ‬IIIn10 ― 11,19 ] ̇ ‫ > ]ܘ ̇ ܕ‬h. t. IIIn4* ― 11,23 ‫ܘܢ‬ ‫ܢ‬ ‫ > ] ܘܬ‬h. t. IIIn4 ― 11,27 ‫ܬ‬ ‫ ]ܘ‬sy IIIn4v ― IIIn3 ― 12,2-4 11,29 ̇ ] ̇ IIIn10 ― 12,2 ]‫ܝ‬ ‫ ܕܐܬ‬... ‫]ܗܘ ܗ‬ ] ̣ > h. t. IIIn7* ― 12,7 Ip8 ― 12,9 III III III ] > n5* ― 12,11 ‫]ܪ‬ ‫ ܪ‬n5 ― 12,11 ‫ > ] ܡ‬n7* ― 12,13 ] II Ip6s ¦ ‫ܩ‬ IIm IIIn10 ― 12,14 ‫ ܐ > ] ̇ ܐ‬IIIn2 ― 12,16 ‫ܐ ]ܐ‬ III ‫ ܐ‬n2* ― 12,18 ‫ ܐܬ ]ܐܬ‬x3* ― III I I 12,18 ‫ > ]ܪܘ‬n7* ― 13,2 ‫ ܕܗܘܬ ]ܕܗܘ‬p6s* ― 13,12 ] ‫ ܠ‬p6s Ip5

― 5,11

Galatians

‫ > ]ܕ‬h. t. IIIn6― 1,11 ‫ܬ‬ ‫ ܕܐ ܬ ]ܕܐ‬Ip3* ― 1,13/14 ‫ ܘܕ ܬ‬... ‫ > ]ܕ ܐ‬h. IIx3― 1,23 ‫ > ] ܡ‬IIIn7* ― 2,4 ‫ܢ‬ t. IIIn1 ― 1,16 ] ‫ܢ ]ܕ‬ ‫ ܕ‬IIIn1 ― 2,5 ‫ܕ ̇ܪܗ ]ܕ ̇ܪܗ‬ IIIn10 ― 3,5 ‫]ܗܘ‬ III III II ̇ > n10 ― 3,12 ] ̇ n10 ― 3,16 ] ̇ n12 ― 3,21 ‫ ܗܘ ]ܗܘܬ‬IIIn3 ― 4,1 ] ̈ ̈ ̈ III II III ‫ܫ‬ n9r ― 4,3 ‫ ]ܕ‬+ ‫ ܗܘ‬p1 ― 4,6 ‫ܢܕ‬ ‫ > ]ܘܕܐ‬h. t. p1* ― 4,15 ‫ܢ‬ ]‫ܢ‬ Ip2* ― 4,19 ‫ ܕ ܬܪܨ ]ܕ ܬܨ‬IIIn3 ― 5,2 ‫ ܬܬ ܘܢ ]ܬܬ ܪܘܢ‬Ip5 ― 5,7 ‫ܢ‬ ‫ ܬܬ‬... ‫ > ] ܕܘܕ ܢ‬h. t. IIn7* ― 5,8 ‫̇ܗܘ‬ ‫̇ܗܘ ] ܗܘ‬ ‫ܗܘ‬ ‫ ܗܘ‬IIp1 ― 6,1 ̈ ‫ > ]ܐ‬IIIn7* ― 6,6 ̈ ] > IIIn7* 1,8/9

... ‫ܢ‬

Ephesians Ip8 ― 1,23 ] ‫]ܕ‬ IIn13* ― 2,3 ‫ ܐܬܗ ]ܐܬܗ‬IIn3― 2,3 ‫ ܕ ܢ‬... ‫ > ]ܘ‬h. t. IIIn7* ― 2,5 ‫ > ]ܐ‬IIIn6 ― 2,6 ‫ > ]ܘܐܘܬ‬h. t. IIIn7.10 ― 2,12 ‫ـ‬ ‫ ܕ > ]ܕ‬IIn12 ― 2,13 ‫ ] ـ‬no sy Ip4 ― 3,5 ‫]ܘ ̈ ܗܝ‬ ‫ ) !( ܘ ̈ ܗܝ‬IIIn10 ― 3,5 ‫ ܘ ] ܘܚ‬IIn6 ― 3,6 ‫ ]ܘ ̈ ܬ‬no sy IIp1 ― 3,10 ] > IIIn10 ― 3,11 ‫]ܕ ܕ‬ ‫ܢ ]ܕܬ‬ ‫ ܕܬ‬IIn5 ― 3,18 ‫ ܪܘ ]ܪܘ‬IIIn3 ― 3,20 ‫ ܕ ܪ‬IIIn10 ― 3,14 ] ‫ ܝ‬IIIn10 ― 3,18 ‫ܢ‬ ] > IIn5 ― 4,2 ... ‫ > ]ܘܗܘ ܘܢ‬h. a. Ip6 ― 4,4 ‫ܢ‬ ‫ܕ‬ ] > h. a. IIIn3* ― 4,12 ‫ > ]ܕ ـ‬IIIn11 ― 4,17 ‫ܕ ܐـ‬ ‫ ܐـ > ]ܘ‬IIIn3 ― 4,19 ‫]ܕ‬ ‫ ܕ‬IIp1 ― 4,20/21 ... ‫ـ‬ ] ̈ III III III I ̇ ] ‫ ـ‬p5 ― 5,5 ‫ܘܢ‬ > h. t. n9 ― 4,25 ‫]ܘ‬ ‫ ܘ‬n5 ― 4,28 ] > n11* ― 5,5 ̈ III III III I ] > n3* ― 5,5 ] > n7* ― 5,11 ‫ ]ܕ ـ‬sy n10 ― 5,15 ] no sy p2 ― 5,17 ‫]ܐ‬ IIIn3 * ― 5,21 IIIx1* ― 6,18 ‫] ܘܚ‬ ‫ ܐ‬IIp1 ― 5,19 ‫ܢ‬ ] ‫ܘܢ‬ ]+ ‫ܘ‬ Ip5 ― 6,20 ‫ܬܗ‬ IIp1 ― 6,21 ‫ܕܥ‬ ] ‫ܬܗ‬ ] + ‫ ܐ‬IIIn6* ― 6,22 ‫ ܕܬ ܢ ]ܕܬܕ ܢ‬IIp1 ― Subscription ̈ ‫ ]ܐ‬no sy Ip6.9

1,8

‫ܕܐܬ ܬ ]ܕܐܬ ܪܬ‬

IIIn3

― 1,12

‫ܕ ܡ ]ܕ‬

Ip8

― 12,7

Philippians 1,15

‫ ܘ‬...

‫ܐ‬

‫ > ]ܐ‬h. a.

IIIn10

― 1,17

IIIn3 ― 1,27 ] ‫] ܕ‬ IIIn3* ― 2,18 ‫ ܘܪܘܙ ]ܘܪܘܙܘ‬Ip5 ― 2,27 ‫ܗܘ ܕ‬ ‫ܗܝ‬ IIp1

― 1,23

‫]ܕ‬

‫ ܕ ܙ‬IIn6 II13 ― 1,19 ‫]ܘ ܗ‬ ‫ܘ‬ IIp1 ― 1,27 I ] p6 ― 2,1 ‫ܪܘ ]ܪܘ‬ Ip6c ― 2,29 ‫]ܐ ܕܘ‬ ] > h. t. IIIn6 ― 2,28 ]

cii

Introduction

‫ ܐ ܕ‬IIIn5 ― 3,2 1.2.3‫ ܐܙܕܗܪ ]ܐܙܕܗܪܘ‬IIIn10 ― 3,2 2‫ ܐܙܕܗܪ ]ܐܙܕܗܪܘ‬Ip8 ― 3,4 ... ] > h. t. IIn13* ― 3,5 ܿ ] > IIp1 ― 3,9 ‫܇ ܐ ܗܝ‬ ‫ > ]ܕ‬h. t. IIIn3* ― 3,9 ‫ܐ ̇ܗܝ ܕ‬ ] > h. t. IIIn6 ― 3,17 ‫]ܐܬܕ‬ II II II ‫ ܐܕ‬p1 ― 3,17 ] n3 ― 3,17/18 ... ‫ ]ܐ‬p1 ― 3,19 ‫ܘܢ‬ ] twice IIIn11 ― 3,21 ‫ > ]ܐ‬IIn6* ― 4,1 ‫]ܘ‬ ‫ ܘ‬IIIn2 ― 4,2 ‫ ܐـ > ] ̇ـ ܐـ‬IIIn10 ― 4,8+9 both vss > IIIn10 ― 4,8 ̈ ̈ ‫ ܕ ـ ـ ـ ـ‬... ‫ ܕ ـ ـ ـ ـ ـ ]ܕ ـ ـ ـ‬... ‫ ܕ ـ ـ ـ ـ‬IIIn3 ― 4,12 ‫ ـ ـ ـ ـ ܬ ] ـ ـ ـ ܬ ـ ܬ‬IIp1* ― Subscription ̈ ] no sy Ip2 Colossians IIIn10 ― 1,7 Ip6* ― ‫ܐܘܣ‬ ‫ܘܣ ]ܘ‬ ‫ ܘ‬IIIn8 ― 1,7 ‫ܢ‬ ]‫ܢ‬ ]+‫ܢ‬ ̈ I II III 1,11 ‫ܬ ܪܘܚ‬ ‫ܬ ܪܘ ]ܘ‬ ‫ ܘ‬p5 n13 n2.3.9 ― 1,16 ‫]ܐܬ ܝ‬ ‫ ܐܬ‬1,16 ] no sy IIIn3 ― 1,19 ‫ ܕ ̇ ]ܕ‬IIIn3 ― 1,20 ] twice IIIn11 ― 1,24 ‫ ܐ > ]ܘ ̇ ܐ‬IIp1 ― 2,1 ‫ ܕ ܨܘܦ ]ܕ ܨܘ‬IIn13 IIIn1.3 x1 ― 2,8 ‫ ܐܙܕܗܪ ]ܐܙܕܗܪܘ‬Ip6― 2,14 ‫ܘ‬/ ‫]ܘ‬ ‫ܘ‬/ ̇ ‫ ܘ ـ‬IIp1 ¦ ̇ ‫ܘ‬/ ‫ ܘ‬IIIn3 ¦ ̈ ̇ ‫ܘ‬/ ̇ ‫ ܘ ـ‬IIIn5 IIIn10 ― 2,15 ‫ ]ܘ‬no sy IIIn3 ― 2,16 ‫ ܪ ]ܘܕܪ‬IIIn10 ― 2,18 ‫ܬ‬ ] II III III III n7 ― 3,5 ‫ܘ‬ ‫]ܐ‬ ‫ ܐ‬n7* ― 3,6 ‫ܬ‬ p1 ― 2,23 ‫ܨܘܦ‬ ] ‫ܨܘ‬ n8 ― 3,1 ‫] ـ‬ II II II IIIn10* ― 3,23 ̇̈ ] > n13* ― 3,10 ‫ > ]ܘ‬n12* ― 3,11 ] no sy n3 ― 3,22 ] IIn6 ― 4,4 ‫ܗܝ‬ ̇‫] ـ‬ ‫ܗܝ ]ܘܐ‬ ‫ ܘܐ‬IIn6 ― 4,6 ‫ ] ܐ‬IIIp1* ― 4,7 ‫ ܕ ܬ ]ܕ ܬܝ‬IIp1 ― 4,8 ‫ ܕ ܬ ܢ‬... ̇ ] > h. t. IIIn10 ― 4,8 ‫̈ ܬ ܢ‬ ‫ > ]ܘ‬h. t. IIIn3* ― 4,9 ‫ܢ‬ ‫ ܕ ܢ ] ܕ‬Ip5 ― 4,15 III I ‫ ܘܕ ]ܘܕ‬n11 ― 4,17 ‫ ܘܐ ̣ ]ܘܐ ܘ‬p6

1,1

1Thessalonians

1,5

‫ܢ‬ ‫>ܐ‬

]‫ܢ‬ IIIn7.10

IIp1

― 4,17

h. t.

IIIn6

‫]ܕ‬

― 5,8

‫ ܗܪܛ ]ܗܪ‬Ip5

1,2

... ‫ܬ‬

2,9 IIIn9r

― 2,17

― 2,9

]

5,15

‫ ܐ‬IIn10* ― 1,10 ̈ ] no sy Ip2 ― 2,6 ] ̈ IIIn1 ― 2,16 ] ] > IIIp1* ― 3,7 ‫ ] ܢ‬no sy IIp1 ― 4,15 ‫ܪ ] ܪܟ‬ Ip4* ― 5,3 ‫ ]ܘ‬twice IIIn7 ― 5,4 ‫ܘܢ‬ ‫ ܐ ]ܐ‬IIn6 ― 5,7 ‫ܗܘ ܕ‬ ]> ܰ ‫ ܕ‬IIp1 ― 5,11 2 III III ] > n7* ― 5,13 ‫ܢ‬ ‫ > ]ܕܗܘܘ‬h. t. n3* ―

Ip10

― 1,9

‫ܘܢ‬

‫ܘܢ ]ܐܬ‬

] > h. t. IIn5* ― 1,8 ‫ܿܗ ܢ‬ ] ]

IIx1 IIIn2v

― 2,10

― 3,6

]>

2Thessalonians

‫ܘ‬ ]

IIIn7*

IIIn3

― 3,10

1Timothy

] > h. t. IIn6* ― 1,11 ] III ― 2,10 ‫ ܕ ܘܢ ]ܕ‬n9 ― 2,13 ] > IIIn7*

IIIn3

―

‫ ]ܕ‬tr

‫ܘ‬ ‫ܕ‬ ‫ > ] ̈ ܘܢ ܘ‬h. t. IIIn10 ― 1,13 ‫ܢ ]ܘ ܢ‬ ̈ IIn4 ― 1,16 ̇ ‫ـ‬ IIIn10 ― 1,18 ‫ ܕܗܘܘ ]ܕܗܘܝ‬IIIn1 ― 2,9 ‫ܬ‬ ] ‫ ܘܬܪ ܬ ]ܘܬܕ‬IIIn10 ― 2,10 ̈ ‫ܘܕ‬ ‫]ܕ‬ ‫ ܕ ܘܕ‬IIx1* ― 2,11 ‫ ܗܘ ]ܗܘܬ‬Ip5 ― 3,13 ‫]ܕ‬ ‫ ܕ‬IIn10 ― 3,14 ‫ ] ܢ‬twice IIIn10 ― 4,8 ‫]ܘܕ‬ III III II I ‫ ܕ‬n2 ― 4,14 ‫ܬ‬ ]‫ܬ‬ n1 ― 5,9 ‫ ܗܘ ܘܢ ]ܗܘ‬n6* ― 5,10 ‫]ܐ‬ ‫ ܐ‬p10 ― 5,10 ̈ ‫ ]ܕ‬no sy IIIn3 ― 5,10 ̈ ] ̈ ̈ IIIn3 ― 5,12 III IIIn8 ― ‫]ܘܕ‬ ‫ ܘܕ‬n6 ― 5,13 ] IIIn10 ― 6,4 5,20 2 ] > IIn10 ― 5,22 ‫ > ] ܬ‬Ip1* ― 6,2 ‫ܢ‬ ]‫ܢ‬ ] sy Ip4 ― 6,9 IIIn5 ― 6,11 ‫] ܘܩ‬ ‫ܪ‬ ] ‫ܪܘ‬ ‫ ܘ‬IIp1 IIIn6 ― 6,11 ‫ > ]ܘ ܪ ܗ ܬ‬h. a. Ip4 ― 6,11 ‫]ܘܗܪ‬ ̈ ̈ ] no sy IIIn10 ― 6,21 ̇ ] IIIn10 III I ‫ ܘܗܪܛ‬n6 ― 6,15 ‫ܗܝ‬ ] ‫ܗܝ‬ p4 6,20 ― Inscription

] ‫ܕܬ ܬ‬

Ip9*

― 1,9

IV. Edition: Scribal errors

ciii

2Timothy

IIIn10 ― 2,6 ‫]ܕ‬ ‫]ܕ‬ ‫ ܬ‬IIIn10 ― 1,16 ] > IIIn11 ― 1,17 ‫ܬ‬ ]̄ ‫ ܕ‬IIIn8 ― 2,6 ̈ ̈ ̈ ̈ ̈ III III I ‫ܗܝ ] ܪܘܗܝ‬ p1 ― 2,16 ] ‫ܘܢ‬ n8.9r ― 3,2 ‫ܘܢ‬ ‫ܘܢ ]ܕ‬ ‫ ܕ‬p10 ― 3,6 ] ‫ ܐ‬IIx3* ― 3,6 ̈ ] ̈ IIIn2 ― 3,11 ‫ ܐ > ]ܘ ̇ ܥ ܐ‬IIIn10 ― 3,16 ] IIIn9r ― 4,4 ‫ܢ‬ ] ‫ܢ‬ III III III ‫ ܐܕ ܘܢ‬n9r* ― 4,6 ‫ ܕܐ ܕ ]ܕܐ ܪ‬n10 ― 4,7 ‫ ܘܪܗܛ ]ܘܪܗ‬n8 ― 4,10 ‫ـ‬ ] ‫ـ‬ Ip10 ― 4,15 ‫ ܐܙܕܗܪܘ ]ܐܙܕܗܪ‬IIIn7*

1,3

Titus

‫]ܘ‬

‫ ܕ‬IIIn9r ― 1,4 ... ‫ܣ‬ ] > h. t. IIIn7* ― 1,6 ‫]ܗܘ‬ ̱ ‫ ̱ܗܘܘ‬In2r ― 1,7 ̈ ̈ ̈ III I 2 I ― 1,7 ] n5 ― 2,3 ] sy p2 ― 2,5 ‫ ܘ ]ܘ ܘ‬p4 ― 2,7 ] ̈ ̈ I III II 2,9 ] no sy p4 ― 2,10 ‫ > ] ܪܗܘܢ‬n7* ― 3,1 ‫ ]ܘ‬no sy p1 ― 3,7 ] ‫ ] ܬܪܢ‬sy IIp1 1,1

‫ ]ܕ ܪ‬sy

IIp1

Ip3 IIn5

―

― 3,9

Philemon 2

...

‫ > ]ܘ‬h. t.

Ip5

―7

‫]ܐܬܬ‬

‫ ܐܬܬ‬IIp1 ― 13 ‫ ܕ ܬ ]ܕ ܬܝ‬IIx2 ― 18 Hebrews

]

IIp1

̈ ‫]ܕ‬ ‫ܕ‬ ― 1,13 ] > IIn5* ― 2,11 ‫]ܕ ܫ‬ ‫ ܕ‬IIn10 ― 2,11 ‫ ܕܐܬ‬IIn6 ― 2,13 ‫ ܗܝ‬... ‫ > ]ܕܐ‬h. t. IIIn7* ― 3,3 ‫ ܕ ̇ ]ܕ‬IIIn1* ― 3,8 ] IIIn5 ― 3,10 ‫ـ‬ ] ‫ ܥ‬IIn13 ― 3,12 ‫ ܐܙܕܗܪ ]ܐܙܕܗܪܘ‬Ip5 IIx2 IIp1 ― 3,13 ‫ > ]ܕ‬IIn13 ― 4,1 ] ‫ ܕ‬IIIn9r ― 4,6 ‫ܘ‬ ‫]ܕܐ‬ ‫ ܕܐ‬IIn5.6.13 ― 4,10 ‫ ܐ ]ܐ‬IIIn9r* ― 4,10 ‫]ܐܬܬ‬ ‫ ܐܬܬ‬IIx1 IIIn5 ― 4,10 ‫ > ]ܗܘ‬IIIn7* ― 4,13 ‫ܕ‬ ] tr IIIn9r* ― 4,13 ‫ ]ܐ‬+ IIn6* ― 4,13 ‫ ܕ ̇ ]ܕ‬In1― 5,9 ̣ ‫ܘ‬ ‫]ܐܬ‬ ‫ ܐܬ‬IIp1 IIIx1 ― 6,4 ‫ ܘ ̣ ]ܘ‬IIn6 ― 6,5 ‫ ܘ ]ܐ‬IIx1s ― 6,8 ̇ ] > IIIn7* ― 6,11 ̈ ̈ ̈ Ip10 ― 6,16 IIn6* ― 6,16/17 ̇ > h. t. IIIn10 ― ‫ܬ‬ ]‫ܬ‬ ] ... ‫]ܗܘ‬ ̈ II III I 6,17 ‫ܬ‬ ]‫ܬ‬ x1s ― 6,19 ‫ ]ܐܘ‬sy n9 ― 6,19 ‫ ܬܪ > ]ܐ ܬܪ‬p1 ― 7,1 ‫ܕܩ‬ ‫ > ]ܗ ܕ‬h. t. IIx1s ― 7,5 III III IIp2 ― 7,12 ‫]ܕ‬ ‫ܕ‬ n7 ― 7,6 p1 – 7,7 ‫ܟ‬ ] ̣ ] ̣ ‫ܘܬ ܆ ܗ ܗܘ‬ ] > h. t. IIIn7 ― 7,21 ‫ܕܩ‬ ‫ܩ ]ܕ‬ ‫ ܕ‬IIn9 ― 7,22 ‫ـ ̇ ]ܗ‬ ‫ܗ‬ IIx1s ― 7,27 ‫ ܙ ] ܙ‬IIn6 ― 8,4 ‫ܗܘܘ‬ ‫ܕ‬ ] > h. t. Ip4 ― 8,8 ‫ܘ‬ ‫]ܐ‬ ‫ > ܕ‬h. t. Ip7 ― 8,9 ‫ ܘܐ ]ܘܐ‬IIn9 ― 8,11 ] + IIn13 IIIn2 IIIp1* ― 9,3 ̈ ‫ ܐܦ ] ܐ‬IIn5 ― ̈ 9,7 ] > IIp1 ― 9,10 ] no sy IIIn8 ― 9,17 ‫ ܕ ̇ܗ‬... ] > h. t. Ip1s ― 9,17 ‫ܕ ܗ ]ܕ ̇ܗ‬ Ip9 IIm ― 9,21 ‫ܘ‬ ‫]ܐܦ‬ ‫ ܐܦ‬Ip1s ― 9,21 ] ̇ Ip1s ― 9,23 ‫] ̈ ܕ ܪ‬ ̈ Ip1s ― 10,1 by h. t. after ‫ ܕ‬Ip3* ― 9,26 ‫ ܙ > ] ܗܘ ܙ‬Ip1s ― 9,28 ‫̈ ܘܢ‬ ] ‫̈ ܘܢ‬ ‫]ܕ‬ I I I I ‫ ܕ ܘܢ‬p1s ― 10,7 ‫( ܕ ]ܕܐ‬no diacr) p1s ― 10,9 ‫( ܕ ]ܕܐ‬no diacr) p1s ― 10,10 ‫ ] ܪ‬sy p1s ― 10,32 ‫ ܐܬܕ ]ܐܬܕ ܘ‬IIn5 ― 10,33 ] IIIn10 ― 10,39 ‫]ܕ‬ ‫ ܕ‬IIIn9r ― 11,6 ... ‫ > ]ܕ‬h. t. ̈ ] no sy IIIn5* ― 11,11 ̇ III III II ̇ ] n8 ― 11,12 ‫]ܐܬ ܘ‬ ‫ ܐܬ‬n9 ― 11,12 ] x2 ― 11,12 IIIn2 ― 11,15 ̇ Ip6 ― 11,21 ‫ܗ‬ IIIn8 ― 11,23 ‫ܗܝ‬ ] ‫ܪ‬ ]‫ܗ‬ ‫ܪ‬ ] ‫ܗܝ‬ IIp2 ― 11,27 II II II n1 ― 11,32 ‫ܗܘ ]ܙ ܪ ܗܘ‬ ‫ ܙ ܪ‬p1 ― 11,36 ̣ ‫ ܕ ]ܕ‬p1 ― 11,28 ̣ ] ‫ܘ‬ II I I ‫]ܐ‬ ‫ ܐ‬p2 ― 12,1 ‫ ܗ ܝ ] ܗ ܗܝ‬p6* ― 12,9 ‫ ] ܗ‬sy p2 ― 12,11 ]‫ܪ‬ IIIn9r* ― 12,13 ‫ܘ‬ III II III ] ̣ n7* ― 12,17 ‫]ܐ‬ ‫ ܐ‬n13 ― 12,19 ‫ ܐ ܐܠ ]ܐ ܐ‬n10 ― 12,23 ̈ ‫ ]ܕ‬sg Ip5 ― 12,25 ‫ ܐܙܕܗܪ ]ܐܙܕܗܪܘ‬IIIn8 ― 12,25 ‫ ܕܐ ܐܠ ]ܕܐ ܐ‬IIp1 ― 12,25 ‫ ܕ‬... ‫ > ] ܘܢ‬h. t. 1,2

‫ܕ ̇ ]ܕ‬ ‫]ܕܐܬ‬

Ip6

― 1,3

IIIn7

civ

Introduction

‫ ܐܙ‬... ‫ ܐܬܕ‬IIp1 ― 13,9 ̈

‫ ]ܗ‬h. t. causa post and add ‫ܕ ܐܪ ܐ ܐܦ‬ ] no sy IIx1s ― 13,10 ] ̇ Ip2 ― 13,10 ] ̈ II II III ‫ ̇ܗ ܢ ]ܗ‬n7* ― 13,12 ‫ܗ‬ ] n9 ― 13,15 ‫ܗ‬ ‫̇ ]ܘ‬ ‫ ܘ‬n2

IIn4s

― 12,26

IIn13

― 13,3 IIn4s

‫]ܐܬܕ ܘ‬

― 13,11

APPENDICES 1.

SUBSCRIPTIONS

2.

LECTIONARIES

3.

‘MASORETIC’ MSS

4.

PRINTED EDITIONS

cviii

Introduction

1. S U B S C R I P T I O N S The subscriptions to the Pauline Epistles show extensive variations and expansions. For the sake of clear and condensed presentation, they are set out in a special Appendix and not in the apparatus at the end of each Epistle. No research on the subscriptions and on their (varying) information is given here; the only purpose of this Appendix is to supply the information and to visualize their distribution within the history of transmission.1 Most of the variations in the subscriptions originate from the Greek text of the NT. The first section gives the supposed original basic form of the subscriptions (incl. the variations), which offers information about the addressee(s) and about the city from which each Epistle is sent. Addition I gives information about the messenger(s). Addition II introduces full or partial statistical information about the division of each Epistle into ̈ or ), and the number of testimonies/ stichoi ( ̈ ), readings ( ), kephalaia ( ̈ quotations ( ‫ܕܘܬ‬ ) from the OT. This statistical information derives from the so-called ‘Euthalian Apparatus’, well known from the Greek NT and from the Harklean version;2 however, the ‘Euthalian Apparatus’ proper is absent from the Peshiṭta.3 Neither of these divisions refers to the old Syriac division of the Epistles into ̈ ‫ܨ‬, which are given in the margins of our edition. It is remarkable, that, even in the basic form of the subscriptions, the locations from which the Epistles were sent, are not fully standardized (see the quoted variations), while the increasingly transliterated form of the Greek cities and proper names is an expected feature. Addition I we already meet in Peshiṭta manuscripts of the Byzantine period, but the attestation in this period is few. BL Add. 14,480 (in our edition Ip6) leaves it out although this witness offers Addition II. In the Islamic period, Addition I is more frequent but no general feature. Addition II is attested by witnesses of the Byzantine period too, but reduced to the stichoi/petgāme (Ip6 Ip9 Ip12). In the Islamic period, the fuller Greek form is transmitted only in the Western ‘masoretic’ manuscript IIm4 or in the key witnesses of the Eastern (BL Add. 7157, in our edition IIn1) and Western textual tradition 1 The variants of the subscriptions to some six early Mss from the British Library are included in J. Pinkerton’s hand-written collation preserved as Ms BL or. 11,360. 2 On the Greek ‘Euthalian Apparatus’, which is attached to Acts, to the cath. Epistles, and to the Corpus Paulinum, see WILLARD, Euthalian Apparatus (2009; 102–105 on the Syriac), and VON SODEN, Die Schriften des Neuen Testaments I,1 (21911) 637–682 (on the Pauline section 649–667; on the single Epistles 657–667). In the Corpus Paulinum, many Greek Mss attach biographical, statistical, and literary information about St. Paul and his writings to the biblical text (e.g. the kephalaialist before each of the Pauline Epistles, and the titlos of each kephalaion in the margin); the mss summarize this information for all Epistles in a vast ‘prologue’ at the beginning of the Corpus Paulinum. An edition of the Greek ‘Euthalian prologues’ was published by L. A. ZACAGNI, Collectanea monumentorum veterum ecclesiae Graece, vol. I: Rome 1698 (reprinted in the MIGNE series: PG 85, 627–790). 3 On the partial survival of the Philoxenian ‘Euthalian Apparatus’ in a Peshitta manuscript (BL. Add. 7157, IIn1 of our edition), see BROCK, The Syriac Euthalian Material (1979).

cviii

Introduction

Mardin 35/2 (in our edition IIIn6). 4 The restricted attestation of Addition II clearly demonstrates that it was not included in the standardization of the text and left behind when the influence of the Greek vanished. Most of the six witnesses of the Western ‘Masora’ included in the present edition offer defective or abridged basic subscriptions, only Ms 16 of St. Thomas Church in Moṣul (IIm4 ) includes both additions for every Epistle. Although the ‘Masora’ of both textual traditions is interested in textual variations and frequently quotes them in the margins, no variants are quoted alongside the subscriptions of the Epistles in IIm4 or IIm. Sigla, Abbreviations: > omit(s), omission + add(s), addition * original text c(orrected text)

lac(una) s(upplement) sy(āme)

4 The subscriptions to all Pauline Epistles (incl. addition I and II ) of this Ms are given in VÖÖBUS, The Apocalypse (1978) 39–42.

The Subscription to the Epistle to the Romans Basic form

‫ܕܐܬ‬

‫ܬ ܕ ܬ ܗܘ‬

‫ܐ‬ ‫ܪ ܘܣ‬

In1.2 (x1

‫]ܐ ܬ‬ ‫]ܕ ܬ ܗܘ‬ ‫]ܕ ܬ‬ ‫] ܗܘ‬

> Ip1

‫ܪ ܘܣ‬

lac ) p1.2.3.4.5.6.7.8.9.(10 lac ).11.12 IIn1. 2.3.4.5.6.7.8.9.10.11.12.13.(14 lac ) x1.(2 lac ). 3 p1. (2 lac ) m/m4 IIIn1.2.3.4.5.6.7.8.9.10.11.12 x1 (p1 lac ) m6

‫ ܕ ܘ‬IIIx1 > by err In2*

‫ܘ‬

IIm4 IIIn1.2.3.5.6.7.8.10.11.12

] ‫ܪ ܘܣ‬ > ‫ܘܣ‬

‫ܘܣ ] ܪ ܘܣ‬ ‫ܪ ܘܣ‬

x1 ¦ by err Ip5

‫ܪ‬

‫ܪ‬

‫ > ]ܕܐܬ‬IIm4

‫ܪܗܘ‬

IIIn8.12

by err Ip4 ¦

IIm4 IIIn1.2.3.5.6.10.11

IIIn7

Addition I Ip9 IIn3c

‫̈ܝ‬

‫ܘܐ ܕܪܬ‬ ‫ܐ ܕܪܬ ܕ‬ ‫ܕܐ ܕܪܬ‬ ̈ ‫ܝ‬ ‫ܘܐ ܕܪܬ‬

̈

no text, but the scribe left space for addition I no addition

‫̈ܝ‬ ‫̈ܝ‬

‫ܕܪܬ‬ ‫ܕܪܬ‬ ‫ܕܪܬ‬ ‫ܕܪܬ‬

‫ܘܐ‬ ‫ܘܐ‬ ‫ܘܐ‬ ‫ܘܐ‬

( > *) m4 (

Ip12 IIn4.11

x3 m

‫ܘ‬ IIIm6

) (

)

IIn1 IIn2 IIn5.7.12 IIn13 IIIn1 IIIn3 IIIn4.6.12 IIIn8

x1

IIIn9

Addition II

̈

̈

Qeryone Riše/Qef. Sahd. Petg.

‫ܘ‬ ‫ܘ ܬ ܘ‬ ‫ܘ ̄ ܘ‬ ̄

̈

‫ܘ‬ ‫̈ܕܘܬ‬

‫ܘܗܘ ܬ‬ ̇ ‫ܕܐ‬ ̇ ‫ܕܐ‬ ̄ ‫ܬܬܬ‬

Ip6

825

Ip9.12

1205

IIn1

19

49

1201

cx

Introduction Qeryone Riše/Qef. Sahd. Petg.

no addition

‫̈ܕܘܬ‬ ̄ ̈

̈ ̄

‫ܬ‬ ̈

̈ ‫ܕܗܘ‬

̈ ‫ܘܬ‬

.

̇ ̈ ̇

‫̈ܕܘܬ ܐ‬ ‫̈ ܘ ܬ ܘ‬

‫ܕܐ‬ ‫ܘ‬ ‫ܕܐ‬

IIn12 IIIn12

IIm4

̈ ‫ )ܕܗܘ‬IIIn6

(>

5

19

48

825

48

1205

The Subscription to the First Epistle to the Corinthians Basic form

‫ܘ‬

‫ܣܕ‬

‫ܬ ܕ ܬ‬

‫ܐ‬

x1 p1.(2 lac ).3.4.5.6.7.8.9.10.11.12 IIn1.2. 3.4. 5.6.7.8.9.10.11.12.13.(14 lac ) x1.2 (3 lac ) p1.(2 lac ) m/m4 IIIn1.2.3.4.5.6.7.8.9.10.(om 11).12 x1 (p1 lac ) m6 In1.2

‫ܕܐܬ‬

‫ > ]ܐ ܬ‬Ip1.6 ‫ ܐ ܬ‬IIIn1 ... ‫ ]ܐ ܬ‬... ‫ ܕ‬IIIn8 x1 ‫]ܕ ܬ‬

‫ܘ‬

] ] ]

‫ܣܕ‬

> IIIm6 IIm4 IIIn1.2.5.10

‫ܘ‬ ‫ܣ‬

‫ܣܕ‬ ‫ܐ‬

¦

‫]ܕ‬

‫ܘ‬

¦

‫ܣ‬

‫ܘܣ ܘܐ‬ ‫ܣ‬ ‫ܣ‬

‫ܐܘܣ ܘܐ‬ ‫ܣ‬ ‫ܘܣ ܘܐ‬

‫ܕܪܬ‬ ‫ܣܘ‬

‫ܘܣ‬ ‫ܕܪܬ‬ ‫ܣ ܘܐ‬ ‫ܘ‬

‫ܘܐ‬ ‫ܐ‬

Ix1 IIn2 Ip9 IIm4

‫ܘ‬ ‫ܘܐ‬ ‫ܘ‬

Ix1*

(c

‫ܣ‬ ‫ܐ‬

IIIn1

> In2 x1c IIn13 p1 m4 Ip9 ¦ ¦ ‫ܘ‬

Addition I

‫ܐܘܣ‬

Ip1 IIIn8.12

‫ܣ ܕܐ‬ ‫ܐ ܣ ܕܐ‬ ‫ܣܕ ܘ‬

IIIn7.9

Ip12

IIn3c

( > *)

m6

IIn4

x1 ¦

) IIn5.8.12 m (marked, but no corr.)

¦

‫ܣ ܐܘ‬ ̈

‫ܐ‬

¦ ‫ܘ‬ ‫ ܕ‬IIIn8 x1

IIIn4

IIn1

‫ ܕ‬Ip11 IIn11

Subscriptions

‫̈ܝ‬

‫ܐܘܣ‬ ‫ܐܘܣ ܘ‬

‫ܣ‬

‫ܘܐ ܕܪܬ‬ ‫ܐ ܕܪܬ ܕ‬ ‫ܣ‬ ‫ܘܐ‬

no text, but the scribe left space for addition I

‫ܣ‬

‫ܘ‬

‫ܐ‬ ‫ܐ‬

‫ܐܘܣ‬

‫ܕܪܬ‬ ‫ܕܪܬ‬ ‫ܣܘ‬

‫ܘܐ‬ ‫ܘܐ‬ ‫ܘܐ‬

cxi

IIn4.5.7.11.12

m

IIIn1.4.8

x1 m6

IIn1

IIn13 IIIn3 IIIn6.12

Addition II Qeryone Riše/Qef. Sahd. Petg.

̈ .̄ ‫ܬ‬

‫ܘ‬ ̈

‫̄ܛ܆‬

‫ܘ ܬ ܘ‬ ̈ ‫̄ܛ ܘ‬

̈

‫ܘܐ‬ .‫̄ܗ‬ ̄ ‫̈ ܘܪ‬ ̈ ‫̈ܕܘܬ ̄ ܘ‬

̈ ‫ܬ ̈ ܆ܘ‬ ‫̈ ܘ ܬ ܘ‬ ̈

̈

̇

‫ܕܐ‬ ̇ ‫ܕܐ‬ ̄ ‫ܬܬܬ‬ ‫̇ܕܗܘ‬ ‫ܘܬܪ‬ ̇ ‫ܕܐ‬

̇ ̈

‫ܘ ܬ ܘ‬ ‫ܬ‬

‫ܕܗܘ ܬ‬ ̇ ‫ܕܐ‬ ̈

̈ ̈

̇ ‫̈ܕܘܬ‬ ̄‫̈ ܕ ̇ ܨ‬

̈ ‫ܘ‬ ‫ܘܐ‬ ‫ܘ‬

Ip6 Ix1mg

946

(early hand)

5

9

17

Ip9.12

1207 9

IIn1

IIn12mg

1227

17

1222

(late hand)

IIm4 IIIn6

1222

5

9

IIIn12

17

1227

17

949

The Subscription to the Second Epistle to the Corinthians Basic form

‫ܕܬ ܬ‬ ‫ܘ‬

‫ܣܕ‬

‫ܬ ܕ ܬ‬

‫ܐ‬

‫ܬ‬ ‫ ܕܬ ܬ‬... ‫ܬ‬

(2 lac ) x1 p1.2.3.4.5.6s.7.8.9. (10.11.12 lac ) IIn1. 2.3 (4 illeg ).5.6.7.8.9.10.11.12.13.(14 lac ) x1.2.3 p1. (2 lac ) m/m4 IIIn1.2.3.4.5.6.7.8.9.10.11.12 x1 (p1 lac, > m6 ) In1.

‫ܕܐܬ‬

‫ > ]ܐ‬I p1 ‫ ]ܐ‬... ‫ܬ ܕܬ ܬ‬

‫ ܐ‬IIn7.11 m4

IIIn1.2.8.12

x1

cxii

Introduction IIm4 IIIn1.2.5.8.10.11 ] ‫ ]ܕܐܬ‬+ ‫ ܐܦ ̣ܗܝ‬Ip9 Ip1 IIIn8.12 ¦ ‫ܣ‬ ] ‫ܣ‬

‫ܣ‬

‫ܣ‬

‫]ܕ‬

‫ܘ‬

‫ܣ‬

‫ܕ ܘ‬

‫ܬ‬

IIIn1

x1

¦

IIIn2

¦

x1

Ip9 ¦ > IIp1 IIIn6 ¦ ‫ܘ‬ ̈‫ ܕ ܘ‬Ip6s IIn7.8.11 IIIn5.10 ¦ x1 ¦ ‫ܕܘ‬ ‫ ܕ‬IIm4

add

IIm4

‫ܕ‬ ‫ܘ‬

‫ܕ‬

IIIn8.11

IIIn2

Addition I

‫ܣܘ‬ ‫ܣܘ‬ ‫ܣܘ‬ ‫ܣ‬

‫ܕ‬

‫ܘܐ ܕܪܬ‬ ‫ܘܐ ܕܪܬ‬ ‫ܘܐ ܕܪܬ‬ ‫ܕܐ ܕܪܬ‬ ‫ܣܘ‬

‫ܐ‬

‫ܘܐ‬

no addition

‫ܕܪܬ‬ ‫ܕܪܬ‬ ‫ܕܪܬ‬

‫ܘܐ‬ ‫ܘܐ‬ ‫ܘܐ‬

no text, but the scribe left space for addition I

(c

‫ ܘ‬for

IIn1 IIn2

( > *) m4

IIIn6

IIn4 IIx3 IIIm6 IIn5.7

m IIIn1.4.8 x1

IIn11 IIn12 IIn13

Addition II no addition

̇ ‫̈ܕܘܬ‬ .[̄‫ ̈ ]ܝ‬.[‫] ̄ܕ‬ [ ‫]ܘ‬ ‫̈ ܕ‬ ̈ ̇ ‫ܘ‬ ̈ ̇ ‫ ܘ‬.̄‫ ܘ ܝ‬. ̄ ‫̈ܕܘܬ‬

̄

‫ܕܐ‬ ‫ܕܐ‬ ‫ܕܐ‬

Qeryone Riše/Qef. Sahd. Petg.

Ip6s Ix1mg

( early hand)

4

10

11

Ip9 IIn1

‫ܬ‬

no addition

‫ )ܘ‬IIIn3

Ip9 IIIn12

IIn3c

illeg

‫ܣ‬ ‫̈ܝ‬ ‫ܣܘ‬ ‫̈ܝ‬ ‫ܣ‬

Ix1*

IIIn12

770

770 10

11

768

Subscriptions

cxiii Qeryone Riše/Qef. Sahd. Petg.

‫̈ܕܘܬ‬

. ̈ ̈

̈

.

‫̈ ܘ‬

̇ .

