Samer S. Yohanna, The Gospel of Mark in the Syriac Harklean Version. An
Edition Based upon the Earliest Witnesses
Andreas
Juckel
University of Münster
Beth Mardutho: The Syriac Institute
George A. Kiraz
James E. Walters
TEI XML encoding by
James E. Walters
Beth Mardutho: The Syriac Institute
2018
Volume 21.1
For this publication, a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International
license has been granted by the author(s), who retain full
copyright.
https://hugoye.bethmardutho.org/article/hv21n1prjuckel
Andreas Juckel
The Gospel of Mark in the Syriac Harklean Version. An
Edition Based upon the Earliest Witnesses
https://hugoye.bethmardutho.org/pdf/vol21/HV21N1PRJuckel.pdf
Hugoye: Journal of Syriac Studies
Beth Mardutho: The Syriac Institute, 2018
vol 21
issue 1
pp 204–217
Hugoye: Journal of Syriac Studies is an electronic journal dedicated to the study
of the Syriac tradition, published semi-annually (in January and July) by Beth
Mardutho: The Syriac Institute. Published since 1998, Hugoye seeks to offer the
best scholarship available in the field of Syriac studies.
File created by James E. Walters
Samer S. Yohanna, The Gospel of Mark in
the Syriac Harklean Version. An Edition Based upon the Earliest
Witnesses, Biblica et Orientalia 52 (Rome: Pontifical Biblical
Institute, Gregorian & Biblical Press, 2015). Pp. xi + 196; € 60.
The book under review is the doctoral dissertation of Samer
Soreshow Yohanna, Chaldean priest and member of the Chaldean Antonian Order of
St. Hormizd (Iraq). It was supervised by Craig Morrison, O. Carm. and St.
Pisano, S. J. and defended in 2014 at the Pontifical Biblical Institute in Rome.
The idea behind this book is clear and simple: to provide scholars with the
(still missing) critical edition of the Ḥarklean Gospel of Mark, based on the
earliest Ḥarklean manuscripts and presented ‘in a user-friendly style, that will
allow scholars to read this version, study its character and appreciate its
place in the New Testament criticism’ (p. 8). The introduction clearly states
that this book does not intend to offer such a text-critical study, but rather a
convenient display of the Syriac evidence as a preparatory stage for textual
criticism and for establishing the ‘original’. There is no explicit theory
concerning the history of the text or the ‘critical’ approach to the ‘original’.
A critical impact Yohanna expects from the restriction to the earliest Ḥarklean
Gospel manuscripts and especially from the inclusion of his ms. C, a Gospel
codex in the possession of the Chaldeans in Iraq, which here for the first time
is fully described and used in a scholarly publication.
In his unpublished Licentiate Thesis, submitted
2011 to the Pontifical Biblical Institute, Yohanna presented this ms.
witness: Towards the ‛Original’ Text of the Harklean
Version of the Tetraeuangelion. A Descriptive Study of a Harklean
Manuscript from the Depository of the ‛Chaldean Antonian Order of
St. Hormizd.’ The Syriac Text of Mark 1–5 Including a Critical
Apparatus. During the 11th Symposium Syriacum at Malta (2012),
Yohanna presented this to a large audience: “Between Two Millennia:
Assessing the Syriac Harklean Tetra-Euangelion Manuscript C 25 from the
Depository of the ‛Chaldean Antonian Order of St. Hormizd-Iraq’.”
Unfortunately, this paper was not published in the Symposium
proceedings.
This 10th/11th cent. witness is the (occasionally modified) base line of
the edition to which the Syriac evidence of thirteen early witnesses is
attached.
Before turning to the details of the edition, the reader must
understand the major difficulties that so far have prevented scholars from
producing a critical edition of the Ḥarklean Gospels, namely the revisional
development of the version and the corresponding editorial challenges. This
development is traceable in the Gospels only
Acts and Epistles are transmitted in four witnesses
only.
and mainly reflected in modifications to the ‘Ḥarklean apparatus’, which
is the most characteristic feature of the version. By this ‘apparatus’, Thomas
of Ḥarqel attached to his translation Greek variants (translated into Syriac),
drawn from a collation of Greek manuscripts and of the Philoxenian version.
