Ms. Schøyen 2530/Sinai syr. 3 and the New Testament Peshitta

[1] The purpose of this paper is to draw attention to Ms. 2530 of the 'Schøyen Collection' at Oslo/London and its significance for research on the New Testament Peshitta text1. This remarkable fragment of Romans offers an unexpected wealth of variants and opens a new perspective on Ms. Sinai syr. 3 to which it originally belonged. To demonstrate the significance of Ms. Schøyen/Sinai syr. 3 and to supplement a recently accomplished project,2 the presentation of the full range of variants will be the core of this paper. The introduction will set out the history of research and the conditions for a new editorial approach to the Corpus Paulinum in the Peshitta version.

The model: Gwilliam’s Gospel volume

[2] Textcritical research on the Corpus Paulinum in the Peshitta version is charged with two basic obstacles which are absent from parallel research on the Gospels. Firstly, there is no critical edition of this Corpus but only collections of variants, taken from a limited number of manuscripts, and usually confined to single Epistles (or even to single chapters). Secondly, there are no 'Old Syriac' manuscripts for comparative study and for determination of the 'Old Syriac' influence on the early Peshitta text or of its 'Old Syriac' heritage. The existence of an 'Old Syriac' Corpus Paulinum is well established by quotations3 in writings ante-dating the Peshitta (mainly of Aphrahat, Ephrem, and in the Liber Graduum); for thorough comparative purpose, however, these quotations are too restricted in quantity and authenticity to be a sufficient compensation for the 'Old Syriac' manuscripts themselves.

[3] Nevertheless, for more than eighty years scholars have an approved text (without critical apparatus) of the Corpus Paulinum at their disposal, prepared by G.H. Gwilliam and J. Pinkerton and issued by the British and Foreign Bible Society in 1920.4 It adopted the editorial principles of the Tetraeuangelium Sanctum published by Gwilliam in 19015 and originally was designed to include a critical apparatus too; but after Gwilliam’s and Pinkerton’s death6 their hand-written collations remained unpublished and ended up as Ms. or. 11.360 in the British Library7. By its adoption of the editorial principles of the Gospel volume, the B.F.B.S. text (although completely without critical apparatus) appeared to be a 'critical' one. The impact of 'criticism' on the text, however, mainly derived from the general critical value of the ancient codices by which Gwilliam for the first time could prove the general antiquity and authenticity of the traditional Peshitta text8. His printed text is not based on the 'critical' evaluation of single variants but on the majority vote of readings9. According to this editorial policy, the Peshitta text substantially remained the same without revisional development from the fifth to the sixteenth century when the first edition of the Gospels (Widmanstadt, 1555) was printed. Gwilliam is well aware of peculiar readings in all of the early manuscripts, but as many of them are corrections by later hands to the overwhelmingly attested text they rather seem to confirm than to affect its originality10.

[4] Gwilliam’s Gospel volume was a splendid and exhaustive proof of the antiquity and authenticity of the traditional Peshitta Gospels. For the Corpus Paulinum this proof can be accepted too, although it needs a better foundation by additional manuscripts. But the question of the original Peshitta text had to be resumed soon. The reason is the impact of the 'Old Syriac' on the origin and development of the Peshitta Gospel text, which increasingly started to dominate the discussion after Gwilliam’s death11. Although Gwilliam denied a revisional relation between the Curetonian manuscript and the Peshitta, his following statement is a clear-sighted anticipation of the method research would have to follow to settle the question of relationship:

“ "It is well known that the illustrious discoverer of the Curetonian Syriac, and after him others, have held that it represents the oldest form of the Syriac New Testament, and that it was succeeded by the more polished, if not more accurate, Peshito; being ultimately so completely supplanted by the latter that it was no longer copied, and has survived to our day, as far as we know, in only one MS. If this were the true account of the relation to one another of the two versions, we should expect to find, in the most ancient text of the Peshitto, many traces of the readings of the older version which it had supplanted. ... Whether this be so or not can only be determined by an exhaustive comparison of the ancient text of the Peshito with the Curetonian text, but even the passages examined in this paper will afford grounds for an opinion."12 ”