‫ܐ‬ ̈ ‫̈ܕܘܬ‬ ̄ ̈

‫ܕܐ‬

̇

4

IIm4 IIIn6

10

IIIn12

‫ܘܐ‬ ‫ܘ‬

11

770

17

653

The Subscription to the Epistle to the Galatians Basic form

‫̈ ܕܐܬ‬

‫ܬ ܕ ܬ‬

x1 p1.2.3.4.5.6.7.8.9.10.11. (12 lac ) IIn1.2.3. 4.5.6.7.(8 lac).9.10.11.12.13.(14 lac) x1.2.3 p1.(2 lac) m/m4 IIIn1.2.3.4.5.6.7.8.9.10.11.12 x1 p1 m6 In1.2

‫ܐ‬

‫ܪܗܘ‬

̈ ̈

‫]ܐ ܬ‬ ‫]ܕ ܬ‬

] ‫]ܕܐܬ‬ ‫]ܪܗܘ‬

> Ip1

̈

‫ ܕ‬IIIn8 ¦ by err > IIIn11 IIm4 ¦ ̈ IIIx1 ̈

‫ ̇ܗܝ ܕܐܬ‬IIIn8 sy In2 x1 p9c.mg (* > by err ) IIn1.2.4.5.6.7.10.11.12. 13 x3 p1 IIIn4.9 ¦ ‫ ܪܘ‬IIIn1.3.5.6.7.8.10.11.12 x1 m6 ¦ ‫ ܪܗܘ‬IIm4

Addition I

‫ܐܘܣ‬ ‫ܣ‬ ‫ܣ‬ ‫̈ܝ‬

‫ܕܪܬ‬ ‫ܕܪܬ‬ ‫ܕܪܬ‬ ‫ܕܪܬ‬

‫ܘܐ‬ ‫ܘܐ‬ ‫ܘܐ‬ ‫ܘܐ‬

no text, but the scribe left space for addition I

‫̈ܝ‬ ‫̈ܝ‬

‫ܣ‬ ‫ܣ‬

no addition

‫ܕܪܬ‬ ‫ܕܪܬ‬

‫ܘܐ‬ ‫ܘܐ‬

Ix1 Ip9 IIn1.2.12 IIIn3 IIn4.5.7.11

m IIIn1.4

IIn13 IIx3

m4

IIIn6

m6

IIIx1 IIIn8

Addition II Qeryone Riše/Qef. Sahd. Petg.

̄

̈ ‫̈ܕܘܬ‬ ̄

‫ܘ‬ ̈

‫ܘܐܪ‬ .‫̄ܒ‬

̇ ̄ ‫ܬܚ‬

̈

̇ ‫ܘܗܘ‬ ‫ܕܐ‬

Ip6 Ix1mg

746

( early hand)

2

12

11

408

cxiv

Introduction

‫ܘܬ‬ ‫ܘ‬. ̈

‫̈ ܐܪ‬ ‫ ܘ‬.̄‫̈ܕܘܬ ܝ‬ ̄

̈

‫ܘܬ‬

‫ܬ‬

̇

̄ ‫ܬܗ‬

‫̇ܕܗܘ‬ ̇ ‫ܕܐ‬ . ‫̈ܕܘܬ‬ ‫ܘ‬

‫ܬ‬ ‫̈ ܐ‬ ‫ܕ ̇ ̄ ܘ‬ ̈

̄ ‫̇ ܪ‬

‫ܕܐ‬ ‫ܕܐ‬

‫̈ ̇ ܐܪ‬

‫ܘ‬ ‫̈ܕܘܬ‬

̇

Qeryone Riše/Qef. Sahd. Petg. Ip9

408

IIn1

IIn12mg

12

10

(late hand)

405 405

2

IIm4 IIIn6

12

IIIn12

11

408

11

275

The Subscription to the Epistle to the Ephesians Basic form

‫̈ ܕܐܬ‬

‫ܬ ܕ ܬܐ‬

‫ܐ‬

‫ܪܗܘ‬ ‫] ܪܗܘ‬ ‫]ܐ ܬ‬ ‫]ܪܗܘ‬

lac ) x1 p1.2.3.4.5.6.7.8.9.10.11.(12 lac ) IIn1. 2.3.4.5.6.7.(8 lac ).9.10.11.12.13.(14 lac ) x1.2.3 p1.(2 lac) m/m4 IIIn1.2.3.4.5.6.7.8.9.10.11.12 x1 p1 m6 In1.(2

‫ܘ‬

IIIn12

> Ip1 sy In2 x1 IIn1.2.4.5.6.7.10.11.12.13 x3 p1 p1 ¦ ‫ ܪܘ‬IIIn1.3.5.6.7.8.10.11.12 x1 ¦ IIm4 IIIm6

IIIn4.9

‫ܪܗܘ‬

Addition I

‫ܣ‬

‫ܕܪܬ‬

‫ܘܐ‬

‫ܣ‬ ‫ܣܐ‬ ‫ܣ‬

Ip9 IIn3c

‫ܕܪܬ ܕ‬ ‫ܕܪܬ ܕ‬ ‫̈ܝ‬

‫ܣ‬

‫ܐ‬ ‫ܐ‬

IIn1

no addition

IIx3

‫ܕܪܬ‬

‫ܘܐ‬

no text, but the scribe left space for addition I

‫ܣ‬

‫ܣ ܘܐ‬

Ix1 IIn2.12 IIIn3.9

‫ܕܪܬ‬

‫ܘܐ‬

( > *) m4

IIIn6

IIIm6

IIn4.5.7.11

m IIIn1 (+

‫) ܐ‬.4.8

x1

IIn13 IIIn12

̈

Addition II Qeryone Riše/Qef. Sahd. Petg.

‫ܘܬ‬

̇ ‫ܘܗܘ ܬ‬

Ip6

319

Subscriptions

̈ ‫ܕܘܬ ̄ܘ‬ ‫ܘ‬

‫̈ ܐ‬

Qeryone Riše/Qef. Sahd. Petg.

.‫̄ܒ‬

̇ ̄

‫̈ܕܘܬ‬

‫̈ ܘ‬ [...]‫̄ܫ‬

‫ܕܐ‬

Ix1mg

̇

‫ܕܐ‬

Ip9

‫̈ܕܘܬ ̄ܘ ܘ‬ ‫ܕܐ ̈ ܬ ܘܬ‬ ‫ܬ‬ ‫̈ ܬ ̈ ܘ‬ ̈ ‫̈ܕܘܬ ̄ܘ ܘ‬

̇

‫ܕܐ‬

IIn1

‫̄ܝ ܘ‬

‫ܘ‬

̈

‫̈ ܬ‬

‫ܘ‬ ̈

̄

.̄‫ܝ‬

cxv

̈

( early hand)

‫ܕܐ‬ . ̈ ‫ܘܐ‬

̇

10

6

371 371

2

IIn12mg

̇

2

10

6

(late hand)

364 281

IIm4 IIIn6

2

10

IIIn12

6

371

6

3[…]

The Subscription to the Epistle to the Philippians Basic form

‫̈ ܕܐܬ‬

‫ܬ ܕ ܬ‬

‫ܐ‬

(2 lac ) x1 p1.2.3.4.5.6.7.8.9.10.11. (12 lac ) x1.2.3 p1.(2 lac ) m/m4 IIIn1.2.3.4.5.6.7.8.9.10.11.12 x1 p1 m6 In1.

IIn1.2.3.4.5.6.7.(8lac ).9.10.11.12.13.14

‫ܪܗܘ‬ ‫]ܐ ܬ‬ ‫]ܕ ܬ‬

̈

> Ip1 by err >

IIIm6

] ̈ ̈

IIIn1.8

¦

̈

Ip6 IIm4 IIIn2.

3.11 x1

‫ܪܗܘ‬

] ‫]ܪܗܘ‬

‫ܘ‬

IIIn12

sy Ix1 IIn1.2.4.5.6.7.10.11.13 x3 p1 ‫ ܪܘ‬IIm4 IIIn1.3.5.6.7.8.11.12 x1 ¦ ‫ ܪܗܘ‬IIIn12 m6

IIIn4.9

Addition I

‫ܐ ܘܕ ܣ‬ ‫̈ ܝ ܐ ܘܕ ܣ‬

‫ܕܪܬ‬ ‫ܕܪܬ‬

‫ܘܐ‬ ‫ܘܐ‬

no text, but the scribe left space for addition I

‫ܣ‬

‫ܘܕ‬

Ix1

p9

IIn1.2.14c

IIn4.5.7.11.12

m

IIIn12

IIIn1.3.4.8

x1

IIn13

‫ܐ‬

IIn3c

no addition

IIIm6

( > *) m4 (‫ܣ‬

‫ܘܕ‬

‫)ܐ‬

IIIn6

Addition II

̈

Qeryone Riše/Qef. Sahd. Petg.

‫ܘܬ‬

‫ܬ ܘܬ‬

̇ ‫ܘܗܘ‬

Ip6

p1 ¦

‫ ܪܘ‬IIIn2 ¦

238

cxvi

Introduction

̈ ‫̄ܙ‬ ̈

‫ܬ‬ ‫ܘ‬

‫ܬ ܘܬ‬ ̄ ‫̈ ܪ‬

Qeryone Riše/Qef. Sahd. Petg.

‫̄ܒ‬

̇

̈ ̇

‫ܘ‬

̄‫ܙ‬

̄

̇

‫ܕܐ‬

Ix1mg

‫ܕܐ‬ ‫ܕܐ‬

Ip9

no addition

̈ ̈

‫ܬ ܘܬ‬

̇ ‫ܕܐ‬ ‫̈ ܬ ܘܬ‬ ̇ ‫ܘܐ‬ [ ]‫ܘܬ‬

‫ܬ‬ ‫̈ ܘ‬ ̈

2

( early hand)

7

281

IIn1 IIn12

281

7

281

7

281

x3

IIm4 IIIn6

2

238

IIIn12

The Subscription to the Epistle to the Colossians

‫ܕܐܬ‬

Basic form

̈

‫ܬ ܕ ܬ‬

‫ܐ‬

̈

(2 lac ) x1 p1.2.3.4.5.6.7.8.9.10.11. (12 lac ) lac ).9.10.11.12.13.(14 lac ) x1.2.3 p1.(2 lac ) m/m4 IIIn1.2.3.4.5.6.7.8.9.10.11.12 x1 p1 m6 In1.

IIn1.2.3.4.5.6.7.(8

‫ܪܗܘ‬ ‫]ܐ ܬ‬ ‫]ܕ ܬ‬ ‫] ܪܗܘ‬ ‫]ܪܗܘ‬

> Ip1

‫ ܕ ܬ‬IIIn11

by err > IIIm6 ¦

‫ܘ‬

IIIn12

sy Ix1 IIn1.2.4.5.6.7.10.11.12.13 x3 p1 ‫ ܪܘ‬IIm4 IIIn1.3.5.6.7.8.10.11 x1 ¦ ‫ ܪܗܘ‬IIIn12 m6

Addition I

‫ܣ‬ ‫ܣ‬

‫ܣ ܘܐ‬ ‫ܣ ܘܐ‬ ‫ܣ‬ ‫ܣ‬

‫̈ܝ‬

‫ܕܪܬ‬ ‫ܕܪܬ‬ ‫ܕܪܬ‬ ‫ܕܪܬ‬

‫ܘܐ‬ ‫ܘܐ‬ ‫ܘܐ‬ ‫ܘܐ‬

no addition no text, but the scribe left space for addition I

‫ܣ‬

‫ܣ‬ ‫ܣ ܘܐ‬ ‫ܐܘܣ‬ ‫ܣ ܘܐ‬

Ix1 IIn1.4 Ip9 IIn2.12 IIIn3* IIn5.7.11

‫ܘܐ‬ ‫ܘܐ‬

IIIn1.4.8

IIx3 IIn13 II

‫ܕܪܬ‬ ‫ܕܪܬ‬

m

(c + ‫ܣ‬

n3c ( > *) 4

IIIm6 IIIn12

IIIn6

‫)ܘܐ‬ x1

IIIn4.9

‫ܪܘ‬

p1 ¦ ¦

IIIn2

Subscriptions

cxvii

Addition II

̈

Qeryone Riše/Qef. Sahd. Petg.

̇ ‫ܘܬ‬ ‫ܬ ܘܐܪ‬ ‫ܘܗܘ‬ ̈ ̈ ̄ ‫ܪ‬ ̄‫ܝ‬ ̇ ‫ܐ‬ ‫̄ܒ‬ ̈ ̇ ‫ܘܬ‬ ‫ܬ ܘܐܪ‬ ‫ܕܐ‬ ̄ ‫̈ ܪ‬ ̄ ̇ ‫ܝܘ‬ ‫ܕܐ‬ no addition

̈

̇ ‫ܕܐ‬ ‫̈ ܬ ܘܐ‬ ̄ ‫̇ ܪ‬ ̈ ‫ܘ‬

‫ܬ‬ ̈ ‫ܘܬ‬

Ip6

243

Ix1mg

( early hand)

2

10

Ip9

243 243

IIn1

10

243

10

243

IIn12

2

IIm4 IIIn6

IIIn12

243

The Subscription to the First Epistle to the Thessalonians Basic form

̈

‫ܬ ܕ ܬܬ‬ ‫ܐܬ ܣ‬

‫ܐ‬

‫ܕܐܬ‬ ‫ܬ‬

... ‫ܬ‬ ̈

(2 lac ) x1 p1.2.3.4.5.6.7.8.9.10.11.(12 lac ) lac ).9.10.11.12.13.(14 lac ) x1.2.3 p1.(2 lac ) m/m4 IIIn1.2.3.4.5.6.7.8.9.10.11.12 x1 p1 m6

In1.

‫]ܐ‬

IIn1.2.3.4.5.6.7.(8

> Ip1

‫ ]ܐ‬...

‫ܬ‬

‫]ܕ ܬ ܬ‬ IIIm6

¦ IIIn11

‫]ܕܐܬ‬

‫ܐܬ ܣ‬

‫]ܐܬ ܣ‬

‫ܐ‬

IIm4 IIIn12

‫ ܕ ܬ ܬܐ‬IIm4 ¦ ‫ ܕܬ‬IIIn8 x1 ¦ ̈

‫ܬ‬

> IIIn11 ¦

‫ܐ‬

IIIn12

‫ܕ‬ ¦ IIIn7

‫ܐܘ ܐ‬

‫̈ܝ‬

‫ܕܪܬ‬ ‫ܕܪܬ‬

‫ܘܐ‬ ‫ܘܐ‬

no addition no text, here the scribe left no space for addition I

Ix1

x1 m6

p9 IIn1.2.5.12

IIn4.5.11 IIx3

m4

IIn13

‫ܘ‬

‫ܕܐܬ‬

Ix1mg ¦ ‫ ܪܗܘ‬Ip10 IIn3 ¦ ‫ ܐܬ ܣ‬IIIn1.5.10 ‫ ܐܬ‬IIm4 IIIn2.3.8.12 ¦ ̈ ‫ ܐܬܐ‬IIIn6 ¦ ‫ܐܬ ܣ‬

Addition I

‫ܐܘܣ‬ ‫ܐܘܣ‬

‫ܕ ܬ ܬܐ‬ ̈ ‫ܕ ܬ ܬܐ‬

m

IIIn1

IIIn6

m6

(+

‫) ܐ‬.3.4.8 x1

cxviii

Introduction

Addition II

̈ ̄ ‫̈ ܪܠ‬

̇ ‫ܘܗܘ ܐܪ‬ ̇ ‫ܐ‬ ̇ ‫ܕܐ‬ ̇ ‫ܕܐ‬

‫ܘ ܬ‬ ̄ ̄‫ܐ ̈ ܙ‬ ̈ ‫ܬ ܘܬ‬ ̄ ‫̈ ܪ‬ ‫̄ܙ ܘ‬ ̈

416

Ip6 Ix1mg

1

( early hand)

7

Ip9

230 230

IIn1

no addition

̈

Qeryone Riše/Qef. Sahd. Petg.

7

229

7

230

IIn12

̇ ‫ܕܐ‬ ̈ ‫̈ ܬ ܘܬ‬ ̄‫̇ ܬ‬ ̈ ‫ܘ‬

IIm4 IIIn6

1

IIIn12

417

The Subscription to the Second Epistle to the Thessalonians

‫̈ ܕܬ ܬ‬

Basic form

‫ܕ‬

‫ܬ ܕ ܬܬ‬

lac ) x1 p1.2.3.4.5.6.7.8.9.10.11. (12 lac ) IIn1.2. 3.4.5.6.7.(8 lac ).9.10.11.12.13.(14 lac ) x1.2.3 p1.(2 lac ) m/m4 IIIn1.2.3.4.5.6.7.8.9.1011.12 x1 p1 m6 In1.(2

‫ܐ‬

‫ܕܐܬ‬ ‫ > ]ܐ ܬ‬Ip1 ‫ ܕܬ ܬ‬... ‫ ]ܐ ܬ‬... ‫ ܐ ܬ ܕܬ ܬ‬Ix1 IIm4 IIIn2.12 ‫ ]ܕܬ ܬ‬by err > IIn13 ̈ ‫̈ ]ܕ ܬ ܬ‬ ‫ ܕܬ‬Ip10 IIIn8 ¦ ̈ ‫ܕ ܬ ܬ‬ ‫ܕ ܬ ܬܐ‬

¦

‫]ܕܐܬ‬

‫ܕ‬ ‫ܕ‬

]

> x1mg

]

‫ܘܕ‬

IIm4 IIIn8.11

‫ ܕ‬IIIx1

Addition I

‫̈ܝ‬

no addition

‫ ܕ ܬ ܬܐ‬IIIm6

‫ ܕ‬Ip3 p10 IIn3.13 x1.2 IIIn3¦ ‫ ܐܬ ܣ‬Ip5 ̈ Ip6 ¦ ‫ܐܬ ܣ ܐܘ‬ ( ‫ܪܗܘ ¦ ) ܐܬܐ‬ II IIp1 ‫ܕ‬ n4 ¦ ‫̈ ܕ‬ ‫ܐܘ ܐ ܐ‬ ‫ ܬ‬IIIn12 IIIn1.10 x1 ¦ IIIn5 ¦ ‫ ) !( ܕ‬IIIn7¦

IIIn2

‫]ܕ‬

‫ܘܐ ܕܪܬ‬ ‫ܕܐ ܕܪܬ‬ ‫ܘܐ ܕܪܬ‬

¦

IIIn11

> IIn5

¦

‫ܐܘܣ‬ ‫ܐܘܣ‬ ‫ܐܘܣ‬

IIm4

Ix1 IIn1.2.12 Ip9 IIn4.7.11 IIn2

m

x3 m4

IIIn1.3.4 IIIn6

m6

m6

Subscriptions no text, but the scribe left space for addition I

‫̈ܝ‬

‫ܣ‬

‫ܕܪܬ‬

‫ܘܐ‬

cxix

IIn13 IIIn8

x1

Addition II

̈ ̄

̈

̈ ̄

̈

̈

‫̄ܘ‬

̈

̇

̈

‫ܘ‬

̇ ‫ܘܗܘ‬ ‫ܕܐ‬ ‫ܕܐ‬ ‫ܕܐ‬

‫ܘܬ‬

̄ ‫ܐ‬

̇

‫̄ܘ ܘ‬ ̇

no addition

̈

̇ ̄

‫ܕܐ‬ ‫ܘ‬ ̇‫ܕ‬

̈ ̇

Qeryone Riše/Qef. Sahd. Petg. 118

Ip6 Ix1mg

( early hand)

1

6

120 120

Ip9 IIn1

6

120

6

120

IIn12

1

IIm4 IIIn6

IIIn12

118

The Subscription to the First Epistle to Timothy Basic form

‫ܐܘܣ‬

‫ܬ ܕ ܬ‬

‫ܐ‬

(2 lac ) x1 p1.2.3.4.5.6.7.(8 lac ).9.10.11. (12 lac ) lac ).9.10.(11 lac ).12.13.(14 lac ) x1.2.3 p1.(2 lac ) m/m4 IIIn1.2.(3 lac ).4.5. 6.7.8.9. 10.11.(12 lac ) x1 p1 m6 In1.

‫ܕܐܬ‬

IIn1.2.3.4.5.6.7.(8

‫ > ]ܐ‬Ip1 ‫ ]ܐ‬... ‫ܬܐܘܣ‬ ‫]ܕ ܬ‬ ‫ܘܣ‬

‫ܬ‬ ... ‫ܬ‬ ‫ܐܘܣ‬

‫ܬ‬

‫ܕ‬

‫ ܐ‬IIIn2.8 ¦ ‫ܬܐܘܣ‬

‫ܕ ܬ‬

IIm4

¦

‫ܕ ܬ‬

IIIn11

]

> IIIm6

]

txt (*?) ¦ ‫ ܪܗܘ‬Ip3c (*?).10.11 IIn3.6.9 IIIn2 ¦ ‫ ܐܬ ܣ‬Ip4.7.9 ¦ ‫ ܐܬ ܣ‬IIm4 IIIm6 ¦ + ‫ܕ‬ Ix1 IIn7 m IIIn3.4 ¦ + ‫ ܕ ܘ‬Ip2.5 ¦ ‫ܪܗܘ ܐܘ‬ IIn1 ¦ + ‫ܕ‬ ‫ܐܘ‬ ‫ܕ‬ ̈ II II ‫ ܗܘ‬n4 ¦ ‫ܕ‬ p1 ¦ IIIn1.5 x1 ¦ IIIn10 ¦ ‫ ܘܕ‬IIIn3.7.8.11 Ip1c

Addition I

‫ܗ‬

‫ܬ‬ IIIn8

Ip9

cxx

Introduction

‫ܣ‬

‫ܕܪܬ‬ ‫ܕܪܬ‬ ‫ܕܪܬ‬

‫ܘܐ‬ ‫ܘܐ‬ ‫ܘܐ‬

Ix1*

no addition

IIx3

‫̈ܝ‬

no text, but the scribe left space for addition I

‫̈ܝ‬

‫ܣ‬

‫ܕܪܬ‬

‫) ܐܘ‬

(c +

IIn1.2 IIn4.5.7.12

m4

m

IIIn6

IIIn1.3.4

m6

IIn13

‫ܘܐ‬

IIIn8

lac

IIIn12

x1

Addition II

̈ ̈ ‫ܕܘܬ ̄ܘ‬

̈

̄

̈

̄ ‫ܐ‬

‫ܬ ܘ‬ ̈ ̄

‫ܘܬ‬

‫̈ ܬ‬ ̇

‫̄ ܘ‬

̈ ‫ܕܘܬ ̄ܒ‬ ̇

‫ܘܐܪ‬

‫̈ ̇ ܬ‬

‫ܘ‬ ̈

‫ܘ‬

‫̈ ܘܬ‬

‫ܕܐ‬ ‫ܘܬ‬ ‫ܕܐ‬

Ip9

̄

̇

‫ܬ‬ ‫̈ ܬ‬

‫ܘܗܘ‬ ̇ ‫ܐ‬

Ip6

‫̇ܕܗܘ‬ ‫ܕܐ‬

‫̈ܕܘܬ ܬ ܬ‬ ̈ ‫ܘܬ‬ lac

Ix1mg

Qeryone Riše/Qef. Sahd. Petg. 126

( early hand)

1

6

338

338

18

IIn1

IIn12mg

18

2

(late hand)

IIm4 IIIn6

341

341 1

18

2

338

IIIn12

The Subscription to the Second Epistle to Timothy Basic form

‫ܐܘܣ ܕܬ ܬ‬

‫ܬ ܕ ܬ‬ ‫ܪܗܘ‬

‫ܐ‬

x1 p1.2.3.4.5.6.7.(8 lac ).9.10.11. (12 lac ) lac ).9.10.(11 lac ).12.13.14 x1.2.3 p1.(2 lac ) m/m4 IIIn1.2.(3 lac ).4.5.6.7.8.9.10. 11.12 x1 p1 m6 In1.2

‫ܕܐܬ‬

IIn1.2.3.4.5.6.7.(8

‫ > ]ܐ ܬ‬Ip1 IIIn12 ‫ ܕ‬Ip2 IIn13 ¦ ‫ܬܐܘܣ‬ ‫ܐܘܣ‬ ‫ܐܘܣ ]ܕ ܬ‬ ... ‫ ܐ ܬ ܕܬ ܬ‬Ix1 IIIn1.2.8 ‫ ܕܬ ܬ‬... ‫]ܐ ܬ‬ IIIn12 ‫ܬܘܣ‬

‫ ܕ ܬ‬IIm4 x1 ¦‫ܕܬ ܬ ܕ ܬ‬

Subscriptions

‫]ܕܬ ܬ‬ ‫ܪܗܘ‬

]

‫]ܕܐܬ‬

‫ܪܗܘ‬

cxxi

‫ܕ ܬ‬

> by err IIx1 m4 ¦ +

‫ܣ‬

‫ ܕܐ‬Ix1mg

p9 IIm4 (‫ܣ‬

‫)ܕܐ‬

‫ܕܗܘ ܐ‬ IIIn6

sy IIn1.2.4.5.6.7.10.12.13 x3 p1 IIIn4.9 ¦ ‫ܪܘ‬ IIm4 IIIn1.5.6.7.8.10.11 x1 ¦ ‫ ܪܘ‬IIIn2 ¦+ ‫ܣ ܡ ܪܘܢ‬ ‫ܕܬܪܬ‬ ‫ ܙ‬Ix1 p9 II III (+ ‫ )ܕ ܗܘ‬m4 ( ‫ܕ ܘ‬ ‫ ) ܪܘܢ‬n6 (+ ‫¦ ) ܘ‬ ‫ܕܬ ܬ ܕܐܙܠ‬ ‫ܘ‬ IIIn12 ‫ܪܘܢ‬ ‫ܐܬܬܘ‬ ‫ܣ‬ > IIIm6

Addition I

‫ܪܘ ܣ‬ ‫ܬ‬ ‫ܐܘ‬ ‫ܐܘ‬ ‫̈ܝ‬

‫ܗ‬ ‫ܪܘ ܣ‬

‫ܕܪܬ‬ ‫ܕܪܬ‬ ‫ܕܪܬ‬ ‫ܕܪܬ‬ ‫ܕܪܬ‬ ‫ܕܪܬ‬

‫ܘܐ‬ ‫ܘܐ‬ ‫ܘܐ‬ ‫ܘܐ‬ ‫ܘܐ‬ ‫ܘܐ‬

Ix1*

no addition

IIx3

no text, but the scribe left space for addition I

‫̈ܝܐ‬

‫ܪܘܣ‬

‫ܕܪܬ‬

‫ܘܐ‬

‫) ܐܘ‬

(c +

Ip9 IIn1 IIn2 IIn4.7.12

m

IIIn1.4.8

IIn5.14c

m4

IIIn6

m6

IIn13 IIIx1

Addition II Qeryone Riše/Qef. Sahd. Petg.

̈

̈

̈ ‫ܕܘܬ ̄ܒ‬

̈

‫̄ܗ‬

̄ ‫ܐ‬

‫ܘܬܪ‬ ̇

̈ ‫ܬ ܘܬ‬ ‫̄ܛ ܘ‬ ‫ܕܘܬ ̄ܐ ܘ‬

‫ܘ‬

̄

‫ܕܘܬ‬ ̄

‫ܬ‬

̄ ‫̈ ܪܠ‬

̇ ̇ ̇ ̇

‫ܕܐ‬ ‫ܕܐ‬

Ip9

̄ ‫ܪ‬

̈

‫ܬ‬ ̈ ‫ܬ ̈ ܘܬ ̈ ܘ‬ ̈ ‫ܕܘܬ ̄ܐ ܘ‬

‫ܘܗܘ‬ ‫ܕܐ‬

Ip6

̈

‫̇ܕܗܘ‬ ‫ܕܐ‬ ‫ܘܐ‬

Ix1mg

112

( early hand)

1

9

1

(late hand)

IIm4 IIIn6

IIIn12

2

230

236

IIn1

IIn12mg

5

234 234

1

9

1

236

1

112

cxxii

Introduction

The Subscription to the Epistle to Titus Basic form

‫ܣ ܕܐܬ‬

‫ܬ ܕ ܬ‬

‫ܐ‬

x1 p1.2.3.4.5.6.7.(8 lac ).9.10.11. (12 lac ) lac ).9.10.(11 lac ).12.13.14 x1.2.3 p1.(2 lac ) m/m4 IIIn1.(2.3 lac ).4.(5 lac ).6.7.8.9. 10.11.12 x1 p1 m6 In1.2

IIn1.2.3.4.5.6.7.(8

‫]ܐ‬

‫ܬ‬

> Ip1

] ‫ܣ‬

‫ܣ‬

]

IIIn12

+

x1 m6 ¦ + ‫ܕ ̣ܗܘ‬ ‫ܕ ܬ ܕ‬ ‫ ܗܘ ܐ‬Ix1mg p9 IIm4 IIIn6 ¦ + ̄ ‫ ܐ‬IIIn12 ‫ܕ‬ ‫ ܕ ܘ‬Ip5 IIm4 ( ‫ )ܕ ܘ‬IIIn6 ¦ +

IIp1

¦

IIm4 IIIn1.8.10.11

IIm4 IIIn6.7.8.11 IIIn10

¦

x1 m6 ¦

IIIn12

Addition I

‫ܙ ܘܐ‬ ‫ܕܪܬ‬ ‫ܗ‬ ‫ܐܪ ܬ‬ ‫ܐܪ‬ ‫ܕܪܬ‬ ̈ ̈ ‫ܝ ܐܪ‬ ‫ܐܘ‬ ‫ܝ ܙܐ ܘܐ‬ ‫ܕܪܬ‬ ‫ܣ‬ ̈ ‫ܣ ܐܘ‬ ‫ܝ ܐܪ ܘ‬ ‫ܕܪܬ‬ ‫ܝ ܙܐ ܘܐ‬ ̈ ‫ܝ ܙܐ‬ ‫ܕܪܬ‬ ‫̈ ܝ ܙܐ ܘܐ‬

‫ܘܐ‬

Ix1*

‫ܐܪ‬

(c +

‫) ܐܘ‬

Ip9

̈

‫ܘܐ‬ ‫ܘܐ‬ ‫ܘ‬ ‫ܘܐ‬

IIn1.2

‫ܘܐ‬

IIn5.7 IIIn1.4

no addition

‫ܕܪܬ‬

‫ܘܐ‬

no text, but the scribe left no space for addition I

IIn4

(‫ܣ‬

‫ ܘ‬marked, but no correction) IIIn4

IIm

IIx3

m4

IIIn6

IIn12 IIIn8

(

m6

‫ )ܙ‬x1 (

̈

̄ ‫ܕܘܬ‬ ‫ܐ‬

‫̄ܘ‬

‫ܘܬ‬

‫ܘܐܪ‬

‫̄ܘ ܘ‬

̈

̄ ‫ܐ‬

‫ܘܬ‬ ̈ ̄

̈ ̇

‫ܕܘܬ ̄ܐ ܘ‬ ̇

‫ܘܗܘ‬ ̇ ‫ܐ‬

Ip6

‫ܕܐ‬ ‫ܕܐ‬

Ip9

̄

no addition

‫)ܙܐ‬

IIn13

Addition II

̈

‫ܘܐ‬

Ix1mg

IIn1

IIn12

Qeryone Riše/Qef. Sahd. Petg. 119

( early hand)

1

6

1

149

149 6

1

148

Subscriptions

̈

‫ܕܘܬ‬ ̈ ̄

̈ ‫ܘܬ‬

̇

‫̈ ̈ ܘܐ‬ ̇ ‫ܕܘܬ ̄ܐ ܘ‬

cxxiii Qeryone Riše/Qef. Sahd. Petg.

‫ܕܐ‬

IIm4 IIIn6

‫ܕܐ‬

IIIn12

1

6

1

149

1

116

The Subscription to the Epistle to Philemon Basic form

‫ܢ ܕܐܬ‬

‫ܬ ܕ ܬ‬

‫ܐ‬

(x1 lac ) p1.2.3.4.5.6.7.(8 lac ).9.10.11.(12 lac ) lac ).9.10.(11 lac ).12.13.14 x1.2.3 p1.(2 lac ) m/m4 IIIn1.2.(3 lac ).4.5.(6 lac ).7.8. 9.10.11.12 x1 p1 m6 In1.2

IIn1.2.3.4.5.6.7.(8

‫ܪܗܘ‬ ‫ܬ‬

‫]ܐ‬

> Ip1

IIIn12

] ‫ܢ‬+ ‫ܣ‬

‫ܢ‬

‫ܣ‬

] ‫]ܪܗܘ‬

‫ܘ‬

x1 m6 ¦

‫ܣ ܘ ܬ ܐܪ‬ ‫ܘܗܝ ܕܐ‬ Ip9 IIm4 ¦ ‫ܕ ܬ ܕ‬ ‫ ̄ ܕ ܬ ܕ‬IIIn12

̈

+

‫ܪܗܘ‬

IIm4 IIIn8.10.11

IIIn12

‫ܘܐ‬

x1

sy In2 IIn1.2.4.5.6.10.13 x3 p1 IIIn4.9 ¦ IIIn1.5.7.8.10.11 x1 ¦ ‫ ܪܗܘ‬IIIn12 m6

‫ ܪܘ‬IIm4

Addition I

‫ܣ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫̈ܝܐ‬

‫ܣ‬ ‫ܣ‬

‫ܐ‬ ‫ܕܪܬ‬ ‫ܕܪܬ‬

Ip9 IIn3c

‫ܘܐ‬ ‫ܘܐ‬

no addition no text, but the scribe left space for addition I

( > *) m4

IIn1.2.12 IIIn12 IIn4.5.7.14c IIx3 IIIn6

m

IIIn1.4.8

x1

m6

IIn13

Addition II Qeryone Riše/Qef. Sahd. Petg.

̈

̈

̄

‫ܘ‬

̈ ̈

. ‫ܬ‬

‫ܘܐܪ‬ ̇

‫̄ܒ ܘ‬ ̇

.

̇ ‫ܘ‬

.

̇ ‫ܘܗܘ‬ ‫ܕܐ‬ ‫ܕܐ‬ ‫ܕܐ‬

Ip6

54

Ip9

57

IIn1 IIm4

1

2

56

2

57

cxxiv

Introduction Qeryone Riše/Qef. Sahd. Petg.

̈

‫ܘܬ‬

‫̇ܕܗܘ‬ lac

̄

̈ ̇

‫ܘ‬

IIn12mg

(late hand)

59

IIIn6 IIIn12

57

The Subscription to the Epistle to the Hebrews Basic form

‫ܕܐܬ‬

‫ܬ ܕ ܬ‬

‫ܐ‬

(x1 lac ) p1.2.(3 lac ).( > 4s ).5.(6 lac ).7s.8. 9.10.(11.12 lac ) IIn1.2.3.4s.5.(6 lac ).7.(8 lac ).9.10. (11 lac ).12s.13.(14 lac ) (x1.2.3 lac ) p( > 1 ).2 m/m4 IIIn(1 lac ).2.(3 lac ).4. (5.6 lac ).7.(8 lac ).( > 9).10.(11 lac ).12 (x1 lac ) ( > p1) m6 In1.2

‫ܐ‬ ‫]ܐ ܬ‬ ‫]ܕܐܬ ܒ‬ ‫ܐ‬

] ‫]ܕܐܬ‬

‫ܐ‬

> Ip1 > IIn12s

‫ܪܗܘ‬

¦ ‫ ܕܪܗܘ‬Ip8c IIn2 IIIn2 ¦ IIIn12

+

Ip1

‫ܪܗܘ‬

Ip2 IIn4s

‫ܐ‬

IIm4 IIIn7

¦ ¦

> IIIm6

Addition I

‫ܐܘܣ‬ ‫ܐܘܣ‬

Ip9 IIm4

‫ܕܪܬ‬ ‫̈ܝ‬ ‫̈ܝ‬

‫ܐܘܣ‬

‫ܘܐ‬

no addition

‫ܕܪܬ‬ ‫ܕܪܬ‬

‫ܘܐ‬ ‫ܘܐ‬

(‫ܬܐܘܣ‬

)

IIn1.2 IIIn12 IIn4s.7

x3 IIIn4.6 m6

IIn5.12s

sic

p2 m

IIIn8

x1

IIIn7

Addition II

‫̈ ܬ‬

‫ܘ‬ ̈

̄ ‫̈ܕܘܬ ܠ ܘ‬

‫̄ ܘ‬

. ‫ܘܬ‬ . ̄‫ܘ‬ ̄

‫̈ ܬ‬ ̈

̇

‫ܘ‬

.

‫ܬ‬ . ‫̈ܕܘܬ ܬ‬

‫ܕܐ‬ . ‫ܘ‬ ̇ ‫ܕܐ‬ ̄ ‫ܬܬܠ‬ ̇ ‫ܕܐ‬ ̈ ‫ܕܘܬ ܬ‬ no addition

̇

‫ܘܐ‬

Qeryone Riše/Qef. Sahd. Petg. Ip9

825

IIn1

3

IIm4

IIn12s IIIn6 IIIn12

22

30

830

22

30

825

30

830

(lac )

‫‪Subscriptions‬‬

‫‪cxxv‬‬

‫‪The Subscription to the Corpus Paulinum/New Testament‬‬ ‫‪is preserved in the following Mss‬‬

‫ܒܐ‬ ‫ܬ ܕ‬

‫‪Ip1‬‬

‫‪Ip2‬‬

‫ܐ‬

‫ܒܐ‬

‫‪.‬‬

‫‪Ip5‬‬

‫ܘ‬ ‫ܕ‬

‫‪Ip8‬‬

‫ܘ‬

‫ܕ‬

‫‪Ip9‬‬ ‫‪Ip10‬‬

‫‪IIn2‬‬

‫‪IIn7‬‬ ‫‪IIn10‬‬

‫‪IIIn4‬‬

‫ܬ ܐܪ‬

‫ܕ ̈ ܬ‪.‬‬

‫ܒ‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܕ ܬ‪.‬‬ ‫ܐ ‪.‬‬ ‫̈ ܕ‬

‫ܕ‬

‫ܗ ‪.‬ܐ‬ ‫ܗ ܕܐ‬

‫ܣ‬

‫‪.‬‬ ‫ܕ‬

‫ܬ ܐܪ‬ ‫ܬ ܐܪ‬ ‫ܘ‬

‫ܬ‬ ‫ܐܪܕ‬

‫ܣ‬

‫ܣ‬ ‫ܕ‬ ‫ܘ ܘ ܕ ܕ‬

‫ܗ‬

‫ܘܐܪ‬

‫ܐܪܕ‬ ‫ܘ‬ ‫̈‬

‫>ܘܫ omit(s), omission + add(s), addition * original text c(orrected text) E(astern)S(tandard)T(ext)

id(em) lac(una) Lec(tionary) h(omoio)t(eleuton) rest(ored)

s(upplement) sy(āme) tr(anspose)

BL Add 14,485 was completed in the year 1135 AG (823/24 AD) in Ḥarran, in the Church dedicated to Aḥudemmeh; the same is true for BL Add. 14,486 and BL Add. 14,487, which both provide the additional information that the codices were written at the expense of the congregation of the Tagritians, who owned the monastery Beth Qubē in Ḥarran. Notes in all three manuscripts report their donation to the Monastery of the Syrians (Dayr al-Suryān) by mediation of people from Tagrit, cf WRIGHT, Catalogue 1 (1870) 147, 149, 151, 153. 6 WRIGHT, Catalogue 1 (1870) 154–159. All pericopes from the Corpus Paulinum give full text. 7 WRIGHT, Catalogue 1 (1870) 179–181. 5

Mss BL Add. 14,485‒87 (IIq1.2.3 ) dated March 1135 GE (= 824 AD) WRIGHT, Catalogue 1 (1870), 146–54; HATCH, Album (1946) plate lxiv & lxv

The Pericopes Add. 14,485 (q1)

Add. 14,486 (q2)

Add. 14,487 (q3)

1Co 15,34–57

2Co 3,12–4,4

Rom 15,1–19

1Tm 2,8–3,7

2Co 4,16–5,10

Heb 8,1–9,7

Rom 8,28–9,5

Gal 2,17–3,14

1Th 4,13–5,11

1Th 4,13–5,11

Heb 6,1–12

1Co 15,34–57

Tit 2,11–3,7 +

2Co 4,16–5,10

1Tm 1,17

The Variants Rom 8,28‒9,5(q3/10rb‒vb) 8,33 ‫ܠ‬ 8,36 8,39 8,39 9,2 9,5

] ‫]ܐܬ‬

by err Lec ¦ ―

‫ ܘܐܬ‬Lec EST ‫ ]ܐ‬Lec id. (EST ‫) ܘܐ‬ ‫]ܬ‬ ‫ ܬ‬Lec IIx1 ‫]ܕ‬ ‫ ܕ‬Lec ¦ ― ‫ ]ܕ‬Lec id. (EST )

‫ ]ܕ ̣ ܕ‬tr (no diacr) Lec ¦ ― 15,55 ‫ܗܝ‬ ‫ ܘܐ ܗܝ ]ܐܘ ܐ‬Lec EST

15,54

1Co 15,34‒57 (q3/67va‒68rb) 15,34 ‫ܘ‬

‫]ܕ‬

15,39 15,41

‫]ܐ‬

15,10 ] ̈ Lec* ¦ ― 15,11 ‫̈ ܝ‬ ] ‫ܗܝ‬ Lec Ip7s IIIn3 15,15 ‫( ܕ ܕ ܢ ]ܕܐ ܕ ܢ‬no diacr.) Lec ¦― 15,19 ] sy Lec Ip4 IIn7c p1

1Co 15,34‒57 (q1/62vb‒63vb)

‫ ܐ ܐ ]ܐ‬Lec Ip6s IIx2c 15,37 ‫ ̇ܗܘ > ] ̇ܗܘ‬Lec ¦ ― 15,38 ‫ ] ̇ ܒ‬no diacr Lec ¦ ― 15,38 ] ̇ Lec* Ix1 p5 IIn5 p1 15,39 ‫]ܕ‬ Lec EST 2 15,41 ‫ ]ܘܐ‬+ ‫ ܗܘ‬Lec EST 15,44 ‫ ܘ ܡ ] ܡ‬Lec Ip6s IIq5 IIIn2 15,47 2 ] ‫ ܘ‬Lec ¦ ― 15,49 ‫ ܕ‬... ‫ > ]ܗ‬Lec ¦ ― 2 15,53 ‫ > ]ܕ‬Lec IIIn2 15,35

Lec EST

‫ ]ܘܐ‬+ ‫ ܗܘ‬Lec EST ‫ ]ܘܐ‬+ ‫ ܗܘ‬Lec In2 IIp1 IIIn2.11 ] > Lec ¦ ―

2

15,41 3

Rom 15,1‒19 (q3/7v‒8v) suppl. 8th c.