These variants Thomas introduced by putting words between critical signs
(asteriskos, obelos), or by placing them in the margin and linking them to the
main text by a graphic sign.
Photographic samples in Yohanna’s book on p. 113 and
115.
This complex layout was not only prone to alterations by inattentive
scribes but also to intentional alterations by revisers. By and large, the
Ḥarklean Gospel text was continually adapted to the Greek-Byzantine text, and
this adaptation primarily affected the ‘Ḥarklean apparatus’: non-Byzantine
readings were removed from the text to the margin or marked with asteriskos; and
non-Byzantine marginalia that could not be identified at all by revisers were
omitted.
In some manuscripts, mainly of the second
millennium, the ‘Ḥarklean apparatus’ is dropped completely. However,
even the oldest dated Ḥarklean Gospel Codex F (of 757, see below) omits
the critical signs and the Syriac marginalia.
On the one hand, this shift within the ‘Ḥarklean apparatus’ allows one
to relate the history of the Ḥarklean version to the history of the Greek text;
on the other hand, the revisional impact of the Greek on each individual
Ḥarklean witness diminishes the chance of establishing a genealogical-stemmatic
relation between them. The necessity of research on this revisional impact, the
complexity of editorial decisions and layout of the evidence in a printed
edition are the major reasons that have delayed the production of a critical
edition. In the meantime, it has become clear that an edition of the Ḥarklean
Gospels should be based on that witness which is byzantinized to the least
extent,
According to my own knowledge, Vat. Syr. 268
(8th/9th cent.) shows the smallest extent of byzantinization. The text
of this witness is printed in the Comparative edition
of the Syriac Gospels by G. Kiraz.
should primarily include witnesses to the ‘Ḥarklean apparatus’, and
should keep the variants of the Ḥarklean main text separated from those of the
‘apparatus’. To visualize the authentic layout of the version and the revisional
shifts of text and marginalia constitutes the main task of the editor.
Although Yohanna is aware of the revisional development
Yohanna describes the revisional development in too
general a way and remains overly centered on the outward graecisation:
‛The revisional developments of the Harklean version mark the Harklean
witnesses with a distinct stamp and indicate the development of the text
towards a kind of perfectionism’ (p. 18). − ‛The manuscripts of the
second millennium…are most likely of little help towards uncovering the
‘original Ḥarklean’, because the Greek imprint on Thomas’ original work
is thought to be more moderate than what is found in the later Graecized
Harklean manuscripts which show significant revisional developments’ (p.
22).
of the version, his editorial policy does not sufficiently account for
it; rather, he claims to put to the test Ḥarklean scholarship by offering a new
textual foundation, based on the evidence of the first millennium.
‛But because no modern critical edition of his
[i.e., Thomas’] version exists (especially for the four Gospels), there
is no clear and convincing interpretation of the function and exact
meaning of his marginalia and critical signs’ (p. 7–8). This statement
is not up-to-date; a convincing interpretation of the marginalia and
critical signs (asteriskos and obelos) is given by B. Aland in her edition of the (major)
catholic epistles (1986) and of the Corpus Paulinum (1991–2002).
Unfortunately, Yohanna did not put to the test her interpretation in his
introduction to the Gospel of Mark.
The introduction (3–8) sketches the life of Thomas of Ḥarqel. Chapter 1
(pp. 9–19) informs the reader about previous studies and editions and about the
‘characteristics of the Ḥarklean version’. These characteristics are, 1. the
extreme graecizing translation technique (11–15), especially of the proper
names; 2. the revisional link to the Philoxenian version (p. 15), which Thomas
compared with Greek manuscripts; 3. the participation of the Ḥarklean Gospels in
the Greek-Byzantine text-type (6–17); 4. ‘philological glosses, in both Greek
and Syriac,’ in the margins (17–18), and the revisional development of the
version (18–19). The obvious purpose of Yohanna’s brief overview of the Ḥarklean
version is to introduce the typical Ḥarklean features in a general way before
their presentation in this edition of Mark. The author thus only touches upon
the complex features of the Ḥarklean Gospels; no detailed discussion of the
‘Ḥarklean apparatus’ in Mark is given.
