A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament

For the Use of Biblical Students

By The Late

Frederick Henry Ambrose Scrivener

M.A., D.C.L., LL.D.

Prebendary of Exeter, Vicar of Hendon

Fourth Edition, Edited by

The Rev. Edward Miller, M.A.

Formerly Fellow and Tutor of New College, Oxford

Vol. II.

George Bell & Sons, York Street, Covent Garden

London, New York, and Cambridge

1894

Contents

[pg vii]

Addenda Et Corrigenda.

Page [167], l. 16. I am convinced that it is only just measure to a book, which from a strong prejudice is not known nearly as much amongst Textualists as its great merit deserves, to draw more attention to “The Revision Revised” by the late Dean Burgon. Those who have really studied it, to whichever school they belong, know how it teems with suggestion all through its striking pages. The present book owes a vast debt to him.

P. [248], ll. 8, 9 from bottom, for Sir Edmund Beckett read Lord Grimthorpe.

Some remains upon sacred Greek MSS. by Dr. Scrivener have been just published under the name of “Adversaria Critica Sacra,” Cambridge: University Press. Reference has been made in this edition to some of the proof-sheets which were sent to the Editor. Vol. I. Appendix A.

Chapter I. Ancient Versions.

[Transcriber's Note: This book contains much Greek text, which will not be well-rendered in plain text versions of this E-book. Also, there is much use of Greek characters with a vertical bar across the tops of the letters to indicate abbreviations; because the coding system used in this e-book does not have such an “overline”, they are rendered here with underlines. It also contains much text in Syriac, which is written right-to-left; for the sake of different transcription methods, it is transcribed here in both right-to-left and left-to-rights, so that regardless of the medium of this E-book, one or the other should be readable.]

1. The facts stated in the preceding volume have led us to believe that no extant manuscript of the Greek Testament yet discovered is older than the fourth century, and that those written as early as the sixth century are both few in number, and (with one notable exception) contain but incomplete portions, for the most part very small portions, of the sacred volume. When to these considerations we add the well-known circumstance that the most ancient codices vary widely and perpetually from the commonly received text and from each other, it becomes desirable for us to obtain, if possible, some evidence as to the character of those copies of the New Testament which were used by the primitive Christians in times anterior to the date of the most venerable now preserved.

Such sources of information, though of a more indirect and precarious kind than manuscripts of the original can supply, are open to us in the Versions of Holy Scripture, made at the remotest period in the history of the Church, for the use of [pg 002] believers whose native tongue was not Greek. After the composition of the writings of the New Testament, it is evident that the Church was in possession of Sacred Books which were of the utmost value, both to those who were already members, and in the conversion of such as had not yet come to the real knowledge of the Faith. The nearness of Syria to Judea, and the growth of the Church at Antioch and Damascus in the earliest days, must have produced a demand for a rendering into the Syriac languages; and the bilingual condition of most of the Roman Empire must have entailed a constant desire amongst vast multitudes to read in their own tongue a verification of the truths taught them. Accordingly translations, certainly of the New and probably also of the Old Testament, were executed not later than the second century in the Syriac and Latin languages, and, so far as their present state enables us to judge of the documents from which they were rendered, they represent to us a modification of the inspired text which existed within a century of the death of the Apostles. Later on, the influence of Alexandria opened the districts to the south and gave birth to the Coptic versions. And about the time of the acceptance of the Christian Religion by the Empire a further impetus was given, and the Vulgate and the Gothic and Ethiopic versions were soon made, followed by others according as the demand arose.

Indeed, the fact that versions as a class go much further back than MSS., constitutes one of the chiefest points of their importance in Textual Criticism; since the range of the ancient versions may be roughly estimated as reaching from the second to the tenth century, whereas the period of extant MSS. did not commence till the fourth century was well advanced, and were continued into the sixteenth. Their respective ages, too, are actually known, and do not rest upon probabilities, as in the first kind of evidence. They are also generally authorized translations, made either by a body of men, or by one eminent authority whose work was adopted amongst the people for whose use the Holy Scriptures had been translated. And they probably represented, either many MSS., or a small body of accepted MSS.

On the other hand, versions as evidence are not without their special drawbacks. It may be found as difficult to arrive at the primitive text of a version, as of the Greek original itself; [pg 003] whether from variations in the different copies, or from suspicions of subsequent correction. Besides this, some are secondary versions, being derived not from the Greek, but from some version of the Greek. Again, some are “sense-translations[1],” rather than word-renderings, and it is in many cases difficult to infer their real verdict. Of course, none but an expert, such as Dr. S. C. Malan, or the several revisers of the succeeding chapters of this edition, can pronounce upon the character of the verdict of a version in question.

It will be seen then that versions by themselves cannot be taken to establish any reading, because manuscripts are necessarily first authorities, and there is no lack of abundance in such testimony. Yet they confirm, or help to decide, the conclusions or the leanings of manuscriptal evidence: and taken in connexion with other witnesses, they have much independent force, varying of course according to the character of the version or versions, and the nature and extent of their agreement. In this respect they possess great importance.

The experience of recent years has shown that it is misleading to construct classes of versions in regard to their relative importance. Fuller knowledge casts aside, and often with contumely, such adventitious helps. Readers are therefore referred for information upon each version to the chapter or section which is devoted to it, and are recommended to gather their apprehensions of the several values of those versions from the facts recorded therein, and from use of them in the various passages of Holy Scripture where they are cited. But the following is a list of the chief versions of the New Testament which were made before the introduction of printing, and a few handposts are inserted here and there for elementary guidance in the study of them:—

I. Peshitto Syriac (cent. ii), called “the Queen of Versions” (Hort, cent. iii).

II. Latin version or versions[2] (ii, or ii-iv). Remarkable for age.

III. Bohairic (or Memphitic) (iii? Stern, iv or v), best of the Egyptian versions.

IV. Sahidic (or Thebaic) (iii?), second Egyptian version.

V. Middle-Egyptian (iii?).

VI. Fayoumic (ii or iii?).

VII. Curetonian (iv), corrupt,—(Hort, ii).

VIII. Vulgate (iv), made by Jerome from the various Latin texts in vogue at the time.

IX. Gothic (iv).

X. Armenian (iv).

XI. Jerusalem (v?).

XII. Ethiopic (v-vi). A large number of MSS. exist.

XIII. Georgian (v, vi?).

XIV. Philoxenian (a.d. 508), corrected by Thomas of Harkel, Harkleian (a.d. 616); very literal.

XV. Arabic versions (ix-xvii), made from Greek, Syriac, Egyptian, &c.

XVI. Anglo-Saxon (x) of the Gospels, made from the Vulgate.

XVII. Frankish (ix).

XVIII. Two Persic, from the Peshitto (xiii), and from the Greek (xiv).

The last four, being secondary, are worth but little as critical helps.

It may be added, that from the literary activity of the last ten years in the closer examination of ancient records, and through discoveries in Egypt and elsewhere, a great deal has been added to the knowledge previously existing upon this part of the subject of this book. Therefore in the succeeding chapters much alteration has been found necessary both in the way of correction, because some theories have been exploded under the increased light of wider information, and by the insertion of additions from the results of investigation and of study. The editor has been readily and generously assisted by several accomplished scholars who are experts in their respective departments; and the names of the various writers who have contributed to the four succeeding chapters will form a sufficient guarantee for the soundness and completeness of the information therein supplied.

Chapter II. Syriac Versions.

In the following account of the earlier Syriac versions, the Editor has received the most valuable help from the Rev. G. H. Gwilliam, B.D., Fellow of Hertford College, who is editing the Peshitto Gospels for the University of Oxford. And upon the Harkleian version, he is indebted for important assistance to the Rev. H. Deane, late Fellow of St. John's College, whose labours have been unfortunately stopped by failure in eyesight.

1. The Peshitto.

The Aramaean or Syriac (preserved to this day as their sacred tongue by several Eastern Churches) is an important branch of the great Semitic family of languages, and as early as Jacob's age existed distinct from the Hebrew (Gen. xxxi. 47). As we now find it in books, it was spoken in the north of Syria and in Upper Mesopotamia about Edessa, and survives to this day in the vernacular of the plateau to the north of Mardin and Nisibis[3]. It is a more copious, flexible, and elegant language than the old Hebrew (which ceased to be vernacular at the Babylonish captivity) had ever the means of becoming, and is so intimately akin to the Chaldee as spoken at Babylon, and throughout Syria, that the latter was popularly known by its name (2 Kings xviii. 26; Isa. xxxvi. 11; Dan. ii. 4)[4]. As the Gospel took firm root at Antioch within a few years after the Lord's Ascension (Acts xi. 19-27; xiii. 1, &c.), we might deem it probable that its tidings soon spread from the Greek capital into the native interior, even though we utterly rejected the venerable [pg 007] tradition of Thaddaeus' mission to Abgarus, toparch of Edessa, as well as the fable of that monarch's intercourse with Christ while yet on earth (Eusebius, Eccl. Hist., i. 13; ii. 1). At all events we are sure that Christianity flourished in these regions at a very early period; it is even possible that the Syriac Scriptures were seen by Hegesippus in the second century (Euseb., Eccl. Hist., iv. 22); they were familiarly used and claimed as his national version by the eminent Ephraem of Edessa in the fourth. Thus the universal belief of later ages, and the very nature of the case, seem to render it unquestionable that the Syrian Church was possessed of a translation, both of the Old and New Testament, which it used habitually, and for public worship exclusively, from the second century of our era downwards: as early as a.d. 170 ὁ Σύρος is cited by Melito on Gen. xxii. 13 (Mill, Proleg. § 1239)[5]. And the sad history of that distracted Church can leave no room to doubt what that version was. In the middle of the fifth century, the third and fourth general Councils at Ephesus and Chalcedon proved the immediate occasions of dividing the Syrian Christians into three, and eventually into yet more, hostile communions. These grievous divisions have now subsisted for fourteen hundred years, and though the bitterness of controversy has abated, the estrangement of the rival Churches is as complete and hopeless as ever[6]. Yet the same translation of Holy Scripture is read alike in the public assemblies of the Nestorians among the fastnesses of Koordistan, of the Monophysites who are scattered over the plains of Syria, of the Christians of St. Thomas along the coast of Malabar, and of the [pg 008] Maronites on the mountain-terraces of Lebanon. Even though these last acknowledged the supremacy of Rome in the twelfth century, and certain Nestorians of Chaldaea in the eighteenth, both societies claimed at the time, and enjoy to this day, the free use of their Syriac translation of Holy Scripture. Manuscripts too, obtained from each of these rival communions, have flowed from time to time into the libraries of the West, yet they all exhibit a text in every important respect the same; all are without the Apocalypse and four of the Catholic Epistles, which latter we know to have been wanting in the Syriac in the sixth century (Cosmas Indicopleustes apud Montfaucon, “Collectio Nova Patrum et Script. Graec.,” Tom. ii. p. 292), a defect, we may observe in passing, which alone is no slight proof of the high antiquity of the version that omits them; all correspond with whatever we know from other sources of that translation which, in contrast with one more recent, was termed “old” (ܩܕܡܑ or ܑܡܕܩ) by Thomas of Harkel a.d. 616, and “Peshitto” (ܦܫܝܬܬܐ or ܐܬܬܝܫܦ) the “Simple,” by the great Monophysite doctor, Gregory Bar-Hebraeus [1226-86]. Literary history can hardly afford a more powerful case than has been established for the identity of the version of the Syriac now called the Peshitto with that used by the Eastern Church, long before the great schism had its beginning in the native land of the blessed Gospel.