‫ ܐ‬by err Lec ¦ ―

15,45

] sy Lec Ip1 15,48 ‫ ܘܐ ]ܐ‬Lec ¦ ― 15,48 ‫]ܕ‬ Lec ¦ ― ̈ 15,52 ] by err no sy Lec ¦ ― 15,53 ‫ܬ‬ ] ‫ ـ‬Lec ¦ ― 15,54 ‫ܬ‬ ] ‫ ـ‬Lec ¦ ― 15,54 ‫ܬܘܬ‬ ] ‫ܬܘܬ‬ ‫ ـ‬Lec ¦ ― 15,55 ‫ܗܝ‬ ‫ ܘܐ ܗܝ ]ܐܘ ܐ‬Lec EST 15,45

2Co 3,12‒4,4 (q2/8v‒9rb) 3,14 ‫ܘܢ‬ 3,18 4,4

̈

] Lec id. (EST ‫̈ ܘܢ‬

] > Lec* ¦ ― ‫]ܕ ܗ ܕ‬

)

‫ ܕ‬Leccor (*?) EST

2Co 4,16‒5,10 (q1/65vb‒66rb) 4,16

‫]ܕ‬

‫ ܕ‬Lec ¦ ―

cxxx 4,18 5,1 5,1 5,4

̇

5,5

Appendix 2

] Lec id. (EST ‫) ܕ‬ ] ‫ ܕ‬Lec ¦ ― ‫ܗ ]ܗ ܕ‬ (! ) Lec ¦ ― ‫ ܐܦ ܗ ]ܗ‬Lec ¦ ― ] tr Lec In2c p1.7.8 IIm1.2.3*4 q4

5,10

] + ‫ ܗܘ‬Lec ¦ ― ‫]ܕ‬ ‫ ܕ‬Lec ¦ ― 2Co 4,16‒5,10 (q3/70vb‒71ra)

‫]ܕ‬

4,16 4,18 4,18 5,1

‫ܪ‬

5,4 5,6

‫ ) !( ܪ ܢ ] ܪ‬Lec ¦ ― ] Lec In1 p3c.6.8c IIn9 p1

5,9

IIIn3.6.7.8

x1

1Tm 2,8‒3,7 (q3/51vb‒52rb)

‫]ܬܨ ܗ‬ ‫ ) !( ܬܨ‬Lec Ip10 IIIn2 2,10 ̇ ‫ ܕ ̇ ]ܕ‬Lec IIIn2.3 2,12 ‫ ܐ ]ܘ‬Lec ¦ ― ̈ ] Lec id. (EST 3,1 ̈ ) ̈ I III 3,7 ‫ ]ܘ‬no sy Lec p9 n7.8 x1 2,9

IIIm5

5,6

5,4 ‫ܢ‬

‫ ܕ‬Lec ¦ ―

] ‫ ܕ‬Lec EST ‫ܐ‬ ‫̈ ܕ ܕ‬ ‫ > ]ܕ‬h. t. Lec III ]‫ܪ‬ Lec n2 ‫ > ]ܗ‬Lec ¦ ― ] + ‫ ܗܘ‬Lec ¦ ―

Tit 2,11‒3,7 (q3/15rb‒vb)

‫ܘ ܬ] ܬ‬ Lec ¦ ― ‫ܗܘ‬ ] ‫ܗܘ‬ Lec ¦ ― 3,4 ‫ܬܗ‬ ‫ > ]ܘ‬Lec ¦ ― 3,7 ‫ܬܗ‬ ‫ܬ ]ܕ‬ ‫ ܕ‬Lec ¦ ― ̈ ̈ 3,7 ] ‫ ܕ‬Lec EST 2,14 3,3

Gal 2,17‒3,14 (q3/64ra‒vb)

]

2,19 2,20 3,3 3,4

‫]ܕܐ‬

/

Heb 6,1–12 (q3/14vb‒15rb)

(! ) Lec ¦ ― /

] Lec ‫ ]ܐ‬+ ‫ ܗܘ‬Lec EST

‫ ܕܐ‬Lec EST

6,6 6,9

IIIn8

‫ܕܪ‬

‫ ]ܘ‬Lec id. (EST ‫ܕܪ‬ ] Lec IIx1s

‫)ܕ‬

Heb 8,1‒9,7 (q2/56rb‒57rb) 1Th 4,13‒5,11 (q1/120va‒121ra)

‫ ]ܕ‬Lec id. (EST

4,15

]

4,17 4,18 5,9

‫]ܗ‬ ]

‫)ܕ‬

Lec ¦ ―

̈ (cf 2Tm 1,13) Lec ¦ ― Lec In1 p3c.6.8c IIn9 p1

IIIn3.6.7.8

x1

1Th 4,13‒5,11 (q2/77rb‒78ra) 4,15

‫ ]ܕ‬Lec id. (EST

‫)ܕ‬

̣ ‫ ) !( ܕ ̣ ]ܕ‬Lec ¦ ― 8,4 ] sg Lec Ip5 IIn4v 8,5 ‫ ] ̇ܗ ܢ‬no diacr Lec ¦ ― 8,5 ‫ܬ‬ ] sy Lec In1c p5.6 IIx1s q4 IIIn6* ̈ 8,5 ‫ ]ܘ‬Lec id. (EST ‫)ܘ‬ 8,6 ‫ ]ܐܦ‬Lec id. (EST ‫) ܘܐܦ‬ 8,9 ‫]ܕܗ ܢ‬ ̣ ‫ ̇ܕܗ ܢ‬Lec Ip9 IIx1s 8,11 ‫ ܕܕ ]ܕܕܥ‬Lec ¦ ― 8,13 ] Lec ¦ ― 8,2

Ms BL Add. 12,139 (IIq4 ) dated 1311 AG (= 999/1000 AD) WRIGHT, Catalogue 1 (1870), 154–159

The Pericopes (1) Gal 4,1‒12

(14) Rom 12,1‒21

(27) Col 1,3‒14

(40) 1Co 7,1‒15

(2) Heb 8,10‒9,10

(15) Eph 4,21‒24

(28) 1Co 15,1‒9

(41) 2Th 1,3‒12

(3) Heb 11,11‒23

(16) 2Co 6,1‒16

(29) Heb 7,11‒17

(42) 1Tm 4,11‒5,8

(4) Heb 10,15‒25

(17) Eph 6,10‒20

(30) 1Co 2,6‒3,3

(43) 2Th 2,15‒3,9

(5) Tit 2,11‒3,7

(18) Eph 4,25‒5,2

(31) Rom 10,17‒11,12

(44) Heb 11,32‒12,2

(6) Rom 10,4‒18

(19) Rom 13,8‒14,4

(32) Rom 13,12‒14,13

(45) Heb 11,1‒10

(7) Heb 6,1‒8

(20) Gal 5,16‒21

(33) Rom 6,12‒23

(46) 2Co 5,1‒10

(8) Rom 7,22‒8,11

(21) Eph 1,3‒14

(34) 1Tm 3,14‒4,8

(47) 1Co 12,28‒13,12

(9) Rom 8,12‒27

(22) Gal 3,15‒22

(35) Eph 4,1‒16

(48) 1Co 10,1‒13

(10) Rom 9,14‒26

(23) Rom 11,13‒24

(36) 1Co 12,1‒18

(49) Heb 12,3‒13

(11) Rom 14,19‒15,7

(24) 1Co 11,17‒26

(37) 1Co 6,1‒11

(50) 1Co 1,18‒31

(12) Rom 7,4‒13

(25) 2Co 2,14‒3,6

(38) Col 3,1‒17

(51) Heb 8,3‒10

(13) Gal 4,28‒5,10

(26) Rom 5,1‒11

(39) 1Th 1,2‒10

(52) Heb 1,1‒2,1

The Variants (26) Rom 5,1‒11 (72rv)

‫ > ] ܐ‬Lec ‫ ]ܘ‬Lec ¦ ― 5,11 ‫ > ] ̱ܗܘ‬Lec ¦ ―

IIn13*

5,9

q4

(9) Rom 8,12‒27 (29v‒30r)

‫ܪ‬

8,23

‫ ]ܘ‬Lec id. (EST

‫ܪ‬

)

5,11

(10) Rom 9,14‒26 (31rv)

̣ ‫ ܐ ̇ ]ܐ‬Lec ¦ ― ‫ ]ܕ‬Lec id. (EST 9,26 ‫ ]ܕ‬Lec id. (EST 9,15

(33) Rom 6,12‒23 (93v‒94r) 6,13 ‫ ]ܐܦ‬Lec id. (EST ‫) ܘܐܦ‬

‫ ]ܐܕ‬sy Lec ¦ ― 6,17 ‫ܘܢ‬ ‫ܢ ]ܕܐ‬ 6,20 ] > Lec IIIn10

‫)ܕ‬

9,19

)

6,16

(6) Rom 10,4‒18 (23v‒24r)

‫ ܕܬ‬Lec ¦ ― 10,6

‫ܬ‬

10,7

‫ܬ ]ܕ‬ ]

Lec ¦ ―

‫ ) !( ܘ‬Lec ¦ ―

(12) Rom 7,4‒13 (35rv) 7,4 ‫ܬܘܢ‬

]+‫ܢ‬

(31) Rom 10,17‒11,12 (89rv)

Lec ¦ ―

‫ܕ‬

(8) Rom 7,22‒8,11(27v‒28r) 8,11 ‫ ܐܢ ]ܘܐܢ‬Lec ¦ ―

11,6 1

]

‫ܕ‬

Lec Ip4.6.10 IIn3.11 x1.3 q5 IIIn4.7.8.11 x1

10,19

‫]ܕ‬

Lec ¦ ―

cxxxii

Appendix 2

̈

(11) Rom 14,19‒15,7 (33rv)

] no sy Lec Ip7s IIn9 11,8 ‫ܢ‬ ]+ Lec ¦ ― 11,9 ‫ ܘ ]ܕ ܘ‬Lec EST

11,6

̈ ] Lec id. (EST ‫ ]ܕ‬no sy Lec Ip1

14,20

15,4 ̈

(50) 1Co 1,18‒31 (135r)

(23) Rom 11,13‒24 (62v‒63r)

‫ ]ܘܐܢ‬Lec id. (EST ‫) ܐܢ‬ 11,16 2‫ ܘܐܦ ]ܐܦ‬Lec In1 IIn3 11,17 ‫]ܐܬ‬ ‫ ܐܬ‬Lec IIn11 m1.2.4 11,16

1,20

1

IIIn2.3.7

‫ ܕ‬... ̇

‫ܗ‬

‫ > ] ܗ ܐ‬h.t. Lec ¦ ― ̇ ] Lec ¦ ― ] + ‫ ܗܘ‬Lec EST

1,24 ‫ܢ‬ 1,24

m5.6

‫ ܙ ]ܕܙ‬Lec IIm1 IIIn5cv.8.10 11,19 ‫]ܕܐܬ‬ ‫ ܕܐܬ‬Lec Ip7s IIn11 IIIn3 11,20 ‫ ]ܗ ܐܬ‬Lec id. (EST ‫ܐܬ‬ ‫)ܗ‬ ̇ 11,24 ‫ ̣ܗ ܢ ]ܗ ܢ‬Lec EST 11,17 1

(30) 1Co 2,6‒3,3 (86v‒87v) 2,14 ‫ܘܚ‬

‫ ܕ ܘ ]ܕ‬Lec ¦ ― 2,15 ‫ ܪܘ ]ܪܘ‬Lec Ip5 2,16 ‫ ̇ ܥ ] ̣ ܥ‬Lec ¦ ―

(14) Rom 12,1‒21 (39v‒40r) 12,2

‫ܕܬ‬

] ‫ܘܬ‬

)

(37) 1Co 6,1‒11 (107r‒108r)

‫ ܐ > ]ܐ ̇ ܐ‬by err Lec ¦ ― 6,9 1 ‫ ]ܘ‬Lec ¦ ―

Lec ¦ ―

6,5

‫]ܨ‬ ‫ ܨ‬Lec EST 12,3 ‫ ]ܬܗܘܘܢ‬Lec id. (EST ‫) ܕܬܗܘܘܢ‬ 12,12 ‫ܬ‬ ] sy (cf 1Tm 5,5) Lec ¦ ― 12,21 ] ‫ ܘ‬Lec In1 p11 IIn9 12,2

2

(40) 1Co 7,1‒15 (114r‒115r) 7,7 7,12

(19) Rom 13,8‒14,4 (51rv) 13,8 ‫ܗ‬

]‫ܗ‬

]

7,3

Lec EST

‫ ܘ‬Lec IIIn1.9r.11

] > Lec ¦ ― ‫ > ]ܐ‬Lec ¦ ― ] Lec id. ( > EST )

7,15

13,9 ‫ ]ܘܐܦ‬Lec id. (EST ‫) ܐܦ‬

(48) 1Co 10,1‒13 (130v)

13,9 ‫ܠ‬

‫ ]ܕ ܬ ܪ ܘ ܬ‬Lec id. (EST tr ) 13,11 ‫ ܘܐܦ ]ܐܦ‬Lec EST 13,11 ‫ ܗܕ ܕ ܕ ]ܗܕ ܕ‬Lec ¦ ― 13,12 ‫ ] ܗ‬Lec id. (EST tr ) 13,13 ‫]ܘ‬ ‫ ܘ‬Lec ¦ ― 14,2 ‫ܗܘ‬ ] Lec EST

‫ ]ܘܐ‬Lec id. (EST ‫) ܐ‬ ] > Lec ¦ ― 10,11 ] + ‫ ܗܘ‬Lec IIm1.2.3c IIIn6 m5 10,11 ̈ ‫ ܕܙ ̈ ]ܕ ـ‬Lec ¦ ― 10,12 ‫]ܕ‬ ‫ ܕ‬Lec ¦ ― 10,8

10,11

(24) 1Co 11,17‒26 (64v‒65r)

(32) Rom 13,12‒14,13 (90v‒91v) 13,12 13,13 14,2 ‫ܗܘ‬ 14,6

‫ܪ‬

‫ ] ܗ‬Lec id. (EST tr ) ‫]ܘ‬ ‫ ܘ‬Lec ¦ ― ] Lec * EST ‫ܗ‬ ‫ܪ ܕ ܆‬ ‫ܕ‬ h.t. Lec

14,8 1‫ܢ‬

] Lec id. (EST + ‫) ܗܘ‬

11,17 11,25 11,25

‫ܘܬ‬

] + ‫ ܗܘ‬Lec EST ‫ > ] ̣ ܒ ܘܐ ̣ ܗ‬h. t. Lec ¦ ― ‫]ܕܐ‬ ‫ ܕܐ‬Lec EST

‫> ]ܘ‬ (36) 1Co 12,1‒18 (104v‒105v) no variant in Lec

Lectionaries

cxxxiii

(47) 1Co 12,28‒13,12 (128v‒129v)

12,29 ̈ ] no sy Lec ¦ ― 12,30 ‫ > ] ܘܢ‬Lec Ip3*.4*.5* 12,31 ‫( ܕܐ ܬ ]ܪܘ‬cf 1Co 12,9.28) Lec ¦― 13,2 ̇ ‫ > ] ـ‬Lec IIx2* IIIn6 13,4 ] Lec ¦ ― 3 13,5 ‫ ]ܘ‬Lec id. (EST ) 13,6 ] ‫ ܘ‬Lec In1 p1 IIn7 x1c 13,9 ] Lec ¦ ― 13,10 ‫]ܕ‬ Lec Ip1 ̈ 13,12 ‫ ] ܬ‬no sy Lec EST

(16) 2Co 6,1‒16 (45v‒46v)

‫ܪܕ‬

6,9

‫ܪܕ ]ܕ‬ ]

6,11

Lec In1 IIm2 Lec ¦ ―

] sy Lec Ip1.6 IIm3.4 IIIn2.6 ‫] ܕ‬ ‫ ܐ ܕ‬Lec ¦ ―

6,13 6,15 6,16 2

‫]ܕ‬

Lec EST

(22) Gal 3,15‒22 (57rv)

‫]ܕܕ‬

3,15

‫ ܕ‬Lec Ip6 IIm1.2.3.4 IIIm5.6

‫]ܕ‬ ‫]ܕܕ‬

3,16 3,17

‫ ܕ ܪ‬Lec ¦ ― ‫ ܕ‬Lec ¦ ―

̇ > Lec ¦ ― 3,17 ‫]ܗܘ‬

(28) 1Co 15,1‒19 (80rv)

‫ ]ܘܕ‬Lec id. (EST ‫)ܘ‬ ] Lec id. (> EST ) 15,12 ] ‫ ܕ‬Lec EST 2 15,14 ] + ‫ ܗܝ‬Lec IIp1 15,14 ‫ ]ܐܦ‬Lec id. (EST ‫) ܘܐܦ‬ 15,15 ] ‫ ܘ‬Ip5s 15,15 ‫ > ]ܕܐ ܕܢ‬h. t. Lec ¦ ― 15,17 ] Lec In1 p2.12 IIm1.2.3.4 15,4

(1) Gal 4,1‒12 (11r)

15,9

IIIn5.7.8.10.11

x1 m5.6

4,2 4,7

] ]+‫ܥ‬

4,9 ‫ܘ‬

]‫ܘ‬

̇ ‫ ܘ ̣ ]ܘ‬Lec ¦ ― 3,3 ‫ܐ ܘܢ‬ ] Lec id. (EST ‫ܐ ܘܢ‬ 3,3 ‫ > ]ܕ‬Lec ¦ ― 3,6 ] ‫ ܕ‬Lec Ip6 >

‫ ܘ‬Lec ¦ ―

(13) Gal 4,28‒5,10 (37rv)

‫ܪܕܦ ܗܘ ]ܪܕ̇ܦ ܗܘ‬ ̣ Lec ¦ ― I 4,30 ̣ ‫ ܐ ̇ ]ܐ‬Lec p2.8 IIn9 x1 m1.2.3.4 4,29

IIIn7

x1 m5.6

] Lec id. (EST

5,3

(25) 2Co 2,14‒3,6 (67rv)

Lec ¦ ― Lec EST

)

2,14

(46) 2Co 5,1‒10 (127r)

‫ > ]ܕ ܪ ܗ‬Lec ¦ ― ̇ ‫ ܕ‬Lec ¦ ― ̣ ‫]ܕ‬ 5,2 ‫ܢ‬ ]‫ܢ‬ Lec ¦ ― 5,3 ] > Lec ¦ ― 5,5 ̇ ] tr Lec In2c p1.7.8 IIm1.2.3*.4 q1

5,1

(20) Gal 5,16‒26 (53rv)

)

... ̇ ‫ > ]ܘܪܘ ܪ‬Lec ¦ ― ̈ 5,17 ] no sy Lec EST 5,17 ‫ > ]ܐ ܢ‬Lec ¦ ― 5,19 ‫ܘܬ ]ܨ ܬ‬ Lec ¦ ― 5,24 ‫ > ]ܕ‬Lec ¦ ― 5,17

5,2

(21) Eph 1,3‒14 (55rv)

] Lec id. (EST + ‫) ܕܪܘܚ‬

1,6

(35) Eph 4,1‒16 (99rv)

IIIm5

‫ܗ‬ 5,10 ‫ܡ‬ 5,8

] ‫ܗ‬ ‫ ܘ‬Lec ¦ ― ‫ܗ‬ ] tr Lec *¦ ―

4,1 4,14

‫]ܕ‬

‫ ܕ‬Lec IIIn3 ‫ ܕ ܕ ]ܕ ܕ‬by err Lec ¦ ―

cxxxiv

Appendix 2

(15) Eph 4,20‒24 (44r)

1,7 ‫ܥ‬

no variant in Lec

1,8 1,11 ‫ܢ‬

(18) Eph 4,25‒5,2 (48v‒49r) 4,30

̈

4,31

] Lec id. (EST + ] ‫ ̣ ܥ‬by err Lec ¦ ―

] ̇ Lec EST ] Lec ¦ ―

)

] 2‒3‒1 Lec Ip5 (43) 2Th 2,15‒3,9 (121rv)

3,1 ̈ ‫ ܐ ̈ ]ܐ‬Lec EST ‫ ܕ‬Lec ¦ ― 3,2 ‫]ܘܕ‬ 3,5 ‫ܬܗ‬ ‫ܬܗ ]ܘ‬

(17) Eph 6,10‒20 (48rv)

̈ ] ̈ Lec IIIn2 6,17 ‫ܘܬ ] ܪܬ‬ by err Lec ¦ ― 6,18 ‫ ]ܘ‬+ ‫ ܐ ܘܢ‬Lec IIIn2

‫ ܘ‬Lec* EST

6,12

(34) 1Tm 3,14‒4,8 (97rv)

‫ > ] ܬ‬by err Lec* ¦ ― 4,1 ‫ ܐ ]ܐ ܐ‬Lec ¦ ― 4,1 ̈ ‫ ܪܘ ܕ ܬ ] ܘ‬Lec ¦ ― 4,6 ‫]ܘ‬ Lec ¦ ― 3,15

(27) Col 1,3‒14 (74v‒75r) 1,4 ‫ܘܢ‬

] > Lec IIn12* 1,6 ‫ܬ ]ܕܐܬ ܙܬ‬ ‫ ܕܐ‬Lec ¦ ― 1,9 ‫ ܕܪܘ ]ܕܪܘܚ‬Lec ¦ ― 1,11 ‫ ܪܘ ]ܪܘܚ‬Lec ¦ ―

(42) 1Tm 4,11‒5,8 (118v‒119r)

‫ ܘ ]ܘ ܐ‬Lec ¦ ― ‫]ܕ ܬ‬ ‫ ܕ‬Lec* ¦ ― 5,8 ‫ܬ‬ ... ‫ > ] ̇ ܦ‬h. t. Lec* ¦ ― 4,12 5,2

(38) Col 3,1‒17 (109v‒110r) 3,1 ‫ܘܢ‬

‫ ]ܗ‬tr Lec ¦ ― ̇ ] Lec id. (EST ‫) ̣ ܒ‬ ] > by err Lec *¦ ― ‫ܬ ]ܘ‬ EST ‫ܗ‬ ] Lec id. (EST > ‫)ܗܘ‬ ‫ ]ܐ ܘܢ ܗ‬+ ‫ ܗܘ ܘܢ‬Lec Ip9c

3,1 ‫ܒ‬ 3,3

‫ܬ‬ 3,6 ‫ܗܘ‬ 3,7 ‫ܘܢ‬ 3,5

IIn9

x1.2 p1

3,9 ‫ܘܢ ]ܬܗܘܘܢ‬

]

3,11 3,11 ‫ܗܘ‬ 3,13 3,16

(5) Tit 2,11‒3,7 (21v‒22r) 3,3

‫ ܐ ]ܐܦ‬Lec ¦ ― ̈ ] ̈ ‫ ܕ‬Lec EST

1

3,7

(52) Heb 1,1‒2,1 (138r)

‫ܕ‬

‫ ܕ ܪ ܕ ]ܕ ܪ‬Lec ¦ ― 1,9 ‫ ܙܕ ܬ ] ܬ‬Lec ¦ ― 1,14 ‫ ]ܪܘ‬sy Lec EST 1,8

IIIn7

‫ ܗܘ‬Lec ¦ Ip5 IIIn5.10 Lec In1

] > ‫ ܗܘ‬Lec ¦ ― ‫ > ]ܐ‬Lec *¦ ― ] + ‫ܕܪܘ‬

(7) Heb 6,1‒8 (25v‒26r)

‫ܕܪ‬ 6,7 ‫ܗܘܢ‬

‫ ]ܘ‬Lec id. (EST ‫)ܕ ܕܪ‬ ‫ܗܘܢ ] ̇ ܢ ܕ‬ Lec ¦ ―

6,6

‫( ܘ‬cf

Col 1,9) Lec ¦ ―

(29) Heb 7,11‒21 (85rv) (39) 1Th 1,2‒10 (111v‒112r)

7,19

1,5 ‫ ܕܗܘܬ ]ܗܘܬ‬Lec ¦ ―

(41) 2Th 1,3‒12 (116v‒117r) 1,3 1,5 ‫ܘܢ‬

‫ܘܘܢ ]ܕܬ‬

] Lec id. (EST 3-1-2 ) ‫ ܕܬ‬Lec Ip5

]

Lec

IIIp1

(51) Heb 8,3‒10 (136v‒137r)

] sy Lec In1c p5.6 IIx1s q1 IIIn6* ̈ 8,5 ‫ ]ܘ‬Lec id. (EST no sy ) 8,8 ̇ ‫ ܘܐ ̣ ]ܘܐ‬Lec *¦ ― 8,9 ‫]ܕ‬ ‫ ܕܐܬ‬Lec ¦ ― 8,5

‫ܬ‬

Lectionaries

cxxxv

(2) Heb 8,10‒9,10 (13rv)

(3) Heb 11,11‒23(15rv) 11,17 ‫̇ ܘ‬

] ‫ ̇ܗܘ‬Lec EST 11,18 ‫ ܘܐܬܐ ]ܐܬܐ‬Lec ¦ ― 11,21 ] Lec ¦ ― 11,23 ‫ܗܘ‬ ‫ܗܘ ]ܕ‬ ‫ ܕ‬Lec ¦ ―

‫ > ]ܐ‬Lec ¦ ― 8,11 ‫ ܘܐܦ ]ܐ‬Lec Ip2.7 8,11 ‫ܘܢ‬ ] ‫ܘܢ‬ Lec ¦ ― 9,4 ‫ ܕ ܬ ]ܕܕ‬Lec ¦ ― 9,6 ‫]ܘ‬ ‫ ܘ‬Lec Ip2.7 IIp1 8,10

IIIn2.6.7mg

(44) Heb 11,32‒12,2 (124rv)

‫ ]ܐܬ‬tr Lec ¦ ― ] ‫ ܕ ̈ ܘ‬Lec ¦ ―

9,8

] Lec id. (EST sy ) 11,34 ] sy Lec ¦ ― 11,36/37 ‫ ܐܬܪ‬... ‫ ]ܐ‬by err Lec tr after ‫ܘ‬ in vs 37 ¦ ― 11,38 ‫ܗܘ‬ ] > ‫ ܗܘ‬Lec * In1 p2.6*.10c IIp2* 12,1 ] sy Lec Ip6.11 IIx2 p1 IIIn2.9r x1 11,34

9,9 ̈ ‫ܘܕ‬ 9,10 ‫ ]ܐ‬+ ‫ ܐܢ‬Lec ¦ ―

(4) Heb 10,15‒25 (17v) 10,16 ‫ܪ‬

] Lec id. (EST ‫ܪ‬

)

(45) Heb 11,1‒10 (125v‒126r) 11,3

‫]ܐ‬

11,6

‫ ܗ‬Lec ¦ ― ‫] ܐ‬ ‫ܕ‬

(49) Heb 12,3‒13 (132v‒133r) 12,5 ̇ ‫ ܐ ̣ ܢ ]ܐ‬Lec * EST 12,6 ̇ ] ̇ ‫ ]ܘ‬Lec ¦ ― 12,6 ̇ ‫ ]ܕܪ‬+ Lec EST ̇ Lec ¦ ― 12,10 ‫ܘܗ ܢ ] ̇ܗ ܢ‬ 12,11 ‫ ܕ ܘܬ ]ܕܕ ܘܬ‬Lec Ip1 IIIn1.2.8

‫ ܐ‬Lec ¦ ―

̇ + ‫ ܘܢ‬Lec ¦ ― ‫]ܗܘ‬ 11,7 ̇ ‫ ܘ ̇ ]ܕ‬Lec ¦ ― 11,8 ‫ > ]ܕ ܩ‬by err Lec 11,9 ‫]ܕܐܬ‬ ‫ ܕܐ‬Lec ¦ ― 11,6

Ms BL Add. 14,491 (IIq5) 9th/10th cent. WRIGHT, Catalogue1 (1870), 179–181

The Pericopes (1) Rom 3,31–4,12

(10) Tit 2,11–3,7 + 1Tm 1,17

(18) Heb 1,1–2,4

(2) Rom 4,13–25

(11) Eph 3,1–21

(19) 1Th 2,13–16

(3) Heb 6,13–7,10

(12) Eph 1,3–14

+ 2Tm 3,5–9

(4) Heb 7,11–28

(13) 2Co 10,1–7 + 11,21–33

+4,14–18

(5) Rom 1,1–5

(14) Col 2,8–15 + 3,1–4

(20) Heb 2,5–18

(6) Gal 3,15–4,7

(15) 1Co 4,9–13

(21) 2Co 2,15–17 + 4,1–6

+ Eph 3,20–21 (7) Gal 4,18–5,1

+ 2Co 1,8–13

(22) Heb 6,1–8

+ Phm 23–25

(23) 1Co 2,13–3,15

(8) Rom 16,1–16 + 25–28

(16) 1Th 3,5–13

(24) Php 3,1–14

(9) Rom 15,1–13

(17) 1Co 1,10–17+ 16,15–24

(25) Rom 8,28–9,5

cxxxvi

Appendix 2

(26) Rom 15,14–32

(63) Heb 10,19–11,1

(27) 1Co 15,34–57

+ 1Tm 1,17

(92) Php 3,1–14 (93) 1Co 11,3–16

(28) Eph 4,17–5,4 + 15–22

(64) Eph 1,15–2,6

(94) 2Th 2,15–3,18

(29) Rom 1,1–26

(65) Eph 2,4–22

(95) Eph 5,22–6,9

(30) Rom 1,26–2,6

(66) Php 2,1–11

(96) Rom 11,25–36

(31) Rom 2,7–27

(67) Col 1,3–20

(97) 2Co 12,14–13,14

(32) Rom 2,28–3,8

(68) Eph 4,1–16

(98) Heb 8,1–6 + 9,1–8

(33) Rom 3,9–27

+ 1Tm 3,16

+11–12

(34) Rom 3,27–4,12

+ Heb 12,2

(99) Heb 12,14–29

(35) Rom 4,13–25

(69) Heb 4,14–5,10

(36) Rom 5,1–11

(70) 1Co 12,1–11

(37) Rom 7,1–13

+ 2Co 13,11–13

(100) 1Co 3,1–17 + 16,13 +19–23 (101) 1Co 12,28–13,13

(71) 1Co 3,9–17 + 16,13 +19–24

(102) 1Co 14,1–12

(40) Rom 8,12–27

(72) 2Th 1,3–12

(104) Eph 3,1–21

(41) Rom 9,6–29

(73) 2Co 3,4–18 (74) Gal 1,6–10 + 13–14 +20–2,8

(105) Php 1,12–25

(38) Rom 7,14–25 ( (39) Rom 7,25 (

)

‫–)ܗ‬8,11

(42) Rom 10,1–17 (43) Rom 10,17–11,12

+ Eph 3,20–21

(44) Rom 12,1–21

(103) Rom 1,16–17+3,22–26

+ 2Tm 4,16–18 (106) 2Co 4,16–5,10 (107) 1Co 3,1–15

(75) 1Tm 1,3–17

(108) 2Co 5,1–10

(76) 1Co 8,1–12

(109) 1Th 4,13–5,11

(47) Rom 13,11–14,9

(77) 1Th 4,1–12 +5,12–28

(110) 1Co 15,10–28

(48) Rom 11,13–24

(78) 2Co 1,3–14

(111) Eph 5,8–21

(49) Heb 1,1–2,4

(112) Col 1,21–2,7

(50) Heb 2,5–18

(79) 1Co 15,1–11 + 16,13 +19–24

(113) Col 2,16–3,4

(51) Heb 9,11–28

(80) Rom 15,1–13

(114) 2Tm 1,6–13

(52) 1Co 5,7–8 + 10,15–18

(81) 1Co 5,9–6,11

(115) 2Tm 2,16–21

(82) 1Co 4,17–5,5 + 6,12–20

(116) 2Tm 3,16–4,8

(53) Gal 2,17–3,14 + 6,11–18

(83) 1Co 10,23–11,2

(54) 1Co 1,18–31

(84) 2Co 9,1–15

(55) 1Co 10,1–13

(85) 1Co 10,14–22

(117) Heb 11,8–27 (118) 1Tm 4,7–16 + 5,3–5 +9–10

(45) Rom 13,1–10 (46) Rom 14,10 (

)–23

+11,23–34

(56) 1Co 15,20–28 (57) Rom 5,12–6,11 + Heb 13,20–21

+ 2Co 6,11–18 (86) Gal 5,16–26 + Rom 15:33

(119) Eph 6,10–18 + 23–24 (120) 1Co 4,14–5,7 ( +9–12

)

(58) Rom 6,12–23

(87) 2Co 1,12–2,11

(121) 2Th 2,1–14

(59) Eph 6,10–18 + 23–24

(88) 2Co 10,3–18

(122) Heb 2,14

(60) Heb 3,1–13

(89) Gal 2,17-3,14 + 6,11–18

(123) Heb 12,29

(61) Php 2,12–18+ 4,4–7

(90) 1Co 9,13–27

(124) 1Tm 2,1–15 + 6,17–21

(62) Heb 11,3–6 + 32–12,2

(91) Col 1,3–20

(125) Gal 6,1–10

Lectionaries (126) 1Tm 3,1–13

(128) Phm 4–25

(127) Tit 1,5–9 + 2,1–2

(129) Heb 12,1–13

cxxxvii (130) 1Co 15,58–16,8

The items 14. 16. 21. 24. 58. 61. 64. 66. 72. 78. 92. 117. 126 conclude with Gal 1,5 (= 2Tm 4,18 = Heb 13,21). ― Item 62 concludes with Rom 1,25 (= 9,5 = 11,36).

The Variants (5) Rom 1,1–5 (6rv) 1,4 ‫ܢ‬

...

‫ > ]ܕ‬Lec* ¦ ―

(29) Rom 1,1–26 (31v‒33r)

1,13 ‫ܢ‬ 1,23

‫ ]ܐ ̈ ܕܬܕ‬tr Lec EST ‫ ]ܘܕܪ‬sy Lec IIn1.2.4.710.11.12.13 IIIn8.9r.11

x1

(2) Rom 4,13–25 (2v‒3v)

‫ܬ‬ ‫ܬ ]ܕ‬ ‫ ܘ‬Lec rest ¦ ― 4,16 ‫ ܕ ܘ ]ܘ ܘ‬Lec EST 4,25 ‫]ܕܗܘ‬ ̣ ‫ ̣ܗܘ‬Lec rest ¦ ―

4,16

(35) Rom 4,13–25 (38v‒39v) 4,16

(103) Rom 1,16–17 (112v) no variant in Lec

‫ ܕ ܘ ]ܘ ܘ‬Lec EST (36) Rom 5,1–11 (39v‒40r)

no variant in Lec

(30) Rom 1,26–2,6 (33v‒34v)

‫ ]ܐ‬+ Lec ¦ ― 2,1 ‫ ܘܐܦ ]ܐܦ‬Lec EST 1,26

(57) Rom 5,12–6,11 (61rv) 6,4 ‫ܢ‬

‫ ]ܐܬ‬+

Lec EST

(58) Rom 6,12–23 (62v‒63v) (31) Rom 2,7–27 (34v‒36r) 2,17

] > Lec* ¦ ―

6,13 ‫ ܘܐܦ ]ܐܦ‬Lec EST 6,19

(32) Rom 2,28–3,8 (36rv) 3,2

‫]ܕܐܬܗ‬

‫ ܕܐܬܗ‬Lec EST

‫ ]ܐ‬no sy by err Lec

(34) Rom 3,27–4,12 (37v‒38v) no variant in Lec

(1) Rom 3,31–4,12 (1v‒2v) no variant in Lec

̈

, no variant

(38) Rom 7,14–25 (41rv) 7,19

(103) Rom 3,22–26 (112v) no variant in Lec

‫ ܘܐ‬Lec ¦ ―

(37) Rom 7,1–13 (40r‒41r) Lec starts with

(33) Rom 3,9–27 (36v‒37v) 3,9

‫]ܕܐ‬

̇ ] + ‫ ̣ܗܘ‬Lec EST (39) Rom 7,25–8,11 (41v‒42v)

Lec starts with

‫ܗ‬, no variant

(40) Rom 8,12–27 (42v‒43v)

] Lec IIx1* IIIm6 8,23 ‫ܪ‬ ‫ܪ ]ܘ‬ Lec EST 8,26 ‫ ܘܗ ]ܗ‬Lec ¦ ― 8,27 ‫ ̇ܗܘ ] ̣ܗܘ‬Lec ¦ ― 8,13

cxxxviii

Appendix 2

(25) Rom 8,28–9,5 (26r‒27r) 8,36 8,39 8,39 9,5

(45) Rom 13,1–10 (48v‒49v)

‫]ܐܬ‬ ‫ ܘܐܬ‬Lec EST ‫ ܘܐ ]ܐ‬Lec EST ‫]ܬ‬ ‫ ܕܬ‬Lec EST ‫]ܕ‬ Lec EST

] sy Lec EST

13,1

] sy Lec EST ]‫ܗ‬ Lec EST 13,9 ‫ ܐܦ ]ܘܐܦ‬Lec EST 13,9 ‫ܠ‬ ‫ ]ܕ ܬ ܪ ܘ ܬ‬tr Lec EST

13,4

13,8 ‫ܗ‬

(41) Rom 9,6–29 (43v‒45r) 9,7 9,19 9,26

‫]ܐ‬

‫ ܘܐ‬Lec EST ‫]ܕ‬ ‫ ܕ‬Lec EST ‫ܕ‬ Lec EST

(47) Rom 13,11–14,9 (50v‒51r)

‫ ܨ ̇ ܐ ܕ ܕܬܕ ܢ ܐ ̈ ]ܐܦ ܗܕ ܕ‬Lec (cf

13,11

Rom 1,13 11,25 1Co 11,3 13,12

(42) Rom 10,1–17 (45r‒46r)

10,1 ̈ ‫ > ]ܐ‬Lec ¦ ― 10,3 ] ‫ ܕ‬Lec EST 10,3 ‫ܗ‬ ‫ܗ ]ܘ‬ Lec Ip7 ܰ 10,12 ‫ ܶܫ ] ܼ ܫ‬Lec Ip7vid.8 IIn6.10.11 m/ m1.2.3.4

IIIn8.10.11

14,2 ‫ܗܘ‬ 14,8 1‫ܢ‬

‫ ~ ] ܗ‬Lec EST ] > ‫ ܗܘ‬Lec EST ] + ‫ ܗܘ‬Lec EST

] 14,8 ‫ܢ ]ܕ ܢ‬

Lec ¦ ―

14,8

m5.6

Lec ¦ ―

(46) Rom 14,10‒23 (49v‒50r) Lec starts with

(43) Rom 10,17–11,12 (46r‒47r) 10,19

‫ܕ‬ IIn3.11

‫ܘ ]ܕ ܘ‬ 11,12 ‫ܘܢ‬ 11,9

]

‫ܕ‬

x1.3

IIIn4.7.8.11

Lec EST

]+ ̈

̈ ] sg Lec EST

14,20

Lec Ip4.6.10 x1

‫̈ ܕ‬

(9) Rom 15,1–13 (10rv)

15,1 ̈

‫( ܐ‬from

] no sy by err Lec ¦ ― ‫ > ]ܐ ܕ‬Lec ¦ ―

15,2

vs 15) Lec ¦ ―

(80) Rom 15,1–13 (86v‒87r) (48) Rom 11,13–24 (51v‒52r)

no variant in Lec

11,16 1‫ ܐܢ ]ܘܐܢ‬Lec EST

‫]ܗ ܐܬ‬ ‫ܐܬ‬ ̇ 11,24 ‫ ̣ܗ ܢ ]ܗ ܢ‬Lec EST 11,20

‫ ܗ‬Lec EST

(26) Rom 15,14–32 (27r‒28v)

‫ ܐ‬Lec EST ] > Lec ¦ ― 15,27 ‫ ܐ ܘܬܦ ]ܐ ܘܬ‬by err Lec ¦ ― 15,29 ‫]ܕ‬ Lec EST 15,30/31 ‫ ܕ ܘܕ‬... ‫ > ] ̇ ܐ‬Lec ¦ ― 15,20

‫]ܕܐ‬

15,23 ‫ܡ‬

(96) Rom 11,25–36 (104v‒105r) 11,25 11,32

] ‫ ܕ‬Lec EST ] id. Leccor, *? (44) Rom 12,1–21 (47r‒48v)

12,2 ‫ܢ‬

‫ܢ ]ܕ‬ ‫ ) !( ܕ‬Lec ¦ ― 12,2 ‫]ܨ‬ ‫ ܨ‬Lec EST 2 12,3 ‫ ܕܬܗܘܘܢ ]ܬܗܘܘܢ‬Lec EST

(8) Rom 16,1–16+25–28 (8v‒10r) 16,14 ‫ܢ‬

‫ܢ ]ܘܕ‬

‫ ) !( ܐ‬Lec ¦ ―

(17) 1Co 1,10–17 (18rv) 1,10 ‫ ܕܬܗܘܘܢ ]ܬܗܘܘܢ‬Lec EST

Lectionaries

‫ܣܐ‬ 1,14 ‫ܣ‬

‫ܣ ܐ ]ܐ ܕ‬ ]‫ܣ‬

1,12

IIn10

p1 m/m1.2.3

‫ ܕܐ ܕ‬Lec ¦ ― Lec

In2

p6.8

IIIn1.3.7.9.10.11

cxxxix

]

5,1

̣ ] ̇ 5,3 ̣ ] ̇

Lec In1 Lec EST

5,2

Lec EST

m5.6

(52) 1Co 5,7–8 (56r)

(54) 1Co 1,18–31 (59rv)

no variant in Lec

‫ ]ܘܐ‬no sy by err Lec ¦ ― ] + ‫ ܗܘ‬Lec EST

1,24 1,24

(120) 1Co 5,9–12 (126v‒127r)

(23) 1Co 2,13–3,15 (23v‒25r)

‫]ܐ‬

3,10

̈ ‫ܬ ܢ ]ܘܐ ܐ‬

‫ܐܬ‬

‫]ܐ‬

‫ܣ‬

‫ ܘܐ‬Lec

] ‫]ܕ‬

6,4

Ip1.11 IIn13

‫]ܐ‬

‫ ܐ‬Lec EST ]

3,14

Ip1.11 IIn13

(71) 1Co 3,9–17 (76r‒77r)

‫]ܐ‬

3,10

Ip1.11 IIn13

(120) 1Co 4,14–5,7 (125v‒126v) 4,17 ‫ܪܬ‬

] ‫ ܪܬ‬by err Lec ¦ ― 4,19 ‫ ̇ܕܗ ܢ ]ܕܗ‬Lec EST 5,1 ] Lec In1 5,2 ̣ ] ̇ Lec EST 5,3 ̣ ] no diacr Lec (82) 1Co 4,17–5,5 (88v‒89v) 4,19

