Obsequies of My Lady Mary (I)
Unpublished Early Syriac Palimpsest Fragments from the
British Library (BL, Add 17.137, no. 2)
Christa
Müller-Kessler
Friedrich-Schiller-Universität Jena
TEI XML encoding by
James E. Walters
Beth Mardutho: The Syriac Institute
2020
Volume 23.1
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/hv23n1muller-kessler
Christa Müller-Kessler
Reclaiming Narsai’s
Obsequies of My Lady Mary (I):
Unpublished Early Syriac Palimpsest Fragments from the
British Library (BL, Add 17.137, no. 2)
https://hugoye.bethmardutho.org/pdf/vol23/HV23N1Muller-Kessler.pdf
Hugoye: Journal of Syriac Studies
Beth Mardutho: The Syriac Institute, 2020
vol 23
issue 1
pp 31–59
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.
Mary
Manuscripts
Palimpsests
Obsequies
Jacob of Serugh
File created by James E. Walters
Abstract
The Syriac palimpsest folios listed
under Add 17.137, no. 2 in Wright’s Catalogue of the Syriac
Manuscripts in the British Museum have been described as deriving from the
Obsequies of My Lady Mary. This attribution has never
been questioned afterwards. Although a specimen consisting of only one column of a
single folio was published a few years ago, the remaining text on the folio and the
other five have been left unedited. It was recently understood that under this sub
shelfmark number two divergent manuscripts are hidden. One manuscript surviving only
in two folios contains the Obsequies and is written in an
elegant Estrangela script (ca. 5th cent.), while the other, in a much bolder script type, shows Jacob of
Serugh’s Homily on the Presentation in the Temple (ca. 6th cent.), one of the few palimpsest and earliest text
examples of this author. Only the folios with the Obsequies
are edited here, which offer noteworthy textual additions and a selection of diverse
variants that are not accounted for by the Christian Palestinian Aramaic and much
later Ethiopic transmissions.
1. Research History and Text
William Wright describes the palimpsest fragments under Add 17.137, no. 2 in his
catalogue of the Syriac Manuscripts acquired by the British Museum since 1838 in
the following way: “Six leaves from a manuscript, written in two columns, in a
fine Esṭrangĕlā of the vth or vith cent. From
what is legible on fol. 9 a, it appears that they belonged to the apocryphal
work entitled ‘the Obsequies of my Lady Mary,’ ܠܘܘܝܗ̇ ܕܡܪܬܝ ܡܪܝܡ.”
W. Wright,
Catalogue of the Syriac
Manuscripts in the British Museum Acquired Since the Year
1838
, vol. 1 (London: Trustees of the British Museum,
1870), 369 [no. 465]; A. Baumstark,
Geschichte der syrischen Literatur mit Ausschluß der
christlich-palästinensischen Texte
(Bonn: Marcus und
Webers, 1922), 98 n. 7. He only covers the available manuscripts of
the five-book cycle in the British Library from Deir al-Suryan,
since none from other provenances were known at his time or have
surfaced in the meantime. The only disadvantage of Baumstark’s very
comprehensive description is that he never indicates if a manuscript
is a palimpsest. He did not include any text samples
of these folios in his book Contributions to the Apocryphal
Literature published shortly before.
W. Wright,
Contributions to the Apocryphal
Literature of the New Testament
(London: Williams and
Norgate, 1865). Upon consultation of the six
palimpsest folios in Syriac just for the sake of comparison with the recently
published Christian Palestinian Aramaic transmission, it emerged that this
primary description by Wright for no. 2 in Add 17.137 was not accurate for the
content of all folios. It soon became quite clear that underneath the upper text
(Hymns for the Vigil) one could definitely detect two
differently-sized hands of two divergent early Estrangela
scripts that did not match as one would expect within a single manuscript. This
fact not only escaped Wright, who might obviously have had some doubts
concerning all folios, Wright,
Catalogue
, vol. 1, 369–370. Baumstark,
Geschichte der syrischen Literatur
, 98 n. 7
relied on Wright without ever seeing the original.
but also Andrea Schmidt, who recently described all the Syriac palimpsest
manuscripts in the British Library, A. Schmidt, “Syriac Palimpsests in the British
Library,” in V. Somers (ed.),
Palimpsestes et
éditions de textes: les textes littéraires
(Louvain:
Peeters, 2009), 161–186, esp. 170, still follows the entries in
Wright,
Catalogue
, vol.
1. and also Stephen Shoemaker, who published just column (b)
of the recto of fol. 9 some years ago without scrutinizing the deviating scribal
hands on the other folios. Concerning these vellum pages, Shoemaker states the
following: “The remaining folios are indeed largely illegible, and while it is
possible to identify their content with this Dormition apocryphon, they are not
sufficiently legible for any meaningful edition and translation.” S. J.
Shoemaker, “New Syriac Dormition Fragments from Palimpsests in the
Schøyen Collection and the British Library,”
Le Muséon
124 (2011), 259–278, esp. 261.
In the smaller and elegant Estrangela hand (ca. 5th cent.) on two folios one can make out the Obsequies of My Lady Mary, the Syriac title given to the
Liber Requiei Mariae, but in the larger and bolder
type on the remaining four folios is found the Homily on the
Presentation in the Temple by Jacob of Serugh (ca. 6th cent.). This discovery came as surprise as it
happens to be one of the few and earliest palimpsest examples for this popular
fifth- to sixth-century Syriac author so far, whose texts circulated
widely.
Along with this early palimpsest witness survived another early
palimpsest (6
th
–7
th
cent.) with three folios and their
adjoining stubs containing the
Ninth Homily
of Joseph
in Sinai, Arabic 514, fol. 96, 98–99; see G.
Kessel, “Undertexts of Sinai, Arabic 514,” in KatIkon
(https://sinai.library.ucla.edu; accessed 4 August 2019). There is
another palimpsest (6
th
–7
th
cent.)
recorded in Wright,
Catalogue
, vol.
1, 251, no. 312, 8c (Add 14.512). In his recycling
of the vellum leaves the twelfth-century scribe of the Syriac upper text The upper text
has
Hymns for the Vigil
ܩ̈ܠܐ ܫܗ̈ܪܢܝܐ ܐܘܟܝܬ ܓܘ̈ܫܡܐ, see Wright, Catalogue
, 370 [no. 4]. was
not very particular as to what he selected from the dismembered
manuscripts. It was only described as
hymns
in the index of the British Museum collection numbers by Wright,
Catalogue
, vol. 3, 1230, but under
the manuscript entry [no. 465] no title for the content of the upper
manuscript is listed. He did not adhere to the
original sequence of the folios and separated them by cutting each folio in
half. Through this procedure both lower manuscript texts were disarranged and
follow a different sequence than the upper text, i.e. that the top and bottom
fragments of the two manuscripts are sometimes combined into one folio and the
script of the lower text may appear in an upside down fashion in contrast to the
upper text. Neither did the scribe keep the former obverse and reverse sides
from the original manuscripts. Only fol. 8, 9, and 11 remained unseparated in
this dismembering process. Fol. 10 belongs to two different paragraphs of Jacob
of Serugh’s Homily. On fol. 9 the upper text script is
flipped by 180 degrees to the underlying text. It should also be pointed out
that the texture of all six vellum leaves and their trimmed halves looks very
much alike. The script of the lower text is generally very much faded except for
fol. 9. Consequently, this made it a bit cumbersome to obtain a result for the
correct order of the two former manuscript sequences and their content. This
obviously misled Wright and his successors into assigning the folios to one
single manuscript of the Obsequies. The established
attribution that was oddly neither questioned nor checked for over one hundred
and fifty years, although the palaeographic features pointed to other textual
affiliations. This oversight can hardly be blamed only on Wright considering
the amount of material he had to sight, attribute, and describe for
his catalogue of the Syriac manuscripts in three volumes in a rather
short period of time and without technical means for such diverse
and difficult-to-read palimpsest texts. It is also rather peculiar
that presently it seems to be a habit to search and hunt for new
material in the most remote places, while enough unidentified and
unedited texts await their publication in open access
libraries. Apart from the content, such
palaeographic peculiarities are always the primary telling points to determine a
specific palimpsest manuscript.
