ana translation

lii
INTRODUCTION
MS, except the .OOuAJij of 2 Pet. ii. 13 and Jud. 12. On the other
hand, it has a few aberrations of its own, of which the most notable
is recorded on p. 25 infr. (2 Joh. 10). Again, instead of omitting
^ \*$D ^O from 2 Pet. ii. 11, it (with Cod. 19) substitutes j for ^k> ;
and though
it avoids the misreading of Cod. 8 in 3 Joh. 10 (>Oll),
it has
instead the similarly erroneous OjOU of Cod. 9, which is found also in
the Arabic. As to the original whence this copy was made, no information
is
forthcoming ;
it must have been a MS of the highest value. The
Convent has no ecclesiastical connexion with Mesopotamia or any
part of the Antiochian Patriarchate, being subject to the Patriarch of
Jerusalem ;
but its connexion with the sister convent of the same
dedication at Cairo points to Egypt as the region where the archetype
of the MS is to be sought, if so, presumably in the Syrian Convent
of the Nitrian Desert, whence the Library of the British Museum and
so many other libraries have drawn their most precious documents of
Syriac literature and theology. However this may be, the isolation
and remoteness of its abode enhances the value of the text of Cod. 18.
Cod. 19. (In the possession of Dr. Rendel Harris.)
This is the most recent MS of our list, being a transcript made within
the last few years in the East. It is a MS (cursive, on paper) of the
Commentaries of
of
Bar Salibi on the New Testament, and gives the text
the Acts and Seven Catholic Epistles in full, Acts and the Three in
Peshitta Version, followed by our Four, with a note prefixed describing
them as " from Thomas of Harkel." * To these it subjoins (like Cod. 13)
the Epistles of [ps.]
Clement To Virgins. Its text, in point of adherence
to the A-type, stands next after Cod. 20 ;
yet of the two notable B-errors
recorded against 20, it falls into but one (]V)V> of 2 Pet. ii. 1),
while, on the other hand, it follows the Harklensian, with Cod. 20 and also
Cod. 13, in its interpolation in Jud. 7 ()_**-***?)
About the exemplar
whence this transcript was made, I have no information ;
but a singular
misreading (.OD^QJ *or TQ 2r& 1J ?5
Jud. 24) indicates that it represents,
directly or indirectly, an estrangela predecessor, for in that
script (though not in cursive) i\ \\ might readily pass into i\-o.
If these two MSS were not so recent, they would be entitled in
point of text to take their places,
Cod. 18 in group A, Cod. 19 among
* This is a further instance of the tendency, above remarked on (p. xxxii), to
confuse the two Versions.