Stages of the Harklean Tradition and the Process of Its “Byzantinization” in the Example of the Gospel of Luke in the MS Chaldean 25 of Alqosh
Andreas Juckel has shown that MS Vat. Sir. 268 is the best witness to the Harklean text of the Gospels, since its text is less “byzantinized” than the other manuscripts. However, the complexity of the particular features of the Harklean version (variant readings in the margin and “critical signs” in the text) and their transmission history elude easy and conclusive solutions. This paper illustrates that the process of “Byzantinization” of the Harklean text was not a unilateral development, but rather a complex and multidimensional transformation that still needs more research, as even late Harklean manuscripts may preserve ancient and original readings. MS Chaldean 25 of Alqosh, which lays at the dawn of the new revision of the Harklean version by Dionysios bar Salibi in the twelfth century, is helpful in tracing the process of these textual transformations.
The Syriac translation of the New Testament by Thomas of Harkel, created at the monastery of Enaton near Alexandria at the beginning of the seventh century, still conceals many mysteries for NT scholarship. The Harklean version was most likely intended from the beginning to be a type of “scholarly edition (...), furnished with a critical apparatus,”2 which consists of variant readings in the margin and signs in the text. Between 1778–1803 Joseph White published what for centuries remained its only edition [=White], but was based exclusively on late manuscripts.3 The necessity of a critical edition has been widely acknowledged by scholars. The question, however, of the best witness to the Harklean text has remained open, because more than one hundred Harklean manuscripts survive but even the oldest among them have their flaws.4 Moreover, a revisional development, likely deliberate, led to a progressive accommodation of this Syriac translation towards the Byzantine text-type. The Greek text of the Gospels was itself in a state of development and gradually influenced scribes who copied Harklean manuscripts. As a result, both of the typical Harklean features, namely critical signs in the text (asteriskoi and obeloi) and variant readings in the margin, often differ among the manuscripts. The consistency of the transmission of these features over time (or its absence) may argue for the quality of the manuscripts and reveal stages of the Harklean tradition.
Andreas Juckel, among the leading Harklean scholars, has long argued for the precedence of Vatican, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Vat. Sir. 268 (eighth/ninth century) [=V268] for determining the Harklean original and producing its critical edition. He established MS V268 as the less “byzantinized” text with respect to other early witnesses. However, a new chapter for the Harklean research began in 2015 with the publication of the critical edition by Samer Soreshow Yohanna.5 His edition of the Gospel of Mark presented the full text of Alqosh, Chaldean Antonian Order of St. Hormizd, Chaldean 25 [=C25]6 with its critical signs, marginal readings and critical apparatuses that offer textual variants from thirteen other manuscripts. The C25 manuscript had not been studied before nor used in the previous editions of the Harklean version.7 The choice of this manuscript has been critiqued by Juckel, who argued that MS C25 “reflects a pre-history of the revisional stage” and, thus, presents a text which belongs to an intermediate stage between the “original” Harklean (seventh century) and a late correction of it, preserved in MSS NC334 and London, British Library, Add. 17124 (1233/34 CE.) [=BL17124] and called by him the “Dionysios bar Salibi stage” (twelfth century).8 This last “Dionysios-stage” still needs, however, more research, first of all in a more precise description of the textual resemblance of these two manuscripts. For this very reason, MS C25 is worth much more scholarly attention. This manuscript preserves a wealth of Harklean features and stands in-between the two extremes of the Harklean tradition (the “original” stage and “Dionysios-stage”), thus providing unique insights about transformations in development between them and revealing a more balanced view on the process of the “Byzantinization” of the Harklean tradition.
MS C25 will be compared in this paper with MS V268. The best test-field in this regard is the Gospel of Luke, which has served as the basis for previous studies by Juckel.9 The comparison of these two manuscripts is undertaken in three steps: analysis of the process of Graecization of the proper names (see 2), analysis of the Harklean margin (see 3), and analysis of the critical signs in the Harklean lemma (see 4). Then, these results are further compared with the manuscripts believed to be witnesses of the “Dionysios-stage” in order to determine how far or far close is MS C25 related to that stage. All of this will finally allow to evaluate MS C25’s relevance for the study of the Harklean Gospels.
1. Methodological Considerations
Juckel’s studies included a broader comparison of MS V268 with other Harklean manuscripts. In this paper, as well, some of them are occasionally checked in order to ascertain or confirm particular readings (their dating is given here according to Juckel): Dublin, Chester Beatty Library Syc 703 (previously Syr. 3, 1177 CE, copied from a model from 841 CE) [=D], Damascus, Syriac Orthodox Patriarchate, 12–8 (1055 CE) [=E], “unknown manuscript” (ninth/tenth cent.)10 [=G], Birmingham, Cadbury Research Library, Mingana Syr. 124 (ninth/tenth cent.) [=M], Vatican, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Vat. Sir. 267 (eighth cent.) [=V267], Florence, Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana, Plut. 1.40 (756 CE) [=F]. Late manuscripts, believed to be connected with the so-called “Dionysios-stage,” are also cited (three of these were already mentioned above): NC333, NC334, BL17124 and Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale de France, Syriaque 362 (twelfth/ thirteenth cent.) [=BF362].
First, it should be noted that Juckel has omitted from his study several marginal readings and asteriskoi for reasons that are not always clear.11 Such an approach, however, risks losing the complete picture of the Harklean features and some particularities of the manuscripts in question. For this reason, in this paper all the marginal readings and critical signs in MS V286 and MS C25 are analyzed. Also, for the marginal readings, these results are compared separately with those reached by Juckel (see 3.2).
For the Greek text (and other versions) of the Gospel of Luke the classic editions have been consulted: Tischendorf’s edition,12 Swanson’s New Testament Greek Manuscripts,13 Nestle–Aland 28th edition [=NA28], along with more comprehensive modern editions: the IGNTP edition14 and the CNTTS apparatus.15 The Greek text is presented without diacritics. All analyzed material has been also compared with the Old Syriac and Peshitta versions.16 For these Syriac versions the CESG has been used. Unfortunately, due to the large quantity of the analyzed material, it is impossible to cite all these texts in their entirety. But the reader can consult the editions mentioned above.
Juckel has applied terms “Byzantine” and “non-Byzantine” as rather broad labels. First, it is crucial to recall the basic difference between a “Byzantine” [=Byz.] and a “Majority” text/reading [=𝔐].17 In this paper, on one hand the broad “Byzantine” and “non-Byzantine” opposition is followed, especially in the presentation of Juckel’s results, but on the other hand, whenever needed, a more detailed list of witnesses is provided. This is significant, above all, in regard to several rare readings which, although they are Byzantine (or even Majority), may also be attested by ancient witnesses.18 For very rare readings full evidence is given. In other cases, in order not to clutter the footnotes, only a limited list is provided (often more Byzantine witnesses are omitted). The evidence presented should be sufficient to allow the readers to make their own judgment. Obviously, this paper focuses on a wide panorama of the manuscripts, but for a more specific text-critical evaluation of each variant, a detailed study should be made.
2. Graecization of Proper Names
One of the major fields where the ongoing process of the Byzantinization may be noticed is the way of spelling in Syriac of proper names which gradually tend to be less Semitic and more Greek. In this field the transformation may be easily studied. Juckel already proved this revisional development among the Harklean manuscripts. Now, the data from MS C25 may be added to those results. The “Dionysios-stage” (represented here by MS BL 17124) was an intermediate one, with many Semitic spellings still evident. A full accommodation to the Greek spelling was reached later in the MS NC333. The most extensive among Juckel’s examples comes from the first part of Jesus’s genealogy according to Luke (3:23–30).19 His table is reproduced here with the last column added according to MS C25. The forms with which MS C25 agrees are underlined.
| NA28 |
MS V268 (Thomas) |
MS BL 1217820 (Massora) |
MS NC333 (White) |
MS BL Add. 17124 (Dionysios) |
MS C25 | |
| 1. | υιος (...) Ιωσηφ | ܕܝܘܣܦ | ܕܐܝܘܣܝܦ | ܕܐܝܘܣܝܦ | ܕܐܝܘܣܝܦ | ܕܝܘܣܦ |
| 2. | του Ηλι | ܗܿܘ ܕܥܠܝ | ܗܿܘ ܕܥܝܠܝ | ܗܿܘ ܕܐܝܠܝ | ܗܿܘ ܕܥܠܝ | ܗܿܘ ܕܥܝܠܝ |
| 3. | του Μαθθατ | ܗܿܘ ܕܡܛܬܬ | ܗܿܘ ܕܡܐܛܬܐܛ | ܗܿܘ ܕܡܐܛܬܐܢ | ܗܿܘ ܕܡܛܬܐܛ | ܗܿܘ ܕܡܛܬܬ |
| 4. | του Λευι | ܗܿܘ ܕܠܘܝ | ܗܿܘ ܕܠܐܘܝ | ܗܿܘ ܕܠܘܝ | ܗܿܘ ܕܠܘܝ | ܗܿܘ ܕܠܘܝ |
| 5. | του Μελχι | ܗܿܘ ܕܡܠܟܝ | ܗܿܘ ܕܡܐܠܟܝ | ܗܿܘ ܕܡܗܠܟܝ | ܗܿܘ ܕܡܠܟܝ | ܗܿܘ ܕܡܠܟܝ |
| 6. | του Ιανναι | ܗܿܘ ܕܝܐܢܐ | ܗܿܘ ܕܐܝܐܢܢܐ | ܗܿܘ ܕܐܝܐܢܢܐ | ܗܿܘ ܕܐܝܐܢܢܐ | ܗܿܘ ܝܐܢܢܐ |
| 7. | του Ιωσηφ | ܗܿܘ ܕܝܘܣܦ | ܗܿܘ ܕܐܝܘܣܝܦ | ܗܿܘ ܕܐܝܘܣܝܦ | ܗܿܘ ܕܐܝܘܣܦ | ܗܿܘ ܕܝܘܣܦ |
| 8. | του Ματταθιου | ܗܿܘ ܕܡܛܬܐ | ܗܿܘ ܕܡܐܛܛܐܬܝܘ | ܗܿܘ ܕܡܛܬܝܘ | ܗܿܘ ܕܡܐܛܐܬܝܘ | ܗܿܘ ܕܡܛܬܐ |
| 9. | του Αμως | ܗܿܘ ܕܥܡܘܣ | ܗܿܘ ܕܥܐܡܘܣ | ܗܿܘ ܕܐܡܘܣ | ܗܿܘ ܕܥܡܘܣ | ܗܿܘ ܕܥܡܘܣ |
| 10. | του Ναουμ | ܗܿܘ ܕܢܚܘܡ | ܗܿܘ ܕܢܐܚܘܡ | ܗܿܘ ܕܢܐܘܡ | ܗܿܘ ܕܢܚܘܡ | ܗܿܘ ܕܢܚܘܡ |
| 11. | του Εσλι | ܗܿܘ ܕܚܣܠܝ | ܗܿܘ ܕܚܐܣܠܝ | ܗܿܘ ܕܐܣܠܝ | ܗܿܘ ܕܚܣܠܝ | ܗܿܘ ܕܚܣܠܝ |
| 12. | του Ναγγαι | ܗܿܘ ܕܢܓܝ | ܗܿܘ ܕܢܐܓܓܐ | ܗܿܘ ܕܢܐܢܓܗ | ܗܿܘ ܕܢܐܓܓܐ | ܗܿܘ ܕܢܓܝ |
| 13. | του Μααθ | ܗܿܘ ܕܡܐܬ | ܗܿܘ ܕܡܐܐܬ | ܗܿܘ ܕܡܐܐܬܝ | ܗܿܘ ܕܡܐܬ | ܗܿܘ ܕܡܐܬ |
| 14. | του Ματταθιου | ܗܿܘ ܕܡܛܬ | ܗܿܘ ܕܡܐܛܛܐܬܝܘ | ܗܿܘ ܕܡܛܓܐܬܝܘ | ܗܿܘ ܕܡܐܛܛܐܬܝܘ | ܗܿܘ ܕܡܛܬ |