‛Thomas’ intention was to bring the Philoxenian in
line with the generally accepted Greek text by producing a critical
study that would present the variant readings in the margin’ (p. 11). −
‛Nevertheless, the nature of his [i.e., Thomas’] work can be described
in two ways: (1) Thomas took a copy of Polycarp’s text [i.e., of the
Philoxenian], compared it with Greek manuscripts and added to the margin
the Greek readings which were different, or (2) he pushed to the margin
the readings of Polycarp, replacing them with new readings from Greek
manuscripts known to him’ (p. 15).
This is a matter of regret, because Yohanna’s fine understanding of the
version’s complexity would have enriched the scholarly discussion. Yet as the
main concern of his editorial policy is the practical mastering of the complex
features, the neglect of discussing them in greater detail is no severe
disadvantage to the edition proper.
Chapter 2 (p. 20–49) presents the manuscripts used in this
edition.
Following the catalogues, Yohanna identifies nineteen witnesses as from
the first millennium, fourteen of which are witnesses to the Gospel of Mark;
these are described in detail. In the following list, the witnesses in italics are those furnished with asteriskos/obelos and Syriac marginalia.
Abbrev.
Manuscript
Yohanna's Date
Jucekel's Estimated Date
C
Ms. 25, Chald. Order of St. Hormizd, Alqosh
9th/10th
10th/11th c
M1
Ms. olim syr. 1, Imp. Moscow Archaeol. Society,
Moscow
7th
?
B
Ms. 220.43/B58s/c.1, American University of Beirut
7th/8th
?
H1
Ms. syr. 16, Houghton Library, Harvard, Cambridge,
MA
7th/8th
10th/11th
S1
Ms. Mingana syr. 124, Birmingham
'ca. 730'
9th/10th
F
Ms. Plut. 1,40, Biblioteca Laurenziana, Florence
757 AD
V1
Ms. Vat. Syr. 267, Bibl. Apost. Vaticana, Vatican
8th
8th/9th
V2
Ms. Vat. Syr. 268, Bibl. Apost. Vaticana, Vatican
8th/9th
S2
Ms. Mingana syr. 42, Birmingham
835 AD
12th/13th c
K
Ms. Ori. 1, University Library Kiel/Germany
9th/10th
?
L1
Ms. BL Add. 7163, London
9th/10th
A
Ms. or. 74, Biblioteca Angelica, Rome
9th/10th
11th/12th c
L2
Ms. BL Add. 14,469, London
936 AD
D
Ms. syr. 3, Chester Beatty Library, Dublin
1177 AD
Six witnesses only (S1, F, V1, V2, L1, L2) belong to the first millennium with certainty, while three (C, H1, S1) are likely to derive from the
turn to the second millennium; the remaining five witnesses are either late
(S2, D) or charged with chronological problems.
Regarding the questionable date of most of these witnesses, the restriction to
the first millennium itself becomes disputable. In addition, the critical impact
of the chosen witnesses is mainly reduced to the two Vatican manuscripts (V1, V2), because F and L2 omit the ‘Ḥarklean apparatus’, and S1, L1 (and M1, H1)
cannot contribute much to the ‘original’ due to their defective conditions.
See the useful Diagram 2 on p. 101, outlining the
contents of the manuscripts.