Through the help of a number of word combinations from fol. 6 bottom, 7 top, 8,
10, and 11, the identification with a homily composed by Jacob of Serugh was
made possible by Sebastian Brock. After gleaning some catchwords from five
fragments, I sent them to Sebastian Brock, for I had suspected the
authorship of Jacob of Serugh on account of the combination of Jacob
in connection with the lyre. In the end it turned out to be an
additional passage from the
Obsequies
for § 101 according to the Ethiopic counting,
yet the other four folios belonged to this
Homily
by Jacob of Serugh. Thanks to Sebastian Brock’s
generous help I could invest most of my time in assigning the folios
of both manuscripts to their correct sequence during my research
stay at the British Library in the spring of 2019.
This implies that two thirds of the manuscript running under shelf mark BL, Add
17.137, no. 2 constitute one of earliest text witness of Jacob of Serugh’s Homily on the Presentation in the Temple, displaying a
faithful text with some variations to the younger transmission. Initially, the sorting of the
folios tended at the beginning to be rather tricky when it came to
the establishing the correct sequence of the
Homily
due to the faint script and the mixing of top and
bottom parts by the scribe of the upper text. The full description
with some text samples is presented in C. Müller-Kessler, “Jacob of
Serugh’s Homily on the Presentation in the Temple in an Early Syriac
Palimpsest (BL, Add 17.137, no. 2),”
ARAM
32 (2020) [in press].
The remaining third of the manuscript with two folios contains the Obsequies of My Lady Mary. The top part of fol. 6 and the
bottom one of fol. 7 join into one folio, and with fol. 9 they form a very early
Syriac Obsequies version (ca. 5th cent.) along with British Library, Add 14.665, fol. 21–24, still
mostly unedited. See Wright,
Contributions
,
13–15. The text of the four fragments of BL, Add 14.665, fol. 21–24
are in preparation by me. It might take some time, since the reading
of the partially faint script is quite difficult on these vellum
sheets. A disturbing error occurred in another article on the
Dormition
when citing Add 14.665. It
should read there Add 14.665 for 16.445 on p. 85 and n. 22 in C.
Müller-Kessler, “An Overlooked Christian Palestinian Aramaic Witness
of the Dormition of Mary in
Codex Climaci
Rescriptus
(CCR IV),”
Collectanea
Christiana Orientalia
16 (2019), 81–98.
There are no paragraph divisions or enlarged letters visible to indicate a new
section as twice in Add 14.665, fol. 22r [G1 § 33] and 21v [G1 § 39; E1 §73].
The right hand column (a) on fol. 9 recto happens to have a rather interesting
section. Here an additional unattested passage was inserted before paragraph
99 The
Ethiopic version (E1) is chosen for the subdivision of the Syriac
text, since there are no obvious text divisions noticeable in the
Syriac transmission., which deals with the sexual
relationship between men and women and the negligence of their work duties on
account of this distraction. It is reminiscent of Romans 1:26–27, but it cannot
be claimed to be an allusion or even a citation of this Bible passage, since a
connotation to homosexual relationships cannot be clearly understood from it.
Just the final sentence shows a similar expressed threat ܡܛܠ ܗܢܐ ܐܦ ܗܢܘܢ ܢܩܒܠܘܢ ܫܘܢܩܐ ܕܠܥܠܡ
as in Romans 1:27 (Peshitta) ܘܦܘܪܥܢܐ ܕܙܕܩ ܗܘܐ
ܠܛܥܝܘܬܗܘܢ ܒܩܢܘܡܗܘܢ ܩܒܠܘܗܝ
I would like to thank Nestor Kavvadas
(University of Tübingen) for drawing my attention to this textual
similarity. He suggested the reading ܙܘܘܓܐ ‘marriage’ in fol. 9ra6
and some better translations in the additional section (§ 98). I am
grateful also to the two peer reviewers, who pointed out some
textual corrections in the reading, which could be verified in time
for publication..
The diversity in the transmission of this Marian apocryphon of the five-book
(only attested in the Ethiopic text witnesses) or palm version or as termed in
Syriac Obsequies from the fifth- and sixth-centuries
witnesses becomes here quite visible, since the Syriac text transmission often
deviates considerately from the Christian Palestinian Aramaic one (CP2) See the
recent publication by C. Müller-Kessler, “Three Early Witnesses of
the «Dormition of Mary» in Christian Palestinian Aramaic.
Palimpsests from the Cairo Genizah (Taylor-Schechter Collection) and
the New Finds in St Catherine’s Monastery,”
Apocrypha
29 (2018), 69–95, esp. 87–89 (=
CP2). and from the thousand years younger Ethiopic sources
(E1) See V. Arras, De Transitu Mariae apocrypha aethiopice I (CSCO
342/343; scriptores Aethopici 66/67; Louvain:
Secrétariat du CorpusSCO, 1973), 38 (Latin). The abbreviation system
follows M. van Esbroeck, “Les textes littéraires sur l’Assomption avant
le Xe siècle,” in F. Bovon (ed.), Les actes apocryphes
des Apôtres (Geneva: Labor et Fides, 1981), 265–285.
, neither of which contains this addition. The translations into
Christian Palestinian Aramaic, Ethiopic, and Syriac from a Greek Vorlage have to be taken as independent of each other.
How much can be accounted for by redactional interpolation cannot be judged by
means of the still fragmentary early Syriac versions. Other transmissions such
as the Coptic, Georgian, Gaelic-Irish, and Latin do not help to clarify much on
this matter. For the relevant editions of these transmissions see the
comprehensive overview in S. J. Shoemaker,
Ancient Traditions of the Virgin Mary’s Dormition and
Assumption
(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002),
419–428.
To demonstrate the divergence of this early Syriac text with the Obsequies from other text witnesses it is important that
the text should be presented at first in reliable readings of the legible text
parts.
The reading could be partially achieved with the help of an
ultraviolet lamp, actually a LED torch, and despite the unfavourable
light conditions of the British Library Reading Rooms. Reading
palimpsest texts has its special laws. The best time to work on such
difficult palimpsests is a time late in the afternoon, when the
sunlight is not too bright, and probably contains more ultraviolet
rays than in the morning, and a dark environment; see also the older
method used by Nigel Wilson in R. Netz and W. Noel,
The Archimedes Codex: Revealing the Secrets of the
World’s Greatest Palimpsest
(London: Phoenix, 2008), 221,
ph. 11b. Such working conditions were possible in the old National
Library of Russia in St. Petersburg and Westminster College,
Cambridge. The overhead artificial light in modern libraries hinders
the reading and librarians often do not have an understanding for
the special needs of a palimpsest reader. The simple employment of
ultraviolet lamps and a dark room would be sufficient and less
expensive than the modern multispectral imaging, which also has its
limitations, and not all readings can be solved with this modern
form of technology.
2. Content of manuscript(s) British Library, Add 17.137, no. 2 [Wright, Catalogue no. 465] Both scripts on the folios are rather
difficult to read, even with the help of an ultraviolet light,
especially on folios 6–8, 10–11.
