The Old Syriac Gospel of the Distinct Evangelists: A Key-Word-in-Context Concordance, by Jerome A. Lund, in collaboration with George A. Kiraz. [3 vols; Gorgias Press, Piscataway, 2004; ISBN 1-59333-069-3; 1-59333-070-7; 1-59333-0071-5;] xxiv, 1-952 pp; 953-1691 pp; 1692-2449 pp; hardcover.
David G. K.
Taylor
Beth Mardutho: The Syriac Institute
George A. Kiraz
James E. Walters
TEI XML encoding by
html2TEI.xsl
Beth Mardutho: The Syriac Institute
2006
Vol. 9, No. 2
For this publication, a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International
license has been granted by the author(s), who retain full
copyright.
https://hugoye.bethmardutho.org/article/hv9n2prtaylor1
David G.K. Taylor
The Old Syriac Gospel of the Distinct Evangelists: A Key-Word-in-Context Concordance, by Jerome A. Lund, in collaboration with George A. Kiraz. [3 vols; Gorgias Press, Piscataway, 2004; ISBN 1-59333-069-3; 1-59333-070-7; 1-59333-0071-5;] xxiv, 1-952 pp; 953-1691 pp; 1692-2449 pp; hardcover.
https://hugoye.bethmardutho.org/pdf/vol9/HV9N2PRTaylor1.pdf
Hugoye: Journal of Syriac Studies
Beth Mardutho: The Syriac Institute,
vol 9
issue 2
Hugoye: Journal of Syriac Studies is an electronic journal dedicated to the study
of the Syriac tradition, published semi-annually (in January and July) by Beth
Mardutho: The Syriac Institute. Published since 1998, Hugoye seeks to offer the
best scholarship available in the field of Syriac studies.
Syriac Studies
Old Syriac Gospel
Concordance
File created by XSLT transformation of original HTML encoded article.
[1] Since
the 1970s there has been a steady growth in the number of
biblical concordances available to readers of Syriac, beginning
with Strothmann’s concordance of Qoheleth (1973),
Winter’s concordance of Ben Sira and Sprenger’s of
Psalms (both 1976), and then Strothmann’s word list of
the Old Testament deuterocanonical texts (1988) and his
monumental 14-volume concordance of the complete Peshitta Old
Testament (1984, 1986, 1995), based on the text of the 1852
Urmia Bible and, remarkably, Walton’s London Polyglot of
1653-1657. Strothmann’s concordance is now in the process
of being complemented by that of the Leiden Peshitta Institute,
edited by Borbone and Jenner, which is based on their critical
edition of the Peshitta Old Testament, and the first volume of
which, covering the Pentateuch, appeared in 1997. For the New
Testament, scholars were for a long time reliant on the word
lists of Schaaf (1709) and The Way International (1985), before
these were eclipsed by Kiraz’ Concordance to the
Syriac New Testament (1993). The latest addition to these
ranks of essential research tools is Jerry Lund’s
impressive concordance of the Curetonian and Sinaitic Old
Syriac Gospel manuscripts, which at just under 2500 pages in
length is a work of truly stakhanovite proportions!
[2] The
concordance is divided into three volumes, the first containing
words beginning ܐ - ܗ, the second those beginning ܘ - ܠ, and the third ܡ - ܬ, plus two separate concordances
of personal names and geographic names. The volumes are
produced on American standard sized paper (8½" x 11", or
21.59 x 27.94cm), but with the exception of title pages and the
introductory materials, the volumes are printed in
‘landscape’ format down the whole length of a page
opening. That is, the columns begin at the left-hand edge of
the left page and continue down to the right-hand edge of the
right page. This allows sufficient space for the key word, with
a significant space on either side, to be anchored at the same
point in every line (as though in a separate column) with
approximately five to seven words preceding and following. This
of course makes it very easy to locate the word that is being
sought, and provides outstanding contextualisation that is not
bettered in any other Syriac concordance. To the right of the
Syriac text (which is printed throughout in unvocalized
estrangela type) is a reference to the manuscript and Gospel
verse being cited, and then to its right a column for the
insertion of each distinct Syriac form as it starts to be
listed, and then finally an index number for each entry within
the listing of a particular word. (All prefixed and suffixed
forms of a noun are numbered together, as are all forms of a
particular verb.) At the beginning of each new Syriac lemma a
simple English gloss is provided which seeks to reflect the
prime meaning found within the Old Syriac Gospels themselves,
plus a very simple grammatical classification (N for noun, V
for verb, p for preposition, etc). Some nominal and adjectival
forms are provided with further grammatical classification as
they are listed, but the only additional information given for
verbs is their identification as peal, pael etc, which seems a
little sparse compared to concordances such as Kiraz, and is
particularly unfortunate given that there are some unusual
verbal forms in the Old Syriac Gospels which non-specialists
may find hard to identify. Unlike the Leiden concordance,
however, in which different forms are all jumbled together,
Lund’s work very carefully distinguishes the various
morphological forms and orders them alphabetically, and this is
a great help to all users.