‫ ̇ܕܗ ܢ ]ܕܗ‬Lec EST

‫ ܐ‬Lec ¦ ―

]+

Lec EST

(76) 1Co 8,1–12 (81r‒83r) 8,2 ‫ܡ‬

‫ ܕ ̣ ܥ ܡ ]ܕ ̇ ܥ‬Lec EST 8,6 ‫ ܐܦ ]ܘܐܦ‬Lec EST 8,7 ] + ‫ ܐ‬Lec EST (90) 1Co 9,13–27 (98r‒99v) 9,25

(15) 1Co 4,9–13 (16r‒17r)

] ‫ ܕ‬Lec EST ̈ 4,9 ‫̈ ]ܘ‬ Lec EST 4,11 ‫]ܘ‬ ‫ ܘ‬IIx3 IIIn2.6 x1 4,9

] ‫ܐ‬

(82) 1Co 6,12–20 (89rv)

‫ ܐ‬Lec EST ]

3,14

IIn11* IIIn8

6,18

(107) 1Co 3,1–15 (115v‒116v) 3,10

Lec EST

‫ܐ‬

6,11

‫ ܐ‬Lec EST ]

3,14

Lec EST

(81) 1Co 5,9–6,11 (87v‒88v)

(cf 1Co 2,1) 3,10

5,10

1

]

‫ ܐ‬Lec EST

(100) 1Co 3,1–17 (109r‒110v)

3,1

5,10

1

‫ܕ‬

‫]ܐ‬

‫ ܐ‬Lec EST

(55) 1Co 10,1–13 (59v‒60v)

‫ ܐ ]ܘܐ‬Lec EST 10,10 ‫ ܐ ]ܘܐ‬Lec EST 10,8

(85) 1Co 10,14–22 (91v‒92r) 10,17

‫ ]ܐ‬+

‫ ܗ‬Lec EST

(52) 1Co 10,15–18 (56rv) 10,17

‫ ]ܐ‬+

‫ ܗ‬Lec EST

(83) 1Co 10,23–11,2 (89v‒90v) 10,24

] + ‫ ܐܦ‬Lec EST

cxl

Appendix 2

(93) 1Co 11,3–16 (101v‒102r)

‫ ܐ ]ܘܐ‬Lec EST 11,12 ‫ܗܘ‬ ] > ‫ ܗܘ‬Lec EST 11,16 ‫ ܐ ]ܕܐ‬Lec EST 11,9

‫]ܕܐܬ‬ ‫ ܕܐܬ‬by err Lec ¦ ― 15,55 ‫ܗܝ‬ ‫ ܘܐ ܗܝ ]ܐܘ ܐ‬Lec EST 15,54

(130) 1Co 15,58–16,8 (131v)

‫ܕ‬ ‫ ]ܕ‬tr Lec EST 16,6 ‫ ܕܐ ܘܢ ]ܘܐ ܘܢ‬Lec EST 16,1

(52) 1Co 11,23–34 (56v‒57r)

‫]ܕܐ‬

11,25

‫ ܕܐ‬Lec EST (71) 1Co 16,13+19–24 (76v‒77r)

(70) 1Co 12,1–11 (75rv)

16,24 ‫ܥ‬

]+

‫ ܐ‬Lec EST

no variants in Lec

(79) 1Co 16,13+19–24 (86rv) (101) 1Co 12,28–13,13 (110v‒111v) 12,29 2 12,31

‫ ]ܘ‬Lec EST 13,11 ‫ܗܘ‬ ‫ܕ‬ ‫( > ]ܐ‬h. t. ) Lec* ̈ 13,12 ‫ ] ܬ‬no sy Lec EST 13,5

16,24 ‫ܥ‬

‫]ܕ‬ Lec* ¦ ― ̈ ‫ ܗ ̈ ] ܗ‬Lec* ¦ ―

3

]+

‫ ܐ‬Lec EST

(100) 1Co 16,13+19–24 (110rv) 16,24 ‫ܥ‬

]+

‫ ܐ‬Lec EST

(17) 1Co 16,15–24 (18v‒19r) 16,24 ‫ܥ‬

]+

‫ ܐ‬Lec EST

(102) 1Co 14,1–12 (111v‒112v) no variant in Lec

(79) 1Co 15,1–11 (85v‒86r) 15,9

(78) 2Co 1,3–14 (84v‒85v)

1,2 ̈ ܺ ‫ܐܘ‬/ ̈ ܰ ‫ ]ܐܘ‬no diacr Lec 1,7 1+2 ‫ ] ܬ‬no diacr Lec

] > Lec EST (15) 2Co 1,8–13 (16v‒17r) (110) 1Co 15,10–28 (118r‒119r)

] ‫ ܕ‬Lec EST 15,14 ‫ ܘܐܦ ]ܐܦ‬Lec EST 15,18 ‫ ܘܐ ]ܐܦ ܐ‬Lec ¦ ― ̈ 15,20 ] > by err Lec ¦ ―

no variant in Lec

15,12

15,27

(87) 2Co 1,12–2,11 (93v‒95r) 1,24 ‫ܢ‬

‫ ]ܕ ܘܬ‬sy Lec rest ¦ ― (21) 2Co 2,15–17 + 4,1–6 (22v)

] + ‫ ܗܝ‬Lec EST

‫ > ]ܐ‬Lec* ¦ ―

2,17

(56) 1Co 15,20–28 (60v‒61r) 15,27

] + ‫ ܗܝ‬Lec EST (27) 1Co 15,34–57 (28r‒30r)

‫ > ] ܬܬ ܢ ܗܘ ܐ ̇ ܐ‬by err Lec ¦ ― 15,39 ‫]ܕ‬ Lec EST 2 15,41 ‫ ]ܘܐ‬+ ‫ ܗܘ‬Lec EST 15,44 ‫ ܘ ܡ ] ܡ‬Lec Ip6s IIq1 IIIn2

(73) 2Co 3,4–18 (77v‒78v) 3,7

3,14 ‫̈ ܘܢ‬

15,34

] sy Lec ¦ ― ] ‫̈ ܘܢ‬ Lec EST (21) 2Co 4,1–6 (22v‒23r)

4,4

‫ܗܕ‬

‫]ܕ‬

‫ ܕ‬Lec EST

Lectionaries

(106) 2Co 4,16–5,10 (115rv) 4,18

] ‫ ܕ‬Lec EST

5,7

] by err twice Lec

cxli

‫ܗܘ‬ 1,21 ‫ܪ‬ 2,4 ‫ܘ‬

‫ܗܘܘ ]ܕܐ‬ ]‫ܪ‬ ‫ܘ ]ܕ‬

1,14

]

2,5

‫ ܕܐ‬Lec EST ‫ ܘ‬Lec EST ‫ ܕ‬Lec EST

Lec EST

(85) 2Co 6,11–18 (92rv) 6,16 2

‫]ܕ‬

Lec EST

(53) Gal 2,17–3,14 (57r‒58v)

‫ܕ‬/ ‫]ܕܐ‬ ‫ܕ‬/ ‫ ]ܐ‬+ ‫ ܗܘ‬Lec EST

2,20

(84) 2Co 9,1–15 (90v‒91v)

̈ ‫ܘ‬ ] no sy Lec IIIn10 9,3 ‫ܪܢ‬ ]‫ܪ‬ Lec EST ̈ ̈ 9,5 ‫ ܐ ]ܐ‬Lec EST 9,6 1 ‫ ] ܪ‬+ ‫ ܐܦ‬Lec EST 9,7 ] + ‫ ܗܘ‬Lec EST 9,8 ‫]ܕ‬ Lec EST

3,4 1

‫ ܕܐ‬Lec EST

9,2

(89) Gal 2,17–3,14 (96v‒97v) 2,20 3,4

/

‫]ܐ‬

/

‫ ܐ‬Lec EST

‫ ]ܐ‬+ ‫ ܗܘ‬Lec EST

1

(6) Gal 3,15–4,7 (6v‒7v) 3,27+28 > h.t. Lec ¦ ―

(13) 2Co 10,1–7 (13v‒14r)

]+‫ܥ‬

4,7

Lec EST

‫ ] ̣ܕܗܘ ܕ‬+ ‫ ܗܘ‬Lec EST

10,7

(7) Gal 4,18–5,1 (8rv) 10,4

(88) 2Co 10,3–18 (95r‒96v)

4,20

‫]ܕ‬

4,21 ‫ܘ‬

Lec ¦ ―

‫ ] ̣ܕܗܘ ܕ‬+ ‫ ܗܘ‬Lec EST ‫ܢ ]ܕ‬ ‫ ܕ‬Lec EST

10,7 10,8

(13) 2Co 11,21–33 (14r‒15r)

‫]ܕ‬

Lec EST

‫ ܐ ]ܐ‬by err Lec ] ‫ ܡ‬by err Lec

5,1

5,17

̈

6,3

‫ܐ‬

(86) Gal 5,16–26 (92v‒93v)

] no sy Lec EST

no variant in Lec

(125) Gal 6,1–10 (128r) (97) 2Co 12,14–13,14 (105r‒106v)

] ‫ ܡ‬Lec EST 12,18 ‫ ]ܪܘ‬id. Leccor (*?) ̇ ] ‫ܐ ܕܐܬ‬ 13,1 ‫ܕܐܬ ܐ‬ ‫ ܕ‬Lec EST 13,2 ‫ܢ ] ܬ ܢ‬ Lec ¦ ― 13,2 ‫ ]ܘܐܦ ܗ‬Lec id. (EST ‫) ܐܦ ܗ‬ 13,4 ‫ ܐܦ ]ܘܐܦ‬Lec EST 13,5 ̈ ‫ـ‬ ] id. Leccor, *? 13,9 ‫ܐܦ‬ ] ‫ ܕ ܘܐܦ‬Lec EST

] tr Lec EST

12,18 ‫ܡ‬

(53) Gal 6,11–18 (58v‒59r)

‫ ]ܐ‬+ ‫ ܐܢ‬Lec EST 6,17 ‫ ] ܥ‬+ Lec EST 6,14

(89) Gal 6,11–18 (97v‒98r)

‫ ]ܐ‬+ ‫ ܐܢ‬Lec EST 6,17 ‫ ] ܥ‬+ Lec EST 6,14

(12) Eph 1,3–14 (13rv)

(74) Gal 1,6–10+13–14+20–2,8 (78v-80r) 1,10

1,14 ̈

‫]ܕ‬ ̈ ]

Lec EST

̈ Lec EST

1,8

] + ‫ ܕܪܘܚ‬Lec EST

cxlii

Appendix 2

(64) Eph 1,15–2,6 (69r‒70r 1,15 ‫ > ]ܐܦ‬Lec ¦ ― 1,15 ‫ܬ‬

‫ ]ܕ‬+ ‫ܘܢ‬

Lec EST

(105) Php 1,12–25 (114rv)

̇ ] ‫ ̣ܐܬ‬Lec EST 1,12 ‫ܐܬ‬ 1,19 ̈ ] + ‫ ܗܘ‬Lec EST 1,19 ‫ܥ ]ܕ ܥ‬ ‫ ܕ‬Lec cor ¦ ―

(65) Eph 2,4–22 (70r‒71r) 2,19

‫ ]ܕܘ‬no sy Lec EST ] sy Lec

3,13

]‫ܢ‬

2,12

(66) Php 2,1–11 (71r‒72r) 2,6

‫ܕ ]ܗܕ‬

(11) Eph 3,1–21 (11v–13r) Lec rest ¦ ―

(61) Php 2,12–18 (65v‒66r) 2,18 ‫ ]ܐܦ‬Lec id. (EST ‫) ܘܐܦ‬

(104) Eph 3,1–21 (112v‒114r) 3,16 ‫ܪܪܘܢ‬

‫ܪܘܢ ]ܬ‬

‫ ) !( ܬ‬Lec ¦ ―

(24) Php 3,1–14 (25r‒26r) Lec starts

(68) Eph 4,1–16 (73r‒74r) 4,14 ‫]ܪܘܚ‬

‫ ܪܘ‬Lec rest ¦ ―

] ‫]ܕ‬ ]

4,19 4,30

‫ ܘ‬Lec IIIn9 ‫ ܕ‬by err Lec

(111) Eph 5,8–21 (119rv) no variant in Lec

(67) Col 1,3–20 (72r‒73r)

‫ ܪ ̇ ]ܪ‬Lec EST 5,29 ‫]ܕ‬ ‫ ܕܐܦ‬Lec EST 6,8 ‫ܥ‬ ‫ܥ ] ̣ܗܘ‬ ‫ ̇ܗܘ ̣ܗܘ‬Lec EST 6,8 ‫ܗܘ‬ ] > ‫ ܗܘ‬Lec EST 5,23

(59) Eph 6,10–18+23–24 (63v‒64v) no variant in Lec

(119) Eph 6,10–18+23–24 (125rv) no variant in Lec

̈ ] no sy by err Lec

1,16

(91) Col 1,3–20 (99v‒100v) no variant in Lec

(112) Col 1,21–2,7 (119v‒120v) 1,22 ‫ܬܗ‬

‫ ܘܕ ܬܗ ]ܘ‬Lec ¦ ― ̈ Lec ¦ ― ‫ܕܐܘ ]ܕܐܘ‬ ̈ ̈ 2,2 ‫ܬܗܘܢ‬ ]‫ܬ ܢ‬ Lec Ip4.8* IIp1

1,24‫̈ ܗܝ‬

(14) Col 2,8–15 (15rv)

(95) Eph 5,22–6,9 (103v‒104v) 1

‫ ̣ܗ‬, no variant

(61) Php 4,4–7 (65v‒66r)

Lec EST

4,30 ] Lec id. (EST ̇ ) 4,32 ]‫ܥ‬ Lec cor ¦ ― ̈ ̈ 5,16 ] (! ) Lec ¦ ―

‫̣ܗ‬

no variant in Lec

(28) Eph 4,17–5,4+15–22 (30r‒31v) 4,18

Lec EST

no variant in Lec

(113) Col 2,16–3,4 (120v‒121r) 3,1 ‫ܒ‬

̇ ] ‫ ̣ ܒ‬Lec EST

3,1 ‫ܒ‬

̇ ] ‫ ̣ ܒ‬Lec EST

(14) Col 3,1–4 (15v‒16r)

(19) 1Th 2,13–16 (20rv) no variant in Lec

Lectionaries

cxliii

(16) 1Th 3,5–13 (17rv)

‫]ܐܦ ܐ‬

3,5 3,5 ‫ܢ‬ 3,12 ‫ܪ‬

‫ܣ‬

(75) 1Tm 1,3–17 (80r‒81r)

‫ ܐ‬Lec

] Lec id. (EST ‫ܢ‬ ) ‫ܪ ]ܘ‬ ‫ ܘ‬Lec In1 x1c p1 IIx3* m2.4 IIIn6

m5mg.6

ܿ ܼ ‫ ]ܘ‬Lec rest id. (EST ̣ ‫) ܘ‬

3,13

(77) 1Th 4,1–12 (83rv)

̈ ‫ ܐ ̈ ]ܐ‬Lec EST 4,1 ‫]ܐ‬ ‫ ܐ‬Lec EST 4,1

‫]ܕ‬ ‫ ܕ‬Lec EST ̈ 5,3 ] no sy Lec EST 5,11 ‫ܘܢ‬ ‫ > ]ܐ ܕܐܦ‬Lec

4,15

(77) 1Th 5,12–28 (83v‒84r)

] ‫ ) !( ̈ ܗܘܢ‬by err Lecrest

(72) 2Th 1,3–12 (77rv)

] 3-1-2 Lec EST ‫ܐ ܘܢ ]ܕ‬ ‫ ܕ‬by err Lec

1,3

‫ܐ ܘܢ‬ 1,7 ‫ ] ܥ‬+ 1,8 ‫̇ܗ ܢ ܕ‬ ‫ܘ‬ 1,4

2,1

̈‫ܢܐ‬

Lec EST

] > h. t. Lec

(121) 2Th 2,1–14 (127rv)

‫ܕ‬

(124) 1Tm 2,1–15 (127v‒128v)

‫ܐ‬

2,1 2,8

] ̈ ‫ܨ ̇ ܐ ܕ ܕܬܕ ܢ ܐ‬

Lec (cf Rom 1,13 11,25 1Co 11,3)

] ‫ ܬܝ‬Lec ¦ ― 2,4 ‫]ܕ‬ ‫ ܕܕ‬Lec EST ̈ ̈ 2,13 ‫ ܐ ]ܐ‬Lec EST (94) 2Th 2,15–3,18 (102v‒103v)

̈ ‫ ܐ ̈ ]ܐ‬Lec EST 3,5 ‫ܬܗ‬ ‫ܬܗ ]ܘ‬ ‫ ܘ‬Lec EST ̈ ] ̈ Lec EST 3,6 3,6 ‫]ܕ‬ ‫ ܕ‬Lec EST 3,17 ‫ܣ‬ ]+‫ܣ‬ by err Lec ̈ 3,18 ‫ܢ‬ ] + ‫ ܐ‬Lec EST

Lec ¦ ―

(126) 1Tm 3,1–13 (129r‒130r) 3,1 ‫ܗܝ‬

] ‫ܝ‬

‫ܐ‬ ‫ܐܘܣ‬

(cf 1Tm 1,18 )

Lec ¦ ―

̈ ] no sy Lec EST 3,8 ‫ ܘܐܦ ]ܐܦ‬Lec EST 3,13 ] sy Lec Ip5 IIIn9 3,1

̈

(118) 1Tm 4,7–16 + 5,3–5+9–10 (124r‒125r) 4,7 ‫ܕܪܫ ]ܘܕܪܫ‬ 4,9 4,10 4,10 4,12 5,9 5,10

‫ܐܘܣ‬ ‫ ܝ‬Lec ¦ ― ‫ ]ܘ‬+ ‫ ܗܝ‬Lecrest EST ] + Lecrest ¦ ― ‫ ܘ ܐ ] ܐ‬Lecrest IIIn4 ‫]ܘ ܘ‬ ‫ ܘ‬Lecrest ¦ ― ‫ ]ܐܪ‬sy Lec ¦ ― ]+ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܬ‬ Lec ¦ ― (124) 1Tm 6,17–21 (128v)

6,18 ‫ܠ‬

]‫ܒ‬ (! ) Lec ¦ ― 6,20 ‫ ܘ ܘ ]ܘ ܘܩ‬by err Lec

2,2 ‫ܬܢ‬

3,1

̇ ] ‫ܐܘܣ ̇ ܐ‬ ‫ܝ‬ ] no sy Lec ¦ ― ̈

‫ܗܝ‬

(109) 1Th 4,13–5,11 (117r‒118r)

5,13 ‫ܗܘܢ‬

no variant in Lec

(114) 2Tm 1,6–13 (121r‒122r)

‫ܗ‬ 1,12 ‫ܗܕ‬

] ‫ܗ‬ ] ‫ܗ‬

1,6

‫ܐܘܣ‬

‫ܝ‬

Lec EST

(115) 2Tm 2,16‒21 (122rv) 2,16 2,16 ‫ܢ‬

‫]ܘ‬ ‫] ̇ܗ‬

Lec EST

‫ ܗ‬Lec EST

(19) 2Tm 3,5–9 (20v‒21r)

‫ܐ‬ ‫ ̇ܗ ܢ ]ܗ‬Lec EST ] ̈ Lec EST

Lec starts 3,6 3,7

Lec

cxliv

Appendix 2

(116) 2Tm 3,16–4,8 (122v‒123r) 3,16 ‫ܒ‬ 3,17

]‫ܒ‬ ...

‫ܐܘܣ‬ ‫ܝ‬ ‫ ܘ‬...

‫]ܘ‬

(49) Heb 1,1–2,4 (52r‒53v) Lec Lec

1,14

‫ ]ܪܘ‬sy Lec EST

EST

(20) Heb 2,5–18 (21v‒22v)

4,1 ̈ ‫ ̈ ܘ ̈ ] ̈ ܘ‬Lec EST 4,3 ‫ ] ̈ ܬ‬no sy Lec EST

‫ܬܗ‬

2,9

(105) 2Tm 4,16–18 (114v‒115r)

‫ܘ‬

] ‫ܘܚ‬

p4.9.10

IIn3.5

] ̈

2,16

In2

‫) ܘܐܬ‬

‫ܘ‬

2,17

] ‫ܘܚ‬

Lec In2 p4.9.10 IIn3.5 x2* p1 n13 IIIn2.4.9 p1v

‫ ]ܕܐܬ‬Lec id. (EST

4,17

‫) ܘܐܬ‬

2,7 2,9

3,7

̈

(10) Tit 2,11–3,7 (11v‒12v)

] ̈ ‫ ܕ‬Lec EST

(128) Phm 4–25 (129v‒130v)

]‫ܢ‬ Lec IIIn6 10 ‫ ̇ ܐ ]ܘ ̇ ܐ‬Lecrest ¦ ― 25 ‫ ]ܪܘ ܢ‬+ ̈ ‫ ܐ‬Leccor EST 4

(15) Phm 23–25 (17r)

25 ‫ܢ‬

2,12 2,16

̣ 2,17

‫ܗ‬

‫ ] ܬ‬sy Lec ‫ ]ܪܘ‬sy Lec EST 2,3 ‫ ܐ ܪܪ ]ܐ ܪܪܘ‬Lec Ip11

Lec EST

‫ ܕܐܬ]ܕ[ ܬ ܝ ]ܕ ܕܬ‬Lec IIn9 x1* p2 m5 ‫]ܬ‬ ‫ ܘܬ‬Lec ¦ ― ‫ܬܗ‬ ] Lec* + ] ̈ Lec EST ‫]ܐ‬ ‫ ܕܐ‬Ip2c.4.9.11 IIn6.9 p2 III1.8*.11 ‫ܗܘ‬ ‫ ܕܐ ܗܡ‬... ̈ ] ̈ ‫ܙܪ ܕܐ ܗܡ‬ ‫ ̣ ܐ‬Lec EST ‫ܗ‬ ] Lec id. (EST ‫ܗܕ‬ ) (60) Heb 3,1–13 (64v‒65r)

3,7 3,11 3,11 3,13

‫ ܘܐ ܘܗܝ ]ܕܐ‬Lec EST ‫]ܕ‬ ‫ ܕ‬Lec EST ‫ ܐ ]ܘܐ‬Lec EST ] ‫ ܕ‬Lec EST ‫ ܘ ]ܕ‬Lec ¦ ― (69) Heb 4,14–5,10 (74r‒75r)

5,5 ‫ܝ‬

1,2

] ‫ܗܕ‬

3,6 ‫ܘܗܝ‬

‫ ]ܪܘ‬+ ̈ ‫ ܐ‬Lec EST

(18) Heb 1,1–2,4 (19r‒20r)

̈

many codd, see apparatus of the edition

2,10

‫ܬ‬

̣

(50) Heb 2,5–18 (53v‒54v) 2,6 ‫ܝ‬

(127) Tit 1,5–9 + 2,1–2 (129rv) 1,5 ‫ > ]ܗܘ‬Lec EST 2,2 ‫ܬ‬ ‫ ]ܘ‬+ ‫ܢ ܐ‬ (cf 3,15) Lec ¦ ―

]

Lec EST

(19) 2Tm 4,14–18 (21rv) 4,16

Lec EST

‫ ܕܐ ܗܡ‬... ̈ ‫ܐ‬ ̣ ‫ܙܪ ܕܐ ܗܡ‬

‫ܗܘ‬

Lec x2* p1 n13 IIIn2.4.9 p1v

‫ ]ܕܐܬ‬Lec id. (EST

4,17

Lec*

+ many codd, see apparatus of the edition 2,10

4,16

]

5,6

‫ ܝ ]ܕ‬Lec EST ‫ ܐ ]ܕܐ‬Lec Ix1 p7.10 IIn2 n5.6.7.10.13 x2

IIIn1.4.6.7

Ip5

1,14

(22) Heb 6,1–8 (23rv) 6,1 6,8

‫]ܕ‬ ‫ ܕ‬Lec ¦ ― ‫ ]ܘܕܪܕ‬no sy Lec In1 IIp1

Lectionaries

cxlv

(3) Heb 6,13–7,10 (3v‒4v) 6,17

‫ܬ‬

] no sy Lec ‫ܕ‬ ] ‫ܘ‬

IIIn11

7,4

(62) Heb 11,3–6 (66rv)

‫ܐ ] ܐ‬

11,6

Lec EST

Lec EST

(117) Heb 11,8–27 (123r‒124r)

̇ ] by err Lecrest ¦ ― 11,17 ‫ ̇ܗܘ ] ̇ ܘ‬Lecrest EST 11,18 ] ̇ by err Lecrest ¦ ― 11,26 ‫ܪ ܗܘ‬ ‫ ܕ ܪ ܗܘ ]ܕ‬Lec ¦ ― 11,15

(4) Heb 7,11–28 (4v‒6r)

‫ > ]ܘܕ‬Lec* ¦ ― ‫]ܪܒ‬ Lec EST

7,26 7,27

(98) Heb 8,1–6 (106v‒107r)

̈

‫ ]ܘ‬Lec id. (EST 8,6 ‫̱ ]ܐܦ‬Lec id. (EST ‫) ܘܐܦ‬

8,5

‫)ܘ‬

(62) Heb 11,32–12,2 (66v‒67v)

] sy Lec EST ] no sy Lec Ip1.7

11,34

11,36 ̈

(98) Heb 9,1–8+11–12 (107rv‒108r) no variant in Lec

(129) Heb 12,1–13 (130v‒131r)

(51) Heb 9,11–28 (54v‒56r) 9,17 9,20 ‫ܗܘ‬

] + ‫ ܗܘ‬Lec EST ‫ ܕܗ ܗܘ ]ܗ‬Ix1 IIn1.2.4.5.6.7.10.13 IIIn1.4.5.6.7.8.10

x1

9,24 ̇ ] Lec EST 9,27 ‫ܪ‬ ‫ ܘ ܪ ]ܘ‬Lec ¦ ―

(63) Heb 10,19–11,1 (67v‒69r)

‫ ] ܪ‬sy Lecrest Ip1 IIIn2 10,25 ‫ ܕ ̇ ܒ ]ܕ ̣ ܒ‬Lecrest EST 10,28 ̇ ‫ ܕ ̣ ]ܕ‬Lecrest EST 10,29 ̇ ‫ ܕ ]ܕ‬Lecrest EST 10,30 ] ‫ ܘ‬Lecrest ¦ ― 10,34 ‫ ]ܘ‬sy Lec ¦ ― 10,34 ‫ > ]ܗܘ‬Lec EST 10,24

] ̇

Lec In1 p2.9.10.11 IIn1.6.9 p1.2 IIIn6 p1

12,2

̇ ‫ ܐ ̣ ]ܐ‬Lec In2 p4.6 IIn2 p1.2 m IIIn8 12,6 ‫ ]ܕܪ‬+ Lecrest EST ] Lecrest ¦ ― 12,6 ̈ 12,7 ‫ܘ‬ ] by err Lecrest ¦ ― 12,9 ] ‫ܗܘ‬ (! ) Lecrest ¦ ― 12,11 ‫ܬ ]ܘܕܙܕ ܬ‬ ‫ ܘܕ‬Lecrest ¦ ― 12,13 ‫ ] ܐ‬+ Heb 13,25 Lec 12,5

(99) Heb 12,14–29 (108r‒109r) 12,15

1

‫]ܕ‬

‫ ܕܕ‬Lec Ip2c.5.9.10c IIn6 p1.2

IIIn6.7

12,22 12,19 ‫ܗܝ‬

p1

‫]ܕ‬

‫ ) !( ܕ‬Lec ¦ ― ‫ܗܝ ]ܕ‬

Lec* IIp2*

(57) Heb 13,20–21 (62v) no vriant in Lec

3. C OL L A T I O N O F S I X ‘M A S O R E T I C ’ M A N U S C R I P T S Besides the lectionaries, the ‘Syriac Masora’ is one more literary genre that compiles the Peshiṭta text in a specific way. Since this ‘Masora’ exists in an Eastern and a Western version, it not only reflects the bifurcation of textual traditions but also gives proof of their respective Eastern and Western qualification. What scholars call the ‘Syriac Masora’ is a compilation of biblical and patristic sample texts (and additional treatises on grammar), intended as a guide to correct reading and how to represent pronunciation in writing. For this purpose, the biblical and patristic parts are fully vocalized and furnished with rukkākhā and quššāyā. In the ‘masoretic’ manuscripts, extensive vocalized parts are met for the first time. The oldest of these manuscripts dates from 899 AD. In the history of research, 1 scholars aligned this compilation with the Hebrew Masora, since ‘correctness’ of text and pronunciation seemed to be the tertium comparationis. However, this alignment is misleading. While the Hebrew Masora is transmitted as an essential part of the ‘Masoretic’ text itself, the ‘Syriac Masora’ is as an independent compilation of selected biblical (and patristic) texts. More important, the focus of the ‘Syriac Masora’ is on language, not on text. This is evident by the reduction to sample texts, the purpose of which is to disambiguate ‘difficult’ words and expressions, and to illustrate the rules of reading and pronouncing. Considerable emphasis is put on the vocalization of homographs and on the spelling of Greek loan words and proper names, which are artificially transcribed by the help of matres lectionis. In addition, the linguistic focus is evident by the ‘double’ vocalization, applying the Eastern (‘dotted’) and the Western (‘Greek’) vocalization, respectively, side by side with the ancient ‘vocalization’ by diacritical points. This ‘double’ vocalization provides an explicit reinterpretation of the ancient system of diacritical points. Despite the misleading alignment with the Hebrew Masora, the term ‘Syriac Masora’ will remain in use for practical reasons, though with quotation marks only. The Syriac inscription of the compilation offers no convenient substitute: Booklet of words and readings (šmāhē wa-qrāyāthā) of the OT and NT ( ‫ܘܕ ܬ‬ ‫ܕ‬ ‫̈ ܘ‬ ‫ܕ‬ ‫) ܪ‬. Recent research started correcting the ‘masoretic’ perspective by assigning the descriptive term šmāhē MSS to the textual witnesses.2

1 The ‘masoretic’ character of the texts was realized first by J. P. P. MARTIN, ‘Tradition karkaphienne, ou la Massore chez les Syriens’ — Journal asiatique 14 (6e série) 1868, 245–379; IDEM, ‘Histoire de la ponctuation ou de la Massore chez les Syriens’ — Journal asiatique 5 (7e série) 1875, 81–208. Short summaries in WRIGHT, A Short History (1894) 20–24; DUVAL, La littérature syriaque ( 31907) 55–61; BAUMSTARK, Geschichte der syrischen Literatur (1922) 269–260. A detailed survey: GWILLIAM, The Materials for the Criticism (1891), esp. 56–65. Recent research: BROVENDER, The Syriac Shemahe Mss (1976); JUCKEL, The “Syriac Masora” (2006); IDEM, Masora, in GEDSH 276−79; LOOPSTRA, Patristic Selections (2009); IDEM, Le Nouveau Testament (2017); IDEM, The Patristic “Masora” (2020). 2 Already BROVENDER The Syriac Shemahe Mss (1976); LOOPSTRA Patristic Selections (2009) 14.

‘Masoretic’ Manuscripts

cxlvii

Transmission and date The šmāhē compilation is transmitted in a double version: in one single Eastern (Ms BL Add. 12,138, dated April 1210 AG/899 AD),3 the ecclesiastical affiliation of which is given in the colophon; and there are 13 Western šmāhē MSS that include NT texts,4 all (with one exception) representing a standard recension5 and consisting of 1) Peshiṭta selections (OT and NT ), 2) Harklean selections, 3) Patristic selections (in 10 Mss only);6 4) grammatical and lexicographical tracts. A remarkable feature of the Western šmāhē MSS is the common origin of the oldest witnesses in the region of Melitene (Malatya) in the 10th/ 11th centuries, where the Syrian Orthodox Christians settled among Greek-Byzantines. In the same region the Syrian Orthodox patriarchate was established in the Barṣauma Monastery. This relation to the region of Melitene certainly does not reflect the origin of the Western ‘Masora’ but rather a local ‘masoretic’ activity.7 The Eastern and Western versions of the ‘Syriac Masora’ are independent compilations. Their biblical sample texts do not reflect a common ancestry, and the grammatical treatises in both are not the same. Only the witnesses of the Western standard compilation may go back to a common ancestry. Second, we must distinguish between the final compilation and the primitive collection restricted to šmāhē. The Eastern and Western compilation both have a pre-history—they are enhanced by later additions of nonbiblical materials.8 Third, we can fix the origin of the two compilations in the early Islamic period (8th to 11th c.). According to the dated witnesses, both compilations have a terminus ante quem in the 10th century. The terminus for a more primitive stage (restricted to the biblical material only) may be earlier. Significance The šmāhē-MSS give proof of an East-West-bifurcation of the Peshiṭta in the early Islamic period (8th to 11th c.). They confirm the bifurcation that has been realized by collation of full-text manuscripts, as the Eastern šmāhē-MS significantly shares the Eastern standard text (EST); and the corresponding non-Eastern variants are significantly extant in the WRIGHT, Catalogue 1 (1870) 101-108. — Some facsimiles are in WEISS, Zur ostsyrischen Lautund Akzentlehre (1933). The complete Ms is published by LOOPSTRA, An East Syriac Manuscript (2014/2015). In vol. 2, Loopstra quotes variant readings from the BFBS text at the end of each epistle. 4 Listed in LOOPSTRA, Le Nouveau Testament (2017) 198. 5 Ms BL Add. 7183 and the Medeltidshandskrift 58 of the Univ. Library in Lund offer both a shorter recension of the NT selections than the standard. 6 Listed in LOOPSTRA, The Patristic “Masora” (2020) 20–21. 7 It is possible that this striking ‘masoretic’ activity in the region of Melitene is owed to the interaction with the Byzantines since the 10th century, cf LOOPSTRA, Patristic Selections (2009) 64−67, and esp. COAKLEY, The Five Greek Vowel-Signs (2011). SEGAL, The Diacritical Point (1953) 45, considers the borrowing of the ‘Greek’ vowels from Coptic. 8 The folio numbers of the Western Ms Vat. syr. 152 give an idea about the extent of the single parts: Peshiṭta (OT and NT ): 1–156; Harklean: 156–168; Patristics: 168–185; tracts: 185– 206. The single Eastern witness BL Add. 12,138: Peshiṭta (OT and NT): 1–303; grammatical tracts 303–312. 3

cxlviii

Appendix 3

Western šmāhē-MSS. Details can be given with reference to the 238 test units, where the Peshiṭta text is significantly divided (see above the list p. xlii). Fortunately, the selective and abridged way of presenting the text in the šmāhē-MSS does not affect the evidence too much. Variants from the Eastern šmāhē-MS are quotable 80 times (out of 238); 6 times9 only the text of the šmāhē-MS is not in agreement with the EST. The case of the Western šmāhē-MSS is more complicated. Variants from these manuscripts are quotable 45 times only (out of 238), because here the selections are much shorter than in the Eastern witness. 16 times10 the text of all 6 šmāhē-MSS used in the present edition agrees with the Western reading, 7 times11 with the EST. 9 times12 the attestation is clearly divided (some šmāhē-MSS give the Western reading, some the EST ); 9 times13 the reading is predominantly Western, and 4 times14 predominantly Eastern. The beginnings in the Islamic period From these figures it is obvious, that the biblical selections in the Western šmāhē-MSS did not escape influence from the EST. This has a bearing on the probable date of the compilation’s archetype. Allowing one century for the formation of the standard compilation and for the influence of the EST, this archetype may go back to the 9th century. The supposed primitive collection, consisting exclusively of biblical šmāhē, may be earlier but cannot be ascertained by facts. By general considerations, however, the ‘Syriac Masora’ seems to be related to attempts at preserving Syriac heritage under the rule of Islam. These attempts started in the early Islamic period from the 8th century15 when Syriac as the colloquial language of the Syrians was superseded by Arabic, and

Test unit 50/1Co 8:2, 57/1Co 10:10, 62/1Co 11:16, 94/2Co 7:6, 128/Gal 2:20, 169/1Th 5:3. Test unit 3/Rom 3:2, 15/Rom 9:19, 28&29/Rom 13:9 twice, 40/1Co 4:9, 43/1Co 5:2, 50/1Co 8:2, 79/1Co 16:6, 94/2Co 7:6, 100/2Co 8:21, 118/2Co 13:4, 124/Gal 2:4, 132/Gal 5:3, 150/Php 2:6, 176/2Th 3:6, 202/Tit 1:11. 11 Test unit 68/1Co 14:19, 93/2Co 7:2, 95/2Co 7:9, 102/2Co 9:5, 148/Php 1:12, 172/2Th 2:4, 184/1Tm 6:10. 12 Test unit 33/Rom 14:8, 67/1Co 13:12, 83/2Co 3:3, 126/Gal 2:12, 157/Col 3:1, 165/1Th 3:13, 169/1Th 5:3, 196/2Tm 4:3, 229/Heb 10:25. 13 Test unit 53/1Co 9:7, 80/1Co 16:8, 113/2Co 12:10, 156/Php 4:12, 163/Col 4:16, 185/2Tm 1:12, 189/2Tm 3:5, 227/Heb 10:11, 230/Heb 10:28. 14 Test unit 52/1Co 8:7, 57/1Co 10:10, 91/2Co 5:11, 190/2Tm 3:6. 15 Interest in vocalization reflecting grammar is encountered with Jacob of Edessa (†708), who invented eight vowel letters for grammatical demonstration. It is remarkable, that by inclusion of grammatical tracts from Jacob, the compiler of the Western ‘Masora’ sees (retrospectively) the beginnings of ‘masoretic’ activities in the 7th century. Jacob himself is not the compiler but rather the instigator of ‘masoretic’ activities. And it is remarkable too, that Bar ‛Ebroyo (†1286) in his larger grammar (Ktābā d-Ṣemḥē ) and in his Scholia (Auṣar Rāzē ) attributes the five ‘Greek’ vowel signs to the qarqphāyē (Qarqafians, the teacher of the Qarqaphthā Monastery near Rish‛aina), who are mentioned in some of the Western šmāhē-MSS. It is substantially the same tradition of grammatical vocalization during these six centuries, acknowledged by the Western šmāhē-MSS and by Bar ‛Ebroyo. 9

10

‘Masoretic’ Manuscripts

cxlix

there were calls for codification. The šmāhē-compilations are part of this grammatical and lexicographical codification.16 Mss used for the present edition For the present edition we used the single Eastern šmāhē-MS BL Add. 12,138 (siglum IIm).17 This Ms covers 80 test units out of 238. In addition, this Ms is quoted 54 times outside the range of test units.18 The selected six Western šmāhē-MSS are representatives of the standard recension: 1. (IIm1) Rome, Vat. syr. 152 (1291 AG/979–80 AD); fol. 126v−139r.19 II 2. ( m2 ) Rome, Barberini oriental Ms 118 (ca 1000); fol. 107r−120v.20 3. (IIm3 ) London, BL Add. 12,178 (ca 10th c.); fol. 162v−180r21 II 4. ( m4 ) Moṣul, St. Thomas Church Ms 16 (August 1325 AG/1014 AD);22 fol. 121r−132r (acc. to the Arabic numbers at the bottom of the recto).

(IIm5 )

5. Paris, BnF syr. 64 (ca 11th c.); fol. 132r−144r.23 II th 6. ( m6 ) Jerusalem, St. Mark’s Monastery, Ms syr. 42 (ca 16 /17th c.).24 fol. 162−177 (acc. to the continuous Arabic numbers on recto and verso ).

