ana translation
Untitled - Peshitta Aramaic/English Interlinear New Testament Untitled - Peshitta Aramaic/English Interlinear New Testament
Ivi INTRODUCTION copy has been intentionally mutilated, in order to separate (so far as the quire-arrangement would permit) the non-Peshitta portions from the rest. Its text of 2 and 3 John and Jude is of the B-type. As regards 2 Peter, it is not available for our purposes, for it offers a translation distinct from Peshitta and Harklensian alike, otherwise unknown, and of no merit, of interest only as showing how widely a really independent version will deviate from previous ones. The Pericope of this MS also differs much from all other known texts (except one ; see p. 45 infr.). 17. (Bodl. Libr., Dawk. 23 (1), Catal. 34.) This is a fragmentary copy of 2 and 3 John and Jude only ; filling three mutilated paper leaves, probably of the seventeenth century (or later ; " baud ita antiquum " is Dr. Payne Smith's judgment).* They are prefixed to a New Testament, perhaps as old as the fourteenth century, which appears to have come from Egypt, its leaves being numbered in Coptic figures. Its text is of the B-type, yet not so uniformly as 7, 8, and 10. Its mutilated condition, its late date, and the absence of indication of place, render it almost useless as a witness to the text. [16. (Paris, Bibl. N., Suppl 79, Catal 5.) This is vol. 5 of a Syriac Bible (paper), written in Paris 1675. Its text of our Epistles is of the same type as that of the preceding five. But as it dates thirty years after the printing of the Epistles in the Paris Polyglot, it cannot rank as an independent witness, and I have not included it among my authorities, except for the Pericope, which it inserts in its place after John vii. 52.] Thus it appears (a) that all the four MSS which most constantly attest the B text are Maronite (7, 8, 10, 15), in date ranging from the fifteenth to the seventeenth century ; and (6) that no Maronite ropy belongs to Group A, or to the Intermediate list. Hence, combining these results with those stated above (pp. xlvi, 1) as to the Earlier and Intermediate MSS, we find reason to believe that these witnesses to the text may be classified in place as well as in date, that there is a group from N.E. Mesopotamia (Jacobite), and a group from the Lebanon (Maronite) the latter ; closely coincident with group B, the former including group A and part of the Intermediate. * * Catal. , no. 34, col. 106.
INTRODUCTION Ivii SECTION XIII. Authorities for our Text : EDITIONS. Above (p. xx, see also p. 4 infr.) I have related the main facts of the first printing of these Epistles (by Pococke (II), 1630), and of their first appearance in their place as part of a complete Syriac New Testament (in the Paris Polyglot (P), 1645). On one or both of these editions all subsequent texts of these Epistles are founded. Some (as Gutbir's Syriac N.T., 1664) give a text slightly amended apparently by conjecture*: for two only, Dr. Lee's (L, of 1816 and 1820), and Dr. Perkins' (N, New York, 1886), has fresh MS authority been obtained (see pp. xliv, xlix, supr.). But Pococke's text has not been borrowed by the Paris editor (Sionita) a careful comparison of the two : shows plainly that the latter represents an exemplar distinct from, and appreciably better than, Pococke's cod. 8 ; and thus avoids one or two of the worst errors of the Editio Princeps (e.g., |l9OQs for "jajOCtii, 2 Pet. i. 4; jOll for JOll), 3 Joh. 10). The London Polyglot (A), 1653, simply reproduces the Paris text, with variations so few and petty as to be probably due to inadvertence (as the omission of ^oJ^Gl in 2 Pet. iii. 10). The editor (Thorndike) seems to have neglected Pococke's text altogether. It is to be noted that Sionita was and it may be assumed as certain that his MS. also, like Pococke's must have been-^-Maronite. For L, see Dr. Lee's account in Classical Journal (cited above, p. xliv, note J). It was issued by the British and Foreign Bible Society. To the American Bible Society is due the edition (N) of 1886, and its precursors their Syriac Bible, printed (1841) at Urmi in Persia, and reprinted at New York (1874). As noted above (pp. xliv, xlviii), the MSS (11, 13) whence L and N have derived their emendations of the text of our Epistles are Tur'abdinese. SECTION XIV. Authorities for our Text : VERSIONS. Under this head I deal only with the secondary Versions which are known to have been made from our Syriac and not from the Greek. There are but two such :(a) the Latin of Etzel (" etz" printed in 1612), and the Arabic (" ar&," printed in 1897 by Dr. Merx,f and in 1899 by Mrs. Gibson, Studia Sinaitica, No. vn). * The useful Syriac N.T. of Schaaf (1708) gives in an Appendix a convenient summary of the variations of Pococke's, the Polyglot, and Gutbir's texts. f From a transcript made by Mrs. Burkitt (Zeitschriftf. Assyriologie, Dec. 1897). h
- Page 23 and 24: ACKNOWLEDGMENTS IN the task of coll
- Page 25 and 26: CONTENTS ADDENDA ET CORRIGENDA . IN
- Page 27: CONTENTS XI (ii.) Where Greek Text
- Page 30 and 31: XIV ADDENDA ET CORRIGENDA. Page 62
- Page 33 and 34: ( xvii ) INTRODUCTION SECTION I. Th
- Page 35 and 36: INTRODUCTION xix editor of the firs
- Page 37 and 38: INTRODUCTION xxi veniently arranged
- Page 39 and 40: INTRODUCTION xxiii been preserved.