[5] With regard to the Gospels, Gwilliam himself provided in his Gospel volume decisive materials for the comparison of the Peshitta and the 'Old Syriac', which were 'discovered' by Matthew Black. Inspired by an article of the German scholar Arthur Allgeier13, Black drew attention to the numerous agreements of variants with the 'Old Syriac' Curetonian and Sinaitic manuscripts quoted in Gwilliam’s volume14. This individually developed 'Old Syriac' heritage in the single manuscripts Black ascribed to an earlier phase of development (later coined 'Pre-Peshitta' by him) than represented by Gwilliam’s text15. Therefore comparison of single Peshitta manuscripts with the two 'Old Syriac' manuscripts is the way to 1) determine their respective individual participation in the 'Old Syriac' heritage, 2) identify the 'Old Syriac' heritage these Gospel manuscripts have in common16, and 3) reconstruct the 'Pre-Peshitta' text as far as possible17. For identification of the 'Old Syriac' heritage, Gwilliam’s text offers the indispensable knowledge of the 'majority text'; for reconstructing the full text of the 'Pre-Peshitta', however, the majority vote of manuscripts will have to be modified and possibly abandoned18.

The task: The Corpus Paulinum

[6] The Corpus Paulinum in the Peshitta version is expected to follow the model of the Gospels in method and results. The first step, however, must be the supplementation of the B.F.B.S. text by additional manuscripts to strengthen its 'majority character'19 and to compile an apparatus with variants of the complete Corpus Paulinum. The question of the original text will depend on the full access to the early manuscripts and on comparison of their variations to compensate for the absence of authentic Old Syriac material, now available only through Kerschensteiner's collection of ante-Peshitta quotations.

[7] Research on the Pauline Epistles in the Peshitta version was resumed by a series of dissertations20 some forty years ago (mainly on selected chapters of single Letters) to provide the B.F.B.S. text with an apparatus and to discuss the Greek background of the text. J.T. Clemons21 started this series (1963) by editing the complete text of Gal. W.H.P. Freitag22 worked on 1Cor (1971), W.D. Knappe23 on Eph, Phil, Col (1977), E. Buck24 on Rom (1978), A.M. Ross25 on 1.2Thess (1983). M.E. Gudorf’s edition26 of Hebr (complete, 1992) gave an interlinear presentation of the Peshitta (B.F.B.S.), of its variants and of the Harklean. Already Clemons (as later Gudorf) included the full text of the Harklean version (ed. by J. White) for comparison. An innovative feature of all these dissertations is the inclusion of quotations drawn from patristic literature to trace the dissemination of variants. A special investigation in the Peshitta of Gal which examines the quotations of this letter in the critical apparatuses of current Greek New Testament editions I.E. Parlevliet-Flesseman published in 199327.

[8] Although these dissertations offered a sound approach to the transmission of the Corpus Paulinum in method, their results suffered from the restriction to a segment of the Corpus and from the variety of the materials the authors had access to. Their intention was not to offer a systematic approach to the development of this Corpus, but to present a systematic record of manuscripts and an exhaustive compilation of variants within the sample chapters. This was the necessary preparatory step to start the dispute with Gwilliam’s so far undisputable text; but to develop consistent criteria for textcritical interpretation of variants and manuscripts the work had to be resumed in a more comprehensive way.

[9] The recently accomplished project Das Neue Testament in syrischer Überlieferung summarized and continued the existing efforts by an approach to the complete Corpus Paulinum. It was designed as 'comparative edition' including the 'Old Syriac' (the quotations28 mainly drawn from Aphrahat’s Demonstrationes, Ephrem’s genuine writings, and the Liber Graduum), the Peshitta and the Harklean, and the biblical quotations drawn from Syriac literature and from translations of Greek patristic texts. All texts are given in full and are carefully aligned, presented in a chronological order from the 4^th to the 13^th century (Bar ʿEbroyo). The intention was to represent the revisional development of the Syriac Corpus Paulinum, the gradual refinement of translation technique, the mutual influence of the single versions, and their pre-history respectively reflected by the quotations. The ultimate goal was to provide information about the 'history' of the Peshitta text and a background for the evaluation of variants. As it was the Miaphysite Syriac Orthodox Church which was in permanent contact with Hellenistic culture and continuously revised their New Testament to bring it in better line with the Greek text and canon, this 'comparative edition' is dominated by materials of Syriac Orthodox provenance.