| 15. | του Σεμειν | ܗܿܘ ܕܫܡܥܝ | ܗܿܘ ܕܫܐܡܐܥܝ | ܗܿܘ ܕܣܗܡܗܝܝ | ܗܿܘ ܕܫܡܥܝ | ܗܿܘ ܕܫܡܥܝ |
| 16. | του Ιωσηχ | ܗܿܘ ܕܝܘܣܦ | ܗܿܘ ܕܐܝܘܣܝܦ | ܗܿܘ ܕܐܝܘܣܝܦ | ܗܿܘ ܐܝܘܣܝܦ | ܗܿܘ ܕܝܘܣܦ |
| 17. | του Ιωδα | ܗܿܘ ܕܝܗܘܕܐ | ܗܿܘ ܕܝܗܘܕܐ | ܗܿܘ ܕܐܝܘܕܐ | ܗܿܘ ܕܐܝܗܘܕܐ | ܗܿܘ ܕܝܗܘܕܐ |
| 18. | του Ιωαναν | ܗܿܘ ܕܝܘܚܢܢ | ܗܿܘ ܕܐܝܘܐܢܢܐܢ | ܗܘܿ ܕܐܝܘܐܢܢܐܢ | ܗܘܿ ܕܐܝܘܐܢܢܐܢ | ܗܿܘ ܕܝܘܚܢܢ |
| 19. | του Ρησα | ܗܿܘ ܕܪܣܐ | ܗܿܘ ܕܪܝܣܐ | ܗܿܘ ܕܪܝܣܐ | ܗܿܘ ܕܪܝܣܐ | ܗܿܘ ܕܪܣܐ |
| 20. | του Ζοροβαβελ | ܗܿܘ ܕܙܘܪܒܒܠ | ܗܿܘ ܕܙܘܪܘܒܐܒܠ | ܗܿܘ ܕܙܘܪܘܒܐܒܠ | ܗܿܘ ܕܙܘܪܒܒܝܠ | ܗܿܘ ܕܙܘܪܒܒܠ |
| 21. | του Σαλαθιηλ | ܗܿܘ ܫܠܐܬܝܠ | ܗܿܘ ܕܫܐܠܐܬܝܠ | ܗܿܘ ܕܣܐܠܐܬܝܝܠ | ܗܿܘ ܕܫܠܐܬܐܝܠ | ܗܿܘ ܫܠܬܐܝܠ |
| 22. | του Νηρι | ܗܿܘ ܕܢܝܪܝ | ܗܿܘ ܕܢܐܝܪܝ | ܗܿܘ ܕܢܝܪܝ | ܗܿܘ ܕܢܝܪܝ | ܗܿܘ ܕܢܪܝ |
| 23. | του Μελχι | ܗܿܘ ܕܡܠܟܝ | ܗܿܘ ܕܡܐܠܟܝ | ܗܿܘ ܕܡܠܟܝ | ܗܿܘ ܕܡܠܟܝ | ܗܿܘ ܕܡܠܟܝ |
| 24. | του Αδδι | ܗܿܘ ܕܐܕܝ | ܗܿܘ ܕܐܕܕܝ | ܗܿܘ ܕܐܕܕܝ | ܗܿܘ ܕܐܕܝ | ܗܿܘ ܕܐܕܝ |
| 25. | του Κωσαμ | ܗܿܘ ܕܩܘܣܡ | ܗܿܘ ܕܩܘܣܐܡ | ܗܿܘ ܕܟܘܣܐܡ | ܗܿܘ ܕܩܘܣܡ | ܗܿܘ ܕܩܘܣܡ |
| 26. | του Ελμαδαμ | ܗܿܘ ܕܐܠܡܘܕܕ | ܗܿܘ ܕܐܠܡܘܕܐܡ | ܗܿܘ ܕܐܠܡܘܕܐܡ | ܗܿܘ ܕܐܠܡܘܕܐܡ | ܗܿܘ ܕܐܠܡܘܕܕ |
| 27. | του Ηρ | ܗܿܘ ܕܥܝܪ | ܗܿܘ ܕܥܝܪ | ܗܿܘ ܕܐܝܪ | ܗܿܘ ܕܥܝܪ | ܗܿܘ ܕܥܝܪ |
| 28. | του Ιησου | ܗܿܘ ܕܝܘܣܐ | ܗܿܘ ܕܐܝܘܣܝ | ܗܿܘ ܕܐܝܘܣܝ | ܗܿܘ ܕܐܝܘܣܐ | ܗܿܘ ܕܝܘܣܐ |
| 29. | του Ελιεζερ | ܗܿܘ ܕܐܠܝܥܙܪ | ܗܿܘ ܕܐܠܝܥܐܙܐܪ | ܗܿܘ ܕܐܠܝܗܙܗܪ | ܗܿܘ ܕܐܠܝܥܐܙܐܪ | ܗܿܘ ܕܐܠܝܥܙܪ |
| 30. | του Ιωριμ | ܗܿܘ ܕܝܘܪܝܡ | ܗܿܘ ܕܐܝܘܪܝܡ | ܗܿܘ ܕܐܝܘܪܝܐ | ܗܿܘ ܕܐܝܘܪܝܡ | ܗܿܘ ܕܝܘܪܝܡ |
| 31. | του Μαθθατ | ܗܿܘ ܕܡܬܝܬܐ | ܗܿܘ ܕܡܐܛܛܬ | ܗܿܘ ܕܡܐܛܬܐܢ | ܗܿܘ ܕܡܛܛܐܬ | ܗܿܘ ܕܡܬܝܬܐ |
| 32. | του Λευι | 21ܗܿܘ ܕܠܘܝ | ܗܿܘ ܕܠܐܘܝ | ܗܿܘ ܕܠܘܝ | ܗܿܘ ܕܠܘܝ | ܗܿܘ ܕܠܘܝ |
| 33. | του Συμεων | ܗܿܘ ܕܫܡܥܘܢ | ܗܿܘ ܕܫܘܡܐܥܘܢ | ܗܿܘ ܕܣܝܡܗܐܘܢ | ܗܿܘ ܕܫܘܡܥܘܢ | ܗܿܘ ܕܫܡܥܘܢ |
MS C25 stands in an intermediate stage of the tradition. In most cases MS C25 is still close to the most ancient spelling, having in 29 cases the same form as MS V268.22 It disagrees only four times: three are unique name forms (6, 21, 22), and one agrees with the “Massora” manuscript (2). Seven times MS C25 reports the “Dionysios-stage” form in the margin (1, 8, 12, 14, 19, 26, 29) and three times other forms as well. This means that MS C25, when compared to the earliest Harklean manuscripts,23 shows the Graecization of the proper names already in the course of development, but still at an early stage. This development is also irregular, and remains such even in the “Dionysios-stage.”
3. The Harklean Margin
The next step of the analysis of the relationship between MSS V268 and C25 will be the comparison of their marginal variant notes. Variant notes in the margin stand among typical Harklean features, but the inconsistencies in their transmission may show particular choices being made between particular manuscripts in question. The first part of this section presents a general comparison of the Harklean margin in both manuscripts (3.1). The second part compares MS C25 with Juckel’s results (3.2). This study does not include Greek and Syriac spelling notes appearing in the margin, because they do not present real variants to the lemma.
This broad overview at the entire Gospel of Luke and its margin in MS V268 and MS C25 is presented with a focus on possible revisional activity in the MS C25.24 The marginal notes in the manuscripts are not always perfectly identical (for example, missing prepositions or minor orthographic issues), but the crucial part of the reading makes their correspondence clear. These minor variations are not recorded here. On rare occasion marginal notes may not be variants (namely substitutions or pluses), but the copyist’s corrections.25 These rare corrections will not be included in the analysis below. Furthermore, minor errors in the placement of the notes in the MS V268 can be corrected with the MS C25’s readings.26 In the footnotes and tables the following abbreviations will be employed: L for “lemma” and M for “margin” in general and in connections with manuscripts’ abbreviations, for example: V268–M for the margin of MS V268 or C25–L for the lemma of MS C25. The following lists in the footnotes will provide evidence in terms of the Syriac marginal readings unique to MS V268 (3.1.1), then to MS C25 (3.1.2) and, last, cases of exchange between the reading in the lemma and in the margin taking place between these two manuscripts (3.1.3). Where it is helpful the Greek behind the Syriac is presented as well, along with a list of the apposite witnesses to a particular reading.27
There are numerous marginal readings which appear only in MS V268. This means that in MS C25 these readings were either inserted into the lemma or suppressed. But it is hard to notice among the entirety of these cases any consistent revisional development towards the Byzantine text-type. Nine times these marginal readings that appear in MS V268 and were inserted into the lemma of MS C25 are traceable to (mostly rare) Greek variants, earlier Syriac renderings or variants of another origin.28 Once MS C25 corrects an earlier Syriac rendering, inserting the marginal reading into the lemma.29 Variants unknown from other witnesses are twice used30 and twice omitted.31 Five times MS C25 omits marginal notes of MS V268 that apply other Greek variants or earlier Syriac renderings.32
A comparison of these cases of omission of marginal notes with other manuscripts connected with the “Dionysios-stage” allows for an even broader look. MSS BF362 and NC334 also do not preserve all of these marginal readings, omitting them or inserting them into the lemma. MS BL17124 is very similar (one marginal reading preserved). MS NC333 is different. It preserves ten of these marginal readings, being closer in this regard to MS V268. In two cases NC333 exhibits mixed solutions. In the following table all of the unique marginalia of MS V268 are now listed together and compared with other manuscripts.
| V268–M | MS BF362 | MS NC333 | MS NC334 | MS BL17124 | |
| 1:38 | ܐܢܐ | =C25 | =C25 | (lacuna) | =C25 |
| 3:23 | ܠܡܗܘܐ | =C25 | =V268 | (lacuna) | =C25 |
| 4:29 | ܕܢܫܩܦܘܢܝܗܝ ܡܢ ܫܩܝܦܐ | =C25 | =C25 | (lacuna) | =C25 |
| 8:10 | ܢܫܡܘܢ ܘܠܐ | =C25 | =V268 | (lacuna) | =C25 |
| 11:53 | ܘܟܕ ܢܦܩ ܡܢ ܬܡܢ ܘܐܡܪ ܗܘܐ ܗܠܝܢ ܠܘܬܗܘܢ ܩܕܡ ܟܠܗ ܥܡܐ ܒܗܬܝܢ ܗܘܘ. ܘܫܪܝܘ ܢܘܡܝ̈ܩܐ | =C25 | =V268 (var. ܐܡܪ instead of ܘܐܡܪ and ܘܦܪ̈ܝܫܐ added at the end) | =C25 | =C25 |
| 12:21 | ܢܗܘܐ | =C25 | =V268 | =C25 | =C25 |
| 12:42 | ܗܘ | =C25 | =V268 | =C25 | =C25 |
| 12:49 | ܥܠ | =C25 | =V268 | (lacuna) | =V268 |
| 13:15 | ܢܣܒ | =C25 | =C25 | (lacuna) | =C25 |
| 13:27 | ܦܠܚܐ | =C25 | =C25 | (lacuna) | no M, entire phrase omitted in the lemma |
| 14:12 | ܘܠܐܚܝ̈ܟ ܘܠܐܚܝܢܝ̈ܟ | =C25 | =C25 | (lacuna) | =C25 |
| 14:22 | ܗܝ | =C25 | =V268 | =C25 | =C25 |
| 16:3 | ܘ | =C25 | =C25 | =C25 | =C25 |
| 18:28 | ܠܗܠܝܢ ܕܝܠܢ | =C25 |
L: ܟܠܡܕܡ (=Pesh.) M =V268–M |
=C25 | =C25 |
| 21:9 | ܥܬܝܕܢ | =C25 | =V268 | =C25 | =C25 |
| 22:9 | ܠܟ ܠܡܐܟܠ ܦܨܚܐ | =C25 (var. ܦܣܟܐ ) | L= V268 (with a sign), no M | =C25 (var. ܦܣܟܐ ) | =C25 (var. ܦܣܟܐ ) |
| 22:18 | ܡܢ ܗܫܐ | =C25 | =V268 | =C25 | =C25 |
| 22:57 | ܟܕ | =C25 | =C25 | =C25 | =C25 |
| 24:24 | ܠܘܬ | =C25 | =C25 | =C25 | =C25 |
MS C25 offers numerous unique readings in the margin, but many of them are only spelling variants (mostly names), which witness to a later development of the Harklean margin (see 2. Graecization of Proper Names). Still, there are more “new” marginal notes and they do not seem to be the result of a unilateral revision. Many of them do not appear in other manuscripts.33 They were either newly created by the later revisers, or they preserve some layer of a precedent Harklean tradition which is not extant in MS V268.
Only once here does MS C25 exhibit an accommodation to the Byzantine text.34 The opposite is true five times, where the “new” marginalia read against the Majority readings or the more rare Byzantine readings in the lemma.35 Four times Byzantine readings are moved from the lemma of MS V268 to the margin in MS C25 and replaced with non-Byzantine readings.36 Numerous “new” marginal readings seem to witness to diverse (known or unknown) textual traditions. Eleven marginal readings present other (rare but ancient) variants that are known from the Greek manuscripts, the Vetus Latina, and previous Syriac renderings (Old Syriac and Peshitta).37 Twice these marginal readings are not attested in any other source.38 Five times MS C25 moves to the margin the standard Greek readings and puts into the lemma those that are rare or unique.39 Three times the contrary is true: MS C25 moves to the margin rare or unique readings and leaves the expected text in the lemma.40
A closer look at the later manuscripts helps in determining some patterns. MS BF362 is a very faithful copy of MS C25. Only in four of thirty-one cases does MS BF362 exchange the margin with the lemma. MSS NC334 and BL17124 appear not only to be almost identical but they are also close relatives to MS C25. Numerous “new” marginalia in MS C25 are repeated also in MSS NC334 and BL17124. MS NC333 is different in this regard. It omits most of these “new” marginalia. Sometimes it inserts them into the lemma or exhibits mixed solutions. All four manuscripts (MSS BF362, NC333, NC334 and BL17124) show signs of a further redactional activity in comparison with MS C25. For example, in cases like 1:74 (NC333, BL17124), 4:32 (NC333), 6:35 (NC333), 12:2 (NC333), 12:16 (BF362, NC334, BL17124), 12:56 (BF362, NC333, BL17124), 13:32 (NC333, BL17124), 14:22 (NC333), 17:4 (NC333, BL17124), 18:25 (NC333), 20:19 (NC333), 21:23 (NC333), 22:63 (NC334, BL17124), “new” readings most probably appeared first in the margin of MS C25 (or another connected tradition) and later were inserted into the lemma of other manuscripts, while corresponding readings were either moved from the lemma into the margin or suppressed. This is seen most often in MS NC333. Four times (10:41; 12:2; 18:25; 21:23) the “new” readings, that appeared in the margin of MS C25 (probably earlier) and in the margin of MSS BF362, NC334 and BL17124 (probably later), and were created by moving to the margin the readings of MS V268, are now “corrected” in MS NC333: the lemma is reverted to MS V268 and the “new” lemma is moved to the margin. This proves that MS NC333 is most likely a witness to a sort of “correction” of the “Dionysios-stage” stage in the direction of the most ancient Harklean tradition (=MS V268). All of this data shows also that MS C25 certainly represents a connected but earlier stage of the tradition than the others. In the following table all the evidence for these “new” marginalia in MS C25 is now listed together and compared with other manuscripts.