[3] Whereas
Kiraz and Strothmann list all words under their Syriac roots,
Lund has explicitly followed the practice of the earlier
Key-Word-in-Context concordances of Aramaic texts (Targum
Neofiti, by Kaufman and Sokoloff, 1993; the Aramaic documents
from Egypt, by Porten and Lund, 2002), and so lists the verbs
by root (with the third radical yodh verbs listed as
ܗܘܝ and ܫܕܝ etc., and not as
ܗܘܐ and ܫܕܐ), but gives an
alphabetical listing of all other words, with nouns presented
in their emphatic / determined forms, and adjectives and those
passive participles used adjectivally or substantivally, in
their absolute forms. The justification given for this
methodology is that by conforming to the practice of the above
cited Aramaic reference works “it will allow the student
of comparative Aramaic dialects to compare Syriac with those
other dialects more readily”. Since the very existence of
this concordance is a consequence of Jerry Lund’s work
for the Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon Project, and the support
of the Project directors, and given that the Leiden concordance
took the same unfortunate approach, it seems rather churlish to
grumble about this arrangement, but nevertheless I do think
that since the majority of users will be students of Syriac and
the Syriac biblical versions, it might have been helpful to
follow the lead of Kiraz and Strothmann and the major Syriac
reference lexica and list all forms under the appropriate root
(perhaps with an appended alphabetical key, as in Kiraz, to aid
those who need assistance to track down a particular word).
With the present arrangement, without the aid even of lists of
root derivatives such as those provided by Jessie Payne Smith
in her dictionary, users will have to work hard if they wish to
identify all usages of a particular root within these
manuscripts.
[4] One of
the definite strengths of Lund’s concordance is that it
includes listings of all uses of conjunctions, prepositions,
pronouns, and particles in their alphabetic position, whereas
some of these (especially ܘ, ܕ, ܒ, ܠ, etc.) are omitted from many of the other
published concordances, or are relegated to appendices. The
separate listing of personal and geographic names is also
useful, though it might have been helpful to add English
glosses to these in addition to the less familiar transcribed
forms.
[5] Now, it
should also be noticed that Lund was faced with a particularly
daunting problem when he decided to produce this extremely
welcome concordance to the Old Syriac Gospels. Whereas the
Strothmann and Leiden concordances of the Peshitta Old
Testament and Kiraz’ concordance of the Peshitta New
Testament could work with critical editions of biblical texts
based on multiple manuscripts, in which all scribal errors and
idiosyncracies had been carefully removed to produce what might
be termed ‘idealized’ texts, Lund had no such
luxury available to him. Instead he had to work with two early,
fragmentary, and highly idiosyncratic manuscripts, presenting
significantly different texts, which were full of unusual
orthographic forms and significant numbers of simple scribal
errors. On top of this, of course, the Sinaitic manuscript is a
palimpsest which is barely legible in substantial sections,
despite the nineteenth-century application of chemical reagents
and the late twentieth-century use of photographic imaging.
Thus the editio princeps of 1894, Agnes Smith
Lewis’ re-transcription of 1896 and her edition of 1910,
and the 1904 edition of F.C. Burkitt, all too frequently report
variant readings for the same passages. Part of Lund’s
solution to these problems was to base his concordance on
Kiraz’ Comparative Edition of the Syriac Gospels
(= CESG; 2nd edition 2002), which had taken its own text of the
Curetonian manuscript from Burkitt’s 1904 edition and of
the Sinaitic manuscript from Lewis’ 1910 edition.