This calls for the inclusion of later witnesses, which by their features
and variations are not too different from those chosen by Yohanna. If the
twelfth century were to constitute the upper limit, at least five additional
dated witnesses (besides D) could be included:
Ms. 12/8 of the Syriac Orth. Patriarchate Damascus, dated 1055
(aster./obel., Syr. & Greek margin);
Ms. or. 227 Cambridge Univ. Library, dated 1061/62 AD (aster./obel., Greek
margin);
M. H. Gottstein, “A list of some uncatalogued
Syriac Biblical manuscripts,” Bulletin of the John
Rylands Library 37, 429–445, esp. 441.
Ms. Add. 1700 Cambridge Univ. Library, dated 1169/70 AD (no aster./obel.,
no margin);
Ms. BN syr. 52 (Paris), dated 1164/65 (no aster./obel., no margin);
Ms. BN syr. 54 (Paris), dated 1192 (no aster./obel., no margin).
By their age, the first two manuscripts can duly be regarded as
witnesses to the text of the first millennium. The three later ones offer a
dated text for comparison with the earlier text; their inclusion would also
enlarge the textual base and sharpen the profile of this earlier text by their
agreement, disagreement, or modification. There is no doubt that putting the
focus on the Ḥarklean witnesses of the first millennium is a sound starting
point for tracing the ‘original’; as a mechanical and exclusive rule, however,
this focus will miss the dynamic of the textual development away from the
‘original’ and thus prevent the editor from finding the way back to it. In this
regard, Yohanna’s complete neglect of ms. New College 333 (on which the editio princeps of the Ḥarklean Gospels is based) is much
to be regretted. This admittedly late, 13th/14th-cent. manuscript is a witness
to all revisional stages of the Ḥarklean and to some extent also to Yohanna’s
ms. C, which is related to the Dionysius-stage of the 12th century (on which see
below).
The description of each manuscript concludes with indicating the
genealogical relation (based on agreements of readings)
“The text and apparatus presented in this edition
will allow scholars to trace the genealogy of the earliest Ḥarklean
witnesses. For example, some manuscripts report the haplography in Mk
2,21. The text between the two ܒܠܝܐ is
missing in manuscript V1 and this error has been
transmitted to S2 and K, revealing the direct
dependence of S2 and K on V1”
(p. 51).
to the co-witnesses.
The ‛genealogical families’ are summarized by Diagram 3 on p. 102.
Yohanna himself points (p. 30) to the provisional character of the three
‘genealogical families’ C-S1-H1 | V1-V2-L1-D | K-S2-L2-A (while M1, F,
B are outside of these ‘families’ but contribute to them) and announces a
detailed study for the future. One may conclude that consistent genealogical
research will arrive at the ‘original’ by reconstructing the common ancestry
(archetype) of these ‘families’. However, the present writer is in doubt whether
the genealogical-stemmatic study of the witnesses is the appropriate methodology
for reconstructing the ‘original’ of the Ḥarklean Gospels; the revisional
development of the version towards the Greek-Byzantine text is likely to have
blurred their genealogical relations. More feasible is the grouping of witnesses
according to their respective participation in the same revisional stage.
Chapter 3 (‘Methodology’, pp. 62–67) presents the editorial policy
of the edition. Basically, the edition imitates the Ḥarklean layout and gives
the text (occasionally modified) and margin of ms. C. There are two apparatuses,
which keep the variants of the Ḥarklean text and those of the margin separated.
Variant use of the asteriskos/obelos in the witnesses is quoted in the first
apparatus. This layout with distinct areas of data gives easy access to the
textual information: the text, which includes the critical signs; the margin,
which gives the variant readings and Greek words quoted by Thomas; and the
apparatuses for the variations of the witnesses. Regarding the complexity of the
Ḥarklean features, this is the best way of presenting and visualizing the data,
especially for understanding their shifting from the text to the margin (or vice
versa) during transmission. This layout is extremely clear, the data are correct
and skilfully presented, the printing is brilliant.