| MS C25–M | MS BF362 | MS NC333 | MS NC334 | MS BL17124 | |
| 1:74 | ܕܕܠܐ ܕܚܠܬܐ | =C25 | in L, no M | (lacuna) | in L, no M |
| 2:43 | ܐܒܘܗܝ | =C25 | L =C25, no M | (lacuna) | =C25 |
| 4:9 | ܕܝܢ | =C25 | =C25 | (lacuna) | in L |
| 4:23 | ܠܗܘܢ | =C25 | L =C25, no M | (lacuna) | =C25 |
| 4:23 | ܟܒܪ | =C25 | L =C25, no M | (lacuna) | =C25 |
| 4:32 | ܟܠܗܘܢ ܥܠ | =C25 | L =C25, no M | (lacuna) | in L (=V268) |
| 5:25 | ܘܡܚܕܐ | =C25 | L =C25, no M | (lacuna) | L =C25, no M |
| 6:35 | ܘܛܒܐܝܬ | in L (=V268–L), L and M exchanged | L =C25, no M | (lacuna) | in L (=V268–L), L and M exchanged |
| 7:28 | ܐܢܫ | =C25 | =C25 | (lacuna) | =C25 (var. ܕܐܢܫ ) |
| 10:20 | ܕܕܝ̈ܘܐ | =C25 | L =C25, no M | (lacuna) | L =C25, no M |
| 10:37 | ܕܝܢ | =C25 | =C25 | =C25 | =C25 |
| 10:41 | ܝܫܘܥ | =C25 | in L (=V268–L), L and M exchanged | =C25 | =C25 |
| 11:4 | ܕܚܝܒ | in L, L and M exchanged | no M |
in L, L and M exchanged |
in L, L and M exchanged |
| 11:45 | ܐܡܼܪ | =C25 | no M | =C25 | =C25 |
| 11:52 | ܟܠܝܢ ܐܢܬܘܢ | =C25 | no M | in L | =C25 |
| 12:2 | ܕܝܢ | =C25 |
L =V268, M: ܓܝܪ L and M exchanged |
=C25 | =C25 |
| 12:16 | ܐܡܼܪ | in L (=V268 L), L and M exchanged |
in L (=V268 L), no M |
in L (=V268 L), L and M exchanged | in L (=V268 L), L and M exchanged |
| 12:56 | ܠܐ ܒܩܝܢ ܐܢܬܘܢ | in L (=V268 L), L and M exchanged | in L (=V268 L), L and M exchanged | (lacuna) | in L (=V268 L), L and M exchanged |
| 12:58 | ܓܝܪ | =C25 |
in L (=V268 L), no M |
(lacuna) | =C25 |
| 13:5 | ܒܗ ܒܕܡܘܬܗ | =C25 | =C25 | (lacuna) | =C25 |
| 13:32 | ܘܐܡܪ ܠ[ܗܘܢ] | =C25 | in L, no M | (lacuna) | L =C25, no M |
| 14:22 | ܗܘܐ | =C25 | in L, no M | =C25 | =C25 |
| 16:17 | ܢܥܒܪ | =C25 |
no M (but ܢܦܠ in the L with multiple dots below it) |
no M (but ܢܦܠ has a sign over it) |
=C25 |
| 17:4 | ܘܟܕ ܗܦܟ | =C25 | L =C25, no M | =C25 | L =C25, no M |
| 18:25 | ܢܥܒܪ | =C25 | in L (=V268 L), L and M exchanged | =C25 | =C25 |
| 19:8 | ܝܫܘܥ2 | =C25 | L =C25, no M | L =C25, no M | L =C25, no M |
| 20:19 | ܟܢܫܐ | =C25 | in L, no M | =C25 | =C25 |
| 21:23 | ܓܝܪ | =C25 | in L (=V268 L), L and M exchanged | =C25 | =C25 |
| 22:63 | ܠܗ | =C25 | =C25 |
in L, but mixed (ܠܗ ܠܝܫܘܥ ) |
in L, but mixed (ܠܗ ܠܝܫܘܥ ) |
| 22:71 | ܕܝܢ | =C25 | no M | =C25 | =C25 |
| 24:11 | ܗܠܝܢ | =C25 | no M | =C25 | =C25 |
The reader can often observe how the lemma and the margin are exchanged between these two manuscripts in question. These cases show the particular choices being taken during the transmission of the Harklean tradition. However, it is difficult to describe any consistency in these choices. Fifteen times MS C25 prefers readings which agree with the well-attested, older tradition against the Majority readings (extant in the MS V268).41 Yet the numerous cases when MS C25 chooses against the well-attested textual variants (from the point of view of the traditional opposition: Byzantine or not) cannot be all mixed together. Four of them may be regarded as Byzantine variants but so rare that they were discarded by the Majority text.42 Two of them may be ancient.43 Eight of them are unique variants, which read against all the rest (or most) of the tradition.44 Six times MS C25 puts into the lemma readings unknown to other witnesses.45 Three times MS C25 chooses to follow the standard text by moving secondary variants into the margin.46 Earlier Syriac renderings are left in the margin three times 47 and twice they are inserted into the lemma.48 All of this data shows that the numerous differences between the margins of MS V268 and MS C25 cannot simply be described as a purely linear “Byzantinization.”
Once more a broader look on the other manuscripts helps in evaluating how the Harklean tradition developed. The choices of MS C25 are almost always copied in MS BF362 and very often also in MSS NC334 and BL17124. These last two are sometimes uniform in very unique variants (see for example 16:9), but it does not mean that they are totally identical. One can see a further revisional activity in MS BL17124, as some marginal readings are totally suppressed, while the lemma remains as in MS C25 (4:22; 6:17; 10:39; 11:50; 13:3; 16:29; 17:26; 19:9; 19:30; 24:7). Only in two of these cases is MS NC334 identical BL17124 (19:9; 24:7). Here, also MS NC333 is often close to MS V268. Thirty-two out of forty-two times MS NC333 is identical in both lemma and margin to MS V268. In the following table all the mentioned cases of exchange between lemma and margin in MSS V268 and C25 are listed together and compared with other manuscripts.
| C25–L = V268–M |
MS C25–M = V268–L |
MS BF362 |
MS NC333 |
MS NC334 | MS BL17124 | |
| 1:78 | ܢܣܥܘܪ | ܣܥܪ | =C25 | L =V268, no M | (lacuna) | =C25 |
| 2:9 | ܕܐܠܗܐ | ܕܡܪܝܐ | =C25 | =V268 | (lacuna) | =V268 |
| 4:22 | ܒܡ̈ܠܐ | ܥܠ | =C25 | =V268 | (lacuna) | L =C25, no M |
| 4:33 | ܕܕܝܘܐ | ܕܝܘܐ | =C25 | L =C25, no M | (lacuna) | =C25 |
| 6:7 |
ܥܠܘܗܝ ܩܛܝܓܪܢܘܬܐ V268–M: ܥܠܘܗܝ |
ܢܩܛܪܓܘܢܝܗܝ | =C25 | =V268 | (lacuna) | =C25 (M: ܕܢܩܛܪܓܘܢܝܗܝ ) |
| 6:10 | ܠܗܘ ܒܪܢܫܐ | ܠܗ | =C25 | =V268 | (lacuna) | =C25 |
| 6:10 | ܦܫܛ | ܥܒܕ | =C25 | =V268 | (lacuna) | =C25 |
| 6:17 | ܒܕܘܟܬܐ ܦܩܥܬܝܬܐ | ܒܦܩܥܬܐ | =C25 |
L: ܒܕܘܟܬܐ ܕܦܩܥܬܐ no M |
(lacuna) | L =C25, no M |
| 8:29 | ܕܝ̈ܘܐ | ܕܝܘܐ | =C25 | =V268 | (lacuna) | =C25 |
| 9:22 | ܬܠܝܬܝܐ | ܕܬܠܬܐ | =C25 | L =C25, no M | =V268 | =V268 |
| 9:50 | ܐܡܪ ܕܝܢ ܠܗܘܢ | ܘܐܡܪ ܠܘܬܗ ܝܫܘܥ | =C25 | =V268 | (lacuna) | =C25 |
| 10:2 | ܕܝܢ | ܗܟܝܠ | =C25 | =V268 | (lacuna) | =C25 |
| 10:19 | ܝܗܒܬ | ܝܗܒ ܐܢܐ | =C25 | =V268 | (lacuna) | =C25 |
| 10:39 | ܕܡܪܝܐ | (ܕ)ܝܫܘܥ | =C25 | =V268 | =V268 | L =V268, no M |
| 11:3 | (ܗܘ ܕ)ܒܟܠ ܝܘܡܐ | ܝܘܡܢܐ | =C25 | =V268 | =C25 | =C25 |
| 11:32 | ܢܝ̈ܢܘܝܐ | ܕܢܝܢܘܐ | =V268 | =V268 | =V268 | =V268 |
| 11:49 | ܐܡܪܐ | ܐܡܪܬ | =C25 | =V268 | =V268 | =C25 |
| 11:50 | ܕܢܬܬܒܥ | ܕܢܬܒܥܐ | =C25 | =V268 | =C25 | L =C25, no M |
| 12:26 | ܪܢܝܢ | ܝܨܦܝܢ | =C25 | L ܝܨܝܦܝܢ, no M | =C25 | =C25 |
| 12:48 | ܩܠܝܠ ܩܠܝܠ | ܣܓܝ | =C25 | =V268 | (lacuna) | =C25 |
| 13:3 | ܒܗ ܒܕܡܘܬܐ | ܗܘ ܗܟܘܬ | =V268 | =C25 | (lacuna) | L =C25, no M |
| 16:9 | ܕܐܘܦܝ | ܕܓܡܪܬܘܢ | =C25 | =V268 | L =C25, M: ܕܥܒܪ | L =C25, M: ܕܥܒܪ |
| 16:29 | ܠܗܢܘܢ | ܐܢܘܢ | =C25 | =V268 | =C25 | L =C25, no M |
| 17:2 | ܟܐܦܐ ܪܚܝܝܬܐ | ܪܚܝܐ ܚܡܪܝܬܐ | =V268 | =V268 | =V268 | =V268 |
| 17:25 | ܥܬܝܕ ܗܘ | ܙܕܩ | =C25 | =V268 | =C25 | =C25 |
| 17:26 | (ܒ)ܡܐܬܝܬܐ | ܒܝܘ̈ܡܬܐ | =C25 | =V268 | =C25 | L =C25, no M |
| 19:9 |
ܐܡܪ ܕܝܢ ܡܪܝܐ ܠܘܬܗܘܢ V268–M: ܠܘܬܗܘܢ ܡܪܝܐ |
ܝܫܘܥ V268–L: ܠܘܬܗ ܝܫܘܥ |
L =C25, no M (but with sign in the L) |
L =V268, M: ܡܪܝܐ ܠܘܬܗܘܢ |
L =C25, no M | L =C25, no M |
| 19:30 | ܐܡܿܪ | ܐܡܼܪ | =C25 | L =C25, no M | =C25 | L =C25, no M |
| 20:12 | ܠܗܘ | ܠܗܢܐ | =C25 | =V268 | =C25 | =C25 |
| 20:14 | ܚ̈ܕܕܐ | ܠܘܬܗܘܢ | =C25 | =V268 | =C25 | =C25 |
| 20:31 | ܒܗ ܒܕܡܘܬܐ | ܗܘ ܗܟܘܬ | =C25 |
L: ܗܘ ܗܟܢܐ M =V268 |
=C25 | =C25 |
| 20:36 | ܥܬܝܕܝܢ | ܡܨܝܢ | =C25 | =V268 | =C25 | =C25 |
| 21:27 | ܒܥ̈ܢܢܐ | ܒܥܢܢܐ | =C25 | =V268 | =C25 | =C25 |
| 22:16 | ܐܟܠܝܘܗܝ | ܐܟܘܠ ܡܢܗ | =C25 |
=V268 (but the sign is wrongly placed on different ܐܟܘܠ ) |
=V268 | =V268 |
| 22:18 | ܕܚܕܬܐ ܐܫܬܝܘܗܝ | ܥܕܡܐ ܕܡܠܟܘܬܐ ܕܐܠܗܐ ܬ[[ܐܬܐ] | =C25 | =V268 |
L =C25 M : ܥܕܡܐ ܕܡܠܟܘܬܐ ܕܐܠܗܐ ܬܬܐ |
=C25 |
| 22:34 | ܥܕܡܐ | ܩܕܡ | =C25 | =V268 | =C25 | =C25 |
| 22:36 | ܗܘ ܕܝܢ | ܐܡܪ ܗܟܝܠ | =C25 | =V268 | =C25 | =C25 |
| 23:15 |
ܡܢܕܪܫ ܫܕܪܗ ܓܝܪ ܠܘܬܢ V268–M: ܡܢܕܪܫ ܓܝܪ ܫܕܪܗ ܠܘܬܢ |
ܫܕܪܬܟܘܢ ܓܝܪ ܠܘܬܗ | =C25 |
L =C25 M: ܡܢܕܪܫ ܫܕܪܗ ܓܝܪ ܠܘܬܟܘܢ |
=C25 (in the L ܡܢ ܕܪܫ ) |
=C25 |
| 23:22 | ܕܫܘܐ ܠ(ܡܘܬܐ) | ܥܠܬܐ ܕܡܘܬܐ | =C25 | =V268 | =C25 | =C25 |
| 23:55 | ܕܣ̈ܠܩܝ | ܕܐܬ̈ܝ | =C25 | =V268 | =C25 | =C25 |
| 24:5 | ܘܐܪ̈ܟܢܝܢ | ܘܡܪ̈ܟܢܢ | =C25 | =V268 | =C25 | =C25 |
| 24:7 | ܕܥܬܝܕ ܗܘ | [ܕ]ܙܕܩ ܠܗ | L =C25, no M | =V268 | L =C25, no M | L =C25, no M |
| 24:13 | ܡܐܐ ܘܫܬܝܢ | ܫܬܝܢ | =C25 | L =V268, no M | L =C25, no M | =C25 |
It is useful to compare the margin of MS C25 with the Juckel’s previous results for MS V268. Obviously, to some extent what follows repeats the data presented earlier, but now from another perspective. Here, for the sake of conciseness only the final results are given without citing the content of every reading.