(Although in so doing it had removed all of the small corner
brackets used in these volumes to indicate that the
transcribers considered a particular reading uncertain.) His
second solution was to make 73 emendations to the text of the
Gospel manuscripts, of which only 9 were corrections to the
Curetonian manuscript. Words thus emended were included in the
body of the concordance at the point determined by the
alphabetic form of the emendation, although the changed form is
enclosed by < >. The rejected form is also listed at
this point (only) in the concordance, and is enclosed by
{ }.
[6] Lund
provides a complete list of the emendations adopted in his
concordance on pp. xi - xviii, and subdivides them on pragmatic
grounds, such as ‘errors arising from metathesis of
consonants’, ‘errors arising from graphically
similar consonants’, ‘error by omission of a
letter’, etc. He argues that “whether a modern
transcriber or an ancient scribe introduced the mistake is
immaterial; a textual error is still a textual error”,
and so he does not seek in most cases to distinguish these
sources of potential error. For anyone interested in the
textual transmission of the Old Syriac Gospels there is some
fascinating material here which repays closer study. There are,
however, also some rather marked flaws in the methodology used
to identify errors to be emended, and so I thought it might be
useful to restructure Lund’s list (though keeping his
numbering of items), and to provide some comments, as a first
contribution to the ‘scholarly consideration’ which
he invites at its beginning.
[7] A.
Typographic errors in CESG alone
In the following cases a comparison with the earlier
editions reveals that a simple typing error has slipped into
CESG:
27.
Sin Matt 10:4
For ܣܟܪܝܛܐ
Read ܣܟܪܝܘܛܐ.
5.
Sin Luke 4:1
For ܘܕܒܬܪܗ
Read ܘܕܒܪܬܗ.
19.
Sin Luke 17:6
For ܣܡܟܐ
Read ܗܡܟܐ.
8.
Cur John 4:39
For ܕܡܢܬܐ
Read ܡܕܝܢܬܐ.
58.
Cur John 6:45
For ܟܘܠ
ܡܢܗ
Read ܟܘܠ
ܡܢܘ.
9.
Cur John 14:11
For ܡܝܗܡܢܝܢ
Read ܡܗܝܡܢܝܢ.
Notes:
19. For several days I thought that there was no entry in
the concordance for ܗܡܟܐ, as I was simply
unable to find it. By chance I then discovered it listed after
ܡܢ as ܡܢ
ܗܡܟܐ, and along with it forms
such as ܡܢ
ܐܝܡܟܐ, ܡܢ ܒܣܬܪ, and
ܡܢ ܝܬܝܪ. This
is far from intuitive to me, and I don’t think it should
be adopted in any future concordances. (Likewise, a long search
for ܐܘܪܥܐ eventually
found it listed as ܠܐܘܪܥ.)
58. Lund has incorrectly emended the text here, on the basis
of Sinaiticus, to ܟܘܠ ܡܢ.
[8] B.
Typographic errors in Lewis and so also in CESG
In these cases a typographic error in Lewis’ 1910
edition of Sinaiticus has been preserved uncorrected in
CESG:
4.
Sin Mark 16:6
For ܕܬܚܠܢ
Read ܬܕܚܠܢ.
11.
Sin Luke 9:19
For ܒܥܡܕܢܐ
Read ܡܥܡܕܢܐ.
12.
Sin Luke 10:2
For ܒܪܗ
Read ܡܪܗ.
13.
Sin Luke 10:7
For ܓܝܕ
Read ܓܝܪ.
23.
Sin Luke 15:32
For ܘܐܚܬܟܚ
Read ܘܐܫܬܟܚ.
57.
Sin John 5:6
For ܕܢܘܓܪܝܐ
Read ܕܢܘܓܪܐ.
Notes:
57. Although in Lewis’ main text the yodh is
surrounded by corner brackets, in her introduction p.xxxiii she
cites it as ܕܢܘܓܪܐ (as
does Burkitt ad loc.), and she does not include this
reading in her Appendix I where disagreements with
Burkitt’s edition are listed.