How are the šmāhē-MSS quoted? The Eastern šmāhē-MS: In the present edition, the variants of the Eastern šmāhē-MS are quoted in full. In few instances, agreement with the lemma is explicitly quoted using the prefix lem (for lemma ), cf Rom 15:8, 2Co 4:6, Col 2:18 (IIm). The text of the šmāhē from the Corpus Paulinum is published in the facsimile edition of Loopstra (2014) 575−606. The Western šmāhē-MSS: The variants of the Western šmāhē-MSS are not quoted in full but only a) when agreeing with existing variants, and b) when attesting remarkable variants of their own. Variants 16 Although their focus is on vocalization, the sample texts do not replace the ancient system of ‘vocalizing’ by diacritical points but rather strengthen this system by explicit interpretation. Full vocalization incl. rukkākhā and quššāyā we meet only in the šmāhē-MSS. Outside the šmāhē-MSS, the Western (‘Greek’) and the Eastern (‘dotted’) vocalization are sparingly used for grammatical disambiguation only or for fixing the pronunciation of Greek loan words and proper nouns. Fully vocalized manuscripts are not earlier than the 16th century and probably produced for European scholars. 17 WRIGHT, Catalogue 1 (1870) 101–108. 18 Rom 13:4.5.7, 15:14 (twice).18; 1Co 1:14, 2:8, 3:3, 6:4, 7:34, 9:6.26, 12:2, 14:11; 2Co 2:15, 4:6.11, 6:14, 8:22; Gal 1:11, 2:2.18, 6:1; Eph 1:19.23, 4:10, 6:16.20; Php — ; Col 1:25, 2:18, 4:7; 1Th 3:1.6; 2Th 1:3, 2:3; 1Tm 1:15, 5:2, 6:16; 2Tm 2:25, 4:3; Tit 1:5.6, 3:14; Phm — ; Heb 6:9, 8:5.8, 11:27.28.34, 12:3.19, 13:17.25. 19 ASSEMANUS, BAV Catalogus I,3 (1759) 287−292. 20 LANTSCHOOT, Inventaire (1965) 169−172. 21 WRIGHT, Catalogue 1 (1870) 108−111. 22 LEROY, Les manuscrits syriaques 1 (1964) 219−224. 23 ZOTENBERG, Catalogues (1874) 30−31. 24 BAUMSTARK et alii, Handschriften (1912/13) 122–123; DOLABANI, Catalogue (1994) 157.

cl

Appendix 3

of the šmāhē-MSS that are not recorded in the apparatus of the edition are of minor importance for the transmission of the Peshiṭta and may originate from the transmission of the šmāhē compilation itself. Full collations, from which the quotations in the apparatus are drawn, are given in the following list (variants included in the apparatus are in italics ). Here the reader can find the variants excluded from the apparatus. As a rule, the Western šmāhē-MSS are quoted en bloc; ‘missing’ witnesses in the apparatus of the edition are agreeing with the lemma (e. g. Rom 1,27: m3c and m5 are neither explicitly quoted in the apparatus nor in the list below). In some instances, the agreement with the lemma is explicitly quoted using the prefix lem (for lemma ), cf Rom 8:37 (IIm1 IIm2 IIm3 IIm4 IIIm5 IIIm6 ), 2Co 5:11 (IIIm5 ). Sigla, Abbreviations: > omit(s), omission + add(s), addition * original text

c(orrected text) sy(āme) tx/mg text/marginal reading

tr(anspose) v(aria) l(ectio)

Collation of Six ‘Masoretic’ Manuscripts ‫ ܕܐ‬2 ― 1,23 ‫]ܘܕܐ‬ ‫ ܕܐܪ‬3* ― 1,27 ] 1 2 3* 4 6 ― 1,29 ̇ ̇ ‫ܬ‬ ]‫ܬ‬ ‫ ܘ‬6 ― 1,32 ] 5 ― 2,2 ‫ܐ‬ ] ‫ ܐ‬3 ― 2,26 ‫ ܪܘ ܬ ] ܪ ܬ‬2 ― 2,26 ̇ ] 5 ― 2,27 ‫ ܪܘ ܬ ] ܪ ܬ‬1 2 ― 2,28 ‫̇ܗܘ ̱ܗܘ‬ ‫̱ܗܘ ̇ܗܘ ]ܕ‬ ‫ ܕ‬6 ― 3,2 ‫ ܕܐܬܗ‬1 2 3 4 ̈ ̈ 5mg (5tx illeg ) 6 ― 3,19 ‫]ܕ‬ ‫ ܕܬ‬4mg ― 3,27 ‫]ܕ‬ 1 ― 4,3 ̣ ‫ ܐ ̇ ]ܐ‬2 4mg ― 4,3 1 ̇ ‫]ܘܐܬ‬ ‫ ܕܐܬ‬5 ¦ ‫ ܐܬ‬6 ― 4,3 ] > 2 ― 4,4 ] > 4 ― 4,5 ‫]ܕ‬ 2 ― 4,5 ̣ ] 4mg ― 4,20 ] ‫ ܘ‬4 6 ― 4,25 2 ] > 2 ― 5,11 ‫ ܕܗ ܬ ]ܕܗ ܬܗ‬5 ― 6,13 ‫ܢ‬ ] ‫ ̈ ܢ‬1 2 3 4tx ̈ 6 ― 6,13 ‫ > ]ܐ‬6 ― 6,17 ‫ > ]ܕ‬2 ― 7,5 ‫]ܕ‬ ‫ ܕ‬2tx 4 ― 7,5 ‫ > ]ܕ‬1 2 3 4 5 6 ― 7,5 ] 2tx 5mg ― 7,6 ‫]ܐܬ‬ ‫ ܕܐܬ‬4 6 ― 7,6 ‫ ܘܬ ] ܬܘܬ‬6* ― 7,7 ‫ܕ ܬ ܪ ]ܕ ܬܪܓ‬ 6 ― 7,8 ] placed after 2 ― 7,8 ]‫ܬ‬ 1tx 2mg 3mg 4mg 5mg 6 ― 7,13 ] > 6 ― 7,13 ‫> ]ܗܘ‬ 2 1 ― 7,18 ] > 2 ― 8,9 ‫ܘܚ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ] ‫ܐ ܕܪܘܚ‬ ‫ ܕ‬4 ― 8,9 ‫ ܘܐ ]ܐܢ ܕ‬2 ― 8,9 ‫]ܪܘ ܕ‬ ‫ ܪܘ ܕ‬1 2 3 4 5 6 ― 8,13 1‫ܐ ܘܢ‬ ] ‫ܐ ܘܢ‬ 2 4 ― 8,13 2‫ܐ ܘܢ‬ ] ‫ܐ ܘܢ‬ 5 ― 8,13 ̇ ‫]ܕ‬ ‫ܐ ܘܢ‬ ] ‫ܐ ܘܢ‬ ] > 3 ― 8,15 ‫ ܕ‬3 5 6 ¦ ‫ ̇ܗܝ ܕ‬4 ― 8,24 ̣ 6 ― 8,14 ̈ ] 6 ― 8,24 ‫]ܕ‬ 2 4 ― 8,37 ‫ ܕܐ‬1 2 3 4 5 6 ― 8,38 ‫ܢ‬ ‫ ܘܕ ̈ ܢ ]ܘ ܕ‬6 ― 9,1 ] 6 ― 9,6 ‫ > ]ܕ‬1 2 3 4 5 6 ― 9,18 ‫ ܕܨ ̇ ܗܘ‬1 2 3 4 5 6 ― 9,19 ‫ ܕ‬1 2 3 4 5 6 ― 9,33 ̇ ‫ ܕ ]ܕ‬1 2 3 4 ܰ ܰ ܶ 5 6 ― 10,2 ] > 2 ― 10,12 ‫ ܫ ] ܫ‬1 2 3 4 5 6 ― 11,2 ‫]ܐ‬ ‫ ܐ‬2 ― 11,2 ‫ܗܘ‬ ] ‫ ̇ ܥ ܗܘ‬6 ― ̈ 11,2 ] ‫ܕ‬125¦ 6 ― 11,2 ̣ ‫ ܐ ̇ ]ܐ‬1 2 3 4 5 6 ― 11,2 ̇ ‫ ܐ ̇ ]ܘܐ‬2 ¦ > 5 ¦ ̣ ‫ ܘܐ‬4 6 ― 11,7 ‫ ܐܬ ܪ ]ܐܬ ܪܘ‬6 ― 11,12 ‫ܗܘܢ‬ ‫ ܕܬܘ ܗܘܢ ]ܬܘ‬2 ― 11,12 ‫ܘܢ‬ ] ‫ܘܢ‬ 3mg 4mg 5 ― 11,17 1 1 ‫]ܐܬ‬ ‫ ܐܬ‬1 2 4 5 6 ― 11,17 ‫ ܐ ]ܘܐ‬2 ― 11,17 ‫ ܙ ]ܕܙ‬1 ― 11,18 ] + ‫ ܐ‬2 6 ― 11,23 ̇ ‫]ܗ ܢ‬ ‫ܢ‬ ‫ܗ‬ 5 ― 12,2 ‫]ܘ‬ 1 2 5 ― 12,2 ‫ܢ‬ ‫]ܬܬܕ‬ ‫ܢ‬ ‫ܬܕ‬ 1mg 3 4mg 5tx 6 ― 12,3 ] + 4 ― 12,3 ] ̣ ̈ ̈ 6 ― 12,16 ‫]ܕ‬ ‫ ܕ‬4mg ― 13,3 ‫]ܕ‬ ‫ ܕܕ‬1 4 5 6 ¦ 2 ― 13,9 ‫ ܘܐܦ‬1 2 3 4 5 6 ― Rom 1,12

‫]ܘܐ‬

‫‪cli‬‬

‫‪‘Masoretic’ Manuscripts‬‬

‫] ‪ 4 6 ― 14,8 1+2‬ܕ ‪] +‬ܬܐܨ ܢ ‪ 1 2 3 4 5 6 ― 13,14‬ܕ ܬ ܪ ܘ ܬ ܠ‬ ‫‪1 2 5 ― 14,8‬‬ ‫ܢ‪1‬‬ ‫]̇‬ ‫‪ 1 2 3mg 5 ― 14,8 3‬ܗܘ ‪] +‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪2‬‬ ‫‪3‬‬ ‫‪5‬‬ ‫‪6‬‬ ‫¦‬ ‫‪text‬‬ ‫‪segment‬‬ ‫‪not‬‬ ‫‪in‬‬ ‫‪4‬‬ ‫―‬ ‫‪14,14‬‬ ‫]‬ ‫‪ 1 5 ― 14,14‬ܐ‬ ‫̣‬ ‫ܶ‬ ‫ܰ‬ ‫‪2‬‬ ‫ܗܘ ] ̇ ܘ ܗܘ‬ ‫‪3* ― 14,23‬‬ ‫]ܕܐ ‪ 1 2 3 4 5 6 ― 15,18‬ܕ ‪ 4 ― 15,8‬ܗܘ ‪] +‬ܘ ‪] > 4 ― 15,1‬‬ ‫‪ 4 ― 15,24‬ܕ ‪] +‬ܕܐܙ̇ܠ ܐ ‪5 ― 15,24‬‬ ‫‪̇ 1 2 3 4 5 6 ― 15,27‬ܗ ܢ ]ܗ ‪ 1 ― 15,26‬ܬ ܘ ]ܬ ܘ‬ ‫]ܕܐܦ‬ ‫¦ ‪ 1‬ܕܐܦ‬ ‫‪ 2 ― 15,28‬ܕ‬ ‫]ܗ‬ ‫ܢ ] ܘܢ ‪5 ― 15,28‬‬ ‫‪4 ― 16,1‬‬ ‫]‬ ‫‪1 ― 16,3‬‬ ‫‪ 2 ― 16,9‬ܘ ]ܘ ܗܘ ‪ ] > 1 ― 16,4‬ـ ̈ ܕ‬ ‫]‬ ‫ܥ‬ ‫]ܕ ̈ ‪4 ― 16,11‬‬ ‫‪> 2 ― 16,15‬‬ ‫]ܘܕ‬ ‫ܣ ‪] > 5 ― 16,22‬ܘܕ ܗ ‪ 1 ― 16,15‬ܘܕ‬ ‫ܐ ܬ ‪]+‬‬ ‫‪ 2 4 ― 16,23‬ܕ‬ ‫ܣ‬ ‫ܣ]‬ ‫‪2‬ܘ‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܢ ܐ ‪1Co 1,11‬‬ ‫ܣ ܐ ‪ 5 ― 1,12‬ܐ ̈ > ¦ ‪] tr 4‬‬ ‫ܣ ܐ ¦ ‪] text segment not in 1 3 5‬ܐ ܕ‬ ‫ܕܐ ܕ‬

‫‪13,9‬‬

‫ܣ¦‪4‬‬

‫ܐ ‪ 6 ― 1,12‬ܐ ܕ‬ ‫ܣ ]ܐ ܕܐ‬ ‫ܣ ‪ 2 ― 1,14‬ܐ ܕܐ‬ ‫ܣ]‬ ‫‪1 2 3 5 ― 1,16‬‬ ‫ܬ ܗܝ ‪] > 1 2 3 5 6 ― 1,18‬ܐܦ‬ ‫‪ 6 ― 1,18‬ܗܝ > ]‬ ‫‪̇ (! ) 6 ― 1,26‬ܗ ܢ ]‬ ‫‪ 1 2 3 4 5 6 ― 2,4‬ܕ ]‬ ‫̇‬ ‫̇‬ ‫‪ 4 6 ― 2,7‬ܕ ‪ ] +‬ܗܘܬ‬ ‫]‬ ‫‪ 2 ― 2,11‬ܘ‬ ‫‪] > 6 ― 2,11‬‬ ‫ܕ̇ ܥ ܕ‬ ‫]‬ ‫¦‪ 15‬ܕ̇ ܥ ܕ‬ ‫‪] tr 4 ― 3,4‬ܕܐ ̇‬ ‫ܕ‬ ‫ܕ̇ ܥ‬ ‫‪ ̇ 2tx 5mg ― 3,4‬ܥ ] ̣ ܥ ‪ 6 ― 2,16‬ܕܪܘ ]ܪܘ ‪2 ― 2,12 1‬‬ ‫ܗ ‪ 1 2 3 4 6 ¦ text segment not in 5 ― 3,19‬ܐ ܐ ]ܘܐ ܐ ‪ 2 4 6 ― 3,5‬ܐ ]ܐ ܐ‬ ‫]‬ ‫―‪46‬‬ ‫‪4,2‬‬ ‫]‬ ‫‪ 4mg ― 4,9‬ܗ‬ ‫ܢ ‪1 2 3 4 5 6 ― 4,15‬‬ ‫‪ 5 ― 5,2‬ܐ ] ̇ ‪] 2 ― 5,2‬‬ ‫― *‪] ̇ 6‬‬ ‫ܗܝ ‪5,2 ̣ 1 2 3 4 5 6 ― 5,13‬‬ ‫ܗܝ ]ܘ‬ ‫ܗܝ ¦ *‪ 3‬ܘ‬ ‫‪6 ― 6,4‬‬ ‫‪ 2 6 ― 6,4‬ܐ ]‬ ‫‪] +‬ܕ‬ ‫‪ 4 ― 6,4‬ܢ‬ ‫‪] sy 4 ― 6,7‬‬ ‫‪ 1 ― 7,13‬ܐ ܬ ]ܘܐ ܬ ‪] > 4 ― 7,13‬‬ ‫]‬ ‫― ‪] > 4‬ܐ ‪4 ― 7,14‬‬ ‫ܗܝ ‪7,14‬‬ ‫ܗܝ ]ܘ‬ ‫ܬ ‪] > 4 ― 7,19‬ܐ ‪6 ― 7,14‬‬ ‫¦ ‪ (! ) 4‬ܘܨ ̇ ܐ ]ܨ ̇ ܐ ‪ 2 4 5 ― 7,32‬ܘܬ ]‬ ‫] ̇ ‪ 4 ― 7,36‬ܕ ]ܕܕ ‪ 6 ― 7,32‬ܕ ‪+‬‬ ‫‪ 4 6 ― 8,2‬ܐ ܐ ]ܐܢ ܐ ܕ ‪ 2 ― 8,2‬ܕܐܢ ]ܕܢ ‪̇ 1 2 3 4 5 6 ― 7,37‬‬ ‫¦ ‪ ] tr 1 5‬ܡ ̣ ܥ ‪ is intended) ― 8,2‬ܕ ̣ ܥ ܡ ‪ ̣ , the variant‬ܥ ‪) 5 6 (v. l.‬ܕ ̣ ܥ ܡ ‪ 1 2 3 4tx (mg‬ܕ ̇ ܥ ܡ‬ ‫‪ 1 2 3 4 5 6 ― 8,7‬ܐܘ ܘܬ ]ܘ ܘܬ ‪̈ ] tr 3 ― 8,5‬‬ ‫̈ ‪ 2 ― 8,5‬ܐ ]ܐ ‪ 6 ― 8,5‬ܡ ܥ‬ ‫‪ 2 ¦ not in 4 ― 9,1‬ܐ ܬܗܘܢ ]ܬܐ ܬܗܘܢ ‪ 4mg ― 8,12‬ܕ ܰ ܥ ܰ]ܕ ܥ ‪ 1 3 4 5 6 ― 8,11‬ܐ ‪] +‬‬ ‫]‬ ‫ܕ‬ ‫ܝ ‪ ] +‬ܗܘ ‪1 2 4 5 ― 9,1‬‬ ‫‪4 6 ― 9,5‬‬ ‫]ܘ‬ ‫ܬ ‪ 1 2 4 5 6 ― 9,5 ] > 1 ― 9,7‬ܕ‬ ‫ܬ]‬ ‫―‪2‬‬ ‫̈‬ ‫‪9,7‬‬ ‫ܗܘ ‪] no sy 2 ― 9,10‬‬ ‫‪] > 2 ― 9,20‬ܐܦ ‪1 2 3 4 5 6 ― 9,14‬‬ ‫]ܕ‬ ‫¦‪2‬‬ ‫― ‪ 6‬ܕܐ‬ ‫ܫ ‪9,26‬‬ ‫̣ܕܗ ܢ ‪ 6 ― 10,6‬ܐ ̈ ]ܕܐ ̈ ‪ 2 ― 10,1‬ܐ ܕ ܫ ܐܪ ] ܐ ̇ܗܘ ܕ ܐܪ‬ ‫‪ 2‬ܐ ܕܐܦ ̣ܗ ܢ ]ܐ‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܗܘ ̈‬ ‫ܘܢ ¦‬ ‫ܗܘܝ ‪ 1 2 3 4 6 ― 10,11‬ܐ ]ܘܐ ‪ 4 ― 10,10‬ܐ ܕ‬ ‫ܗܘܝ ]‬ ‫‪1 2 3c 5 ― 10,12‬‬ ‫‪̇ 3* ― 10,23‬ܗܘ ̇‬ ‫]ܕ ‪ 5 ― 10,12‬ܕ ܡ ]ܕ‬ ‫]ܗܘ ܗܘ ‪ 4 6 ― 10,17‬ܕ‬ ‫ܡ‬ ‫ܡ ]ܐ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫̇‬ ‫̇‬ ‫̇‬ ‫‪ 3* 6 ― 10,29‬ܗܘ ]ܕܗܘ ‪6 ― 10,29‬‬ ‫‪ 1 2 3 4 5 6 ― 11,7‬ܕܐ ̣ ]ܕܐ‬ ‫]ܘܬ‬ ‫― ‪ 2‬ܕܬ‬ ‫̇‬ ‫‪ 2 4 6 ― 12,2‬ܕ ‪] +‬ܨ ̇ ܐ ‪12,1‬‬ ‫]ܘ‬ ‫ܗܘ ܘܢ‪ .‬ܘ‬ ‫― ‪] > 6‬ܐ ‪ (! ) 4 ― 12,2‬ܘ‬ ‫‪12,2‬‬ ‫ܘܢ‬ ‫]ܕ‬ ‫ܗܘ‬ ‫ܘܢ ¦ *‪ 2‬ܕ‬ ‫ܗܘ‬ ‫*‪ 2c ― 12,16 ] sy 6 ― 12,16 2 ] > 3‬ܕ‬ ‫ܢ ‪] > 2 ― 12,27‬ܐ ܘܢ‪] > 1 2 3 5 ― 12,27 2‬ܕ ‪6 ― 12,27‬‬ ‫‪ ̈ ] no sy 1tx‬ܬ ‪ (! ) 1 ― 13,12‬ܘ ̈ ܗܘܢ ] ܘ‬ ‫‪] > 3* ― 14,17‬ܐܦ‪ 4 ― 14,15 2‬ܐܙ ]ܘܐܙ ‪ ] > 4 ― 14,15 1‬ܡ‪2 3tx 4tx 5tx 6 ― 14,7 2‬‬ ‫]‬ ‫̄܆‬ ‫¦ ‪ 4mg‬ܘ‬ ‫‪ 5 ― 14,19‬ܕܐ ܕܐܦ ]ܕܐܦ ‪5mg ― 14,19‬‬ ‫]ܐ‬ ‫‪1 2 3 4 5 6 ― 14,19‬‬ ‫‪] sy 1 3‬‬ ‫ܰ‬ ‫ܰ‬ ‫‪6 ― 14,25‬‬ ‫ܢ ‪ 1 2 ― 14,29‬ܗ ]ܘܗ‬ ‫ܢ]‬ ‫‪1 2 3 4 5 6 ― 14,31‬‬ ‫]‬ ‫‪1mg 4tx ― 14,38‬‬ ‫] ‪ 1 2 3 4 5 6 ― 15,17‬ܐܢ ܕ ܐ ]ܐܢ ܐ ܕ‬ ‫ܕ ‪1 2 3 4tx 5tx 6 ― 15,19‬‬ ‫‪] > 2 3 4 5 6 ― 15,24‬‬ ‫ܰ ܶ‬ ‫ܳ ܶ‬ ‫̇‬ ‫‪ 2 ― 15,27‬ܕܐ ]ܕܐ ̣ ‪ 1tx 2mg 3tx 4tx 5tx 6 ― 15,27‬ܕ ܠ ]ܕ‬ ‫]‬ ‫‪1 2 3 4 5 6 ― 15,37‬‬ ‫ܘ‬ ‫‪] > 3 ― 15,38 1‬‬ ‫]‬ ‫‪1 ¦ text segment not in 5 ― 15,38‬‬ ‫― ‪ 2 6 ¦ text segment not in 5‬ܐ ]ܐ‬ ‫‪ 2 ― 15,48‬ܐ ]ܘܐ ‪15,40 2‬‬ ‫‪] +‬ܐ‬ ‫ܕ ‪4 ― 16,1‬‬ ‫‪] tr 4 ¦ text segment not in 1 2 3 5 6 ― 16,1‬ܕ‬

‫‪Appendix 3‬‬

‫‪clii‬‬

‫̈ܬ‬

‫̇‬ ‫ܢ ‪ ] +‬ܘ ̈ ‪] no sy 6 ― 16,2‬‬ ‫‪4 6 ― 16,5‬‬ ‫̇] ̇ ܐ‬ ‫̇ ܐ‬ ‫‪ 1 2‬ܘܐ ܘܢ ‪2 ― 16,6‬‬ ‫‪] > 1 2 3 5 ― 16,13‬ܕ ‪ 1 ― 16,8‬ܬ ܘ ]ܬ ܘ ‪3 4 5 6 ― 16,6‬‬ ‫]ܐܬ‬ ‫‪ 1 2 3 4 5 6 ― 16,17‬ܘܐܬ‬ ‫‪ ] > 3 4 6‬ܬܝ‬ ‫̈‬ ‫̈‬ ‫̈‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܘܢ ‪ 6 ― 1,4‬ܘܐ ]ܐ ‪2Co 1,3‬‬ ‫]‬ ‫‪ 3 ¦ no‬ܐܘ ܰ ‪/‬ܐܘ ܰ ¦ ‪ 1 2 4 5‬ܐܘ ܰ ‪/‬ܐܘ ܺ ‪3 4 6 ― 1,4‬‬ ‫̈ ܺ‬ ‫‪ ̈ 1 2 3 4 5 (the‬ܬ ܰ‬ ‫̈‬ ‫̈‬ ‫] ܬ ‪ 3 ¦ no voc. 6 ― 1,7 2‬ܐܘ ܰ ¦ ‪ 1 2 4 5‬ܐܘ ܺ ‪ 3 ― 1,4‬ܕܐ ]ܕܐܦ ‪voc. 6 ― 1,4‬‬ ‫ܕ ̈ܬ ܰ‬ ‫̈‬ ‫]ܕ ܘܬܝ ‪̣ 2 ― 2,3‬ܗ ܢ ̇‬ ‫¦ ) ‪ not attested‬ܬ ‪segment with 1‬‬ ‫‪6 ― 2,3‬‬ ‫]ܗ ܢ ‪ 1 ― 2,3‬ܕ ]ܕ‬ ‫‪̇ 1mg 4tx ― 2,17‬‬ ‫] ‪ 4* ― 2,16‬ܘ ܘܬܝ‬ ‫ܐ ܘܢ ‪] > 3 6 ― 3,3‬‬ ‫ܐ ܘܢ ]‬ ‫¦‪135‬‬ ‫‪ 2 ― 3,7‬ܐ ܘܢ ܗܘ‬ ‫ܐܬܪ‬ ‫‪] tr 1* ― 3,11‬‬ ‫ܪ]‬ ‫‪6 ― 3,12‬‬ ‫‪] +‬ܘ ‪] tr 1 ― 3,13‬‬ ‫ܗܘ ‪ 2 ― 4,3‬ܗܘ‬ ‫ܗܘ ‪ 4 ¦ not in 1 2 3 5 6 ― 4,3‬ܗܘ > ]‬ ‫ܗܘܘ ]ܕܐ‬ ‫ܢ ‪ 6 ― 4,4‬ܕܐ‬ ‫ܢ ]ܕܐܘ‬ ‫ܘ‬ ‫ܰ‬ ‫ܥ ‪2 3 5 ¦ text segment not in 6 ― 4,5‬‬ ‫‪]+‬‬ ‫̇ܗܘ ‪4 6 ― 4,6‬‬ ‫> ‪] by err‬ܕ ‪ 1 2 3 4 5 6 ― 4,6‬ܕ‬ ‫¦‪4‬‬ ‫‪5 6 ― 4,8‬‬ ‫]‬ ‫‪ by err 4 ― 4,18‬ܕ > ]ܕ ̇ ‪ 5 ― 4,18‬ܘ‬ ‫]‬ ‫‪4mg ― 5,4‬‬ ‫̇‬ ‫ܗ ]‬ ‫‪6* ― 5,4‬‬ ‫] ܬ‬ ‫‪ 6 ― 5,5‬ܕ ܕ ]ܘܕ ܕ ‪ 6 ― 5,5‬ܬ‬ ‫‪] tr 1 2‬‬ ‫̇‬ ‫̈ ‪3c 4 5 ― 5,11‬‬ ‫‪ 3 4 6 ― 5,15‬ܗܘ ‪] +‬‬ ‫‪ 1 3 6 ― 5,21 ] > 2 ― 6,9‬ܕ ]ܕ‬ ‫]‬ ‫―‪46‬‬ ‫̣‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܪܕ ‪6,9‬‬ ‫ܪܕ ]ܐ ܕ‬ ‫‪ 2 ― 6,13‬ܐ‬ ‫] ܪ‬ ‫‪ 5 ― 6,13‬ܪܘ‬ ‫]‬ ‫‪3 4 ― 6,17‬‬ ‫]ܘܐܬ‬ ‫̈‬ ‫̈‬ ‫‪ 4 ― 7,3‬ܘܐ ܬ ]ܐ ܬ ‪ 1 2 3 4 5 6 ― 7,3‬ܐ ]ܐ ‪ 2 ― 7,2‬ܐܬ‬ ‫‪ 1 2‬ܢ ‪] + ̣ 1 2 3 4 5 6 ― 7,6‬ܕ‬ ‫ܬ ܗ ‪3 4 5 6 ― 7,6‬‬ ‫‪ 4 ― 7,8‬ܐ ]ܕܐ ‪ 6 ― 7,8‬ܬ ]‬ ‫ܬ ‪ 2 ― 7,9‬ܬܘ ܗܘܬ ] ܬܘ‬ ‫]‬ ‫̇‬ ‫]ܐܬ ܢ ‪ 1 2 3 4 5 ¦ text segment not in 6 ― 7,13‬ܘܐܦ ]ܐܦ ‪ 1 2 3 4 5 6 ― 7,12‬ܗܘ ‪+‬‬ ‫]ܘܗܘ ‪ 4mg 6 ― 8,15‬ܐܬ‬ ‫‪] > 6 ― 8,21‬ܐ ‪̇ 1 2 5 ― 8,20‬ܗܘ‬ ‫‪1 2 3 4 5 6 ― 9,5‬‬ ‫‪ 1 2 3 4 5 6 ― 9,5‬ܐ ̈ ]ܐ ̈ ‪] > 3 4 6 ― 9,5‬ܕܐ‬ ‫ܢ ‪ 1 4 6 ― 10,8‬ܕ ܕܘܢ ]ܘ ܕܘܢ‬ ‫ܘܢ ]‬ ‫] ‪6 ― 10,13‬‬ ‫‪] > 6 ― 10,18‬ܐܦ ‪5 ― 10,13‬‬ ‫̇‬ ‫̇‬ ‫]ܕ ̇‬ ‫ܐ ‪] > 4 ― 11,12‬‬ ‫ܐ ]ܕ‬ ‫‪] > 4 6 ― 11,12‬ܗܘ ‪] > 1 ― 11,12‬ܐܦ ‪2 5 ― 11,12‬‬ ‫ܕ‬ ‫̈‬ ‫̈‬ ‫¦‪̇ 2‬‬ ‫ܐ ‪ 2 ― 11,28‬ܕ ܐ ܘܢ ]ܘ ܕ ܐ ܘܢ ‪ 4mg ― 11,20‬ܕ ̇‬ ‫ܐ ]ܕ‬ ‫‪4 6 ― 11,28‬‬ ‫̈ܬ‬ ‫ܗ ܐ ‪] tr 5 ― 11,29‬‬ ‫ܣ ] ܪ ܩ ‪ (! ) 6 ― 11,32‬ܗܬ ܐ ]‬ ‫‪1 2 3 4mg 5 ― 11,32‬‬ ‫̈‬ ‫̈‬ ‫‪ 4 6 ― 11,32‬ܗܘ > ] ̇ ܗܘ‬ ‫]ܕܕ‬ ‫¦ ‪ 3 5mg‬ܕܕܐ‬ ‫ܬ ‪ 4mg ― 11,33‬ܕܕ‬ ‫ܬ ]ܘ‬ ‫―‪2‬‬ ‫‪ ] +‬ܪ ‪11,33‬‬ ‫ܝ ‪4 ― 12,7‬‬ ‫‪] tr 3* ― 12,10‬‬ ‫― ‪ 1 2 3 4 5 6‬ܘܐܦ ‪ ] sy 4 ― 13,4‬ܕܘ‬ ‫‪13,4‬‬ ‫ܘ ‪] 5mg ― 13,11‬ܐ ‪] tr 6 ― 13,5‬‬ ‫‪ 5mg‬ܐܬ ܘ ]ܐܬ‬ ‫̇‬ ‫̇‬ ‫ܐ ܘܢ ‪ 5 ― 1,6‬ܐ ]ܘ ‪Gal 1,1‬‬ ‫ܢ ‪ 6 ― 1,9‬ܐ ܘܢ > ] ܗ‬ ‫ܢ ]ܕܐܢ ܐ‬ ‫‪ 1 2‬ܐܢ ܐ‬ ‫ܶ‬ ‫ܶ‬ ‫̇‬ ‫̇‬ ‫ܘܢ ‪ ) ― 1,9‬ܐܢ ܐ > ‪3 4 5 6 (4 6‬‬ ‫ܢ ]ܕ‬ ‫] ܣ ‪ 1 2 3 4 5 6 ― 1,15 ] > 3 4 ― 1,15‬ܕ‬ ‫― ‪(! ) 3‬‬ ‫] ̈‬ ‫‪ 2 ― 1,22‬ܕܬ ¦ ‪] > 1 3 5 6‬ܕ ܘܕ ‪̈ (! ) 5 ― 1,22‬‬ ‫̈‬ ‫‪1,18‬‬ ‫̇‬ ‫ܡ ܙ ‪] > 2 ― 1,23‬ܗ ܕ‬ ‫]ܗܝ ܕ‬ ‫ܡ ܙ ̈ ¦ ‪̇ 3‬ܗܘ ܕ ܙ ̈ ¦ ‪̇ 1 2 5‬ܗܘ ܕ ܙ‬ ‫― ‪̇ 6‬ܗܘ ܕ‬ ‫ܰ‬ ‫ܳ‬ ‫̇ܗ ‪2,2‬‬ ‫ܗ ]ܘ‬ ‫ܘܢ ‪ 5 ― 2,2‬ܘ‬ ‫ܘ ‪ 1 2 5 ― 2,4‬ܗܘܘ ‪] +‬ܐ‬ ‫‪ 1 2 3 4 5 6 ― 2,6 ] 1tx 2 3 4 5‬ܕ‬ ‫ܗܘ ‪6 ― 2,12‬‬ ‫‪ 1 2 3 4tx 5tx 6 (v. l.) ― 2,18‬ܕܕ ̣ ܗܘ ]ܕܕ ̇‬ ‫]ܘܐ ܘܦ ‪] tr 1 2 3 4 5 6 ― 3,4‬ܬܘܒ‬ ‫ܢ ] ܢ‪ 6 ― 3,5 1‬ܐ ܘܦ‬ ‫‪2 ― 3,15‬‬ ‫‪̇ 4 6 ― 3,16‬ܗܝ ܕܐ ܪܪܬ ]ܕܐ ܪܪܬ ‪ 1 2 3 4 5 6 ― 3,15‬ܕ ܬ ]ܕܕ‬ ‫ܘܬ ] ܬܘܬ ‪ 1 2 4 5 ― 3,18‬ܘ ] ‪] > 5 ― 3,17‬ܕ ‪ 6 ― 3,16‬ܡ ] ܗܡ‬ ‫ܘ ‪4 ― 4,2‬‬ ‫‪] no sy 3 ― 4,3‬ܐ‬ ‫ܬ ‪] > 2 ― 4,17‬ܐ ܢ ‪ 2 4 ― 4,5‬ܗ ‪] +‬ܕ‬ ‫‪ 6 ― 4,26‬ܪܘܬ ] ܪܬ ‪] > 2 ― 4,23‬ܗܘ ‪] sy 1 2 4 ― 4,17‬‬ ‫̇‬ ‫]ܕ ܬܘܒ ‪ 1 2 3 4 5 6 ― 5,3‬ܐ ]ܐ ̣ ‪ (! ) 1 5 ― 4,30‬ܕ ]ܕ‬ ‫‪ 5 6 ― 5,3‬ܕ ¦ ‪2‬‬ ‫]‬ ‫ܕ‬ ‫‪2* ― 5,3‬‬ ‫ܢ ‪1 2 3 4 5 6 ― 5,8‬‬ ‫‪]+‬‬ ‫ܢ ‪1 2 3 4 5 6 ― 5,8‬‬ ‫‪ 6 ― 5,16‬ܕ ̣ ]ܕ‬ ‫ܘܡ ܬ ܘܢ‬ ‫ܘܡ ܬ ܘܢ ]‬ ‫ܘܢ ¦ ‪1 2 3 4‬‬ ‫‪ܳ 1‬ܕ ̈ ܳ ܳ]ܕ ܶ ‪ 6 ― 5,21‬ܬ ܘܢ ܘܡ ¦ ‪ 5‬ܬ‬

‫‪‘Masoretic’ Manuscripts‬‬

‫‪cliii‬‬

‫‪ 6 ― 6,9‬ܬܐ‬

‫]ܬܐ‬

‫‪2 6 ― 6,9‬‬

‫ܕ‬

‫]‬

‫ܕ‬

‫‪ 2 ― 6,2‬ܐ ܘܢ ‪] +‬ܐܬ‬ ‫*‪] > 2* 3‬ܗ‬

‫ܗܝ ‪2 3 4 5 6 ― 6,1‬‬

‫ܢ]‬

‫‪1 2 3 4 5 6 ― 6,13‬‬

‫̈ܬ ܢ ]‬

‫̈‬

‫̈‬

‫ܬܝ ‪4 6― 1,16‬‬

‫̈ ܕ‬

‫̈‬

‫̈‬

‫ܐ ]‬

‫̈‬

‫]ܘ‬

‫ܐ ‪ 1 2 5 ― 1,16‬ܘ‬

‫‪2‬‬

‫‪Eph 1,14‬‬

‫ܕ ̈‬ ‫ܗܕ‬ ‫]‬ ‫ܗܝ ‪1 2 3 4 5 6 ― 2,15‬‬ ‫ܗܝ ]ܕ‬ ‫¦‪2‬ܕ‬ ‫]ܘܬܬ ܢ ‪̈ ] no sy 1 2 3 5 6 ― 3,19‬‬ ‫]ܘܗܘ ̣ܗܘ ‪3* ― 2,20‬‬ ‫ܘܗܘ ̣ܗܘ ̣‬ ‫‪ 4 5c 6 ― 3,9‬ܐ ]ܐ ‪̣ 6 ― 3,5‬‬ ‫]ܪ ‪ 1 3 4 5 6 ― 4,2‬ܕܬܬ ܢ‬ ‫‪ 5 ― 4,16‬ܬܪ‬ ‫]ܕ‬ ‫‪ 2 4 6 ― 5,19‬ܐܬܬ ]ܕܐܬܬ ‪ 4 ― 5,14‬ܘ‬ ‫ܢ‬ ‫ܘܢ ]‬ ‫‪3 6 ― 5,23‬‬ ‫]ܕܐܦ‬ ‫‪ 2 ― 5,27‬ܕ‬ ‫]ܘ‬ ‫‪] > 2 ― 5,29‬ܐ ‪ 2 4 ― 5,29‬ܐܘ‬ ‫ܘܡ‬ ‫ܗ ] ܗ ‪ 4 ― 5,29‬ܘܡ ]‬ ‫‪ 3 4 6 ― 6,14‬ܕ ¦ ‪ 2‬ܘ ] ‪2 ― 6,6‬‬ ‫ܢ ‪] sy 6 ― 6,15‬‬ ‫]‬ ‫ܢ‬ ‫‪ 5 6 ― 6,16‬ܕ ]ܕ ̇ ‪2* ― 6,16‬‬ ‫‪] > 4 ― 6,18 1‬‬ ‫]ܘ‬ ‫‪ 3 ― 6,19‬ܕ‬ ‫]ܕ‬ ‫‪ 6‬ܗܕ ]ܗ ‪̈ ] no sy 2 4 ― 6,21‬‬ ‫‪ 1 2 ― 6,20‬ܗܘ ‪] +‬ܕܐ ‪5 ― 6,20‬‬ ‫ܣ ‪̈ ] no sy 2 5 ― 1,1‬‬ ‫̇‬ ‫‪Php 1,1‬‬ ‫ܣ ]ܕܐ‬ ‫‪ 2 ― 1,12‬ܕ‬ ‫]ܕ‬ ‫]ܐܬ ‪ 6 ― 1,12‬ܘ‬ ‫‪5 ― 2,11‬‬

‫ܕܐܬ ¦ ‪̣ 1 3 4 5 6‬ܐܬ‬ ‫ܘܣ ]ܕ‬ ‫ܢ ‪ 1 2 3 4 5 6 ― 1,27‬ܘ‬ ‫ܢ ]ܐ‬ ‫]ܘܐܢ ‪ 4 ― 1,27‬ܘܐ‬ ‫ܘܣ ‪̣ 2 ― 1,18‬‬ ‫ܰ ܶ‬ ‫ܶ‬ ‫‪ 3* ― 2,1‬ܐܢ‬ ‫]‬ ‫‪1tx ¦ > by homoiotel. 6 ― 2,1‬‬ ‫]ܘ‬ ‫‪ 1 2 3 4 5 6 ― 2,10‬ܗܕ ‪ 2 ― 2,6‬ܕ‬ ‫]ܕ‬ ‫‪2‬‬ ‫ܕ ̣ ܥ ܗܘ ]ܕ ̣ ܥ ‪ 3 ― 2,19 ] > 2 ― 2,26‬ܘ‬ ‫‪ ] +‬ܘ ‪4 ¦ text segment not in 1 2 3 5 6 ― 2,28‬‬ ‫]ܕ ̇‬ ‫̣ܗ ‪2 ― 3,1‬‬ ‫]ܗ‬ ‫ܘܗ‬ ‫]ܐܢ‬ ‫‪ 5 ― 3,16‬ܘܢ ] ‪ 5 ― 3,4‬ܐܢ ܐ‬ ‫̣ܗ ̣‬ ‫ܐ ‪̣ 2 ― 3,4‬‬ ‫ܳ‬ ‫‪ 6 ― 4,15‬ܥ ܐ ܕܐܦ ¦ ‪ ̇ 2‬ܥ ܐ ܗܘ ܕܐܦ ¦ ‪ 1‬ܐܦ > ] ̇ ܥ ܐ ܗܘ ܐܦ ‪ 5* ― 4,12‬ܪܘܚ ]ܐܘ ܬ ‪̇ 2 ― 3,16‬‬ ‫‪] > 6‬ܗ ‪] > 3* ― 4,22‬‬ ‫ܘܢ ]ܕܐ‬ ‫‪ 1 2 3 4 5 6 ― 1,10‬ܕܐ‬ ‫‪]+‬‬ ‫‪ 6 (cf 1,9) ― 1,11‬ܕܨ‬ ‫]ܕ‬ ‫‪12345‬ܕ‬ ‫ܢ ‪ 2 6 ― 1,21‬ܗܘ > ]ܕ‬ ‫ܢ]‬ ‫‪ 2 ― 1,28‬ܕ‬ ‫]ܕ‬ ‫̈ ‪ 1 5 ― 2,14‬ܘܕ‬ ‫]‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܶ‬ ‫ܳ‬ ‫ܳ‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܰ‬ ‫‪2 ― 2,18‬‬ ‫]‬ ‫ܐ ܘܢ ‪1mg 2 4mg 5 ― 2,20‬‬ ‫]ܬ ‪ ] + 1 3 4 5 6 ― 2,21‬ܕ‬ ‫‪ ̣ 2mg 3 5mg 6 (v. l.) ― 3,1‬ܒ ] ̇ ܒ ‪ 5* ― 3,1‬ܐ ܢ ]ܐ ‪ 3 ― 2,22‬ܬ‬ ‫]‬ ‫‪4 ― 3,15‬‬ ‫̈ ܬ ܢ ] ܬ̈‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܬܢ ¦ ‪1‬‬ ‫‪2 ― 4,4‬‬ ‫ܣ ‪ by err 1 ― 4,9‬ܘܕ ]ܘܙ ‪ 4 ― 4,5‬ܐ ]ܐ‬ ‫] ܐ‬ ‫ܗ ] ܕܕܗ ‪ 2 ― 4,10‬ܕܐܘ‬ ‫‪ 4 ― 4,14‬ܕ ܥ ]ܘ ܥ ‪3 6 ― 4,11‬‬ ‫‪ 1 2 3 5 ― 4,14‬ܐ ]ܐ‬ ‫]‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܳ‬ ‫ܶ‬ ‫‪̇ 2 ― 4,16‬ܗܝ ̇‬ ‫]ܘܗܝ ‪ 2 ― 4,16‬ܘ ܬ ]ܘܕ ܬ ‪ 4 ― 4,15‬ܕ‬ ‫‪ 1 3‬ܘܐ ̣ ]ܘܐ ܘ ‪ 2 ― 4,17‬ܘܕ ]‬ ‫‪Col 1,2‬‬