The first part of Juckel’s study showed that the Harklean version has been based on the early state of the Byzantine text-type (“Liste I,1”).49 In numerous examples the earliest Harklean manuscripts agree in the Byzantine lemma and in the non-Byzantine margin.50 In most of these cases MS C25 also agrees with other manuscripts, both in terms of the lemma and the margin. However, in 18 out of 55 cases, MS C25 exchanges lemma and margin, thus preferring non-Byzantine or rare Greek readings.51 In several cases MS C25 inserts variants from the margin into the lemma,52 and once it omits a variant.53 Whenever the opposite is true, namely that the Harklean lemma is non-Byzantine and the margin is Byzantine (the second part of “Liste I,1”), except for one case,54 MS C25 agrees with the others.55
These divergences confirm probable further redactional activity in MS C25 in comparison to the earliest Harklean manuscripts on the one hand,56 but on the other, the divergences raise questions about the criteria employed to judge the quality of the Harklean text.57 If a further redactional activity switched (regularly) to non-Byzantine readings, then the less byzantinized text is not necessarily closer to the original. Even if this transformation was a secondary development in the Harklean tradition, these readings prove that much care is needed to judge them one by one. P.A.L. Hill has already pointed out the complexity of these processes and their possible interpretations.58
The development of the Harklean margin may be observed in various manuscripts and, apparently, was due not just to casual omissions by the copyists but also to revisional activity: when a non-Byzantine marginal variant had no support in the contemporary Greek tradition, it was removed.59 Juckel’s “Liste I,2” presented Byzantine readings in the lemma of the rest of his manuscripts, accompanied by non-Byzantine marginal readings in MS V268 (and the others) but omitted in at least one of the other manuscripts.
In twenty-six cases the non-Byzantine marginal reading appears also in the margin of MS C25.60 This may seem unexpected for a manuscript considered to be a subject of a further revision. Only four times are these marginalia omitted.61 Nine times the lemma and margin are exchanged in MS C25 (in comparison to MS V268) with a preference for a non-Byzantine (or rare) reading in the lemma.62 Four times a Byzantine reading is inserted into the lemma, and no marginal note appears.63 Whenever the Harklean lemma is non-Byzantine and the margin is Byzantine, MS C25 mostly agrees with MS V268,64 and only three times does it exhibit other configurations.65 When counting the marginal notes which are extant in MS V268 but are entirely omitted by other witnesses, MS C25 appears to be less subjected to revision than the other manuscripts.66
“Liste I,3” in Juckel’s paper presented readings that are not present in MS V268, but appear in other examined manuscripts.67 In this way the non-Byzantine readings extant in MS V268 were probably moved by the revisers into the margin in order to render the text closer to the Byzantine text-type. Such transformations prove that MS V268 preserves an earlier stage of the Harklean text than the other manuscripts. MS C25 is special in this regard. In 13 out of 15 of these places MS C25’s lemma is identical to MS V268.68 Only twice does MS C25 move a reading to the margin as the others do.69
4. The Critical Signs in the Harklean Text
There are two “critical” signs employed in the Harklean version: the asteriskos (܍) and the obelos (܋). The meaning of these signs has been elucidated by the works of Barbara Aland and Andreas Juckel.70 Inconsistency in the transmission of these signs among the manuscripts, as in the case of the marginal readings, may point to a revisional activity in the later stages of the tradition. In the later manuscripts some signs disappear, others are new. What kind of readings do they mark? Was their appearance/ disappearance a one-way transformation in the direction of the Byzantine text-type? The following analysis tries to trace any possible pattern in this regard. The analysis makes use of a general division employed by Juckel in his paper (Byzantine and non-Byzantine) but includes also the big picture of all the asteriskoi and obeloi extant in the MSS V268 and C25.
According to the most up-to-date interpretation, the asteriskos marks readings that “derive from different Greek mss., which supply the version with variant readings of the Graeca veritas.”71 Juckel concluded that the deliberate elimination of the asteriskoi produced a text which included mixed Byzantine and non-Byzantine readings. In MS V268 most of the asteriskoi signal non-Byzantine readings (“Liste II,1”), although not only (“Liste II,1,” second part). In the revised manuscripts there are more non-Byzantine readings marked with the asteriskoi (“Liste II,2”).72
Most of the asteriskoi of MS V268 which signal non-Byzantine text (“Liste II,1”) are included in MS C25.73 Five of them were omitted. But only once did the omission bring the text closer to the Byzantine text-type.74 Other cases were the omissions of a Byzantine variant,75 two rare variants,76 and an unknown variant.77 Otherwise, the Byzantine text signaled by the asteriskoi in MS V268 (“Liste II,1,” second part) is always marked in MS C25.78 Two of them are actually rare variants that read against most of the tradition.79 In two places MS C25 transmits the sign differently; the first may be more correct (see 4.3), while the second may be an error or a simplification.80
MS C25 includes fourteen “new” asteriskoi. Many of them appear also in other Harklean manuscripts.81 If their function was to signal what, according to the later stage of the Harklean tradition, should be omitted as non-Byzantine, their usage does not seem consistent. Six of them mark readings which would need to be omitted in order to accommodate to the Majority Text.82 Sometimes, however, the Majority Text follows an ancient reading. We cannot actually know if the accommodation in the Harklean version in these cases followed the emerging Byzantine text or rather some ancient witness. There are three cases of this type and they should be separated out.83 Also, four times these “new” asteriskoi mark rare or unique variants, where almost the entire tradition reads against them.84 Twice the opposite is true, namely a “new” asteriskos marks the standard reading, but its elimination would yield a rare variant.85 The comparison between MS V268 and MS C25 illustrates, once again, that transformations among the manuscripts may take both directions, as already noted by Juckel.86
The comparison of these “new” asteriskoi with other witnesses of so-called “Dionysios-stage” cannot be particularly helpful, as MSS NC334 and BL17124 in general omit most of the signs.87 MS BF362 once more proves to be a very faithful copy of MS C25. Unexpectedly, MS NC333 also has most of the “new” asteriskoi of MS C25.
| MS C25 | Juckel’s other MSS | MS BF362 | MS NC333 | |
| 3:8 | ܍ܕ܌ܐܒܐ | =C25 | =C25 | |
| 4:29 | ܍ܐܝܟܢܐ܌ | =C25 | without | |
| 6:35 | ܍ܠܗܘܢ܌ | =C25 | without | |
| 8:25 | ܍ܗܢܘܢ܌ | =C25 | =C25 | |
| 11:25 | ܍ܕܣܦܝܩ ܘ܌ܟܢܝܫ |
=E G M V: ܍ܘ܌ |
=C25 | =C25 |
| 15:22 | ܍ܩܠܝܠܐܝܬ܌ | =C25 | =C25 | |
| 19:26 | ܍ܕܣܒܪ܌ | = E G M D V | =C25 | =C25 |
| 19:27 | ܍ܐܢܘܢ܌ | = C E G V M | =C25 | =C25 |
| 19:36 | ܍ܩܕܡܘܗܝ܌ | = C D E G M V | =C25 | =C25 |
| 22:3 | ܍ܚܕ܌ |
= D E M V C G with obelos |
=C25 | =C25 |
| 22:48 | ܍ܝܫܘܥ܌ | = C D E G M V | without | =C25 |
| 22:61 | ܍ܝܘܡܢܐ܌ | = C D E M V | =C25 | =C25 |
| 22:69 | ܍ܕܝܢ܌ | = D E G M V | =C25 | =C25 |
| 23:44 | ܍ܡܢ ܟܕܘ܌ | = D E G M V | =C25 | without |
| 24:50 | ܍ܥܕܡܐ܌ | =C25 | without |
The obelos “is used for the sake of translation technique to mark Syriac words which do not match the Greek Vorlage but are necessary for an intelligible rendering of the Greek.”88 There-fore, from the text-critical point of view the obelos seems unimportant, as its presence does not signal any real variant. Still, its omission or appearance in a certain manuscript may speak further about manuscript’s quality and the fidelity of the transmission of the entire Harklean apparatus.
In most of the cases the obeloi in MS C25 agree with those in MS V268.89 Only three times does MS C25 omit them,90 and it once replaces an obelos with an asteriskos.91 Seven times MS C25 produces “new” obeloi. Only one of them reports a case necessitated by the Syriac grammar and there are no variants.92 Several others are probably a result of a later confusion with the use of the asteriskos.93 These “new” obeloi in MS C25 are copied also in other manuscripts (MSS BF362 and NC333). Some of these “new” obeloi were already part of an ancient Harklean tradition (MS V267). Once more, MSS NC334 and BL17124 are excluded from this comparison due to their general omission of these signs.
| MS C25 | other MSS | MS BF362 | MS NC333 | |
| 2:14 | ܋ܘ܌ܒܒܢܝ̈ܢܫܐ | V267 | =C25 | =C25 |
| 8:54 | ܋ܩܪܗ܌ | ink faded, only a metobelos can be seen | ܩܪ܋ܗ܌ | |
| 22:22 | ܋ܠܗ܌ | V267 | =C25 | =C25 |
| 22:60 | ܋ܦܛܪܘܣ܌ | =C25 | with asteriskos | |
| 23:25 | ܋ܠܗܘܢ܌ | =C25 | =C25 | |
| 24:29 | ܋ܕܡܟܝܠ܌ | V267 | =C25 | =C25 |
| 24:40 | ܋ܕܝܠܗ܌ | =C25 | without obelos |
4.3. Corrections
Several signs in MS V268 can be corrected according to the placement of more precise signs in other manuscripts. MS C25 is helpful in this regard. Some of these signs in MS V268 trace the carelessness of the copyist.94 This may be somewhat common, occuring in MS C25 as well.95 Moreover, a confusion about the function of the asteriskos and the obelos can be seen already at these early stages of the transmission.96 There are also cases where the placement of signs in MS C25 seems more precise because it refers to a real Greek variant, whereas MS V268 is apparently less precise.97 Finally, there are signs which were poorly visible in MS V268 and did not appear in the CESG, but can now be further confirmed by MS C25.98
5. Summary
1. Before Yohanna’s edition MS C25 has never been included in the research of the Harklean text of the Gospels. As MS C25 exhibits the richness of the typical Harklean features (variants in the margin and critical signs in the text), its inclusion becomes very profitable for the Harklean research. Thanks to the high material quality of MS C25, numerous marginal notes which are poorly visible in MS V268 due to its damage can now be further confirmed.
2. A comparison with Juckel’s results (see 3.2.2. and 3.2.3.) proved that MS C25 was less subjected to the ongoing “Byzantinization” than the other manuscripts examined by him. The detailed study of divergences between MSS V268 and C25 has revealed that the process of the “Byzantinization” of the Harklean version was not a unilateral process, but rather a complex and multidimensional transformation. MS C25 shows transformations not only in the direction of a further “Byzantinization” of the Harklean text, but also in the opposite direction, which might have been an attempt to clear this translation of the Byzantine elements and return to better and older traditions. Sometimes older Syriac renderings are once more employed. This paper has shown that there are no really overwhelming patterns among these textual choices. Moreover, several readings which belong to the Majority Text are attested by the ancient tradition as well. Care is needed when using these cases as an argument for the process of the “Byzantinization” of the Harklean text. The later revisers might have used different sources which still preserved these ancient readings.
3. For these reasons, any description of the nature of these developments among the Harklean manuscripts must avoid broad generalizations and judgments on the intention and the workflow of the copyists (or revisers), as these processes are extremely difficult to trace. Moreover, the wide variety of readings of diverse origins, attested in the long history of the Harklean version and witnessed here by the lemma and margin of MS C25, may point not only to a deliberate process of revisions but also to signs of confusion in the succeeding stages of the tradition. Perhaps later scribes tried to show more variants that were available to them in the Harklean (and eventual Greek?) manuscripts and inserted them, sometimes into the margin, sometimes into the text. Numerous readings presented in this paper deserve a full treatment on their own.
4. The Harklean version during its transmission history was subject to more revisions. The most important was probably connected with the person of Dionysios bar Salibi (d. 1171). However, we do not know in what actually consisted his re-working of the Harklean version. Was it a real and proper revision or only an accommodation of some readings? More research is needed in order to reach final conclusions in this matter. However, with the inclusion of MS C25, we can trace now more sub-stages of this particular moment of the Harklean tradition. Several marginal readings appeared first in MS C25’s margin, and only later were inserted into the lemma of MSS NC334 and BL17124 (and less frequently NC333, only rarely in BF362). Should this particular moment be called the “pre-history” of the “Dionysios-stage” or is MS C25 rather its best and undistorted witness? On the one hand, the MS C25 lemma and margin already reflect clear signs of the revision. Although MS C25 is close to MSS NC334 and BL17124, it is however much more consistent in its textual choices than the two others. On the other hand, MS C25 lacks some features considered to be particular hallmarks of Dionysios’s revision: MS C25 does not omit the Greek marginalia nor most of the asteriskoi and obeloi (as MSS NC334 and BL17124 do) and lacks the Pericope Adulterae in the Gospel of John (7:53–8:11). Also, a closer study of some readings reveals that MSS BF362, NC334 and BL17124 are secondary to MS C25 (for example, an Old Syriac variant ܕܚܝܒ in Luke 11:4 probably first appeared in the margin of MS C25, and later it was inserted into the lemma of BF362 and NC334). If these features really belonged to the “Dionysios-stage”, Juckel’s intuition has been confirmed: MS C25 belongs to a “pre-history” of the Harklean version. But if these features are actually a further development of the Harklean tradition, maybe MS C25 is really the best witness to the “Dionysios-stage.” If the second is true, the dating of MS C25 must be postponed even to the twelfth century. In order to solve this question in a satisfactory way still more research is needed.