The first printed edition of this most venerable monument of the Christian faith was published in quarto at Vienna in the year 1555 (some copies are re-dated 1562), at the expense of the Emperor Ferdinand I, on the recommendation and with the active aid of his Chancellor, Albert Widmanstadt, an accomplished person, whose travelling name in Italy was John Lucretius. It was undertaken at the instance of Moses of Mardin, legate from the Monophysite Patriarch Ignatius to Pope Julius III (1550-55), who seems to have brought with him a manuscript, the text whereof was of the Jacobite family, although written at Mosul, for publication in the West. Widmanstadt contributed a second manuscript of his own, though it does not appear whether either or both contained the whole New Testament. This beautiful book, the different portions of which have separate dedications, was edited by Widmanstadt, by Moses, and by W. Postell jointly, in an elegant type of the modern Syriac character, the vowel and diacritic points, especially the linea occultans, being [pg 009] frequently dropped, with subscriptions and titles indicating the Jacobite Church Lessons in the older, or Estrangelo, letter. It omits, as was natural and right, those books which the Peshitto does not contain: viz. the second Epistle of Peter, the second and third of John, that of Jude and the Apocalypse, together with the disputed passage John vii. 53-viii. 11, and the doubtful, or more than doubtful, clauses in Matt. xxvii. 35; Acts viii. 37; xv. 34; xxviii. 29; 1 John v. 7, 8. It omits Luke xxii. 17, 18, see Chap. [XII] on the passage. This editio princeps of the Peshitto New Testament, though now become very scarce (one half of its thousand copies having been sent into Syria), is held in high and deserved repute, as its text is apparently based on manuscript authority alone.

Immanuel Tremellius [1510-80], a converted Jew (the proselyte, first of Cardinal Pole, then of Peter Martyr), and Professor of Divinity at Heidelberg, published the second edition in folio in 1569, containing the New Testament in Hebrew type, with a literal Latin version, accompanied by the Greek text and Beza's translation of it, having a Chaldee and Syriac grammar annexed. Tremellius used several manuscripts, especially one at Heidelberg, and made from them and his own conjecture many changes, that were not always improvements, in the text; besides admitting some grammatical forms which are Chaldee rather than Syriac. His Latin version has been used as their basis by later editors, down to the time of Schaaf. Tremellius' and Beza's Latin versions were reprinted together in London, without their respective originals, in 1592. Subsequent editions of the Peshitto New Testament were those of the folio Antwerp or Royal Spanish Polyglott of Plantin (1571-73), in Hebrew and Syriac type, revised from a copy written about a.d. 1200, which Postell had brought from the East: two other editions of Plantin in Hebrew type without points (1574, 8vo; 1575, 18mo), the second containing various readings extracted by Francis Rapheleng from a Cologne manuscript for his own reprints of 1575 and subsequently of 1583: the smaller Paris edition, also in unpointed Hebrew letters, 1584, 4to, by Guy Le Fevre de la Boderie, who prepared the Syriac portion of the Antwerp Polyglott in 1571: that of Elias Hutter, in two folio volumes (Nuremberg, 1599-1600), in Hebrew characters; this editor venturing to supply in Syriac of his own making the single passages wanting [pg 010] in the editio princeps of Widmanstadt, and the spurious Epistle to the Laodiceans. Martin Trost's edition (Anhalt-Cöthen, 1621, 4to), in Syriac characters, with vowel-points, a list of various readings, and a Latin translation, is superior to Hutter's.

The magnificent Paris Polyglott (fol. 1645) is the first which gives us the Old Testament portion of the Peshitto, though in an incomplete state. The Maronite Gabriel Sionita, who superintended this part of the Polyglott, made several changes in the system of vowel punctuation, possibly from analogy rather than from manuscript authority, but certainly for the better. He inserted as integral portions of the Peshitto the version of the four missing Catholic Epistles, which had been published in 1630 by our illustrious oriental scholar, Edward Pococke, from a manuscript in the Bodleian (Orient. 119)[7]: and another of the Apocalypse, edited at Leyden in 1627 by Louis De Dieu, from a manuscript, since examined by Tregelles, in the University Library there (Scaliger MS. 18), and from one sent him by Archbishop Ussher, which is now in the Library of Trinity College, Dublin (B. 5. 16). Of the two, the version of the Catholic Epistles seems decidedly the older, and both bear much resemblance to the later Syriac or Harkleian translation, but neither have claim to be regarded as portions of the original Peshitto, to which, however, they have been appended ever since.

Bp. Walton's, or the London Polyglott (fol. 1654-7), affords us little more than a reprint of Sionita's Syriac text, with Trost's various readings appended, but interpolates the text yet further by inserting John vii. 53-viii. 11. This passage, which is the “Pericope de adultera,” is found in Archbishop Ussher's copy, dated a.d. 1627, and made from a Maronite MS. of much esteem at Kenobin under Mt. Lebanon; also in Brit. Mus. 14,470, in Cod. Barsalibaei at New College, Oxford, and in the Paris Nat. Library xxii, of which the two last copies are Harkleian, and the one in the British Museum is Peshitto[8]. We are left to conjecture as to the real date and origin of these translations, except that as far [pg 011] as the Harkleian is concerned, Dr. Gwynn has shown that according to the Paris and Brit. Mus. MSS. they are claimed for Paul, a contemporary of Thomas of Harkel.

Giles Gutbier published at Hamburg (8vo, 1664) an edition containing all the interpolated matter, and 1 John v. 7, 8 in addition, from Tremellius' own version, which he inserted in his margin. Gutbier used two manuscripts, by one of which, belonging to Constantine L'Empereur, he corrected Sionita's system of punctuation. A glossary, notes, and various readings are annexed. The Sulzbach edition 12mo, 1684, seems a mere reprint of Plantin's; nor does that published in Rome in 1713 for the use of the Maronites, though grounded upon manuscript authority, appear to have much critical value.

A collation of the various readings in all the preceding editions, excepting those of 1684 and 1713, is affixed to the Syriac N. T. of J. Leusden and Ch. Schaaf (4to, Leyden, 1708-9: with a new title-page 1717). It extends over one hundred pages, and, though most of the changes noted are very insignificant, is tolerably accurate and of considerable value. This edition contains the Latin version of Tremellius not too thoroughly revised, and is usually accompanied with an admirable “Lexicon Syriacum Concordantiale” of the Peshitto New Testament. Its worth, however, is considerably lessened by a fancy of Leusden for pointing the vowels according to the rules of Chaldee rather than of Syriac grammar: after his death, indeed, and from Luke xviii. 27 onwards, this grave mistake was corrected by Schaaf[9]. Of modern editions the most convenient, or certainly the most accessible to English students, are the N. T. which Professor Lee prepared in 1816 for the British and Foreign Bible Society with the Eastern Church Lessons noted in Syriac, and that of Wm. Greenfield [d. 1831], both in Bagster's Polyglott of 1828, and in a small and separate form; the latter editor aims at representing Widmanstadt's text distinct from the subsequent additions derived from other sources. Lee's edition was grounded on a collation of three fresh manuscripts, besides the application of other matter previously available for the [pg 012] revision of the text; but the materials on which he founded his conclusions have never been printed, although their learned collector once intended to do so, and many years afterwards consented to lend them to Scrivener for that purpose; a promise which his death in 1848 ultimately hindered him from redeeming. An edition of the Gospels printed in 1829 by the British and Foreign Bible Society for the Nestorian Christians was based on a single manuscript brought from Mosul by Dr. Wolff. Besides these, two editions have been published by the American Bible Society, at Oroomia, Persia, in 1846, and at New York (a reprint of the former) in 1878[10].

From the foregoing statement it will plainly appear that no edition of the Peshitto Syriac has yet been published with that critical care on the part of editors which its antiquity and importance so urgently demand. It is therefore a matter of deep satisfaction that the work commenced by the late Philip Pusey has been brought near conclusion by the Rev. G. H. Gwilliam, for the University of Oxford. Mr. Gwilliam has informed the editor that the Peshitto “Tetraevangelium” will be the first part published, and will exhibit in its apparatus criticus readings taken from forty manuscripts, some of which have been collated throughout, others in parts. From the account given in the third volume of “Studia Biblica et Ecclesiastica,” we learn that the authorities on which he bases his text in this elaborate edition are as follows:—

1. Brit. Mus. Add. 14,479 [a.d. 534], the fourteen Epistles of St. Paul, Hebrews being always included by the Syrians.

2. Brit. Mus. Add. 14,459 [a.d. 530, last letter illegible], SS. Luke and John. Possibly older than the last.

3. Rome, Vatican [a.d. 548]. A Tetraevangelium, written at Edessa.

4. Florence, Laurentian Library [a.d. 586].

5. Brit. Mus. 14,460 [a.d. 600]. A Nestorian Estrangelo, written in the district of Naarda, near Bagdad.

6. Brit. Mus. 14,471 [a.d. 615]. Another Nestorian MS. of the Gospels, written at Nisibis.

7. Cod. Guelpherbytanus [a.d. 634]. Written in the convent of Beth Chela, near Damascus.

8. Brit. Mus. Add. 14,448 [a.d. 699-700]. A Nestorian MS. Whole of New Testament as received in the Syrian Church.

9. Brit. Mus. Add. 7157 [a.d. 768]. Written at Beth Kuka.

10. Brit. Mus. Add. 14,459 [about a.d. 450], SS. Matthew and Mark.

11. Brit. Mus. Add. 17,117 [about a.d. 450].

12. Brit. Mus. Add. 14,470 [v-vi]. Whole of Peshitto New Testament. The Pericope de Adultera has been added as stated above, p. [10].

