The Text of Acts in MS Bibl. Nationale Syr. 30
Daniel L.
McConaughy
California State University Northridge
TEI XML encoding by
James E. Walters
Beth Mardutho: The Syriac Institute
2021
Volume 24.2
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/hv24n2mcconaughy
Daniel L. McConaughy
The Text of Acts in MS Bibl. Nationale Syr. 30
https://hugoye.bethmardutho.org/pdf/vol24/HV24N2McConaughy.pdf
Hugoye: Journal of Syriac Studies
Beth Mardutho: The Syriac Institute, 2021
vol 24
issue 2
pp 453-490
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.
Text criticism
Acts
New Testament
Manuscripts
File created by James E. Walters
Abstract:
This paper extends Andreas Juckel’s important 2009 article,
“Research on the Old Syriac Heritage of the Peshitta Gospels: A Collation of MS
Bibl. Nationale Syr. 30” (Hugoye 12.1, 41-115). The research herein is based on
collating the text of Acts contained in this noteworthy Syriac Biblical manuscript
against the standard Peshitta text and forty-two other Peshitta manuscripts and more
than one hundred fifty Syriac patristic sources. The collations show that the text
of Acts in BNS30 has approximately 230 non-orthographic variant readings, of which
117 are unique variants not found in other Peshitta, Harklean or Christian
Palestinian Aramaic MSS of Acts. There are approximately 51 agreements with the
Harklean version. This paper shows that the statistical textual profile of Acts in
MS Bibl. Nationale Syr. 30 is consistent with Juckel’s findings regarding the Gospel
text of this manuscript. It also provides analyses of selected readings and a
complete collation of the manuscript. The author wishes to thank Peter Williams for his
helpful comments, as well as the anonymous reviewers, who provided most
helpful feedback.
Introduction
This paper extends the research on the early history of
the Syriac text of Acts by collating the text of Acts in Bibl. Nationale Syriac
30 (“BNS 30”) against the standard British and Foreign Bible Society Peshitta
text of Acts and 42 Peshitta MSS, the Harklean version, and more than one
hundred fifty Syriac patristic sources.
Research on the early Syriac text of Acts has focused mostly on the first two
chapters. This is due to two factors: first, the lack of variation in the
Peshitta manuscripts, and second, the richness of the Patristic literature that
is concerned with the first two chapters. The first two chapters of Acts has
attracted a great deal of attention from the early Syriac patristic writers as
these chapters provide the records of the post-resurrection appearances of Jesus
and his Ascension and the Day of Pentecost. Since these two chapters attracted
much more patristic attention and, compared to the rest of Acts, they provide
the ‘cream’ of the patristic evidence due to citations by so many Syriac
authors. Based on my collations of the citations, roughly 2/7 (29%), of the
patristic citations are for the first two chapters. Since these two chapters are
about 2/28 or 7% of the text, Alternatively, considering that there are 73
verses in chapters one and two and 1006 verses in all of Acts, 7%
holds. they attracted roughly four times more interest per
verse than the rest of Acts. Considering that certain other sections, like
chapter fifteen and Paul’s conversion records, attracted significant attention,
the rest of Acts attracted little attention outside the few commentaries on
Acts, which tend to agree with the Peshitta. Prior studies of the Syriac text of
Acts outside the first two chapters have relied only on patristic citations. The
research herein extends the literature in two ways. First it extends the
analysis of the text of BNS 30 to Acts. Second, it collates BNS 30 against
forty-two Peshitta MSS and patristic citations for all twenty-eight chapters of
Acts as they relate to BNS 30 and considering the evidence in light of more
recent research by Juckel and Williams. “Research on the Old Syriac Heritage of the
Peshitta Gospels: A Collation of MS Bibl. Nationale Syr. 30 (Paris),”
Hugoye 12.1, pp 41-115. Williams, Peter
(2004) Early Syriac Translation Technique and the
Textual Criticism of the Greek Gospels, Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias
Press. Williams, Peter (2012), ‘Where Two or Three Are Gathered
Together’: The Witness of the Early Versions,” in The
Early Text of the New Testament, ed. by Charles E. Hill and
Michael J. Kruger, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
The textual problems of the Acts in Syriac differ from the Gospels. First, there
are no Old Syriac manuscripts of Acts which means that the variants observed in
Biblical manuscripts are phenomena in a Peshitta context only and therefore any
‘evidence’ of an Old Syriac text is hypothetical. Second, the complicating
factors of harmonizations among the Gospels and the Diatessaron’s relationship
with the Gospels are not present for Acts, which simplifies the analysis. Vööbus, Arthur
(1987), Studies in the History of the Gospel Text in
Syriac II, CSCO, Subsidia 79, Louvain, pp. 227-230, speculated,
“Did Tatian Revise Acts?” This idea does not appear to have gained
traction. Since there are no Old Syriac manuscripts of Acts,
one is dependent on variant readings in Peshitta Biblical manuscripts and
lectionaries and patristic citations to ascertain possible readings from the Old
Syriac version of Acts.
Because of the consistency among the Peshitta manuscripts of Acts, the patristic
literature has been the primary way to ascertain an Old Syriac text of Acts.
When one speaks of an Old Syriac text of Acts, it refers to a hypothetical text
of The Acts of the Apostles, analogous to the Old Syriac Gospels, and one that
pre-dates the Peshitta version. It is well documented that the early
Syriac-speaking fathers, like Aphrahat and Ephrem, quoted from an Old Syriac
Gospel text by comparing their citations with the Curetonian and Sinai
Palimpsest manuscripts. Thus, it is reasonable to think that the Syriac-speaking
writers who used the Old Syriac Gospel text, similarly quoted from an ‘Old
Syriac’ version of Acts. Consistent with this hypothesis, the evidence points in
that direction based on their citations of Acts that contain variant readings
that appear to be echoes of an Old Syriac text of Acts. Kerschensteiner
(1964),
Kerschensteiner, Josef (1964), “Beobachtungen zum altsyrischen
Actatext,” Biblica 45.1, pp. 63-74.
McConaughy (1985, 1988), McConaughy, Daniel L. (1985) Research on the Early History of the Syriac Text of Acts One and
Two, University of Chicago dissertation. McConaughy, Daniel L.
(1988), “An Old Syriac Reading of Acts 1:4 and More Light on Jesus’ Last
Meal before his Ascension,” Oriens Christianus
72:63-67. Vööbus (1987), Vööbus, (1987), op. cit. and
Symonet (1998, 2001), Simonet, J.L. (1998), Les citations des Apotres
dans le ‘Sur Etienne premier des serviteurs et premices des temoins,’
oeuvre presentee sous le nom of Jacques de Saroug en syriaque et sus
celui d’Ephrem en armenien,” Le Museon 111:
59-94. Simonet, J.L. (2001), “Les citations des Actes des Apotres dans
les chapitres edites du
Ketaba d-res melle de Jean
Bar Penkaye,” Le Museon 114: 97-119.
have provided evidence for an Old Syriac text of Acts. The primary source of
this material comes from the patristics, though McConaughy (1985) Published in Moran Etho, volume 45 (2020), St. Ephrem
Ecumenical Institute (SEERI), Kottayam, Kerala, India. and
Vööbus (1987) have found some support for patristic variant readings in the
Biblical and Lectionary MSS of Acts One and Two. However, reliance on patristic
quotations to recover the Old Syriac text of Acts is challenging and subject to
interpretation. Brock (2013) Brock, Sebastian (2013), “The Use of the Syriac
Fathers for NT Textual Criticism,” The Text of the New
Testament in Contemporary Research Second Edition, Chapter 15,
pp. 407- 428, especially pp. 416-220. comments on the
difficulties of using patristic citations to establish an Old Syriac Text
reading without a corroborating Biblical manuscript, which unfortunately is the
situation with Acts.
Peter Williams (2004), likewise, examines in detail Syriac variant readings in
the Gospels vis a vis the Nestle Aland 27th edition
(NA27) of the Greek New Testament in light of translation technique. He provides
extensive evidence that many early Syriac witnesses, once cited as support for a
Greek variant, may not or do not support Greek variant readings. Williams’
detailed analyses show that there is less Syriac support for Greek variant
readings than many scholars had thought. He also provides a most useful set of
guidelines regarding the use of Syriac witnesses as support of Greek variant
readings.