5. Also other late Harklean manuscripts may now be better understood. MS BF362 appears as a close but not an exact copy of MS C25. Its script is very similar (but in two columns), as is the content of its lemma and margin. Sometimes, however, MS BF362 switches the lemma and the margin or takes particular choices, for example, the inclusion of the Pericope Adulterae (John 7:53–8:11). Yet another revision of the Harklean version is reflected in the state of the text preserved in MS NC333. Its relationship to the early stage of MS V268 is now further confirmed. However, MS NC333 depended also in some way on the tradition preserved in MS C25. In MS NC333 the lemma is sometimes reverted to MS V268 and the “new” lemma of “Dionysios-stage” is moved to the margin, numerous “new” asteriskoi of MS C25 appear in MS NC333 as well, but proper names in MS NC333 present already highly Graecized spellings. All of this shows that MS NC333 is probably the fruit of a “correction” in the direction of MS V268, which the “Dionysios-stage” text underwent later.
6. All of this proves, once again, that further studies on the Harklean text of the Gospels are needed. The production of critical editions of the Harklean version appears as a primary necessity. Their publication will make possible a careful analysis of particular cases, and then wider research on the nature of this translation and of the particular manuscripts. Perhaps future editions of the Greek New Testament should also include the variety of Harklean readings that further confirm the lemma or indicate new Greek variants.
6. Conclusion
The panorama of the transmission history of the Harklean version is very complex. The research of Andreas Juckel over the years has shown the precedence of the V268 manuscript for profitable studies of the Harklean text. Samer Yohanna’s edition of the Harklean version of Mark using MS C25 of Alqosh as the base text has given this manuscript a wider scholarly audience so that future studies can access this important witness to the Harklean text. While, in general, MS C25 does not offer a better text than MS V268, this paper shows that its inclusion among the Harklean witnesses may be useful in tracing the particular development of this version. MS C25 stands at the dawn of the late revision of the Harklean version and, as such, allows for a better explanation of the formation of that revision and its connections with the previous stages of the tradition.
Bibliography
- Aland, B. and Juckel, A. Das Neue Testament in syrischer Überlieferung I. Die grossen Katholischen Briefe. ANTF 7. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1986.
- Aland, B. and Juckel, A. Das Neue Testament in syrischer Überlieferung II. Die Paulinischen Briefe. Teil 2. 2 Korintherbrief, Galaterbrief, Epheserbrief, Philipperbrief und Kolosserbrief. ANTF 23. Berlin – New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1995 II.
- ——— Das Neue Testament in syrischer Überlieferung II. Die Paulinischen Briefe. Teil 1. Römer- und 1. Korintherbrief. ANTF 14. Berlin – New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1991 I.
- ——— Das Neue Testament in syrischer Überlieferung II. Die Paulinischen Briefe. Teil 3. 1./2. Thessalonicherbrief, 1./2. Timotheusbrief, Titusbrief, Philemonbrief und Hebräerbrief. ANTF 32. Berlin – New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2002 III.
- Hill, P. A. L. The Harklean Version of St. Luke 1–11. A Critical Edition and Introduction. University of Melbourne: unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, 2002.
- ——— “Review of Samer Soreshow Yohanna, The Gospel of Mark in the Syriac Harklean Version: An Edition Based upon the Earliest Witnesses.” In Review of Biblical Literature. http://www.bookreviews.org (accessed: 01/08/2020).
- Juckel, A. “Die Bedeutung des Ms. Vat. Syr. 268 für die Evangelien-Überlieferung der Harklensis.” Oriens Christianus 83 (1999): 22–45.
- ——— “Ḥarqlean Version.” In GEDSH: Electronic Edition. https://gedsh.bethmardutho.org/Harqlean-Version (accessed: 01/08/2020).
- ——— “Introduction to the Harklean Text.” In Comparative Edition of the Syriac Gospels. Aligning the Sinaiticus, Curetonianus, Peshîṭtâ and Ḥarklean Versions, ed. G. A. Kiraz. Leiden: Brill, 1996 I, xxxi–li.
- ——— “La version harqléenne du Nouveau Testament: forme, intention, tradition.” In Le Nouveau Testament en syriaque, ed. J.-C. Haelewyck. Études syriaques 14; Paris: Geuthner, 2017, 149–180.
- ——— “Zur Revisionsgeschichte der Harklensis.” In Bericht der Hermann Kunst-Stiftung zur Förderung der Neutestamentichen Textforschung für die Jahre 1992 bis 1994. Münster – Westfalen: 1995, 50–68.
- ——— “Ms Vat. Syr. 268 and the Revisional Development of the Harklean Margin.” Hugoye 1:1 (1998): 19–33.
- ——— “Review of: Samer S. Yohanna, The Gospel of Mark in the Syriac Harklean Version. An Edition Based upon the Earliest Witnesses.” Hugoye 21:1 (2018): 205–217.
- Kiraz, G. A. Comparative Edition of the Syriac Gospels. Aligning the Sinaiticus, Curetonianus, Peshîṭtâ and Ḥarklean Versions. Volume Three. Luke. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 1996.
- Scher, A. “Notice sur les Manuscrits Syriaques Conservés dans la Bibliothèque du Couvent des Chaldéens de Notre Dame des Semences.” JA Tome VII/Dixième Série (1906): 479–512.
- Swanson, R. J. New Testament Greek Manuscripts. Variant Readings Arranged in Horizontal Lines against Codex Vaticanus. Luke. Sheffield – Pasadena, CA: Tyndale House, 1995.
- Thomas, J. D. “A List of Manuscripts Containing the Harclean Syriac Version of the New Testament.” ThRev II/2 (1979): 26–32.
- Van Rompay, L. “Review of: Samer Soreshow YOHANNA, The Gospel of Mark in the Syriac Harklean Version. An Edition Based upon the Earliest Witnesses.” Orientalia 88/3 (2019): 330–332.
- Von Tischendorf, C. Novum Testamentum Graece. Ad antiquissimos testes denuo recensuit apparatum criticum omni studio perfectum apposuit commentationem Isagogicam. Editio Octava Critica Maior. Lipsia: Giesecke & Devrient, 81869.
- Vööbus, A. Early Versions of the New Testament. Manuscript Studies. PETSE 6. Stockholm: Estonian Theological Society in Exile, 1954.
- Wachtel, K. Der Byzantinische Text der Katholischen Briefe. Eine Untersuchung zur Entstehung der Koine des Neuen Testaments. Arbeiten zur Neutestamentlichen Textforschung 24. Berlin – New York: de Gruyter, 1995.
- Wachtel, K. “Notes on the Text of the Acts of the Apostles.” In Novum Testamentum Graecum. Editio Critica Maior. III: Acts of the Apostles. Part 1.1. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2017, 28–33.
- Yohanna, S. S. The Gospel of Mark in the Syriac Harklean Version. An Edition Based upon the Earliest Witnesses. BibOr 52. Roma: Gregorian & Biblical Press, 2015.
Footnotes
2 A. Juckel, “Introduction to the Harklean Text”, in Comparative Edition of the Syriac Gospels. Aligning the Sinaiticus, Curetonianus, Peshîṭtâ and Ḥarklean Versions, ed. G. A. Kiraz (Leiden: Brill 1996) I, xxxii–xxxiii.
3 Oxford, New College Library, MS 333 (twelfth/thirteenth century) [=NC333], with lacunae completed from the Oxford, New College Library, MS 334 (twelfth/thirteenth century) [=NC334] and Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Or. 361 (fourteenth century). All examined manuscripts are reported with their full names only the first time they appear in this paper. Later, they are referred to with their abbreviations, introduced within the square brackets.
4 J. D. Thomas, “A List of Manuscripts Containing the Harclean Syriac Version of the New Testament” (ThRev II/2 [1979]) 26–32. His list contains 129 manuscripts in total. Among these more or less 60 contain the gospels.
5 S. S. Yohanna, The Gospel of Mark in the Syriac Harklean Version. An Edition Based upon the Earliest Witnesses, BibOr 52 (Roma: Gregorian & Biblical Press, 2015).
6 MS C25 was dated by Yohanna to ninth/tenth century. Juckel proposed different date ranges for this manuscript in 2017: tenth–thirteenth cent. (A. Juckel, “La version harqléenne du Nouveau Testament: forme, intention, tradition”, in Le Nouveau Testament en syriaque, ed. J.-C. Haelewyck (Études syriaques 14; Paris: Geuthner 2017) 174) and in the same paper eleventh/twelfth cent. (Juckel, “La version harqléenne”, 175) and in 2018: tenth/eleventh cent. (A. Juckel, “Review of: Samer S. Yohanna, The Gospel of Mark in the Syriac Harklean Version. An Edition Based upon the Earliest Witnesses” (Hugoye 21:1 [2018]) 209). MS C25 was, however, not mentioned by Juckel among the best Harklean witnesses (A. Juckel, “Die Bedeutung des Ms. Vat. Syr. 268 für die Evangelien-Überlieferung der Harklensis” (Oriens Christianus 83 [1999]) 33–35). Scher (and Thomas after him) previously dated MS C to the thirteenth cent. (A. Scher, “Notice sur les Manuscrits Syriaques Conservés dans la Bibliothèque du Couvent des Chaldéens de Notre Dame des Semences” (JA Tome VII/Dixième Série [1906]) 483). Also van Rompay suggested recently that a later date (eleventh/twelfth cent.) cannot be entirely ruled out (L. Van Rompay, “Review of: Samer Soreshow YOHANNA, The Gospel of Mark in the Syriac Harklean Version. An Edition Based upon the Earliest Witnesses” (Orientalia 88/3 [2019]) 331).
7 G. A. Kiraz, Comparative Edition of the Syriac Gospels. Aligning the Sinaiticus, Curetonianus, Peshîṭtâ and Ḥarklean Versions. Volume Three. Luke, (Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 1996) [=CESG]; P. A. L. Hill, The Harklean Version of St. Luke 1–11. A Critical Edition and Introduction, (University of Melbourne: unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, 2002).
8 Juckel, “Review of: Yohanna, The Gospel of Mark,” 205–217 (here 212–215); Juckel, “Introduction”, xxxvii–xxxix.
9 Juckel’s research on the Harklean Gospel of Luke has appeared mainly in three papers: A. Juckel, “Zur Revisionsgeschichte der Harklensis”, in Bericht der Hermann Kunst-Stiftung zur Förderung der Neutestamentichen Textforschung für die Jahre 1992 bis 1994 (Münster – Westfalen: 1995) 50–68; A. Juckel, “Ms Vat. Syr. 268 and the Revisional Development of the Harklean Margin” (Hugoye 1:1 [1998]) 19–33; Juckel, “Die Bedeutung,” 22–45 (this is a more developed version of the previous one).
10 Juckel cites this manuscript saying that he cannot name its proprietary.
11 113 of 185 marginal readings of MS V268 were analyzed. The rest were omitted as Peshitta variants or on other grounds: “(...) die restlichen können entweder griechisch nicht eindeutig identifiziert oder aus anderen Gründen nicht kommentarlos dargeboten werden“ (Juckel, “Die Bedeutung,” 36–37). 57 of 79 asteriskoi were analyzed: “Die restlichen können hier gebotenen Kürze nicht dargestellt werden” (Juckel, “Die Bedeutung,” 37)
12 C. von Tischendorf, Novum Testamentum Graece. Ad antiquissimos testes denuo recensuit apparatum criticum omni studio perfectum apposuit commentationem Isagogicam. Editio Octava Critica Maior, (Lipsia: Giesecke & Devrient, 81869).
13 R. J. Swanson, New Testament Greek Manuscripts. Variant Readings Arranged in Horizontal Lines against Codex Vaticanus. Luke, (Sheffield – Pasadena, CA: Tyndale House, 1995).
14 American and British Committees of the International Greek New Testament Project (ed.), The New Testament in Greek: The Gospel according to St. Luke. Part One: Chapters 1–12. Part Two: Chapters 13–24 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1984–1987).
15 The Center for New Testament Textual Studies NT Critical Apparatus (revised edition), New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary 2014, Accordance edition hypertexted and formatted by OakTree Software, Inc., Version 1.5.
16 Vööbus observed a possible further influence of the Peshitta on later Harklean manuscripts. He explained it on liturgical grounds: the Harklean version entered into use in the Syriac liturgy (proved by the liturgical notes in the manuscripts, numerous lectionaries with mixed Peshitta and Harklean readings), but its technical over-Graecized style must have been corrected to some extent with the Peshitta. See A. Vööbus, Early Versions of the New Testament. Manuscript Studies, PETSE 6 (Stockholm: Estonian Theological Society in Exile, 1954) 120–121.
17 “Majority Text” is a purely quantitative category, while “Byzantine Text” is an historical (and text-critical) category. Thus, it would be misleading to call all Majority readings “Byzantine,” or all Byzantine readings “Majority”. Textus Receptus [=TR] is yet another category, which refers to the standard edition of the Byzantine text, first by Erasmus. Other editions followed this standard text until the 19th cent. See K. Wachtel, Der Byzantinische Text der Katholischen Briefe. Eine Untersuchung zur Entstehung der Koine des Neuen Testaments, Arbeiten zur Neutestamentlichen Textforschung 24 (Berlin – New York: de Gruyter, 1995) 6–8.
18 See recent K. Wachtel, “Notes on the Text of the Acts of the Apostles”, in Novum Testamentum Graecum. Editio Critica Maior. III: Acts of the Apostles. Part 1.1 (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft 2017): “If the bias against the text of the majority of all witnesses has been overcome, then the variants transmitted by the majority will appear in a different light, even if some early witnesses read differently. It can then be considered with due impartiality whether or not a majority reading does in fact follow the tendency towards the fuller, easier, more smooth variant. There can be no doubt that this tendency exists, but it applies to the transmission on the whole, not only with scribes of younger manuscripts. It is true that variants of this kind accumulated in the majority text, but in more than a few cases the more difficult variant is in the majority text. Moreover, the editorial team of the ECM sees a strong external criterion in favor of the majority reading where a variant with A-related attestation is confirmed by the majority, because this points to a continuous transmission since the early period.”