13. Brit. Mus. Add. 14,453 [v-vi]. A Tetraevangelium.

14. Brit. Mus. Add. 14,476 [v-vi]. Paul.

15. Brit. Mus. Add. 14,480 [v-vi]. Paul.

16. Cod. Crawfordianus I [vi]. A very handsome Tetraevangelium, and in excellent preservation.

17. Codd. Dawkinsiani III, XXVII, in the Bodleian Library.

18. Partial collations of many other MSS. in the British Museum.

19. The editions published by the American Bible Society, which were, at least to some extent, revised on the authority of ancient Nestorian copies.

20. The evidence of the Syriac Massorah of both the Nestorian and the Jacobite (Karkaphensian) recensions.

It is necessary to mention briefly this remarkable wealth of evidence, probably to be largely increased by future investigations, in which the Peshitto presents no inconsiderable parallel to the vast amount of authorities on which the Greek Text of the New Testament depends, because people are apt to underrate the grand position of the Peshitto version, when comparing it with the Curetonian Syriac, of which the sole evidence consists only of two codices, if the newly-discovered one turns out to be what was anticipated.

It is not easy to determine why the name of Peshitto, “Simple,” “Common,” should have been given to the oldest Syriac version of Scripture, to distinguish it from others that were subsequently made[11]. In comparison with the Harkleian it is the very reverse of a close rendering of the original. Perhaps the title refers to its common and popular use[12]. We shall presently submit to the reader a few extracts from it, contrasted with the same passages in other Syriac versions; for the present we can but assent to the ripe judgement of Michaelis, who, after thirty [pg 014] years' study of its contents, declared that he could consult no translation with so much confidence in cases of difficulty and doubt[13].

2. The Curetonian Syriac.

The volume which contained the greater part of the Curetonian portions of the Gospels was brought by Archdeacon Tattam in 1842 from the Monastery of St. Mary Deipara in the Nitrian Desert (p. 140). Eighty leaves and a half were picked out by Dr. Cureton, then one of the officers in the Manuscript department of the British Museum, from a mass of other matter which had been bound up with them by unlearned possessors, and comprise the Additional MS. 14,451 of the Library they adorn, and two more reached England in 1847. They are in quarto, with two columns on a page, in a bold hand and the Estrangelo or old Syriac character, on vellum originally very white, the single points for stops, some titles, &c. being in red ink; there are no marks of Church Lessons by the first hand, which Cureton (a most competent judge) assigned to the middle of the fifth century. The fragments contain Matt. i. 1-viii. 22; x. 32-xxiii. 25; Mark xvi. 17-20; John i. 1-42; iii. 5-vii. 37; (but many words in iii. 6-iv. 6 are illegible); xiv. 10-12; 15-19; 21-23; 26-29; Luke ii. 48-iii. 16; vii. 33-xv. 21; xvii. 23-xxiv. 44, or 1786 verses, so arranged that St. Mark's Gospel is here immediately followed by St. John's. Three more leaves of this version (part, perhaps, of the same MS.) were found among the Syriac MSS. procured by Dr. Sachau, and now at Berlin (Royal Libr. Orient. quart. 528). They contain Luke xv. 22-xvi. 12; xvii. 1-23; John vii. 37-52; viii. 12-19. They were published by Roediger (Monatsbericht, Berlin Royal Academy of Sciences, July, 1872), and were privately printed by the late Professor Wright to range with Cureton's volume. Within the last year the discovery has been announced of another Curetonian MS., which was found in the Library of the Convent on Mount Sinai by Mrs. Lewis. An edition of it is now in progress, but will not be published soon enough for notice in this work. The Syriac text of the London MS. was printed in fine Estrangelo type in 1848, and freely imparted to such scholars [pg 015] as might need its help; but it was not till 1858 that the work was published[14], with a very literal translation into rather bald English, a beautiful and exact facsimile (Luke xv. 11-13; 16-19) by Mrs. Cureton, and a Preface (pp. xcv), full of interesting and indeed startling matter. Dr. Cureton went so far as to persuade himself that he had discovered in these Syriac fragments a text of St. Matthew's Gospel that “to a great extent, has retained the identical terms and expressions which the Apostle himself employed; and that we have here, in our Lord's discourses, to a great extent the very same words as the Divine Author of our holy religion Himself uttered in proclaiming the glad tidings of salvation in the Hebrew dialect ...” (p. xciii): that here in fact we have to a great extent the original of that Hebrew Gospel of St. Matthew of which the canonical Greek Gospel is but a translation. It is beside our present purpose to examine in detail the arguments of Dr. Cureton on this head[15], and it would be the less necessary in any case, since they seem to have convinced no one save himself: but the place his version occupies with reference to the Peshitto is a question upon which there has been and still prevails a controversy which largely concerns the issue between contending schools of textual critics[16].

Any one who shall compare the verses we have cited from them in parallel columns (pp. [38-40]) will readily admit that the translations have a common origin, whatever that may be; many other passages, though not perhaps of equal length, might be named where the resemblance is closer still; where for twenty words together the Peshitto and the Curetonian shall be positively identical, although the Syriac idiom would admit other words and another order just as naturally as that actually employed. Nor will this conclusion be shaken by the not less manifest fact that throughout many passages the diversity is so great that no one, with those places alone before him, would be led to suspect any connexion between the two versions; for resemblances in such a case furnish a positive proof, not to be weakened by the mere negative presumption supplied by divergencies. Add to this the consideration that the Greek manuscripts from which either version was made or corrected (as the case may prove) were materially different in their character; the Peshitto for the most part favouring Cod. A[17], the Curetonian taking part with Cod. D, or with the Old Latin, or often standing quite alone, unsupported by any critical authority whatever; and the reader is then in possession of the whole case, from whose perplexities we have to unravel our decision, which of these two recensions [pg 017] best exhibits the text of the Holy Gospels as received from the second century downwards by the Syrian Church.

We must not dissemble the fact that Cureton's view of the superior antiquity of the Curetonian to the Peshitto has been adopted by many eminent scholars. So for example Dr. Hort, who was obliged to account for the relation of the two by a baseless supposition of an imaginary recension at Edessa or Nisibis when the Peshitto was drawn up as a Syrian “Vulgate” (The New Testament in Greek, pp. 135-7). So with more strength of argument Dr. Nestle in “Real Encyclopedie für protestanche Theologie en Kirche[18].”

1. Now it is obvious to remark, in the first place, that the Peshitto has the advantage of possession, and that too of fourteen centuries standing. The mere fact that the Syriac manuscripts of the rival sects, whether modern or as old as the seventh century, agree with each other in the most important points, and at least to a large extent with the citations from Ephraem and Aphraates, as will be shown, seems to bring the Peshitto text, substantially in the same state as we have it at present, up to the fourth century of our era. Of this version, again, there are many codices, of different ages and widely diffused; of the Curetonian there is indeed one, of the fifth century, so far as the verdict of a most accomplished judge can determine so delicate a question: yet surely this is not to be much preferred, in respect to antiquity, to those ancient copies of the Peshitto which we have enumerated on pp. [10], [11], and which include a MS. of the fifth century, several others nearly as ancient, and two which are dated in the sixth century, the Florentine of a.d. 586, and the Vatican of a.d. 548. Another “Curetonian” MS., lately discovered, is still under examination, and we have, as yet, no adequate account of it. From the Peshitto, as the authorized version of the Oriental Church, there are many quotations in Syriac books from the fourth century downwards; Dr. Cureton, perhaps the profoundest Syriac scholar of his day in England, failed to allege any second citation from the Gospels by a native writer which [pg 018] might serve to keep in countenance the statement of Dionysius Barsalibi, late in the twelfth century, that “there is found occasionally a Syriac copy made out of the Hebrew, which inserts the three kings in the genealogy” (Matt. i. 8)[19]. With every wish to give to this respectable old writer, and to others who bear testimony to the same reading, the consideration that is fairly their due, we can hardly fail to see that the weight of evidence enormously preponderates in the opposite scale.