‫ܗܘ ‪6 ― 1,19‬‬

‫̈‬

‫ܫ‬ ‫ܢ‬ ‫ܣ‬

‫ܐܘܣ ‪1Th 1,1‬‬ ‫ܣ ‪] +‬ܘ‬ ‫ܢ ] ܬ ܢ ‪ 2 ― 1,5‬ܗܘ > ] ܗܘ ‪(! ) 2 ― 1,5‬‬ ‫‪5 6 ― 1,5‬‬ ‫ܐ ܘܢ‬ ‫‪ 2 6 ― 2,4‬ܐ ܘܢ > ]‬ ‫̈ ]ܕ ̈ ܐ ‪ 4 ― 2,4‬ܐ ̇ ]ܐ‬ ‫ܐ ܘܢ ‪2 ― 2,5‬‬ ‫ܐ ]ܐ ܕ‬ ‫ܐ ̈ ‪ 6 ― 2,9‬ܕ‬ ‫‪ 4 ― 2,9‬ܕ ܐ ̈ ¦ ‪ 1 2 3 5 6‬ܕ ܐ ̈ ]‬ ‫]‬ ‫‪ 2 ¦ text segment not in 1 3 4 5‬ܕ‬ ‫‪ 3 4 5 ― 3,5‬ܕ ]ܕ ‪6 ― 2,12‬‬ ‫]ܕܕ‬ ‫ܢ ‪ 4 6 ― 3,5‬ܕ‬ ‫ܢ]‬ ‫ܐ ܘܢ ‪4mg 5mg ― 3,6‬‬ ‫ܗܘ ‪] +‬ܘ‬ ‫ܰ‬ ‫ܶ‬ ‫̈‬ ‫̈‬ ‫‪4 ― 3,6‬‬ ‫]‬ ‫‪2 5 ― 3,7‬‬ ‫‪ 1 2 3 4 5 6 ― 3,12‬ܐ ]ܐ‬ ‫]ܘ‬ ‫]ܘ ܪ ‪ 2 3mg 6 ― 3,12‬ܘ‬ ‫ܪ‬ ‫ܙ ܬ ‪ 6 ― 4,3‬ܘܬܗܘܘܢ ]ܘܕܬܗܘܘܢ ‪ܰ 1mg 4 6 ― 4,3‬ܘ ܺ ]ܘ ܰ ܶ ‪ 2 3mg 4 6 ― 3,13‬ܘ‬ ‫>]‬ ‫―‪1235‬‬ ‫̈‬ ‫‪ 1 3 5 ― 4,6‬ܗܘ ܘܢ ]ܬܗܘܘܢ ‪4,6‬‬ ‫]‬ ‫‪] > 2 ― 5,3‬ܕܐܦ ‪4 5 ― 4,6‬‬ ‫‪] no sy 1 3 ― 5,11‬‬ ‫ܘ] ܘ‬ ‫‪] +‬ܪܘ ‪6 ― 5,19‬‬ ‫*‪3‬‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܐ ܢ ‪2Th 1,1‬‬ ‫ܕܐ‬ ‫ܐ ] ܬ ܕܬ‬ ‫ܕ‬ ‫ܬ ܕܬܐ‬ ‫‪4 6 ― 1,7‬‬ ‫― *‪] tr 6‬‬

‫]ܕ‬ ‫‪ 1 2 3 4 5 6 ― 2,4‬ܕܕ‬ ‫]ܕܐܦ‬ ‫‪ 1 2 3 4 5 6 ― 2,5‬ܕ‬ ‫‪ 4 ― 2,6‬ܕ‬ ‫]ܕ‬ ‫]ܗܘ ‪2 ― 2,6‬‬ ‫― ‪ 1 5‬ܗ ]ܘܗ ‪̣ > 6 ― 2,8‬‬ ‫̇‬ ‫̇‬ ‫‪ ) ¦ text segment not in‬ܥ > ‪ ) ¦ lemma 6 (but‬ܗܘ > ‪] lemma 4 (but‬ܗܘ ܕ ܢ‬

‫‪ 6 ― 2,4‬ܬܬܬܘܗܘܢ ]ܬܬܘܗܘܢ ‪2,2‬‬

‫]ܕܐ‬ ‫ܥ‬

‫‪1 2 3 4 5 6 ― 2,6‬‬

‫ܗܝ‬

‫ܘܚ‬

‫]ܕ‬ ‫‪2,8‬‬

‫‪Appendix 3‬‬ ‫‪1 2 3 4 5 6 ― 3,17‬‬

‫‪cliv‬‬

‫̈ ‪ 1 2 3 4 5c 6 ― 3,6‬ܘ ܰ ܶ ‪ 1 ― 2,17‬ܘ‬

‫]‬

‫‪1 2 3 5 ― 2,14‬‬

‫‪] > 2 ― 2,17‬‬

‫*‪ 3‬ܕܐ‬ ‫ܕܘܬ‬

‫ܬ ‪]+‬‬ ‫‪4 ― 2,9‬‬ ‫̈‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܬ‬ ‫‪]+‬‬ ‫]ܘܐ‬ ‫‪ 6 ¦ text segment not in 1 2 3 5 ― 4,1‬ܐ‬ ‫]ܕ‬ ‫‪4 6 ― 4,1‬‬ ‫‪̈ ] ̈ 1 2 3 5 ― 5,1‬‬ ‫‪ 4 6 ― 5,6‬ܐ ̈ ܬܟ ]ܕ ̈ ܬܟ ‪ 2 ― 5,2‬ܕ ̈ ܬ ]ܐ ̈ ܬ ‪] sy 2 ― 5,2‬‬ ‫]‬ ‫ܬ‬ ‫‪1c 2 3 4 5 6 ― 5,18‬‬ ‫‪ 4 ― 6,9‬ܗ ]ܗ ‪ 2 4 6 ― 6,4‬ܕ ܪܟ ܪ ] ܪ‬ ‫]ܘ‬ ‫‪12‬‬ ‫‪5 ― 6,10‬‬ ‫‪ 2 ― 6,18‬ܘܘܢ ]ܘ ܘܘܢ ‪] 2 ¦ text segment not in 5 ― 6,18‬ܘ ‪] ̇ 1 2 3 4 5 6 ― 6,10‬‬ ‫ܠ‬ ‫‪6‬ܕ ‪]+‬‬ ‫‪5 ― 2,6‬‬

‫]ܕ‬

‫ܘܕ‬

‫‪5 ― 2,2‬‬

‫ܗ‬ ‫]‬ ‫‪ 4 ― 3,16‬ܕ‬

‫]ܕܐ ܘܗܝ‬

‫ܐ ]ܘ‬

‫ܐ‬

‫‪1Tm 1,12‬‬

‫ܬ ‪ 2 ― 1,5‬ܕ‬ ‫ܕܗܘ ‪̣ ) 6 (but‬ܕܗܘ ‪ ] lemma 4 (but‬ܗܕ ‪...‬‬ ‫‪) ¦ text‬‬ ‫ܬ ‪̱ and‬‬ ‫̇‬ ‫ܡ ‪segment not in 1 2 3 5 ― 1,5‬‬ ‫‪] > 1 2 3 4 5 6 ― 1,6‬‬ ‫]ܗܝ ܕܐ‬ ‫ܗܕ ‪ 4 6 ― 1,12‬ܕ‬ ‫ܕ]‬ ‫ܘ‬ ‫ܣ ‪2 6 ― 1,15‬‬ ‫‪ ] > 1 2 3 4 5 6 ― 2,14‬ܘܢ ‪ 4 6 ― 2,14‬ܕ ‪] +‬‬ ‫]‬ ‫‪2* ― 2,17‬‬ ‫ܗܝ ‪] +‬‬ ‫ܗܝ ‪4 ― 2,19‬‬ ‫‪]+‬‬ ‫ܕ ̇ ܢ ]ܕ ̇ ܢ ‪ 1mg 3mg ― 2,21‬ܐ ]ܐ ܢ ‪ ̇ 6 ― 2,19‬ܥ ]ܘ ̇ ܥ ‪5 ― 2,19‬‬ ‫‪123‬‬ ‫̈‬ ‫̈‬ ‫‪4 5 6 ― 2,23‬‬ ‫ܐ ܢ]‬ ‫ܘܢ ‪3mg ― 3,2‬‬ ‫ܘܢ ]ܕ‬ ‫‪ 4* ― 3,5‬ܘ‬ ‫‪ 3 ― 3,6‬ـ ̇ ]‬ ‫‪123‬ܕ ]‬ ‫‪5 ¦ > 4 6 ― 3,6‬‬ ‫ܘܢ ܗ ¦ ‪̇ 1 3 4 5 6‬ܗ ܢ ]ܗ‬ ‫― ‪] > 1 2 3 5‬ܕ ‪ 2 ― 3,8‬ܕ ܢ ]ܘ ܕ ܢ ‪ 2 ― 3,6‬ܐ‬ ‫̇‬ ‫‪3,8‬‬ ‫]‬ ‫ܕܗ ܢ ]ܕܗ ܢ ‪2 ― 3,9‬‬ ‫ܘ ܢ ‪] sy (! ) 2 6 ― 4,1‬‬ ‫ܡ ]ܘ ܡ ‪ 6 ― 4,2‬ܢ ]‬ ‫‪̣ 2 ― 3,17‬‬ ‫‪3* 4 6 ― 4,3‬‬ ‫ܗ ‪ ̈ ] no sy 3 5 6 ― 4,10‬ܬ‬ ‫ܗ ]‬ ‫‪6 ― 4,15‬‬ ‫] ܝ ‪] > 1 2 3 4 6 ― 4,18‬‬ ‫‪6 ― 4,18‬‬ ‫ܳ ܶ ]‬ ‫ܕ‬ ‫‪6 ― 4,18‬‬ ‫]ܘ‬ ‫‪) 5mg ― 4,21‬ܘ ܰ ܶ ‪ 2tx (mg‬ܘ‬ ‫‪ 4 6‬ܕ ܘܢ ‪] +‬ܘܐ ̈‬ ‫] ܠ‬ ‫ܘܢ ‪4 ― 4,21‬‬ ‫‪2Tm 1,4‬‬

‫]ܘ‬

‫‪ 1 2 3‬ܗܘ ‪] +‬ܕܘ ‪ 1 2 3 4 5 6 ― 1,11‬ܗ ‪ 1 2 3 4 6 ― 1,11‬ܐ ]ܐ ‪ 4tx ― 1,5‬ܘ‬ ‫̈ ¦‪15‬ܐ̇‬ ‫ܕ ܘܢ ‪5 ― 1,12‬‬ ‫ܘܢ‬ ‫ܕ ܘܢ ]ܐ ̣ ܐ‬ ‫ܘܢ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܐ̣‬ ‫̈‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܕ ܘܢ ¦ ‪ 2‬ܕ ܘܢ‬ ‫ܘܢ‬ ‫‪ 3 ― 1,12‬ܐ ̇ ܐ‬ ‫‪] > 3 ― 1,12‬‬ ‫]‬ ‫‪2mg 3mg 5mg ― 3,3‬‬ ‫‪] > 1 2 3 4 5 6‬ܐܦ ‪ 1 2 3 4 5 6 ― 3,14‬ܕ ܪ ]ܕ ܪ‬ ‫‪ 1 5 ― 15‬ܘܐ‬

‫ܣ ]ܐ‬

‫ܣ ‪5 ― 10‬‬

‫ܪ‬

‫ܣ ]ܘ ܪ‬

‫ܣ‪123456―2‬ܘ‬

‫‪Tit 1,1‬‬

‫]ܘ‬ ‫ܗ ]‬

‫‪123456‬‬

‫]‬

‫‪Phm 2‬‬

‫ܗܕ‬

‫‪ ] +‬ܗ ‪ 1 3* 5 ― 1,2‬ܕ‬ ‫‪ 6 ― 1,12‬ܐ ]ܘܐ ‪6 ― 1,12‬‬ ‫ܬ ]ܬ‬ ‫‪] +‬ܐ ‪2 ― 2,6‬‬ ‫‪ 5tx ― 2,8‬ܕܐܬܕ ܬ ܝ ]ܕ ܕܬ ܝ ‪1 2 3 4 5 6 ― 2,6‬‬ ‫]ܕ ‪] tr 4 ― 2,9‬‬ ‫‪2 ― 2,9‬‬ ‫]ܕ ‪ 5 ― 3,4‬ܐ ܗ ]ܐ ‪̈ ] no sy 6 ― 3,3‬‬ ‫]ܗ ܢ ‪1 2 5 ― 4,2‬‬ ‫ܐ ̣ ܗܘ ]ܐ ̇ ܗܘ ‪̇ 1 2 3 4 5 6 ― 4,8‬ܗ ܢ ̣‬ ‫‪6 ― 4,8‬‬ ‫‪ 2 5 ― 6,1‬ܗܕ ¦ ‪ ] > 3‬ܬ ‪ 4 6 ― 5,14‬ܕ ] ‪ 2 4 5 ― 4,12 ] > 1 2 3 4 5 6 ― 5,7‬ܐ ]ܐ‬ ‫ܘܢ‬ ‫ܐ ܘܢ ]‬ ‫‪ 6 ― 6,9‬ܕ‬ ‫‪1 2 3 4 5 6 ― 6,17‬‬ ‫̇ ]ܘ‬ ‫> ]ܐ ܐܘ ‪ (! ) 2 ― 6,19‬ܘ‬ ‫̈‬ ‫̈‬ ‫]ܕ ̣ ܒ ‪̇ 5 ― 8,1‬ܗ ܢ ܗܘܘ ¦ ‪ 2‬ܗܘܘ > ̇‬ ‫‪2¦+‬ܐ‬ ‫‪ 4 6 ― 7,20‬ܕ‬ ‫]‬ ‫]ܘܗ ܢ ܗܘܘ ‪6 ― 7,23‬‬ ‫ܳ‬ ‫‪ 1 4 5tx 6 ― 8,1‬ܕ ܒ‬ ‫]‬ ‫] ̇ ‪] sy 6 ― 9,5‬ܘ ܘܪ ‪] > 5 ― 9,2‬ܐ ‪4 ― 8,5‬‬ ‫‪12345‬‬ ‫̈‬ ‫‪¦ > 6 ― 9,5‬‬ ‫‪] > 4 ― 9,6‬ܕ‬ ‫]ܘ ̇‬ ‫‪3* ― 9,10‬‬ ‫― ‪ 2‬ܗܘ > ]ܘ ̣ܗܘ ‪] no sy 4 ― 9,11‬‬ ‫‪9,11‬‬ ‫] ܗ‬ ‫‪ 6 ― 9,13‬ܕܗܕ‬ ‫ܕ‬ ‫]ܘ‬ ‫ܕ‬ ‫¦‪2‬‬ ‫― ‪ 4 ¦ > 6‬ܘܕ ܕ‬ ‫‪ 2 ― 9,19‬ܘ ] ‪9,19‬‬ ‫‪] > 5 ― 9,19‬‬ ‫― *‪] > 2 3‬ܗܝ ‪ 2 ― 9,23‬ܘܐ ̇ ]ܘܐ ̣ ‪] tr 1 4 6 ― 9,20‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫] ̇‬ ‫‪10,2‬‬ ‫‪ ] > 2 ― 10,3‬ܘܢ ‪2 ― 10,2‬‬ ‫‪ 1 2 3c 5 ― 10,8‬ܘ ] ‪ 2 ― 10,8‬ܗܘܘ ‪] +‬‬ ‫]ܕ‬ ‫̈‬ ‫̈‬ ‫]ܗ ܢ ̣ ܢ ‪6 ― 10,11‬‬ ‫ܬ ܢ ] ܬܗܘܢ ‪̣ 2 ― 10,16‬ܗ ܢ‬ ‫‪5* ― 10,25‬‬ ‫]‬ ‫―‪15‬‬ ‫̣ܗ ܢ ̣‬ ‫ܳ ܶ‬ ‫‪ 1 ― 10,37‬ܕ ̣ ]ܕ ̇ ‪ 1tx 2 3tx 4mg 5mg ― 10,28‬ܕ ܒ ]ܕ ̣ ܒ ‪10,25‬‬ ‫]‬ ‫‪2 5mg ― 10,39‬‬ ‫] ܕ‬ ‫‪Heb 1,1‬‬

‫‪clv‬‬

‫‪‘Masoretic’ Manuscripts‬‬

‫̇ܗ ]ܘ‬ ‫‪ 1 2 3 4 5 6 ― 11,4‬ܘ‬ ‫]‬ ‫ܗ ‪3 ― 11,17‬‬ ‫]ܘ‬ ‫ܘ‬ ‫‪ ̣ 5 ― 11,32‬ܘ ] ̣ ‪1mg 2 3mg 5tx ― 11,28‬‬ ‫]ܘ‬ ‫ܘ ‪1 2 3 5 ― 11,33‬‬ ‫]ܘ‬ ‫‪ 1 2 4* ― 11,34‬ܘ‬ ‫]‬ ‫ܘ ‪2 ― 11,37‬‬ ‫ܬܢ ‪ (! ) 1 ― 12,2‬ܐܬܐ ܘ ]ܐܬ‬ ‫ܗܘ > ]ܕܐ ܗܘ ‪ 1 2 5 ― 12,2‬ܕܗ ܬܢ ]‬ ‫̇‬ ‫‪ ) ― 12,2‬ܗܘܬ ‪2* (c‬‬ ‫‪ 1 2 3 4 5 6 ― 12,4‬ܘ ]ܕ ‪] > 6 ― 12,3‬‬ ‫]‬ ‫]ܗ ܢ ‪4 ― 12,10‬‬ ‫‪̣ 6 ― 12,13‬ܗ ܢ‬ ‫‪ ...‬ܘ ܪ ܢ ‪ 4 ― 12,15‬ܢ ‪] +‬ܕ‬ ‫]ܐܘ ܕ‬ ‫ܕ‬ ‫ܕ‬ ‫ܐܘ‬ ‫ܘ ܪ ܢ‬ ‫‪ 5 ― 12,17‬ܨ ̇ ܗܘ ¦ ‪ 2‬ܕܨ ̣ ܗܘ ]ܨ ̣ ܗܘ ‪6 ― 12,17‬‬ ‫ܘܬ ] ܪ‬ ‫‪5 ― 12,21‬‬ ‫]ܕܕ‬ ‫‪ 2 5 ― 12,25‬ܕ‬ ‫]ܕ‬ ‫― ‪ 2‬ܐ ]ܐ ̈ ‪] 2 ― 13,5‬ܕ ‪ 4 ― 13,5‬ܕ ̈ ]ܕ ̈ ‪ 1 2 3 4 5 6 ― 12,27‬ܕ‬ ‫] ̇ ܕ ‪13,7‬‬ ‫‪2 ― 13,15‬‬ ‫‪ 2 ― 13,15‬ܕܬܘܕ ]ܕܬ‬ ‫¦ ‪] tr 2‬‬ ‫ܢ‬ ‫‪4 6 ― 13,17‬‬ ‫‪ 6 ― 13,19‬ܕ ‪] +‬ܐܬ‬ ‫]ܕ‬ ‫‪5‬‬ ‫ܗ ‪1 2 3 ― 11,4‬‬

‫¦‪5‬ܘ‬

4. P R I N T E D E D I T I O N S The printed editions of the NT Peshiṭta are the link between the hand-written text and the ‘critical’ editions of the 20th century.1 Since the editio princeps of 1555 reproduced the text of one or two manuscripts in print (including scribal errors), the multiplication of hundreds of identical copies is a new dimension within the textual transmission. This printing of manuscripts is the beginning of the Textus receptus (TR), which itself has a history by corrected reprints and by a development towards a ‘critical’ edition in the hands of European scholars. There is an Eastern and a Western variety of the TR, represented by the editio princeps and the Moṣul edition (NT 1891), respectively.2 For this reason, the present Appendix is devoted to this final stage of the transmission of the Peshiṭta and to the faint echo of the textual East-West-bifurcation within the TR. Textus receptus The term Textus receptus does not simply mean that European scholars ‘received’ the text through the hands of Mushe of Mardin3 but rather reflects a text critical qualification. When the term appears for the first time, it refers to the ‘general acceptance’ and supposed textual ‘correctness’ in the preface of a printed Greek NT of 1633.4 The scholarly coinage of the term, however, implies criticism of the TR text as ‘late’ and ‘non-original’ compared to the text in the early manuscripts. Applying the term to the editio princeps of the NT Peshiṭta, the ‘general acceptance’ and supposed textual ‘correctness’ are no doubt qualifications of the manuscripts Patriarch ‛Abdallah selected for print and sent to Europe with Mushe. In pre-modern times, these qualifications were not based on ‘originality’ in a scholarly sense but on ‘reliability’ made by century-long standardization. The TR of the NT Peshiṭta is the result and final stage of century-long standardization among the Syrians—it is the ‘traditional’ text of indisputable reliability. The apparatus of the present edition reflects the process of standardization in detail: Excluding variants from transmission, and reducing the East-West-bifurcation, standardization affects the 1 A selection of printed editions is presented in METZGER Early Versions (1977) 52–56. A survey in BROCK/WITAKOWSKI The Hidden Pearl vol. 3 (2001) 236–240, and in the introduction of the Syriac-English NT by G. KIRAZ (2020). 2 The editio princeps is related to the Syrian-orthodox Mushe of Mardin, who arrived at Rome with Syriac manuscripts for print shortly before 1549. His Patriarch ‛Abdallah I (1521−57) appointed him to bring back for ecclesiastical use the printed copies with the traditional text fixed once for evermore. WILKINSON, Orientalism (2007), points to features of the editio princeps that obviously imitate a Syriac manuscript: ‘The canon, order of books, and the Peshitta text are Syriac. The text runs from right to left, and, to Western eyes, the book opens from the back (…) Titles of books and subscriptions are printed in an older character known as Estrangela. The appended list of feasts tabulates the lections for the whole of the liturgical year. There are no Western verse divisions …’ (172–174). 3 On Mushe of Mardin, GEDSH 300–301 (L. v. ROMPAY). 4 Textum ergo habes, nunc ad omnibus receptum: in quo nihil immutatum aut corruptum damus, cf Manuel de critique textuelle (2014) 323–324.

Printed Editions

clvii

textual diversity, not the textual antiquity. There is no reason to identify the loss of textual diversity with the loss of originality, suspecting the standardized text of being a late and non-original creation. We can control the standardized text by relating it to the earlier stages of greater textual diversity: By selecting (early) variants, standardization appears as the pre-modern way of textual criticism, producing textual reliability by preserving early materials in standardized form. Eastern and Western Textus Receptus Standardization refers to the adaptation of the Western textual tradition to the Eastern standard text, which is the backbone of the textual history. Since all 238 significant variant units are included in the following list of variants, it is possible to determine the participation of each printed edition in the Eastern standard text. 5 The percentages, which are between 79% and 83% (see below), reflect a Western affiliation of the TR, inherited from the manuscript(s) Mushe of Mardin brought to Europe. Besides this Western TR, there is an Eastern one with a participation of 92% in the Eastern standard text, available in print from the Moṣul NT of 1891. The source of this Eastern TR is not the editio princeps but the Eastern standard text itself, partly by intermediate of the Urmia edition(s) printed by the American Mission (NT 1841 & 1846).6 Therefore, a faint echo of textual bifurcation is still preserved in the TR. Correction The history of the TR is the history of the editio princeps of 1555. Except for Tremellius’ edition (see below), the editions of the 16th to the 19th centuries are corrected reprints (now with Latin translation) of Mushe’s and Widmanstettter’s text. The starting point for the corrections are the obvious mistakes,7 which crept into the editio princeps by the way of Mushe’s manuscripts or by printing errors. Using additional manuscripts, subsequent editors detected and remedied most of these errors. Finally, the TR of the Gospels was put to the test by Ph. E. Pusey and G. H. Gwilliam; their ‘critical’ edition (1901) gives proof—according to Gwilliam—of the ‘substantial identity’ of the earliest Peshiṭta text with the TR. The following collation of printed editions offers the final stage of the textual transmission, showing an Eastern and Western variety of the TR in the Corpus Paulinum. For the sake of space, the evidence is not included in the apparatus On the standardized text of the printed editions, see JUCKEL, The Textus Receptus (2015). On the Urmia NT of 1846 KAWERAU, Amerika und die Orientalischen Kirchen (1958) 377–81. This edition was not accessible to me. However, I checked the American Syriac NT of 1886, which is a new edition of the 1841 Urmia NT (incl. Psalms). The participation of both the American Bible and of the Moṣul NT in the EST is 92%. On the Urmia NT editions cf DARLOW/ MOULE, Catalogue II,3 (1903) 1544 and 1547. 7 In the following collation, s. Rom 3,7; 15,2; 16,21 1Co 7,37; 10,27; 12,29 2Co 4,18; 11,4 Gal 1,15; 4,2.31 Eph 6,16 Php 2,13 Col 3,11; 4,3.4 1Th 5,14 1Tm 1,19; 6,10 2Tm 3,16 Heb 2,14; 3,8.10; 4,1; 5,13; 11,15; 12,1.23. 5

6

clviii

Appendix 4

of the present edition. However, the 238 significantly attested variant units are marked by italics, thus relating the printed editions to the apparatus and to the history of the text.

D I F F E R E N C E S B E T W E E N T H E P R E S E NT E D I T I ON A ND I M P O R T A N T E A R L I E R E D I T I ON S 1. The Printed Editions

On the printed editions of the Syriac Bible see T. H. DARLOW /H. F. MOULE, Historical catalogue of the printed editions of Holy Scripture in the Library of the British and Foreign Bible Society, vol. II,1-3 (London 1903/New York 1963), esp. vol. II,1 1–36 and II,3 1526–1553. A Johann Albert WIDMANSTETTER, Liber sacrosancti Evangelii de Jesu Christo Domino et Deo nostro … Vienna 1555. Participation in EST: 81% Editio priceps of the Syriac NT and the first printed book in Syriac. The canon of books according to the Peshiṭta, no Latin translation. An extensive description in DARLOW/MOULE II,3 1528–30. On the historical background WILKINSON, Orientalism (2007). A reprint of the Gospels (including Widmanstetter’s Syriacae Linguae … prima elementa) by Gorgias Press: The Widmanstadt-Moses of Mardin editio princeps of the Syriac Gospels of 1555, a facsimile limited edition with an introduction by GEORGE A. KIRAZ (Piscataway, 2006).

T Η ΚΑΙΝΗ ΔΙΑΘΗΚΗ. Testamentum novum. ‫דיתיקא חדתא‬. Est autem interpretatio Syriaca Noui Testamenti, Hebraeis typis descripta, plerique etiam locis emendata. Eadem Latino sermone reddita. Auctore Immanuele Tremellio … cuius etiam grammatica Chaldaica et Syra calci operis adiecta est. [Geneva] 1569 Participation in EST: 81% A scholarly edition, which includes the Greek and the Syriac (in Hebrew characters), both with Latin translations. An extensive description in DARLOW/MOULE II,1 8–9. – According to WILKINSON, Immanuel Tremellius’ 1569 Edition (2007), Tremellius’ objective is to correct the editio princeps (i.e. A) of the Syriac NT by using a more ancient Syriac manuscript (i.e. Ms Vat. syr. 16 of ca 12th/13th c., IIIn9 of our edition), and to recover—by his good knowledge of Aramaic—a more original linguistic form of the Peshiṭta than available in the 1555 edition. The most visible result of the linguistic attempts is the full vocalization of the text, which Tremellius—according to Wilkinson—executed ‘not in the light of a knowledge of spoken sixteenth-century Syriac (for he had none), but on the basis of his previous philological reconstruction of the history of Aramaic set out in his grammar’ (18). Therefore, Tremellius’ grammatica Chaldaica et Syra is an integral part of his edition. The Hebrew consonantal text in T basically is a transcription of the Syriac in the 1555 edition, though influenced by Hebrew orthographical conventions. On the singular variants in T, see below.

W Biblia Sacra Polyglotta … ed. Brianus WALTONUS, in 6 vols. London 1655–57 (Graz 1964; NT in vol. 5 of 1657). Participation in EST: 81% see KAISER, Brian Walton und die Londoner Polyglotte (2002). – After the Polyglots of Antwerp (1571) and Paris (1645), Walton’s is the third of the great Polyglots that includes Syriac. Starting with the Paris Polyglot, the Minor Catholic Epistles and Revelation reproduce the texts Edward POCOCKE published in 1630 and Ludovico DE DIEU in 1627 respectively.

Printed Editions

clix

S Novum Testamentum Syriacum, cum versione Latina; cura & studio Johannis LEUSDEN et Caroli SCHAAF editum. Lugduni Batavorum (Leiden) 1708 (2nd edition 1717). Participation in EST: 82% This edition C. Tischendorf used for quoting the Peshiṭta (‘syrsch’) in his Novum Testamentum Graece (editio septima critica maior) of 1859/69.

L Novum Testamentum Syriace, denuo recognitum atque ad fidem codicum manuscriptorum emendatum, ed. Samuel LEE. London 1816. Participation in EST: 83% Reprinted with Lee’s OT of 1823 and with the OT Apocrypha by the United Bible Societies, London 1979. In the reprints since 1988 Lee’s NT text is substituted by the text of the BFBS (see below B).

G

‫ܕ ܢܘ ܢ ܥ‬ ‫ܢ‬ ‫ܕܐܘ‬ ‫ܬ ̄ܗ‬ ‫ – ܕ‬The New Testament, (London: S. Bagster 1828), prepared by William GREENFIELD (1799−1831). Participation in EST: 79% The Syriac text is included in vol. 4 of the Novum Domini Nostri Jesu Christi Biblia Sacra Polyglotta … London: S. Bagster 1831 (DARLOW-MOULE II,1 29–30). — The handwritten collations of J. Pinkerton and G. H. Gwilliam preserved in BL or. 11,360 are collated against this text, see JUCKEL, Bemerkungen (2013). According to the short Syriac preface, the text is taken from A, the vocalization from L.

D Biblia Sacra juxta versionem simplicem quae dicitur Pschitta, 3 vols. (NT in vol. 3). Moṣul 1886–1891 (Piscataway: Gorgias Press, 2010). Participation in EST: 92%. A representative of the Eastern TR. Responsible for the editing of the text were Joseph (Clemens) DAVID (1829–90), appointed Syrian Catholic Archbishop of Damascus in 1879, and Mar ‛Abdisho‘ KHAYYAT (1828–99), Chaldean Archbishop of Amid, who in 1895 became Patriarch. On the historical background of the edition and its textual features, see the introduction by S. P. BROCK in vol. 1 of the reprint 2010; and VOSTÉ, La Pešittā de Mossoul (1946). The textual character is Eastern by some dependence on the Urmia edition of 1846 (NT ). Identical text of the NT in West-Syriac characters: Le Nouveau Testament d’après la Pschitto, 2 vols. Mosul 1898–1900; item 55 (p. 99– 100) in COAKLEY/ TAYLOR, Syriac Books (2008).

B The New Testament in Syriac. London, The British and Foreign Bible Society, 1920 (several reprints). The recensio of this edition is based on the majority vote of manuscripts. This volume is included here for contrasting the TR. The Gospels are taken from the 1905 edition published by the BFBS, which reproduces the Pusey-Gwilliam text of 1901 without variants; the text of the Praxapostolos is established from Pinkerton’s and Gwilliam’s collations preserved in BL or. 11,360. The Minor Catholic Epistles and Revelation reproduce J. GWYNN’S texts of 1907 and 1897. − Since 1988, this NT is printed in two columns and bound together with Lee’s OT (1823) and the Apocrypha. The bilingual NT in ‘Sources syriaques’ (Antélias/Lebanon 2010) and the Syriac-English NT published by G. KIRAZ (Piscataway 2020) both reproduce the text of B.

U The New Testament of Our Lord Jesus Christ. Text According to the Pshitto of Mardin, prepared in the Monastery of Mor Gabriel in cooperation with the United Bible Societies. Istanbul 2007 (Gospels 1998; Acts, Epistles & Apocalypse 2007, published with the Gospels in one volume). Based on Ms Mardin Orthod. 35/2 with corrections from B. The participation of Ms Mardin Orthod. 35/2 (IIIn6 in our edition) in the EST is 67%. U ♦ indicates disagreement between U and the basic manuscript.

clx

Appendix 4

2. The Differences The lemma is our edition, the variant is the text of the printed edition(s) quoted. Neglected are 1) proper nouns and different spellings of Greek (loan) words; 2) orthographica of the type ‫ܐܬܕ‬/ ‫ܐܬܬܕ‬, ‫ܬ ܘ‬/‫ܬ ܘܫ‬, ̈ /‫ ; ܫ‬3) different vocalizations (with few exceptions). – Verse numbers in italics indicate the 238 test units, which are all included. The focus is on A T W S L G (representatives of the Western TR ) and D (representative of the Eastern TR). B U are modern edition included for contrasting the TR (in most of the cases they agree with the lemma ). Sigla and abbreviations + addition > omission

sy(āme) tr(anspose)

h(omoio)t(eleuton)

lem(ma)

E(astern) S(tandard) T(ext)

†=ATWSLG Romans

]+ ― 1,5 ‫ܘܢ‬ ] ‫ ܕ ܘܢ‬D ― 1,8 ] + ̈ ‫ † ܐ‬D ― 1,9 ‫ ܘ ] ܘܚ‬D ― 1,13 ‫ ]ܐ ̈ ܕܬܕ ܢ‬tr † D ― 1,16 ‫]ܕ‬ ‫ ܕ‬L G ― 1,23 ̇ ] L G ― 1,23 ‫ ]ܘܕܪ‬sy A (T incert.) W S L G D U♦ ― 1,26 ‫ ]ܕ‬U♦ ― 1,29 ‫ ]ܘܙ ܬ‬sy A ― 1,31 ‫]ܘܕ‬ ‫ ܘ‬L G ―■ 2,1 ‫ ― † ܕܕ̇ܐܢ ]ܕ̇ܐܢ‬2,1 ‫]ܐܦ‬ ‫ † ܘܐܦ‬D ― 2,3 ] > by err W ― 2,14 2 ‫]ܕ‬ T W S G ■ 3,2 ‫]ܕܐܬܗ‬ ‫ † ܕܐܬܗ‬D ― 3,4 ‫]ܐ‬ ̈ ̇ ‫ † ܐ‬D ― 3,7 ] A G ― 3,8 ] + ‫ † ܐ‬D ■ 4,5 ̣ ] W ― 4,7 ‫ܘܢ‬ ‫ ]ܕ‬sy L G ― 4,11 ‫ ܕ ܬܗ ]ܕ ܬ‬S ― 4,16 ‫ † ܕ ܘ ]ܘ ܘ‬D ■ 5,10 ‫ > ] ܐ‬A T W S G ― 5,12 ]>ATWSG― 5,14 ] T¦ L ― 5,19 ‫]ܕ‬ A T S G ― 5,20 ‫ ܘ ]ܘ‬T S L G ■ 6,4 ‫ܢ‬ ‫]ܐܬ‬ + † D ― 6,5 ‫ ܐ ]ܐ‬L ― 6,13 ‫ † ܘܐܦ ]ܐܦ‬D B U ― 6,13 ‫ ]ܐ‬sy G ■ 7,1 ‫ܗܘ‬ ] ‫ܗܘ‬ AT G ― 7,5 ‫ ]ܕ‬no sy A ― 7,7 ‫ > ]ܗܘ‬S ― 7,11 ‫ ― † ܘ ̇ ]ܘ‬7,13 ‫ > ]ܗܘ‬L ― 7,19 ̇ ] + ‫ † ܗܘ‬D ■ 8,11 ‫ܥ‬ ]‫ܢ ܥ‬ A T W S G U ― 8,17 ‫ † ܐܦ ]ܘܐܦ‬D B U ― 8,23 ‫ܪ‬ ‫ܪ ]ܘ‬ † D ― 8,27 ] ‫ ܕ‬L ― 8,36 ‫]ܐܬ‬ ‫ † ܘܐܬ‬D B U ― 8,39 ‫ † ܘܐ ]ܐ‬D ― 8,39 ‫]ܬ‬ ‫ ܕܬ‬D ¦ ‫ ܕܬ‬EST D ― 9,6 ‫]ܕ‬ † ― 9,6 2 ] ‫ ― † ܘ‬9,7 ‫ † ܘܐ ]ܐ‬D ― 9,19 ‫]ܕ‬ ■ 9,4 ‫ † > ]ܕ‬D ― 9,5 ‫]ܕ‬ ܶ ܰ 2 ‫ † ܕ‬D ― 9,25 ‫]ܐܬܪ‬ ‫ ܐܬܪ‬A G ― 9,26 ] T S G D ― 9,26 ‫]ܕ‬ D ― 9,26 ܰ ̇ ‫]ܕ‬ † D B U ― 9,28 ‫ ܡ ] ܡ‬A T W S G ― 9,29 ‫̱ܗܘ‬ ‫ ̣ܗܘ ]ܗܘ‬S ― 9,31 ‫ ܪܗܛ ]ܕܪܗܛ‬A T G ■ 10,2 ] † ― 10,3 ] ‫ † ܕ‬D ― 10,4 ‫ ]ܕ‬+ † ― 10,6 ‫]ܕ‬ U ― 10,6 ‫ܬ‬ ‫ܬ ]ܕ‬ † ― 10,14 ] > A T G ■ 11,2 ] ‫ ̣ ܥ‬S ― 11,5 ‫ܙ‬ ] ‫ܗ‬ A T W S G ― 11,9 ‫ † ܘ ]ܕ ܘ‬D 1 B U ― 11,11 ‫ܗܘܢ‬ ‫ ] ܘ‬sy A W S L G ― 11,16 ‫ † ܐܢ ]ܘܐܢ‬D ― 11,20 ‫]ܗ ܐܬ‬ ‫ܐܬ‬ ‫†ܗ‬D ♦ ♦ ̇ U ― 11,24 ‫ ̣ܗ ܢ ]ܗ ܢ‬EST ¦ lem † D B U ― 11,25 ] ‫ † ܕ‬D ― 11,25 ‫ܢ‬ ] ‫ܘܢ‬ U ― 11,28 ‫ܬ‬ ‫]ܘ‬ ‫ ܘ‬A T W S G ― 11,32 ‫ܬ‬ ]‫ܬ‬ L ■ 12,2 ‫]ܨ‬ ‫ † ܨ‬D ― 12,3 2‫ ܕܬܗܘܘܢ ]ܬܗܘܘܢ‬D ― 12,21 ] ‫ ܘ‬D ■ 13,1 ] sy † D B U ― 13,4 ] sy A T S L G D B U ― 13,8 ‫ܗ‬ ]‫ܗ‬ † D ― 13,9 ‫ † ܐܦ ]ܘܐܦ‬D ― 13,9 ‫ܠ‬ ‫ ]ܬ ܪ ܘ ܬ‬tr † D ― 13,11 ‫ † ܘܐܦ ]ܐܦ‬D B U ― ̇ ̇ ̇] 13,12 ‫ ] ܗ‬tr † D ■ 14,2 ‫ > ]ܗܘ‬L D ― 14,6 ] ‫ ܘ‬U♦ ― 14,8 1‫ ] ܢ‬+ ‫ † ܗܘ‬D ― 14,8 ̈ ܼ D ― 14,16 ‫ ] ܢ‬sy A S G ― 14,19 ‫ ܕ ܕ ] ܕ‬A T S G ― 14,20 ̇ ] no sy L D ■ 15,2 ‫̈ ]ܕ‬ ‫ ܕ‬A G ― 15,4 ‫ܬ‬ ‫ ܕ ܰ ܰ ܶ ܳ ܬ ]ܕ‬by err G ― 15,14 ‫ܘܢ‬ ‫ܐ ܘܢ ]ܘ‬ ‫ܘ‬ S ― 15,16 ‫ ܕ ܘܢ ]ܕ ܘ‬by err L ― 15,18 ̣ ] A T W S G ― 15,20 ‫ ܐ ]ܕܐ‬B U ― 15,20 ] T ̈ ̈ S G ― 15,26 ] ‫ ܘ‬A T W S G ― 15,27 ‫ ܘܚ ] ܪܘܚ‬A T W S G ― 15,28 ] (! ) A T W S G ― 15,29 ‫]ܕ‬ † D ― 15,33 ‫ > ]ܕ‬A T W S G ■ 16,5 ‫ܗܘܢ‬ ‫ܗܘܢ ]ܕܐ‬ ‫ ― † ܕ‬16,9 ‫ܣ‬ ‫ܣ ]ܘܕܐ‬ ‫ ܘܕܐ‬D ― 16,12 ‫]ܘܕ ܘ‬ ‫ ― † ܘ ܘ‬16,15 ‫]ܘܕ‬ ‫ ܘܕ‬U ― 16,18 1,1 ‫ܣ‬