These are summarized in his “Appendix 1: Brief Rules for the Use of
Syriac in NT Textual Criticism,” “Appendix 2: Suggested Emendations to
the Apparatus of NA27,” which synthesizes his research on the Gospels,
and “Appendix 3: Agreements Between Syriac Witnesses and Codex Bezae for
Which a Non-Genetic Explanation is Possible” summarizes this aspect of
his analyses and is most insightful and is germane when examining
whether similarities between Syriac witnesses to Acts and Codex Bezae
are genetic or translation. See pp. 293-309. Williams (2012)
expands on his above-referenced book by extending the analysis more broadly, to
Syro-Western agreements, including not only Codex Bezae, but the Old Latin and
Coptic.
The important point in this is that without evidence from actual Biblical
manuscripts, like the Curetonian and Sinai Palimpsest Gospel manuscripts,
readings from patristic citations may not provide a sufficient foundation for an
actual underlying text. The reason for that is that scholars sitting at their
desks today have little to no visibility into the actual Syriac Bible sitting
before a patristic writer and the process of a patristic citation. For instance,
there could be popular paraphrases or uses of words or phrases that enter into
the citation process. For example, the similarities of expression
between Ephrem, Narsai and Jacob of Serug regarding the Magi and the
Nativity. See: Thekeparampil, Jacob, and Daniel McConaughy
(forthcoming), “The Universal and Cosmic Dimension of the Vocation of
the Magi in Jacob of Serug’s Mimro: On the Star that Appeared to the
Magi.”
The focus of this research is upon the transmission of the Syriac text of Acts
and does not intend to provide support for Greek variant readings. However, for
the inner-Syriac variant readings, an important implication of Williams’
research is that Western text similarities to Syriac readings for which there is
little Syriac support, may not provide as strong a support for the Syriac
variant as may be supposed at first blush. Williams (2012, p. 258) expresses the
concept as it relates to Greek variant readings: “It appears that often
citation of versions in the textual apparatus without due consideration
of their translation technique gives the misleading impression that the
support for a particular variant is much stronger than it really is.
When the versions are cited in support of variants attested by few or no
Greek manuscripts it gives the impression that the extant Greek
manuscripts only attest a small proportion of variants that have
existed.”
Transmission of the Syriac Text
The Syriac text of the Gospels can be viewed as one that
developed over time, where the standard Peshitta text is the conclusion of what
may be considered a revision of the Old Syriac text. Later Syriac versions, the
Philoxenian and Harklean, are more literal translations from Greek and arose
with the increasing influence of the western, Greek-speaking church on the
Syriac-speaking churches. Vööbus (1951, 1987) and Black (1950, 1972) provide
evidence of the development of the Peshitta from the Old Syriac Gospel
text.
Vööbus, History of the Gospel Text in Syriac I,
II; Matthew Black, “The New Testament Peshitta and Its
Predecessors”, Bulletin of Studiorum Novi Testamenti
Societas 1 (1950), pp. 51-62, Black, “The Syriac Versional
Tradition” in K. Aland, Die alten Ubersetzungen des
Neuen Testaments, pp. 120-159.
Some Syriac Gospel manuscript’s texts seem to lay between the Old Syriac and the
Peshitta. The most well-known exponents of this type of Gospel text are Bibl.
Nationale Syr. 30 and Codex Phillips 1388. Codex Phillips 1388 contains only the
Gospels. Andreas Juckel, working on critical editions of the
Gospels, was concerned with the need to collate later manuscripts as that would
greatly increase the labor of collation, also criticized Vööbus for not
explaining how a later manuscript or source could preserve supposed Old Syriac
readings without intermediary Biblical manuscript evidence. Thus, Juckel (2009,
2003) clarified the situation by collating and analyzing these manuscripts in
great detail. His exemplary work significantly extends the earlier work of
Vööbus, Black and others.
Based on his research, Juckel (2009) cautions that later manuscripts that appear
to be related to the Old Syriac may not be genetically related. He shows that
many of the variants in the Gospel text of BNS 30, a late twelfth century
manuscript, are not genetically related to the Old Syriac texts of Syc and Sys:
From Ms BN syr. 30 we learn that besides adaptation to the
Greek/Harklean and assimilation to similar or identical passages, harmonization
within single Peshitta manuscripts can be responsible for creating a secondary
Old Syriac heritage. In Ms BN syr. 30, the majority of singular agreement with S
and/or C came into existence this way and is independent from genetic relation
to the Old Syriac and the Diatessaron…. The codex provides the information that
in later manu-scripts the original Old Syriac harmonistic heritage of the
Peshitta, which is genetically related to the Old Syriac, is faded out during
transmission and sup-plemented by secondary non-genetic harmonizations. Juckel (2009),
p. 112.
Unlike the present collations of Acts in BNS 30, Juckel was able to directly
compare his collations with the Old Syriac Gospels. This deficiency for Acts is
somewhat ameliorated by comparing the variant readings in BNS 30, with variant
readings from forty-two Peshitta manuscripts and the citations of Acts from
approximately one hundred fifty patristic sources. In addition, the Palestinian
Syriac and the Harklean text and margin will be included in the analysis of the
variants. References to the ECM
Novum Testamentum Graecum Editio Critica Maior
III, 1.1, 1.2, Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft,
Stuttgart, 2017. of Acts are also included. The analysis also
considers the influence of the Greek text of Acts as a source of variant
readings in BNS 30 by assessing variants in light of early Syriac translation
technique as suggested by Williams.
Biblical Manuscripts Examined
Below is a list and brief descriptions of the
manuscripts that were collated. For more detailed information, consult the
proper manuscript catalogue. Brackets (< >) indicates missing sections.
The following symbols indicate the portions of Acts that were collated for each
manuscript:
* Full collations
+ Chapters 1-7, 15 collated
++ Chapters 1-7 collated
+* Chapters 1-2 collated
Siglum
Name
Date
Contents
1.*
Mardin orth. 61
XII cent.
<1:1-7:54>
2.*
University of Chicago Syriac Ms. 823
VIII cent.
Acts 1:1-12 only.
3.*
University of Chicago Syriac Ms. 716
VI/VII cent.
Begins with ch. 9.
4.*
Leningrad Pigulevskaya 8
981 A.D.
5.*
Paris Syriaque 342
894 A.D.
6.+
Sinai Syriac 5
X-XII cent.
7.*
Sinai Syriac 15
ca. VIII cent.
Begins with 2:27.
8.*
BM Add. 14,473
VI cent.
9.*
Sinai Syriac 17
ca. IX cent.
10.*
BM Add. 14,470
V/VI cent.
11.*
BM Add. 14,474
IX cent.
12.+
Sinai Syriac 54
ca. VIII cent.
13.+
Princeton University Garret Syriac 1
XIII cent
14.+
Yale Syriac 6
917/18 A.D.
15.*
Mardin Orth. Metrop. 35 This valuable
manuscript, which contains the Harklean version of the Apocalypse, is thoroughly described by:
Arthur Vööbus, ed., The Apocalypse in the
Harklean Version, CSCO, Subsidia 56 (Louvain:
Secretariat du CorpusSCO, 1978), pp. 32-47.
XIII cent.
16.+
Pierpont Morgan Syriac 236
749 A.D.
17.++
Pierpont Morgan Syriac 235
1212 AD
18.++
John Rylands Syriac 2 This manuscript contains the only text
of the Catholic Epistles and the Apocalypse in the
Philoxenian version.
(Crawford Ms)
XII cent.
19.+
Yonan Codex
X/XI ? cent.
20.+
British and Foreign Bible Society B.H.
Syriac 2
1205/6 A.D.
21.+
Paris Syriaque 31
1203 A.D.
22.++
Mingana Syriac 103
790 A.D.
23.+
Union Theological Seminary Cage
CB42.7
1180 A.D.
<5:21b-7:19>
24.+
British and Foreign Bible Society Syriac
72
No date
25.*
Oxford Or. 623
1821 A.D.
26.+
British and Foreign Bible Society B.H.
1
ca. 1000 A.D.
27.++
Sachau Syriac 3
IX cent.
Begins with 4:32b.
28.++
Sachau Syriac 6
IX cent.