2. It will probably be admitted that in external proof Cureton's theory is not strong, while yet the internal character of the version may be deemed by many powerfully to favour his view. Negligent or licentious renderings (and the Curetonian Syriac is pretty full of them) cannot but lessen a version's usefulness as an instrument of criticism, by increasing our difficulty of reproducing the precise words of the original which the translator had before him; but in another point of view these very faults may still form the main strength of Dr. Cureton's case. It is, no doubt, a grave suggestion, that the more polished, accurate, faithful, and grammatical of the two versions—and the Peshitto richly deserves all this praise—is more likely to have been produced by a careful and gradual revision of one much its inferior in these respects, than the worse to have originated in the mere corruption of the better (Cureton, Pref. p. lxxxi). A priori, we readily confess that probability inclines this way; but it is a probability which needs the confirmation of facts, and by adverse facts may be utterly set aside. Cureton's remark that “upon the comparison of several of the oldest copies now in the British Museum of that very text of the Gospels which has been generally received as the Peshitto, the more ancient the manuscripts be, the more nearly do they correspond with the text of these Syriac fragments” (Pref. p. lxxiii), is confirmed by other, and subsequent, labourers in the same field. The received text of the Peshitto was printed from MSS. of a late type. It was the opinion of P. E. Pusey (whose name has already been mentioned in these pages) that a revision of the Peshitto text was made in the eighth century. The oldest Syriac Massoretic MS. which we possess is dated a. gr. 1210 = a.d. 899[20], but a copy of the Gospels (Add. 14,448), the date of which appears to [pg 019] be a. h. 80 = a.d. 699-700, contains a text which approximates to the type of the printed Peshitto, but exhibits marginal notes in a later hand, referring, however, chiefly to pronunciation and accentuation. There is no evidence that any formal revision took place; but it would appear certain that as questions of orthography, of grammar, and of pronunciation were fixed by the decisions of the Massoretes and grammarians, the faults (as they were deemed) of the older readings were emended by scribes. Hence it is, that if we open a codex of the Peshitto Gospels of about the date of the Codex Curetonianus, we find many resemblances of the kind indicated by Cureton, between the fifth century Peshitto text and the Curetonian text, because both belong to an early, and perhaps less accurate era of transcription[21]. But the resemblances only extend to matters of grammar and spelling. In more important readings, the fifth century form of the Peshitto does not approximate to the Curetonian text. This was clearly seen by Pusey, as a result of the collation of a large number of Peshitto MSS. He found that the text of the oldest of them was substantially the same as that which is printed in the Polyglotts. The grammar may have been improved, but the translation was not revised. This argument has been elaborated in two volumes of the Oxford “Studia Biblica,” in part by the use of Philip Pusey's materials, in part by independent researches. In vol. i, paper viii, “A Syriac Biblical MS. of the fifth century,” the readings which appear to be peculiar to that MS. (about seventy in number, for it only contains SS. Matthew and Mark) are set out[22]. Of these twenty-two can be compared with the Curetonian; and it is found that only three approximate more nearly than the printed Peshitto to the text which, it is contended, is older than the Peshitto. Further on[23] a stronger argument is adduced; for it is shown that in eleven passages, where the fifth century codex has a different reading from the printed Peshitto, the Curetonian, instead of agreeing with the ancient text (as ex hypothesi it ought) approximates to the printed Peshitto, and sometimes agrees with it. In vol. ii, paper iii, “The materials for the criticism of the Peshitto New Testament,” other evidence is adduced in support of the same conclusions. St. Matt. v. 31-48 [pg 020] is given, with varr. lectt. derived from twenty distinct authorities, so as to place before the reader the Peshitto in its best and most ancient form. The same passage is set out in the Curetonian form. The various readings in the Peshitto in the eighteen verses amount to at least thirty-one; but the majority are the merest minutiae of spelling and pronunciation. Only one deserves serious attention; and even that, more for accuracy than in relation to the sense of the context; so little has the Syriac New Testament been altered, or corrupted, in the course of ages of transcription. Again, when comparison is made with the Curetonian, while twenty-eight variations from the best form of the Peshitto occur in the above passage, only four find any support in an old Peshitto MS., and but one of the four is of any interest. In addition to these there is one place where the Curetonian agrees with the oldest Peshitto MSS., against the printed Peshitto text. It is plain then that, as far as the enquiry has yet been pursued, the peculiar readings of the Curetonian cannot be traced backwards through the form of text in the oldest Peshitto MSS. If such a revision of the Peshitto, as Dr. Hort's theory postulates, ever took place, it must have been made at a very remote period in the history of Syriac Christian literature; and the new text must have been substituted for the old by measures so drastic that the old (as far as we know) survives only in one Nitrian and (as we are told) in one Sinaitic MS. But this is not only improbable in itself, but is contrary to the analogy supplied by the Latin versions.

Those who contend for the superior antiquity of the Curetonian rely in great part on the character of the quotations in the two great Syriac writers, Aphraates and Mar-Ephraem, who flourished in the century preceding the era in which our oldest Peshitto MSS. were transcribed[24]. Both writers abound in quotations from the New Testament, but many of them are very free, or mere adaptations. A large number in St. Ephraem are certainly from the Peshitto. Wright, in his edition of Aphraates, was inclined to attribute that writer's quotations to the same source. This has been traversed by others, who contend that the quotations in Aphraates more nearly resemble the Curetonian, or the text of Tatian's Diatessaron, as far as we know it. [pg 021] The question of the source of St. Ephraem's quotations has been fully discussed in “Studia Biblica,” iii, paper iv, by Rev. F. H. Woods, who has also taken some notice of those in Aphraates. Mr. Woods holds, as do others (though, as we think, on insufficient evidence) that the text of the Peshitto was not fully settled in the days of Aphraates and Ephraem. His conclusion is that it is quite clear, that Ephraem, in the main, used the Peshitto text (op. cit., p. 107), but as regards Aphraates, he holds that the quotations approximate more closely to the Curetonian. Yet Dr. Zahn, and many others, think that Aphraates used the Diatessaron. The statement of these differences of opinion is enough in itself to show that the source of quotations in these ancient Syriac books is not always easy to determine. Hence it follows that arguments based on the writings of Aphraates and Ephraem are precarious. Moreover, a variation from the Peshitto does not necessarily indicate the employment of another version. The variation might be derived from a Greek text; for there was constant intercourse between Greek and Syrian Christians, and many of the latter were well acquainted with Greek.

While we seek in vain amongst the readings of MSS., and the writings of Syriac authors, for any satisfactory explanation of the origin of the Curetonian, the work itself may perhaps reveal something of its nature, if not of its history. We have already seen[25] that in the opinion of certain textual critics the history of the Latin Vulgate must have its counterpart in the history of the Bible of Edessa. The origin of Jerome's translation is well known. It is supposed that the Peshitto grew in like manner out of an earlier translation. It is contended that the Ur-Peshitto is represented to us by the text of the Curetonian; and the two texts have been compared in order to establish this relation. In so doing, no sufficient account has been taken of the phenomena presented by the differences between the Peshitto and the Curetonian. When it is argued that in some of those differences the Peshitto text bears marks of emendation, of the improving touch of a later hand, we answer[26], that in others there are as evident marks in the Curetonian of alteration and [pg 022] corruption. Indeed, to so large an extent do these prevail, that there are good grounds for the suspicion which has been entertained that the Curetonian (at least as exhibited by the editor from his MS.) is itself the later version. In order to give effect to this argument, it would be necessary to show the entire extant Curetonian text, side by side with the corresponding portions of the Peshitto; otherwise it is scarcely possible to realize (i) how manifestly the Curetonian is an attempt to improve upon the Peshitto text; and (ii) how frequently (as a later composition) it demands an acquaintance with the Gospels on the part of the reader; and (iii) how it is pervaded by views of Gospel history, which belong to the Church rather than to the sacred text. But even the short passages, which we have printed as specimens, afford illustrations of the argument.

1. In St. Matthew xii. 1-4, where the Peshitto exhibits the Textus Receptus, saying that the disciples were hungry, and began to pluck ears of corn and to eat, the Curetonian improves upon the Peshitto thus:—“and the disciples were hungry and began to pluck ears of corn, and break them in their hands, and eat”—introducing words borrowed from St. Luke[27].

2. (α) But in the next verse of the passage, where the words “on the sabbath” are absolutely required in order to make the Pharisees' question intelligible to the first readers of St. Matthew, the Curetonian must needs draw on the common knowledge of educated readers by exhibiting the question thus:—“Why are thy disciples doing what is not lawful to do?” Of course the Peshitto is here an “improvement” on the Curetonian, in reading the words “on the Sabbath”; but that does not affect our argument. Would a primitive version, intended for first converts, have left the reader ignorant what the action objected to might be? whether to pluck ears in another man's field, or to rub out grain on the Sabbath? But a later editor, who revised the text for some purpose (it matters not, at present, for what purpose), might consider the explanatory words superfluous.

(β) In like manner in ver. 4, “the bread of the table of the Lord,” a simple phrase, which every one could understand, has become in the Curetonian “face-bread,” an expression which [pg 023] demands knowledge of the earlier Scriptures on the part of the reader, and displays the erudition of the editor, as do his emendations in the list of names in the first chapter of St. Matthew[28].

3. The other passage which we print (St. Mark xvi. 17-29) will illustrate our third criticism. The Curetonian is, “Our Lord Jesus then, after He had commanded His disciples, was exalted to heaven, and sat on the right hand of God.” The simpler Peshitto phrase runs thus, “Jesus our Lord then, after He had spoken with them, ascended to heaven, and sat on the right hand of God.” The two slight touches of improvement in the Curetonian are evident, and belong to that aspect of the record which finds expression in the Creeds, and in the obedience of the Church. A similar touch appears in the Curetonian addition to ver. 17—them that believe on me.

Again in Matt. v. 32 we read (with all authorities), “Whosoever shall put away his wife, except for the cause of fornication,” &c.; so the Peshitto; but the Curetonian substitutes adultery, and thereby sanctions, not the precept delivered by our Lord, but the interpretation almost universally placed upon it. Now either the Curetonian has alone preserved the true text, or the Curetonian is an emended version. The first supposition is unreasonable; the latter is alone suitable to this and to many other passages.

Not less curious is the addition in ver. 41, “Whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him two others.” The Curetonian (with D and some Latin copies) make our Lord say, “Go three miles.” If we cannot admit that this is the true text, then it is an emendation; for it is no accidental change.

But there is a distinct group of emendations which vividly illustrates our contention, that the Curetonian form of Syriac text is pervaded by views of Gospel history which belong rather to the Church than to the sacred records. While fully accepting the Catholic dogma of the perpetual virginity of the Blessed Virgin, we must grant that it is in the nature of a pious opinion, which Christian sentiment recognized as true, but which is not explicitly stated in the New Testament. Hence we view with grave suspicion a class of emendations which are obviously [pg 024] framed to confute the heresy of the Helvidians. Such a class is found in St. Matt. i. In ver. 16, Pesh., “Joseph the husband of Mary;” Cur., “Joseph to whom was espoused Mary the Virgin.” Ver. 19, Pesh., “Joseph her husband, being a just man;” Cur., “Joseph, because he was a righteous man.” Ver. 20, Pesh., “Fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife;” Cur., “Mary thy espoused.” Ver. 24, Pesh., “Joseph ... took unto him his wife;” Cur., “took Mary.” The Curetonian translator, for dogmatic purposes, makes four distinct and separate omissions, in three of which he stands unsupported—of the word husband in two places, of the word wife in two others. These are emendations of a deliberate and peculiar kind. We cannot account for all these vagaries by remarking that the Curetonian has often the support of the so-called Western family of text[29]. We must face the question whether the MS. of an ancient version, which exhibits such singular phenomena on its first page, is worthy to be set above that version, which is the common heritage of the whole Syriac Church, and which appears to be the basis of the Curetonian itself. To determine the place of a document in our Apparatus Criticus, we must know something of its history. Of the history of the Curetonian version we know nothing. Its internal character inspires grave doubts of its trustworthiness. We note its peculiarities with interest; but we do not yet see our way to yield much deference to its authority. The Peshitto bears witness to that form of text, which was received in very ancient times in the Syriac Church. The Curetonian, like the Palestinian, is interesting as showing what readings were accepted locally, or by individual editors[30].

