| << | Contents | >> |
The Diatessaron of Tatian
[17] For further explanation of the method followed see 20.
[18] See notes to § 7, 47, and § 52, 36, of the present translation.
[19] See below, 12, (2).
[20] See also below, 6, and 20.
[21] Bibl. Or., i., 619.
[22] Mai, Vet. script. nova. collect., iv., 14.
[23] cf. Zahn, Forschungen, i., 294 ff.
[24] See below, § 7, 47, note, and § 52, 36, note.
[25] See below, § 28, 43, note.
[26] See below, foot-notes, passim.
[27] The first leaf bears a more pretentious Latin inscription, quoted by Ciasca, p. vi.
[28] Can this be a misprint for 95?
[29] See below, 13.
[30] He does not state, in so many words, that the list is absolutely exhaustive.
[31] See, e.g., below, § 13, 42, note, and § 14, 43, note.
[32] See the valuable article of Guidi, “Le traduzioni degli Evangelii in arabo e in etiopico” (Atti della R. Accademia dei Lincei; Classe di Scienze Morali, Storiche e filologiche. Serie Quarta, 1888, Parte Prima—Memorie, pp. 5–38). Some of his results are briefly stated in Scrivener, A Plain Introd. to the Crit. of the N.T., 4th ed., ii., 162.
[33] cf.the foot-notes passim, e.g., § 13, 14, § 14, 24.
[34] See below, note to Subscription.
[35] See a glaring case in § 52, 11.
[36] The references to the readings of the Diatessaron in Ibn-at-Tayyib’s own commentary on the gospels (see next note) are remarkably impersonal for one who had made or was to make a translation of it.
[37] A specially important part of the general question is this, What are the mutual relations of the following: (1) a supposed version of at least Matthew and John made from the Syriac by Ibn-at-Tayyib, mentioned by Ibn-al-‘Assal in the Preface to his scholarly recension of the gospels (ms. numbered Or. 3382 in Brit. Mus., folio 384b) and used by him in determining his text; (2) the gospel text interwoven with the commentary of Ibn-at-Tayyib on the gospels, a commentary which De Slane says the author wrote in Syriac and then translated into Arabic; (3) our present work. Of mss. testifying to No. 1 we have some dating from the time of Ibn-al-‘Assal himself; of No. 2 we have, in addition to others, an eleventh-century ms. in Paris, described by De Slane (catalogue No. 85) as being “un volume dépareillé du ms. original de l’ouvrage”; of No. 3 we have of course the Vatican and Borgian mss. What is the mutual relation of these texts; were any two of them identical? The Brit. Mus. ms. of the second has many points of contact with the third, but is dated 1805 a.d. Does the older Paris ms. stand more or less closely related? Did Ibn-at-Tayyib himself really translate any or all of these texts, or did he simply select or edit them? Space does not permit us to point out, far less to discuss, the various possibilities.
[38] The text is given below in full at its proper place.
[39] Prof. Gottheil, indeed, announced in 1892 in the Journal of Biblical Literature (vol. xi., pt. i., p. 71) that he had been privately informed of the existence of a complete copy of the Syriac Diatessaron. Unfortunately, however, as he has kindly informed me, he has reluctantly come to the conclusion that the ms. in question, which is not yet accessible, is “nothing more than the commentary of Isho‘dad” mentioned in the text. A similar rumor lately circulated probably originated simply in the pamphlet of Goussen mentioned in the next note. S. Bäumer, on the other hand, in his article, “Tatians Diatessaron, seine bisher. Lit. u. die Reconstruction des Textes nach einer neuentdeckten Handschrift” (Literarischer Handweiser, 1890, 153–169) which the present writer has not been able to see, perhaps refers simply to the Borgian ms.
[40] Attention was called to these by Profs. Isaac H. Hall and R. J. H. Gottheil (Journ. of Bibl. Lit., x., 153 ff.; xi., 68 ff.); then by Prof. J. R. Harris (Contemp. Rev., Aug., 1895, p. 271 ff., and, more fully, Fragments of the Com. of Ephr. Syr. on the Diatess., London, 1895) and by Goussen (Studia Theologica, fasc. i., Lips., 1895).
[41] Prof. Harris promises an edition of this commentary.
[42] Harris, Fragments, p. 14, where the Syriac text is quoted.
[43] Bib. Or., ii., 159 f. Most of them are repeated again by Bar Hebræus (d. 1286), although some confusion is produced by his interweaving some phrases from Eusebius of Cæsarea. (Bib. Or., i., 57 f., and a longer quotation in English in Contemp. Rev., Aug., 1895, p. 274 f.)
[44] Lagarde’s statement (Nachrichten von der Königl. Gesellsch. der Wiss., etc., zu Göttingen, 1891, No. 4, p. 153) that a ms. had been discovered, appears to have been unfounded. Prof. Rahlfs of Göttingen kindly tells me that he believes this is so.
[45] Migne, Patrol. græc., tom. lxxxiii., col. 369, 372.
[46] Published at Venice in 1836.
[47] The two Armenian mss. are dated a.d. 1195.
[48] Evangelii Concordantis Expositio, facta a S. Ephraemo (Ven., 1876).
[49] Forschungen zur Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons, I. Theil.
[50] Edited by Ernestus Ranke, Marb. and Lips., 1868.
[51] For other forms of the Diatessaron, of no critical importance, see S. Hemphill, The Diatessaron of Tatian (London, 1888), Appendix D and the refs. there.
[52] Further references, chiefly repetitions in one form or another of the statements we have quoted, may be found in a convenient form in Harnack, Gesch. d. altchrist. Lit. bis. Euseb., 493–496; cf. also the works mentioned by Hill (op. cit.) p. 378 f.
[53] cf. the words of Aphraates, senior contemporary of Ephraem: “As it is written in the beginning of the Gospel of our Vivifier: In the beginning was the Word.” (Patrol. Syr., pars i., tom. i., 21, lines 17–19).
[54] Nachrichten von der Königl. Gesellsch. der Wiss., etc., March 17, 1886, No. 4, p. 151 ff.
[55] See notes to § 1, 81, and § 4, 29.
[56] See note to § 55, 17.
[57] The Armenian version of Ephraem is supposed to date from the fifth century.
[58] Mai, Script. vet. nov. Coll., x., 191.
[59] Overbeck, S. Ephraemi, etc., Opera Selecta, p. 220, lines 3–5.
[60] Phillips, Doct. Add., p. 36, 15–17 [E. Tr. p. 34].
[61] Moesinger, Evang. Concord., etc., p. xi.
[62] The latest discussion of the question whether this really was Tatian is Mr. Rendel Harris’s article in the Contemp. Rev., Aug., 1895.
[63] Best ed. by Eduard Schwartz, in Texte und Untersuchungen, IV. Band, Heft 1.
[64] “Tatian’s Diatessaron and the Analysis of the Pentateuch,” Journ. of Bibl. Lit., vol. ix., 1890, pt. ii., 201–215.
[65] The refs., except where the foot-notes indicate otherwise, are to the verses of the English or Greek Bible. The numbers of the Arabic verse refs. (which follow the Vulgate and therefore in one or two passages differ from the English numbers by one) may, however, have been occasionally retained through oversight. It is only the name of the gospel that can possibly be ancient.
[66] It may be mentioned that it has been found very convenient to mark these figures on the margin of the Arabic text. An English index (that given here, or that in Hill’s volume) can then be used for the Arabic text also.
[67] e.g., § 8, 10. For a list of suggested emendations see at end of Index.
[68] e.g., § 52, 11.
[69] e.g., § 45, 33.
[70] The ms. here has Tabib, but the name is correctly given in the Subscription (q.v.).
[71] i.e., simply He began with.
[72] The vowel signs as printed by Ciasca imply some such construction asAnd he said as a beginning: The Gospel, etc. But the vocalisation is of course not authoritative, and a comparison with the preface in the Vatican ms. suggests the rendering given above. The word translated Beginning in the two Introductory Notes is the very word (whichever spelling be adopted) used by Ibn-at-Tayyib himself in his comments on Mark i. (at least according to the Brit. Mus. ms.), although not in the gospel text prefixed to the Comments as it now stands, or indeed in any ms. Arabic gospel in the Brit. Mus. This would seem to militate against our theory of the original form of this much-debated passage in the Introductory Notes, as indicated by the use of small type for the later inserted phrases; and the difficulty appears at first to be increased by the following words in Ibn-at-Tayyib’s comments on Mark i. (Brit. Mus. ms., fol. 190a), and some say that the Greek citation and in the Diatessaron, which Tatianus the pupil of Justianus the philosopher wrote, the quotation is not written, “Isaiah,” but, “as it is written in the prophet.” This is a remarkable statement about the Diatessaron. But the sentence is hardly grammatical. Perhaps the words printed in italics originally formed a complete sentence by themselves, possibly on the margin. If this conjecture be correct we might emend, e.g., by restoring them to the margin, and repeating the last three words or some equivalent phrase in the text. It would be interesting to know how the Paris ms. reads. See below, p. 138 (Suggested Emendations).
[73] Ciasca does not state whether the word John occurs here in the Borgian ms. or not.
[74] The vowel signs as printed by Ciasca imply some such construction asAnd he said as a beginning: The Gospel, etc. But the vocalisation is of course not authoritative, and a comparison with the preface in the Vatican ms. suggests the rendering given above. The word translated Beginning in the two Introductory Notes is the very word (whichever spelling be adopted) used by Ibn-at-Tayyib himself in his comments on Mark i. (at least according to the Brit. Mus. ms.), although not in the gospel text prefixed to the Comments as it now stands, or indeed in any ms. Arabic gospel in the Brit. Mus. This would seem to militate against our theory of the original form of this much-debated passage in the Introductory Notes, as indicated by the use of small type for the later inserted phrases; and the difficulty appears at first to be increased by the following words in Ibn-at-Tayyib’s comments on Mark i. (Brit. Mus. ms., fol. 190a), and some say that the Greek citation and in the Diatessaron, which Tatianus the pupil of Justianus the philosopher wrote, the quotation is not written, “Isaiah,” but, “as it is written in the prophet”. This is a remarkable statement about the Diatessaron. But the sentence is hardly grammatical. Perhaps the words printed in italics originally formed a complete sentence by themselves, possibly on the margin. If this conjecture be correct we might emend, e.g., by restoring them to the margin, and repeating the last three words or some equivalent phrase in the text. It would be interesting to know how the Paris ms. reads. See below, p. 138 (Suggested Emendations).