The 12 corrections listed above were clearly correctly made
to the text in Lund’s concordance, although given their
origins in twentieth-century printing it was not necessary to
justify them by comparison with other ancient texts, nor to
preserve the error in the concordance (with the possible
exception of 57.). These errors should also, of course, be
corrected in copies of the CESG.
[9] C.
Suspect transcriptions by modern scholars
In all of the following instances the text of Sinaiticus was
for a long time illegible to the transcribers, and many
readings in these passages remain uncertain, and so it seems
reasonable that Lund’s sound emendations should be
accepted.
21.
Sin Matt 24:6
For ܕܡܗܘܐ
Read ܠܡܗܘܐ.
14.
Sin Luke 11:24
For ܒܗܝܢ
Read ܒܗܘܢ.
39.
Sin Luke 23:53
For ܒܚܨܐ
Read ܒܚܝܨܐ.
15.
Sin John 6:63
For ܗܘ
Read ܗܝ.
16.
Sin John 15:4
For ܗܘ
Read ܗܝ.
Notes:
21. This proposed emendation is supported by its occurrence
in Aphrahat Dem. XXI.23 (989.6).
[10] D.
Scribal errors
Whilst it is possible that one or two of the following are
orthographic variants, it seems more likely that they are all
simple errors by the scribe of Sinaiticus.
26.
Sin Matt 8:34
For ܠܐܘܪܥ
Read ܠܐܘܪܥܗ.
60.
Sin Matt 12:36
For ܒܛܠܬܐ
Read ܒܛܠܐ.
28.
Sin Matt 12:41
For ܒܟܪܘܙܬܗ
Read ܒܟܪܘܙܘܬܗ.
1.
Sin Matt 22:19
For ܘܐܫܛܘ
Read ܐܘܫܛܘ.
29.
Sin Matt 22:30
For ܒܝܬ
ܡܝܬܐ
Read ܒܚܝܬ
ܡܝܬܐ.
61.
Sin Matt 26:36
For ܥܡܡܗܘܢ
Read ܥܡܗܘܢ.
30.
Sin Matt 26:69
For ܓܠܝܠܐ
Read ܓܠܝܠܝܐ.
72.
Sin Mark 6:40
For ܘܚܡܫܝܢ
Read ܘܚܡܫܝܢ
ܚܡܫܝܢ.
2.
Sin Mark 9:18
For ܘܡܪܚܩ
Read ܘܡܚܪܩ.
3.
Sin Mark 14:11
For ܦܥܠܐ
Read ܦܠܥܐ.
31.
Sin Mark 14:70
For ܕܓܠܝܠܐ
Read ܕܓܠܝܠܝܐ.
34.
Sin Luke 5:4
For ܡܠܠܗ
Read ܡܡܠܠܗ.
6.
Sin Luke 9:1
For ܥܠܝܐ
Read ܚܝܠܐ.
33.
Sin Luke 17:37
For ܢܬܟܫܘܢ
Read ܢܬܟܢܫܘܢ.
56.
Sin Luke 18:22
For ܙܒܢܢ
Read ܙܒܢ.
7.
Sin Luke 19:44
For ܕܣܥܘܪܢܟܝ
Read ܕܣܘܥܪܢܟܝ.
44.
Sin Luke 22:48
For ܠܒܪ
ܕܐܢܫܐ
Read ܠܒܪܗ
ܕܐܢܫܐ.
63.
Sin John 6:52
For ܚܕ ܥܡ
ܚܕܐ
Read ܚܕ ܥܡ
ܚܕ.
71.
Sin John 20.1
For ܕܡܓܕܠܝܐ
Read ܕܡܥܓܠܐ.
Notes:
29. This occurs in a section that could not be read before
Lewis’ 1910 edition, and so it is possible that this is a
transcriptional error rather than a scribal error.
30. This same emendation is also listed by Lund as 51.
72. In this instance an entire word is being added that does
not exist in the manuscript, on the grounds that normal
grammatical practice requires it. I am sure this is right, but
it should be noted that this is a significant step away from
simply recording the extant text.
With these readings Lund’s policy of listing the word
under the emended form but also presenting alongside it the
original erroneous form is highly appropriate.