[10] The Peshitta part of the 'comparative edition' consists of twelve manuscripts (5^th/6^th-8^th cent., one single late of the 12^th/13^th), among which are three of East Syriac affiliation to contrast those of West Syriac origin. In the P(eshitta)-line, it is not the majority text of the B.F.B.S. text that is given, but rather Ms. Add. 14,470 (5^th/6^th cent.) of the British Library. This editorial policy is justified by the chronological alignment of the texts and by the delineation of manuscript profiles (see below). The profile of the manuscript chosen for print the editors considered being more original than any other one; the claim was not to offer 'the original' Peshitta text. To escape from the idiosyncrasies of a single manuscript, the variants of the remaining ten old manuscripts are given in the apparatus together with the variants of the Harklean and with those of the quotations. Therefore this apparatus provides information not only about the (dis)agreements of the Peshitta manuscripts but also about the dissemination of Peshitta variants in the Syriac literature and about the influence of the Philoxenian/Harklean on the Peshitta (and vice versa).

[11] The Peshitta part of the 'comparative edition' was not designed to satisfy the need of a comprehensive edition of the Corpus Paulinum in the Peshitta version. According to its general design the earliest Peshitta manuscripts only were of interest. But the inclusion of the complete Corpus and the consistent use of the same manuscripts throughout the three volumes of the 'comparative edition' provided a general good knowledge of the early textual features. When the project started with Rom/1Cor, Ms. Sinai syr. 3 was excluded from the choice of manuscripts because of its defective condition in Romans. After the rediscovery of Rom vi,12-13/vii,2-xi,6 (i.e., Ms. Schøyen 2530 and Fragm. syr. 30 of the Ambrosian Library) the significance of this manuscript became evident: Dating from the 5^th/6^th century (not from the 7^th) it immensely improved our knowledge of early Peshitta variants and offered a textual profile unknown so far, at least in Rom/1Cor.

The method: Delineation of manuscript profiles

[12] To delineate a manuscript profile variants are to be counted and classified. Manuscript profiles thus established can be compared with each other for judgement on their respective anteriority and posteriority. The point of reference for counting of variants is the (still provisional) 'majority text' of G.H. Gwilliam and J. Pinkerton29. The 'majority portion' of the manuscripts contrasts with its individual 'non-majority' part which consists of singular readings and of readings shared with the minority of various other manuscripts. This individual part should be worked out in detail separately for every manuscript.

[13] The following table gives the singular readings of the manuscripts used in the 'comparative edition' (excluding the late Ms. Vat. syr. 19 and the lacuneous Ms. BL Add. 14,481; including Ms. Schøyen 2530/Sinai syr. 3). Singular variants in supplemented portions of the manuscripts and orthographica are not counted; the brackets indicate the reduction of the numbers to the original portion of the manuscript30:

Ms.	cent.	Rom/1Cor	2Cor/Col	1Thess/Hebr	Total
Schøyen 2530/Sin.syr.3 (inc. Rom 6,12)	(5./6.)	[65]	50	55	170
Sin.syr.5 (inc. Rom 11,22)	(5./6.)	[20]	50	35	105
BL Add 14,470	(5./6.)	[25]	20	10	55
BL Add 14,475	(6.)	15	15	[6]	36
BL Add 14,476	(5./6.)	10	25	25	60
BL Add 14,477	(6./7.)	15	5	15	35
BL Add 14,479	(533/34)	[55]	35	70	160
BL Add 14,480	(5./6.)	[25]	50	70	145
BL Add 17,122	(6.)	12	8	20	40
BL Add 7,157	(767/68)	5	4	8	17
StL München syr. 8 (inc. 1Cor 9,17)	(6./7.)	[1]	3	4	8

[14] The inclusion of Ms. Schøyen 2530/Sinai syr. 3 caused elimination of 45 singular readings existing in the manuscripts before Ms. Schøyen 2530/ Sinai syr. 3 was introduced; 170 singular readings were added by Ms. Schøyen 2530/Sinai syr. 3. By the introduction of additional manuscripts in the future a certain number of existing singular readings will switch over from the singular to the non-singular portion. The readings of this portion are of special interest, they can rival the 'majority vote' in originality depending on the support they finally receive and on their classification31.