[80] On the margin of the Vatican ms., fol. 1a, are written by a later hand these words, The first of his Gospel. The first of the Evangel (is) the Gospel of Luke; followed by the text of the first four verses of Luke, and that in turn by the words, Four complete Gospels, Matthew, and Mark, and Luke, and John. See Ciasca’s Essay, cited above (Introduction, 5), p. 468.
[90] This word is constantly recurring in the sense of fear.
[93] Everywhere, except in the introductory notes, the Arabic is the Spirit of Holiness, as in the Arabic versions.
[96] See § 28, 17, note.
[106] The Vat. ms. has over this verse, The second section, from the Gospel of Luke, i.e., as divided in the Syriac and Arabic versions.
[107] The Borgian ms. omits to Galilee.
[121] Vat. ms., like that described by Gildemeister (see Introduction, 20) has into Galilee (cf. § 8, 10, note).
[122] Lit. the, a form due to Syriac influence (cf. § ii. 12, and passim).
[132] The Arabic word ordinarily means tribe or nation, but in this work it regularly represents the Syriac word used in the N.T. for generation.
[134] The Arabic would naturally be rendered, the blessing on me, That; but a number of passages in this work seem to justify the rendering given in the text (cf., e.g., § 46, 54, and especially § 15, 40).
[145] The text is indistinct in the Vat. ms. The reading seems to be conflate, the doublets being when it was, which is the reading of Ibn-at-Tayyib’s Commentary, and on.
[152] Lit. described (cf. § ii. 46).
[162] Or, should.
[166] Here and elsewhere the Arabic translator uses life and live and give life, as in Syriac, for salvation, etc.
[168] Borg. ms. has and for of.
[169] The word used in the Peshitta means visit, either in the sense of caring for or in that of frequenting. See § 24, 29.
[170] So Borg. ms. The Vat. ms. is very indistinct. Lagarde (see Introduction, 13, note), quoting Guidi, prints Whereby there visiteth us the manifestation from on high. The difference in Arabic is in a single stroke.
[172] Luke i. 80.
[174] This is preceded in Vat. ms. by the genealogy,Matt. i. 1-17 (see Introduction, 13), with the marginal note The Beginning of the Gospel of Matthew. (Lagarde, op. cit., 1886, p. 154.) The text presents nothing worthy of note in this place except that verse 16, construed on the same principle as the preceding verses, to which, except in the words printed in italics, it is strictly parallel in construction, reads thus: “Jacob begat Joseph, the husband of Mary, who of her begat Jesus, the Messiah” (cf. the remarkable reading of Sin. Syriac). As it stands, this is the only possible interpretation of the words, for who is masculine. But a mistake in the gender of a relative pronoun is very common in Arabic among illiterate people, while in Syriac there is, to begin with, no distinction. If then we correct the relative, who of her will become of whom (fem.), and begat will of course be construed as passive. We thus get the text followed in Ibn-at-Tayyib’s Commentary, the ordinary reading of the Peshitta, of whom was born Jesus.
[177] The Arabic might even more naturally be rendered born, thus giving us the reading that Isho‘dad tells us was that of the Diatessaron (Harris, Fragments, p. 16 f.); but throughout the whole genealogy (see § 1, 81, note) this word has been used by the Vat. ms. in the sense of begat. Here the Borg. ms. has of her for in her; but Ibn-at-Tayyib in his Commentary discusses why Matthew wrote in and not of.
[179] cf. § 1, 78.
[185] The Arabic expression is clearly meant to represent that used in the Peshitta.
[187] This is the most natural meaning of the Arabic sentence; which, however, is simply a word-for-word reproduction.
[192] Luke ii. 7.
[193] Luke ii. 8.
[199] The Arabic represents Syr. idiom.
[205] cf. § 1, 66, note.
[207] Borg. ms. inserts all above the line, after these. The meaning ought then to be, these things, namely, all the sayings.
[208] The Arab. might mean set them apart; but the Syriac is against this.
[216] Or, anointed.
[220] For order cf. (in part) Sin. Syriac.
[224] i.e., becoming manifest.
[228] So also in Syriac versions and the quotation of Isho’dad from Ephraem (Harris, Fragments, p. 34), but not the Armenian version.
[229] The Arabic sides with the Peshitta and Ibn-at-Tayyib’s Commentary, against the remarkable reading of Sin. supported by Isho’dad, as in last note (Syriac text), and the Armenian in Hill, p. 336. See now also The Guardian, Dec. 18, 1895.
[235] On the substitution of this general phrase for Matt. ii. 1, see the remarks of Harris in Fragments, etc., p. 37 ff.
[239] This periphrasis for where is very characteristic of this work.
[248] So in later Arabic and some Arabic versions. According to classical usage the word means sleep.
[255] Or, is weeping, and so in next line is not willing.
[263] A general word (cf. Syr. versions).
[272] Or, knew.
[278] There is a very rare use of this Arabic word in the Hebrew sense of saying.
[280] So Vat. ms. The Borg. ms. has with.
[287] See note on § 1, 78.
[294] Or, authority.
[297] In Syr. this word also means truth.
[299] Or, earlier than I.
[302] i.e., came to be.
[304] cf. Peshitta, etc. (not Cur.); cf. also Gildemeister, op. cit., p. 29, on Luke ix. 20.
[311] Lit. from the side of.
[314] Or, in.
[318] On the original Diatessaron reading, honey and milk of the mountains, or, milk and honey of the mountains, which latter Ibn-at-Tayyib cites in his Commentary (folio 44b, 45a) as a reading, but without any allusion to the Diatessaron, see, e.g., now Harris, Fragments of the Com. of Ephr. Syr. upon the Diat. (London, 1895), p. 17 f.
[322] The translator uses invariably an Arabic word (name of a sect) meaning Separatists.
[323] Lit. Zindiks, a name given to Persian dualists and others.
[329] Grammar requires this rendering, but solecisms in this kind of word are very common, and in this work (e.g., § 48, 21) the jussive particle is sometimes omitted. We should therefore probably render let him give, let him do, etc.
[330] Grammar requires this rendering, but solecisms in this kind of word are very common, and in this work (e.g., § 48, 21) the jussive particle is sometimes omitted. We should therefore probably render let him give, let him do, etc.
[334] cf. Peshitta, where the word has its special meaning, soldiers.
[336] Our translator constantly uses this Arabic word (which we render haply, or, can it be? or, perhaps, etc.) to represent the Syriac word used in this place. The latter is used in various ways, and need not be interrogative, as our translator renders it (cf. especially § 17, 6).
[339] Or, shall.
[343] The Vat. ms. here gives the genealogy (Luke iii. 23-38), of which we shall quote only the last words: the son of Adam; who (was) from God. If this were not the reading of the Peshitta (against Sin.) and Ibn-at-Tayyib’s Commentary, one might explain from as a corruption of the Arabic son of, the words being very similar. On the Borg. ms. see § 55, 17, note.
[346] cf. § 3, 54, note.
[352] For the statement of Isho’dad (see above, Introduction, 10), “And straightway, as the Diatessaron testifieth, light shone forth,” etc., see Harris, Fragments, etc., p. 43 f.
[360] Lit. calumniator.
[367] Lit. calumniator.
[370] Borg. ms. omits and.
[372] Lit. backbiter, a different word from that used above in § 4, 43, 47.
[374] Lit. backbiter, a different word from that used above in § 4, 43, 47.
[378] Lit. backbiter, a different word from that used above in § 4, 43, 47.
[383] Or, speaking.
[387] cf. Peshitta.
[390] The Arabic word used throughout this work means Stones.
[396] Lit. the (cf. note to § 1, 40).
[403] Arabic Qatna; at § 5, 32, Qatina, following the Syriac form.
[404] Lit. the (cf. note to § 1, 40).
[408] The reading of Cur. and Sin. is not known; but cf. Moesinger, p. 53, and Isho’dad quoted in Harris, Fragments, etc., p. 46.
[416] Perhaps a comma should be inserted after sign.
[419] If the text does not contain a misprint the word for by is wanting in both mss. It should doubtless be restored as in § 7, 3.
[423] Evil-doers could easily be an Arabic copyist’s corruption of captives; but the word used here for forgiveness could hardly spring from an Arabic release (in Ibn-at-Tayyib’s Commentary, where the thing seems to have happened, a different word is used). In Syriac, however, they are the same; while the first pair contain the same consonants.
[424] See preceding note.
[438] Or, but.
[442] Borg. ms. has but. The Arabic expressions are very similar.
[444] Borg. ms. has he did this, he enclosed, on which see § 38, 43, note (end). Either reading could spring from the other, within the Arabic.
[449] The verb may be active as well as passive, but does not agree in gender with amazement. Mistakes in gender are, however, very common transcriptional errors.
[456] Dual.
[458] Plural. In the Peshitta it is two individuals in verse 25. In Sin. the first is an individual and the second is ambiguous. In Cur. both are plural.
[459] Or, he be given it.
[461] The ordinary word for apostle.
[463] See § 9, 21, note.
[464] So Ciasca’s printed text. The Vat. ms., however, probably represents a past tense.
[467] cf. Peshitta.
[470] cf. consonants of Syriac text.