[11] E.
Non-standard orthography
There are good grounds for thinking that all of the
following are orthographic variants, and not scribal errors.
Some are attested in other early Syriac texts, others follow
well known patterns for such variants. It is a mistake to
attempt to conform these words to later standards, or to those
taught in the church schools and monasteries of the Edessa
region. (Indeed, the extent of the unusual orthography found in
these manuscripts is clear from the most cursory browse through
the pages of the concordance, and it is a mine of information
that has as yet been little explored by linguists.) In this
table Lund’s proposed emendations are listed in brackets
in a column placed before the original readings which are to be
kept.
24.
Sin Matt 3:4
(For ܘܡܐܟܘܠܬܗ)
Keep ܘܡܐܟܠܬܗ.
25.
Cur Matt 3:14
(For ܠܘܬܝ)
Keep ܠܘܬ.
65.
Cur Matt 13:16
(For ܘܛܘܒܝܗܝܢ)
Keep ܘܛܘܒ.
17.
Sin Mark 6:9
(For ܟܘܬܝܢܝܢ)
Keep ܟܘܬܘܢܝܢ.
52.
Sin Mark 10.32
(For ܒܐܘܪܚܐ)
Keep ܒܐܪܚܐ.
35.
Sin Luke 12:5
(For ܐܝܢ)
Keep ܐܢ.
37.
Sin Luke 13:3
(For ܬܬܘܒܘܢ)
Keep ܬܬܒܘܢ.
38.
Sin Luke 14:10
(For ܬܫܒܘܚܬܐ)
Keep ܬܫܒܚܬܐ.
42.
Sin Luke 14:12
(For ܦܘܪܥܢܐ)
Keep ܦܪܥܢܐ.
43.
Sin Luke 16:6
(For ܘܟܬܘܒ)
Keep ܘܟܬܒ.
40.
Sin Luke 19:17
(For ܐܝܘ)
Keep ܐܘ.
53.
Sin Luke 19:36
(For ܒܐܘܪܚܐ)
Keep ܒܐܪܚܐ.
45.
Sin Luke 23:16
(For ܐܪܕܝܘܗܝ)
Keep ܐܪܕܘܗܝ
46.
Sin Luke 23:16
(For ܘܐܫܒܩܝܘܗܝ)
Keep ܘܐܫܒܩܘܗܝ.
47.
Sin Luke 23:22
(For ܐܪܕܝܘܗܝ)
Keep ܐܪܕܝܗܝ.
48.
Sin Luke 23:22
(For ܘܐܫܒܩܝܘܗܝ)
Keep ܘܐܫܒܩܘܗܝ.
41.
Sin Luke 24:26
(For ܠܬܫܒܘܚܬܗ)
Keep ܠܬܫܒܚܬܗ.
50.
Sin John 7:51
(For ܠܘܩܕܡ)
Keep ܠܩܕܡ.
59.
Sin John 10:9
(For ܢܚܐ)
Keep ܢܝܚܐ.
54.
Sin John 14:5
(For ܐܘܪܚܐ)
Keep ܐܪܚܐ.
49.
Sin John 14:18
(For ܐܫܒܘܩܟܘܢ)
Keep ܐܫܒܩܟܘܢ.
Notes:
24. As Burkitt noted in his helpful notes on the grammar and
syntax of these manuscripts (cf. Burkitt II.40), Sinaiticus has
a marked tendency to omit the letter waw in
prepositions, nouns, and verbs, (as do other early Syriac
texts, cf. Drijvers and Healey, The Old Syriac Inscriptions
of Edessa and Osrhoene [1999], p.23), and this particular
form is also attested in Assemani’s Acta Martyrum
(1748) II.74.
25. Silent final waw and yodh are
occasionally, if rarely, omitted from the ends of words in the
Old Syriac Gospels and elsewhere. Cf. Taylor, The Syriac
Versions of the De Spiritu Sancto by Basil of Caesarea
(1999), Index Orthographicus, p.183-195.
65. Strictly speaking this is not a matter of orthography,
but rather the word in the Curetonianus appears to be the
common abbreviation which is used in numerous manuscripts for
the full form suggested by Lund. (These abbreviations often
occur at the ends of lines, but I have not been able to check
this here.)