<1:1-10, 2:34-3:11, 4:12-4:34,
5:24-7:40b>
29.++
Sachau Syriac 18
VIII cent.
Begins with 3:7.
30.++
Sachau Syriac 201
VIII/IX cent.
Begins with 5:16b.
31.+*
Oxford Dawkins 23
XIV cent.
Begins with 1:24; fragmentary
32.++
Cambridge Oo.I. 2.
XII cent.
33.+
BM Add. 7,158
XI cent.
34.+*
Paris Syriaque 28 This manuscript is
described by Vööbus as having Old Syriac material in the
Gospels. See: Arthur Vööbus, “Completion of the Vetus Syra
Project,” Biblical Research 7 (1962): 54,
note 19.
X/XI cent.
35.*
Paris Syriaque 30 Vööbus found remnants
of the Old Syriac Gospels. See: Vööbus, Early Versions, 87 and Studies in the History of the Gospel Test in
Syriac II, pp. 42ff. However, Juckel (2009) observed
that many of the variants can be explained as later harmonistic
changes and from the influence of the Harklean version and the
Greek.
before 1198 A.D.
<20 :30-32b, 20 :36b-21 :2a, 21 :5b-8b,
21 :12a-14b> The lacunae are from folio 153 which is
missing its bottom half.
36.+
Paris Syriaque 361
X cent.
<2:46,47>
37.+
Paris Syriaque 343
IX cent.
38.+
Paris Syriaque 360
X cent.
39.*
BM Add. 17,120
VI cent.
40.*
BM Add. 17,121
VI/VII cent.
41.*
BM Add. 18,812
VI/VII cent.
42.*
BM Add. 14,472
VI/VII cent.
43.*
Vat. Sir. 266
IX/X cent.
Collations
BNS 30 and forty-two other Peshitta manuscripts of Acts
were collated against the British and Foreign Bible Society’s text (GW).
Eighteen manuscripts are fully collated, fifteen are collated for chapters 1-7
and 15, eight are collated for chapters 1-7, and two for chapters 1-2. A review
of the list above shows that most of the oldest manuscripts were collated fully.
Approximately one hundred fifty patristic works were screened for Acts citations
and collated. (Only those which provide a variant reading consistent with BNS 30
are cited in this study.) The fragmentary Christian Palestinian Aramaic text is
collated, though some references rely on the critical apparatus of the ECM of Acts. The ECM of Acts was
consulted and relevant information has been included in the collation notes. BNS
30 lacks Acts 20:30-32b, 20:37-21:1, 21:5-8, and 21:12-14 due to the missing
lower half of folio 153.
General Character of the Text of Acts Compared to the Gospels in BNS
30 We
express our thanks to the anonymous reviewer who pointed out that
some of the variants we had included in an earlier version of this
research were orthographic. Removing these made our results for Acts
to be more similar to Juckel’s analysis of the
Gospels.
Juckel (2009) provides summary statistics on pages
107 and 108 that can be compared to the collations results for Acts.
Variants per page of the BFBS text
Gospels 736 variants
Juckel (2009), p. 108.
154 pages in BFBS text = 4.78 variants/page
Acts 230 variants 49 pages in BFBS text = 4.69
variants/page
Acts 1-7 59 variants 12 pages in BFBS text = 4.91
variants/page
Variants per chapter
Gospels 736 variants
Juckel (2009), p. 108.
89 chapters = 8.27 variants/chapter
Acts 230 variants 28 chapters = 8.21
variants/chapter
Acts 1-7 59 variants 7 chapters
= 8.43 variants / chapter
The results of these simple comparisons show that the Gospels and Acts in
BNS30 have a similar level of textual variation from the Peshitta text of
GW. The results are also similar for Chapters 1-7.
Unique variants in BNS 30
Gospels 369 variants
Sum of Sections Ia + IIa + 2b (64+235+70) in
Juckel (2009),p. 108.
50.1% of total variants
Acts 117 variants 50.9% of total variants
Acts 1-7 28 variants 47.5% of total variants
Juckel found that there were 369 variants unique to BNS30 based on his
results in sections Ia, IIa,and IIb on page 108 of his article. This also
shows that the profiles of the Gospels and Acts are similar with respect to
unique variants. The results are slso similar for Chapters 1-7.
Unique Variants agreeing with the Harklean
Version
Gospels 70 variants
Juckel (2009),Section IIb.
9.5% of total variants
Acts 25 variants 10.9% of total variants
Acts 1-7 5 variants 8.5% of total variants
Again the results are similar. However, the frequency for Acts 1-7 is
lower.
BNS 30 Variants from GW Agreeing with other
Peshitta MSS
Gospels 350 variants
Sum of Sections Ib + IIc (113+237)
47.5% of total variants
Acts 98 variants
With at least one other MS witness.
42.6% of total variants
Acts 1-7 25 variants
With at least one other MS witness.
42.4% of total variants
For Acts, the 110 variants of BNS against the GW text in Acts is the number
of variants with at least one Peshitta manuscript agreeing with BNS 30
against the GW text. The results are similar. Needless to say, if one were
to change the cutoff for Acts to more manuscript agreements than one, the
number would drop and this statistic would differ more from Juckel’s
results. For instance, if the cutoff were four or more manuscript
agreements, then there would be 60 variants or 26.1%. Likewise, were one to
collate more manuscripts, the number of variants from GW agreeing with other
Peshitta manuscripts would most likely rise. This is suggested by the
collations of Acts 1-7, which are based on more collations than for all of
Acts.
The analysis above suggests that the unobservable processes that created the
text of Acts appear to be consistent with those that formed Gospel text in
BNS30.
Other Collation Statistics for Acts
Omissions
There were 33 omissions (14.3% of the variants),
of which 25 or 76% are unique to BNS30. For Chapters 1-7 there were 7
omissions (11.9% of the 59 variants), of which 5 or 71.4% are unique to
BNS. The results are relatively proportional between all of Acts and
Chapters 1-7.
Seyame
There are 20 variants (8.7% of the variants)
which involve the omission or addition of seyame.
Of these, 10 or 50% are unique to BNS 30.
Patristic Support of BNS 30 variants
There are 24 variants (10.4% of the variants)
that had some patristic support. Of these, 9 or 37.5% are unique to BNS
30. Since these are compared to BNS30 as a whole, subdividing the sample
for the first seven chapters is not necessary to understand BNS 30’s
patristic support.
Another impression regarding the text of Acts in GW, based on all the
collations, is that its text of Acts is an excellent representation of
the manuscript tradition in general and provides a reliable basis for
collations to identify readings outside the mainstream of the Peshitta
tradition. Though it may not be the ideal reconstruction of the Peshitta
text, it provides a text that in all likelihood economizes the number of
variant readings that need to be recorded.
Analysis of Selected Variant Readings
This section provides a sampling of some of the more
interesting variants as well as examples of textual phenomena observed in
BNS 30. The first numbers on the left in the tables give the reference in
Acts, next is the BNS variant, following this is the GW Peshitta text, next
is “MSS” which provides the manuscript witnesses to the variant in BNS 30.
Following this is “Patristics” which indicates any patristic agreements with
the variant reading as well as other textual information. The analyses
include evidence from the ECM and other observations.
Ch
Vs
BNS 30
Peshitta
MSS
Witnesses
Patristic
Witness
1
8
ܚܝܠܐ ܡܢ ܪܘܡܐ
ܚܝܠܐ
35
cf. Pal (ܡܪ̈ܘܡܐ)
This variant is unique among the Peshitta MSS, but has support from the
Christian Palestinian Aramaic and some Greek MSS and Old Latin. The ECM notes: 915C.1359.1505.1842.
2718.Did.Eusv.IrLatv.LeontH.K:M.
1
10
ܒܠܒ̈ܫܐ
ܚܘܪ̈ܐ
ܒܠܒܫܐ
ܚܘܪܐ
6,11,12,15,21,24,25,31,35,43
Lit.120,
DionEpp.35; ThBKII.170;
This plural reading has support from other Peshitta MSS, some patristics and
Greek and Greek and Latin patristic sources. The ECM
notes: P56C*. 01-04*… Chrys.Cosmin.Epiph. Eus.OrLatT.L:V. etc.