[471] Borg. ms., that God is truly, or, assuming a very common grammatical inaccuracy, that God is true or truth, the reading in Ibn-at-Tayyib’s Commentary.
[473] Lit. saying.
[476] Lit. the life of eternity; here and everywhere except § 21, 40.
[477] i.e., alighteth-and-stayeth.
[479] Or, knew.
[488] Or, will.
[492] Or, good news, and.
[496] See § 5, 32, note.
[504] Perhaps we might here render learning; but see § 28, 17, note.
[511] Matt. ix. 9b.
[512] So in the Arabic. It is, however, simply a misinterpretation of the expression in the Syriac versions for at the place of toll (cf. Ibn-at-Tayyib’s Commentary).
[514] Luke iv. 38:38c.
[517] cf. § 1, 40, note 2.
[519] Or, each.
[533] This may represent a Syriac as.
[535] See above, note to § 6, 46, which applies, although the Arabic words are different.
[537] Lit. son-of-the-roofs, a Syriac expression (cf. § 24, 31, note).
[540] This is the end of verse 1 in the Greek.
[544] This word may be either a singular or a plural.
[547] This word ordinarily means to forge lies against; but our translator uses it regularly as here.
[550] Peshitta has easier.
[557] Matt. ix. 8b.
[558] Luke v. 26:26c.
[559] Mark ii. 12:12c.
[561] See above, note to § 6, 46.
[566] A Syriacism.
[570] The Arabic word, which occurs here in many of the Arabic versions, could also be read bridegroom. The Syriac word for marriage chamber is also used in the sense of marriage feast.
[579] Syr. In Arab. it means what?
[585] This may be simply a misinterpretation of the ordinary Syriac reading, which in all probability agrees with the masculine reading found in the Text. Rec. of the Greek.
[587] Is it possible that the Arabic word after known is not meant simply to introduce the quotation, but is to be taken in the adverbial sense, how representing the Syriac what that is?
[588] See § 10, 13, note.
[592] Lit. other. The definite article is a mistake of the translator.
[593] Here, at the end of leaf 17 of Vat. ms., is a note by a later hand: “Here a leaf is missing.” This first lacuna extends from § 7, 47 to § 8, 17.
[599] An easy clerical error for And so he regarded (cf. Peshitta).
[605] Lit. lead to him.
[608] The Arabic word strictly means young man.
[609] Or, rested.
[612] Or, wick.
[614] The Arab. might also mean, And he shall preach (the good tidings) to the peoples in his name (cf. § 22, 47, note).
[616] This phrase, in this case adopted from the Syriac, really means, in Arab., morning found him.
[619] It must be remembered that we have here only one ms. The Arabic words for Galilee and for mountain are very similar. The words that he might pray have therefore probably made their way here by some error from § 8, 9, above.
[623] So (with the Peshitta) by transposing two letters. The Arabic text as it stands can hardly be translated. Almost may be simply a corruption of the Arabic word were.
[624] The syntax of the Arabic is ambiguous. The alternative followed above, which seems the most natural, is that which agrees most nearly with the Peshitta.
[628] Or, troubled with.
[630] This is the meaning of the Arabic word, as it is the primary meaning of the Syriac; but in this work a number of words meaning approach are used (and generally translated) in the sense of touch. The commonest word so used is that in § 12, 13 (cf. also § 12, 35).
[636] So Vat. ms., followed by Ciasca (cf. Sin.). Borg. ms. has he that was betraying or was a traitor (cf. Peshitta).
[649] This word, the ordinary meaning of which is expel, is freely used by our translator in the sense of persecute.
[661] Or, let (cf. § 4, 20, note).
[667] Lit. this (man) shall.
[671] See § 10, 13, note.
[675] The text is rather uncertain.
[677] Matt. v. 25:25c.
[685] The text is probably corrupt. Vat. ms. has on margin, i.e., caused her.
[689] The adj. is in the superlative.
[694] A literal reproduction of the Greek, like that in Syr. versions.
[695] Lit. jaw.
[700] Or, punish.
[709] Or, return.
[710] Or, to be given back as much by.
[715] Our translator is continually using this word (cf. § 9, 23) where the context and the originals require then or therefore. We shall only occasionally reproduce the peculiarity.
[717] A clumsy phrase.
[727] The Arabic text makes Matthew begin here.
[730] The text as printed reads, That thy will may be (done); but it is to be explained as a (very common grammatical) transcriptional error. The Cur., however, has and.
[734] Lit. unto the age of the ages.
[736] Or, folly; and so in following verse.
[739] Or, shew to.
[748] Or, for if.
[750] Or, will be.
[755] Or, your souls; or, your lives.
[762] Lit. falleth (cf. Syriac).
[770] The word means to contend successfully, but is used throughout by our translator in the sense of condemn.
[772] This is the reading adopted by Ciasca in his Latin version. The diacritical points in the Arabic text, as he has printed it (perhaps a misprint), give second person plural passive instead of third plural active.
[775] cf. Luke viii. 18. Our translator uses the same word in § 50, 5= Luke xxiii. 8; and in both cases it represents the same word in the Syriac versions.
[777] Or, Do.
[789] The Arabic might also be rendered, What father of you whom his son asketh for bread, will (think you) give him a stone? But as the Peshitta preserves the confused construction of the Greek, it is probably better to render as above.
[794] There is nothing about striving. The verb is walaga, which means enter (cf. § 11, 48).
[797] Or, lambs’.
[800] The verbs might be singular active, but not plural as in Syriac versions (cf., however, § 38, 43, note, end). In the Borg. ms. the nouns are in the accusative.
[820] i.e., so as to be unable to walk.
[826] Or, bodies of soldiers.
[828] Or, it.
[836] Lit. company.
[849] Lit. plough of the yoke.
[850] Mark iv. 35; Luke viii. 22:22d.
[851] cf., e.g., at § 17, 19, § 23, 16, where the same Arabic and Syriac word is used; cf. also the ambiguity of the Greek (R.V. has left).
[854] Lit. commotion.
[855] Luke viii. 23:23c.
[856] Or, abundance.
[863] The last clause belongs in the Greek to verse 41.
[869] Luke viii. 29:29c.
[870] Imperfect tense.
[877] Lit. and it was for him.
[885] cf. Syriac versions.
[893] Lit. the ten cities.
[903] See § 8, 17, note.
[911] Luke viii. 48; Mark v. 34.
[928] Lit. went forward to (cf. § 8, 17, note).
[935] Lit. cast away (cf. meanings of Syriac word).
[939] § 34, 40, shows that this Arabic form may be so translated.
[943] Matt. x. 9:9f.
[946] Matt. x. 10:10d.
[948] Matt. x. 12; Matt. x. 13.
[952] The word is occasionally used in this sense, but ordinarily means sound, unhurt.
[956] From this point down to Matt. x. 27, is assigned by Vat. ms. to Mark.
[957] Borg. ms. reads, but what ye are granted ye shall speak, and ye shall be given in, etc., and there seems to be a trace of this reading in Ciasca’s text.
[961] See note to § 1, 78.
[966] See note to § 9, 21.
[969] Perhaps this Arabic word is a copyist’s error for that used a few lines further down in Luke xii. 5, the Arabic words being very similar; but see note on § 1, 14.
[970] Syriac.
[971] Luke xii. 5; Matt. x. 29.
[972] The Vat. ms., like the Brit. Mus. text of Ibn-at-Tayyib’s Commentary, omits for a farthing, retaining in a bond. The two phrases are simply different explanations of the same Syriac consonants. These are really the naturalised Greek word rendered farthing in Eng. version; but they also form a Syriac word meaning bond.
[984] Or, soul.
[985] Or, soul.
[988] Or, receive.
[989] Or, receive.
[996] Or, agitated.
[1001] Lit. And his disciples told John, as in the Greek, etc.
[1006] A different word from that used in the preceding verse. It is either an Arabic copyist’s error for the word for deaf used in Ibn-at-Tayyib’s Commentary, or a careless blunder.
[1014] Syriac. In Arabic the word ordinarily means believed.
[1016] See below, § 20, 28, note.
[1025] See § 1, 49, note.
[1036] Mark 3.26; Matt. 12.26.
[1037] Luke 11.18; Matt. 12.27.
[1040] The word used in the Syriac versions (Pesh. and Cur.) means garments as well as utensils, and the Arabic translator has chosen the wrong meaning (cf. § 42, 44).
[1041] Certain derivatives from the same root signify bind, but hardly this word.
[1042] The two Arab. mss. differ in this word, but the meaning is about the same. Perhaps both are corrupt.
[1051] Or, a tree good.
[1052] Or, a tree evil.
[1061] Matt. xvi. 4; this is reckoned to verse 3 in the Greek.
[1065] Wrought may have arisen from taught by a transcriptional error (transposition of l and m) within the Arabic text. As it appears to occur in both mss., they would seem to have a common origin, which, however, can hardly have been the autograph of the translator.
[1071] A comparison with the Syriac text recommends this rendering.
[1077] Lit. sunk, a word the choice of which is explained by the Syriac.
[1079] Or, I.
[1081] Same word in Arabic.
[1082] Same word in Arabic.
[1089] The meaning is not apparent.
[1098] cf. Syriac versions.
[1103] The first letter of the word has been lost.
[1104] Lit. that, as often in this work.
[1107] Lit. powers.
[1111] The word as printed by Ciasca perhaps means gifts, but by dropping a point from the second letter we get the post-classical word given in the text above.
[1114] See below, § 20, 28, note.
[1117] The word translated devil in preceding verse.
[1119] This is an Arabic clerical error for forces. The Syriac word for power means also military forces, which was apparently rendered in Arabic army, a word that differs from race only in diacritical points.
[1123] cf. Pesh. and A.V. margin.
[1126] Lit. that (cf. above, § 1, 50, note).
[1130] Or, his life; or, his soul.
[1133] This rendering assumes that tower is treated as feminine.
[1135] Or, it.
[1138] Or, a king like him.