Sequence of the folios in BL, Add 17.137, no. 2 according to the upper manuscript
text with the Hymns for the Vigil
In the modern bound volume the top half-fragments of all six folios
are arranged upside down for the upper script!:
fol. 6r top, ll. 1–15
Obsequies
§§ 101–102
fol. 6r bottom, ll. 16–26
Homily on the
Presentation
by Jacob of Serugh
fol. 6v top, ll. 1–15
Obsequies
§§ 102–103
fol. 6v bottom, ll. 16–26
Homily on the
Presentation
by Jacob of Serugh
fol. 7r top, ll. 1–15
Homily on the
Presentation
by Jacob of Serugh
fol. 7r[v]
For the upper text it is the verso side, but for the lower
text it is the recto one indicated by square brackets.
bottom, ll. 16–26
Obsequies
§§ 101–102
fol. 7v top, ll. 1–15
Homily on the
Presentation
by Jacob of Serugh
fol. 7v[r] bottom, ll. 16–26
Obsequies
§§ 103–104
fol. 8r
Homily on the
Presentation
by Jacob of Serugh
fol. 8v
Homily on the
Presentation
by Jacob of Serugh
fol. 9r
Obsequies
§§ 98–100
fol. 9v
Obsequies
§§ 100–101
fol. 10r
Homily on the
Presentation
by Jacob of Serugh
fol. 10v
Homily on the
Presentation
by Jacob of Serugh
fol. 11r
Homily on the
Presentation
by Jacob of Serugh
fol. 11v
Homily on the Presentation by Jacob
of Serugh The details of
the
Homily on the Presentation in the
Temple
by Jacob of Serugh is edited separately in
Müller-Kessler, “Jacob of Serugh’s Homily”. The text on
these folios cannot be easily read and requires special
reading technologies. At first only the contextual sequence
could be roughly established.
Distribution of the underlying texts on the six folios:
fol. 6r top,
ll. 1–15
Obsequies
fol. 7r top,
ll. 1–15
Homily
fol. 8r,
ll. 1–26
Homily
fol. 9r
ll. 1–27/26
Obsequies
fol. 10r,
ll. 1–15
Homily
(a)
The text on this folio derives from two non-consecutive
sections.
fol. 11r,
ll. 1–26
Homily
bottom,
ll. 16–26
Homily
r [v] bottom,
ll. 16–26
Obsequies
ll. 16–26
Homily
(b)
fol. 6v top,
ll. 1–15
Obsequies
fol. 7v top,
ll. 1–15
Homily
fol. 8v,
ll. 1–26
Homily
fol. 9v,
ll. 1–27
Obsequies
fol. 10v,
ll. 1–15
Homily
(a)
fol. 11v,
ll. 1–26
Homily
bottom,
ll. 16–26
Homily
v [r] bottom,
ll. 16–26
Obsequies
ll. 16–26
Homily
(b)
b) Original sequence of the folios for the underlying text
in BL, Add 17.137, no. 2(A) containing the Obsequies
fol. 9r
§§ 98–100(beginning)
fol. 9v
The upper text is flipped by 180 degrees in contrast to the
lower text.
§§ 100(middle)–101(beginning)
fol. 6r top, ll. 1–15 +
§§ 101(end)–102(middle)
fol. 7r [v]
See n. 21.
bottom, ll. 16–26
fol. 6v top, ll. 1–15 +
§§ 102(final words)–104(beginning)
fol. 7v [r] bottom, ll. 16–26
The measures of the cut down vellum folios are approximately 27,2 x 20,8 cm,
having a short gap between the separate top and bottom fragments on the mounted
and restored paper leaves. No line rulings are visible. The text is written on
an area of 20,2 x 16,5 cm in two columns, with 25 to 27 lines per column. Each
line is 0,4 cm apart, in a very fine and elegant Estrangela hand, most probably dating to the ca. 5th cent. The lines are not justified on the left
hand side of the columns nor are any line fillers detectable. Some letters show
pronounced early forms, such as a very large gamal and
ṣadeh, and he, waw, and mim have open shapes. The left loop of
the taw is at times squeezed. Some words are stained and
therefore illegible. On the joined folio consisting of fol. 6 top + fol. 7, the
bottom script is often too effaced to be legible in a number of lines.
3. Language traits
The spellings and morphological forms in the fifth- and sixth-century manuscripts
often do not conform to the Classical Syriac as presented in the standard
reference grammars by Theodor Nöldeke
T. Nöldeke,
Kurzgefasste syrische
Grammatik
(Leipzig: Tauchnitz, 1898), XXXII, who speaks
there concerning the language and orthography of a fixed form in the
excellent manuscripts for the fifth century. Working with random
various very good manuscripts of the fifth and sixth centuries
leaves a different impression. In the meantime, this has been
pointed out by several Syriac scholars and should carry more weight,
since one should not consider this diversity improper Classical
Syriac or even classify such spellings as scribal mistakes or
slips. or Rubens Duval
R. Duval,
Traité de grammaire
syriaque
(Paris: Vieweg, 1881). and earlier
ones. The missing quiescent alaph in ܚܪ̈ܢܐ ‘others’ (§ 98,
101) is one of these salient features. See L. van Rompay, “Some Preliminary
Remarks on the Origins of Classical Syriac as a Standard Language,”
in G. Goldenberg and S. Raz (ed.),
Semitic
and Cushitic Studies
(Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1994),
70–89, esp. 75. This also applies to the randomly
occurring plene spelling in ܟܘܠ ‘all’ (§ 99, 100) and ܡܛܘܠ
‘on account’ (§ 99, 100, 101), which cannot be explained only by the filling of
space, as here in the case for the Obsequies
manuscript. See for various
early spellings and deviations in early Syriac Gospel texts in F. C.
Burkitt,
Evangelion da-mepharreshe
,
vol. 2
Introduction and Notes
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1904), 39–78; M. D. Koster,
The Peshiṭta of Exodus: The Development of its Text in the
Course of Fifteen Centuries
(Assen, 1977), 94–95; S. P.
Brock, “Some Diachronic Features of Classical Syriac,” in M. F. J.
Baasten and W. T. H. van Peursen (ed.),
Hamlet on the Hill
:
Greek and
Semitic Studies Presented to Semitic and Greek Studies Presented to Professor T. Muraoka on the
Occasion of His Sixty-Fifth Birthday
(Orientalia Lovaniensia
Analecta, 118; Louvain:
Peeters, 2003), 95–111, esp. 96–98; D. G. K. Taylor,
The Syriac Versions of the De Spiritu Sancto by Basil
of Caesarea
(
CSCO
576;
Scriptores Syri
228; Louvain:
Peeters, 1999), 183–195.
Noteworthy are a number of nouns appearing in the absolute state in the genitive
construction for either the nomen regens or nomen rectum: ܫܒܐ ܕܢܝܚܐ ‘a Shabbat’s rest’ (§ 100); ܪܡܙܐ
ܕܥܝܢ ‘a wink of an eye’ (§ 100); ܕܛܘܦܝܢ ‘of the flood’ (§ 102).
The verb in the perfect masculine plural can occur without ending ܗܠܝܢ ܕܥܒܕܝܢ
ܗܘܘ ܡܕܡ ܕܠܐ ܫܦܠ ܘܙܕܩ ܡܕܡ ‘those who did something without being humble and
justifying something’ (§ 98). Such usage seems to be quite regular in the early
Syriac manuscripts of the fifth- and sixth-century.
See on more examples Taylor,
The Syriac
Versions of the De Spiritu Sancto
, 191.
Note also the masculine form ܐܦܝܣ ‘persuade’ instead of an
expected feminine ܐܦܝܣܝ (§ 99). Particular are the spellings of the participle
masculine plural without yod: ܗܠܝܢ ܕܡܣܬܡܟܢ ‘those who are reclining’ (§
101).
The rarely attested derived noun ܬܫܠܝܬܐ ‘calmness’, in the Lexicon Syriacum. E.