2
43
ܒܟܠ
ܠܟܠ
4-14,16-26,31,
33-38,40,41,43
Lect;
DionEPP.49
This reading is found in some lectionaries as well as other Peshitta MSS, of
which 8, Add. 14,473 and 10, Add. 14,470, date from the sixth and the
fifth/sixth centuries, respectively. Manuscripts 40 and 41, ADD 17,121 and
Add. 18,812, respectively, date from the sixth/seventh centuries.
10
41
ܥܠܡܐ
ܥܡܐ
35
16
37
ܥܡܐ
ܥܠܡܐ
35
These two variants show that BNS30 may confuse “people” with “world”, though
the first variant has support from P127, a 5th
century papyrus text, which has κοσμω. The ECM notes:
P127 - P45.P50.P53.014S.1831.2138.
14
14
ܢܦܩܘ
ܘܢܦܟܘ
15,35,42
This variant is included as it follows the Greek. One witness may pre-date
the Harklean: manuscript 42 is Add. 14,472, a sixth/seventh century
manuscript.
16
3
ܒܗܘ
ܐܬܪܐ
ܒܐܬܪܐ
7,35
cf. SynodII,
174 (ܒܐܪܥܐ ܗܘ )
This minor variant has some support. MS 7 is Sinai Syr. 15, an 8th century manuscript. (The Harklean has: ܒܕܘܟܝ̈ܬܐ ܗܠܝܢ
.) The ECM notes: εν τοπω εκεινω
P127V.6.69.1175.Κ:Σ>Β>.Α.
16
27
ܢܛܪ ܬܪܥܐ
ܕܒܝܬ
ܢܛܪ ܒܝܬ
35
This variant adds “door”: “keeper of the door of the prison.” Perhaps from
the occurrence of “doors” later in the verse?
Ms. 39, ADD. 17,120, from the 6th century adds
ܕܒܝܬ
ܐܣܝܪ̈ܐ to v. 26
after ܬܪܥܐ
.
17
27
ܘܡܥܩܒܝܢ
ܠܗ
ܘܡܥܩܒܝܢ
35
H: ܢܓܘܫܘܢܝܗܝ
The addition of ܠܗ , “him”, may be influenced from the Harklean, which has the
third person masculine singular suffix to the verb, though it is a different
verb than in the Peshitta.
17
27
ܟܠܚܕ
ܡܢܢ
ܟܠ ܡܢܢ
1,35
PhilJo.37;
SahPerf3.2
This variant, with the addition of “one” in “each one” follows the Harklean
as well as the Greek. It also has some support from patristic sources.
18
4
ܘܡܡܠܠ ܗܘܐ
ܥܡܗܘܢ
ܘܡܡܠܠ
ܗܘܐ
35
“With them” is unique in the Syriac sources and the Greek.
19
9
ܕܥܡܐ
ܕܥܡܡ̈ܐ
35
This may simply be another ‘seyame’ variant, except here, the plural is
spelled differently from the singular; so the number of the noun depends on
more than a seyame.
19
33
ܕܐܝܬ ܗܘܐ
ܕܐܝܬ ܗܘܘ
1,5,10,11,25,35,43
19
33
ܕܫܡܗ
ܗܘܐ
ܕܫܡܗ
1,4,5,8c,9,15,35,41,42,43
This pair of variants contains ܗܘܐ though for
different reasons. The first is singular for plural, perhaps due to ܐܝܬ, but the
second is the addition of the verb to be.
18
15
ܢܡܘܣ̈ܐ
ܢܡܘܣܐ
35
19
39
ܢܡܘܣ̈ܐ
ܢܡܘܣܐ
5,7-11,35,39,42,43
24
14
ܒܢܡ̈ܘܣܐ
ܒܢܡܘܣܐ
35
BNS 30 shows a preference for the plural of “law” when the singular is
standard. The second variant has other Peshitta support, including two of
the oldest witnesses, 8, Add. 14,473 and 10, Add. 14,470, date from the
sixth and the fifth/sixth centuries, respectively. Manuscript 39, Add.
17,120 dates from the sixth century, and manuscript 42, Add. 14,472 dates
from the sixth/seventh century.
20
3
ܕܢܐܙܠ
ܠܡܐܙܠ
5,35
Here there is a switch from the infinitive in the Peshitta to the imperfect
which follows the Harklean. However, the Greek has the infinitive as does
the Harklean margin.
22
5
ܘܢܩܘܡܘܢ
ܘܢܩܒܠܘܢ
ܘܢܩܒܠܘܢ
35
This interesting variant adds “stand”: “and (that) they would stand and
receive punishment.” There is no other support for this unique variant.
23
23
ܕܠܠܝܐ
ܒܠܠܝܐ
35
This variant follows the Harklean version.
25
10
ܝܬܝܪ
ܝܕܥ
ܝܕܥ
4,5,7,8,10,11,25,35,40-42,43
This reading follows the Greek and has strong Syriac mss support including
two pre-Harlean manuscripts, 8, Add. 14,473 and 10, Add. 14,470, date from
the sixth and the fifth/sixth centuries, respectively. The Harklean reading,
ܫܦܝܪ,
resembles more the Greek καλλιον.
26
25
ܐܡܪ ܠܗ
ܐܡܪ
5,8c,9-11,35,39c,43
“Said to him” is reasonably well attested in the Syriac tradition but the ECM
does not provide support for this reading. It goes back to the fifth/sixth
centuries based on manuscript 10, Add. 14,470.
26
28
ܡܠܟܐ
ܐܓܪܦܘܣ
ܐܓܪܦܘܣ
4,5,9,25,35,43
The title of “king” has some attestation among the Syriac mss. but the ECM
does not indicate support. This variant and the one in 26:25 may be
explanatory edits.
28
25
ܕܫܦܝܪ
ܫܦܝܪ
35
cf.
ThMJo.248
These two variants provide examples where BNS 30 followed the Greek against
the Peshitta and the Harklean when they agree with one another.
Conclusion
An analysis of the text of BNS 30 shows that the text of
Acts, like that of the Gospels, contains more variants than most Peshitta
manuscripts. The frequencies of the variants in the text of Acts are remarkably
similar to the analogous frequencies that Juckel (2009) reported for the
Gospels. The results are also relatively consistent for Acts 1-7 only. The
results also highlight the fact that the statistics are somewhat dependent on
the number of manuscripts collated, though the general impression remains the
same.
BNS 30 contains many unique readings, some of which may be errors of copying, but
many are not. Ninety-eight variants (42.6%) of the total variants in Acts have
support from other manuscripts. However, only 24 (10.4%) of the BNS 30 variants
have any Syriac patristic support. As would be expected in a manuscript dated
1197/1198AD, there are agreements with the Harklean version. Though the text of
BNS 30 occasionally follows the Greek text against the Peshitta and Harklean
texts when they agree with one another. A review of the collations leaves one
with the impression that BNS 30 does not provide a window to a pre-Peshitta text
of Acts.
The statistical profile of the frequencies of the variants in Acts suggests that
the influences on the formation of the text of Acts is similar to those that
influenced the formation of the Gospel text in BNS 30. Considering the
similarities in the frequencies and characteristics of the variants in the
Gospels and Acts, and Juckel’s observation that seven variants in the Gospel
text of BNS 30 may derive from an original Old Syriac heritage, Juckel (2009),
page 112. this would suggest that 2 or 3 variants in the Acts
text of BNS 30 may derive from an Old Syriac heritage, if one were to extend the
comparison.
Bibliography
Matthew Black, “The New Testament Peshitta and Its Predecessors”, Bulletin of Studiorum Novi Testamenti Societas 1 (1950),
pp. 51-62.
Black, Matthew, “The Syriac Versional Tradition” in K. Aland, Die alten Ubersetzungen des Neuen Testaments, die Kirchenvaerzitate und
Lektionare, Berlin: De Gruyter (1972), pp. 120-159.
Brock, Sebastian, “The Use of the Syriac Fathers for NT Textual Criticism,” The Text of the New Testament in Contemporary Research
Second Edition, Leiden: Brill (2013), Chapter 15, pp. 407-428.
Juckel, Andreas, “Research on the Old Syriac Heritage of the Peshitta Gospels: A
Collation of MS Bibl. Nationale Syr. 30 (Paris),” Hugoye
12.1 (2009), pp 41-115.