[1141] Or, let.
[1144] See § 1, 49, note.
[1148] See note to § 10, 13.
[1156] Matt. 12.46; Luke 8.19.
[1157] Matt. 12.46; Luke 8.19.
[1158] Mark iii. 31; Matt. xii. 47.
[1163] The Arabic printed text gives no sense. A simple change in the diacritical points of one letter gives the reading of the Syriac versions, which is adopted here.
[1172] Luke viii. 7; Mark iv. 7.
[1174] cf. Peshitta (against Cur. and Sin.).
[1175] Luke viii. 8:8c.
[1176] Mark iv. 10; with additions from Matt. xiii. 10, and Luke viii. 9.
[1177] Mark iv. 11; Matt. xiii. 11.
[1191] Luke 8.13; Matt. 13.21.
[1192] See above, § 1, 40, note 2.
[1193] Or, is seduced (cf. § 25, 17, note).
[1200] Or, while.
[1203] Lit. fatteneth, as in Peshitta.
[1210] See above, § 4, 24, note.
[1215] Matt. 13.31; Mark 4.31.
[1216] Matt. 13.32; Mark 4.32.
[1217] Mark 4.33; Matt. 13.33.
[1220] Matt. 13.34; Mark 4.33.
[1222] The word (if not a corruption of that used in the Brit. Mus. text of Ibn-at-Tayyib’s Commentary, and in § 43, 46 where, however, according to Ciasca’s foot-note, it was not the word first written by the scribe) is Syriac. Perhaps it means the ends of the earth (see P. Smith, Thes. Syr.). Still a third word is used in § 47, 42.
[1225] cf. § 11, 32, note.
[1229] Singular.
[1238] cf. note to § 10, 8.
[1247] Lit. powers.
[1252] cf. above, § 4, 24, note.
[1258] Of the Syriac versions Cur. and Sin. are wanting. Pesh. has Aramæan.
[1260] Lit. powers.
[1266] Matt. xiv. 1; Luke ix. 7.
[1268] There can be little doubt that this is the meaning of the Arabic. There is nothing like it in the Peshitta; the Curetonian is of course lacking; but the phrase in the Sinaitic is very similar.
[1269] Luke ix. 7:7c.
[1271] Here begins verse 8a in Greek.
[1273] Mark vi. 16; Matt. xiv. 2.
[1280] Perhaps appointment (cf. Moesinger, p. 165; but Isho‘dad [Harris, Fragments, p. 65] and the Brit. Mus. text of Ibn-at-Tayyib’s Commentary have the ordinary reading).
[1284] Or simply ask.
[1291] Or, to tell.
[1294] A misunderstanding or slavish reproduction of the Syriac. The Brit. Mus. text of Ibn-at-Tayyib’s Commentary has of Galilee, Tiberias.
[1296] cf. Syriac versions and margin of R.V.
[1304] Or, came.
[1306] cf. the addition in the Sinaitic Syriac.
[1312] Probably a mistaken rendering of the ordinary Syriac reading.
[1315] Luke ix. 13; considerably changed.
[1316] John 6.10; Luke 9.14-15.
[1321] Matt. 14.20; John 6.12.
[1328] cf. Syriac versions.
[1333] John vi. 19, c.
[1334] Lit. travelled.
[1346] Lit. from.
[1347] Mark vi. 54; Mark vi. 55.
[1348] Strictly used of severe chronic disease.
[1350] cf. § 12, 13, and note to § 8, 17.
[1351] The word used at § 12, 35.
[1352] Or, revived, i.e., made to live.
[1355] Lit. on the border of.
[1359] Or, for the sake of.
[1361] Sic.
[1362] Lit. this.
[1368] Represents a mistaken vocalisation of the Peshitta.
[1369] Lit. equity; see above, § 3, 53, note.
[1383] i.e., therefore (see note, § 9, 21).
[1390] John vi. 51; in Ciasca’s text John 6.51-71 are cited as vi. 52–72. (See Introduction, 20, note.)
[1395] Or, eaten.
[1396] Or, drunk.
[1405] Lit. speech.
[1407] Or, did.
[1415] Or, was to.
[1418] Or, him.
[1422] cf. Peshitta.
[1426] i.e., were holding.
[1427] Or, custom, tradition; and so wherever the word occurs.
[1430] Sic.
[1434] The printed Arabic text has he receiveth and they, resulting from a misplacement of diacritical points by an Arabic copyist.
[1436] The printed Arabic text has he receiveth and they, resulting from a misplacement of diacritical points by an Arabic copyist.
[1438] The printed Arabic text has he receiveth and they, resulting from a misplacement of diacritical points by an Arabic copyist.
[1441] Here begins verse 9 in Greek.
[1442] The Syriac word for injure also means reject, deny.
[1445] Sic.
[1453] The Arabic word is here used with a Syriac meaning.
[1454] Mark 7.17; Matt. 15.15.
[1457] This clause in the Peshitta is not very clear, and the Arabic version fails to get from it the meaning of the Greek.
[1460] Or, From within, from.
[1464] Matt. 15.21; Mark 7.24.
[1465] Or, about him.
[1469] Or, the devil.
[1489] Lit. six hours (cf. Syr.).
[1494] For the form cf. below, § 34, 40.
[1512] Or, was speaking.
[1513] But see note to § 7, 38.
[1520] The text is uncertain.
[1523] Or, come beforehand.
[1525] So in the Arabic, contrary to the usual practice of this writer (cf. § 6, 19).
[1537] Lit. to cleanse.
[1543] This phrase does not occur in the Syriac versions (Cur. wanting), but is obviously a Syriac construction.
[1547] Or, baptism. The phrase almost exactly reproduces the Syriac versions.
[1550] Or, baptism. The phrase almost exactly reproduces the Syriac versions.
[1553] Or, learned.
[1558] Vat. ms. has he.
[1575] Borg. ms. reads his person.
[1576] Borg. ms. reads his person.
[1578] Lit. that; or, Verily.
[1583] So Ciasca’s Arabic text. Borg. ms. has If I, and instead of and so, etc., simply a witness which is not true, etc.; but its text of the next sentence is quite corrupt.
[1584] So Ciasca’s Arabic text. Borg. ms. has If I, and instead of and so, etc., simply a witness which is not true, etc.; but its text of the next sentence is quite corrupt.
[1588] Or, be saved.
[1590] Or, that (man).
[1591] Were it not also in Ibn-at-Tayyib’s Commentary (Brit. Mus. text) we should assume now to be a corruption of an original Arabic reading, for a season (cf. Syr.).
[1596] This word (often used by our translator) means in Syriac (transposed) believe, think, hope (cf. § 8, 8, note).
[1603] This word (often used by our translator) means in Syriac (transposed) believe, think, hope (cf. § 8, 8, note).
[1620] Arabic Magadu, as in Peshitta.
[1625] cf. § 11, 32, note.
[1627] The change of a single letter in the Arabic would turn not even into except; but Ibn-at-Tayyib’s Commentary (Brit. Mus. text) also has not even.
[1631] Lit. What. See note to § 7, 38.
[1635] Or, ye took.
[1637] Or, ye took.
[1638] Mark 8.21; Matt. 16.11.
[1639] Or, concerning.
[1642] Lit. one, probably representing Syriac idiom (cf. Sinaitic?).
[1644] The Peshitta also omits on him.
[1647] An intransitive word.
[1651] Or, his disciples being alone. There is no such clause in the Syriac versions (Pesh., Sin.).
[1652] The Arabic, which reappears in Ibn-at-Tayyib’s Commentary (Brit. Mus. text), and seems to represent the consonantal text of the Peshitta, is awkward. § 23, 34 (Arabic), shows, however, that the rendering given in the text is the meaning intended by the translator.
[1658] Same Arabic word in both places. See note to § 5, 11.
[1662] The word is freely used in this work in the post-classical sense of about to.
[1665] The Arabic might perhaps be construed and to speak, depending on began in § 23, 40; but the clause agrees with the Sinaitic of Mark, as does the following.
[1672] Or, lose.
[1673] Or, self; or, soul.
[1675] Or, self; or, soul.
[1678] See § 23, 40, note.
[1680] i.e., already come.
[1685] Or, become white. In the Pesh. the verb is transitive. In Sin. the clause is omitted.
[1691] Luke ix. 33:33c.
[1702] Mark 9.11; Matt. 17.10.
[1709] This rendering assumes that the diacritical point is due to a clerical error. The text as printed can hardly be translated without forcing.
[1710] This Arabic word repeatedly represents a Syriac ran (cf. § 53, 11). A different word is so used in § 26, 21.
[1714] The Syriac word used in the Peshitta is here translated just as it was translated in § 1, 79 (see note); but the Greek shows that in the present passage the Syriac word means go about (cf. Cur.).
[1715] Luke 9.38; Matt. 17.14.
[1717] Luke 9.39; Matt. 17.15.
[1718] Lit. The son-of-the-roof, a Syriac phrase meaning a demon of lunacy.
[1720] A word used in Arabic of the devil producing insanity; but here it reproduces the Peshitta.
[1721] Lit. becometh light; but a comparison with the Peshitta suggests that we should change one diacritical point and read withereth, as in Ibn-at-Tayyib’s Commentary. An equally easy emendation would be wasteth.
[1722] Matt. 17.15; Luke 9.39.
[1731] In Syriac, but not in Arabic, the word means deaf or dumb, according to the context.
[1732] Ciasca’s Arabic follows Vat. ms. in inserting a that (pronoun) after thee.
[1734] Doubtless alternative renderings of the same Syriac word (demon).
[1736] Matt. 17.18; Luke 9.43.
[1738] Lit. between themselves and him.
[1742] Or, about him.
[1748] Borg. ms. omits among them.
[1757] Lit. one (Syriac idiom).
[1761] Luke ix. 48:48c.
[1762] In the present work this word frequently means synagogue.