U♦

Printed Editions

̈

‫ ]ܕ‬no sy A ― 16,21 ‫ܘܣ‬ ‫̈ܝ‬

‫ܕܪܬ‬

‫ܘܣ ]ܘ‬ ‫ ܘ‬A T G — Subscription: ‫ܪ ܘܣ‬ ‫ ܘܐ‬A T W S G L U (> U)

clxi

]+

1Corinthians

‫ ܕܐ ܪܪܬ ]ܐ ܪܪܬ‬A T W S G ― 1,10 ‫ † ܕܬܗܘܘܢ ]ܬܗܘܘܢ‬D ― 1,14 ‫ܣ‬ † D ― 1,16 ‫ > ]ܐܦ‬A T W S G ― 1,23 ‫ܬ‬ ] + ‫ ― † ܗܝ‬1,24 ] + ‫ ܗܘ‬A W S L G D ― 1,25 ] † ■ 2,7 ]‫ܗ‬ † ― 2,11 ‫ ܕ ܐ ܳ ܳ ]ܕ‬L ― 2,12 ̈ ‫ ܗ‬G ■ 3,8 ‫ ܐ ]ܘܐ‬A T W S G ― 3,10 ‫† ܐ ]ܐ‬ ‫ܕ‬ ‫] ̈ܗ‬ ‫ ܕ ̈ܗ‬A T W S ¦ D ― 3,17 ̇ ‫ † ̇ ]ܘ‬D ■ 4,5 ‫ ܗ ]ܘܗ‬A T W S G ― 4,8 ‫ ܐ ܘܒ ]ܐ ܘܦ‬by err S ― 4,9 ] ‫†ܕ‬D― ̈ ̈ ̇ 4,9 ‫]ܘ‬ A T W S ― 4,19 ‫ † ̇ܕܗ ܢ ]ܕܗ‬D ■ 5,2 ̣ ] EST ¦ lem † D B U ― 5,3 ̇ ] > ̇ L ― 5,3 ̣ ] † D B U ― 5,5 ‫ܝ ]ܘܬ‬ ‫ ― † ܘܬ‬5,6 ‫ܪ ܢ‬ ] + ̈ ‫ ܐ‬A T W S G ― 5,7 ‫ ܐ ]ܐ‬A S ― 5,8 3 ] T W S (L var. lec. in footnote) ― 5,10 1 ] A T W S D ― 5,11 ‫]ܕ‬ A L G ― 5,11 ‫ ― † ܘܐܢ ]ܐܢ‬5,12 ‫ ]ܐ ܘܢ‬+ ‫ † ܕ‬D ■ 6,7 ‫]ܘ‬ D ― 6,14 ] ̇ ‫ † ̇ܗܘ‬D ■ 7,1 ] ‫† ܘ‬ † ― 6,16 ̇ ‫]ܕ‬ ‫ ܕ‬A T W S G ― 6,18 ]+ † D ― 6,19 ‫]ܗܝ‬ D ― 7,3 ] ‫ ܘ‬A T W S G ― 7,9 ‫ ܕ ܕܘ ܢ ] ܕܘ ܢ‬W ― 7,15 ] > † D B U♦ ― 7,16 ‫]ܬ‬ ‫ ܬܐ‬T S L G ¦ ‫ ܬ‬A ¦ ‫ ܬܐ‬W ― 7,17 ‫ ]ܘܐ‬+ ‫ † ܐ‬D ― 7,19 ‫ܘܬ ] ܬ‬ A T W L G ¦ no sy S D ― 7,22 ‫ > ]ܐܦ‬A T W S G ― 7,28 1 ‫]ܕ‬ † D ― 7,32 ‫ܗ‬ ] > by err U♦ ― 7,32 ‫]ܐ‬ 1-4-2-3 † D B U ― 7,34 ‫ † > ]ܐܦ‬D ― 7,34 ‫]ܕ‬ † D ― 7,35 ‫ ܐ ܘܢ > ]ܪ ̇ ܐ ܘܢ‬U ― 7,36 ‫ ]ܘܘ‬+ ‫ ܗܝ‬L G ¦ ‫ ܘ ܗܝ‬A T W S ― 7,37 ] S ― 7,38 ̇ ... ‫ > ]ܘܐ ܕ ̇ ܒ ܘ ܬܗ‬h. t. A T G ■ 8,1 ‫ > ]ܐ‬W ― 8,2 ‫ ܕ ̣ ܥ ]ܕ ̇ ܥ‬D ― 8,3 ‫ ]ܐܬ ܥ‬+ † ― 8,4 ] T W S L G D ― 8,6 ‫]ܘܐܦ‬ ‫ † ܐܦ‬D ― 8,7 ] + ‫ † ܐ‬D ― ■ 9,3 ‫ ― † ܘܚ ] ܘ‬9,5 ‫]ܘ‬ ‫ ― † ܐܘ‬9,7 ‫ܬ‬ ]‫ܬ‬ † D ― 9,7 ] sy † D U ― 9,9 ‫ ]ܬܘ‬no sy T W S ― 9,9 ] † D ― 9,10 ‫ܢ‬ ‫]ܕ‬ ‫ܕ‬ATSG― 9,10 ‫ܗܘ‬ ] > ‫ † ܗܘ‬D U ― 9,13 ‫]ܕ‬ ‫ † ܕ‬D ― 9,18 ] sy † ― 9,22 ] > A G ― 9,24 ̇ ] † ― 9,25 1 ‫]ܕ‬ † D ― 9,25 ‫ ܕܪܗ ]ܪܗ‬A T W S G ― 9,26 ‫ ― † ܗܘ ܐ ] ܐ‬9,27 ‫]ܕܕ‬ ‫ܕ‬ L G ― 9,27 ‫]ܕ‬ W¦ A T S L G ■ 10,8 ‫ ܐ ]ܘܐ‬A T S L G D ― 10,9 ‫ܘܢ‬ ‫ܘܢ ]ܕ‬ ‫ܕܐܦ‬ ̈ A T W S G ― 10,10 ‫ † ܐ ]ܘܐ‬D ― 10,11 ‫ ― † > ]ܕ‬10,11 ‫]ܕ ܬܗܘܢ ܕ ـ‬ ‫ ܕ ܬܗ ܕ‬A W S L G ¦ ̇ ‫ ) !( ܕ ܬܗܘܢ ܕ‬T ― 10,16 ‫ܗܘ‬ ] ‫̱ܗܘ‬ W ― 10,17 ‫ ]ܐ‬+ ‫ † ܗ‬D ― 10,21 in U ‫ܕ ̈ܕ‬ ‫ܕ ܢ ܘ‬ ‫ܐ ܘܢ ܕܬ ܘܢ‬ ‫ܘܪ ܕ ̈ܕ ܘ‬ ‫ܘܪ ܕ ܢ ܘ‬ ‫― ܐ ܘܢ ܕܬ ܘܬ ܢ‬ 10,24 ] > L ¦ + ‫ † ܐܦ‬D B U ― 10,26 ‫̇ܗ‬ ]̇ W ― 10,27 ‫ ܘܨ ̇ ܐ ܘܢ ]ܘܨ ̇ ܐ ܘܢ‬by err A G ― A T G ― 11,9 ‫]ܘܐ‬ 10,28 ̇ ‫ ܕܐ ̣ ]ܕܐ‬A W S L G D ■ 11,7 ‫ܗ ]ܘܬ‬ ‫ ܘܬ‬W S L ― 11,7 ‫]ܕ‬ ‫ † ܐ‬D ― 11,12 ‫ > ]ܐܦ‬A T W S G ― 11,12 ‫ > ]ܗܘ‬D ― 11,16 ] + † ― 11,16 ‫ ܐ ]ܕܐ‬L D B ― 11,17 ‫]ܕ‬ L ― 11,17 ‫ܘܬ‬ ] + ‫ † ̱ܗܘ‬D B U ― 11,19 ] > A T W S G ― 11,20 ] W ― 11,24 ̣ ‫ ]ܘ‬+ ‫ܘܢ‬ ‫ ܘ ̣ ܒ‬U ― 11,25 ‫]ܕܐ‬ ‫ † ܕܐ‬D B U♦ ■ 12,2 ‫]ܐ‬ ‫ܘ‬ATWS ̈ ̈ G ― 12,5 ‫ ]ܕܬ‬no sy A W S L G ― 12,12 ] ‫ ܕ‬U ― 12,17 ] no sy W ― 12,18 ] L― ̈ ̈ 12,21 ‫]ܕ‬ † ― 12,28 ‫ܝ‬ ] ‫ † ܝ‬D B U ― 12,29 ‫ܘܢ‬ ‫ > ]ܕ‬h. t. A T G ― 12,30 ‫]ܕ‬ † ■ 13,1 ] ‫ ܐ‬A T W S G ― 13,2 ̇ ‫ > ] ـ‬U ― 13,2 ‫ ]ܕ ܪ‬sy W L D ― 13,5 3 ‫† ]ܘ‬ D ― 13,7 4 ] ‫ ܘ‬A T W S ― 13,11 ‫ܕ‬ ‫ܗܘ ܘܐ‬ ] > by err U♦ ― 13,12 1 ‫ ]ܗ‬+ ‫ † ܕ‬D ― ̈ ̈ 2 ̇ > L G ― 14,14 13,12 ‫ܬ‬ ] no sy † D B U ■ 14,5 ] no sy W ― 14,7 ‫ ܘܐܢ ]ܐܢ‬A T S G ― 14,9 ‫]ܗܘ‬ 1 ‫ ܗܘ ]ܕܗܘ‬S ― 14,15 ‫ > ]ܐܦ‬A T W S ― 14,16 ‫ ]ܕ‬A ― 14,19 ‫]ܐ‬ † D ― 14,23 ‫ܢ‬ ‫]ܘ‬ 1,6

‫ܕܘܬܗ‬

‫ܕܘܬܗ ]ܕ‬ ]‫ܣ‬

A T W S ― 1,6

clxii

‫ܢ‬

Appendix 4

‫ ]ܐ‬+ ‫ † ܕ‬D B U♦ ■ 15,2 1‫ > ]ܐܢ‬A T W S ― 15,3 ] ‫ ܕ‬U ― 15,4 ‫ܕܐܬ ]ܘܕܐܬ‬ D ― 15,4 ‫ † ܘ ]ܘܕ‬D B U ― 15,9 ] > † D ― 15,12 ] ‫ ܕ‬A W S L G D U ― 15,14 ‫ܘܐܦ ]ܐܦ‬ † D ― 15,15 ] ‫ ― † ܘ‬15,15 ‫ ܘܐܦ ]ܐܦ‬W ― 15,27 ] + ‫ † ܗܝ‬D U ― 15,33 ̈ ]+ ♦ A T W S G ― 15,37 ‫ ܗܘ ] ܗܘ‬U ― 15,37 ‫]ܕ‬ † ― 15,39 ‫]ܕ‬ † D ― 15,39 2 ‫]ܕ‬ ‫ ) !( ܕ‬A ― 15,41 ‫ ]ܘܐ‬+ ‫ † ܗܘ‬D ― 15,46 ‫ ܗܘ > ] ܗܘ‬W ― 15,53 ‫ ܘܗ ]ܘܗ‬A T W S G ― 15,54 ̣ ‫ † ܕ ̇ ]ܕ‬B U♦ ― 15,54 ‫̇ܗܝ‬ ] ‫̱ܗܝ‬ S L G B ― 15,55 ‫ܗܝ‬ ‫ † ܘܐ ܗܝ ]ܐܘ ܐ‬D ■ 16,1 ‫ܕ‬ ‫ ]ܕ‬tr † D B U ― 16,2 ‫ > ] ܘ‬A T W S G ― 16,4 ] ‫ ܐܦ‬A T W S G ― 16,5 ‫] ܘ‬ 1 sy B ― 16,6 ‫ † ܕܐ ܘܢ ]ܘܐ ܘܢ‬D B U ― 16,7 ] > A T W S G ― 16,8 ‫]ܕ‬ † D ― 16,13 ‫ ]ܐܬܬ ܘ‬by ♦ err ‫ ܐܬܬ‬U ― 16,13 ‫]ܐܬ‬ ‫ † ܘܐܬ‬D ― 16,19 ‫] ܢ‬ L G ― 16,21 ‫ ― † ܐ ܝ ]ܐ ܕ‬16,23 ] > U♦ ― 16,24 ‫]ܘ‬ ‫ ܘ‬A T G ― 16,24 ‫ ] ܥ‬+ ‫ † ܐ‬D — Subscription: ‫ܣܕ ܘ‬ ] ‫ܣܕ ܘ‬ WSL¦‫ܣ‬ ‫ ܐ‬A T G ¦ + ‫ܐܘܣ‬ ‫ܘܐ ܕܪܬ ̈ ܝ‬ D ― 14,37

WSL 2Corinthians

1,8 ̈ ‫ † ܐ ̈ ]ܐ‬D ― 1,9 1 ] ‫ ܗ‬A T W S G ― 1,11 2 ̈ ܰ ‫ ܐ ܰ ̈ ]ܐ‬S ― 1,16 ‫ܘ‬ ] sy B ― 1,19 ‫ܐܘܣ‬ ‫ܐܘܣ ]ܘ‬ ‫ ܘ‬W D ■ 2,3 ‫ܢ‬ ]‫ܢ‬ A T W S G ― 2,7 ‫― † ܘܬ ܘ ܝ ]ܘܬ ܘ‬ 2,9 ‫ ]ܐ ܘܢ‬+ A T W S G ― 2,10 ‫ > ] ̇ ܕ‬h. t. A T W S G ― 2,13 ‫ ܘܚ ] ܘ‬D ― 2,13 ̈ ‫ܘ‬ ] sy B ― 2,16 ] no sy by err G ■ 3,1 ̈ ‫ ܕ ̈ ]ܕ‬A T W S ― 3,2 ‫]ܕ‬ D ― 3,3 ‫ܘܢ‬ ] ̈ ̈ ♦ ‫ܐ ܘܢ‬ D ― 3,7 ‫]ܕ‬ D ― 3,14 ‫ܘܢ‬ ] ‫ܘܢ‬ L D ― 3,18 ] ‫ ܘ‬U ― ■ 4,4 ‫]ܕ ܗ ܕ‬ ‫ ܕ‬D ― 4,6 ‫̇ܗܘ‬ ‫̱ܗܘ ]ܕ‬ ‫ † ܕ‬B U ― 4,8 ] ‫ † ܕ‬D ― 4,10 ]+ † D ― 4,13 3‫ ܘܐܦ ]ܐܦ‬D ― 4,16 ‫ ]ܐ‬+ ‫ ̇ܗܘ‬L ― 4,16 ] tr † D B U ― 4,17 ‫ > ]ܪ‬A T W S G ― ̈ 4,18 ̇] ̇ W S L (T G by err ) ― 4,18 ‫ܕ‬ ‫ > ]ܐ‬h. t. A T G ― 4,18 ] ‫†ܕ‬ ̈ ̇ ] D ■ 5,9 ‫]ܘ‬ A T S L G ― 5,11 ] + ‫ ̱ܗܘ‬A W S L G D B U ― 5,12 ̇ D ― 5,15 ‫ ― † ] ̇ ܘ ܐ‬5,17 ‫ ]ܗ‬tr post ̇ L ― 5,19 ‫ ― † ܗܘ ]ܗܘ‬5,19 ̣ ] ̣ (! ) L ■ 6,10 1+2 ‫ ܘܐ ]ܐ‬A T W S G ― 6,13 ] sy † ― 6,16 ‫ ܐܘ ܐ ]ܐ‬A T W S G ― 6,16 2 ‫]ܕ‬ †D― ̈ ̈ ̈ 6,17 ‫ ]ܘ‬no sy W S L ■ 7,1 ] A T S G ― 7,2 ‫ † ܐ ]ܐ‬D ― 7,3 ‫ܐ ܘܢ ]ܐ ܘܢ‬ ̣ †― 7,5 ‫ܘ‬ ] sy B ― 7,5 ] sy L D ― 7,6 ‫] ܢ‬ EST ¦ lem † D B U ― 7,9 ‫ܬ‬ ] > † D ― 7,9 ‫ܬ‬ ] + ‫ † ̱ܗܘ‬D ― 7,9 ‫] ܐ‬ A T W S G ― 7,12 ‫ ]ܕ‬W ― 7,12 ‫ܢ‬ ‫ܢ ]ܕ‬ D ― 7,13 ‫]ܐܬ ܢ‬ W¦ A T S L G ― 7,14 ‫ܡ‬ ‫ܡ ]ܕ‬ ‫ † ܕ‬D ― 7,15 ‫ † ܘܐܦ ]ܐܦ‬D ■ 8,1 ̈ ‫ † ܐ ̈ ]ܐ‬D ― 8,3 1‫ܘܢ‬ ]+ ] ‫ܘܢ‬ ‫ ܕ‬D ― 8,11 ‫ ]ܗ‬+ ‫ ܐܦ‬D ― 8,14 ‫ † ̇ܕܗ ܢ ]ܕܗ‬D ― 8,18 ‫ ܐܦ‬L D ― 8,19 ‫ܬ‬ ] ‫ܬ‬ D ― 8,20 ‫ > ]ܕ‬D ― 8,21 ] ‫ ܕ‬D ― 8,23 ‫ ܘܐܢ ]ܐܢ‬A S L G ■ 9,3 ‫ܪܢ‬ ]‫ܪ‬ † D ― 9,5 ̈ ‫ † ܐ ̈ ]ܐ‬D B U♦ ― 9,6 2 ‫ܪ ] ܪ‬ ‫ † ܐܦ‬D ― 9,7 ] + ‫ † ܗܘ‬D ― 9,7 ] A T W S G ― 9,8 ‫]ܕ‬ † D ― 9,10 ‫ ܕ ̣ ܒ ]ܕ ̇ ܒ‬U♦ ― 9,13 ] ATWS G ■ 10,1 ‫ > ]ܕ‬W ― 10,3 ‫ > ]ܐ‬h. t. A G ― 10,5 ‫ ܬܪ ]ܕ ܬܪ‬W ― 10,7 ‫ ]ܕ‬+ ‫ † ܗܘ‬D ― 10,8 ‫ܢ ]ܕ‬ ‫ † ܕ‬D ― 10,13 ‫ > ]ܕ‬A T W S G ― 10,17 ‫ܪ‬ ‫ܪ ]ܕ‬ ‫ܕ‬ † ■ 11,4 ‫]ܐ‬ ‫ ܐ‬A G ― 11,9 ‫]ܘ‬ > A T W S G ― 11,9 ‫ܘ‬ ] sy B ― 11,12 ‫ܪ‬ ‫]ܕ‬ ̣ ‫ܪ‬ D ― 11,16 ] ‫ † ܕ‬D ― 11,18 ‫ ― † ܘܐܦ ]ܐܦ‬11,19 ‫ † > ]ܗܘ‬D ― 11,22 1‫ ܘܐܦ ]ܐܦ‬T W S ― 11,22 2‫ ܘܐܢ ]ܐܢ‬A W S L G ― 11,25 ‫ܙ‬ ] > (! ) W ― 11,25 ‫ † ܘ ] ܘ‬D ― 11,26 ̈ ] no sy D ― 11,32 ‫]ܕܕ‬ ‫ ܕܕ‬A T S L G ■ 12,2 ‫ܕܬ‬ ] ‫ܕ‬ ‫† ܘ‬DU¦

Printed Editions

clxiii

‫ ܕܬ‬by err B ― 12,4 ‫]ܕܐܬ‬ ‫ ܘܐܬ‬A W S L G ― 12,8 ‫]ܘ‬ † ― 12,9 ‫ܬ ܗܘ‬ ] > ‫ ܗܘ‬D ― ‫ ] ܕܘ‬sy † D ― 12,10 ] sy † D ― 12,11 ‫ † ܐ ]ܘܐ‬D ― 12,18 ‫ ܡ ] ܡ‬A W S L G D¦ ̇ ‫ܐ ܕܐܬ‬ ‫ ܕ ܡ‬T ■ 13,1 ‫]ܕܐܬ ܐ‬ ‫ † ܕ‬D U ¦ by err ‫ ܺܕܐܬ ܐ‬B ― 13,2 ‫ ܕܐ ]ܐ‬D ― 13,2 ‫ † ܐܦ ]ܘܐܦ‬D ― 13,4 ‫ † ܐܦ ]ܘܐܦ‬D ― 13,9 ‫[ ܐܦ‬ ‫ † ܕ ܘܐܦ‬D — Subscription: ‫ > ]ܕ ܘ‬U ¦ + ‫ܣ‬ ‫ܘܐ ܕܪܬ ̈ ܝ‬ WSL¦+ ‫ܣܘ‬ U 12,10

Galatians

‫ܬ‬ ‫ܬ ܐ ܬ] ܬ‬ † D ― 1,7 ‫ ]ܐ‬+ ‫ ܐ‬A T S G ¦ + ‫ ܐܢ‬W ― 1,10 ‫]ܕ‬ † D ― 1,12 ܰ ܶ ̈ ̈ ̈ ‫[ܐ‬ tr † ― 1,14 ] EST ¦ lem † D B U ― 1,14 ‫ܗܘ‬ ‫ † ܕܐ ܗܘܘ ]ܕܐ‬D ― 1,15 ‫] ܸ ܣ‬ ‫ܘ ]ܕ‬ ‫ܕ‬ ܸ (! ) A T ― 1,21 ] ‫ ܘ‬A T G D ■ 2,1 ‫ ܡ ] ܪ‬A T W S ¦ + ‫ ) !( ܡ‬G ― 2,4 ‫ܘ‬ ̇ ̇ W L D ― 2,5 ] † D B U ― 2,10 ‫ ― † ܕ ] ܕ‬2,12 ‫ ܕܕ ̣ ܗܘ ]ܕܕ ̇ ܗܘ‬EST ¦ lem † D B U ― 2,14 ‫ ܘܕ ]ܕ ܘܕ‬A T W S G ― 2,14 ‫]ܐܪ‬ ‫ ܘܐܪ‬W ― 2,15 1 ] ‫ † ܐܢ‬D ― 2,16 ‫ ܘܐܦ ]ܐܦ‬L D ― 2,17 ‫ ― † ܘܐܢ ]ܐܢ‬2,20 / ‫]ܕܐ‬ / ‫ † ܕܐ‬D ■ 3,1 ̣ ] ̇ A T G ― 3,4 ‫ ܘܗ ]ܗ‬A 1 T W S G ― 3,4 ‫ ]ܐ‬+ ‫ † ܗܘ‬D ― 3,14 ‫ ― † ܕ ]ܘ‬3,17 ‫̇ܗܘ‬ ] ‫̱ܗܘ‬ † B U♦ ― 3,25 ‫ ]ܬ ܐ‬no sy ̈ † ― 3,29 ‫]ܕ‬ ‫ ܕܕ‬A T W S ■ 4,1 ] ‫ ̣ ܫ‬A T W S G ― 4,1 ] no sy T W D ― 4,2 ‫]ܐ ܘ‬ no sy A ― 4,7 ] + ‫ † ܥ‬D B U ― 4,8 ‫ ̈ ܘܢ ] ܘܢ‬A T W S ― 4,9 ‫ܘ‬ ]‫ܘ‬ TS¦ ‫ܘ‬ by err A ― 4,15 ‫ ܐ ]ܐ‬D ― 4,20 ‫]ܕ‬ † D ― 4,24 ‫]ܐ‬ ‫ ܕܐ‬A T W S ― 4,31 whole vs ] > h. t. A ¦ add in [ ] G ■ 5,1 ‫ > ]ܬܘܒ‬A T W S G ― 5,3 ‫ > ]ܗܘ‬D ― 5,3 ] † D ― 5,11 ‫] ܘܪܬ‬ ̈ ♦ ‫ܘܪܬ‬ A T W S G ― 5,13 ] ‫ † ܕ‬D B U ― 5,17 ] no sy EST ¦ lem † D B U ― 5,22 ‫] ܬ‬ ‫ܬ‬ A T W S ■ 6,3 ‫[ ܐ‬ tr † D ― 6,8 ̇ ‫ ̇ ]ܘ‬A W ― 6,10 ‫ܐ‬ ] ‫ ― † ܘ ܐ‬6,13 ‫ܢ‬ ‫]ܕ‬ ‫ܕ ܢ‬ ‫ ܕ‬L ― 6,14 ‫ ]ܐ‬+ ‫ † ܐܢ‬D ― 6,17 ‫ ] ܥ‬+ † D — Subscription: ‫ܪܗܘ‬ ] all without 1,6

addition Ephesians

] + ‫ † ܕܪܘܚ‬D ― 1,13 ‫ ܐܦ ]ܕܐܦ‬D ― 1,15 ‫ ]ܕ ܬ‬+ ‫ † ܘܢ‬D B U ― 1,19 ‫ܬܘܬ ] ܘܬ ܕܪ ܬ‬ A W S G ¦ ‫ ܪܘܬ ܕܪ ܬ‬T ■ 2,2 ] ‫ ܗ‬A T W S G ― 2,2 ‫ ܕܐܐܪ ܕܪܘ ܇ ]ܕܐܐܪ ܘܕܪܘ ܇‬A T S D ¦ ‫ܕܐܐܪ܇‬ ♦ ‫ ܘܕܪܘ‬B U ¦ ‫ ܕܐܐܪ܇ ܕܪܘ‬W L G ― 2,9 ‫ܪ‬ ]‫ܪ‬ S ― 2,12 ‫ ]ܕܘ‬no sy D ― 2,12 ] ATS ♦ L G ■ 3,6 ‫]ܘܕ‬ ‫ ܘ‬A T W S G ― 3,9 ‫ ܐ ̇ܗܝ ]ܐ ̱ܗܝ‬A T S L G B U ― 3,11 ]>A T W S G ― 3,18 ‫ܢ‬ ‫ܢ ]ܕܬ‬ ‫ ܘܬ‬T S ― 3,19 ‫ > ]ܕ‬A T W S G ■ 4,10 ] sy † U♦ ― 4,12 ‫> ]ܕ‬ A T W S G ― 4,13 ‫ܘ‬ ‫]ܕ‬ ‫ † ܕ ܘ‬D ― 4,13 ‫ > ]ܕ‬A T W S G ― 4,18 ] ‫―†ܘ‬ 4,21 ‫ܘܢ‬ ‫ܘܢ ]ܘ‬ ‫ ܘ‬A T W S G ― 4,30 ] † D ― 4,30 ] ̇ EST ¦ lem † D B U ■ ̇ ̇ 5,5 ‫]ܕܐ ܘܗܝ‬ ‫ ܐܘ‬A T W S G ― 5,5 ‫ܬܗ‬ ]‫ܬ‬ † ― 5,15 ‫ ܙܗ ܐ ]ܙܗ‬W ― 5,23 1 ‫̇ ]ܪ‬ ‫ † ܪ‬D B U ― 5,27 ‫]ܕ‬ ‫ ܕ‬A T W S ― 5,28 ‫ ܕܐ ܬܗ ]ܕ ܬܗ‬T W S ― 5,29 ‫ܕܐܦ ]ܕ‬ † D B U ― 5,29 ‫ † ܕ ܬ ]ܕ ܬܗ‬D ■ 6,8 ‫]ܗܘ‬ ] ̣ ‫ † ̇ܗܘ ܗܘ‬D ― 6,8 ‫ ܗܘ > ] ̇ ܗܘ‬D ― 6,9 ‫ܬ‬ ̈ ‫ܬ‬ W ― 6,9 ] sy W ― 6,12 ‫ ― † ܗ ]ܕܗ‬6,16 ] A T S ― 6,16 ̇ ‫ ܕ ]ܕ‬W ― 6,16 ܿ D ― 6,16 ‫ܘܢ ] ܘܢ‬ ܰ ] L ― 6,20 ] > W — Subscription: ‫ ] ܪܗܘ‬+ ܼ ‫ܣ‬ ‫† ܘܐ ܕܪܬ‬ 1,8

Philippians

̇ ‫ ̣ܐܬ‬T D ― 1,16 ‫ܘ‬ 1,7 ‫ ― † ܘܚ ] ܘ‬1,12 ‫]ܐܬ‬ ‫ܘ ]ܕ‬ ̈ 2 ‫ † ܗܘ‬D ― 1,19 ‫ܬ ܢ‬ ] sy † ― 1,21 ‫ ̇ܗܘ ]ܗܘ‬A T W S G ― 1,23 ‫ܢ ] ܢ‬

A T S L G ― 1,19 S ― 1,25

̈

]+

‫ ܕܗܕ ]ܘܗܕ‬A S G ―

clxiv

Appendix 4

‫ ] ̇ ܥ ܐ‬by err ‫ ܠ ܐ‬L ― 1,26/27: vs 27 starts with ‫ܕ‬ ] vs 26 ends with ‫ܕ‬ † B U♦ ― 1,27 ‫]ܐ‬ ‫ ■ † ܐ‬2,1 ‫]ܘ‬ ‫ ܘܐܢ‬A T W S G ― 2,3 ] † D ― 2,6 ‫ܕ ]ܗܕ‬ † D ― 2,13 ‫ ܕܨ ̇ ܐ ܘܢ ]ܕܨ ̇ ܐ ܘܢ‬by err A G (see above 1Co 10,27) ― 2,16 ‫]ܐ‬ ‫ ― † ܐ‬2,17 ‫ ܐܦ ]ܐ‬A W S L G ― 2,18 ‫ ― † ܘܐܦ ]ܐܦ‬2,26 ‫ ]ܘ‬by err ‫ ܘ‬S ― 2,27 ] > † ■ 3,8 ‫ ― † ܘܐܦ ]ܐܦ‬3,9 ]>AT ̇ ̇ S G ― 3,19 ‫ † ܗ ܢ ܕ ܬܗܘܢ ]ܕ ܬܗܘܢ‬D ― 3,19 ‫ † ܗ ܢ ]ܗ‬D ― 3,20 ] † D ■ 4,1 ‫]ܘ ܘܬܝ‬ ‫ ܘܬܝ‬A T S L G D ¦ ‫ ܘܬܘ‬by err W ― 4,6 ‫ > ]ܘ ܘܕ‬A T W S G ― 4,7 ‫̈ ܬ ܢ ] ̈ ܬ ܢ‬ †D― 4,10 ] ̇ † ― 4,12 ‫ † ܘܐܦ ]ܗܘ ܐܦ‬D ― 4,12 ‫ܪ ܬ‬ ] ‫ܬ‬ W ― 4,15 ‫]ܐ ܘܬܦ‬ ̈‫ † ܐ ܘܬ‬U ― 4,16 ] > A W S G ― 4,18 ‫ † ܕ ̇ ]ܕ‬B U♦ —Subscription: ‫ ] ܪܗܘ‬+ ‫ܘܐ ܕܪܬ‬ ̣ ̈ ‫ܐ ܘܕ ܣ‬ W S (‫ܝ‬ )L 1,25

Colossians

]‫ܢ‬ S ― 1,10 ] ‫ܘܢ‬ † D ― 1,16 2‫]ܐܬ ܝ‬ ‫ † ܐܬ‬D ― 1,20 ‫ܘ ̈ܘܗܝ ]ܘ ܗ‬ ̈ U ― 1,29 ‫ ܘ ـ ـ ـ ]ܘ ـ ـ ܫ‬A T W S ■ 2,2 ‫ ܘ ـ ـ ـ ــ ]ܘ ـ ـ ـ‬by misprint G ― 2,2 ‫] ـ ـ ܬܗܘܢ‬ ̈ ‫ܬ ܢ‬ D ― 2,5 ] tr † D ― 2,16 ‫]ܘܕܪ‬ ‫ ܘܕ‬A T W S G ― 2,18 ̇ ] ̇ ܳ T S L G ― 2,19 ‫ ܐ ـ ـ ]ܐ ̇ ـ‬T W S L G ■ 3,1 ‫ ـ ̣ ܒ ] ـ ܒ‬D ― 3,5 ‫ † ـ ـ ـ ܬ ]ܘ ـ ـ ـ ܬ‬D ― 3,6 ‫ܗ ܗܘ‬ ] > ‫ † ܗܘ‬D B U ― 3,6 ̇ ̈ ] ̈ † ― 3,7 ‫]ܘ‬ † ― 3,7 ‫ † > ]ܗܘ ܘܢ‬D B U ― 3,11 ] by err T S ― 3,17 ‫ ]ܘ‬sy EST ¦ lem † D B U ― 3,23 ‫]ܘ‬ W ■ 4,1 ‫ ܕܐ ]ܕܐܦ‬L ― 4,1 ] W ― 4,3 ‫ܐ‬ ‫ ܐ‬... ] > A G ― 4,4 ‫ܗܝ‬ ‫ܢ ]ܕܐ‬ ‫ ܕܐܘ‬A G ― 4,8 ‫ > ]ܗ‬A T W S G ― 4,10 ‫ ― † ܘ ̇ ܠ ] ̇ ܠ‬4,13 ‫ܗ‬ ‫ > ]ܘ‬A T G ¦ ‫̇ܗ ܢ‬ ‫ ܘ‬W S L D B U ― 4,16 ] sy A T S — Subscription: ‫ܪܗܘ‬ ]+‫ܣ‬ ‫ ܘܐ ܕܪܬ‬W S L 1,2

‫ܢ‬

1Thessalonians 1,4 ‫ܢ‬

‫ܬ‬ ]‫ܢ‬ D ■ 2,4 ‫ > ]ܐ‬A T W S G ― 2,8 ‫ܕ‬ ]‫ܢ‬ by err L ― 2,13 ] ̈ ̈ ̈ ̈ ‫ ― † ܘ‬2,14 ‫ ܗ ]ܕܗ‬W ― 2,15 ‫]ܘ‬ W ― 2,15 ] sy W S L G D ― 2,17 ‫† ܐ ]ܐ‬ D ■ 3,2 ‫]ܘ‬ A T W S G ― 3,2 ‫ܢ ]ܕ ܪ ܢ‬ ‫ ܕ‬L ― 3,6 1 ] L ― 3,12 ‫ܘ ܬ ]ܘܕ ܬ‬ ̇ ‫ ܘ ̣ ]ܘ‬EST ¦ lem † D B U ■ 4,1 ̈ ‫ † ܐ ̈ ]ܐ‬D B U ― 4,1 ‫ † ܐ ]ܐ‬D ― 4,2 ‫ ] ܥ‬+ † ― 3,13 A T W S G ― 4,13 ‫ > ]ܕ‬U♦ ― 4,15 ‫]ܕ‬ ‫ ܕ‬D ■ 5,3 ‫ > ]ܗܘ‬T W S ― 5,3 ̈ ] no sy † D ― 5,12 ‫ܢ‬ ] > A T W S G ― 5,14 ‫ ܘܐ ]ܘܐ ܘ‬by err A G ― 5,16 ‫ ܘܗܘܘ ]ܗܘܘ‬A T W S G ― 5,20 ‫ ] ̈ ܬ‬no sy † ― 5,26 ] ‫ ܘ‬U♦ — Subscription: ‫ܐܬ ܣ‬ ‫ > ]ܕܐܬ‬A G ¦ + ‫ܘܐ ܕܪܬ‬ ‫ܐܘܣ‬ WSL 2Thessalonians

] (cf 2,13)

† D U ― 1,4 ̱ ‫ܪ‬ ] ‫ܪ‬ †― ‫ ― † ܕܘܬ ] ܘܕܘܬ‬2,4 ‫]ܕ‬ ‫ ܕܕ‬D ― 2,4 † ― 2,9 ‫ܬ‬ ]‫ܬ‬ A T W S G ― 2,13 ̈ ‫ ܐ ̈ ]ܐ‬L D ― 2,14 ‫ܢ‬ ]+ AT ̈ ̈ ̈ W S G ■ 3,1 ‫]ܐ‬ ‫ ܐ‬A T S L G D B U ― 3,5 ‫ܬܗ‬ ‫ܬܗ ]ܘ‬ ‫ ܘ‬W S L D ― 3,6 ] ̈ † D B U♦ ― 3,6 ̈ ‫]ܕ‬ ‫ † ܕ‬D ― 3,18 ‫ ܕ ܥ ]ܕ ܢ ܥ‬A T W S ― 3,18 ‫ܢ‬ ]+ ‫†ܐ‬D — Subscription: ‫ܕ‬ ] ‫ ܐܬ‬U ¦ ‫ܣ‬ ‫ ܘܐ ܕܪܬ ̈ ܝ‬W S L 1,3

1,7 ‫ܥ‬

]+ ]

]+

† D B U ― ■ 2,2

† ― 2,3

1Timothy

‫ ― † ܕ‬1,15 2‫ > ]ܗܝ‬U♦ ― 1,17 ‫ ― † ̇ܗܘ ] ̇ ܘ‬1,19 ‫ܪ ]ܕ‬ ̈ ̇ ‫ ̇ܕܗܘ‬D ― 2,11 ̇̈] ̇ by err A ― 1,20 ‫ > ]ܕ ܪܕܘܢ‬A T W S G ■ 2,4 ‫]ܗܘ‬ ] L ■ 3,1 1,4

‫]ܗ‬

† ― 1,10

]

Printed Editions

clxv

‫ ܐ‬A T S G ― 3,7 ‫ ܕ ܕܘܬ ]ܕܐܦ ܕܘܬ‬A T W S ¦ > ‫ ܕܐܦ‬G ― 3,7 ̈ ‫]ܘ‬ no sy † ― 3,8 ‫ † ܘܐܦ ]ܐܦ‬D B U ― 3,13 ] sy A T S L G ■ 4,1 ‫ ܘܪܘ ]ܪܘ‬U♦ ― 4,1 ̈ ] no sy † ― ♦ 2 4,5 ‫ܫ‬ ] ‫ ― † ܫ ܗܘ‬4,8 ‫ > ]ܗܘ‬A T W S G ― 4,9 ‫ ]ܘ‬+ ‫ † ̱ܗܝ‬D B U ■ 5,1 ‫ ܐ ]ܐ‬by err W ― 5,3 ] ‫ ܘ‬U♦ ― 5,4 1 ‫ > ]ܐ‬A W S L G ― 5,4 ‫ ܐ ]ܕܐ‬W ― 5,6 ]‫ܬ‬ † ― 5,11 2 ] no sy A W S L G ― 5,16 ‫ † ܘ ]ܕ‬D B U ― 5,17 ‫]ܐ‬ A T ― 5,19 ‫ ܘܬ ]ܘܬ‬T ¦ ‫ܐܘ‬ ‫ ܬ‬D ― 5,25 ̇ ̈ ] A W S G ■ 6,4 ‫ܪ‬ ] ‫ ܕ ܬܪ‬A T S L G ― 6,4 ‫ ܕ ܘܢ ]ܕ‬A T W ̈ ♦ S ― 6,5 ‫ > ]ܗܝ‬W ― 6,10 ‫]ܕ‬ † D B U ― 6,10 ‫]ܐ‬ ‫ ܐ‬W ¦ ‫ ܐ‬A S L G ― 6,10 ] ̇ D ― 6,10 ‫ ܐ ]ܐ‬by err A G ― 6,14 ‫ܡ ]ܘܕ‬ ‫ ― † ܘܕ‬6,16 ‫ † ܐ ]ܘܐ‬D — Subscription: ] † ¦ no sy D ― 3,2 1

‫]ܐ‬

all without addition 2Timothy

]

‫ ]ܐ‬sy T W S L G ― 1,12 ‫ܗܕ‬ ] ‫ܗ‬ † D U ― 1,12 ]>A T W S G ― 1,17 ‫ > ]ܐܦ‬L ■ 2,2 ‫ ̇ܗ ]ܗ‬A T S L G B U♦ ¦ ‫ ̣ܗ‬W D ― 2,5 ] LG ̇ D ― 2,10 ‫ܥ‬ ‫ܥ ]ܕ‬ † ― 2,16 ‫]ܘ‬ † D ― 2,16 ‫]ܗ ܢ‬ ‫ ܗ‬A T W S D ― 2,26 ‫ܕ ܕܘܢ ]ܘ ܕܘܢ‬ ♦ ̇ T U ■ 3,5 ]+ ‫ ـ ¦ † ܕ‬D ― 3,5 ‫ > ]ܐ‬A T W S G ― 3,6 ‫ † ̇ܗ ܢ ]ܗ‬D ― 3,7 ‫ܘܡ‬ ‫]ܘ‬ ‫ܘܡ‬ A T S G ― 3,7 ] ̈ T W D ― 3,8 ‫ܣ‬ ‫ ― † ܘ ܣ ]ܘ‬3,15 ‫ † ܕ ܥ ]ܕ ܥ‬D ― 3,16 ] by err A T G ― 3,16 ‫ ] ܒ‬+ A T W S G ― 3,17 ‫]ܘ‬ † D ― 3,17 ] ̈ ̈ ̈ ̈ ̈ ♦ ‫ † ܘ‬D ■ 4,1 ‫ܘ‬ ] ‫ † ܘ‬D B U ― 4,3 ‫ ] ܬ‬no sy † D B U ― 4,5 ] by err L ― 4,6 ] ‫ ܕ‬A T W S G ― 4,10 ‫ܣ‬ ]‫ܣ‬ † D ― 4,11 ‫ܕܘܗܝ‬ ]‫ܕ‬ †D― 4,13 ‫ܐ‬ ] ‫ ― † ܘ ܐ‬4,13 ] no sy † ― 4,14 ‫ ̇ ܥ ] ̣ ܥ‬G ― 4,16 ‫ ܘܚ ] ܘ‬A T S ― 4,16 ‫ ـ ـ ـ ܢ ] ـ ـ ـ ـ‬A ― 4,17 ‫ ― † ܘܐܬ ـ ـ ]ܕܐܬ ـ ـ‬4,22 ‫ ـ ـ ] ـ ـ‬D — Subscription: ‫ ]ܕܬ ܬـ‬+ ‫̣ܕܗܘ‬ ‫ـ ܕ ܬ ܕܐ ܣ‬ ‫ـ‬ ‫ ܐ‬U | ‫ ] ܪܗܘ ـ‬+ ‫ܣ ܡ ܪܘܢ‬ ‫ܕܬ ܬ‬ ‫ܙ‬ ‫ ܗܘ‬U 1,5

A T W S G ― 1,6 ‫ܝ‬

Titus

‫ ܕ‬A T ― 1,3 ̇ ‫ † ܘ ]ܘ ـ‬D B U ― 1,4 ‫ ܐ ܢ ]ܐ‬T L D U ― 1,5 ‫ܗܘ‬ ] > ‫ܗܘ‬ ̇ + ‫ ― † ܗܘ‬1,11 D ― 1,11 ‫ † ̇ܗ ܢ ]ܗ‬D B U ― 1,11 ‫]ܕܘ‬ ] > † ― 1,13 ‫ܐ‬ ‫ ܘ ܬ ]ܘ‬W ■ 2,5 ̈ ̈ ‫ܢ‬ ‫ܢ ]ܘ‬ ‫ † ܘ‬D B U ― 2,5 ‫ܦ ] ܦ‬ A T W S ― 2,12 ‫]ܘ‬ ‫ ܘ‬by err G ■ 3,5 ‫ ܕܬ ]ܘ ܕܬ‬A T G ― 3,7 ̈ ] ̈ ‫ † ܕ‬D U ― 3,8 ̈ ] ̈ ‫ ܕ‬T W S L G D ― 3,9 ‫ܕ‬ ] sy T W L G — Subscription ‫ܣ‬ ]+ ‫ـ ܕ ܬ ܕ ـ‬ ‫ـ ̣ܗܘ ܐ‬ ‫ ̣ܕܗܘ‬U |: ]+ ̈ ‫ܝ ܙ ܘܐ‬ ‫ ܘܐ ܕܪܬ‬W S L ¦ + ‫ ܕ ܘ‬U ‫]ܘ‬

1,1

Philemon

‫]ܘ‬

1

D — Subscription: |

‫ܪܗܘ‬

1,3

̈ܰ

] > D ― 17 ‫]ܕ‬ ]+‫ܣ‬ ‫ܕ ܬ ܕ‬ ‫ ܘܐ ܕܪܬ ̈ ܝ ܐ‬W S L ¦ +

A T W S G ― 17

‫ܢ‬

]+‫ܣ‬ ‫̈ ]ܕ‬

‫ ܕ‬T S L G ― 18 ‫ ܐ ]ܐܘ‬D ― 25 ‫ ]ܪܘ ܢ‬+ ̈ ‫† ܐ‬ ‫ܣ ܘ ܬ ܐܪ ܣ‬ ‫ܘܗܝ ܕܐ‬ ‫ ܘܐ‬U♦ ‫ܣ‬ ‫ܐ‬ U♦

Hebrews

‫ ܕ‬A T W S G ― 1,5 ‫ܘܡ‬ ] ‫ ܘܡ‬A G ¦ ‫ܘܡ‬ T W S L D ― 1,10 ‫ ]ܘ‬sy A ] ̇ A T W S G ― 1,11 ] sy A T W S G ― 1,14 ‫ ]ܪܘ‬sy † D B U ■ 2,9