Kerschensteiner, Josef, “Beobachtungen zum altsyrischen Actatext,” Biblica 45.1 (1964), pp. 63-74.
McConaughy, Daniel L. Research on the Early History of the
Syriac Text of Acts One and Two, University of Chicago dissertation
(1985).
McConaughy, Daniel L., “An Old Syriac Reading of Acts 1:4 and More Light on
Jesus’ Last Meal before his Ascension,” Oriens
Christianus 72 (1988), 63-67.
McConaughy, Daniel L., The Early History of the Syriac Text of
Acts Chapters One and Two, Moran Etho, volume 45
(2020), St. Ephrem Ecumenical Institute (SEERI), Kottayam, Kerala, India.
Novum Testamentum Graecum Editio Critica Maior III, 1.1,
1.2, Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, Stuttgart, 2017.
Simonet, J.L., “Les citations des Apotres dans le ‘Sur Etienne premier des
serviteurs et premices des temoins,’ oeuvre presentee sous le nom de Jacques de
Saroug en syriaque et sus celui d’Ephrem en armenien,” Le
Museon 111 (1998), 59-94.
Simonet, J.L., “Les citations des Actes des Apotres dans les chapitres edites du
Ketaba d-res melle de Jean Bar Penkaye,” Le Museon 114 (2001), 97-119.
Thekeparampil, Jacob, and Daniel McConaughy, “The Universal and Cosmic Dimensions
of the Vocation of the Magi in Jacob of Serug’s Mimro: On the Star that Appeared
to the Magi,” (forthcoming).
Vööbus, Studies in the History of the Gospel Text in
Syriac I, II, CSCO, Sub. 3, 79, Louvain (1951, 1987).
Vööbus, Arthur, Early Versions of the New Testament: Manuscript
Studies, PETSE Vol. 6, Stockholm: Papers of the Estonian Theological
Society in Exile (1954).
Vööbus, Arthur, “Completion of the Vetus Syra Project,” Biblical Research 7 (1962), 49-56.
Vööbus, Arthur ed., The Apocalypse in the Harklean
Version, CSCO, Sub.56 (Louvain: Secretariat du CorpusSCO, 1978), pp. 32-47.
Williams, Peter,
Early Syriac Translation Technique and the Textual Criticism of the Greek Gospels,
Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press (2004).
Williams, Peter, ‘Where Two or Three Are Gathered Together’: The Witness of the
Early Versions,” in The Early Text of the New Testament,
ed. by Charles E. Hill and Michael J. Kruger, Oxford: Oxford University Press
(2012).
Appendix 1: Patristic Sources Cited
This list is a subset of all the Syriac Patristic works
screened as it relates only to the citations relevant to the analysis of BNS
30.
Ant René
Draguet, ed. , La Vie Primitive de S. Antonie,
CSCO, SS 183 (Louvain: Secrétariat du CorpusSCO, 1980).
Asc René
Draguet, ed. , Les Cinq Recensions de L'Ascéticon
Syriaque d'Abba Isaïe, 2 vols. , CSCO, SS 120, 121 (Louvain:
Secretariat du CorpusSCO, 1968).
BabUn Arthur
Vaschalde, ed., Babai Magni Liber de Unione,
CSCO, SS 34 (Paris: J. Gabalda, 1915).
BarhCV Antoine
Torbey, ed., Le Candelabre du Sanctuaire de Gregoire Abou’lfaradj dit
Barhebraeus, cinquieme base: Des Anges, PO 30, fasc. 4 (Paris:
Firmin-Didot, 1963).
BarhCand10.20
Elise Zigmund-Cerbu, ed., Le candélabre du Sanctuaire de Grégoire
Abou'lfaradj dit Barhebraeus. Dixième base, De La Resurrection PO 35,
fasc. 2, no 184 (Louvain: 1969).
CE William F.
Macomber, ed. , Six Explanations of the Liturgical
Feasts by Cyrus of Edessa, 2 vols., CSCO, SS 155, 156 (Louvain:
Secretariat du CorpusSCO, 1974).
CyrLk J.B.
Chabot, ed., S. Cyrilli Alexandrini Commentarii in
Lukam, CSCO, SS 27 (Louvain: 1912).
DionEpp I.
Sedlaček, ed., Dionysius bar Salibi in Apocalypsim,
Actus, et Epistualas Catholicas, CSCO, SS, Series Secunda,
Tomus 101 (Paris: J. Gabalda, 1909).
DionEvI, I.
Sedlaček, and J. B. Chabot, eds., Dionysii bar Salibi
Commentarii in Evangelia, 2 vols. , CSCO, Series Secunda, Tomus
98, fasc. 1, 2 (Lipsiae: Otto Harrassowitz, 1906-15).
GeoOffII Ibid.,
Vol. 2.
IshJo Ibid.,
Vol. 3.
JacHex J. B.
Chabot, ed., Jacobi Edesseni Hexaemeron, CSCO,
SSi 44 (Paris: J. Gabalda, 1928).
JacSP Mingana
Syr. 600, “Memra on the Division of Tongues and Pentecost" by Jacob of
Serug, folios 204b-211a.
JoDP Arthur
Vööbus, “Die Entdeckung von Uberresten der altsyrischen,”
Oriens Christianus 64
(1980):32-35.
JoEpHEIII E. W.
Brooks, ed., Iohannis Ephesini Historiae
ecclesiasticae, pars tertia, CSCO, SS, Series 3, Tomus 3
(Paris: J. Gabalda, 1935)
LG Michael
Kmosko, ed., Liber Graduum, Patrologia Syriaca 3
(Paris: Firmin-Didot, 1926).
Lit Richard Hugh
Connolly, and H. W. Codrington, eds.,
Two Commentaries on the Jacobite Liturgy (London:
Williams and Norgate, 1913).
MBKAng Mardin
Orth. Metrop. Syr. 381, “Treatise on the Creation of Angels" by Moshe
bar Kepha, quire 13, folio 10b.
MBKP Harvard
Harris 29 "Explanation of the Lesson of Acts concerning the Dominical
Feast of Pentecost," by Moshe bar Kepha folios 173b-178a.
PhilDisc E. A.
Wallis Budge, ed., The Discourses of Philoxenus,
Bishop of Mabbogh, A.D. 485-519, 2 vols. (London: Asher and
Co., 1894), Vol. 1.
PhilDiss3 M.
Briere and F. Graffin, eds., Sancti Philoxeni Episcopi Mabbugensis
Dissertationes Decem de Uno e Sancta Trinitate Incorporato et Passo
III:Dissertationes 6a, 7a, 8a, PO 39.4 (Louvain, 1979)
Phi1Jo Andre de
Halleux, ed., Philoxene de Mabbog: Commentaire du
Prologue Johannique, CSCO, SS 165 (Louvain: Secretariat du
Corpus SCO, 1977).
SahPerfl, Ibid
., Vol. 1.
SahPerf III
Ibid., Vol. 3
SevHom10 Maurice
Brière, ed., Les Homélies Cathedrales de Sévère
d’Antioche, PO 26, fasc. 3 (Paris: Firmin-Didot, 1948).Contains
homilies 1113-119.
SevHom11,
Maurice Brière, ed., Les Homélies Cathedrales de
Sévère d’Antioche, PO 29, fasc. 1 (Paris: Firmin-Didot,
1960).Contains homilies 120-125.
SevHoml6,
Maurice Brière, and François Graffin, eds., Les
Homélies Cathedrales de Sévère d’Antioche, PO 37, fasc. 1
(Turnhout: Brepols, 1975). Contains homilies 18-25.
SevHoml7 Maurice
Brière, and François Graffin,
eds. Les Homélies Cathedrales de Sévère d’Antioche, PO
38, fasc. 2 (Turnhout: Brepols, 1976).Contains homilies
1-17.
SevHyml, E. W.
Brooks, ed., James of Edessa: The Hymns of Severus of
Antioch and Others, 2 vols, PO 6, fasc. 1; 7, fasc. 5 (Paris:
Firmin-Didot, 1910-11) Vol. 1.
SevHym2 Ibid.,
Vol. 2.
Synodl Arthur
Vööbus, ed., The Synodicon in the West Syrian
Tradition, 2 vols. CSCO, SS 161-64 (Louvain: Secrétariat du
Corpus SCO, 1975-76), Vol. 1.