[1764] Lit. millstone of an ass.
[1768] Matt. xviii. 7, c.
[1769] i.e., experiences that test one; or, seductions. The word is variously used.
[1771] Or, is kindled.
[1774] See note to § 25, 17.
[1780] Mark ix. 50:50c.
[1790] So the Arabic; but the Syriac versions follow the Greek, and consent is doubtless a (very easy, and, in view of the succeeding context, natural) clerical error for an original Arabic charge.
[1793] Or, leaveth.
[1799] Lit. blame, a mistranslation (found also in the Brit. Mus. text of Ibn-at-Tayyib’s Commentary) of the Syriac word, which is ambiguous (cf. even the Greek). For a somewhat similar case see § 50, 11, note.
[1802] Lit. wombs.
[1815] Strictly, preferreth, but used also as in the text.
[1825] This word is regularly used throughout this work in this sense.
[1831] See above, § 24, 26, note.
[1832] Did not Ibn-at-Tayyib’s Commentary (Brit. Mus. text) also read breast, we might assume it to be a clerical error for a very similar (less common) word (same as the Syriac) for neck.
[1838] A different word.
[1839] cf. Peshitta.
[1842] One word.
[1851] Vat. ms. (followed by Ciasca’s text) has and if I beg, by a common confusion of grammatical forms.
[1855] Or (otherwise vocalised), farks, a measure variously estimated.
[1856] Or (otherwise vocalised), farks, a measure variously estimated.
[1859] cf. Peshitta.
[1860] Lit. steward of sin.
[1862] Lit. injustice.
[1864] Or, intrusted with.
[1866] Or, true (wealth); but cf. Syriac.
[1870] Lit. badras, an amount variously estimated.
[1875] Lit. dinars.
[1881] The interrogative particle is lacking in the Arabic.
[1884] Or, folly.
[1886] A very close reproduction of the Syriac.
[1890] Or, for.
[1892] This word usually means synagogue in this work.
[1893] Or, heathen.
[1896] Or, to ask everything, it shall.
[1900] So Vat. ms., following the Syriac versions; Borg. ms. has only one seven.
[1904] Lit. beforehand; and so often.
[1907] Or, repeating a letter, See that ye despise not.
[1913] Borg. ms. omits now.
[1915] See note, § 10, 13.
[1926] Lit. great (man).
[1929] Lit. calumniator.
[1931] cf. Syriac versions.
[1932] On margin of Vat. ms., in another hand: “This is the beginning of the second part of Diatessaron, which means The Four.” See p. 467 of Ciasca’s Essay, mentioned above (Introduction, 5).
[1949] Or, the scripture.
[1951] This word ordinarily means knowledge, but is used in this work in the sense of doctrine. The commoner form occurs perhaps only in § 50, 2.
[1953] This word ordinarily means knowledge, but is used in this work in the sense of doctrine. The commoner form occurs perhaps only in § 50, 2.
[1957] cf. § 14, 12.
[1965] Or, will be.
[1980] From Matthew.
[1981] From Luke.
[1983] The scribe who wrote the Vat. ms. wrote first God, the one, and then reversed the order by writing the Coptic letters for B and A over the words. (See above, Introduction, 5.)
[1985] Different words.
[1987] Different words.
[1988] The same word as in Mark x. 19.
[1993] From Mark.
[1994] Matt. 19.22; Luke 18.23.
[1995] Luke 18.24; Mark 10.23.
[2000] cf. note, § 1, 14. Borg. MS, omits being agitated.
[2002] Luke xviii. 28; Matt. xix. 27&lt;b.
[2006] Lit. meet with; or, be recompensed with.
[2009] The Arabic words are not so strong.
[2015] Or, so that.
[2018] Or, and.
[2024] The Syriac and Arabic versions here agree with the Greek. For a plausible suggestion as to the origin of the strange reading in the text, see Harris, The Diatessaron of Tatian, p. 21, who cites a parallel from Aphraates.
[2025] This may be simply a corruption of the Peshitta.
[2028] Or, Surely. The word is omitted by Borg. ms.
[2039] i.e., probably the eleventh hour (cf. § 21, 10).
[2046] Lit. my thing.
[2057] Lit. at thy rising and taking.
[2061] Practically synonymous words.
[2062] Practically synonymous words.
[2066] Matt. xxii. 1; Matt. xxii. 2.
[2068] Borg. ms., is like.
[2069] Used specially of a marriage feast.
[2070] Lit. bread, the Syriac word for which (not that in the versions) means also feast.
[2071] Luke xiv. 17; Matt. xxii. 3.
[2074] Or, omit.
[2082] Luke xiv. 21:21c.
[2084] Luke 14.23; Matt. 22.9.
[2085] Or, that my house may be.
[2093] Luke xvii. 11; Luke xvii. 12.
[2101] Or, saved thee.
[2103] Lit. between himself and them.
[2106] i.e., Gentiles.
[2108] An obscure expression; perhaps it was originally a repetition of the preceding clause. It might be emended into point at him (the finger of scorn).
[2115] Lit. of course the two of them, and so all through the conversation.
[2124] Lit. advanced.
[2129] Lit. find, like the Syriac.
[2133] This rendering requires the omission of the diacritical point over the middle radical. The text as printed means perish.
[2141] cf. the extract from Isho‘dad (Harris, Fragments, p. 19).
[2146] A diacritical point must be restored to the second letter of this word. As it stands it gives no sense.
[2148] Lit. the.
[2150] Luke 18.35; Matt. 20.29; Mark 10.46.
[2152] Mark 10.46; Luke 18.36.
[2154] Mark 10.47; Luke 18.38.
[2160] cf.Matt. xx. 33, Luke xviii. 41, both in Curetonian.
[2163] Lit. saw.
[2165] Or, near.
[2170] Doubtless a misinterpretation of the Syriac.
[2183] Matt. 21.12; John 2.14.
[2186] Matt. xxi. 12:12c.
[2195] Or, if.
[2201] Lit. house of the offering of God, as in the ms. described by Gildemeister (at Luke xxi. 4); but it is simply a reproduction of the phrase used in the Peshitta at Luke xxi. 3. The parallel passages are a good deal fused together.
[2205] Lit. between him and himself.
[2207] Or, gains.
[2210] Mark 11.19; Matt. 21.17.
[2214] Lit. one (Syriac).
[2215] Lit. and it.
[2227] Or the teacher of.
[2234] The Arabic particle means in order that. Perhaps it is a clerical error for so that; or it may be meant to represent the Syriac.
[2237] The translator has followed too closely the order of words in his Syriac original, which agrees with the Text. Rec.
[2248] Syr.
[2251] The Syriac word.
[2252] Lit. Increase us in.
[2256] Or, But.
[2274] Mark 11.29; Matt. 21.24.
[2279] Verse 26 begins here in the Greek.
[2280] From Mark.
[2282] cf. Syriac.
[2290] Luke xx. 9b.
[2292] The difference between singular and plural is very slight in Arabic.
[2293] Lit. property.
[2296] A word used specially of wounding the head.
[2307] cf. Syriac versions.
[2310] Matt. xxi. 42:42c.
[2315] Matt. xxii. 15; Luke xx. 20.
[2316] Vat. ms. omits the power. We should then translate (with Pesh. and Sin.) unto judgement.
[2318] See note, § 3, 53.
[2319] Possibly this is the meaning of the Arabic phrase, which occurs also in Ibn-at-Tayyib’s Commentary (Brit. Mus. text).
[2327] cf. the Syriac versions.
[2329] Matt. xxii. 25; Luke xx. 29.
[2334] Matt. xxii. 29a; Mark xii. 24b.
[2336] cf. the Syriac versions.
[2338] Or, shall.
[2339] Or, shall.
[2341] Borg. ms., all of them instead of but they.
[2342] Matt. 22.30; Mark 12.26.
[2343] Or, Moreover, regarding.
[2344] Luke xx. 38; Mark xii. 27.
[2348] Matt. 22.35; Mark 12.28.
[2352] Mark 12.30; Matt. 22.37.
[2354] This simply represents first in Syriac.
[2358] Vat. ms. has a corruption of Excellent! Rabbi, better preserved by Borg. ms., which, however, adds our translator’s ordinary rendering of Rabbi—my Master. This explanation is confirmed by Ibn-at-Tayyib’s Commentary. Ciasca’s emended text cannot be right.
[2364] The diacritical point over the third radical must be removed.
[2365] cf. Peshitta.
[2369] Ciasca’s Arabic text (apparently following Borg. ms.) has till he before came. This is unsupported by any of the three Syriac texts, although they differ from one another. Perhaps till and came should be transposed. The translation would then be as given in the text above; but this rendering may also be obtained according to § 54, 1, note.
[2371] The Syriac word used means both wounds and strokes.
[2372] The Arabic word is a favourite of the translator’s, and may therefore be original. One cannot help thinking, however, that it is a clerical error for mounted (cf. Cur. and Sin.).
[2379] In Syriac could and found are represented by the same word. The Arabic translator has chosen the wrong one.
[2382] See note, § 11, 11.
[2386] See note above, on § 34, 46.
[2387] i.e., Gentiles.
[2439] Lit. speaketh, according to Arabic idiom.
[2440] Borg. ms. omits with you.
[2442] Borg. ms. has an adulteress, mistaking the less common Arabic word for a clerical error.
[2444] Different words are used in the Arabic; so in the Greek, but not in the Peshitta. Sin. and Cur. are wanting.
[2445] Different words are used in the Arabic; so in the Greek, but not in the Peshitta. Sin. and Cur. are wanting.
[2448] Lit. backbiter.
[2451] This is probably simply a clerical error for the ordinary reading, why have ye not believed me? The Arabic words why and not having the same consonants, one of them was purposely or accidentally omitted by a copyist.
[2460] cf. Peshitta. The Sinaitic omits our.