Although his edition reproduces ms. C, Yohanna replaced 27 singular
readings (within his choice of witnesses) by the majority reading and marked
them with a pair of daggers, considering them scribal errors in ms. C (p. 64). A
second textual feature of ms. C is explicitly marked in the text line: words
marked with a pair of double daggers are ones that other
witnesses omit or put in the marginalia (some of these words even have a special
sign in ms. C). A total of 12 words is marked this way in the edition; in fact,
there are 34 readings
They can be looked up in Y.’s edition. There are 34
integrations of marginalia into the main text: 1:13, 2:4. 7. 8. 16. 18 (twice). 21, 3:27, 4:13. 37, 5:34. 37, 6:25. 52 (twice),
7:13. 14. 18. 24. 25, 8:34, 10:17, 32. 40. 50, 11:28, 12:7. 11. 20. 32, 13:35, 14:19, 15:12 – Five marginalia are
completely omitted in ms C: 3:14. 18, 12:31. 34, 13:13.
in ms. C, which are in the margin of all or some of the other witnesses.
In addition, ms. C exchanges the text reading with the marginal reading in 19
cases.
3:5. 27. 31, 4:36, 5:1. 18, 6:1.
11. 41, 9:19, 10:49, 11:19. 32, 12:28. 36. 41, 14:72, 15:4.25.
I am not sure whether the author recognized the significance of these
phenomena for the evaluation of ms. C.
“The instances where manuscript C stands almost
alone against all the other Harklean witnesses are not mentioned here
because they exhibit a dependence on some Greek witnesses; in other
words, they are variant readings. A careful study of theses readings may
identify the original Harklean reading” (p. 64, note 12). Does Yohanna
here mean the text readings of C, which are in the margin of the other
witnesses?
These unique features make ms. C a ‘stranger’ among the witnesses used
by Yohanna and may point to the secondary formation of ms. C within the
revisional development of the Ḥarklean Gospels (on this see below). This dispute
on the ‘originality’ of ms. C gives proof of Yohanna’s sound editorial policy,
which enables scholars to put ms. C in a critical perspective.
Chapter 4 (‘The Ḥarklean Tradition’, pp. 68–115) is the longest
chapter and offers a wealth of information by printing (in Syriac and in English
translation) numerous additional texts associated with the Ḥarklean Gospels: 1.
the Eusebian materials (Ep. ad Carpianum; the ten Canon
Tables; the sections and their references in the Gospel of Mark); 2. the Kephalaia and Titloi in Mark; 3.
the famous subscription to the Ḥarklean Gospels including the variants from
single manuscripts; 4. a full list of patristic, theological, and linguistic
notes and comments from the margins of ms. C, including the liturgical rubrics
and Old Testament quotations; 5. lists and diagrams concerning the Syriac
manuscripts, their contents and relation to each other; 6. a list that shows the
orthographical development in the proper names; 7. the history of the depository
of manuscripts in the Chaldean Antonian Order of St. Hormizd (Yohanna himself
was involved in the transfer of the manuscripts from Baghdad to Al-Qosh in
2006); some color images of ms. C for the illustration of the Ḥarklean textual
features. ‘Final considerations’ give a summary of the book.
Yohanna’s concern is to pave the way for establishing the
‘original’ of the Ḥarklean Gospel of Mark. In this respect, ms. C plays a key
role and is chosen as the textual base of the edition. By age, intactness, and
by the exhaustive ‘Ḥarklean apparatus’, this witness is believed to be ‘one of
the better representatives of the Ḥarklean Gospels’.
“This manuscript, wrongly attributed to the 13th
century, is one of the better representatives of the Harklean Gospels
because it contains a high percentage of the text (99,97% of the four
Gospels), and it has more accurate marginalia, including a full
representation of the Harklean critical signs (surpassing manuscript V2
in this respect).”
This general statement is correct but in need of a better specification.
According to my own research,
I was kindly allowed to photograph ms C during my
visit to the Chaldean Monastery in Dora/Baghdad in April 1989. There is
a project of editing the Harklean Gospels under my direction, located at
Beth Mardutho/The Syriac Institute, NJ (headed by Dr. G. A. Kiraz).
the significance of ms. C for the history of the Ḥarklean Gospel text is
given by its place within the revisional development of the version. Ms. C
reflects a pre-history of the revisional stage, which is related to Dionysius
bar Ṣalibi (d. 1171) and extant in two manuscripts (New College 334 of the
12th/13th cent., and BL Add. 17,124, dated 1233/34 AD).