3. The Harkleian or Philoxenian Syriac.

Of the history of the Harkleian Syriac version, which embraces the whole New Testament except the Apocalypse, we possess more exact information, though some points of difficulty may still remain unsolved. Moses of Aghel in Mesopotamia, who translated into Syriac certain works of the Alexandrian Cyril about a.d. 550, describes a version of the “New Testament and Psalter made in Syriac by Polycarp, Rural-Bishop[31] (rest his soul!), for Xenaias of Mabug,” &c. This Xenaias or Philoxenus, from whom the original translation takes its name, was Monophysite Bishop of Mabug (Hierapolis) in Eastern Syria (488-518), and doubtless wished to provide for his countrymen a more literal translation from the Greek than the Peshitto aims at being. His scheme may perhaps have been injudicious, but it is a poor token of the presence of that quality which “thinketh no evil,” to assert, without the slightest grounds for the suspicion, “More probable it is that his object was of a less commendable character; and that he meant the version in some way to subserve the advancement of his party[32].” Dr. Davidson will have learnt by this time, that one may lie under the imputation of heresy, without being of necessity a bigot or a dunce.

Our next account of the work is even more definite. At the end of the manuscripts of the Gospels from which the printed text is derived, we read a subscription by the first hand, importing that “this book of the four holy Gospels was translated out of the Greek into Syriac with great diligence and labour ... first in the city of Mabug, in the year of Alexander of Macedon 819 (a.d. 508), in the days of the pious Mar Philoxenus, confessor, Bishop of that city. Afterwards it was collated with much diligence by me, the poor Thomas, by the help of two [or three] approved and accurate Greek Manuscripts in Antonia, of the great city of Alexandria, in the holy monastery of the Antonians. It was again written out and collated in the aforesaid place in the year of the same Alexander 927 (a.d. 616), Indiction iv. How much toil I spent upon it and its companions the Lord alone knoweth ... &c.” It is plain that by “its companions” the other parts of the N. T. are meant, for a similar subscription (specifying but one manuscript) is annexed to the Catholic Epistles.

That the labour of Thomas (surnamed from Harkel, his native place, and like Philoxenus, subsequently Monophysite Bishop of Mabug) was confined to the collation of the manuscripts he names, and whose various readings, usually in Greek characters, with occasional exegetical notes, stand in the margin of all copies but one at Florence, is not a probable opinion. It is likely that he added the asterisks and obeli which abound in the version[33] and G. H. Bernstein (De Charklensi N. T. transl. Syriac. Commentatio, Breslau, 1837) believes that he so modified the text itself, that it remains in the state in which Polycarp left it only in one codex now at Rome, which he collated for a few chapters of St. John.

We have been reminded by Tregelles, who was always ready to give every one his due, that our own Pococke in 1630, in the Preface to his edition of the Catholic Epistles not included in the Peshitto, both quotes an extract from Dionysius Barsalibi, Bishop of Amida (Diarbekr), who flourished in the twelfth [pg 027] century, which mentions this version, and even shows some acquaintance with its peculiar character. Although again brought to notice in the comprehensive “Bibliotheca Orientalis” (1719-28) of the elder J. S. Assemani [1687-1768], the Harkleian attracted no attention until 1730, in which year Samuel Palmer sent from Diarbekr to Dr. Gloucester Ridley four Syriac manuscripts, two of which proved to belong to this translation, both containing the Gospels, one of them being the only extant copy of the Acts and all the Epistles. Fortunately Ridley [1702-1774] was a man of some learning and acuteness, or these precious codices might have lain disregarded as other copies of the same version had long done in Italy; so that though he did not choose to incur the risk of publishing them in full, he communicated his discovery to Wetstein, who came to England once more, in 1746, for the purpose of collating them for his edition of the N. T., then soon to appear: he could spare, however, but fourteen days for the task, which was far too short a time, the rather as the Estrangelo character, in which the manuscripts were written, was new to him. In 1761 Ridley produced his very careful and valuable tract, De Syriacarum N. F. Versionum Indole atque Usu Dissertatio, and on his death his manuscripts went to New College, of which society he had been a Fellow. The care of publishing them was then undertaken by the Delegates of the Oxford Press, who selected for their editor Joseph White [1746-1814], then Fellow of Wadham College and Professor of Arabic, afterwards Canon of Christ Church; who, though now, I fear, chiefly remembered for the most foolish action of his life, was an industrious, able, and genuine scholar. Under his care the Gospels appeared in two vols. 4to, 1778[34] with [pg 028] a Latin version and satisfactory Prolegomena; the Acts and Catholic Epp. in 1799, the Pauline in 1803. Meanwhile Storr (Observat. super N. T. vers. Syr., 1772) and Adler (N. T. Version. Syr., 1789) had examined and described seven or eight continental codices of the Gospels in this version, some of which are thought superior to White's[35].

The characteristic feature of the Harkleian is its excessive closeness to the original: it is probably the most servile version of Scripture ever made. Specimens of it will appear on pp. [38-40], by the side of those from other translations, which will abundantly justify this statement. The Peshitto is beyond doubt taken as its basis, and is violently changed in order to force it into rigorous conformity with the very letter of the Greek. In the twenty verses of Matt. xxviii we note seventy-six such alterations: three of them seem to concern various readings (vers. 2-18; and 5 marg.); six are inversions in the order; about five are substitutions of words for others that may have grown obsolete: the rest are of the most frivolous description, the definite state of nouns being placed for the absolute, or vice versa; the Greek article represented by the Syriac pronoun; the inseparable pronominal affixes (that delicate peculiarity of the Aramaean dialects) retrenched or discarded; the most unmeaning changes made in the tenses of verbs, and the lesser particles. Its very defects, however, as being servilely accurate, give it weight as a textual authority: there can be no hesitation about the readings of the copies from which such a book was made. While those employed for the version itself in the sixth century resembled more nearly our modern printed editions, the three or more codices used by Thomas at Alexandria must have been nearly akin to Cod. D (especially in the Acts), and, next to D, support BL, 1, 33, 69. “Taken altogether,” is Dr. Hort's comment, “this is one of the most confused texts preserved: but it may be rendered more intelligible by fresh collations and better editing, even if they should fail to distinguish the work of Thomas of Harkel from that of his predecessor Polycarpus” (Introd., p. 156).

The number of MSS. of this Harkleian version is far greater [pg 029] than it was supposed to have been. The important discovery of the Mohl MS., now in the possession of the Cambridge University Library, brings down the Epistle to the Hebrews to the conclusion, so that we now possess the Pauline Epistles complete in this revision.

The following account of the MSS. of the Harkleian, consists in his own words of what Mr. Deane has seen himself, many of which he has collated. The letters are those by which he intended to have designated these MSS. had his sight enabled him to complete his revision.

A. Cod. Mus. Brit. Add. 14,469. Saec. x (Wright's Catalogue cxx). Very important.

B. Cod. Mus. Brit. Rich 7163. Saec. ix. x (Forshall's Catalogue xix). Very important.

C. Cod. Bibl. Bodl. Oxon. “Cod. Or. 130.” Saec. xii.

D. Cod. Bibl. Coll. Nov. Oxon. 333. Perhaps not so important as R.

F. Cod. Bibl. Bodl. Oxon. Dawk. 50.

G. Cod. Mus. Brit. Rich 7164. Saec. xii (Forshall's Catalogue xx).

H. Cod. Mus. Brit. Rich 7165. Saec. xiii (Forshall's Catalogue xxi). In this MS. the two first lines of each page are for the most part obliterated by damp.

K. Cod. Mus. Brit. Rich 7166. Saec. xv. xvi (Forshall's Catalogue xxii).

L. Cod. Mus. Brit. Rich 7167. Saec. xv. xvi.

Q. Cod. Mus. Brit. Add. 17,124. Saec. xiii (No. 65 Wright's Catalogue).

R. Cod. Bibl. Coll. Nov. Oxon. 334.

S. Cod. Bibl. Bodl. Oxon. Orient. 361. Saec. xiv.

T. Cod. Bibl. Bodl. Oxon. Poc. 316.

U. Cod. Mus. Brit. Rich 7167. Saec. xv. xvi. Fragments on St. Matthew only.

V. Cod. Mohl. Cambridge University Library. Saec. xii.

The last of these would probably be the text from which any new edition would be printed. It is a most remarkable MS., executed with great care, and by a good Syrian scholar. Students should observe especially the curious diacritic point by which he designates the Nom. pendens. “I have not seen,” Mr. Deane adds, “that elsewhere, though doubtless it exists[36].”