Sachau,
Inedita Syriaca
(Halle:
Buchhandlung des Waisenhauses, 1870), 45:9; C. Brockelmann,
Lexicon Syriacum
(Halle: Niemeyer, 1928),
779a; not recorded in R. Payne Smith,
Thesaurus Syriacus
(Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1879–1891),
but entered in the
Comprehensive Aramaic
Lexicon
as col. 4162!. First readings and
hapax legomena are always problematic to establish
and should be rightly treated hesitatingly.
Of considerable interest is the frequent appearance of the very rare and unusual
Greek lexeme ܬܘܠܣܐ for
‘shoot, branch’ instead of the Aramaic alternatives. Here it occurs in the
combination ܬܘܠܣܐ ܕܙܝܬܐ
‘olive-branch’ (§ 102), which is also employed for palm-shoot in the other
Syriac Obsequies version from BL, Add 14.665, where it is
now attested thrice in succession ܘܣܒ ܬܘܠܣܐ ܡܢ ܗܢܐ ܫܒܛܐ ‘and take the palm-shoot
from this pinnate’ (§76);
Wright,
Contributions
, 15.
ܥܠܘܗܝ ܗܢܐ ܬܘܠܣܐ[...] ‘[...] on him this palm-shoot’ (§ 76); Additional reading not in Wright,
Contributions
.
ܘܛܥܝܢ ܗܿܘ ܬܘܠܣܐ ‘and he
carries that palm-shoot’ (§ 77).
Additional reading not in Wright,
Contributions
. For unknown reasons
ܬܘܠܣܐ never made it
into the Thesaurus Syriacus, nor is it consequently
recorded in any other Syriac dictionary, There one finds only the homograph ܬܘܼܠܳܣܳܐ ‘derision’ from
the verbal root in
Pael
ܬܠܣ, e.g., in E. Castelli, Lexicon
Syriacum
(Göttingen: Dieterich, 1788), 901; Payne Smith,
Thesaurus Syriacus
, col. 4448; J.
Payne Smith,
A Compendious Syriac
Dictionary
(Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1903), 607b; 614a
[verbal root]; Brockelmann,
Lexicon
Syriacum
, 825b [only verbal root for the
Afel
! followed by the
Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon
]; T. Audo,
Dictionnaire de la langue chaldéenne
, vol. 2
(Mosul: Imprimerie des Pères Dominicains, 1897), 625b [verbal root
and derived noun]. The verbal root and its derivations give a bit
the impression as only being attested in the lexical lists and then
being integrated into the dictionaries. In the latest Syriac
dictionary by M. Sokoloff,
Syriac
Lexicon
(Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2009) one looks in vain
for both homographs. nor does it appear in the
language lists as Bar Bahlūl or Bar Ali. Therefore it was not discussed by
Imanuel Löw in the Flora der Juden in his very
comprehensive chapter on the Palmaceae or his earlier
work Aramäische Pflanzennamen. I. Löw,
Flora der
Juden
, vol. 2 (Wien: A Kohut Memorial Foundation Inc.,
1924), 302–362; I. Löw,
Aramaeische
Pflanzennamen
(Leipzig: Wilhelm Engelmann, 1881).
This applies also to the special studies on Greek
loanwords, including the recent one by Aaron Butts. A. Butts,
Language
Change in the Wake of the Empire
(Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns,
2016). Now with the occurrence of five attestations
in two independent early fifth-century Syriac manuscripts it can be considered
securely established. It is an obvious loan from the Greek word θαλλός
At first suggested by Shoemaker,
Ancient Tradition
, 330 n. 136. The Greek lexicon by H. G.
Liddell and R. Scott,
A Greek-English
Lexicon
(Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1897 [reprint]), 782b
understands it as 1) ‘young shoot, young branch’ and 2) θαλλοί ‘palm
leaves’ attested only in the plural. with the
emphatic ending added to the nominal Greek ending -ος by elision of the former omicron in Syriac and is comparable to other Greek
loanwords and their treatment in Syriac, e.g. ܛܘܟܣܐ
τάχσις, ܛܘܡܣܐ
τόμος, ܛܘܦܣܐ
τύπος, ܦܘܪܣܐ
πόρος. See S. P. Brock, “Greek Words in Syriac,”
Scripta Classica Israelica
15 (1996),
251–262, esp. 254. One has to consider ܬܘܠܣܐ more a foreign word
(Fremdwort) than a loanword as it was only integrated into these two texts from
their dependent Greek “Vorlage”. Apart from this example no other Greek
borrowings are to be noted, leaving aside the very early inherited ܦܝܣ < πεῖσαι
This derived verb from Greek is a lexical feature of Middle
Aramaic, from a stage of the Hellenistic impact on the Aramaic
language, where Greek was the language of the learned, therefore
this loan is an early inheritance into Middle Aramaic and its
successive dialects, except for Mandaic (only the noun
py’s’
‘persuasion’ as a late technical term)
and Talmudic Aramaic. The Mandaean scribal schools and the
Babylonian academies were outside of direct Hellenistic
influence. and the long before integrated common
particles ܓܝܪ and ܕܝܢ. A similar
situation exists for the Christian Palestinian Aramaic transmission, which
employs another special technical term borrowed from the Greek “Vorlage” ’g:ps
ἀγάπας ‘memorials’ (§ 98). See Müller-Kessler, “Three Early
Witnesses,” 86–87.
4. Text and Translation
Editor's Note: Because of the difficulty of right to left display and the XML code, some of the formatting of the followign section may differ slightly from the printed version, particularly with the placement of the footnotes. For the most accurate display, please see the PDF file of the article (click the PDF button in the top right of this page).
BL, Add 17.137, fol. 9ra — §§ 98–99 (unpublished) Most of column (b) was
published by Shoemaker 2011, 267, but column (a) and the reverse
were left unread.
1.
ܚܪ̈ܢܐ ܓܒܪ̈ܐ ܘܢܫ̈ܐ
other men and women,
2.
ܗܠܝܢ ܕܥܒܕܝܢ ܗܘܘ
those who did something
3.
ܡܕܡ ܕܠܐ ܫܦܠ
without being humble
4.
ܘܙܕܩ ܡܕܡ . ܐܠܐ
and justifying something. But
5.
ܓܒܪ̈ܐ ܕܝܢ ܡܪܦܝܢ
men, however, renounced
6.
ܗܘܘ ܙܘܘܓܐ ܗܿܘ
that marriage,
7.
ܕܐܠܗܐ ܣܡ ܠܟܠܗܘܢ
which God had placed on all
8.
ܒܢ̈ܝ ܐܢܫܐ ܘܒܡܕܡ
human-beings. And in an
9.
ܕܠܐ ܡܟܢ ܡܬܚܫܚܝܢ
unnatural way they made use. Only this passage nearly agrees with
Romans 1:27 ܘܒܡܕܡ ܕܠܐ ܡܟܢ .ܐܬܚܫܚ̈ܝ
10.
ܗܘܘ . ܒܗܿܝ ܕܫܒܩܝܢ
Inasmuch they forsook
11.
ܗܘܘ ܢܫ̈ܝܗܘܢ ܘܚܕ
their wives, and one
12.
ܥܠ ܚܕ ܐܙܠܝܢ ܗܘܘ
by one they went into
13.
ܒܡܕܡܟܐ ܚܛܝܦܐ .
a forced intercourse. This passage is reminiscent of
Romans 1:27 ܫܒܩܘ ܚܫܚܬܐ ܕܟܝܢܐ .ܕܢܩ̈ܒܬܐ : ܘܐܫܬܪܚܘ ܒܪܓܬܐ ܚܕ ܥܠ
ܚܕ
14.