See G. A. Kiraz, Comparative
Edition of the Syriac Gospels. Aligning the Sinaiticus,
Curetonianus, Peshîṭtâ and Ḥarklean Versions [New Testament
Texts and Studies 21/I–IV]. Leiden 1996/Piscataway 2004, vol. 1 p.
xxxvii-xxxix. The subscription to ms BL Add. 17,124 is given in W.
Wright, Catalogue of Syriac Manuscripts in the British
Museum Acquired since the Year 1838, Part I (London 1870,
reprint Piscataway 2002), 42.
Still substantially rooted in the still undistorted Ḥarklean textual
tradition of the first millennium, ms. C already exhibits the typical features
of the Dionysius-stage,
This stage exhibits a strongly reduced ‘Harklean
apparatus’ and seems to be an individual attempt to ‛fix and seal’ the
Harklean Gospels. Besides this revisional stage, the still undistorted
Harklean textual tradition continues, as can be seen from the mss.
Chester Beatty syr. 3 (Dublin), dated 1177 AD, Cambridge Univ. Library
Add. 1903 (the Vorlage dated 1210 AD), and ms.
New College 333 (Oxford, 13th/14th cent.). The manuscript from Oxford is
significantly related to the Dionysius stage but to the undistorted
Harklean textual tradition as well, see G. A. Kiraz, Comparative Edition of the Syriac Gospels, vol. 1, xli –
xliv.
i.e., 1. the integration of a sizable number of marginalia into the main
text, and 2. several exchanges of text readings with readings from the
margin.
See above notes 20 and 21.
Almost half of the 120 Syriac marginalia in Mark extant in V2 (Vat. syr.
168) are affected by this revisional shift. A revisional background of this
shift seems very likely, because in some cases other witnesses offer the same
integrations of marginalia into the main text.
See 4:13, 5:37, 6:25.52 10:32,
12:11, 15:12.
The exchange of text and margin we do not meet outside the
Dionysius-stage and its pre-history; it may reflect the latest results of
revisional activities. As witness to the developing Dionysius-stage, the
terminus ante quem to produce ms. C is the 12th century. The still obvious
integrity of the ‘Ḥarklean apparatus’ in this witness suggests a 10th/11th-cent.
date. Yohanna cannot be blamed for having missed the relation of ms. C to the
Dionysius-stage, because in the two manuscripts representing this stage, the
Gospel of Mark is almost entirely missing.
Mk 15:34 – only the end is preserved in ms. BL Add.
17,124 (on fol. 5).
In the Gospel of John, which is fully transmitted in both witnesses,
this relation is obvious. Nevertheless, Yohanna should have treated with more
suspicion the unique features of ms. C.
Yohanna’s edition of the Ḥarklean Mark is a pioneering work and a
model for future editions of the Ḥarklean New Testament. For the first time, we
have a published
Unfortunately, the Ph.D. dissertation of Peter A. L.
Hill, The Harklean Version of St. Luke 1–11: A
Critical Introduction and Edition (Univ. of Melbourne, 2002),
remains unpublished.
Ḥarklean Gospel text at hand, which is not a one-manuscript-edition, but
a critical edition based on fourteen manuscripts. In addition, the author made
available to scholarship a remarkable (and difficult to access) manuscript of
immense importance for the revisional development of the Ḥarklean Gospels. It is
hoped that he will edit the remaining Gospels in the future. In Ḥarklean
research ‘diversity’ is a sign of good health, and three remarkably different
printed editions (of J. White, G. A. Kiraz, and S. S. Yohanna) are now standing
side by side.