- Page 41 and 42: INTRODUCTION xxv versions are not i
- Page 43 and 44: INTRODUCTION xxvii And in answering
- Page 45 and 46: INTRODUCTION xxix (our Cod. 1) ; an
- Page 47 and 48: INTRODUCTION xxxi the Psalter, whic
- Page 49 and 50: INTRODUCTION xxxiii ing leaves the
- Page 51 and 52: INTRODUCTION xxxv subsists between
- Page 53 and 54: INTRODUCTION xxxvii The passages in
- Page 55 and 56: INTRODUCTION xxxix readings, dSiKov
- Page 57 and 58: INTRODUCTION xli when we note that
- Page 59 and 60: INTRODUCTION xliii presented some t
- Page 61 and 62: INTRODUCTION xlv near Mardin, which
- Page 63 and 64: INTRODUCTION xlvii preceding, but c
- Page 65 and 66: INTRODUCTION xlix (apparently a pla
- Page 67 and 68: INTRODUCTION li raneously, in the l
- Page 69 and 70: INTRODUCTION liii those of the inte
- Page 71: INTRODUCTION Ir now in the Bodleian
- Page 75 and 76: INTRODUCTION lix Krpiov (Jud. 4). O
- Page 77 and 78: INTRODUCTION Ixi having preserved t
- Page 79 and 80: INTRODUCTION Ixiii tion, lacking al
- Page 81 and 82: INTRODUCTION Ixv its own fitness an
- Page 83 and 84: INTRODUCTION Ixvii SECTION XIX. The
- Page 85 and 86: INTRODUCTION Ixix then, of tamperin
- Page 87 and 88: INTRODUCTION Ixxi POSTSCRIPT. The P
- Page 89: SYRIAC TEXT
- Page 93 and 94: MANUSCRIPTS CITED. THE Manuscripts
- Page 95 and 96: MANUSCRIPTS, ETC. '3 Pococke, and 1
- Page 99 and 100: SUPEESCEIPTIONS, &C. Of our MSS, 1
- Page 101 and 102: 2 PET. I. 1-5] I. *. ~ , Codd. '!-
- Page 103 and 104: 2 PET. I. 9-15] ^ OJCvO^.l K^xiJ^r^
- Page 105 and 106: 2 PET. 1. 19-11. 3] ^ oooi.i *4ii\j
- Page 107 and 108: 2 PET. II. 7-12] ^ o>oi\2M K>Aii\i*
- Page 109 and 110: 2 PET. II. 16-20] ^ csav^i r^i^* 17
- Page 111 and 112: 2 PET. III. 1-5] TB 19 III. 2 ]'^">
- Page 113 and 114: 2 PET. III. 10-16] ^ a>ai.a.i K'&T-
- Page 115 and 116: 2 JOH. 1-4] 23 Codd. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5,
- Page 117 and 118: 2 JOH. 8-12] ^3 t l-A>CU.t rc'^i^nf
- Page 119 and 120: 3 JOH. 1-4} 27 i \ T ( \ CL " /~1 J
- Page 121 and 122: 3 JOH. 10-12] 3 WCU.T K'^ir^ 29 . \
Ivi<br />
INTRODUCTION<br />
copy has been intentionally mutilated, in order to separate (so<br />
far as<br />
the quire-arrangement would permit) the non-Peshitta portions from the<br />
rest. Its text of 2 and 3 John and Jude is of the B-type. As regards<br />
2 Peter, it is not available for our purposes, for it offers a <strong>translation</strong><br />
distinct from Peshitta and Harklensian alike, otherwise unknown, and<br />
of no merit, of interest only as showing how widely a really independent<br />
version will deviate from previous ones. The Pericope of this MS also<br />
differs much from all other known texts (except one ;<br />
see p.<br />
45 infr.).<br />
17. (Bodl. Libr., Dawk. 23 (1),<br />
Catal. 34.)<br />
This is a fragmentary copy of 2 and 3 John and Jude only ; filling<br />
three mutilated<br />
paper leaves, probably of the seventeenth century (or<br />
later ; " baud ita antiquum " is Dr. Payne Smith's judgment).* They<br />
are prefixed to a New Testament, perhaps as old as the fourteenth<br />
century, which appears to have come from Egypt, its leaves being numbered<br />
in Coptic figures. Its text is of the B-type, yet not so uniformly<br />
as 7, 8, and 10. Its mutilated condition, its late date, and the absence<br />
of indication of place, render it almost useless as a witness to the text.<br />
[16. (Paris, Bibl. N., Suppl 79, Catal 5.)<br />
This is vol. 5 of a Syriac Bible (paper), written in Paris 1675. Its<br />
text of our Epistles is of the same type as that of the preceding five.<br />
But as it dates thirty years after the printing of the Epistles in the<br />
Paris Polyglot, it cannot rank as an independent witness, and I have<br />
not included it<br />
among my authorities, except for the Pericope,<br />
which it<br />
inserts in its place after John vii. 52.]<br />
Thus it appears (a) that all the four MSS which most constantly<br />
attest the B text are Maronite (7, 8, 10, 15), in date ranging from<br />
the fifteenth to the seventeenth century ;<br />
and (6) that no Maronite ropy<br />
belongs to Group A, or to the Intermediate list.<br />
Hence, combining<br />
these results with those stated above (pp. xlvi, 1) as to the Earlier and<br />
Intermediate MSS, we find reason to believe that these witnesses to<br />
the text may be classified in place as well as in date, that there is a<br />
group from N.E. Mesopotamia (Jacobite), and a group from the Lebanon<br />
(Maronite) the latter<br />
; closely coincident with group B, the former<br />
including group A and part of the Intermediate.<br />
*<br />
* Catal. ,<br />
no. 34, col. 106.
Change language