[15] Classification of variants bears directly on the anteriority or posteriority of manuscript profiles. Basic categories are 'Syriac-idiomatic' and 'grecising' variants, special categories are agreement with the 'Old Syriac', and (in the OT quotations) agreement with the Old Testament Peshitta. The 'comparative edition' proves to be useful for classification of variants by its inclusion of the 'Old Syriac' (quotations) and the Harklean. Comparison of variants with both can reveal textual identity or a proclivity of variants towards a better adaptation to the Syriac idiom or to the Greek (Harklean). The early Peshitta manuscripts presented in the 'comparative edition' offer an individual mixture of idiomatic and 'grecising' variants. The general increasing influence of the Greek text on the Syriac New Testament is a good argument for the secondary character of the 'grecising' variants, although this is chiefly a rule of thumb. In the 'comparative edition' Ms. Add. 14,470 of the British Library is the less affected by grecising variations; this gives a greater originality to its profile than to the profile of other manuscripts, and recommended this witness for being printed in the P(eshitta) line of the edition32.

[16] Most significant is the unregularized (and most likely local) distribution of variants in the early manuscripts of the Corpus Paulinum, which contrasts with the more regular distribution in manuscripts later than the 7^th/8^th century. According to my collations of later manuscripts the earliest period of the Peshitta (5^th/7^th century) is the most productive in creating variants. It was the formative period of the Miaphysite Church within the Greek Byzantine Oikumene, which was open to direct Greek influence on the Syriac New Testament and on existing Greek patristic translations. Under Islamic rule after separation from the Greek Byzantine Oikumene, the Peshitta was hardly influenced by Greek but reduced to the inner-Syriac domain and to philological care and conservation33.

Ms. Schøyen 2530

[17] Ms. 2530 of the Schøyen Collection at Oslo/London is a fragment of St. Paul’s Letter to the Romans (vi,12 – x,7) in the Peshitta version. By the help of its attractive old Estrangela script it was not too difficult to indentify it as a missing portion of Ms. Sin. syr. 3. This manuscript of the Corpus Paulinum without colophon is usually assigned to the 7^th century34, but this assignation should be corrected to the 5^th/6^th cent. by palaeographical reason35. An additional identification of a single fly-leaf of the Bibliotheca Ambrosiana at Milano (fragment no. 30 of Chabot’s Inventaire 36) provided the missing folio (Rom x,7 – xi,6) between Ms. Schøyen 2530 and Sin. syr. 3 which starts with Rom xi,6 (see the sequence of text below).

[18] Ms. Schøyen 2530 consists of six vellum leaves (three double-leaves) of ca. 30x20 cm, the first of which is a small fragment only (Rom vi,12-13/vii,2-3). The text is written in two columns of 25 lines in a bold and regular Estangela of the early type, which is almost identical with the one of Ms. Vat. syr. 12 dated July 548 AD (Tammuz 859 AGr).

[19] A later Syriac hand introduced the page numbers [7], 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 in the upper centre of the recto. The Ambrosian fragment and Ms. Sin.syr.3 continue this Syriac pagination, which is absent in the first three mutilated folios of the Sinaitic manuscript37. Rom i,1 – ca. vi,5 on the lost six folios at the beginning is the only missing portion besides Heb ix,4 – x,15 which is supplemented by a later hand38.

[20] Support for the assignment of Ms. Schøyen 2530 to the 5^th/6^th cent. comes from its palaeographical features:

• No influence of Serto script is traceable. Semkath is never connected to the following character.
• Diacritical points and accents are not in accordance with the 'massoretic' standard. They are absent from verbs and participles, to a large extent from the pronouns too. Seldom Seyome are placed on the letter rish, they are never connected with feminine pronouns, verbs and participles.
• The junction of adjectives/participles and enclitic pronouns of the first and second person is quite usual and not forced by the limitation of space. We not only meet āmarnâ and yāda^cnâ for āmar anâ and yāda^c anâ, but also mpaqqdānâ and zqīfnâ, etc. This orthographical feature was explicitly rejected by James of Edessa († 708) in his 'Letter on Orthography'.