[2466] The Vat. ms. has took him, probably omitting stones, though Ciasca does not say so. Take is probably a copyist’s error (change in diacritical paints) for took.
[2467] John viii. 60 [reckoned to verse 59 in the Greek.].
[2470] A different word in Arabic from that used in verses 1 and 6.
[2472] The Vat. ms. has that we may see the works of God in him. By the addition of a diacritical point this would give the same sense as in the text above, and more grammatically.
[2477] The Arabic word properly means baptism. The Syriac has both meanings.
[2478] Lit. Shiloha, as in Syriac.
[2483] Lit. saw.
[2489] An easy clerical error for Some.
[2493] Lit. them, whether this be.
[2502] Or, why (cf. note, § 7, 38).
[2504] Disciples is probably simply a misprint in Ciasca’s text.
[2518] Or, is permanent.
[2522] Or, to him.
[2523] A different word (lit. rams) from that used in the other verses; so in Peshitta (cf. Sin., which, however, differs somewhat); cf. also § 54, 40 f., note.
[2525] A different word (lit. rams) from that used in the other verses; so in Peshitta (cf. Sin., which, however, differs somewhat); cf. also § 54, 40 f., note.
[2532] Or, best thing. Vat. ms. omits from but I came.
[2534] Or, his life.
[2536] cf. note to § 37, 6.
[2537] Or, to snatch…and scatter.
[2541] Or, my life.
[2547] Lit. epilepsy.
[2554] cf. § 37, 6.
[2556] cf. § 37, 6.
[2558] Or, hand; but probably dual (cf. Syr.).
[2560] So Peshitta; but Sin. the. Borg. ms. omits the hand of.
[2564] Lit. which deed.
[2568] cf. Peshitta.
[2569] This in could more easily arise as a clerical error (repetition) in the Syriac text.
[2572] So Ciasca’s text, following Vat. ms. But this is probably a clerical error for the reading of Borg. ms., which omits ye.
[2580] cf. Peshitta.
[2595] The Syriac word for Twin.
[2598] Arabic mil, a somewhat indefinite distance.
[2614] This is the Syriac word (cf. the versions, and below, § 44, 44; see also Ibn-at-Tayyib’s Commentary, ad loc).
[2617] So in Syriac versions.
[2622] Borg. ms. omits some time: he hath been.
[2635] So both mss.; but the Vat. ms. had originally a reading equivalent to the text above with of omitted.
[2639] The Arabic word as printed (following Vat. ms.) means a place for monks to live in, but we should certainly restore a diacritical point over the last letter, and thus obtain another Syriac loan-word (that used here in the Peshitta), meaning town. See also Ibn-at-Tayyib’s Commentary, ad loc.
[2644] The present Arabic reading in going could pretty easily arise from that assumed in the translation above.
[2646] This and the following verb are singular in the printed Arabic (against the versions), although Ciasca renders them plural. A copyist using a carelessly written Arabic exemplar might conceivably overlook the plural terminations. Besides, they are often omitted in Syriac mss.
[2647] cf. note, § 1, 40.
[2649] Lit. his body.
[2654] cf. the Greek phrase.
[2656] Lit. he made (cf. first note to § 38, 43, last sentence).
[2667] Lit. fell (cf. § 25, 18).
[2671] Or, spake angrily to.
[2678] Lit. cast, as in Greek.
[2681] Luke 19.29; Matt. 21.1.
[2683] Matt. 21.2; Luke 19.30.
[2684] Sic.
[2685] Dual in Arabic.
[2686] Matt. 21.2; Luke 19.31.
[2690] Matt. 21.6; Luke 19.32.
[2691] Matt. 21.6; Luke 19.33.
[2696] The Syriac versions have the.
[2697] Matt. 21.9; Luke 19.38.
[2699] Or, and, Blessed.
[2700] The Arabic has to, but it probably represents the Syriac text with the meaning given above.
[2701] Luke xix. 38:38c.
[2703] Lit. the heart (or, pith) of the palm. The word pith, which occurs also in the Æhiopic version (Ezek. xxvii. 25; Jubilees, ch. 16) and in Ibn-at-Tayyib’s exposition, though not in the Brit. Mus. gospel text, is perhaps used here of the inner branches from its resemblance to the post-biblical Hebrew word employed in accounts of the Feast of Tabernacles.
[2709] Lit. are found, a rendering due to the Syriac.
[2712] So Ciasca’s text, following Vat. ms. The other ms. has drag, which by restoring a diacritical point to the third radical would give destroy, the reading of the Syriac versions. Ibn-at-Tayyib’s Commentary has hide.
[2727] Or, soul; or, self.
[2728] Or, soul; or, self.
[2744] i.e., used to come.
[2749] Or, touch.
[2757] The Syriac word means on the pretext of as well as because of (cf. § 50, 11, note).
[2759] This word is not spelled in the ordinary way. Doubtless we should supply two diacritical points and read, with the Syriac versions, My master.
[2761] cf. Peshitta.
[2767] Syriac, same as in § 40, 35; Arabic different.
[2772] Adopting the reading of Borg. ms. (cf. next verse).
[2773] Perhaps this reading is due to the easy confusion of d and r in Syriac; but it might also conceivably be a corruption of the Arabic word in the next clause. It occurs also in the text of Ibn-at-Tayyib’s Commentary.
[2774] Doubtless the Arabic word should be read as a monosyllable, as in Ibn-at-Tayyib’s Commentary.
[2776] See § 10, 13.
[2779] See § 10, 13.
[2786] The Arabic word as printed gives no suitable sense. Either the last radical has been omitted, or the last two radicals have exchanged places.
[2790] Lit. are seen.
[2794] Or, touch.
[2795] Matt. 23.29; Luke 11.47.
[2799] Lit. boundary or limit.
[2802] cf. 8, 34.
[2804] Or, earth.
[2805] Or, sanctuary.
[2807] See § 1, 49, note.
[2812] Lit. become.
[2817] The text as it stands ought to mean I am a light. I am come; but it is a word-for-word reproduction of the Peshitta, and should therefore doubtless be rendered as above.
[2819] Or, to save the world (cf. § 1, 78, note).
[2821] See § 20, 28, note.
[2823] Not the same word.
[2824] Not the same word.
[2827] So Ciasca, following Vat. ms. The true reading, however, is probably that underlying the Borg. ms. If we restore diacritical points to the radical letters we get deceiving (cf. § 41, 31), an alternative meaning (or the word laying wait for, used in the Peshitta. The Arabic follows the Peshitta very closely in this and the following verse.
[2839] Or, and shewed.
[2842] Luke 19.43-44; Matt. 24.2; Mark 13.2.
[2844] Lit. before two days would be (cf. Sin. and above, § 39, 1, note).
[2845] cf. § 41, 16, note.
[2849] Matt. 24.4; Luke 17.22.
[2853] Mark 13.7; Matt. 24.7; Luke 21.9.
[2854] Or, that ye be, if we suppose the present text to have resulted from the loss of the second of two alifs.
[2857] Or, omit that.
[2866] The Arabic text lacks a letter.
[2867] Borg. ms. reads you the fruits of wisdom.
[2870] See § 25, 17, note.
[2874] Or, possess.
[2876] So the Arabic text; but it doubtless simply represents the Syriac, which here agrees with the Greek.
[2880] So the Arabic text; but it doubtless simply represents the Syriac, which here agrees with the Greek.
[2885] So Vat. ms., following the Peshitta. Ciasca follows Borg. ms., which by a change of diacritical points has the hardly grammatical reading, see that it is the desolation, the unclean thing spoken of. Ibn-at-Tayyib’s Commentary supports Vat. ms.
[2891] This word has a Syriac meaning given to it. In Arabic it means war.
[2898] cf. § 16, 2.
[2901] Same Arabic (and Syriac) word as in § 41, 50.
[2904] Same Arabic (and Syriac) word as in § 41, 50.
[2905] So the Borg. ms. The Vat. ms., followed by Ciasca, has grief.
[2907] Mark 13.24; Matt. 24.29.
[2910] Lit. the end of heaven unto its end.
[2912] Or, deliverance.
[2914] cf. Peshitta, which text the translator seems to have misread.
[2919] cf. Peshitta.
[2926] cf. § 9, 21.
[2935] Or, appeareth.
[2937] cf. § 14, 24 note.
[2948] Luke xii. 42 [Borg. ms. omits Luke xii. 42]; Matt. xxiv. 45.
[2949] i.e., the steward.
[2950] Borg. ms. has trusted and faithful. Doubtless we should supply diacritical points to the reading of Vat. ms., and translate trusted and wise. Ibn-at-Tayyib’s Commentary, however, has both and wise and the word translated with control, used in a different sense.
[2952] Luke 12.44; Matt. 24.47.
[2953] Matt. xxiv. 48; Luke xii. 45.
[2968] See § 10, 17, and § 4, 24, note.
[2975] cf. § 27, 2, note.
[2984] A Persian word. The Vat. ms. omits it.
[2989] Lit. table (cf. Peshitta).
[2996] cf. Peshitta (and Greek).
[3001] Or, and setteth; but the Peshitta confirms the rendering given above.
[3003] cf. § 17, 17, note.
[3010] Perfect tenses, as in Peshitta.
[3018] Borg. ms., the Lord Jesus.
[3025] Luke 22.4; Matt. 26.15.
[3026] Mark 14.11; Matt. 26.15.
[3027] Probably the letter that stands for and should be repeated, and the phrase rendered and appointed.
[3028] So Vat. ms. (following Peshitta) and Ibn-at-Tayyib’s Commentary. Borg. ms., followed by Ciasca, has dirhams of money.
[3030] Lit. became responsible unto. Syriac versions as in text above (cf. § 44, 33).
[3031] The Arabic (lit. a stumbling or a cause of stumbling) doubtless represents the Syriac.
[3043] The Arabic word means swimmeth. The Syriac versions have is bathed, which Borg. ms. misreads bathed, and Vat. ms. (followed by Ciasca) corrupts into batheth, rendering it swimmeth.