4. The Palestinian or Jerusalem Syriac.

There are extant several scattered fragments of the Old and New Testaments, in a form of Syriac entirely distinct from the versions already described. These fragments are all in one dialect, and are apparently parts of a single version. The most considerable portion is an Evangelistarium which was discovered virtually by Adler, who collated, described, and copied a portion of it (Matt. xxvii. 3-32) for that great work in a small compass, his “N. T. Versiones Syriacae” (1789): S. E. Assemani the nephew had merely inserted it in his Vatican Catalogue (1756). It is a partial Lectionary of the Gospels in the Vatican (MS. Syr. 19), on 196 quarto thick vellum leaves, written in two columns in a rude hand, the rubric notes of Church Lessons in Carshunic, i.e. Arabic in Syriac letters, with many mistakes. From a subscription, we learn that the scribe was Elias, a presbyter of Abydos, who wrote it in the Monastery of the Abbat Moses at Antioch, in the year of Alexander 1341, or a.d. 1030. Adler gives a poor facsimile (Matt. xxvii. 12-22): the character is peculiar, and all diacritic points (even that distinguishing dolath from rish), as well as many other changes, are thought to be by a later hand. Tregelles confirms Assemani's statement, which Adler had disputed, that the first six leaves, showing traces of Greek writing buried beneath the Syriac, proceeded from another scribe. The remarkable point, however, about this version (which seems to be made from the Greek, and is quite independent of the Peshitto) is the peculiar dialect it exhibits, and which has suggested its name. Its grammatical forms are far less Syriac than Chaldee, which latter it resembles even in that characteristic particular, the prefixing of yud, not nun, to the third person masculine of the future of verbs[37]; and many of the words it employs can be illustrated only from the Chaldee portions of the Old Testament, or from the Jerusalem, or Palestinian, Targum and Talmud[38]. Adler's [pg 031] account of the translation and its copyist is not very flattering, “satis constat dialectum esse incultam et inconcinnam ... orthographiam autem vagam, inconstantem, arbitrariam, et ab imperito librario rescribendo et corrigendo denuo impeditam” (Vers. Syr., p. 149). As it is mentioned by no Syriac writer, it was probably used but in a few remote churches of Lebanon or Galilee: but though (to employ the words of Porter) “in elegance far surpassed by the Peshitto; in closeness of adherence to the original by the Philoxenian” (Principles of Textual Criticism, Belfast, 1848, p. 356); it has its value, and that not inconsiderable, as a witness to the state of the text at the time it was turned into Syriac; whether, with Adler, we regard it as derived from a complete version of the Gospels made not later than the sixth century, or with Tischendorf refer it to the fifth[39]. Tregelles (who examined the codex at Rome) wrongly judged it a mere translation of some Greek Evangelistarium of a more recent date. Of all the Syriac books, this copy and Barsalibi's recension of the Harkleian alone contain John vii. 53-viii. 11; the Lectionary giving it as the Proper Lesson for Oct. 8, St. Pelagia's day. In general its readings much resemble those of Codd. BD, siding with B eighty-five times, with D seventy-nine, in the portions published by Adler; but with D alone eleven times, with B alone but three.

The information afforded by Adler respecting this remarkable document gave rise to a natural wish that the whole manuscript should be carefully edited by some respectable scholar. This has now been done by Count Francis Miniscalchi Erizzo, who in 1861-4 published at Verona in two quarto volumes “Evangeliarium Hierosolymitanum ex Codice Vaticano Palaestino deprompsit, edidit, Latinè vertit, Prolegomenis ac Glossario adornavit Comes F. M. E.” This elaborate work, for such it is, although its execution fails on the whole to satisfy critics of the calibre of Land and the Abbé Martin, ends with a list of those chapters and verses of the Gospels (according to the notation of the Latin Vulgate), which the manuscript contains [pg 032] in full. Tischendorf, in the eighth edition of his Greek Testament, enriched his notes with the various readings these Church Lessons exhibit; their critical character being much the same as Adler's slight specimen had given us reason to expect[40]. The Lectionary closely resembles that of the Greek Church, the slight differences in the beginnings and endings of the Lessons scarcely exceeding those subsisting between different Greek copies, as noticed in our Synaxarion. It contains the Sunday and week-day Gospels for the first eight weeks beginning at Easter (with a few verses lost in two places of Week viii); the Saturday and Sunday Gospels only for the rest of the year; the Lessons for the Holy Week, complete as detailed in Vol. I. 85, with two or three slight exceptions; and the eleven Gospels of the Resurrection. In the Menology or Calendar of Immoveable Feasts, there is a greater amount of variation in regard to the Saints' Days kept, as indeed we might have looked for beforehand. We subjoin a list of those whose Gospels are given at length in the manuscript, together with the portions of Scripture appointed for each day, in order that this curious Syriac service-book may be compared with that of the Greeks.

September 1. Simaan Alepinus Stylites. 3. Commemoratio patris nostri Anthioma, John x. 7-16. 4. Babul et puerorum et sanctorum qui cum eo, Luke x. 1-12. 5. Zacharias, father of the Baptist, Matt, xxiii. 29-39. 6. Eudoxio, Mark xii. 28-37. 8. Birthday of the Virgin, Matins, Luke i. 39-56. Ad Missam, as p. 87. Sunday before Elevation of the Cross, as p. 87. 14. Elevation of the Cross, John xi. 53; xix. 6-35. 15. Nikita, Matt. x. 16-22. 16. Eufemia, p. 87, note 2. 20. Eustathios et sociorum ejus, Luke xxi. 12-19. 21. Jonah the Prophet, Luke xi. 29-33. 30. Gregory the Armenian[41], Matt. xxiv. 42-51.

October 3. Dionosios the Bishop, Matt. xiii. 45-54. Blagia (p. 87, note 3), John viii. 1-11. 18. Luke, as p. 87. 21. Patris nostri Ilarion, Luke vi. 17-23. 25. SS. Scriptorum Marciano et Martorio, Luke xii. 2-12. 26. Demetrius et commemoratio terrae motus, Matt. viii. 23-27.

November 1. SS. Thaumaturgorum Kezma et Damian, Matt. x. 1-8.

December 4. Barbara, Mark v. 24-34. 20. Ignathios, as p. 88. 22. Anastasia, Mark xii. 28-44. “Dominica ante Nativitatem, et patrum (compare p. 88). In nocte Nativitatis, as p. 88. 25. Christmas Day, sanctorum,” Matt. i. 1-17. 24. Ad mat. Nativitatis, Matt. i. 18-25 [pg 033] as p. 88. 26. Commemoratio dominae Mart. Mariam, as p. 88. 28. Jacob, frater Domini[42], Mark vi. 1-5 (p. 88).

January 1. Circumcision, as p. 88. 3. Matt. iii. 1, 5-11. Saturday and Sunday “ante missam aquae,” as p. 88. 5. Nocte missae aquae, p. 88. 6. Missa aquae (both Lessons), as p. 88. 7. Commemoration of John the Baptist, as p. 88. Saturday and Sunday post missam aquae, as p. 88. 8. Luke iii. 19-22. 10. John x. 39-42. 11. Luke xx. 1-8. Theodosis, Luke vi. 17-23. 15. Juhanna Tentorii, Matt. iv. 25; v. 1-12. 28. Patris nostri Efrem, Matt. v. 14-19.

February 2. Ingressus Domini Jesu Christi in templum, as p. 88. 24. Finding of the Head of John the Baptist, ad Mat. as p. 88: ad Missam, Matt. xi. 2-15.

March 9. Martyrii xl martyrum Sebastis, Matt. xx. 1-16. 25. Annuntiationis Deiparae, ad Missam, as p. 88.

April 1. Mariam Aegyptiacae, Luke vii. 36-50 (compare p. 88, note 2).

May 8. Evan. Juhanna fil. Zebdiai[43], as p. 88.

June 14. Proph. Elisha, Luke iv. 22-30[44]. 24. Birth of John the Baptist, as p. 88. 29. Peter, as p. 88. 30. The Twelve Apostles, Matt. ix. 36-x. 8.

July 22. Mariam Magdalanis, Luke viii. 1-3.

August 1. Amkabian Ascemonith, et filiorum suorum, Matt. x. 16-22. 6. Apparitio Domini nostri Jesu Christi in Monte Thabur, Luke ix. 28-36; Matt. xvii. 1-9; 10-22. 29. Beheading of John the Baptist, as p. 88.

Appendix. Sanctae Christianae, Matt. xxv. 1-13 (see Sept. 24, p. 88). Justorum, Matt. xi. 27-30. Dominica xi, Matt. xv. 21-28.

This last (of the Canaanites, p. 88) had been omitted in its usual place, and two lessons inserted about the same place, which are not in the Greek, viz. “Jejunio sancto Banscira fer. 4, vesp. Mark xi. 22-25,” and “fer. 6, vesp. John xv. 1-12.”

A new edition of Adler's Evangelistarium was projected by the late Dr. P. A. de Lagarde, who made a fresh collation of the MS. shortly before his death. The results have been published in a posthumous work entitled “Bibliothecae Syriacae a Paulo de Lagarde collectae,” 1892. The latter part contains the Evangelistarium, with the text set out in the order of the Gospels, instead of that of the Church Lessons, and notes are added on the readings of the MS. and its correctors, and on the edition of Miniscalchi Erizzo.

Another edition has been announced by Mrs. Lewis[45], the text to be taken from two Lectionaries, which she has recently discovered in the Library of the Convent on Mount Sinai, with a collation of the readings of the Vatican MS.

Some fragments of other MSS. of the same Evangelistarium are preserved in the British Museum (Add. 14,450, fol. 14, and 14,664, foll. 17, [pg 034] 20, 21), and in the Imperial Library, St. Petersburg. They have been published by Professor Land in “Anecdota Syriaca,” tom, iv, 1875, with a fragment of Acts (xiv. 6-13), in the St. Petersburg Library.

Mr. J. Rendel Harris has published in “Biblical Fragments from Mount Sinai” a leaf containing Gal. ii. 3-5, 12-14; iii. 17, 18, 24-28.

The same library is said to contain other remains of Palestinian literature, patristic translations as well as biblical fragments.

In the Bodleian Library are four fragments, Col. iv. 12-18; 1 Thess. i. 1-3; iv. 3-15; 2 Tim. i. 10-ii. 7; Titus i. 11-ii. 5, an edition of which has been accomplished by the Rev. G. H. Gwilliam[46].

5. The Karkaphensian or Syriac Massorah.

Assemani (Biblioth. Orient., tom. ii. p. 283), on the authority of Gregory Bar-Hebraeus, mentions what has been supposed to have been a Syriac “version” of the N. T., other than the Peshitto and Harkleian, which was named “Karkaphensian” (ܩܪܩܦܢܬܐ or ܐܬܢܦܩܪܩ), whether, as he thought, because it was used by Syrians of the mountains, or from Carcuf, a city of Mesopotamia. Adler (Vers. Syr., p. 33) was inclined to believe that Bar-Hebraeus meant rather a revised manuscript than a separate translation. Cardinal Wiseman, in the course of those youthful studies which gave such seemly, precocious, deceitful promise (Horae Syriacae, Rom. 1828), discovered in the Vatican (MS. Syr. 152) a Syriac manuscript of readings from both Testaments, with the several portions of the New standing in the following order; Acts, James, 1 Peter, 1 John, the fourteen Epistles of St. Paul, and then the Gospels, these being the only books contained in the true Peshitto. In the margin also are placed by the first hand many readings indicated by the abbreviation ܛܘ (or ܘܛ) [with a line over the last letter], the title of some scribe or teacher[47]. The codex is on thick yellow vellum, in large folio, with the two columns so usual in Syriac writing; the ink, especially the points in vermilion, has often grown pale, and it has been carefully retouched by a later hand; the original document being all the work of one scribe: some of the marginal notes refer to various readings. There are several long and tedious subscriptions in [pg 035] the volume, whereof one states that the copy was written “in the year of the Greeks 1291 (a.d. 980) in the [Monophysite] monastery of Aaron on [mount] Sigara, in the jurisdiction of Calisura, in the days of the Patriarchs John and Menna, by David a deacon of Urin in the jurisdiction of Gera” [Γέρρα, near Beroea or Aleppo]. It may be remarked that Assemani has inserted a letter in the “Bibliotheca Orientalis” from John the Monophysite Patriarch [of Antioch] to his brother Patriarch, Menna of Alexandria. This manuscript, of which Wiseman gives a rather rude facsimile, is deemed by him of great importance in tracing the history of the Syriac vowel-points. Other Karkaphensian manuscripts have been examined since Wiseman's time; and all, whether containing more, or less, of the actual text, agree in the parts which are common, with, however, some independent readings. We subjoin Matt. i. 19 in four texts, wherein the close connexion of the Karkaphensian and the Nestorian recension with the Peshitto is very manifest.