Letters are
stained.ܘܢܫ̈ܐ ܗ[..] ܗܕܐ
And women do this [...]
15.
ܥܒܕܢ ܗܿܘ ܕܫܒܩܢ
that, what
16.
ܗܘܝ ܥܒܕܝܗܝܢ
they abandoned (for) their work,
17.
ܣܢܬ ܚܢܦܐ [...]ܐ
the hate of pagans Letters are not clearly
discernable. [...]
18.
ܘܡܢܗܝܢ ܥܠ [..]ܝܪܐ
and of them upon ... Letters are
stained.
19.
ܫܟܒܢ ܗܘ̈ܝ ܐܝܟ
were having intercourse
20.
ܕܥܡ ܓܒܪܝܗܝܢ . ܡܛܠ
as with their husbands. On account
21.
ܗܢܐ ܐܦ ܗܢܘܢ
of this they also will
22.
ܢܩܒܠܘܢ ܫܘܢܩܐ ܕܠܥܠܡ .
receive torment for ever.
23.
ܗܠܝܢ ܕܐܡܪ ܠܗܘܢ
(99) These (things) are what Jesus said to
24.
ܝܫܘܥ . ܝܗܒ ܠܗܘܢ
them. He gave them a
25.
ܐܘܪܚܐ ܕܢܥܒܪܘܢ ܡܢ
a way so that they could pass by in
26.
ܐܟܙܢܐ ܘܢܚܘܢ ܕܠܡ
this manner and could live, since
27.
ܚܙܘ ܗܠܝܢ ܟܘܠ [ܕܝ]ܢ
namely, they saw these (things). [Bu]t each
fol. 9rb — §§ 99–100 (published) Most of column (b) was published by
Shoemaker 2011, 267, but column (a) and the reverse were left
unread.
1.
ܐܫܬܩܠ ܡܢܗܘܢ Shoemaker, “New Syriac Dormition
Fragments,” 267: ܐ...ܠ.
was taken from them,
2.
Shoemaker, “New Syriac Dormition
Fragments,” 267: ܘܝܫܘܥ. CP2 and E1 have here ‘Saviour’
instead (Müller-Kessler, “Three Early Witnesses,” 86; Arras,
De Transitu, 58 [Eth] and 38
[Lat]).. ܝܫܘܥ ܘܡܟܐܝܠ
Jesus and Michael. This passage differs from the
Ethiopic in so far as that both Jesus and Michael are
separated from the Apostles, and not only Jesus. It is
comparable to a similar understanding in version CP2 mḥyn’ wmyk’yl rḥqw npšhwn ‘the Saviour and Michael
removed themselves’ (Müller-Kessler, “Three Early
Witnesses,” 86).
3.
ܘܫܒܩܗܿ ܠܡܪܝܡ
And he forsook In CP2 both Jesus and Michael are
forsaking Mary. Mary
4.
.ܘܠܫܠܝܚ̈ܐ ܥܠ ܐܪܥܐ
and the Apostles on earth,
5.
Shoemaker, “New Syriac Dormition
Fragments,” 267: [ܥܠ ܚ]ܫܗܘܢ. Additions are always debatable,
especially if there does not exist an established text
basis..ܡܛܠ ܕܢܕܥܘܢ ܢܦܫܗܘܢ
so that they will be of the same mind.
6.
ܘܡܚܕܐ ܗܠܝܢ ܕܒܬܫܢܝܩܐ Shoemaker, “New Syriac Dormition
Fragments,” 267: ܘ..... .
And at once those, who were in torment,
7.
Shoemaker, “New Syriac Dormition
Fragments,” 267: *ܘܬܐ..... *.
*ܩܥܘ ܘܒܥܘ ܒܥܘܬܐ*
cried out and sought an intercession
8.
ܘܐܡܪܝܢ . Shoemaker, “New Syriac Dormition
Fragments,” 267: ܡ...ܡ.ܡܢ ܡܪܝܡ
by Mary and said,
9.
ܡܪܝܡ ܢܘܗܪܐ ܘܐܡܗ
‘Mary, the light and the mother
10.
ܕܢܘܗܪܐ ܡܪܝܡ ܚܝ̈ܐ
of light; Mary, the life
11.
ܘܐܡܗ ܕܚܝ̈ܐ . ܡܪܝܡ
and the mother Only pronominal suffix singular
masculine instead of plural. of life;
Mary,
12.
ܡܢܪܬܐ ܕܕܗܒܐ ܕܛܥܢܬܿ
the golden lamp CP2 has instead mnrt’ dqwšṭ’ ‘the lamp of truth’
(Müller-Kessler, “Three Early Witnesses,” 86). E1 has both
by taking it as ‘Mary, golden lamp, you who carries every
true lamp’ (Arras, De Transitu, 58
[Eth] and 38 [Lat])., who bore
13.
Shoemaker, “New Syriac Dormition
Fragments,” 267: nil.ܠܛܥܝܢ ܟܘܠ .ܡܪܝܡ
the one bearing all Obviously ‘true lamp’ was
omitted in Syr. The phrase ‘who bore the one bearing every
true lamp’ is missing in CP2. ; Mary,
14.
ܡܪܬܐ ܘܐܡܗ ܕܡܪܐ
the Lady and the Mother of the Lord
15.
ܕ˹ܟܘܠ . ܡܪܝܡ ܡܠܟܬܐ˺
Shoemaker, “New Syriac Dormition
Fragments,” 267: [ܪ]ܒܘܠܢ.
of all; Mary, the queen Shoemaker, “New
Syriac Dormition Fragments,” 267 translates ‘our queen’
despite the Syr text having only ܡܠܟܬܐ ‘the queen’ as in CP2
(Müller-Kessler, “Three Early Witnesses,” 87), but in E1 it
reads ‘our queen’ (Arras, De
Transitu, 58 [Eth] and 38 [Lat]).,
16.
. ܘܐܡܗ ܕܡܠܟܢ ܘܐܠܗܢ
and the mother of our King This addition
with ‘our king’ is also found in CP2 (Müller-Kessler, “Three
Early Witnesses,” 88), but is completely omitted in E1
(Arras, De Transitu, 58 [Eth] and 38
[Lat]). and our God.
17.
ܐܦܝܣ ܥܠܝܢ ܠܒܪܟܝ
Persuade your Son on our behalf
18.
ܕܢܬܠ ܠܢ ܢܦܐܫܐ
to give us some rest.’
19.
ܩܠܝܠ . ܘܡܛܠ ܗܠܝܢ
And because of these
20.
ܐܬܐܡܪ ܠܦܛܪܘܣ
(things) it was said to Peter
21.
ܘܠܐܢܕܪܐܣ ܘܠܝܘܚܢܢ
and Andreas and John
22.
ܘܠܟܠܗܘܢ ܫܠܝ̈ܚܐ ܡܿܢ
and all the Apostles, ‘What
23.
. ܐܡܪܝܬܘܢ ܥܠ ܗܠܝܢ Shoemaker, “New Syriac Dormition
Fragments,” 267: ܐܡܪܬܘܢ. One needs here an active participle
with the suffixed independent pronoun (present tense). The
omitted yod by Shoemaker is
visible.
do you say about these (things)?’ The CPA has here
a longer addition, which is absent from the Syriac
transmission, see Müller-Kessler, “Three Early Witnesses,”
88–89.
24.
ܘܡܚܕܐ ܐܬܚܘܝ
(100) And at once our
25.
ܠܗܘܢ ܦܪܘܩܢ ܘܐܬܐ Shoemaker, “New Syriac Dormition
Fragments,” 267: ܠ....
Saviour appeared to them and came to
26.
ܠܗܿܝ ܕܘܟܬܐ ܕܬܫܢܝܩܐ Shoemaker, “New Syriac Dormition
Fragments,” 267: ܠ....
that place of torment
fol. 9va — § 100 (unpublished)
1.