ThBkll Ibid.,
Vol. 2.
ThMJo Jaques
Marie Vosté, ed., Theodori Mopsuesteni commentarius in
evangelium Iohannis Apostoli, CSCO, SS 62 (Louvain: Secretariat
du Corpus SCO, 1940).
Appendix 2: Collation of BNS 30
#
C
Vs
BNS 30
Peshitta
MSS Witnesses
Patristic Witness
1
1
8
ܚܝܠܐ ܡܢ ܪܘܡܐ
ܚܝܠܐ
35
cf. Pal (
ܡܪ̈ܘܡܐ
)
2
1
10
ܕܩܝܡܝܢ
ܩܝܡܝܢ
35
GeoOffII.29
3
1
10
ܒܠܒ̈ܫܐ ܚܘܪ̈ܐ
ܒܠܒܫܐ ܚܘܪܐ
6,11,12,15,21,24,25,31,35,43
Lit.120, DionEpp.35; ThBKII.170; MBKAng;
CE.138,155; JacSP.6; BarhCandV.14; JacHex.38
4
1
26
ܦܣܐ
ܦܨ̈ܐ
31,35 [ܦܣ̈ܐ 8]
5
2
2
ܘܗܘܐ
ܗܘܐ
10, 15, 32, 35, 41, 42
6
2
2
ܐܝܟ ܕܪܘܚܐ
ܐܝܟ ܪܘܚܐ
4-6,8-26, 28, 33-38, 41,
42
DionEvI.; JoDP; CE.180; MBKP.174a;
BarhCandIV.48; DionEpp. 39; IshJo.128; ThMJo.69
7
2
5
ܐܝܬ ܗܘܐ
ܐܝܬ ܗܘܘ
4-6, 9,
11-14,16-26,28,31,33-38,40,41
DionEpp.41; MBKP.176a
8
2
5
ܥܡܡ̈ܝܢ
ܥܡܡ̈ܐ
35,43
9
2
6
ܥܡܐ ܗܘ
ܥܡܐ
35
10
2
6
ܘܐܫܬܓܫܘ
ܘܐܫܬܓܫ
4,17,19,20b,22,23,25,32,35,3839,43
11
2
12
ܘܡܬܕܡܪܝܢ
ܡܬܕܡܪܝܢ
18,35,43
12
2
14
ܘܒܬܪܟܢ
ܒܬܪܟܢ
4-6,9,11-14,16,
17,19,26,28,35-38,43
13
2
15
ܐܢܝܢ
ܐܢܝ̈ܢ
6,8,12,16,35
14
2
22
ܕܝܫܘܥ
ܝܫܘܥ
35
Pal
15
2
26
ܘܦܓܪܝ
ܘܐܦ ܦܓܪܝ
35
16
2
27
omit
ܡܛܠ
4-6,8-10,12-14,
16-26,28,33-37,39,41
Pal
17
2
29
ܐܦ
ܘܐܦ
7,15,32,35,41
Pal
18
2
34
ܐܡܪ
ܕܐܡܪ
35
19
2
34
ܕܬܒ
ܬܒ
25,35,41
Lect
20
2
37
ܐܚܝ̈
ܐܚܝ̈ܢ
35
21
2
43
ܒܟܠ
ܠܟܠ
4-14,16-26,31,
33-38,40,41,43
Lect; DionEPP.49
22
2
45
omit
ܡܕܡ
35
23
3
6
ܕܡܪܢ ܝܫܘܥ
ܕܝܫܘܥ
4-6,9,11-13,16-26,35
c
JoEph.591
24
3
10
ܘܐܫܬܘܕܥܘܗܝ
ܘܐܫܬܘܕܥܘ
35
25
3
10
ܘܕܘܡܪ̈ܐ
ܘܕܘܡܪܐ
35
26
3
12
ܕܒܚܝܠܢ
ܕܒܚܝܠܐ ܕܝܠܢ
35
27
3
14
ܒܙܕܝܩܐ ܘܩܕܝܫܐ
ܒܩܕܝܫܐ ܘܙܕܝܩܐ
7,28,35,39,40
BabUn.221
28
3
21
ܕܟܠܗܘܢ
ܕܟܠܗܝܢ
35
29
3
22
ܕܡܡܠܠ
ܕܢܡܠܠ
35, [ 13 has ܕܡܠܠ]
30
3
24
ܕܡܢ
ܡܢ
4-7,9,11-14,16-20,25,26,28,
35,43c
31
4
1
omit
ܗܘܘ
35
32
4
13
ܣܦܪ̈ܐ
ܣܦܪܐ
ܟܬܝ̈ܒܬܐ
H has plural
33
4
27
ܘܟܢܫ̈ܐ
ܘܟܢܫܐ
6 (crossed out),25,35
34
4
30
ܕܢܗܘܘܢ
ܕܢܗܘ̈ܝܢ
35 (earlier preferred m. to
fem)
35
4
35
ܘܣܝܡܝܢ ܗܘܘ
ܘܣܝܡܝܢ
4-7,11-17,20-27,29,35,39c
Asc.280; SevHom10.398; Ant.8
36
5
8
ܐܡܪܝ
ܐܡܪ (2)
4,16-21,24,25, 27,29,35
37
5
9
ܪܓܠܝܗܘܢ
ܪܓܠܝ̈ܗܘܢ
35
38
5
19
ܡܠܐܟܗ
ܡܠܐܟܐ
35
39
5
24
ܬܗܝܪܝܢ
ܬܘܝܪܝܢ
35
40
5
36
ܘܐܡܪ ܗܘܐ
ܘܐܡܪ
35
41
5
37
omit
ܗܘܘ (first)
35
42
5
37
ܘܐܝܠܝܢ
ܘܟܠܗܘܢ ܐܝܠܝܢ
35,42
43
5
38
ܗܫܐ
ܘܗܫܐ
35
44
5
41
ܕܡܛܠ
ܡܛܠ
35
CyrLk.173; SahPerfI.71
45
7
10
ܟܠܗ ܒܝܬܗ
ܒܝܬܗ ܟܠܗ
4,5,7,13,14,16-22,24-27,29,
30,35,40
46
7
11
ܠܐܒ̈ܗܬܢ ܠܡܣܒܥ
ܠܡܣܒܥ ܠܐܒ̈ܗܬܢ
7,15,35
47
7
13
ܬܪ̈ܬܝܢ
ܕܬܪ̈ܬܝܢ
35
48
7
16
omit
ܒܢܝ̈
35
49
7
17
ܐܠܗܐ ܒܡܘܡ̈ܬܐ
ܒܡܘܡ̈ܬܐ ܐܠܗܐ
15,35
50
7
19
ܘܐܨܛܢܥ ܗܘܐ
ܘܐܨܛܢܥ
35
51
7
20
ܒܗ ܒܗܘ ܙܒܢܐ
ܒܗ ܒܙܒܢܐ ܗܘ
35
52
7
22
ܐܦ
ܘܐܦ
35, 43
53
7
25
ܥܒܕ
ܝܗܒ
35,41
54
7
26
omit
ܗܢܘܢ
35
55
7
28
ܠܡܨܪܐ ܗܘ
ܠܡܨܪܐ
15,35,39,41c,42
56
7
36
ܗܢܘ ܡܘܫܐ
ܗܢܘ
35
57
7
46
ܩܕܡ ܐܠܗܐ
ܩܕܡܘܗܝ ܕܐܠܗܐ
35
58
7
56
omit
ܗܐ
35c
ThBKII.176
59
7
60
ܚܛܝܬܐ ܗܕܐ
ܗܕܐ ܚܛܝܬܐ
35
LG.428 (however LG.517=P); Asc.279;
SevHom17,78; SevHom.168
60
8
3
ܠܥܕܬܐ
ܠܥܕܬܗ
35
61
8
7
ܕܐܬܐܣܝܘ
ܐܬܐܣܝܘ
35
62
8
14
ܡܠܬܗ
ܡܠܬܐ
35,39,40-42, 43
63
8
19
ܘܐܦ
ܐܦ
1,4,5,8,9,25,35
64
8
20
ܕܡܘܗܒܬܐ
ܕܡܘܗܒܬܗ
35