Curetonian.

ܝܩܣܦܝ ܕܝܢ ܡܬܠ ܕܔܪܐ ܚܘܐ

ܛܛ ܐ ܨܛ ܗܘܐ ܕܢܦܪܣܚܘ ܥܡܪܝܡ

ܘܐܬܪܠܗ ܗܘܐ ܕܟܝܘܫܐܐܝܬ ܢܪܠܠܚܘ܀

Nestorian Massorah. Cod. Add. Brit. Mus. 12,138.

ܝܘܣܦ ܕ ܝܢ ܟܠܠܗ ܒܐܢܐ ܗܘܐ

ܘܐܐ ܨܒܐ ܕ ܢܦܪܣܝܗ ܘܐܬܕܠܝܘ (sic)

ܗܘܐ ܕ ܡܠܛܫܝܪܬ ܢܫܪܝܗ ܀

Harkleian—from White.

ܝܘܣܦ ܕ ܝܢ ܗܘ ܓܟܪܐ ܕ ܚܠܗ ܕ ܒܐܢܐ

ܐܬܘܗܝܗܘܐ܃ ܘܐܐ ܨܒܐܗܘܐ ܕ ܢܦܪ ܣܞܡ܃

ܐܬܝܫܒ ܕ ܟܛܘܫܝܐ ܢܫܪܝܗ ܀

* Marg. παραδειγματίσαι.

Jacobite Massorah (“Karkaphensian”). Cod. Add. Brit. Mus. 12,178.

ܝܘܣܦ ܕ ܝܢ ܟܙܠܗ ܒܐܢܐ ܗܘܐ

ܘܐܐ ܨܟܐ ܕ ܢܦܪܣܝܗ ܘܐܬܪܠܝ ܗܘܐ

ܕ ܡܠܛܫܝܪܬ ܢܫܪܗ ܀

Peshitto Text—from the MSS.

ܝܘܣܦ ܝܢ ܟܙܠܗ ܒܐܢܐ ܗܘܐ ܝܘܣܦ ܕ ܫܢ ܒܠܠܗ ܒܐܢܐ ܗܘܐ ܘܠ ܀

The reader must not be misled by this specimen to infer that the Karkaphensian always coincides with the Peshitto. It is not a continuous text, but only those verses or passages are quoted where some word or words occur concerning which some annotation is required in reference to orthography or pronunciation. Whole verses or parts of verses are often omitted[48].

Very recently, since the last illness of Dr. Scrivener had commenced, [pg 036] the results of a wider examination of Syriac MSS. in different Libraries have been made more generally known by Mr. Gwilliam's Essay in the third volume of “Studia Biblica[49].” According to the investigations of the leading Syriac scholars, it appears that the Karkaphensian is not a distinct version, but a kind of Massorah—the attempt to preserve the best traditions of the orthography and pronunciation of the more important or difficult words of the Syriac Vernacular Bible. This Massoretic teaching differs from the Hebrew Massorah, in that whilst the latter supplies us with all that we know of the form of the Jewish Scriptures[50], the Syriac Massorah is younger than our oldest copies of the Syriac Bible. The following are Syriac Massoretic MSS.:—

1. Cod. Add. B. M. 12,138, a Nestorian work, written a.d. 899 at Harran.

2. Cod. Vaticanus 152, a.d. 980 (Wiseman, as above).

3. Cod. Add. B. M. 12,178, a Jacobite work of the ninth or tenth century.

4. Cod. Barberinus, described by Bianchini in “Evangeliarium Quadruplex,” 1748, and afterwards by Wiseman, a.d. 1089 or 1093.

5. Cod. Add. B. M. 7183, also a Jacobite Massoretic work of the early part of the twelfth century.

6. In the Bibliothèque Nationale of Paris, a Massoretic MS.

7. M. l'Abbé Martin mentions another, a.d. 1015, in the Cathedral of Mosul.

Thus the Massorah is extant in two forms, corresponding to the two branches of the Syrian Church. But only one MS. is Nestorian (Cod. Add. 12,138), whilst all except that one are Jacobite.

The name Karkaphensian is connected with the Jacobite Massorah, and signifies the kind of text which was favoured in the Scriptorium of the Skull Convent[51]. Allusions to the Skull Convent are found; the adjective itself occurs in St. Matt. xxvii. 33, and the parallel passages, as a translation of κρανίου. It is known that grammatical and philological studies were pursued by Jacob of Edessa (d. a.d. 710), probably by Joseph Huzita, rector of the school at Nisibis (vi); and a tract attached to Add. 12,178 suggests a connexion between these criticisms and the labours of one “Thomas the Deacon[52].”

We have now traced the history of the several Syriac versions, so far at least as to afford the reader some general idea of their relative importance as materials for the correction of the sacred text. We will next give parallel renderings of Matt. xii. 1-4; Mark xvi. 17-20 from the Peshitto, the Curetonian, and the Harkleian, the only versions known in full; for Matt. xxvii. 3-8, in the room of the Curetonian, which is here lost, we have substituted the Jerusalem Syriac, and have retained throughout Thomas' marginal notes to the Harkleian, its asterisks and obeli. We have been compelled to employ the common Syriac type, though every manuscript of respectable antiquity is written in the Estrangelo character. Even from these slight specimens the servile strictness of the Harkleian, and some leading characteristics of the other versions, will readily be apprehended by an attentive student (e.g. of the Curetonian in Matt. xii. 1; 4; Mark xvi. 18; 20).

We hoped to include in this account some description of the MS. lately discovered by Mrs. Lewis in the Monastery of St. Catherine, at Mount Sinai, and brought in copy last spring to Cambridge. It is now undergoing the careful and skilful examination which the character of the accomplished assistants of Mrs. Lewis ensures, and it is impossible at present to anticipate the verdict upon it which those scholars may recommend, and which may be finally adopted by the learned world at large. The photographic illustration of a page, which has been made public[53], does not suggest that the MS. possesses any very remarkable antiquity. But it is due to our argument upon the mutual relations of the Peshitto and the Curetonian to remark, that the Curetonian will even then rest upon only two MSS., one of them being a palimpsest, in face of the numerous supports of the Peshitto, and that even if the Curetonian be proved, as seems improbable, to date from somewhat further back than we have supposed, the claim of the Peshitto to production in the early part of the second century, and to a superior antiquity, will not thereby be removed.

Syriac Versions. Matthew XII. 1-4.

peshitto

(1) ܟܗܘ ܙܟܢܐ : ܡܗܠܟ ܗܘܐ ܝܫܘܙ

ܟܫܟܬܐ ܒܬ ܙܪܥܐ ܘܬܠܡܕܪܘܗܝ

ܩܦܢܘ : ܘܫܪܝܘ ܡܠܓܢ ܫܟܠ ܘܐܩܠܝܢ

(2) ܦܪܝܫܐ ܕܝܢ ܩܫ ܝܥܘ ܐܢܘܢ ܐܡܪܝܢ

ܠܗ . ܗܐ ܬܠܡܝܫܟ ܥܟܫܝܢ ܡܝܡ

ܕܠ ܫܠܝܛ ܠܡܥܟܝ ܟܫܟܬܐ . (3) ܗܘ

ܕܝܢ ܐܡܪ ܠܗܘܢ . ܠ ܩܪܝܬܘܢ ܡܢܐ

ܥܟܕ ܕܘܝܕ ܩܕ ܩܦܢ ܘܐܝܠܝܢ ܕܥܡܗ :

(4) ܐܝܩܢܐ ܥܠ ܠܒܬܐ ܕܐܠܗܐ :

: ܘܠܚܡܐ ܕܦܬܘܪܗ ܕܡܪܝܐ ܐܩܠ

ܗܘ ܕܐ ܫܠܝܛ ܗܘܐ ܠܗ ܠܡܐܩܠ .

ܘܠ ܠܝܠܝܢ ܕܥܡܗ . ܐܠܐ ܐܢ ܠܩܗܢܐ

ܟܠܚܘܕ ⁘

curetonian.

(1) ܘܟܗܘ ܙ ܟܢܐ : ܡܗܠܟ ܗܘܐ ܝܫܘܥ

ܟܫܟܬܐ ܒܝܬ ܙܪܥܐ . ܘܬܠܡܝܪܘܗܝ

ܩܦܢܘ . ܘܫܪܝܘ ܡܠܓܢ ܫܟܠ ܘܦܪܩܢ

ܟܐܝܕܝܗܘܢ ܘܐܩܠܝܢ . (2) ܩܕ ܝܥܘ

ܐܢܘܢ ܦܪܝܫܐ ܐܡܪܝܢ ܠܗ . ܡܢܐ

ܥܟܝܢ ܬܠܡܝܪܝܟ ܡܪܡ ܕܠܐ ܫܠܝܛ

ܠܡܥܟܕ . (3) ܐܡܪ ܠܗܘܢܠ

ܩܪܝܬܘܢ ܡܢܐ ܥܟܕ ܕܘܝܪ ܩܪܩܦܢ

ܘܐܝܠܝܢ ܕܥܡܗ . (4) ܐܝܩܢܐ ܥܠ

ܠܒܬܗ ܕܐܠܗܐ . ܘܐܟܠ ܡܢ ܠܚܡ

ܐܦܐ . ܕܠ ܠܗ ܫܠܝܛ ܗܘܐ ܠܡܐܩܠ

ܐܦܠ ܠܝܠܝܢ ܕܥܡܗ . ܐܠ ܐܢ ܠܩܗܢܐ

⁘ ܟܠܚܘܕ

harkleian.