Ms. Schøyen 2530/Sequence of Text

[21] The following sequence of text will specify the exact content of Ms. Schoyen 2530 and prove its unity with the Syriac fragment no. 30 of the Ambrosian Library and with Ms. Sinai syr. 3.

fol [7ra]/Rom vi,12-13 fol [7vb]/Rom vii,2-3 fol 8r/Rom vii,3-12	fol 8v/Rom vii,12-22 fol 9r/Rom vii,22-viii,7 fol 9v/Rom viii,7-16 fol 10r/Rom viii,17-27 fol 10v/Rom viii,27-38 fol 11r/Rom viii,38-ix,9 fol 11v/Rom ix,9-20 fol 12r/Rom ix,20-30 fol 12v/Rom ix,30-x,7
Bibl. Ambros., syr. fragment 30 fol 13r/Rom x,7-18 fol 13v/Rom x,18-xi,6 Ms Sin. syr. 3 (incipit Rom xi,6) fol 1 (modern)/[14] (Syriac)

The profile of Ms. Schøyen 2530/Sinai syr. 3

[22] The outstanding feature of Ms. Schøyen 2530/Sinai syr. 3 is its wealth of variants, which contrasts with all the early manuscripts of the Corpus Paulinum collated so far39. As surprisingly many of these variants concentrate on Rom/1Cor, it was Ms. Schøyen 2530 which upgraded the textcritical value of the formerly defective Sinaitic manuscript, thus stimulating research on the Corpus Paulinum in the Peshitta version. Its principal significance now is a methodological one: It gives the definite proof for the considerable variety of the earliest Peshitta text and brings research in methodological parallel with the Gospel text. Due to the reduced access to the 'Old Syriac', the 'non-majority part' itself is charged with the investigation in the anteriority or posteriority of profiles, thus being established as an own area of research.

[23] In comparison with the provisional 'majority text' of the B.F.B.S. volume the total number of 'non-majority readings' in Ms. Schøyen 2530/Sinai syr. 3  is 326 (170 singular/156 non-singular), while the corresponding number for Ms. Add. 14.470 of the British Library is 170 (55/115)40. Ms. Schøyen 2530/ Sinai syr. 3 can be expected to give the maximum number(s) of all early manuscripts; Ms. Add. 14.470 is more likely to represent the average. In theory the readings of the better balanced 'minority parts' have the greater general claim to rival the originality of the 'majority readings' than readings of the 'singular parts'; by their mutual support and dissemination they appear to be deeper rooted in tradition than singular readings. Ms. Schøyen 2530/Sinai syr. 3 provides a maximum of support for the existing 'minority portion' of the Peshitta text: 156 'minority readings' it strengthens (or produces them by switching over existing singular readings), thus giving a better balance to the numerical proportion of 'minority readings' to 'majority readings', which inevitably is distorted by the loss of early manuscripts and variants.

[24] To the maximum number of 156 'minority readings' corresponds (not surprisingly) an extremely individual mixture of 'Syriac-idiomatic' and 'grecising' variants. It is the extent of variants which increases the complexity of this mixture. As no detailed discussion of variants can be given here, a summary will outline special categories of variants and offer a full collation of Ms. Schøyen 2530/Sinai syr. 3 for detailed study (see below).