52., 53., 54. Another example of a word that can lose its
waw in early orthography, and which is also attested in
the Peshitta of Matt 20:30 in Pusey and Gwilliam’s
cod.36, and is cited by Payne Smith from the Roman edition of
Ephrem.
35., 40. Both of these words are found in manuscripts and in
the lexica with their defective forms.
38., 41. These are not plural forms but an orthographic
variant of the singular that is also found in a sixth century
manuscript of Basil on the Holy Spirit (cf. Taylor, loc.
cit.) and Isa 52:1 and 61:3 in 5ph1 (cf. VTS III.1 p.xvi),
Isa 42:10 in 6h3, and in 7pk18 (op. cit. p.xviii).
42. This is yet another example of defective spelling, which
happens to be attested in a second-century inscription, As37:7
(Drijvers and Healey, op. cit., p.108)
45. - 48. Burkitt II.54-56 lists numerous occurrences of
verbs in Sinaiticus with object suffixes that do not conform to
later orthographic standards (far more than are marked for
emendation by Lund), and in Taylor, op. cit., further
examples of these are listed from various sources.
50. By way of comparison, it should be noted that the scribe
of Sinaiticus has a liking for forms such as ܠܩܒܠ and ܠܩܒܠܗ.
[12] F.
Possible textual variants / unjustified emendations
The following are rather a rag-bag of readings. Some of them
are early Syriac textual readings which may well pre-date the
writing of the two surviving Old Syriac manuscripts, and others
are capable of being read as coherent variants within their
context, or are actually supported by known variants in other
early New Testament witnesses. In all cases they seem to me to
be instances where it is not appropriate for a concordance to
emend the text (although a note that they may well be errors,
or need emending by critics, is of course perfectly reasonable
in an introduction). The practical consequence of such
emendation is that a curious reading such as 68., ܘܫܛ is now only to be found by
reading the introduction and knowing that it must be looked for
under ܘܫܕܪ! If it is an error it
is an interesting one, and should be left in its appropriate
context for other scholars to consider.
64.
Cur Matt 1:21
(For ܠܥܡܗ)
Keep ܠܥܠܡܐ.
18.
Sin Matt 4:10
(For ܠܒܣܬܪܝ)
Keep ܠܒܣܬܪܟ.
20.
Cur Matt 11:6
(For ܕܠܐ)
Keep ܐܠܐ.
66.
Cur Matt 14:13
(For ܒܠܚܘܕܘܗܝ)
Keep ܒܠܚܘܕܝܗܘܢ.
22.
Sin Matt 25:40
(For ܙܥܘܪܐ)
Keep ܙܥܘܪܝ.
36.
Sin Mark 6:26
(For ܕܢܗܦܘܟ)
Keep ܕܢܗܦܟ.
73.
Sin Mark 8:34
(For ܘܢܐܬܐ
ܒܬܪܝ)
Keep ܘܢܐܬܐ.
32.
Sin Mark 10:4
(For ܕܢܟܬܘܒ)
Keep ܕܢܟܬܒ.
67.
Sin Mark 10:49
(For ܕܢܩܪܘܢܝܗܝ)
Keep ܕܢܩܪܒܘܢܗ.
55.
Sin Mark 11:1
(For ܘܠܒܝܬ)
Keep ܠܒܝܬ.
62.
Sin Mark 13:8
(For ܕܚܒܠܐ)
Keep ܕܚܒܠܬܐ.
10.
Sin Luke 1:5
(For ܐܒܝܐ)
Keep ܐܒܝܡ.
68.
Sin Luke 1:53
(For ܘܫܕܪ)
Keep ܘܫܛ.
69.
Cur Luke 24:20
(For ܩܫܝܫܐ)
Keep ܩܫܝܫܝܢ.
70.
Sin John 13:5
(For ܘܡܫܘܐ)
Keep ܘܡܫܦܪ.