65
8
23
ܐܢܐ ܠܟ
ܐܢܐ
35
66
8
25
ܘܐܠܦܘ ܐܢܘܢ
ܘܐܠܦܘ
35, 43
DionEpp.63
67
8
28
ܘܝܬܒ
ܝܬܒ
35
68
8
33
ܘܡܢ
ܡܢ
35
69
8
36
ܕܐܝܬ ܗܘܐ
ܕܐܝܬ
35
70
8
36
ܡܗܝܡܢܐ ܗܘ
ܗܘ ܡܗܝܡܢܐ
1,4,5,7,9,11,25,35,
39,40,42,43
71
8
39
ܣܠܩ
ܣܠܩܘ
35,40
72
9
4
ܕܐܡܪ ܗܘܐ
ܕܐܡܪ
1,3,5,7,9-11,25,35,41
73
9
15
ܐܡܪ
ܘܐܡܪ
3-5,8,9,11,35, 39
74
9
17
omit
ܒܐܘܪܚܐ
35
vid
75
9
21
ܘܗܐ ܐܦ
ܐܦ
1,3,4,5,9,11,25,35,39c,43
(ܘܐܦ )
76
9
39
ܘܐܙܠ
ܐܙܠ
1,3,9,10c,11,35,41
77
9
43
omit
ܗܘܐ(2)
35*
78
10
2
ܙܕܝܩ
ܘܙܕܝܩ
35
79
10
3
ܠܡܠܐܟܐ
ܡܠܐܟܐ
35
80
10
3
ܕܐܝܡܡܐ
ܒܐܝܡܡܐ
35
81
10
11
ܘܫܐܒ
ܘܫܐܒ ܗܘܐ
35
82
10
23
ܘܩܡܘ
ܘܩܡ
35
83
10
24
ܥܠܘ
ܥܠ
1,3-5,7,9,11,25, 35,42
84
10
24
ܗܘܐ
ܗܘܘ
35,40
85
10
37
ܕܡܠܬܐ
ܒܡܠܬܐ
35
86
10
41
ܥܠܡܐ
ܥܡܐ
35
87
10
41
ܡܝܬܐ
ܡܝ̈ܬܐ
35
88
11
6
ܐܦ
ܘܐܦ
35
89
11
7
ܘܫܡܥ ܗܘܝܬ
ܘܫܡܥܬ ܗܘܝܬ
35
90
11
8
ܐܘ ܕܡܣܝܒ
ܘܕܡܣܝܒ
35
91
11
12
ܘܐܦ
ܐܦ
25,35,42
92
11
22
omit
ܗܘܬ
35*
93
11
25
ܠܡܒܥܝܗ
ܠܡܒܥܐ
7,8,15,35,40, 42
SevHom 16.34
94
11
28
omit
ܗܘܐ (1)
35
SevHom 16.34
95
12
6
ܬܪܥܐ
ܬܪ̈ܥܐ
35
96
12
10
ܥܒܪ
ܥܒܪܘ
35
DionEpp.82; cf. JacHex39
97
12
18
omit
ܗܘܐ (3)
35
98
13
7
ܗܘ
ܗܘܐ (4)
35,42
99
13
7
omit
ܗܘܐ (5)
35
100
13
27
ܫܒ̈ܐ
ܫܒܐ
35
101
13
27
ܟܠܗܝܢ
ܗܠܝܢ
1,4,5,7,8,10,11, 25,35,43
102
13
33
ܘܐܢܐ
ܐܢܐ
35
BabUn.141
103
13
38
ܐܚ̈ܝܢ
ܐܚ̈ܝ
1,4,5,11,35
104
13
48
ܘܡܫܒܚܝܢ ܗܘܘ
ܘܡܫܒܚܝܢ
35
105
13
50
omit
ܐܝܠܝܢ
35*
106
14
3
ܒܓܠܐ ܡܠܬܐ
ܒܓܠܐ
35
107
14
8
ܘܣܓܝܦ
ܕܣܓܝܦ
35
108
14
14
ܢܦܩܘ
ܘܢܦܟܘ
15,35,42
109
14
18
ܠܡܚܣܢ
ܡܢ ܡܚܣܢ
35
110
14
20
ܘܐܬܘ ܠܗܘܢ
ܘܐܬܘ
7,10(cf. variant for v. 21),
15, 35,40, 41,43
111
15
5
ܐܢܫܐ ܡܢ
ܐܢܫܐ
10,35,41,43
112
15
5
omit
ܗܘ
8,35
113
15
7
ܦܘܡ
ܦܘܡܝ
35
114
15
25
ܗܕܐ
ܗܢܐ
35
115
15
30
ܐܬܘ ܠܗܘܢ
ܐܬܘ
1,3,4,611,14,16,
19-21,32,24,26, 31,33,35
116
15
30
ܘܟܢܫ
ܘܟܢܫܘ
35
117
15
35
ܡܠܬܐ
ܡܠܬܗ
7,15,35,41
118
15
40
ܠܛܝܒܘܬܗ
ܠܛܝܒܘܬܐ
3-5,7,8,11,15,
16,20,21,26,31,33,35-38,42
119
16
3
ܒܗܘ ܐܬܪܐ
ܒܐܬܪܐ
7,35
cf. SynodII, 174 (
ܒܐܪܥܐ ܗܘ
)
120
16
14
ܕܐܡܪ ܗܘܐ
ܕܐܡܪ
1,3,-5,11,15,25, 35,39
121
16
16
ܕܩܨܡܐ
ܕܩ̈ܨܡܐ
1,3,4,7,8,10,11,
15,25,35,39-42, 43
DioEvI.180
122
16
16
ܒܩ̈ܨܡܐ
ܒܩܨܡܐ
1,3,4,7,8,10,11,
15,25,35,39-42, 43
123
16
24
ܦܘܩܕܢܐ ܗܢܐ
ܗܢܐ ܦܘܩܕܢܐ
35
124
16
27
ܢܛܪ ܬܪܥܐ ܕܒܝܬ
ܢܛܪ ܒܝܬ
35
125
16
37
ܥܡܐ
ܥܠܡܐ
35
126
16
37
ܡܦܩܘܢ ܠܢ
ܢܦܩܘܢܢ
35
127
17
2
ܡܠܠ ܗܘܐ
ܡܠܠ
10,35,42
128
17
3
omit
ܗܘܐ (1)
35
129
17
11
omit
ܗܢܘܢ (1)
35
130
17
14
ܘܩܘܝܘ ܗܘܘ
ܘܩܘܝ ܗܘܐ
1,4,5,7,9,25,35,43
131
17
23
omit
ܗܘܐ
15,35
ThBKII.183; PhilDiss3.108;
DionEpp.97
132
17
23
omit
ܕܚܠܝܢ ܐܢܬܘܢ
35*
133
17
24
ܒܗܟܠܐ
ܒܗܝ̈ܟܠܐ
35
134
17
27
ܘܡܥܩܒܝܢ ܠܗ
ܘܡܥܩܒܝܢ
35
135
17
27
ܟܠܚܕ ܡܢܢ
ܟܠ ܡܢܢ
1,35
PhilJo.37; SahPerf3.2
136
17
28
ܐܡܪ
ܐܡܪܘ
35,43
137
18
2
omit
ܗܘܐ (1)
35
138
18
4
ܘܡܡܠܠ ܗܘܐ ܥܡܗܘܢ
ܘܡܡܠܠ ܗܘܐ
35
139
18
5
omit
ܗܘܘ (1)
35
140
18
15
ܢܡܘܣ̈ܐ
ܢܡܘܣܐ
35
141
18
18
ܐܩܠܘܣ ܘܦܪܝܣܩܠܐ
ܦܪܝܣܩܠܐ ܘܐܩܠܘܣ
7,35
142
18
23
ܕܦܪܘܓܝܐ ܘܕܓܠܛܝܐ
ܕܓܠܛܝܐ ܘܕܦܪܘܓܝܐ
3-5,9,11,25,35
143
18
25
ܘܡܠܦ ܗܘܐ
ܘܡܠܦ
35
144
19
8
ܡܠܟܘܬܐ
ܡܠܟܘܬܗ
10,35
145
19
9
ܕܥܡܐ
ܕܥܡܡ̈ܐ
35
146
19
12
ܘܣܝܡܝܢ ܗܘܘ
ܘܣܝܡܝܢ
35
cf. DionEpp.102
147
19
19
ܘܐܦ
ܐܦ
1,3-5,8c,25,35
148
19
20
ܗܝܡܢܘܬܐ ܕ...