ܘܐܡܪ ܠܟܘܢ . ܗܟܢ
and said to you, ‘Where
2.
ܐܟܪܙܬܘܢ ܗܿܘ ܡܕܡ
did you proclaim that matter,
3.
ܕܐܬܐܠܦ ܠܟܘܢ . ܠܐ
which was taught to you? For did
4.
ܓܝܪ ܫܡܥܬܘܢ ܕܟܠܐ
you not hear of all,
5.
ܕܟܦܪܬ ܥܕ ܡܢܬܦܝܢ
which I denied while they were driven
6.
ܠܝ ܘܦܬܓܡܐ ܗܿܘ .
to me and that word?
7.
ܘܫܐܛ ܗܘܝܬ . ܘܠܐ
And I was treated with contempt
8.
ܚܫܒܐ ܗܘܝܬ ܠܗ
and had no idea,
9.
ܕܠܡܪܢ ܠܐ ܡܫܟܚ
since for our Lord I
10.
ܗܘܝܬ ܒܚܕ ܪܡܙܐ
was not able with a wink
11.
ܕܥܝܢ ܕܠܐ ܐܗܦܘܟ
of an eyeܪܡܙܐ ܕܥܝܢ can be taken as a fixed
expression, therefore the absolute state in ܥܝܢ, see
Nöldeke, Kurzgefasste syrische
Grammatik, 149. It can be compared to constructions
to describe material ‘made of’. not to turn
upon
12.
ܥܠ ܥܡܘܪܝܗܿ ܘܥܠ
her (= the earth) inhabitants and upon
13.
ܚܛ̈ܝܐ ܗܠܝܢ ܕܚܛܘ ܒܝ
the sinners, those who had sinned against me.
14.
ܐܠܐ ܠܐ ܥܒܕܬ
But I did not do
15.
ܗܠܝܢ ܡܛܘܠ ܕܗܘܬ
these (things), since it was
16.
ܥܠܝܗܘܢ ܘ[...]
against them and [...]
17.
ܐܬܘ̈ܬܗܘܢ ܗܟܢ ܢܬܘܢ .
their signs will thus come.
18.
ܬܪܕܘܢ ܗܢܐ ܐܢܬܘܢ
You shall move this,
19.
[...] ܗܠܝܢ ܠܐ
[...] these (things) you
20.
ܥܒܕܬܘܢ ܐܠܐ
did not do, unless
21.
ܫܡܥܬܐ ܕܢܦܫܟܘܢ
your ... own hearing
22.
[.]ܥܕܐ ܘܡܥܠ ܪܒܘܬܐ .
and bringing in greatness.
23.
ܡܛܠ ܗܢܐ ܗܐ
On account of this, see,
24.
ܡܬܦܪܥܝܬܘܢ ܐܝܟ
you are repaid as
25.
ܥܒܕܬܘܢ [ܠܗܘܢ .] ܗܟܢ
you did [to them]. Thus
26.
*...* The Syriac diverges here
considerately, but this is also the case for the early Latin
and Gaelic-Irish versions, see also Shoemaker, Ancient Traditions, 345 n.
161.* ܛܝܒܘܬܐ ܐ[...] ܠܟܘܢ
On the plene spellings in fifth- and sixth-century Syriac
manuscripts, see Brock, “Some Diachronic Features,”
96–97.
the kindness ... to you,
27.
ܐܠܐ ܡܛܠ ܕܡܥ̈ܘܗܝ
but because of the tears
fol. 9vb — §§ 100–101 (unpublished)
1.
ܕܡܟܐܝܠ ܘܕܫܠܝܚ̈ܝ
of Michael and of my holy
2.
ܩܕܝܫ̈ܐ ܘܕܡܪܝܡ ܐܡܝ
Apostles, and of Mary, my Mother,
3.
ܕܐܬܘ ܘܚܙܘ ܠܟܝ
who went and saw you.
4.
ܘܐܦܝܣ ܠܢ ܚܠܦܝܟܝ
And he persuaded us on behalf of you
5.
ܕܢܗܘܐ ܠܟܘܢ ܢܦܐܫܐ
so that there will be rest for you
6.
ܐܝܡܡܐ ܘܠܠܝܐ ܕܚܕ
day and night, which
7.
ܘܫܒܐ ܕܢܝܚܐ . ܘܡܢ
is one and a Shabbat’s rest.’ (101) And
8.
ܒܬܪ ܗܠܝܢ ܪܡܙ ܡܪܢ
after these (things) our Lord gave a sign
9.
ܠܡܠܐ̈ܟܐ ܕܢܦܬܚܘܢ
to the angels to open
10.
ܠܐܪܥܐ . ܘܐܬܩܠܥܘ
the earth, and they were hurled
11.
ܒܓܘܗܿ ܘܫܠܝ̈ܚܐ ܐܙܠܘ
inside, and the Apostles went
12.
ܠܦܪܕܝܣܐ . ܗܘܘ ܠܘܬ
to Paradise. They were
13.
ܐܝܠܢܐ ܕܚܝ̈ܐ ܠܘܬ
near the tree of life,
14.
ܡܢ ܟܢ . ܐܝܬ ܗܘܐ ܕܝܢ
near from here. But
15.
ܬܡܢ ܐܒܪܗܡ ܘܐܝܣܚܩ
there was Abraham and Isaac,
16.
ܘܝܥܩܘܒ ܥܡ ܟܠܗܘ[ܢ]
and Jacob with all
17.
ܚܪ̈ܢܐ ܘܡܢ ܒܬܪ
the others. And after
18.
ܠܗ ܦܪܘܩܢ ܕܡܢ The lower script is here very much
erased by an additional correction in the upper
script.[...]
our Saviour [...] him, who was
19.
ܒܝܬ ܡܝ̈ܬܐ ܘܐܦ
among the dead, and
20.
ܟܣܝ ܐܢܘܢ ܒܦܪܕܝܣܐ
he also hid them in Paradise,
21.
ܐܝܟܢܐ ܕܐܝܬܝܗܘܢ
as they had been
22.
ܗܘܘ ܒܚܝ̈ܗܘܢ . ܘܐܝܬ
in their life. And
23.
ܗܘܐ ܬܡܢ ܕܘܝܕ
there was David
24.
ܡܢ ܒܬܪܗ . ܘܢܩܫ
after him, and he was
25.
ܗܘ ܒܩܝܬܪܗ ܒܟܠ
playing his harp all
26.
ܥܕܢ ܘܐܝܬ ܗܘܝܐ
the time. And again
27.
ܬܘܒ ܬܡܢ ܐܠܝܫܒܥ
there was Elisabeth,
fol. 6ra top + fol. 7ra [v] bottom — §§ 101–102 (unpublished)
1.
ܐܡܗ ܕܡܪ[.] ܝܘܚܢܢ
the mother of Mar John,
2.
ܡܥܡܕܢܐ . [..]ܬܘ
the baptist ...
3.
ܕܘܟ̈ܝܬܐ ܕܢܫ̈ܐ ܦܫ[ܘ]
places for women, they remain[ed]
4.
ܐܟܢ [...] ܕܓܒܪ̈ܐ
... [...] Surface on the vellum is scratched
off. the men,
5.
ܕܐܝܬ ܗܘ[ܘ] ܬܡܢ
who wer[e] there
6.
[.]ܘܗ [...] ܗܠܝܢ
... [...] those,
7.
ܕܐܣܒܟܘ ܡܛܘܠ
who mingled, because
8.
ܦܪܘܩܢ ܕܐܝܬ ܗܘܘ
of our Saviour, since there
9.
ܬܘܒ ܬܡܢ ܗܠܝܢ
were again those
10.