Notes:
64. The Greek, and Sinaiticus and Peshitta, read ‘his
people’, and Lund would so emend, arguing that this is
‘an internal Syriac development, produced by scribal
lapse’. Burkitt II.257, on the contrary, states that
‘the variation in the suffix shews that the change was
not due to a simple graphical error’, and he points to
Luke 2:10 where Sinaiticus and Peshitta have
‘world’ for Greek ‘people’. (Lund lists
9 further internal Syriac textual developments on p.xix.) If
sense, literal or theological, can be made of the reading, as
here, it should not be emended, because otherwise this begins
to result in the conforming of the Old Syriac Gospel text to
some hypothetical Greek norm.
20., 66., 22. Possibly an error, but possibly not as an
intelligible rendering can be given in context, and thus to be
left without emendation.
73. In this instance an error does seem likely, but again it
is not certain, and does not warrant emendation in the body of
a concordance.
32. This could be an orthographic variant, or the use of an
Aphel form to indicate the writing of a decree or formal
document, and in either case no emendation is necessary.
67. In the parallel passage in Luke 18:40 Jesus commands
that the blind man be brought to him, and not just be
‘called / summoned’, and it is noteworthy that in
the Persian Diatessaron (III.33) it appears to be the Lukan
wording of this verse that is inserted into the Matthaean
version of the episode.
62. Although this is the only attested feminine form of this
word in Syriac I think it is significant that as acute a
lexicographer as Brockelmann felt that it should be included in
his Lexicon, 210b. (It might also be noted that the feminine
form does exist in various Jewish Aramaic dialects, such as
JBA, where it has the meaning ‘destruction’.) This
may be an error, or it may be a precious attestation of a rare
word, but it should be left in the text of a concordance for
readers to decide.
10. Not only does the Hebrew text of the Old Testament
occasionally read ‘Abiyam’ instead of
‘Abiya’, but the Old Latin manuscripts e l
also read abiam in this very verse. It is far from
clear, therefore, that this is a Syriac scribal error.
68. The reading ‘he despised the rich as being
empty/worthless’ is certainly remarkable, and it may be
an error. Alternatively it could be an internal Syriac
development of encratite / ascetic motivation, as witnessed in
numerous other passages, and so it would be a mistake to
conform it to the Greek text.
69. Lund appears to take the Curetonian reading here as a
plural absolute form ‘elders’, and so for
grammatical reasons emends it to the plural emphatic /
determined form. He adds ‘This seems better than
interpreting the form ܩܫܝܫܝܢ as
“our elders”’. The Greek here, however,
literally reads ‘the chief priests and our rulers’,
and so it seems highly likely that this word should indeed be
read as ‘our elders’. (Another instance of the
Curetonian having been brought into closer conformity with the
Greek text than Sinaiticus or, occasionally as here, the
Peshitta.)
70. This proposed emendation is also quite radical. Lund
argues that ‘it is clearly a textual error, probably by a
modern transcriber who was unaware of this meaning
[‘wipe’] of ܫܘܐ in Syriac’. But in
this passage the transcribers seem to have been able to read
the text without too much difficulty (although this is
relative), and they re-read it on several subsequent occasions.
Also, given that the Peshitta of this passage also reads
ܘܡܫܘܐ, the
transcription of an alternative reading was not a consequence
of ignorance but a conscious recording of what they believed
they could see. It is possible to make some sense of
ܘܡܫܦܪ in this
context, and so the reading should stand. (If an alternative
reading were required for other purposes I think a more
plausible reconstruction of the original text would be
ܘܡܟܦܪ, using the
same root employed in the Harklean.)
[13] I
have devoted far more space than is normally possible in a book
review to a consideration of Jerry Lund’s list of
emendations because I found the issues they raised very
interesting, and I hoped that this new analysis would stimulate
further discussion. By my very crude ‘back of an
envelope’ estimate, however, this affects 73 out of some
170,000 lines of text, and even in these 73 lines Jerry has
explained very clearly what he has done, and has preserved both
the original reading and his emendation. It would be quite
wrong, therefore, to interpret this discussion as a critique of
the larger work. On the contrary, I firmly believe that the
publication of Jerry Lund’s concordance marks the
beginning of a whole new era of text-critical and linguistic
study of the Old Syriac Gospels, and I for one would like to
thank him enthusiastically for the invaluable resource that he
has placed within our hands.