ܗܝܡܢܘܬܗ ܕ...
1,4,5,8c,9,35, 41
149
19
32
ܕܝܢ
ܓܝܪ
1,4,5,7,8c,9,25,35,40
150
19
33
ܕܐܝܬ ܗܘܐ
ܕܐܝܬ ܗܘܘ
1,5,10,11,25,35,43
151
19
33
ܕܫܡܗ ܗܘܐ
ܕܫܡܗ
1,4,5,8c,9,15,35,41,42,43
152
19
37
omit
ܠܐ
35 (corrected -blurry)
153
19
39
ܢܡܘܣ̈ܐ
ܢܡܘܣܐ
5,7-11,35,39, 42,43
154
20
2
omit
ܠܗ
35*
155
20
3
ܕܢܐܙܠ
ܠܡܐܙܠ
5,35
156
20
7
ܡܠܠ
ܡܡܠܠ
35,39
157
20
9
ܒܡܠܬܐ ܗܘ
ܒܡܠܬܐ
3,5,7c,9,11,35,39c,43
158
20
11
ܘܟܕ
ܟܕ
35
159
20
29
ܐܢܐ ܓܝܪ
ܐܢܐ (1)
1,3,4,8c,9,11, 25,35,43
160
20
34
ܫܡ̈ܫܝ
ܫܡܫ
1,35
SevVie.230, SahPerf3.85
161
20
35
ܠܐܝܠܝܢ
ܕܐܝܠܝܢ
35
162
21
4
ܬܠܡܝܕܐ
ܬܠܡܝ̈ܕܐ
35
163
21
16
ܘܐܝܬ
ܘܐܬܘ
35
164
21
17
ܩܒܠܘܢܝ
ܩܒܠܘܢ
35
165
21
18
omit
ܗܘܐ
35
166
21
30
ܐܬܟܢܫ
ܐܬܟܢܫܘ
1,35
167
21
32
ܠܟܝܠܝܪ̈ܟܐ
ܠܟܝܠܝܪܟܐ
35
168
21
34
ܕܢܕܥ
ܠܡܕܥ
35
169
21
38
ܓܒܪ̈ܝܢ
ܓܒܪ̈ܐ
1,3,5,9,11,35
170
22
5
ܘܢܩܘܡܘܢ ܘܢܩܒܠܘܢ
ܘܢܩܒܠܘܢ
35
171
22
11
ܒܐܝ̈ܕܝ
ܒܐܝܕܝ
1,3,7,9,10,35, 40-42,43
172
22
19
ܘܐܦ
ܐܦ
1,10,15,35,40
173
22
27
ܘܐܡܪ
ܐܡܪ (2)
1,5,7-9,25,41
174
22
28
ܘܐܡܪ ܠܗ
ܐܡܪ (1)
1,3,4,9,11,25, 35,43
175
22
30
ܘܢܚܬ
ܘܐܚܬ
10,35,42
176
23
2
ܕܢܡܚܘܢܝܗܝ
ܕܢܡܚܘܢܗ
8,35
177
23
9
ܐܢܫ̈ܐ
ܐܢܫܐ
1,7,35
178
23
10
omit
ܗܘܐ (2)
35
179
23
20
omit
ܠܗ
35
180
23
21
omit
ܠܐ
35*
181
23
23
ܕܠܠܝܐ
ܒܠܠܝܐ
35
182
23
27
ܕܢܩܛܠܘܢܝܗܝ
ܕܢܩܛܠܘܢܗ
1,3-5,9,35
183
23
29
ܙܛܡܐ
ܙܛܡ̈ܐ
35
184
24
10
ܡܛܠ
ܘܡܛܠ
35
185
24
14
ܒܢܡ̈ܘܣܐ
ܒܢܡܘܣܐ
35
186
24
18
ܘܐܦܠܐ
ܐܦܠܐ
11,35,42,43
187
24
25
ܡܠܠ
ܡܡܠܠ
15,35
188
25
10
omit
ܗܘ
15,35*
189
25
10
ܝܬܝܪ ܝܕܥ
ܝܕܥ
4,5,7,8,10,11, 25,35,40-42,
43
190
25
10
ܠܡܬܬܕܢܘ
ܠܡܬܕܢܘ
1,4,5,9,35
191
25
11
ܨܐܕܝ ܡܕܡ
ܡܕܡ ܨܐܕܝ
1,4,5,8c,9,11, 25,35,41,43
192
25
14
omit
ܐܣܝܪܐ
35
193
25
19
ܥܠ
ܘܥܠ
35
194
25
20
ܡܛܠ
ܘܡܛܠ
35
195
25
22
ܐܡܪ
ܘܐܡܪ
35
196
25
23
ܘܥܠܘ
ܘܥܠ
7,8,10,15,35,39,40,42
197
25
24
omit
ܓܒܪ̈ܐ
35
198
25
24
ܠܗ ܠܗܢܐ
ܠܗܢܐ
5,7,8,10,11,15,25,35,39,40,41
199
26
6
omit
ܗܘܐ
35
200
26
10
ܠܩܕܝ̈ܫܐ
ܘܩܕܝ̈ܫܐ
35
201
26
11
ܟܢܘ̈ܫܢ
ܟܢܘܫܐ
5,7,35,40
202
26
15
ܐܢܬ ܠܝ
ܐܢܬ (last)
8,35
203
26
16
ܗܕܐ ܗܘ
ܗܕܐ
1,4,5,9,11c,25,35,43
204
26
19
ܒܚܪ̈ܝܢܐ
ܒܚܪܝܢܐ
35
205
26
23
ܘܕܢܗܘܐ
ܘܢܗܘܐ
9,11,25,35, 43
206
26
23
ܕܥܬܝܕ
ܘܕܥܬܝܕ
35
207
26
24
ܦܘܠܘܣ ܢܦܩ ܗܘܐ
ܢܦܩ ܗܘܐ ܦܘܠܘܣ
35
208
26
25
ܐܡܪ ܠܗ
ܐܡܪ
5,8c,9-11,35,39c,43
209
26
26
omit
ܩܕܡܘܗܝ
35
210
26
28
ܡܠܟܐ ܐܓܪܦܘܣ
ܐܓܪܦܘܣ
4,5,9,25,35,43
211
27
7
ܝܘܡ̈ܬܐ
ܠܝܘܡ̈ܬܐ
35
212
27
7
ܗܘܬ ܠܢ
ܗܘܬ (2)
35
213
27
17
ܡܛܠ
ܘܡܛܠ
4,35
214
27
17
ܕܕܚܝܠܝܢ
ܕܕܚܠܝܢ
3-5,8,35,41
215
27
17
ܕܠܡܐ
ܕܕܠܡܐ
8,35,39,40
216
27
22
ܐܢܐ ܠܟܘܢ
ܐܢܐ
3,5,7,8c,9,11,25,35,40,41,43
217
27
22
ܚܕܐ ܡܢܟܘܢ
ܡܢܟܘܢ ܚܕܐ
3,4,8c,9,10,25,35,41,43
218
27
24
ܕܪ̈ܕܐ
ܕܪܕܝܢ
35
219
27
29
ܕܘܟܝ̈ܬܐ
ܒܕܘܟܝ̈ܬܐ
35
220
27
33
ܕܡܢ
ܡܢ
35
221
27
37
ܡ̈ܐܬܝܢ
ܡܐܬܝܢ
7,35
222
27
39
ܚܪ
ܚܪܘ
35
223
28
9
ܟܕ
ܘܟܕ
15,35
224
28
9
ܘܐܦ
ܐܦ
3,8,9,15,35,39
225
28
10
ܙܘܕܘܢܝ
ܙܘܕܘܢ
35
226
28
23
ܘܕܢܒܝ̈ܐ
ܘܡܢ ܢܒܝ̈ܐ
35
227
28
25
ܕܫܦܝܪ
ܫܦܝܪ
35
cf. ThMJo.248
228
28
25
omit
ܢܒܝܐ
35
229
28
26
ܕܙܠܘ
ܕܙܠ
15,35
230
28
26
ܘܐܡܪܘ
ܘܐܡܪ
35