(1) ܟܗܘ ܙܟܢܐ : ܡܗܠܟ ܗܘܐ

ܝܫܘܥ ܟܫܟܬܐ ܒܕ ܕܬ ܙܪܥܐ.

ܬܠܡܝܕܘܗܝ ܕܝܢ ܩܦܢܘ : ܘܫܪܝܘ

ܡܠܓܢ ܫܟܠ ܘܐܩܠܝܢ . (2) ܦܪܝܫܐ

ܕܝܢ ܩܕ ܝܥܐ ܐܡܪܘ ܠܗ . ܗܐ

ܐܠܡܝܕܝܟ ܥܟܕܝܢ ܗܘ ܡܐ ܕܠ ܫܠܝܛ

ܠܡܥܟܕ ܟܫܟܬܐ . (3) ܗܘ ܕܝܢ ܐܡܪ

ܠܗܘܢ . ܠ ܩܪܝܬܘܢ ܡܢܐ ܥܟܪ ܕܘܝܕ .

ܩܕ ܩܦܢ ܘܗܠܝܢ ܕܥܡܗ : (4) ܐܝܩܢܐ

ܥܠ ܠܒܬܗ ܕܐܠܗܐ : ܘܠܚܡܐ

ܗܘܘ ܩܕܡ ܐܠܗܐ . ܗܢܘ ܕܝܢ ܕܣܝܡܝܢ

ܕܣܝܡܘܬ ܩܕܡܐ ܐܩܠ : ܗܠܝܢ ܕܠ

ܫܠܝܛ ܗܘܐ ܠܗ ܠܡܐܩܠ ܘܠ

ܠܗܢܘܢ ܕܠܡܗ : ܐܠ ܐܢ ܠܩܗܢܐ

ܟܠܚܘܕܝܗܘܢ ⁘

Parallel Renderings. Matthew XXVII. 3-8

peshitto.

(3) ܗܝܕܝܢ ܝܗܘܕܐ ܡܫܠܡܢܐ : ܩܕ

ܚܐ ܕܐܬܚܝܒ ܝܫܘܥ ܐܬܬܘܝ . ܘܐܙܠ

ܐܗܦܟ ܗܠܝܢ ܬܠܬܝܢ ܕܩܣܦܐ ܠܪܟܝ

ܟܗܨܐ ܘܠܘܫܫܐ . (4) ܘܐܡܪ . ܚܛܬ

ܕܐܫܠܡܬ ܕܡܐ ܙܩܝܐ . ܗܢܘܢ ܕܝܢ ܐܡܪܘ

ܠܗ . ܠܢ ܡܐ ܠܢ . ܐܢܬ ܝܪܥ ܐܢܬ

(5) ܘܫܪܝܗܝ ܟܣܦܐ ܟܗܝܩܠ ܘܫܢܝ .

ܘܐܙܠ ܚܢܩ ܢܦܫܗ . (6) ܪܒܝ ܩܡܢܐ

ܕܝܢܫܘܠܘܗܝ ܠܩܣܦܐ ܘܐܡܪܘ . ܠ

ܫܠܝܛ ܕܢܪܡܝܘܗܝ ܒܬ ܩܘܪܟܢܐ .

ܡܛܠ ܕܛܡܝ ܕܡܐܗܘ . (7) ܘܢܣܟܘ

ܡܠܩܐ : ܘܙܟܢܘ ܒܗ ܐܓܘܪܣܗ ܕܦܚܪܐ

ܠܒܬ ܩܟܘܪܐ ܕܐܟܣܢܝܐ . (8) ܡܛܠ

ܗܢܐ ܐܬܩܪܝ ܐܓܘܪܣܐ ܗܘ : ܩܝܪܝܬܐ

ܕܕܡܐ ܥܕܡܐ ܠܝܘܡܢܐ ⁘

jerusalem syriac.

ܘܒܬܗ ܩܝܪܘܣܐ ܟܩܢ ܩܕ ܝܡܐ

ܝܗܘܕܣ ܕܡܣܪ ܝܬܗ ܕܐܬܚܝܒ ܬܗܐ ⁘

ܘܐܬܪܒ ܬܠܬܝܢ ܕܩܣܦܐ ܠܪܝܫܐ ܟܗܢܝܐ

(ܕܟܡܢܝܐ s.m.) ܘܩܫܝܫܐ . (4) ܘܐܡܪ

ܐܣܩܠܬ ܕܡ ܣܪܬ ܐܕܡ ? ܕܝܩ ⁘ ܐܕܡ

(? ܕܝܩ s.m.) ܗܢܘܢ ܕܝ ܐܡܪܘ ܡܐ

ܥܠܝܢܗ ܐܬ ܬܝܡܐ (5) ܘܫܕܐ ܩܣܦܐ

ܟܢܘܣܐ ܘܐܙܠ ܝܢܩܓܪܡܗ ⁘ (6) ܪܝܫܐ

ܩܗܢܝܐ ܕܝ ܢܣܟܘ ܩܣܦܐ ܘܐܡܪܘܠ

ܫܠܝܛ ܕܢܪܡܐ ܝܬܗ ܟܩܘܪܟܢܐ ⁘

ܠܓܠ ܕܗܘ ܕܡܝܢ ܕܐܕܡ (7) ܢܣܟܘ

ܕܝ ܡܝܠܟ (ܡܝܠܟܐ sic s.m.) ܘܙܟܢܘ

ܒܗܘܢ ܛܘܪܗ ܕܦܚܪܐ ܠܡܘܟܘܪܐ

ܠܩܣܢܚ ⁘ (8) ܠܩܝ ܢ ܐܬܘܪܝ ܛܘܪܐ ܗܐܘ

ܝܘܠ ܐܕܡܐ ܥ ܪ ܡܛܐ ܠܝܘܡܕܝܢ ⁘

harkleian.

(3) ܗܝܪܝܢ ܩܪ ܚܢܐ ܝܗܘܕܐ ܗܘ

ܕܐܫܠܡܗ ܕܐܬܪܝܒ : ܩܪ ܐܬܬܘܝ :

ܐܗܦܢ ܗܠܝܢ ܬܠܬܢ ܩܣܦܐ ܠܪܝܫܝ

ܩܗܢܐ ܘܠܘܫܝܫܐ (4) ܩܕ ܐܗܪ :

ܝܛܬ ܕܐܫܠܡܬ ܕܡܐ ܙܒܝܐ . ܗܢܘܢ

ܕܢ ܐܡܪܘ . ܡܢܐ ܠܘܬܢ . ܐܢܬ ܬܚܢܐ .

(5) ܘܩܕ ܫܕܝ ܐܢܘܢ ܠܩܣܦܐ ܟܗܝܩܠ :

ܫܢܝ ܘܐܙܠ ܚܢܩ ܗܘܠܗ .

ܪܝܫܝ ܩܗܢܐ ܕܝܢ ܩܕ ܫܘܠܘ ܐܢܘܢ

ܠܩܣܦܐ ܐܡܪܘ : ܠ ܫܠܝܛ ܠܡܪܡܝܘ

ܒܬ ܩܘܪܟ ܐܢܐܢ : ܡܛܠ ܕܛܝܡܐ ܕܕܡܐ

ܐܢܬܝܗܘܢ . (7) ܩܕ ܕܝܢ ܡܠܩܐ ܢܣܟܘ :

ܙܟܥܘ ܡܥܗܘܢ ܐܓܘܪܣܐ (5) ܕܦܚܪܝܐ

ܠܒܬ ܩܟܘܪܐ ܝܕܐܩܣܢܝܐ . (8) ܡܛܠ

ܗܕܐ ܐܬܩܪܝ ܗܘ ܐܓܘܪܣܐ ܗܘ :

ܐܓܘܪܣܐ ܕܕܡܐ ܥܕܡܐ ܠܝܘܡܢܐ ⁘

Syriac Versions. Mark XVI. 17-20

peshitto.

(17) ܐܬܘܬܐ ܕܝܢ ܠܝܠܝܢ ܕܡܗܝܡܢܝܢ

ܗܠܝܢ ܢܘܦܢ . ܟܫܡܝ ܫܐܕܐ

ܢܦܩܘܢ ܘܟܠܫܢܐ ܚܪܬܐ ܢܡܠܠܘܢ .

(18) ܘܚܘܘܬܐ ܢܫܘܠܘܢ . ܘܐܢ ܣܡܐ

ܕܡܘܬܐ ܢܫܬܘܢ ܠ ܢܗܪ ܐܢܘܢ . ܘܐܝܕܝܗܘܢ

ܢܣܝܡܘ ܢܥܠ ܩܪܝܗܐ ܘܢܬܚܠܡܘܢ .

(19) ܝܫܘܥ ܕܝܢ ܡܪܢ : ܡܢ ܟܬܪ

ܕܡܠܠ ܥܡܗܘܢ ܠܫܡܝܐ ܣܠܩ

ܘܝܬܒ ܡܢ ܝܡܝܢܐ ܕܐܠܗܐ . (20) ܗܢܘܢ

ܕܝܢ ܢܦܩܘ ܘܐܩܪܙܘ ܟܩܠ ܕܘܩܐ . ܘܡܪܢ

ܡܥܕܪ ܗܘܐ ܠܗܘܢ : ܘܡܫܪ ܡܠܝܗܘܢ

ܒܐܬܘܬܐ ܕܥܟܕܝܢ ܗܘܘ⁘

curetonian.

(17) ܕܡܗܝܡܢܝܢ ܟܝ . ܗܠܝ ܢ

ܒܫܡܝ ܕܝܘܐ ܢܦܘܘܢ . ܟܠܫܢܐ ܚܕܬܐ

ܢܡܠܠܘܢ . (18) ܚܘܘܬܐ ܢܫܘܠܘܢ

ܒܐܪܕܝܗܘܢ ܘܐܢ ܡܪܡ ܣܡܐ ܕܡܘܬܐ

ܢܫܬܘܢ ܠ ܢܩܐ ܐܢܘܢ . ܐܠ ܩܪܗܐ