Finally, some corrections: Yohanna does not always properly
distinguish between (actual) ‘text’ and (intended) ‘reading’ of the marginalia,
i.e., the interpretation of the marginalia (replacement or addition?) is wrong
in several cases. The following list gives the correct interpretation (all items
are from the second apparatus of Yohanna’s edition):
Verse
MSS
Margin
Interpretation (Intended Reading)
2:18
V2 D
mg ܘܬܠܡܝܕ̈ܐ
(ܘܬܠܡܝܕ̈ܐ (ܕܦܪ̈ܝܫܐ
H1 V1
mg ܘܬܠܡܝܕ̈ܐ
by err. refers to ܬܠܡܝܕ̈ܝܟ
4:30
C
mg ܢܣܝܡܝܗܿ
by err. refers to ܢܕܡܝܗܿ (besides the
correct ܢܦܠܐܬܝܗܿ)
6:7
D
mg ܕܢܦܩܘܢ
ܕܢܦܩܘܢ (ܛܡ̈ܐܐ ܪ̈ܘܚܐ)
6:8
V1
πήραν (bag)
by err. affixed to ܚܘܛܪܐ
6:14
D
mg ܥܠ ܝܫܘܥ
ܝܫܘܥ ܥܠ (ܗܪܘܕܝܣ ܡܠܟܐ ܘܫܡܼܥ)
6:38
D
mg ܠܚܡ̈ܐ
ܠܚܡ̈ܐ (ܟܡܐ)
D
mg ܗܪܟܐ
ܗܪܟܐ (ܠܟܘܢ ܐܝܬ ܠܚܡ̈ܐ ܟܡܐ)
D
mg ܠܚܡ̈ܐ
ܠܚܡ̈ܐ (ܚܡܫܐ)
7:18
M1
S1 L1 D
mg ܥܕܟܝܠ
(ܠܐ) ܥܕܟܝܠ
7:25
V1 L1 D
mg ܐܠܐ ܡܚܕܐ
ܐܠܐ ܡܚܕܐ (ܫܡܥܬ)
8:12
D
mg ܐܬܥܙܙ
for ܐܬܬܢܚ
8:29
D
mg ܗ̇ܘ ܒܪܗ ܕܐܠܗܐ ܚܝܐ
ܚܝܐ ܕܐܠܗܐ ܒܪܗ ܗܘܿ (ܡܫܝܚܐ)
10:14
M1 L1
V1 D
mg ܟܿܐܐ ܘܟܕ
ܐܡܼܪ (ܟܿܐܐ ܘܟܕ)
10:17
H1
V1 V2
L1 D
mg ܐܢܫ ܥܬܝܪܐ
ܥܬܝܪܐ ܐܢܫ (ܪܗܛܼ), no ܚܕ after ܪܗܛ
C mechanically inserts ܐܢܫ
ܥܬܝܪܐ into the text and wrongly reads ܥܬܝܪܐ ܐܢܫ ܚܕ ܪܗܛܼ
10:32
V2
mg ܕܝܢ
(ܐܝܬܝܗܘܢ ܗܘܘ) ܕܝܢ
11:8
V1
mg ܩܪ̈ܣܡܬܐ
by err. affixed to ܦܣܩܝܢ (correct to ܣܘ̈ܟܐ)
14:12
D
mg ܕܝܘܕ̈ܝܐ
ܕܝܘܕ̈ܝܐ (ܕܦܨܚܐ)
14:49
C
ܕܢܒܝ̈ܐ ܟܬܒ̈ܐ܌ ܍
error for ܕܢܒܝ̈ܐ܌ ܍ ܟܬܒ̈ܐ
D
mg ܗܕܐ ܗܘܬ
ܗܕܐ ܗܘܬ (ܕܢܒܝ̈ܐ܌ ܍ ܟܬܒ̈ܐ)
15:13
V1 D
mg ܟܕ ܐܬܬܢܝܦ until ܟܕ ܐܡܪܝܢ
by err. affixed to ܐܢܝܦ vs 11; correct in vs 13
after ܕܝܢ ܗܼܢܘܢ