[3052] Or, This my saying.
[3059] cf. § 44, 9, note.
[3060] cf. § 44, 9, note.
[3062] Vat. ms. has the word day on the margin, added by a late hand.
[3063] The misprint in the Arabic text has been overlooked in the list of Corrigenda.
[3064] Or, kill.
[3068] Mark xiv. 13b; Luke xxii. 10b.
[3079] The Syriac word is retained. In Arabic it properly means become strong or proud (cf. § 38, 17).
[3087] The Syriac versions have reclining.
[3090] Lit. fell.
[3098] A simple change of diacritical points would give the reading of the Greek and of the Syriac versions.
[3099] A simple change of diacritical points would give the reading of the Greek and of the Syriac versions.
[3109] Peshitta adds it. The reading of the Sinaitic is doubtful.
[3113] Past tense in Syriac versions.
[3114] We may translate, with the Syriac versions, that thy faith fail not, only if we assign a somewhat Syriac meaning to the verb, and assume either an error in diacritical points (t for y) or an unusual (Syriac) gender for faith.
[3115] cf. Syriac versions.
[3121] The Arabic word is not unlike the word for stumble, and Borg. ms. omits me.
[3122] Vat. ms. omits this night.
[3129] Luke 22.34; Mark 14.31.
[3130] Or, went on saying.
[3131] Lit. end in. Or, if I come to (the point of).
[3133] The diacritical points in both Vat. (followed by Ciasca) and Borg. mss. appear to demand a rendering inquire for be troubled. In Ibn-at-Tayyib’s comments (not the text), however (with other points), we have the meaning wail (root nhb). Every Syriac version uses a different word.
[3135] Or, ranks.
[3136] Or, should tell.
[3137] Probably the Arabic represents a Syriac For I.
[3140] Different words.
[3141] Different words.
[3143] cf. Ibn-at-Tayyib’s Commentary (f. 352a) and order of words in Peshitta (not Sin.).
[3146] Lit. have known.
[3148] Different forms, as in Peshitta.
[3150] More exactly, hast thou not come to know.
[3151] Different forms, as in Peshitta.
[3157] The Borg. ms. has me clearly (cf. Peshitta). The Vat. ms. is ambiguous.
[3161] Probably a misreading of the Peshitta (not Sin. or Cur.), since the next clause also agrees with it.
[3168] Lit. the (cf. Syriac versions).
[3174] This word is quite unlike that used in § 45, 29.
[3175] The Syriac form of the introductory particle is wrongly used, for in Arabic it has interrogative force.
[3180] The first letter of the Arabic word has lost its diacritical point.
[3183] A possible rendering of the Syriac he was reckoned.
[3185] John 14.31; Luke 22.39.
[3192] The verbs may be active or passive, but are singular (cf. § 38, 43, note).
[3198] Two words from the same root.
[3199] Two words from the same root.
[3205] Different words.
[3206] Or, shall and will, respectively.
[3207] Or, shall and will, respectively.
[3209] Or, have commanded.
[3213] cf. § 8, 34, note.
[3214] cf. § 8, 34, note.
[3216] The Arabic text (Vat.) is grammatically inaccurate, and the Borg. ms. has know not.
[3224] Lit. sway (as one does in dozing).
[3226] Or, the, as in Borg. ms.
[3229] John xvi. 5 [in the Greek and English verse 5 begins at But.].
[3230] In the Greek and English verse 5 begins at But.
[3233] Or, best.
[3238] Lit. that (cf. Peshitta).
[3240] Or perhaps receive (them). Possibly a Syriac d has been read r. But Ibn-at-Tayyib in the text of his Commentary (f. 357a) has a word which perhaps might be rendered accommodate yourselves (to them) (same letters, but last two transposed), while his comment (f. 357b) gives ye cannot bear it.
[3242] Or, And.
[3243] The Syriac words for remind and lead differ only in the length of a single stroke. Ibn-at-Tayyib (ibid. f. 357b) almost seems to have read illumine you with, although he calls attention to the “Greek” reading.
[3246] Same tense.
[3247] Same tense.
[3253] Not quite the usual formula, there being here no article.
[3254] The Arabic might also be rendered be turned, but the Syriac is intransitive.
[3258] Not quite the usual formula, there being here no article (cf. also § 47, 5).
[3261] Not the usual word for proverb or parable (cf. Syriac versions).
[3262] So Vat. ms. and Peshitta. The Borg. ms., followed by Ciasca, has and a time when.
[3263] Not the usual word for proverb or parable (cf. Syriac versions).
[3264] cf. Peshitta.
[3275] Lit. it or him.
[3277] In the Borg. ms. the sentence begins with that they might, the preceding clause being omitted.
[3278] The above is perhaps the most natural rendering of the Arabic; but the latter is really only an awkward word-for-word reproduction of the Peshitta, which means know thee, who alone art the God of truth, and him whom thou didst send, (even) Jesus the Messiah.
[3283] So Ciasca’s text. The Vat. ms. has I, with the Peshitta and probably Sinaitic.
[3288] So in Sinaitic. The Peshitta omits My.
[3301] Vat. ms. has as.
[3302] cf. Peshitta, as pointed in the editions.
[3304] cf. § 17, 17, note.
[3306] The Arabic as it stands should mean My Father is righteous; but it is simply the ordinary Syriac reading, and is so rendered above.
[3308] Or perhaps may.
[3311] Vat. ms. has and on.
[3312] The word rendered plain (cf. Dozy, Supplement, sub voc.), which occurs also in the text of Ibn-at-Tayyib (loc. cit., f. 362b), properly means lake. The word in the Jerusalem Lectionary means valley as well as stream. For the whole clause cf. the text of John xviii. in Die vier Evangelien, arabisch, aus der Wiener Handschrift, edited by P. de Lagarde, 1864.
[3313] cf. Sinaitic Syriac and Luke xxii. 39.
[3315] Luke 22.40; Matt. 26.36.
[3316] Luke 22.40; Matt. 26.37.
[3320] Lit. fell on his knees.
[3321] Lit. let this hour pass. The Borg. ms. omits him.
[3324] Matt. 26.40; Mark 14.37.
[3327] Lit. diseased. The Arabic word is rare in the sense required by the context (cf. Pesh.).
[3329] This reading would perhaps more easily arise out of the Sinaitic than out of the Peshitta.
[3334] cf. Peshitta. Or, And although he was afraid.
[3335] The Peshitta (hardly Cur.) is capable of this interpretation.
[3336] cf. Syr., especially Peshitta.
[3338] Luke 22.46; Matt 26.45.
[3340] cf. Syr., especially Peshitta.
[3341] Mark 14.42; Mark 26.46.
[3342] cf. § 4, 20, note.
[3345] cf.John xviii. 3 (Jerusalem Lectionary). In Syriac Romans means soldiers. The Arabic footsoldiers might be man (singular).
[3346] Matt. xxvi. 48; Mark xiv. 44.
[3347] cf. Syriac versions. Obviously we must supply a diacritical point over the last radical, or read the middle one as dhal.
[3348] Lit. him to —. Borg. ms. probably means bear him away.
[3350] Matt. xxvi. 49; Matt. xxvi. 50.
[3352] Matt. 26.50; Luke 22.52.
[3358] Matt. xxvi. 50:50c.
[3362] John 18.11; Matt. 26.52.
[3363] Withis doubtless an accidental repetition of by (the same Arabic particle) in the next clause.
[3365] The introductory interrogative particle may represent an original Or.
[3366] Vat. ms. omits than, and has more only in the margin by another hand.
[3369] The phrase is awkward. The rendering is different in the text (f. 292a, cf. Lagarde, Die vier Evv.), and yet again in the comment (f. 293a) of Ibn-at-Tayyib’s Commentary.
[3374] cf. § 11, 11.
[3376] Lit. one.
[3383] Luke xxii. 57; Mark xiv. 68.
[3386] John 18.18; Matt. 26.58.
[3388] cf. § 6, 40, note.
[3390] Peshitta, spake; Sin. omits the verse; Cur. lacking.
[3393] See § 9, 7, note.
[3395] Borg. ms. has the evil.
[3401] Luke 22.58; John 18.26.
[3402] This is an alternative meaning of the Syriac word affirmed, used in the Peshitta.
[3404] cf. Sinaitic (Curetonian wanting). Vat. ms., which Ciasca follows, adds him or it.
[3405] Matt. 26.73; John 18.26.
[3407] Borg. ms., by adding diacritical points, gets asserted.
[3410] Mark xiv. 30, c.
[3419] Syriac order, but not in agreement with the versions.
[3420] Mark xiv. 59; Matt. xxvi. 63.
[3423] Vat. ms. has anything, when these.
[3426] The word usually means synagogue in this work.
[3433] Mark 14.63; Matt. 26.65.
[3434] The foreign word used in the Peshitta is preserved. The Sinaitic uses a Syriac word meaning garment.
[3436] Mark 14.64; Matt. 26.66.
[3437] Mark 14.65; Luke 22.63.
[3438] Mark 14.65; Matt. 26.68.
[3439] See § 9, 7, note.
[3441] See § 7, 17, note.
[3442] John xviii. 28; Mark xv. 1.
[3443] cf.Luke xxiii. 1.
[3444] cf. Matt. xxvii. 2; Mark xv. 1.
[3445] Arabic, diwdn.
[3446] John xviii. 28:28c.
[3447] Matt. 27.11; John 18.29.
[3448] Lit. plea.
[3456] See § 4, 24, note.
[3457] The Syriac word.
[3463] Or, led astray (cf. § 25, 17, note).
[3464] cf. Syriac versions.
[3468] Same word as in § 10, 16 (see note there).
[3473] Lit. and there was.