T(?) W S L G ― 1,11 ‫ܘܢ‬

clxvi

Appendix 4

‫ܬܗ‬

] tr A W S G ¦ D ¦ ‫ܬܗ‬ (! ) T ― 2,10 ] ] ̈ † D ― 2,13 ‫ ܕ ̣ ]ܕ ̣ ܒ‬A T W S G ― 2,14 ‫ ܐ ܘܬ ]ܐ ܘܬܦ‬A G ― 2,16 in † D ̣ ‫ܕܐ ܗܡ‬ ‫ܙܪ‬ ‫̈ ̣ ܐ‬ ‫ ― ܗܘ‬2,17 ‫ܗ‬ ] ‫ܗܕ‬ D■ 3,3 ] > A T G ― 3,4 ‫ † ܐ ]ܐ‬D ― 3,6 ‫ † ܘܐ ܘܗܝ ]ܕܐ ܘܗܝ‬D B U ― 3,7 ‫]ܕ‬ ‫ ܕ‬D ― 3,8 ̈ ̈ ‫ܬܘܢ ] ܬ ܢ‬ by err A ― 3,10 ] ‫ ܥ‬by err A ― 3,11 ‫ † ܐ ]ܘܐ‬D ― 3,11 ] ‫ † ܕ‬D B U ― 3,13 ‫]ܕ‬ ̇ † ■ 4,1 ‫ ܘ‬T W S ― 3,16 ‫ ̇ܗ ܢ ]ܗ‬A W S L G D ¦ > T ― 3,19 ] ‫ܗ‬ ] ‫ܕ‬ ‫ ܗ‬by err A G (and marked as the end of 3,19) ― 4,1 ‫ܢ‬ ] ‫ ܢ‬A T W S G ― 4,2 ‫]ܗ ܢ‬ ̣ ‫ ̇ܗ ܢ‬W ― 4,3 ♦ ̇ ] ‫]ܘܕ‬ ‫ ― † ܘ‬4,12 ‫ ]ܘܬ‬no sy † ― 4,13 ̣ ‫ ]ܕ ܐ‬tr W ― 4,6 ̇ ] † B U ― 4,12 ̇ A T W S ■ 5,1 ‫ ̈ ܗܘ ] ̈ ̇ܗܘ‬W ― 5,1 ] no sy † ― 5,2 ‫]ܐ ܕ‬ ‫― † ܘܐ‬ ܳ ] 5,3 ‫ > ]ܐܦ‬A T W S G ― 5,5 ‫ † ܝ ]ܕ ܝ‬D ― 5,6 ‫ † ܐ ]ܕܐ‬D U ― 5,13 ‫]ܕ‬ L D ― 5,13 ܶ ܰ A T G ■ 6,6 ‫ † ܕ ܕܪܫ ]ܘ ܕܪ‬B U ― 6,9 ] A T G B U♦ ― 6,16 ] ̈ ̈ A T W S G ― 6,16 ] no sy A T(?) W S L G ― 6,17 ] no sy A T(?) W S L G ― ■ 7,4 ‫]ܕ‬ ̈ ̇ ‫]ܕ‬ ‫ † ܘ‬D ― 7,5 ‫]ܗ ܢ‬ ‫ ܕ ܝ ]ܕ‬W ― 7,11 ‫ܬܗ‬ ̣ ‫ ܗ ܕ‬W ― 7,10 ‫ ܕܐ ܗܡ ]ܕܐ ܗܝ‬U ― 7,11 ̈ ‫ † ܕ ̈ ]ܕ‬D B U ― 7,20 ̈ ‫ܬܗ‬ † D ― 7,16 ] no sy A T(?) W S L G ― 7,20 ̈ ] no sy ̈ ̈ ] no sy A T(?) W S L G― 7,25 ‫ ]ܨ ܬ‬sy † ― 7,26 ‫ † ܘܕ ]ܕ‬D ― 7,27 T(?) W S L G ― 7,21 / ̈ ‫ ]ܕ‬no sy A T(?) W S L G ■ 8,3 ‫ † > ]ܐ‬D ― 8,5 ̈ ‫]ܪܒ‬ D B U ― 7,28 ‫]ܘ‬ ♦ ̇ ̇ no sy † D ― 8,5 ‫ ܕܐܬܐ ܬ ]ܕܐܬܐ‬A T W S G ― 8,6 ‫ † ܘܐܦ ]ܐܦ‬D ― 8,8 ‫ ܘܐ ̣ ]ܘܐ‬A S L G B U ― 8,9 ‫]ܐ‬ ‫ ܕ‬T ■ 9,2 ̣ ‫† ܐ‬B U♦ ― 8,13 ‫ ܕܐ ܩ ܘ ܒ ]ܕ ܩ ܘ ܒ‬W G ¦ ‫ ܕܐ ܩ ܘܐ ܒ‬A S L ¦ ‫ܘܐ ܒ‬ 2 ̇ ‫]ܕ‬ ̇ ‫ † ܕ‬D ― 9,7 ‫ܬܗ‬ ] † ― 9,4 ‫ ]ܘܐ‬+ ‫ † ܗܘ‬D ― 9,5 ] sy T W L G ― 9,10 ̈‫ܕ‬ ‫ ]ܘ‬no sy A T S ― 9,10 ‫ܘܢ ]ܕܐ‬ ‫ † ܕܐ‬D ― 9,14 ‫ > ]ܗ‬U ― 9,14 ‫ܡ‬ ‫]ܕ‬ ‫―†ܕ‬ ̈ 9,17 ] + ‫ † ܗܘ‬D ― 9,17 ‫ ― † ]ܕ‬9,19 ‫ ]ܘ‬by err no sy A W S L G ― 9,20 ‫ † ܕܗ ]ܗ‬D ― 9,20 ‫ > ] ܢ‬A T W S G ― 9,24 ̇ ] † D B U♦ ■ 10,5 ‫]ܘ‬ ‫ ܘ‬D B U ― 10,9 ‫ܘ ̇ܪܗ ]ܘ ܪܗ‬ EST ¦ lem † D B U ― 10,11 ‫]ܗ ܢ ̣ ܢ‬ ‫ † ̣ܗ ܢ‬D ― 10,11 ] ‫ † ܕ ܢ‬D ― 10,15 ‫ > ]ܐܦ‬A ̣ ‫̣ܗ ܢ‬ T W S G ― 10,16 ‫ܪ ] ܪ‬ † D B U ― 10,25 ‫ ܕ ̇ ܒ ]ܕ ̣ ܒ‬EST ¦ lem † D B U ― 10,28 ̇ ‫ ܕ ̣ ]ܕ‬A ♦ T W S G D B U ¦ ̣ L ― 10,29 ̇ ‫ ܕ ]ܕ‬D U ― 10,32 ‫ ]ܘ ̈ܘ‬no sy † ― 10,33 ‫ † ܘܐܦ ]ܐܦ‬D B U ― 10,34 ‫ † > ]ܗܘ‬D ― 10,39 ‫]ܕ‬ ‫ ■ † ܕ‬11,4 ‫̇ܗ‬ ‫ܗ ]ܘ‬ ‫ ܘ‬T ¦ ‫̇ܗ‬ ‫ ܕ‬L G ― 11,4 ̇ ‫ ܘ‬A T W S G ― 11,11 ‫ܗ‬ ‫̇ܗ ]ܘ‬ ‫ ܘ‬W ― 11,5 ] ‫ ― † ܘ‬11,6 ‫ ]ܐ‬tr † D ― 11,6 ‫]ܗܘ‬ ‫ ]ܐܦ‬tr L ¦ > ‫ ܐܦ‬A T W S G ― 11,12 ‫ ]ܕ‬sy (! ) A S G ― 11,15 ̇ ... ‫ > ]ܘ‬h. t. A G ― 11,17 ̈ ̇ ̇ ̇ ‫ † ܗܘ ] ܘ‬D ― 11,21 ] † D ― 11,26 ‫ܗ‬ ] no sy A W S L G ― 11,27 ‫]ܘ‬ ܰ U♦ ― 11,32 ‫ ― † ]ܘ‬11,32 ܼܿ ܰ ‫ ܘ‬A T W S G ― 11,28 ] ‫ ܘ‬A T W S G ― 11,28 ܳ ‫]ܘܪ‬ ܰ ܶ ‫ܘܪ‬ ̣ ̣ ‫ܚ] ܚ‬ T S G ― 11,33 ] sy † ― 11,34 ] sy † D ― 11,36 ] sy † ■ 12,1 ‫ ܐ ]ܕܐ‬A T ܳ S ― 12,1 ] sy † ― 12,1 ] A T W S ― 12,1 ‫̱ܗܝ‬ ] ‫ܗܝ‬ A ― 12,3 ‫̈ ܇ ̇ܗ ܢ‬ ] ̈ ‫ ̇ܗ ܢ܇‬W S G B U♦ ¦ no interpunct. T D ― 12,3 ] sy A W S L G ― 12,3 ‫ ― † ܬܐ ]ܬ ܢ‬12,5 ̇ ‫ܐ ̣ ]ܐ‬ L D B U ¦ ‫ ܐ ̣ ܢ‬A T W S G ― 12,5 ‫ † ܬܬܪ ]ܬܪ‬D ― 12,6 ̇ ‫]ܕܪ‬ ̇ ‫ ܕܪ‬A T G ¦ ̇ ‫ܕܪ‬ WS¦ ̇ ‫ܕܪ‬ L D ― 12,16 ] † ― 12,18 ‫]ܘ‬ ‫†ܘ‬D― ♦ 12,18 ‫ܘܪ‬ ‫]ܘ‬ ‫ܘ‬W¦ ‫ܪ‬ ‫ ܘ‬A T S L G ― 12,20 ‫ † ܕܐܬ ]ܕܐܬ ܘ‬U ― 12,23 ‫]ܕ‬ ܶ 2 ‫ ) !( ܕ ܬ‬A G ― 12,23 ‫ܘ‬ ‫ ܕܐܬ ܘ ]ܕܐܬ‬by err A ― 12,25 ‫ ܘܐ ܐ ]ܕܐ ܐ‬D ― 12,25 ] + ̇ W L D ― 12,28 ] ‫ ܘ‬A T W S G ― 12,28 ‫ ]ܕ‬A T S ― 12,28 ‫]ܘ‬ W ■ 13,8 ‫]ܗܘ‬ ‫ܗ‬

† ― 2,10

Printed Editions

‫ ܘܗܘ‬A T S L G ― 13,12 ‫ > ]ܐܦ‬A T W S G ― 13,13 ] > A T W S G — Subscription (> A T G): ‫ܐ‬

] ] + ‫ܐܘܣ‬

clxvii AWSG¦

‫̈ܝ‬

‫ܕܪܬ‬

T ― 13,16

‫ܘܐ‬

‫ ܕܪܗܘ‬W S L

3. Singular readings in T Tremellius’ edition (in Hebrew characters) is a representative of the Western Textus Receptus; at the same time, however, the edition is a scholarly attempt aiming at a linguistically more ancient form of the Peshiṭta text than extant in the editio princeps, cf WILKINSON, Immanuel Tremellius’ 1569 Edition (2007). This attempt is reflected by using Yudh as imperfect prefix instead ܳ of Nun, and esp. by Hebrew (or Old Aramaic) influence on the full vocalization (e.g., Rom 1,9 ‫ ܰ ܰ ̈ ܬܝ‬is transcribed as ‫)בַ צְ לַוְ ִתי‬. A striking modification of the text is the reading ‫ܬܗ‬ at Heb 2,9, which conflates two separate readings. In the Introduction Tr. tells the reader about an ancient manuscript he used for correcting the editio princeps. This manuscript is today Vat. syr. 16 of the 12th/13th cent., which formerly belonged to G. Postel (1510–1581) and was then in Heidelberg, where Tr. prepared his edition. Several marginal notes in Syriac and Latin obviously derive from Postel or Tr. himself. However, from the full collation of Vat. syr. 16 (which is IIIn9 in our edition) no evidence about a thorough influence of this Ms on the consonantal text of T appears. Tr. was interested in the alleged authentic pronunciation; in the introduction, he says: Prima nobis cura fuit lectionis: quam si diuersam inuenimus, id deligenter notauimus, & quod pro nostra mediocritate optimum iudicauimus, id potissimum sequuti fuimus. Deinde Syriacum textum Hebraeorum literis punctisque vocalibus, multo certe & taedioso labore descripsimus (Our primary concern was the reading: Whenever we found it differing, we carefully quoted it, and what according to our mediocrity we considered the best, we mainly adopted. Therefore, with great care and hard labour, we presented the Syriac text in Hebrew characters and vowel points). This hardly means that variants between A and T, and Ms Vat. syr. 16 are carefully quoted; only a small list is given at the end of the book: Loci quidam, in quorum scriptura partim peccarunt operae, partim codex Vienniensis [ i.e. the editio princeps] ex Heidelbergensi est emendandus (Some places, the [correct] printing of which partly the typesetters missed, partly the codex of Vienna [i.e. the editio princeps ] is to be corrected according to the codex of Heidelberg). The text evidently reproduces the editio princeps in Hebrew characters with few corrections from Ms. Vat. syr. 16. Since the Vatican Ms is only sparingly vocalized, solely the Hebrew orthographical conventions and the special vocalization of T reflect the editor’s linguistic approach. T’s singular readings seem to be accidental, and several of them are (printing) errors. There is no source besides A and the Vatican Ms they could derive from. In the list of differences given above, T corrects A: Rom 3:7, 15:2; 1Co 10:27, 15:39; 2Co 10:3, 11:4; Gal 4:9; Php 2:13; Col 4:3.4; 1Th 5:14; 1Tm 1:19, 6:10; Heb 3:8.10, 4:1, 11:15, 12:23. — When T and A differ elsewhere in the list (some 40 times), agreement with Vat. syr. 16 is few: Rom 2:14; 1Co 9:9; 2Co 11:22; Gal 4:9; 1Th 5:3; 2Tm 3:7; Tit 3:8. The following additional singular readings (among the printed editions) in T show no significant relation to Ms Vat. syr. 16 (two agreements, marked by ‘VS16’). The lemma is our edition, the variant from T: Romans

]

7,22

8,38

] > by err

15,6

‫]ܕ‬

‫ܘ‬

(! )

]>

2,2 ‫ܐܢ‬

‫ܐܢ > ]ܐ‬

2,11

‫ ܐ‬...

3,4

‫ܐ‬

] ]+

7,21

1,4 ‫ܢ‬

‫]ܘ‬

13,13

3,19 ‫ܗ‬

1Corinthians

] by err ‫ܘܢ‬

8,37 2

]

16,28

‫] ܗܘ‬

12,15

‫ܕ ܗܘ‬

12,22 ‫> ]ܗܘ‬

‫ܗ‬

‫ܐ ]ܐ‬

‫ > ]ܕ‬h. t.

16,1 16,14

̈

‫ ]ܕ‬no sy ‫]ܘ‬

clxviii

Appendix 4

2Corinthians 1,21 ‫ܪ‬

Philippians

]‫ܪ‬

‫ܕ‬

̈

6,4

‫ ] ̈ܘ‬no sy

‫̈ܘ‬

8,1

‫ܘ ]ܕ‬

8,16

]

11,1 1

]>

12,15

‫ܐܦ ]ܐ‬

‫ܕ‬

‫ܕ‬

‫( ܬܐ‬VS16)

4,4 ‫ܘܬܗܘܘܢ ]ܕܬܗܘܘܢ‬

‫ܪ‬

5,22

̈

]

‫( ܘ‬VS16c)

‫]ܕܕ‬

‫ܕ‬

‫ܢ ]ܐ ܢ ܘ‬ ‫ܘܢ ]ܕ‬

]‫ܗ‬

‫ܪ‬

‫ ]ܗܘ‬by err ‫ܗܘ ܘܢ‬

1Timothy 2,5 ‫ܗܘ‬ 3,3 ‫ܝ‬ 6,16

] by err ‫ܗܝ‬ ] ̇ > ‫̇ܗܘ‬ ‫]ܗܘ ܕ‬

2Timothy 2,1 ‫ܥ‬

‫ܥ ]ܕ‬

‫ܘ‬

‫]ܕ‬

‫ܘ‬

̈ ‫ܕܙܕ ̈ ]ܕܙܕ‬

Hebrews

‫]ܕ‬

4,16

‫ܐ ܘ‬

]>

3,17

‫ ]ܘ‬by err

1,10

8

2,13

3,17

]

Philemon

]>

1,1 ‫ܢ‬

Ephesians

‫]ܬ‬

2,4

1,1 ‫ܗ‬

3,8

2Thessalonians

]

6,2

4,16

]

2,23

3,5

Galatians

3,13 ‫ܢ‬

‫ܕܐ‬

1Thessalonians

]

6,15 2

‫ܘܢ ]ܕܐ‬

2,17

]

5,1

‫ܘ‬

Titus Colossians

‫]ܐ‬

2,4

‫]ܘ‬

3,2

‫ܕܪܘ ]ܕܪܘ‬

1,22

] ‫ܘܢ‬

2,14

]

3,5

‫ܕ‬

6,1 ‫ܗ‬

‫ܘ‬

‫ܗ ]ܕ‬

8,11

‫]ܘ‬

8,11

] by err ]>

9,4 11,7

̇ ‫]ܕ‬

11,32 11,38 13,2

‫ܕ‬

‫ܕ‬ ]>

̇

‫]ܘ‬ ‫]ܕ‬

‫ܕ‬

‫ܘ‬

TEXT EDITION

‫     ‬

‫    
‬

‫‬

‫݁ܳ ܶ ܳ ܶ ܶ ܽ ܰ ܰ ̈ ݁ ܰ݁ ܽ ܽ ܽ ݁ ܶ ܳ ܽ ܳ ܳ ܶ ܽ ݁ ܰ ܽ ܰ‬ ‫&‪݂ ܳ + %‬‬ ‫ـ ݂ܕ ݂ *܇ (' ܕ ݂‬ ‫‪$‬ـ! ܐ̱"ـ! ݂ܕ   ݂ ܢ ܐ܉ ܕ ݂ܬܘܢ ܪ ݂‬ ‫ܘ ܢ  ݂‬ ‫ܶ‬ ‫ܰ ܽ ܺ ܳ ܶܳ‬ ‫ܗܘ ݁ ܶ‪ܽ ݂ ݂ ܶ ݁ ݂ /‬‬ ‫݁ ܺ ܶ ܰ‬ ‫‪*݂ "ܺ '2$‬ܬ‬ ‫‪ -.‬ܢ܀‬ ‫̱‬ ‫݁ ܰܕ‪ܶ ݁ %‬ܕ  ‪ 9‬ܢ ‪݂ 78‬ܐܘܣ ݁ ܶܕ ܐ‪5‬ܪܝ‪ .‬ܘܐܢ ݁ ݂ܰ‬ ‫ܶ‬ ‫< ݁ ܳ> ܰ" ݁ ܽ‬ ‫ܰ‪ܳ ܰ ݁ .*5‬‬ ‫‪ 7‬ܢ܉ ܰ ݂ܘܕ ݂ ܽ‪ܽ /‬‬ ‫=ـ ܳ ــ! ݂ܕ ݂ ܽ‪ܽ /‬‬ ‫ـ;ܘܢ ݂ ܰ‬ ‫ـ;ܘܢ ܰ? ݁ ܺ< ̈ ܶ=ــ!‪.‬‬ ‫ܰ‪; ܶ %‬܁ ܐ&ܶ ݂ ܽ ܢ‪.‬‬ ‫ܰ ݁ܽ ܳ ܰ ݁ܽ ܽ ܰ‬ ‫ܺ ܰ‬ ‫= ݂ ܽ‬ ‫ܳ‪ܺ 5‬‬ ‫*‪ܳ ܰ ݁ 7.‬‬ ‫  ܢ ݁ ܽ‪ܽ /‬‬ ‫ـ ܢ܂ ܐ ܺ‪7‬‬ ‫ـ;ܘܢ ݁ܕ ܶ ܐ ( ܺـ ܰ‪ ݂ B78 .!7‬ܬ ‪݂ / A%‬‬ ‫‬

‫‬

‫‬

‫ ‬

‫       ‬

‫‬ ‫  )    ('  &! ‪             !  "  #$%‬‬ ‫ ‪*&  )+  , - .  )  /01 2  '34   2  56        7‬‬ ‫ &   ‪  &  )+‬‬

‫ ‬

‫)  ‪)   2  )   7  )8   7‬‬ ‫‪)   &     2‬‬

‫‪  =>?@ A2GHIGHE  )<  7=>?@ A!GHIGHE‬ܐܘܣ **  ‪=! >?@ ABC@>D?E  F‬ܢ‬

‫**  ܰ" ݁ ܽ‬ ‫‪ܰ ݂ .ܰ F7E8‬‬ ‫ܐ‪ $̱ 5‬‬ ‫‪ 7‬ܢ܉ ܘ‬ ‫݂‬ ‫̱‬ ‫ܳ‬ ‫‪;-.‬ܘܢ‪ܶ .‬ܗ ܽ" ܢ ݁ ܶ‪ܺ 5ܳ 7‬‬ ‫ ‪ܽ ݂ B5‬‬ ‫;ܪ  ܳ‬ ‫ܽ‬ ‫ ݂‪ /ܽ ݂ ݂ =̈ ܳ E݂ "ܰ G‬ܢ܁ ܰܐ ݂‪ H‬ܐ̱ ܳ" ܳ=ـ! ݂ܕ ܳ ݁ ܺ‬ ‫;‪ܳ ݁ ܽ 7‬‬ ‫ ܢ܉ ݁ ܰܕ ݂ ܰ‪݂ .‬‬ ‫ܳ‬ ‫ܺܰ ܺ‬ ‫< ݁ ܳܬ‪ܰ .‬‬ ‫‪݁ _O‬ܕ ܶ; ݁ ܰܕ ܰ‬ ‫ܘ‪ܳ .‬‬ ‫ ܺ?! ݂ ܰ‬ ‫ ܶ^ ‪ܰ ܶ R݂ 8‬ܗܘ ݁ܕ ܳܗ ݂ ܶ‪'7‬܀‬ ‫݂ ݂ܕܕ ݂‬ ‫ܶ‬ ‫ܳ‬ ‫ܶ ݁ܰ‬ ‫‪ܽ 5‬‬ ‫ܐ‪ .‬ܢ ܶ ܰ ݁ܕ ܰ ܶ^ ܰ‪ܽ ݂ %‬‬ ‫ܐܶ ݁ ܰܙܕ ̱ܗܪܘ ܳܗ ݂ ܺ‪'7/‬܉ ݁ ܰܕ ܳ‬ ‫  ܢ‪ .‬ܐܢ ݁ ܶ‪ܳ 7‬ܗ ܽ" ܢ ‪9‬‬ ‫‪ -.‬ـ! ݂ܬ‬ ‫ܰ ܶ ܶ ݁ܶ‬ ‫ܶ ݁ܰ ܺ ݁ܶ ݁ ܶ‬ ‫ܐ‪5‬ܐ‪݁ ܰ ܶ .‬ܕ ܰ ܶ^ ܰ‪ܽ %‬‬ ‫ ;ܘܢ ݁ ܰ ܳ‬ ‫=ܐܠ ܶ‬ ‫*ܪ‪%‬ـ!܉ ܰ ݂< ݁‪ ܳ /‬ـ! ܁ ܐܢ "‬ ‫ܐ ݂ܬ‪ [K‬܇ ܕ‬ ‫‪7ܳ 5‬ـ!‪ܰ .‬ܐ ܳـ! ݂ܕ ܳ? ܶ; ܰܐܪ ܳ‪%‬ـ! ܰܐ ܺܙ ‪ܳ .a‬ܗ ܳ‪5‬ـ! ݂ ܶܕ  ܰ‬ ‫ܰ ݁ܕ ܰ ܶ^ ܰ‪ܰ ܶ  ܰ %‬‬ ‫ ݂‪ܶ H‬ܘ ܰܐ‪݁ .‬ܕ ݂ܬ ܽܘ ݂ܒ‬ ‫ـ‪ ݂ C‬ܕ ܰܐܪ ܳ‪%‬ـ!܁ ܶܐ ܳ‪ܳ 9‬ܐ ݂ܦ ܰ‬ ‫?@ A!GHIGHE  53  .!=*! AGHI*GHE‬‬

‫‪;/‬‬

‫ܘ ܥ ( " (@ ‪ ?. Q‬ܘ @ ]ܘ ܥ (@ ‬ ‫‪] A ( a/‬ܕ( ‪A‬‬ ‫&? ܕܕ ]ܕ ‬ ‫](‪ƒ0‬‬ ‫‪̇ N „9‬‬ ‫‪ 1/…#…~…y ?&P 1€…z‬ܕ( ‪] A‬ܕ(‪A‬‬ ‫‪ ?2‬ܘ(‪65(] 65‬‬ ‫‪ Tww!w7‬ܕ‪] } 0# T& Q 0# 7%‬ܕ‪0 7%‬‬ ‫‪]  ?2O‬ܕ‬

‫‪9:;;-‬‬

‫‪M.‬‬

‫!‪M‬‬

‫‪M7‬‬

‫‬

‫‪/#/z‬‬ ‫?>Š \_‬ ‫‪!2=*.‬‬

‫‪/#/‹Œ/x‬‬ ‫Ž \_‬ ‫‪2=2‬‬

‫‪/##‬‬ ‫Ž \_‬ ‫*=‪2‬‬

‫‪cde fghij ke j l jd e me no e pi‬‬

‫ ‪
  b‬‬

‫ܶ‬ ‫ܰܙ ݁ ܶـ ݁ ܽـ ݂‪/‬ـ ܽ ݂ܘܬܗ‪.‬‬ ‫ܰ‬ ‫ܶܘ ݁‬ ‫ܐ‪ ..ܺ O‬ܐ ݂ܬ ܳܪ ‪I‬‬

‫ܰ‬ ‫ܺ ܽ ݁ ܰ ܳ ܶ ܽ ݁ܳ‬ ‫ـ ܰ‪/‬ـ‪݁ b‬ـ ܽـ ܢ ݁ܕ ܰܙ ܳ"ـ ܰܘ ݂ ܶ‬ ‫ـ‬ ‫ܪ‪K‬ــ! ܐ ݂ـ‪% H‬ـ‪F‬ـ ‪ .‬ܕ ݂ـ‪݂ C‬ـ?@ A!GHIGHE  53  .!=*! AGHI*GHE  )"  *.‬‬

‫‪;/‬‬ ‫—‪• A– ~…x a/ E ‘y‬‬

‫̣ܐ(ܢ‬

‫” ‪?7‬‬

‫‪? ;/…# ˆ! B‬‬

‫‪T.w „9‬‬

‫? ̣ܐ(‬

‫‪] N‬ܐ‪#1‬‬

‫“‪? Tw!w7w2ww‬‬

‫‪9:;;-‬‬

‫!‪M‬‬

‫̇ܐ(‬

‫*? &‪?.w!w2Oww T ” % R O Tw‬‬

‫‪Ž T‬‬

‫‪?sw.w&w7w2w‬‬

‫!‪• A– ~ ;# E ‘yw‬‬

‫‪1z‬‬

‫̣ܗܢ‬

‫‪‘y Q‬‬

‫‪ ?w2‬ܬܬܪ‪] +‬ܬܪ‪+‬‬ ‫‪( ?7‬ܟ ](ܢ‬ ‫‪] } & ?w T7‬ܕܪ̇ ‬ ‫‪ ] N ?7Pw‬‬ ‫‪̈ #7] N ?&P‬‬ ‫ܘܗܢ ‪ T.w2 Q‬ܗ ‪̇ 0‬‬ ‫̇‬ ‫]ܗܢ‬ ‫? ‪] N ;/‬‬ ‫‪̇ } 0 T2‬‬ ‫]ܕܨ ‪ 0‬ܗܘܘ‬ ‫?   ]ܕ‪01‬‬

‫‪M‬‬

‫‪M‬‬

‫     ‬

‫   
‬

‫‬

‫ ݁ ܺܕ ܐ ݂ ܰ‪ܳ .‬ܗ ܶ‪ܽ /ܽ ݁ 7.‬‬ ‫ـ;ܘܢ ܳ‪ܶ ݁ ;̈ O‬ܕ ‪I‬܁ ݁ ܰܕ ܐ ݂‪ܳ H‬‬ ‫ܶ ܽ(' ܳܗ ܳ"ـ! ܳܐ ݂ܦ ܰ‬ ‫‪ܳ %‬ـ! ݂ ܺ‬ ‫< ܺ  ܰ‪.‬܉‬ ‫ܳ‬ ‫ܺ ܳ‬ ‫ܰ‬ ‫ܺ ܳ‬ ‫‪B7‬ــ! ̱ܗܝ ܰ‪.‬܇ ݂ ܰ‬ ‫( ݂ ܳ‬ ‫‪ܰ ݂ 7‬ܕ ݂ ݂ ܽ ݂ ܰ‬ ‫ܘ ܰ‬ ‫"ܶ ݁ ܶ‬ ‫ ‪ ݂ "ܽ ܳ B7݁ F‬ܬ‬ ‫&‬ ‫=? ܽ '/ܽ ݁ ܰ ܶ I‬ܐ ݂ܦ ( ݂‬ ‫ܶ ܺ‬ ‫ܳ ܺ‬ ‫ܘ ܽ ܳ‬ ‫ܰ‬ ‫ܽ‬ ‫ܰ‬ ‫ܺ‬ ‫ܗ‪ܳ ܳ ܳ ܰ ̱ 8‬‬ ‫ܽ‬ ‫ ܪ ‪I‬‬ ‫"‬ ‫‪ 7‬ܗܝ ‪ " ݂ܽ 9‬ـ! ܗ" ـ! ݂ܕ‪. A7O‬܇ ܘ" ܽ‪ C‬ܪ ݁‪ =ܶ7‬ܥ‪݁ .‬ܕܗܘ ܗܘ ܪ ܳ= ـ! ݂ܳ‬ ‫ܰ ܳ ܽ ܰ ݁ܰ ܳ ܰ ܽ ܳ‬ ‫‪ܺ B7‬‬ ‫‪B7‬ــ!‪ܰ .‬‬ ‫ܨ‪ܳ ݂ .‬‬ ‫ܘܬ ݂ ܺܕ ܐ ݂ ̱ܗ ܳܘ ܶ‪ܰ ݁ Oܰ ;.‬‬ ‫;ܬ ݂ ܳܬ ܰܐ ܰ‬ ‫ܘ‪݁ ܶ ݁ '%‬‬ ‫‪.F‬‬ ‫‪ ݂  ;-.‬ܬܢ‪ .‬ܕ ݂‪݂ ?@ A!GHIGHE  53  .!=*! AGHI*GHE  )"  *.‬‬

‫‪] N ?*P‬ܐܦ ‪0#‬‬ ‫‪ ?2O‬ܐ‪] 1‬ܕܐ‪1‬‬ ‫‪] N ?P‬ܗ ‪0‬‬ ‫Ž ‪##] u Tw a# ;/ ‘y ?w2O‬‬ ‫‪]  T7sw a# ?s‬‬ ‫‪ T.‬ܕ ‪7 E‬ܬ‪] 4‬ܘ ‪7 E‬ܬ‪4‬‬ ‫€‪ T& 1/…# 1‬ܕܗ‪# 1‬ܬܢ ]&‪# 1‬ܬܢ‬ ‫? ‪ 1#— A  E‬ܗܘ‪] N 4‬ܕܐ‪ 1‬ܗܘ‪4‬‬ ‫‪̇ ? Tw2ww ?wwx ;/…# ˆ! ? T Q N 1z‬‬ ‫‪& ? Tw.w!ww&w7] &L‬‬ ‫‪] 6 ?7‬ܘ‪6‬‬ ‫? ܕܪ‪] C‬ܕܪ‪& C‬‬ ‫‪ A™ , - M!| #01 .M7|  *ME ;/‬ܕ& " '   ‪ 0‬ܐ( ‪1̣ ] } 0‬ܒ‬ ‫? ‪̇ ̈ 5 ? „9 Q ROv ;#‬ܗܢ܇ ]‪ ̈ 5‬܇ ̇ܗܢ‬ ‫‪ 1/…#…~…y ?& 1€…z‬ܘ ]ܕ‬ ‫‪] N ?P‬ܘ‬ ‫‪   TP A -1E Q‬‬ ‫‪   6  ;#‬‬

‫‪? Q‬‬

‫‪1y‬‬

‫&‪? AP -1E T‬‬

‫    ‪6  ] 6‬‬

‫‪9:;;-‬‬

‫‪M‬‬

‫‪M‬‬

‫*‪M‬‬

‫‪M.‬‬

‫
 
‬ ‫

‬

‫˜‬

‫‪cde fghij ke j l jd e me no e pi‬‬

‫‪r‬‬

‫‪
  b r‬‬

‫ܽ‬ ‫ ـ! ܕ ܰ‪ܳ ݁ O‬‬ ‫ܳ‬ ‫ܰ‬ ‫ܘ‪ܽ ݂ .‬‬ ‫‪75‬ـ! ܐܶ ݁‬ ‫ܪ ‪ .‬ܐ̱ ܳ> ܶ"ـ! ܐܶ ݂ܬ ܰ‬ ‫‪ܶ ̈ BC‬‬ ‫‪ . .ܶ 5‬ܐ̱ ܳ> ܶ"ـ! ܐܶ ݂ܬ ݂ ܶ‬ ‫‪E7‬ـ!‬ ‫"‪F‬ܘ‪ .‬ܐ̱> ܶ"ـ! ݂ ݂‪݂ ܳ E‬‬ ‫ܺ‬ ‫‪ܶ ݁ =̈ ܶ 7=7‬ــ! ݂ ܶܕ ܐ ܶ> ‪݂ ܰ I‬ܘܕ‪ܰ .&ܶ̈ ܶ%‬ܘ‪ܺ ܺ O‬‬ ‫‪7‬ܘ‪ .‬ܐ̱ ܳ> ܶ"ــ! ܐܶ ݂ܬ ݁‪ /݂ ܶ /‬܁ ݁ ܰ‪ܺ ݂ = E݂ Cܶ O‬ܕ ݂‪$‬‬ ‫‪+ /‬ܗ"ـ!‪ .‬ܘܗܘܘ ‪݂ 7‬‬ ‫ܳ‬ ‫ܰ ̈ ܶ ܶ ܳ ݁ܳ ܺ ̈ ܶ‬ ‫ܶ ݁ ܰ ܳ ܽ ݁ܰ ܳ ݁ ܳ‬ ‫‪ܰ .‬ܘܐ̱ ܳ>"ܶـ! ݂ ̈ܶ= ݁ ܶ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪7‬ܘ‪ .‬ܘ‪ [K݂ -. 7ܺ ݁ Oܰ 9‬܉ ܕ?‪7‬‬ ‫ ܶ"ــ! ݂ ܶܕ  ݂ ܶ‬ ‫‪ܳ B-.‬‬ ‫&ــ! ܰܘ‪ . %ܰ I ܶ"ــ! ‪I + Oܽ 9‬‬ ‫‪;-.‬ܘܢ‪.‬‬ ‫ܗܘ‬ ‫‪7‬‬ ‫‬

‫‪r‬‬

‫ܳ‬ ‫݁ ܰ; ܳ ܽ ݂ ܬ‬

‫‬

‫‬

‫‬

‫ ‬

‫‪t‬‬

‫‬

‫ ‪41(  )+  , - .‬‬ ‫‪  )   7  )8‬‬

‫ܕܐ‪1$‬ܬ‪4‬‬

‫** ('  &! ‪          "  #$%‬‬ ‫‪=*.‬‬ ‫*=  )  ‪)  /01 2  '34   2     7‬‬

‫̈‬ ‫ܕ' ‪7‬‬ ‫=‬

‫ ‬

‫‪  7‬‬ ‫‪)<  7=>?@ A!GHIGHE  53  .!=*! AGHI*GHE  )"  *.‬‬

‫‪-  a#‬‬

‫? ‪?w.w2w ” -1 ‘y‬‬

‫?  } ]&‪# 1‬ܬ‪4‬‬ ‫̈‬ ‫‪  G‬‬ ‫]ܪ‪ Q‬ܙ ‪  4‬ܐܬ‪ I‬ܕ‪ 7%‬‬ ‫€‪] #( 1/…#…~ ?2 1‬ܘ(‪#‬‬ ‫‪   B] N   TP Q -  a#‬ܙ‪#‬‬ ‫̈‬ ‫Ž ?‬ ‫](‪# L‬‬ ‫‪% u T.‬‬ ‫‪(+] u Tw7 ~ ?w2O‬‬ ‫‪D  ? T.w!wwš u ? Tww&w7w2w • ˆ! B‬‬ ‫? ‪41(] % u B Q # ( 1#‬‬ ‫̈‬ ‫]ܕ' ‪7‬‬ ‫? ‪% u‬‬ ‫‪̈#] % u T.‬‬ ‫‪] N TP‬ܕ‪01‬‬ ‫Ž ‪:7] -  a# Q u ?w7w2Ow‬‬ ‫‪$C] % u T! Q -  a#‬‬

‫‪9:;;-‬‬

‫*‪M‬‬

‫*‪M‬‬

‫**‪M‬‬

‫‪M*.‬‬

‫!*‪M‬‬ ‫*‪M‬‬

‫~‪//‬‬ ‫= [‪_\ ›C‬‬ ‫‪//~/‬‬ ‫=‪_\ ›C[ 7‬‬ ‫!=‬

‫‪q‬‬

‫œ‪//#yŒ#‬‬ ‫Ž \_‬ ‫!=‬

‫‪cde fghij ke j l jd e me no e pi‬‬

‫   
‬

‫݁ ܰ ܳ ܽ ܳ‬ ‫‪B-.‬ܬܶܗ ݁ܕ ݂ ܶ‪ܽ K‬‬ ‫ܗܘ ܰ ݂‪Iܳ B‬܁ ݁‪Eܰ ݂ /‬܉ ݁ܕ ܳ‪ܶ ݂ ܶ" 9‬‬ ‫ ‪5‬ــ! ݂ ܰ‪ܳ ? !.‬‬

‫‪t‬‬

‫‬ ‫)  ‪          + /01 != &  "  #$% !&  )+  , - .‬‬ ‫  )  ‪ /01 2  '34   2     7‬‬ ‫‪ *  )   7‬‬

‫ ‬

‫‪F  2= A&GHI7GHE  53  .!=*! AGHI*GHE‬‬

‫‪9:;;-‬‬

‫ܗ‪# 1‬ܬ‪4‬‬

‫‪1€…z‬‬

‫*?  ‬ ‫]‬ ‫Ž ‪E] u T! ?! ;/ ?!2O‬‬ ‫? ‪] u‬ܘ ‪#‬‬ ‫‪&C] }  T‬ܕܘܬ‪4‬‬ ‫‪ T‬ܕ‪ ] 01‬‬ ‫?  ܗ ] ‪4‬‬ ‫‪ ?7‬ܗ ‪] 0‬ܘܗ ‪0‬‬ ‫‪] 11 ?* Q N Q ?P‬ܕ( ܪ ‪Q‬‬ ‫? ܘ(‪& 5‬ܕ ‪Tw& Q‬‬ ‫̇‬ ‫̇‬ ‫]ܘ(‪ 5‬ܗ‬ ‫ܕ(‪ 5‬ܗ‬ ‫&? ? ܘܐ‪&C‬ܕ ‪ܰ x Q‬‬ ‫]ܘ‪&C‬ܕ‬ ‫ܘ‪&ܶ C‬ܕ‬ ‫̣‬ ‫?‬ ‫̇‬ ‫‪%‬ܪ‪%] &#‬ܪ‪&#‬‬ ‫‪?P TwP 1/…#…~…y ?!Pw‬‬ ‫̇‬ ‫ܘ(‪ 5‬ܗ ]ܘ(‪ 5‬ܗ‬ ‫Ž ‪A (] A( T& 1~ ?w!w7w‬‬ ‫‪ ?2‬ܘ(‪0(] 0‬‬ ‫? ‪] vO‬ܕ‪ #‬ܗܝ  ‬ ‫‪]   ;/‬ܕ‪01‬‬

‫‪M‬‬

‫‪M‬‬ ‫*‪M‬‬

‫‪M.‬‬

‫!‪M‬‬

‫‪M‬‬

‫     ‬

‫ ‪
 r b‬‬

‫‬

‫ܽ ܰ ܳ ܳ‬ ‫ܽ‬ ‫݂ܘܬ ܶ ݂ ܽ‬ ‫ܘ‪ܽ R݂ 8‬ܙ‪ %‬ܪ܉ ݁ܕ ܺ" ݂*ܬܶ ܰܗܘ ݁ ܳܕ ݂ܐܬܶ ܳܘ‪ܰ "ܰ 9‬‬ ‫‪ BO‬ܢ ܽ ‪.!ܳ ܳ ݁ .‬‬ ‫ ‪.‬‬ ‫ܶ(' ݁ܕ ܰ? ܺ‪ '7‬ܗܘ ܙ ݂!‬ ‫ܳ‬ ‫ܳ‬ ‫ܰ‬ ‫‬ ‫݁ ܺ‪"ܳ */‬ـ! ݂ ܶܕ  ܶ ܰܗ ܳ ܽ ݂ ܬ ݂ ܺܕ  ܺ" ܶ‪C‬ـ!‪ܶ .‬ܘܐܢ ܶ ݂ ܰ?( ܳ‪$‬ـ! ܶ‪;.‬܉ ‪ܳ 9‬ܨ ݂ ܳ‪7‬ـ! ݂ ܶ; ܰ" ݂‪.=E‬‬ ‫ܳ‬ ‫ܶܳ‬ ‫݁ܶ ܳ ܰ ݁ ܽ ܳ ܳ ܰ ݁ ܶ ܰ‬ ‫ ' ‪!"ܳ E݂ O‬܉ ܐ‬ ‫݁ܰ ܳ ܶ ܶ ܺ ܰ ܳ ܶ ݁ ܳ ܰ ܳ ܰ ܰ ݁ ܶ ݁ ܰ ݁ ܶ ܰ ݁ ܶ ܶ ݁ ܰ‬ ‫ܰܘ ܰ‬ ‫ܗܘ ݁‬ ‫‪5‬ܐ̱ܠ‪.‬‬ ‫