• Most remarkable are 'lexical' or 'stylistic' variants which give different words but seldom a different meaning (Rom viii,27; 1Cor i,4; iii,14; ix,1; x,2.16; xvi,10; 2Cor viii,14; Gal ii,14; iii,22; vi,13.15; Eph ii,11.15; 2Th iii,6; Tit ii,5; iii,8; Heb ii,7; iii,7; ix,1; xii,17). Similar variants of this type (some of them probably caused by the negligent scribe) are Rom xv,4; 1Cor xv,45; 2Cor iii,9; vii,6; Eph i,19; iv,13; 2Th iii,5; 1Tim vi,21; Heb iv,16. 'Syriac-idiomatic' renderings are given 2Cor vii,2; 1Th iii,7; 2Tim ii,19.
• Variants of Ms. Schøyen 2530/Sinai syr. 3 agree with quotations41 drawn from Syriac writings Rom vi,12; 1Cor x,17.31; xv,42 (Liber Graduum, Aphrahat); 2Cor iv,10; v,5; Gal iv,7 (Philoxenus); vi,6 (Aphrahat); Eph ii,15 (Aphrahat); iv,14; v,8; Col ii,8 (Philoxenus); 1Th iv,15 (Ephrem); 1Tim v,22; 2Tim ii,7.15.26 (Philoxenus). Unfortunately the agreements with 'Old Syriac' writers are accidental and few. Remarkable is the agreement with early translations of patristic texts (Titus of Bostra, Evagrius, Macarius, Severus). Either these agreements reflect Greek variants, or the translations from the Greek are affected by the early Peshitta text.
• Variants of Ms. Schøyen 2530/Sinai syr. 3  give support to some peculiar readings of Ms. Add. 14.470 and/or Ms. Add. 14.478 of the British Library, which formerly appeared to be nothing more than scribal errors (Rom viii,35 [twice].37; 1Cor ii,8; vii,34; xi,29; xiv,29). The support of Ms. Schøyen 2530/Sinai syr. 3 for these insignificant variants points to a special relation of these three manuscripts. Most of the exclusive agreements, however, Ms. Schøyen 2530/Sinai syr. 3 has in common with Ms. Add. 14.480 of the British Library (i.e., P11).
• A better adaptation to the Greek text is reflected by the anticipation of Harklean readings (e.g., Rom vi,12; viii,24; 1Cor iii,5; iv,3; 2Cor iv,3; Phil i,8; 1Th iii,5; iv,12(!).14; 2Th i,3; iii,5; 2Tim i,10; iii,5) and by the frequent omission of hu/hy (Rom vii,21; xi,3.5; xiv,8; 1Cor iv,15; xiv,35; 2Cor i,20; v,12; Phil ii,11; 1Tim i,15; Heb v,11). Numerous minor variants may also bring the Syriac idiom in a better line with the Greek text, at least in part: Omission or addition of w (Rom viii,12; 1Cor v,10; vi,5; x,8; xii,3; xiii,6; xiv,4; xvi,14; 2Cor xi,30; xii,11; xiii,9; Gal ii,16; v,21; Eph v,1; vi,9; Phil i,22; ii,18; 2Tim ii,15; Heb x,33), ’en (1Cor ii,2; xiv,2;) hwā (2Cor vii,7; Heb xi,15); replacement of pronouns (Rom viii,23; 1Cor xv,29; 2Cor viii,14; Col iv,13; Tit i,11; Heb vii,21). Well attested variants of the Greek text are few: Rom xiv,9; 1Cor xiv,6 (om. ’aw); 2Cor i,8; iii,1; vi,16; Gal vi,4; Col i,2.

Conclusion

[25] The textual profile of Ms. Schøyen 2530/Sinai syr. 3 (its 'minority portion') is dominated by lexical and stylistic variants of Syriac-idiomatic origin. Their authenticity and dissemination is sufficiently proved by quotations and manuscript support. By their extent these variants represent a textual heritage, not occasional changings of text. The stylistic level is not abandoned by the variants which give better adaptations to the Greek. These adaptations are largely balanced by the introduction of Syriac-idiomatic variants, and also the anticipations of the Harklean do not really affect the Syriac idiom.

[26] The conclusion is that the textual profile of Ms. Schøyen 2530/Sinai syr. 3 has a good claim for anteriority to those profiles which are closer to the 'majority text'. Even traces of 'Old Syriac' heritage may well be preserved in its 'minority portion'. By kindly introducing his precious manuscript no. 2530 to scholarship Martin Schøyen did not only open his treasure chamber but also an exciting perspective on Peshitta research.

Appendix: The variants of Ms. Schøyen 2530/Sin. syr. 3

[27] The following collation is based on the text prepared by G.H. Gwilliam/J. Pinkerton and issued by the British and Foreign Bible Society in 1920. The Lemma gives the B.F.B.S. text, all variants refer to Ms. Schøyen 2530/Sin. syr. 3 and to the manuscripts in brackets. Excepting Ms. Schøyen 2530/Sin. syr. 3 and Ms. Add 14,478 of the British Library, the evidence is taken from the three volumes Das Neue Testament in syrischer Überlieferung, the manuscripts are labeled according to their 'P(eshitta)-number' (e.g., P12). These volumes also provide the information about the text of the Syriac authors/translators occasionally added to the manuscript evidence.

The manuscripts:

[28] P2 = Sin. syr. 5 (Sinai-Kloster, 5./6. Jh) — P4 = Add 14,470 (British Library, 5./6. Jh) — P10 = Add 14,476 (BL, 5./6. Jh) — P11 = Add 14,480 (BL, 5./6. Jh) — P12 = Add 14,479 (BL, 534 AD) — P13 = Add 14,475 (BL, 6. Jh) — P14 = Add 17,122 (BL, 6. Jh) — P15 = Add 14,477 (BL, 6./7. Jh) — P16 = Ms. syr. 8 (State Libr. Munich, 6./7. Jh) — P17 = Add 14,481 (BL, 6./7. Jh) — P20 = Add 7157 (BL, 767/68 AD) — P21 = Add 14,478 (BL, 621/22 AD) — P† = all aforesaid manuscripts.