19 Juckel, “Zur Revisionsgeschichte der Harklensis”, 56–58.
20 London, British Library, Add. 12178 (ninth/tenth cent.)
21 ܕܠܘܙ in Juckel’s publication.
22 MS NC333 preserves the ancient forms in 13 of 33 cases.
23 Juckel reports that MS V267 and MS F read here always with MS V268.
24 Thus, the description of differences occurring between these two manuscripts will be presented in a direct way. Of course, we cannot know how many stages of tradition actually passed between one manuscript and the other, or if there is any direct line of dependance between them.
25 For example, in Luke 1:10 V268 note (ܗܘܐ) seems to be a correction of an omission rather than a variant. It is inserted into C25–L (=MSS F, D, M; MS V267 not extant).
26 Luke 23:48 (ܚܙܘ in the margin is moved down in V268 so that it is no longer next to the correct line in the lemma, with no sign in the lemma; C25 =V267); 24:19 (the second marginal note ܕܠܘܬ in V268 should probably be placed as in C25 in connection with ܩܕܡ); and 24:43 inside a Byzantine variant (ܠܘܬܗܘܢ should be referring to the second ܠܘܬ and not the first; in C25 ܠܘܬ and ܠܘܬܗܘܢ are also inverted).
27 Because the amount of data is huge, the presentation seeks to be as concise as possible, trying also to remain user-friendly. Therefore, in all that follows, many abbreviations are employed. Apart from the Harklean manuscripts’ abbreviations which were already mentioned, another abbreviations are used in the lists of the witnesses below: Ar. (Arabic), Copt. (Coptic), CPA (Christian Palestinian Aramaic Gospels), Diatess. (Diatessaron), Eth. (Ethiopic), Gr. (Greek), Old Syr. (Old Syriac), Old Syr. Sin. (Old Syriac Sinaiticus), Old Syr. Cur. (Old Syriac Curetonianus), Pers. (Persian), Pesh. (Peshitta), MS (one manuscript), MSS (more manuscripts), VL (Vetus Latina), Vulg. (Vulgata). When only one (or some) Vetus Latina, Vulgata or Peshitta manuscripts witness to a reading, it is recorded as (accordingly): VL MS, Vulg. MS, Pesh. MS or VL MSS, Vulg. MSS, Pesh. MSS. Greek majuscules are cited by their traditional alphabetic designations (rather than Gregory-Aland numbers).
28 Luke 1:38 (ܐܢܐ =Pesh.); 3:23 (ܠܡܗܘܐ =ειναι Gr. Θ); 4:29 (ܕܢܫܩܦܘܢܝܗܝ ܡܢ ܫܩܝܦܐ =Pesh.); 8:10 (ܢܫܡܘܢ ܘܠܐ =ακουσωσι μηδε Gr. 477, 1216, Copt. bo, Eth.; ακουσωσιν και ου Gr. 579, 1071; the note is inserted into C25–L but through a misunderstanding of ܘܠܐ also moved to 8:8: ܗܘ ܕܐܝܬ ܠܗ ܐܕܢ̈ܐ ܠܡܫܡܥ ܢܫܡܥ, with a preceding ܗ̄, namely understood as an explanatory note); 11:53 (ܘܟܕ ܢܦܩ ܡܢ ܬܡܢ ܘܐܡܪ ܗܘܐ ܗܠܝܢ ܠܘܬܗܘܢ ܩܕܡ ܟܠܗ ܥܡܐ ܒܗܬܝܢ ܗܘܘ. ܘܫܪܝܘ ܢܘܡܝ̈ܩܐ reflects a complex situation. Parts of this reading appear in numerous and ancient witnesses; C25–L has been replaced); 14:22 (ܗܝ =ο Gr. P45, P75, B, א, D; =ܡܕܡ Old Syr., Pesh.; C25–L: ܐܝܟ ܗܝ = a mix); 18:28 (ܠܗܠܝܢ ܕܝܠܢ =τα ιδια Gr. Θ, minuscules, VL MSS; ܕܐܝܬ ܠܢ Old Syr.); 22:9 (ܠܟ ܠܡܐܟܠ ܦܨܚܐ =σοι φαγειν το πασχα Gr. B, 1365, l 1016, with var. VL MS, Vulg. MS, Copt. bo); 22:18 (ܡܢ ܗܫܐ = απο του νυν Gr. B, א, D).
29 Luke 12:49 (V268–M = C25–L: ܥܠ; V268–L: ܒ =Old Syr., Pesh.).
30 Luke 12:21 (ܢܗܘܐ); and 24:24 (ܠܘܬ).
31 Luke 14:12 (ܘܠܐܚܝ̈ܟ ܘܠܐܚܝܢܝ̈ܟ); and 22:57 (ܟܕ).
32 Luke 12:42 (V268–M: ܗܘ =ο Gr. 𝔐 with P75, B; C25–L = V268–L = Gr. א, A, L, M, Θ); 13:15 (V268–M: ܢܣܒ =υποκριτα Gr. P45, D, W, Old Syr., Pesh.; C25–L = V268–L = Gr. 𝔐 with P75, א, B, A, Θ); 13:27 (V268–M: ܦܠܚܐ =εργαζομενοι Gr. 13*, l 547); 16:3 (V268–M: ܘ =και Gr. P75, B, 579, Old Syr., Pesh., Ar. Diatess., Copt., Eth.; C25–L = V268–L = Gr. א, D*, Γ, f13); 21:9 (V268–M: ܥܬܝܕܢ =Old Syr., Pesh.).
33 This aspect has not been examined here thoroughly though. Juckel’s “Liste I,3” presents only a selection of these “new” marginalia in the other manuscripts. See Juckel, “Die Bedeutung,” 40–41. See below for a comparison with later manuscripts, connected to the so-called “Dionysios stage.”
34 Luke 4:9 (C25–L: ܘܐܝܬܝܗ =και ηγαγεν Gr. 𝔐 with A, D; C25–M: ܕܝܢ, but the sign is wrongly placed after ܘܐܩܝܡܗ, which has no other witness; V268–L: ܘܐܝܬܝܗ ܕܝܢ is a mixture of both variants).
35 Luke 7:28 (C25–L = V268–L: ܕܢܒܝܐ =προφητης Gr. 𝔐 with A, Ψ, Γ, Δ, Θ; C25–M: ܐܢܫ = to read without προφητης Gr. P75, B, א); 10:37 (C25–L = V268–L: ܗܟܝܠ =ουν Gr. 𝔐 with A, Cc, W, P; C25–M: ܕܝܢ =δε Gr. P75, P45, B, א, D); 13:32 (C25–L = V268–L: ܗܘ ܕܝܢ ܐܡܪ ܠܗܘܢ =ο δε ειπεν αυτοις Gr. M, Θ, VL; C25–M: ܘܐܡܪ ܠ[ܗܘܢ] =και ειπεν αυτοις Gr. P75, B); 22:63 (C25–L = V268–L: ܠܝܫܘܥ =τον Ιησουν Gr. 𝔐 with A, W, Θ; C25–M: ܠܗ =αυτον Gr. P75, B, א, D); 24:11 (C25–L = V268–L: ܕܝܠܗܝܢ =αυτων Gr. 𝔐 with A, Κ, Μ, W, Γ, Δ, Θ; C25–M: ܗܠܝܢ =ταυτα Gr. P75, B, א, D).
36 Luke 10:41 (C25–L: ܡܪܝܐ =κυριος Gr. P3, P75, P45, B*, א, VL MSS, Vulgate, Copt. sa bo; C25–M and V268–L: ܝܫܘܥ =Ιησους Gr. 𝔐 with A, Bc, C, Old Syr. Sin., Pesh.); 12:56 (C25–L: ܠܐ ܝܕܥܝܢ ܐܢܬܘܢ ܠܡܒܩܐ =ουκ οιδατε δοκιμαζειν Gr. P75, B, א; C25–M = V268–L: ܠܐ ܒܩܝܢ ܐܢܬܘܢ =ου δοκιμαζετε Gr. 𝔐 with P45, A); 13:5 (C25–L: ܗܘ ܗܟܘܬ =ωσαυτως Gr. B, א, L, M; C25–M = V268–L: ܒܗ ܒܕܡܘܬܗ =ομοιως Gr. 𝔐 with P75, A, D); 18:25 (C25–L: ܢܥܘܠ =Gr. 𝔐 with B, א, Pesh.; C25–M = V268–L: ܢܥܒܪ =διελθειν Gr. Α, D, P, Θ, f1, f13, VL MSS, Vulgate, Old Syr., Copt. sa bo).
37 Luke 1:74 (ܕܕܠܐ ܕܚܠܬܐ =Old Syr. Sin., Pesh.); 4:23 (ܠܗܘܢ =Old Syr. Sin., Pesh.); 4:23 (ܟܒܪ =Old Syr. Sin., Pesh.); 5:25 (ܘܡܚܕܐ =Pesh.); 10:20 (ܕܕܝ̈ܘܐ =οτι τα δαιμονια Gr. D, ƒ1, VL MSS, Old Syr., Copt. bo, Ar. and Pers. Diatess., many Fathers); 11:4 (ܕܚܝܒ =Old Syr.); 11:45 (ܐܡܼܪ =ειπεν Gr. 157, VL MS); 11:52 (ܟܠܝܢ ܐܢܬܘܢ =Gr. G, VL MS); 14:22 (ܗܘܐ =Old Syr., Pesh.); 16:17 (ܢܥܒܪ =παρελθειν Gr. W, minuscules, Old Syr., Pesh., Ar. and Pers. Diatess.); 20:19 (ܟܢܫܐ =οχλον Gr. N, W, Ψ).
38 Luke 2:43, first reading (ܐܒܘܗܝ [=V267 =D], Juckel labels it ex err.); 19:8 (ܝܫܘܥ, may be influenced by the same L/M pair ܝܫܘܥ/ܡܪܝܐ earlier in the verse).
39 Luke 6:35 (C25–L: ܘܛܒ̈ܬܐ; C25–M = V268–L: ܘܛܒܐܝܬ); 12:2 (C25–L: ܓܝܪ =Gr. D, VL MSS, Vulg. MSS, Old Syr., Ar. Diatess., Eth.; C25–M = V268–L: ܕܝܢ =δε); 12:16 (C25–L: ܐܡܿܪ; C25–M = V268–L: ܐܡܼܪ); 12:58 (C25–L: ܕܝܢ; C25–M = V268–L: (ܓܝܪ); and 21:23 (C25–L: ܕܝܢ; C25–M = V268–L: ܓܝܪ =Ar. Diatess.).
40 Luke 4:32 (C25–M = V268–L: ܟܠܗܘܢ ܥܠ =παντες VL MS, Copt. sa); 17:4 (C25–M [=V267] = V268–L: ܘܟܕ ܗܦܟ =και επιστρεφων); 22:71 (C25–M = V268–L: ܕܝܢ =δε).
41 Luke 1:78 (C25–L: ܢܣܥܘܪ =επισκεψεται Gr. P4vid, B, א*, L, W, Θ, Old Syr. Sin., Pesh.; C25–M: ܣܥܪ =επεσκεψατο Gr. 𝔐 with אc, A, C, D); 6:10, first reading (C25–L: ܠܗܘ ܒܪܢܫܐ =τω ανθρωπω Gr. א, D, W, f1, f13; C25–M: ܠܗ =αυτω Gr. 𝔐 with Β, Α, Θ, Pesh., CPA, Copt. sa); 6:10, second reading (C25–L: ܦܫܛ =εξετεινεν Gr. א, D, W, f1, f13, Pesh., VL MSS, Vulg. MSS, Copt. sa bo; C25–M: ܥܒܕ =εποιησεν Gr. 𝔐 with Β, Α, Θ); 10:2 (C25–L: ܕܝܢ =δε Gr. B, א; C25–M: ܗܟܝܠ =Gr. 𝔐 with A, Y, K, Π, Ω; V268–M is illegible, ܗܟܝܠ is in the L; Juckel cites V267 for the margin, which has ܕܝܢ but also unexpected ܗܟܢܐ in the L); 10:19 (C25–L: ܝܗܒܬ =δεδωκα Gr. P75, B, א, C*, W, f1; C25–M: ܝܗܒ ܐܢܐ =διδωμι Gr. 𝔐 with P45, A, D, Old Syr., Pesh.); 10:39 (C25–L: ܕܡܪܝܐ =του κυριου Gr. א, B, C, D, Old Syr. Cur., Pesh.; C25–M: ܝܫܘܥ =Ιησου Gr. 𝔐 with P45, P75, A, Cc, Old Syr. Sin.); 13:3 (C25–L: ܒܗ ܒܕܡܘܬܐ = ομιοως Gr. P75, B, א, D; C25–M: ܗܘ ܗܟܘܬ =ωσαυτως Gr. 𝔐 with Α, Esup, Γ, H, W); 16:9 (C25–L: ܕܐܘܦܝ =diverse forms of sing. subj. Gr. P75, B, א, D, A; C25–M: ܕܓܡܪܬܘܢ =forms of pl. subj. Gr. 𝔐 with K, M, Γ, Δ); 17:2 (C25–L: ܟܐܦܐ ܪܚܝܝܬܐ =λιθος μυλικος Gr. P75, B, א, D; C25–M: ܪܚܝܐ ܚܡܪܝܬܐ =μυλος ονικος Gr. 𝔐 with A, K, N, S, Λ, Π, ܕܚܡܪܐ Old Syr., Pesh.); 19:30 (C25–L: ܐܡܿܪ =λεγων Gr. B, א, D; C25–M; ܐܡܼܪ =ειπων Gr. 𝔐 with A, K, Π, W, Pesh.); 20:14 (C25–L: ܚ̈ܕܕܐ =αλληλους Gr. B, א, D; C25–M: ܠܘܬܗܘܢ =εαυτους Gr. 𝔐 with A, K, Π); 22:16 (C25–L: ܐܟܠܝܘܗܝ = φαγω αυτο Gr. B, א, C, L, f1, Old Syr., Pesh.; C25–M: ܐܟܘܠ ܡܢܗ = φαγω εξ αυτου Gr. 𝔐 with A, Η, Θ, Ν, W); 22:34 (C25–L: ܥܕܡܐ =εως Gr. B, א, L, T, Pesh.; C25–M: ܩܕܡ = πριν Gr. 𝔐 with A, Ν, U, W); 22:36 (C25–L: ܗܘ ܕܝܢ = Gr. א*, D, Θ, 2 VL MSS, CPA; C25–M: ܐܡܪ ܗܟܝܠ = ειπεν ουν Gr. 𝔐 with Α, Κ, Μ, Ν); 23:15 (C25–L: ܡܢܕܪܫ ܫܕܪܗ ܓܝܪ ܠܘܬܢ, V268–M: ܡܢܕܪܫ ܓܝܪ ܫܕܪܗ ܠܘܬܢ =ανεπεμψεν γαρ αυτον προς ημας Gr. P75, B, א; C25–M: ܫܕܪܬܟܘܢ ܓܝܪ ܠܘܬܗ = ανεπεμψα γαρ υμας προς αυτον Gr. 𝔐 with Α, D, N, U, W).