ܝܠܘ̈ܕܐ ܙܥܘܪ̈ܐ . ܗܠܝܢ
small children; those,
11.
ܕܡܛܠ ܗܢܐ ܡܪ[ܢ]
who on account of this, [our] Lord,
12.
ܡܛܘܠ ܦܪܘܩ[ܢ] ܚܘܪܘ
on account of [our] Saviour, behold
13.
ܘܚܙܘ ܕܟܡܐ ܬܕܡܪܬܐ
and saw as the wonder
14.
ܕܐܘܪܚܬܐ ܥܒܕܐ ܡܢ
of the ways was made from
15.
[ܥ]ܒܕܘܗܝ . ܟܠܗܝܢ
his [wo]rks. For all the
16.
ܓܝܪ ܢܦܫ̈ܬܐ ܕܟܪ̈ܣܛܝܢܐ
souls of the Christians E1 has ‘good
people’.,
17.
ܗܠܝܢ ܕܢܦܩܝܢ ܡܢ
those, who pass from
18.
ܥܠܡܐ ܗܢܐ ܩܕܡ
this world before
19.
ܕܟܠ ܡܕܡ ܗܠܝܢ
all things, those
20.
ܕܡܣܬܡܟܢ ܒ[ܥܘܒ]ܗ
who are reclining ܡܣܬܡܟܢ is spelled here without
yod. in [the
bosom]
21.
ܕܐܒܪܗܡ ܘܕܐܝܣܚܩ
of Abraham and Isaac
22.
ܘܕܝܥܩܘܒ ܘܕܘܝܕ*
and Jacob. And David
23.
ܡܣܩ ܗܘܐ ܬܫܠܝܬܐ
brought up calmness
24.
ܒܩܝܬܪܗ* . ܘܚܙܝ[ܢܢ ܐܦ]
with his harp. *...* is an addition not found in
E1.
(102) And [we also] saw
25.
ܠܚܢܘܟ ܘܠܗܿܘ ܬܘܠܣܐ
Enoch and that olive
26.
ܕܙܝܬܐ . ܗܿܘ ܕܠܗ̇
branch. That one, which she
fol. 6rb top + fol. 7rb [v] bottom — § 102 (unpublished)
1.
[...] ܚܢܘܟ [...]
[...] Enoch [...]
2.
ܠܗ . ܝܘܢܐ ܦ[...]
it. The dove .[...]
3.
[......]
[......]
4.
ܠܗ̇ [... ܒܝܘ̈ܡܐ]
her [... in the days]
5.
ܕܛܘܦܝܢ [...] ܗܘܐ
of the flood [Noah] had
6.
ܠܝܘܢܐ ܠܦܪܕܝܣܐ [ܫܕܪ]
[sent] the dove to Paradise
7.
ܕܬܫܐܠ ܠܩܫܝܫܗ
to ask the eldest
8.
ܕ..ܗ ܕܐܒܘܗܝ ܗܢ
of ... The genealogy is not clear here. It
could be ܐܚ ‘brother’ missing in the illegible space. Noah
was, however, according to Genesis 8:23–28 the great
grandfather of Enoch. of his father, where
our
9.
ܕܐ[ܦ] ܡܪܢ ܒܐܝܕܘܗܝ
Lord al[so] saved by his hands
10.
ܦܪܩ ܠܐܪܥܐ ܡܛܠ
the earth on account of
11.
ܝܘܢܐ . ܐܙܠܬܿ ܠܐܪܥܐ
the dove. She went to the earth,
12.
ܕܠܐ ܐܪܥܐ ܗܘܬܿ
because there was no earth
13.
ܠܗܿ . ܘܟܕ ܐܙܠܬܿ
for her. And after she had gone,
14.
ܫܐܠܬܿ ܠܚܢܘܟ ܘܬܡܢ
she asked Enoch and there
15.
[...]ܐ ܘܗܦܟܬܿ
[...]. and she returned
16.
ܠܘܬ ܢܘܚ ܟܕ ܡܕܡ
to Noah, when she had
17.
ܠܝܬ ܥܠܝܗܿ . ܘܬܘܒ
nothing on her. And again
18.
. ܫ[ܕܪܗܿ] ܢܘܚ ܕܬܪܬܝܢ
Noah [sent her] a second time.
19.
ܡܚܕܐ ܐܙܠܬܿ ܘܫܐܠܬܿ
At once she went and asked
20.
ܚܢܘܟ . ܘܚܙܐ ܕܐܠܗܐ
Enoch. And he saw that God
21.
ܦܨܝ ܠܐܪܥܐ ܘܦܫܬܿ
had saved the earth and she stayed behind.
22.
ܗܿܘ ܬܘܠܣܐ ܕܙܝܬܐ
That olive-branch
23.
ܣܝܡܢ ܠܗ . ܘܐܡܪ
is a sign for him. And he said
24.
ܠܗ . ܐܘܒܠ ܝܘܢܐ
to him, ‘He brought the dove
25.
[...] ܠܗ
[...] to him
26.
[......]
[......]
fol. 6va top + fol. 7va [r] bottom — §§ 102–103 (unpublished)
1.
ܐܝܬܝܗܿ . ܕܐܝܟ ܫܡܥ
had. Since as he
2.
[ܗܘܐ] ܠܗܘܢ ܠܐܝ̈ܠܢܐ
heard the trees
3.
ܕܠܐ ܗܘܘ ܥܡܟܘܢ .
which were not with you.’
4.
ܘܐܡܪ ܠܬܘ̈ܚܐ ܠܐ
(103) And he E1
has ‘the Lord’. said to the mourners E1
has only ‘them’.,
5.
ܬܕܡܪܘܢ ܥܠ ܗܠܝܢ
‘Do not wonder about these (things),
6.
ܕܐܬܛܝܒܬܘܢ ܢܦܫܟܘܢ
which you have prepared yourselves
7.
ܒܗܕܐ ܐܪܥܐ
on this earth,
8.
ܘܡܘܠܟܢܐ ܕܡܝܬܪ̈ܢ
*and a promise of virtues
9.
ܡܢ ܗܠܝܢ ܕܠܐ
of these (things)* E1 has for *...* ‘then you will
find a better inheritance’., which
10.
ܢܨܒܬܘܢ ܐܢܬܘܢ .
you did not set up.’
11.
ܘܬܘܒ ܐܡܪ ܠܢ [.]ܣܟܘ
And again he said to us, ‘...
12.
[...] ܗܟܢܐ
thus [...]
13.
ܘܟܠ ܦܓܪܝ [..]ܟܐ
and my whole [..].. body,
14.
ܘܥܕܡܐ ܕܐܘܒܠ
and until I will bring
15.
ܐ ܠܗ[...]
[...] to him
16.
. ܡܕܡ ܘܐܡܪܬ ܠܗ
something and said to him.
17.
ܘܣܠܩ ܡܪܢ ܠܥܢܢܐ
And our Lord went up onto a cloud
18.
ܘܩܪܐ ܠܦܘܠܘܣ ܨܐܕܘܗܝ .
and called Paul to him,
19.
ܘܐܣܬܠܩ ܒܥܢܢܐ
and he was taken up with a cloud
20.
ܠܫܡܝܐ ܘܐܙܠ ܣܛܢܐ
to heaven. And Satan went
21.
ܠܘܬܟܘܢ ܠܐܬܪܐ
with you to the place
22.
ܘܐܡܪ . ܐܘ ܒܪ
and said, ‘Oh, son E1 has
‘Jesus’.,
23.
ܒܪܗ ܖܐܠܗܐ ܕܐܬܐ
the Son of God, who came
24.
ܠܥܠܡܐ . ܘܐܦܝܣ ܠܢ
into the world and interceded for us,
25.