Chapter/verse in red means singular readings (within the present choice of manuscripts) of Ms. Schøyen 2530/Sin. syr. 3.

Romans

Ms. Schøyen 2530

Fragm. Chabot 30/Biblioteca Ambrosiana, Milano

Ms. Sin. syr. 3

1 Corinthians

2 Corinthians

Galatians

Ephesians

Philippians

Colossians

1 Thessalonians

2 Thessalonians

1 Timothy

2 Timothy

Titus

Philemon

Hebrews

_______ Notes _______ Bibliography

Agnes Smith Lewis, Catalogue of the Syriac MSS. In the Convent of S. Catherine on Mount Sinai (Studia Sinaitica 1). London 1894.

Aland, B./Juckel, A. (Eds.) Das Neue Testament in syrischer Überlieferung II: Die Paulinischen Briefe, part 1: Rom-1Cor (1991); part 2: 2Cor-Col (1995); part 3: 1Th-Hebr (2002).

Allgeier, A. Cod. Phillipps 1388 in Berlin und seine Bedeutung für die Geschichte der Pešitta, Oriens Christianus 7 (3^rd series), 1932, 1-15.

Black, M. The text of the Peshitta Tetraeuangelium, in: Studia Paulina in honorem Johannis de Zwaan septuagenarii, ed. J.N. Sevenester and W.C. van Unnik (Haarlem 1953), 20-27.

Buck, E. Manuscript Studies in the Syriac Versions of Romans (S.T.D. Luth. School of Theol., Chicago 1978).

Chabot, J.-B. Inventaire des fragments de Mss. syriaques conservés à la Bibliothèque Ambrosienne à Milan ― Le Muséon 49 (1936) 37-54.

Clark, K.W. Checklist of Manuscripts in St. Catherine’s Monastery, Mout Sinai. Washington 1952.

Clemons, J. T. Studies in the Syriac Text of Galatians (Ph.D. Diss., Duke Univ. 1963).

Freitag, W.H.P. Studies on First Cornthians in Syriac (S.T.D. Luth. School of Theol., Chicago 1971).

Grierson, R. ‘Without Note or Comment’: British Library Or. 11360 and the Text of the Peshitta New Testament, Oriens Christianus 82 (1998) 88-98.

Gudorf, M.E. Research on the Early Syriac Text of the Epistle to the Hebrews (Ph.D. Diss. Chicago 1992).

Gwilliam, G. H. The Materials for the criticism of the Peshitto New Testament, with specimens of the Syriac Massorah, Studia Biblica et Ecclesiastica vol. 3 (Oxford 1891), 47-104.

Jenner, K.D. and R.B. ter Haar Romeny (eds.), The Peshitta: Its Use in Literature and Liturgy. Papers Read at the Third Peshitta Symposium, Oud Poelgeest, 12-15 August 2001 (Monographs of the Peshitta Institute Leiden), Leiden (forthcoming).

Juckel, A. The ‘Syriac Massora’ and the New Testament Peshitta, in: K.D. Jenner and R.B. ter Haar Romeny (eds.), The Peshitta: Its Use in Literature and Liturgy ... (forthcoming).

Kamil, M. Catalogue of all manuscripts in the Monastery of St. Catharine on Mount Sinai. Wiesbaden 1970.

Kerschensteiner, J. Der Altsyrische Paulustext (CSC0 315/subs. 37), Louvain 1970.

Knappe, W.D. The Captivity Letters in the Syriac Tradition (S.T.D. Luth. School of Theol., Chicago 1977).

Parlevliet-Flesseman, I.E. De tekst van de Pesjitta in de brief aan de Galaten. Een voorlopige studie. Doctoraal-scriptie, Amsterdam 1993.

Pusey, Ph.E./Gwilliam, G.H. Tetraeuangelium Sanctum (Oxford 1901/Piscataway 2003).

Ross, A.M. Studies in the Thessalonian Epistles in Syriac (S.T.D. Luth. School of Theol., Chicago 1983).