42 Luke 2:9 (C25–L: ܕܐܠܗܐ = θεου Gr. MS אc, Ξ, Ψ, 892, VL MSS, Vulg. MSS, Pers. Diatess.; C25–M: ܕܡܪܝܐ =κυριου =Gr. 𝔐 with B, א*, A); 6:7 (C25–L: ܥܠܘܗܝ ܩܛܝܓܪܢܘܬܐ =κατηγοριαν κατ᾽αυτου Gr. אc, K, L, Π, W; Gr. 𝔐 with Α omits κατα; C25–M: ܢܩܛܪܓܘܢܝܗܝ =κατηγορειν αυτου Gr. B, א*, M, S, Θ; V268–M: ܥܠܘܗܝ); and 11:50 (C25–L: ܕܢܬܬܒܥ =εκδηκηθη Gr. MS אc, L, εκδικηθη Gr. L, Ψ, 579, Copt. bo, Eth.; C25–M: ܕܢܬܒܥܐ =εκζητηθη Gr. 𝔐 with P75, B, א, C, D); 20:12 (C25–L: ܠܗܘ =κακεινον Α, Π, Κ, VL MSS, Vulg. MSS, Old Syr. Sin., Pesh., Eth.; C25–M: ܠܗܢܐ =και τουτον in all the rest).
43 Luke 23:22 (C25–L: ܕܫܘܐ ܠܡܘܬܐ =αξιον θανατου Gr. MSS א*, L, Ψ, VL 2 MSS, Old Syr., Pers. Diatess.; C25–M: ܥܠܬܐ ܕܡܘܬܐ =αιτιαν θανατου); 24:13 (C25–L: ܡܐܐ ܘܫܬܝܢ =εκατον εξηκοντα Gr. א, K, Π, Θ, Ν*, VL MS, Vulg. MSS, CPA; C25–M: ܫܬܝܢ).
44 Luke 4:22 (C25–L: ܒܡ̈ܠܐ =εν τοις λογοις Gr. 69, Old Syr. Sin., Pesh.; C25–M: ܥܠ =επι); 8:29 (C25–L: ܕܝ̈ܘܐ = των δαιμονιων Gr. Λ, 262, 1187, 2 lect., 2 CPA MSS, 1 MS Copt. sa; C25–M: ܕܝܘܐ); and 9:50 (C25–L: ܐܡܪ ܕܝܢ ܠܗܘܢ = ειπεν δε προς αυτους Gr. 1071; C25–M: ܘܐܡܪ ܠܘܬܗ ܝܫܘܥ =και ειπεν προς αυτον ο Ιησους); 11:49 (C25–L: ܐܡܿܪܐ =λεγει Gr. 1195*, 2 VL MSS; C25–M: ܐܡܪܬ =ειπεν); 17:26 (C25–L: ܡܐܬܝܬܐ =παρουσια Gr. 349, 1195, 1630, 213, VL MS, Vulg. MS, Eth.; C25–M: ܒܝܘ̈ܡܬܐ =εν ταις ημεραις); 20:36 (C25–L: ܥܬܝܕܝܢ =μελλουσιν Gr. D, W, Θ; C25–M: ܡܨܝܢ); 21:27 (C25–L: ܒܥ̈ܢܢܐ =εν νεφελαις Gr. C, 157, 565, 579, 1424, VL MSS, Vulg. MSS, Old Syr. Cur., Pesh., Copt. bo; C25–M: ܒܥܢܢܐ); 23:55 (C25–L: ܕܣ̈ܠܩܝ =συνανεληλυθυιαι Gr. 115; C25–M: ܕܐܬ̈ܝ).
45 Luke 12:26 (C25–L: ܪܢܝܢ =δοκειτε; C25–M: ܝܨܦܝܢ =μεριμνατε); 12:48 (C25–L: ܩܠܝܠ ܩܠܝܠ =ολιγον ολιγον; C25–M: ܣܓܝ =πολυ); 19:9 (C25–L: ܐܡܪ ܕܝܢ ܡܪܝܐ ܠܘܬܗܘܢ; C25–M: ܝܫܘܥ; V268–L: ܠܘܬܗ ܝܫܘܥ, V268–M: ܠܘܬܗܘܢ ܡܪܝܐ; ειπεν δε προς αυτον (ο) κυριος Gr. 579, 1012, 1443, Vulg. MS, αυτους R, VL MSS, but the combination of both is unique); 20:31 (C25–L: ܒܗ ܒܕܡܘܬܐ =ομοιως; C25–M: ܗܘ ܗܟܘܬ =ωσαυτως); 22:18 (C25–L: ܕܚܕܬܐ ܐܫܬܝܘܗܝ =καινον πιω αυτο; C25–M: ܥܕܡܐ ܕܡܠܟܘܬܐ ܕܐܠܗܐ ܬ[ܐܬܐ] =η βασιλεια του Θεου ελθη); 24:5 (C25–L: ܘܐܪ̈ܟܢܝܢ =κλινασων; C25–M: ܘܡܪ̈ܟܢܢ =κλινουσων).
46 Luke 4:33 (C25–M: ܕܝܘܐ =δαιμονιον Gr. D, 579, VL MSS, Ar. Diatess.); 11:3 (C25–M: ܝܘܡܢܐ =σημερον Gr. D, 2, 28, 1071, VL MSS, Vulg. MSS, Copt. bo, Eth.); 11:32 (C25–M: ܕܢܝܢܘܐ =Νινευη Byz. variant with Gr. E, H, S, Y).
47 Luke 6:17 (C25–L: ܒܕܘܟܬܐ ܦܩܥܬܝܬܐ =επι τοπου πεδινου; C25–M: ܒܦܩܥܬܐ =Old Syr. Sin., Pesh.); 9:22 (C25–L: ܬܠܝܬܝܐ =τη τριτη; C25–M: ܕܬܠܝܬܐ =Old Syr. Cur., Pesh.); 16:29 (C25–L: ܠܗܢܘܢ ; C25–M: ܐܢܘܢ =Old Syr., Pesh.).
48 Luke 17:25 (C25–L: ܥܬܝܕ ܗܘ =Old Syr., Pesh.; C25–M: ܙܕܩ =δει); 24:7 (C25–L: ܕܥܬܝܕ ܗܘ =Old Syr., Pesh.; C25–M: ܙܕܩ ܠܗ =δει).
49 Juckel, “Die Bedeutung,” 37–38.
50 Juckel, in his papers, called the lemma “textline” (1998) and “Haupttext” (1999).
51 Luke 2:9; 4:22; 6:10 (2); 7:1; 9:50; 10:2 (see note 46); 10:19; 11:32; 11:49; 16:9; 17:2; 19:9; 20:33; 20:36; 22:16; 22:18 (1); 23:15; 23:55.
52 Luke 3:23; 8:10; 11:53; 12:21; 18:28; 22:9; 22:18 (2).
53 Luke 12:42.
54 Luke 24:13.
55 Luke 7:24; 11:28, 19:47; 22:61.
56 Juckel, “Review of: Yohanna, The Gospel of Mark,” 214–215.
57 Juckel, “Vat. Syr. 268 and the Revisional Development,” 23: “the revisional development of the Harklean is said to be generally connected with the development of the Greek text towards the uniform and then dominant Byzantine text (majority text). This is especially true with regard to the revisional alteration of the apparatus in the early Harklean manuscripts. For a great number of these alterations are promoting the Byzantine text by removing the non-Byzantine reading of the textline to the margin or even by eliminating it.”
58 P. A. L. Hill, “Review of Samer Soreshow Yohanna, The Gospel of Mark in the Syriac Harklean Version: An Edition Based upon the Earliest Witnesses,” in Review of Biblical Literature (http://www.bookreviews.org [accessed: 01/08/2020]): “First, a common form of inner-Syriac scribal revision was the direct transposition of the readings of the textline and margin. Given that the primary marginal variants in syh abound with non-Byzantine readings, it follows that such transpositions resulted in the accrual of non-Byzantine readings in the revised textline. (...) Second, while the initial syh textline furnished many “early” readings, nonetheless (...) the Harklean textline generally is Byzantine in character. Consequently, in of itself the reflection of an early Greek reading may signal a secondary accretion and cannot be taken as an indicator to the initial state of the textline.”
59 Juckel, “Die Bedeutung,” 38–40.
60 Luke 1:63; 2:21; 2:27; 2:38; 2:43; 4:31; 5:7; 5:21; 5:29; 6:48; 8:37; 8:38; 8:41; 9:35; 10:10; 11:13; 13:15 (1); 13:31; 14:24; 19:8; 21:24; 22:49; 23:11; 23:12; 23:39 (V268–M is illegible); 23:45.
61 Luke 5:10; 13:15 (2); 16:3; 20:13.
62 Luke 1:78; 6:10 (1); 10:39; 13:3; 18:9; 20:14; 21:27; 22:34; 22:36.
63 Luke 12:1; 12:49; 14:22; 22:27 (V268–M is illegible).
64 Luke 2:17; 3:8; 4:44; 5:8; 6:4; 11:22; 21:2; 23:34.
65 Twice exchanges the margin with the lemma (Luke 6:7; 11:3), once mixes them up (14:22).
66 Out of 43 non-Byzantine marginalia in Juckel’s “Liste I,2” (which is, however, a selection): MS D omits 24, MS M omits 24, MS G omits 15, MS E omits 12, MS V267 omits 9, MS C25 omits only 4. These numbers do not count the readings exchanged between the lemma and the margin.
67 Juckel, “Die Bedeutung,” 40–41.
68 Luke 1:29; 1:66; 3:16; 5:34; 7:12; 8:10; 10:17; 12:58; 14:15; 17:1; 18:41; 21:9; 21:11. In two of these cases (18:41; 21:11) the words eliminated from the lemma by other manuscripts (ܠܗ ;ܘܣܬ̈ܘܐ) in C25 are marked with a sign over them, without any reference in the margin; once (7:12) the word order is slightly changed: ܐܪܡܠܬܐ before ܐܝܬܝܘ ܗܘܬ .
69 Luke 4:9 (C25 not only moved ܕܝܢ into the margin but also moved the sign after ܘܐܩܝܡܗ, which either becomes a reading not attested in Greek or might be an error) and 4:32.
70 They discuss the interpretation of the signs in their introductions: B. Aland and A. Juckel, Das Neue Testament in syrischer Überlieferung I. Die grossen Katholischen Briefe, ANTF 7 (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1986) 111–127; B. Aland and A. Juckel, Das Neue Testament in syrischer Überlieferung II. Die Paulinischen Briefe. Teil 1. Römer- und 1. Korintherbrief, ANTF 14 (Berlin – New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1991) I 36–46; B. Aland and A. Juckel, Das Neue Testament in syrischer Überlieferung II. Die Paulinischen Briefe. Teil 2. 2 Korintherbrief, Galaterbrief, Epheserbrief, Philipperbrief und Kolosserbrief, ANTF 23 (Berlin – New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1995) II 34–46; B. Aland and A. Juckel, Das Neue Testament in syrischer Überlieferung II. Die Paulinischen Briefe. Teil 3. 1./2. Thessalonicherbrief, 1./2. Timotheusbrief, Titusbrief, Philemonbrief und Hebräerbrief, ANTF 32 (Berlin – New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2002) III 47–58.
71 A. Juckel, “Ḥarqlean Version,” in GEDSH: Electronic Edition (https://gedsh.bethmardutho.org/Harqlean-Version [accessed: 01/08/2020]).