ܣܒܪ .[...]
he believed [...]
26.
ܛܝܒܘܬܐ [...ܿ]
the grace [...]
fol. 6vb top + fol. 7vb [r] bottom — §§ 103–104 (unpublished)
1.
...ܘܢ ܒܟܠܗܿ ܒܪܝܬܐ
... in all creation
2.
[...] ܘܠܡܪܐ ܒܐܝ̈ܕܝܐ
[...] to the Lord, into the hands
3.
[...] ܠܗܘܢ ܐܝܟܢ
[...] them as
4.
[...]ܬ ܠܗܢܐ ܕܫܡܗ
[...] to this one, whose name is
5.
[ܦܘܠܘܣ] ܕ[...]
[Paul], who [...]
6.
ܩܕܡ ܕܡܬܟܬܫ ܥܡܝ
before fighting with me
7.
[...] ܠܗܠܝܢ ܓܝܪ
[...] For those
8.
[..]ܫܐ ܕܫܘܝܢ ܗܘܘ
[...] was fitting
9.
ܢܘܢ[.] ܚܘܝܬ[...]
[...] ......
10.
ܡܛܠ ܕܐܬܟܬܫܘܢ
[...] [...] because they fought
11.
[......]
[......]
12.
[......]
[......]
13.
[...] ܦܓܪܝ
[...] my body
14.
ܡܥܠܬ ܠܗ [..]ܥܬܗ
you take him in [...]
15.
ܘܢܬܟܬܫ ܥܡܝ ܘܐ[.]
And he will fight with me and .[.]
16.
[...] ܐܣܩܝܗ ܘܚܘܝܗ
[...] he brought him up and showed him
17.
ܟܠ ܡܕܡ . ܘܬܘܒ
all things. (104) And
again
18.
ܐܬܐ ܠܗ ܠܦܘܠܘܣ
he went to Paul
19.
ܐܝܟ ܟܕ ܠܐ ܛܝܒ
as if not being prepared,
20.
ܐܝܟ ܠܩܪܒܐ ܥܡܗ
as for battle with him.
21.
[...] ܐܫܬܟܚ ܠܗ
[...] found for him
22.
[...] ܥܠܝܟ
[...] concerning you
23.
ܥܠܬܐ ܘܐ[...]
a reason [...]
24.
ܠܐ [...] ܐܢܐ ܠܗ
not [...] I for him
25.
ܡܢ ܡܬܘܡ ܕܥܢܐ
from afore time, since he responded.
26.
ܗܘ ܓܝܪ ܐܝܟܢܐ
For he in that manner
Bibliography
Arras, V. De Transitu Mariae apocrypha aethiopice I. CSCO
342/343, scriptores Aethopici 66/67. Louvain: Secrétariat
du CorpusSCO, 1973.
Audo, T. Dictionnaire de la langue chaldéenne, vol. 2.
Mosul: Imprimerie des Pères Dominicains, 1897.
Baumstark, A. Geschichte der syrischen Literatur mit Ausschluß
der christlich-palästinensischen Texte. Bonn: Marcus und Webers,
1922.
Brock, S. P. “Greek Words in Syriac.” Scripta Classica
Israelica 15 (1996), 251–262.
Brock, S. P. “Some Diachronic Features of Classical Syriac.” In Hamlet on the Hill: Greek and Semitic Studies
Presented to
Semitic and Greek Studies
Presented to Professor T. Muraoka on the Occasion of His Sixty-Fifth
Birthday
, Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 118,
ed. M. F. J. Baasten and W. T. H. van Peursen. Louvain: Peeters, 2003,
95–111.
Brockelmann, C. Lexicon Syriacum. Halle: Niemeyer,
1928.
Burkitt, F. C. Evangelion da-mepharreshe, vol. 2 Introduction and Notes. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1904.
Butts, A. Language Change in the Wake of the Empire.
Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2016.
Castelli, E. Lexicon Syriacum. Göttingen: Dieterich,
1788.
Duval, R. Traité de grammaire syriaque. Paris: Vieweg,
1881.
Esbroeck, M. van. “Les textes littéraires sur l’Assomption avant le Xe siècle.”
In Les actes apocryphes des Apôtres, ed. F. Bovon.
Geneva: Labor et Fides, 1981, 265–285.
Jastrow, M. A Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Jerushalmi, and the Midrashic
Literature. London: Luzac, 18761903.
Kessel, G. “Undertexts of Sinai, Arabic 514.” In KatIkon
(https://sinai.library.ucla.edu).
Koster, M. D. The Peshiṭta of Exodus:
The Development of its Text in the Course of Fifteen Centuries. Assen:
Van Gorcum, 1977.
Liddell, H. G. and R. Scott. A Greek-English Lexicon.
Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1897 [reprint].
Löw, I. Flora der Juden, vol. 2. Wien: A Kohut Memorial
Foundation Inc., 1924.
Löw, I. Aramaeische Pflanzennamen. Leipzig: Wilhelm
Engelmann, 1881.
Müller-Kessler, C. “Three Early Witnesses of the «Dormition of Mary» in Christian
Palestinian Aramaic. Palimpsests from the Cairo Genizah (Taylor-Schechter
Collection) and the New Finds in St Catherine’s Monastery.” Apocrypha 29 (2018), 69–95.
Müller-Kessler, C. “An Overlooked Christian Palestinian Aramaic Witness of the
Dormition of Mary in Codex Climaci Rescriptus (CCR IV).”
Collectanea Christiana Orientalia 16 (2019),
81–98.
Müller-Kessler, C. “Jacob of Serugh’s Homily on the Presentation in the Temple in
an Early Syriac Palimpsest (BL, Add 17.137, no. 2).” ARAM
32 (2020) [in press].
Netz, R. and W. Noel. The Archimedes Codex: Revealing the
Secrets of the World’s Greatest Palimpsest. London: Phoenix, 2008.
Nöldeke, T. Kurzgefasste syrische Grammatik. Leipzig:
Tauchnitz, 1898.
Payne Smith, J. A Compendious Syriac Dictionary. Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1903.
Payne Smith, R. Thesaurus Syriacus. Oxford: Clarendon
Press, 1879–1901.
Rompay, L. van. “Some Preliminary Remarks on the Origins of Classical Syriac as a
Standard Language.” In Semitic and Cushitic Studies, ed.
G. Goldenberg and S. Raz. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1994, 70–89.
Sachau, E. Inedita Syriaca. Halle: Buchhandlung des
Waisenhauses, 1870.
Schmidt, A. “Syriac Palimpsests in the British Library.” In Palimpsestes et éditions de textes: les textes littéraires, ed. V.
Somers. Louvain: Peeters, 2009, 161–186.
Shoemaker, S. J. Ancient Traditions of the Virgin Mary’s
Dormition and Assumption. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002.
Shoemaker, S. J. “New Syriac Dormition Fragments from Palimpsests in the Schøyen
Collection and the British Library.” Le Muséon 124
(2011), 259–278.
Sokoloff, M. A Dictionary of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic from
the Byzantine Period. Ramat Gan: Bar-Ilan, 1991).
Sokoloff, M. Syriac Lexicon. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns,
2009.
Tal, A. Samaritan Aramaic Dictionary. Leiden: Brill,
2000.
Taylor, D. G. K. The Syriac Versions of the De Spiritu Sancto
by Basil of Caesarea. CSCO 576. Scriptores Syri 228. Louvain: Peeters,
1999.
Wright, W. Contributions to the Apocryphal Literature of the
New Testament. London: Williams and Norgate, 1865.
Wright, W. Catalogue of the Syriac Manuscripts in the British
Museum Acquired Since the Year 1838, vol. 1. London: Trustees of the
British Museum, 1870.