[3476] The Arabic word may also, like the Syriac, mean thing, but hardly, as that does here, fault or crime. The Vat. ms., pointing differently, reads thing. The same confusion occurs at § 40, 35 (cf. a converse case in § 25, 40).
[3477] So Ciasca’s text, following the Borg. ms. The Vat. ms. has plotted, which is nearer the Syriac accuse.
[3486] See § 3, 12, note.
[3493] Ciasca’s text, following the Vat. ms., has disorder. Borg. ms. has division (cf. heresies, Curetonian of § 50, 37), which by addition of a diacritical point gives sedition; cf. § 50, 37 (Ciasca, following Vat. ms.), and Peshitta (both places).
[3495] Mark 15.9; Matt. 27.17.
[3504] Our translator has retained the Syriac word, which in this context means fault (see § 50, 11, note).
[3506] The word used in Vat ms. means a repeated charge or attack. That in Borg. ms. is probably used in the post-classical sense of importuning him. Either word might be written by a copyist for the other. The same double reading probably occurs again at § 53, 55.
[3507] Mark 15.15; Luke 23.25.
[3509] cf. Syriac versions.
[3514] This may be a mere clerical error (very natural in Arabic) for scoffed at, the reading of the Syriac versions. This being so, it is worthy of remark that the reading is apparently common to the two mss. The Syriac words are, however, also somewhat similar. The Jerusalem Lectionary has a word agreeing with the text above.
[3515] Lit. Peace.
[3519] This reading may be a corruption of a very literal rendering of the Peshitta.
[3520] cf. § 50, 11.
[3523] cf. § 11, 11, note.
[3524] See § 50, 35, note.
[3529] Borg. ms., Why speakest; a reading that might be a corruption of the Peshitta.
[3531] Lit. even one (Pesh.).
[3535] Lit. six hours.
[3538] Or, that.
[3539] cf. Peshitta. Or, Ye know (cf. Sinaitic).
[3545] Borg. ms. omits and he went away.
[3546] Lit. strangled.
[3548] cf. § 32, 15, note.
[3552] Or, at that (time).
[3554] John 19.16; Mark 15.20.
[3555] John 19.17; Matt. 28.31.
[3556] Matt. 27.32; Mark 15.21.
[3560] Lit. being burned. The text is probably corrupt.
[3565] Lit. wood (cf. Syr. and Greek).
[3567] Or, others, malefactors.
[3568] Luke 23.33; John 19.17.
[3572] Matt. 27.34; Mark 15.23.
[3579] A different word from that in the preceding verse; in each case, the word used in the Peshitta (Cur. and Sin. lacking).
[3581] The Syriac words, retained in Ibn-at-Tayyib’s Commentary (f. 366a), seem to have been transposed. Vat. ms. omits he, probably meaning but that he said.
[3583] In a carelessly written Arabic ms. there is almost no difference between hath been written and I have written, as it is in Ibn-at-Tayyib (loc. cit., f. 366a).
[3584] Luke 23.35; Matt. 27.39.
[3585] cf. § 7, 17, note. Borg. ms. has jesting at.
[3586] The Arabic text has deriding (cf. § 51, 37). Either with is accidentally omitted, or, more probably, we should correct the spelling to shaking (cf. Syriac versions).
[3587] Matt. 27.40; Mark 15.29.
[3588] Matt. xxvii. 40:40c.
[3591] Luke 23.35; Matt. 27.42.
[3592] Verse 37 or Mt.
[3597] Borg. ms. has boys (an easy clerical error).
[3601] Our deed might be read we have done, and perhaps our translator’s style would justify our writing as for to.
[3604] Borg. ms. has Verily, verily.
[3606] A single word in Arabic.
[3607] Vat. ms. has and Mary.
[3610] Matt. 27.45; Luke 23.44.
[3611] Lit six hours and nine hours respectively.
[3612] Lit six hours and nine hours respectively.
[3613] Luke 23.45; Mark 15.34.
[3614] In Vat. ms. the second word is like the first. The syllable Ya doubtless is the Arabic interjection O!
[3615] The Borg. ms. omits from which to me.
[3617] Borg. ms. omits when they, and has and said.
[3619] John 19.29; Matt. 27.48.
[3621] cf. § 12, 13, note.
[3623] Matt. xxvii. 49; Luke xxiii. 34.
[3624] Or, Let us.
[3626] Lit. lay down.
[3629] cf. Syriac versions and Ibn-at-Tayyib’s Commentary. Vat. ms. omits the face of.
[3633] This sentence is a good example of word-for-word translation of the Peshitta.
[3634] Luke 23.47; Matt. 27.54.
[3637] The word is probably plural.
[3641] Lit. ripped.
[3645] Lit. ripped.
[3646] Luke 23.49; Mark 15.41.
[3647] Matt. 27.56; Mark 15.40.
[3648] Matt. 27.56; Mark 15.40.
[3653] Borg. ms. omits.
[3655] Syriac versions.
[3657] Lit. the.
[3659] Luke xxiii. 51:51c.
[3663] Matt. 27.58; Mark 15.46.
[3665] The preparation used in embalming.
[3668] Mark xv. 46. Lit. a stone.
[3671] On the plural, which is to be found also in Ibn-at-Tayyib’s Commentary, see § 38, 43, note (end). The word chosen might be simply a clerical error for an original Arabic rolled.
[3672] Lit. cast (cf. Sinaitic).
[3673] Mark xv. 47a.
[3674] Dual. The clause (from came) is found verbatim in Sin. and Cur. at Luke xxiii. 55. Here, after the word Luke of the reference, at the end of leaf 117 of Vat. ms., is a note by a later hand: “Here a leaf is wanting.” This second and last lacuna extends from § 52, 37, to § 53, 4.
[3678] cf. Sinaitic.
[3679] The two Arabic words are practically synonymous (cf.Luke xxiii. 56, Pesh.).
[3681] Luke xxiii. 56:56c.
[3685] The ms. omits the tomb.
[3686] Lit. three days.
[3688] The word might be taken as a collective noun, singular. But cf. Peshitta and § 52, 51.
[3691] cf. Peshitta. The Arabic word is variously explained.
[3695] Luke xxiv. 2; Matt. xxviii. 2.
[3700] The diacritical points of the first letter must be corrected.
[3703] The Borg. ms. indicates the beginning of the sections, not by titles, but by “vittas ampliusculas auroque oblinitas” (Ciasca, Introduction). Ciasca indicates in the Corrigenda, opposite p. 210 of the Arabic text, where this section should begin.
[3710] Possibly the translator’s style would warrant the translation as.
[3711] Luke xxiv. 8; Matt. xxviii. 8.
[3716] Lit. hastened and preceded.
[3724] Probably an Arabic copyist’s emendation (addition of alif) for stood.
[3729] cf., § 10, 16.
[3732] cf. § 12, 13.
[3735] The Vat. ms. has a form that is distinctively plural. The Borg. ms. uses, with a plural adjective, the form found in § 52, 43. In the next verse the relation of the mss. is reversed.
[3742] The word first is less correctly spelled in Borg. ms.
[3743] The Vat. ms. omits women and to inform his disciples.
[3744] Informis dual and masc. in the ms., while the other verbs and pronouns are plural and feminine.
[3745] The Vat. ms. omits women and to inform his disciples.
[3753] Mark 16.12; Luke 24.13.
[3754] Lit. mils.
[3762] Borg. ms., to judgement and.
[3764] Borg. ms. omits all.
[3767] Masc. Plural.
[3774] cf. § 50, 36, note.
[3777] Vat. ms. omits this clause.
[3783] Luke 24.36; John 20.19.
[3784] The Arabic word after together looks as if it might be due to a misreading of the Syriac, but it is probably a usage cited by Dozy, Supplément, etc., i., 247.
[3785] Luke xxiv. 36:36c.
[3788] Lit. on (cf. Pesh.).
[3791] Borg. ms. has sides.
[3794] Borg. ms. omits and of honey.
[3797] Vat. ms.,for.
[3800] Borg. ms. omits it is necessary.
[3803] Luke 24.49; John 20.20.
[3815] cf. Peshitta.
[3818] Apparently the Vat. ms. means to translate the word. The Borg. ms. retains Tama, as both mss. did in § 37, 61.
[3823] So Peshitta. Vat. ms. has a form that might possibly be a corruption of take.
[3824] Or, were taken.
[3827] Vat. ms. adds unto Jesus.
[3836] Lit. rams.
[3839] Lit. ewes. For the three words cf. Peshitta and Sinaitic.
[3842] cf. § 45, 3, note.
[3844] Lit. of him.
[3849] Vat. ms. omits to the mountain.
[3852] This seems to be the meaning of the text of the mss. Ciasca conjecturally emends it by printing in his Arabic text because they after hearts; but this is of no use unless one also ignores the and before believed.
[3854] John 20.21; Mark 16.15.
[3856] Or, make disciples of.
[3860] Not the usual word, although that is used in the Peshitta.
[3862] The Arabic translator renders it the poison of death.
[3864] Mark 16.19; Luke 24.50.
[3865] Luke xxiv. 51; Mark xvi. 19:19c.
[3869] cf. Peshitta.
[3871] In the Borg. ms. the text ends on folio 353a. On folios 354a-355a are found the genealogies, with the title, Book of the Generation of Jesus, that of Luke following that of Matthew without any break. Ciasca has told us nothing of the nature of the text. The Subscription follows on folio 355b.
[3872] See note 1 to Introductory Note in Borg. ms. (above, p. 42).
[3873] ms., by misplacing the diacritical signs, has Ghobasi.
[3874] The ms. has Mottayyib; but Ciasca, in an additional note inserted after the volume was printed, gives the correct form.
[3875] The Arabic text of this Subscription is given by Ciasca in his essay, De Tatiani Diatessaron arabica Versione, in I. B. Pitra’s Analecta Sacra, tom. iv., p. 466.
Search Comments
This page has been visited 0343 times.
| << | Contents | >> |
10 per page