72 Juckel, “Die Bedeutung,” 41–43.
73 Luke 6:7 (܍ܠܗ܌); 6:25 (܍ܗܫܐ܌); 7:7 (܍ܒܠܚܘܕ܌); 7:40 (܍ܐܡܪ ܠܗ܌ ; but C25 includes another Greek variant as well, which stays in V268–M; C25: ܍ܗܘ ܕܝܢ ܐܡܪ ܠܗ܌); 7:42 (܍ܠܝ܌); 8:24 (܍ܪܒܬܐ܌); 8:49 (܍ܡܟܝܠ܌); 8:52 (܍ܓܝܪ܌ and ܍ܛܠܝܬܐ܌); 9:16 (܍ܕܝܠܗ܌); 9:19 (܍ܐܚܪ̈ܢܐ ܕܝܢ ܐܪܡܝܐ܌ ,܍ܗܢܘܢ ܡܢ܌); 9:29 (܍ܘܗܘܐ܌ ,܍ܘܐܬܚܠܦ܌); 9:41 (܍ܠܝ܌); 9:50 (܍ܠܐ ܓܝܪ ܐܝܬܘܗܝ ܠܘܩܒܠܟܘܢ܌; in C25 only: ܍ܠܘܩܒܠܟܘܢ܌; the explanatory note is the same in both: ܠܐ ܓܝܪ ܐܝܬܘ̄ ܠܘܩܒܠܟܘܢ ܠܘ ܒܟܠܗܘܢ ܨ̈ܚܚܐ ܡܫܬܒܚ); 10:30 (܍ܐܢܫ܌); 11:20 (܍ܐܢܐ܌); 11:24 (܍ܗܝܕܝܢ܌); 11:29 (܍ܕܪܐ܌); 11:34 (܍ܢܗܘܐ܌); 11:42 (܍ܕܝܢ܌); 11:51 (܍ܗܘ ܙܕܝܩܐ܌); 12:21 (܍ܐܝܬܘܗܝ܌); 12:23 (܍ܓܝܪ܌); 12:31 (܍ܟܠܗܝܢ܌); 14:3 (܍ܐܘ ܠܐ܌); 15:12 (܍ܕܝܠܟ܌); 16:6 (܍ܒܥܓܠ܌); 17:1 (܍ܕܝܠܗ܌); 17:7 (܍ܠܗ܌); 17:8 (܍ܠܝ܌); 17:23 (܍ܡܫܝܚܐ܌); 17:37 (܍ܐܦ܌); 18:16 (܍ܠܗܘܢ܌); 19:20 (܍ܘܗܘ܌ = V268=V267; CESG emends to ܘ܍ܗܘ܌, without ܗܘ reads Gr. 𝔐 with A, M, N, Y, K); 19:31 (܍ܠܗ܌); 19:38 (܍ܡܒܪܟܐ ܗܘ ܡܠܟܐ ܕܐܝܣܪܐܝܠ܌; “special reading,” in V268: 2 asteriskoi, C25: 3 asteriskoi); 19:45 (܍ܘܠܦܬܘܪ̈ܐ ܕܡܥܪ̈ܦܢܐ ܐܫܕ ܘܠܡ̈ܘܬܒܐ ܕܗܢܘܢ ܕܡܙܒܢܝܢ ܝܘ̈ܢܐ܌; “special reading,” in V268: 2 asteriskoi, C25: 4 asteriskoi); 19:48 (܍ܠܗ܌); 20:20 (܍ܥܕܢܐ܌); 20:28 (܍ܕܝܠܗ܌); 20:41 (܍ܐܢܫܝ̈ܢ܌); 21:2 (܍ܐܦ܌); 22:30 (܍ܬܪܥܣܪ܌); 22:45 (܍ܕܝܠܗ܌); 22:49 (܍ܐܢܘܢ܌); 22:52 (܍ܕܬܐܚܕܘܢܢܝ܌); 23:54 (V268: ܍ܘܫܒܬܐ܌; C25: ܍ܘ܌ܫܒܬܐ; see 4.3); 24:10 (܍ܗܢܝܢ܌); 24:23 (܍ܬܡܢ܌).
74 Luke 12:1 (the second ܍ܕܦܪ̈ܝܫܐ܌ =τῶν Φαρισαίων Gr. P75, B, L; the repetition of τῶν Φαρισαίων is unattested elsewhere. C25 eliminates the entire second τῶν Φαρισαίων, which moves the text in the direction of the Gr. 𝔐 with P45, א, A, C, D, Old Syr., Pesh., but also represents a correction of the repetition in V268).
75 Luke 9:23 (܍ܟܠ ܝܘܡܐ܌ =καθ᾿ ἡμέραν Gr. 𝔐 with אc, C, U, Γ, Δ, Λ; but the explanatory note is extant also in C25 and differs only in orthography: ܟܠܝܘܡܐ / ܟܠܝܘܡ ܠܘ ܒܟܠܗܘܢ ܨ̈ܚܚܐ ܡܫܬܒܚ).
76 Luke 17:8 (V268–L: ܍ܡܐܠܠܘܢ܌ =μαλλον Gr. 1351; C25–L: ܡܠܘܢ); 20:11 (܍ܠܗܘܢ܌ =αυτοις Gr. C*, 60, 475).
77 Luke 7:48 (܍ܠܟܝ܌ =σου/σοι).
78 Luke 6:30 (܍ܕܝܢ܌ =δε Gr. 𝔐 with A, D, M, P; without δε Gr. B, א, W, K, L, Π); 20:3 (܍ܚܕܐ܌ =ενα Gr. most of the tradition have a different word order, but with the same word order are: A, M, S, U, Ω; without ενα Gr. B, א, L, W, 33, 157); 20:9 (܍ܐܢܫ܌ = τις Gr. A, W, Θ, f13, 157, =ܚܕ Old Syr., Pesh.; without τις B, א, C, D and most of the tradition); 20:14 (܍ܬܘ܌ =δευτε Gr. 𝔐 with א, D, C; without δευτε B, A, K, M, N); 20:32 (܍ܕܝܢ܌ =δε Gr. אc (other word order), A, W, Γ, G, Y, Old Syr., Pesh.; without δε Gr. 𝔐 with B, א*, D, L, Δ, Λ); 24:42–43 (܍ܘܡܢ ܟܟܪܝܬܐ ܕܕܒܫܐ. ܘܐܟܠ ܩܕܡܝܗܘܢ. ܟܕ ܕܝܢ ܢܣܒ܆ ܗܠܝܢ ܕܫܪܟܐ ܝܗܒ ܠܗܘܢ܌ =και απο μελισσιου κηριον και λαβων ενωπιον αυτων και τα επιλοιπα εδωκεν αυτοις, this is a combination of two rare variants, both extant (with minor variants) in K, Θ, f13; both missing in P75, B, א, D; with special multiple asteriskoi in the margin of both V268 and C25).
79 Luke 18:32 (܍ܘܢܨܛܥܪ܌ = και υβρισθησεται all; without και υβρισθησεται Gr. D, L, 123, 700, VL MSS, Vulg. MS, Pesh.); 24:10 (܍ܐܝܬܝܗܝܢ ܗܘ̈ܝ ܕܝܢ܌ =ησαν δε Gr. 𝔐 with P75, B, א, D; without ησαν δε Gr. A, D, W, 788, Old Syr.; in the C25 with special 2 asteriskoi).
80 Luke 13:20 (V268–L: ܘ܍ܬܘܒ܌ =παλιν; C25–L: ܍ܘ܌ܬܘܒ =και); 22:43–44 (two verses are an ancient variant [Gr. א*, D, Θ, Ψ, Old Syr. Cur., Pesh.], adopted by the Gr. 𝔐, omitted by P75, B, אc, A; in V268 with special multiple asteriskoi; in C25 only the last part is marked [܍ܥܠ ܐܪܥܐ܌], which does not correspond to any other witness).
81 See “Liste II,2” in Juckel, “Die Bedeutung,” 42–43.
82 Luke 4:29 (܍ܐܝܟܢܐ܌ =ωστε Gr. P4vid, B, א, D, L, W, Θ; without ωστε Gr. 𝔐 with A, C, K, M); 15:22 (܍ܩܠܝܠܐܝܬ܌ =ταχυ/ταχεως Gr. P75, B, א, D, L, f13, VL MSS, Vulg. MSS, CPA, Arm.; without ταχυ/ταχεως Gr. 𝔐 with A, E, K, N, P, Q); 19:27 (܍ܐܢܘܢ܌ =αυτους Gr. B, א, F, L, N, Θ, Ψ, Old Syr., Pesh.; without αυτους Gr. D, M, S, 69, TR); 22:61 (܍ܝܘܡܢܐ܌ =σημερον Gr. P69vid, P75, B, א, L, T, K, M, Π, Old Syr. Sin., Copt. sa, bo, Eth.; without σημερον Gr. 𝔐 with A, D, N, U, W, Θ); 22:69 (܍ܕܝܢ܌ =δε P75, B, א, A, D, Θ, 579, VL MSS; without δε Gr. 𝔐 with K, M, N, U, W); 23:44 (܍ܡܢ ܟܕܘ܌ =ηδη Gr. P75, B, C*, L; without ηδη Gr. 𝔐 with א, A, D, Cc).
83 Luke 3:8 (܍ܕ܌ܐܒܐ =οτι Gr. L, Θ, 33, 157, 579, Old Syr. Cur., Pesh.; without οτι Gr. 𝔐 with B, א, A, D, C); 8:25 (܍ܗܢܘܢ܌ =οι Gr. א, L, 33, 157, VL 2 MSS, Old Syr., Pesh.; without οι Gr. P75, B, Ψ, f1, TR); 11:25 (܍ܕܣܦܝܩ ܘ܌ܟܢܝܫ =σχολαζοντα και Gr. 16, 544, 892*, 1342; σχολαζοντα Gr. B, א, C, Ψ, L; without σχολαζοντα και Gr. P75, D, 1071 and most of the tradition).
84 Luke 6:35 (܍ܠܗܘܢ܌ =Old Syr. Sin., Pesh., VL MSS, in place of obelos in the V268); 19:26 (܍ܕܣܒܪ܌ =δοκει εχειν Gr. Θ, 69, 346, 1654, Old Syr. Cur.); 19:36 (܍ܩܕܡܘܗܝ܌, no other witness); 22:3 (܍ܚܕ܌, no other witness, but substitution of οντα to ενα in VL MSS, Vulg. MSS, Pers. Diatess.).
85 Luke 22:48 (܍ܝܫܘܥ܌ =ιησους; without ιησους Gr. 348, 349, 443, 544, 903*, 1195, 1200); 24:50 (܍ܥܕܡܐ܌ =εως; without εως Gr. D, 1012, l 524, l 890, VL MSS, Vulg., Ar. Diatess.)
86 Juckel, “Die Bedeutung,” 41: “Gravierender ist vielmehr, daß bewußte Streichung der Asteriskoi (nicht des asterisierten Textes!) Kontamination des Byz. Textes mit nicht-byz. Lesarten bedeutet, die Revisionsrichtung somit nicht erkennbar ist.”
87 MS BL17124 preserves only few of them, MS NC334 omits all of them.
88 Juckel, “Ḥarqlean Version”.
89 Luke 1:9; 3:12; 4:8; 4:17; 5:2; 5:18; 5:25; 6:10; 7:47; 8:24; 8:39 (2x); 8:53; 9:10; 9:21; 9:58; 10:1; 11:11; 11:20; 12:9; 12:29; 13:14 (see 4.3); 13:27; 13:35; 14:32; 17:7; 17:23; 20:15; 21:12; 21:20; 22:34; 22:54 (3x); 22:61; 23:22; 24:39.
90 Luke 4:20; 12:43; 20:10.
91 Luke 6:35 (܍ܠܗܘܢ܌).
92 Luke 24:40 (܋ܕܝܠܗ܌, no Greek variant, Pesh.: ܐܝܕ̈ܘܗܝ ܘܪ̈ܓܠܘܗܝ).
93 Luke 2:14 (܋ܘ܌ܒܒܢܝ̈ܢܫܐ =Old Syr. Sin., Pesh.; in MS V268 there is a correction by a second hand without the obelos, it is, however, difficult to ascertain if there was an obelos by the first hand which is now covered up); 8:54 (܋ܩܪܗ܌, this may be an error, probably only the suffix was intended to be marked: either as an addition for the necessity of Syriac [obelos] or a variant [=αυτη Gr. 2757, VL 2 MSS, Eth., Old Syriac, Pesh.]; also MS NC333 corrects it to ܩܪ܋ܗ܌); 22:22 (܋ܠܗ܌ =Old Syr. Cur.); 22:60 (܋ܦܛܪܘܣ܌ =του Πετρου Gr. Y, M, Π, K); 23:25 (܋ܠܗܘܢ܌ =αυτοις Gr. K, M, Π, Old Syr., Pesh.); 24:29 (܋ܕܡܟܝܠ܌ = CPA; ηδη placed in the second part of the phrase (και κεκλικεν ηδη η ημερα) is an ancient variant: Gr. P75, B, א).
94 For example: Luke 8:39 (܋ܗ܌ܠܝܢ x2); 11:11 (ܐ܋ܘ ܐ܌ܢ ).
95 For example: Luke 14:3 (ܐ܍ܘ ܠܐ܌).
96 For example, in Luke 24:39 (CESG: ܓܘܫܘܢ܋ܢܝ܌; V268 [=V267]: ܓܘܫܘ܋ܢܢܝ܌; C25: ܓܘܫ܋ܘܢܢܝ܌) the asteriskos would make more sense, because there are Greek variants without the suffix, and the imperative ܓܘܫܘ can function without the suffix and appears also in the Old Syriac and Peshitta.
97 Luke 13:14 (V268 [=V267]: ܋ܗܘܐ܌, ܗܘܐ is employed to render a Gr. imperfect which is the standard reading; C25: ܋ܘ܌ܐܡܪ, ܘ =και is a rare variant: Eth., VL MS; therefore it should be probably an asteriskos); 13:20 (V268: ܘ܍ܬܘܒ܌ =παλιν marked, without παλιν reads only Gr. D, but it preserves a completely different phrase; C25: ܍ܘ܌ܬܘܒ =και marked, without και reads Gr. 𝔐 with A, K, M, N, Old Syr., Pesh.); 23:54 (V268: ܍ܘܫܒܬܐ܌, there are no variants without και σαββατον; C25 [=V267]: ܍ܘ܌ܫܒܬܐ =και Gr. P75, B, א, C*, Old Syr., Pesh., without και Gr. 𝔐 with A, Cc, K, M, W).
98 Luke 3:8 (܍ܕ܌ܐܒܐ); 5:25 (܋ܥܪܣܘܢܝܬܐ܌ =V267).
