¹ Cersoy, P., ‘Les Manuscrits orientaux de Monseigneur David, au Musée Borgia de Rome’, Z.A. IX (1894), 361–84; 361 f., 368.Google Scholar

² A good survey of its contents and of the studies on the several works contained in it can be found in the beautiful edition of Chabot, J.-B., Synodicon Orientale ou Recueil de Synodes Nestoriens (Paris, 1902), pp. 3–10.Google Scholar

³ Scher, A., ‘Notice sur les manuscrits syriaques du Musée Borgia aujourd'hui à la Bibliothèque Vaticane’, J.A. ser. x, t. xiii (1909), 249–87; esp. pp. 249, 268.Google Scholar

⁴ Pericoli-Ridolfini, F., ‘Lettera di Andrea di Samosata a Rabbula di Edessa’, R.S.O. xxviii (1953), 153–69.Google Scholar

⁵ Pp. (fols. 317^v–323^r).

⁶ P. Cersoy, loc. cit. (under 25); Chabot, J.-B., op. cit. p. 8Google Scholar (under 5); Braun, O., ‘Eine syrische Bericht über Nestorius’, Z.D.M.G. Liv (1900), 378–95; 378 f.Google Scholar

⁷ Baumstark, A., ‘Ein Brief des Andreas von Samosata an Rabbula von Edessa und eine verlorene dogmatische Katene’, O.C. i (1900), 179–81.Google Scholar

⁸ After the publication of this letter some studies have appeared: Pericoli-Ridolfini, F., ‘La controversia tra Cirillo d'Alesandria e Giovanni di Antiochia nell'epistolario di Andrea di Samosata’, R.S.O. XXIX (1954), 187–217;Google ScholarAbramowski, L., ‘Zum Brief des Andreas von Samosata an Rabbula von Edessa’, O.C. XLI (1957), 51–64. In this last article the Italian translation has been criticized in some points. Perhaps I may add here an instance in which the translator fails in a passage important in view of the Gospel text that Andrew was acquainted with: p. 11. 10–11, we read in a clear reference to Matt. xviii. 16 which Pericoli Ridolfini renders with ‘due o tre testimoni’. The conjunction, however, is not ‘or’ which is the reading of the Peŝitta in agreement with most Greek manuscripts (έ), but ‘and’ which reading does not occur frequently in Greek manuscripts (Kal in 28.990. 1010), being a good Old Syriac reading (S^sc), Aphrahat; (I even found it in the commentary of Ja'qόḇ bar Salībī on this passage).Google Scholar

¹ The complete list has been given by Baumstark, A., loc. cit. p.180.Google Scholar

² For the possibility of a partial reconstruction from other sources, Abramowski, cf. L., loc. cit. p. 54 note 10.Google Scholar

³ Braun, O., loc. cit. p. 378Google Scholar writes: ‘Die Väterstellen sind der entnommen, einer bisher unbekannten Schrift des Andreas von Samosata…’; he evidently confused here the manuscript word with. It seems to me that we have in a rendering of a Greek κόμέτος Εlρη7ngr;αlον. Comes Irenaeus was friend and partisan of Nestorius on the Council of Ephesus and after. He died possibly not later than 450. His main work ‘Tragoedia’, written shortly before his death, contained among many other documents—as we know from extracts made by the Roman deacon Rusticus in the sixth century—also various letters of Andrew of Samosata (cf., E. Schwartz, Ada Concitiorum Oecumenicorum, 1, 4 (Berlin-Leipzig, 1922–1924), pp. 86, 100, 102, 117, 127, 134, 136f., 139). Compare note 7, p.289.Google Scholar

⁴

⁵ Pp. (fol. 323^rv).

⁶ P. (fol. 323^v), Il. 3–5:.

⁷ Braun, O., loc. cit. p. 379 seems to hold this opinion, when he writes: ‘Im Anschluss daran, anscheinend selbständige Stellen…’Google Scholar

¹ Pp. (fols. 323^v–324^v).

² Pp. (fols. 324^r–325^r).

³ p. (fol. 325^r).

⁴ Pp. (fob. 325^r326^v).

⁵ Pp. (fols. 325^v326^r).

⁶ Braun, O., loc. cit. pp. 378–95 gives a translation and discussion of this letter.Google Scholar

⁷ There is reason to suppose that we have in the (έκκλέοιαοτικά) nothing else than another title or subtitle of the main work of Irenaeus, the Tragoedia.

⁸ The manuscript has been written with Nestorian characters. Here, however, the fragment will be printed in the more readable Estrangela, without the vocal points. In the manuscript the introduction has been written in another colour of ink, probably in red; the photographs, which are in my hand due to the kindness of the Vice-prefect Canon Am, van Lantschoot of the Vatican Library, do not allow us to speak with much assurance on this point.

¹ Gibson, M. D., The Commentaries of Isho'dad of Mero (Horae Semiticae no. vi), vol. II: Matthew and Mark in Syriac (Cambridge, 1911), p The Cambridge manuscript Add. 1973 (fol. 146^r) has the readingZGoogle Scholar

² Upublished by the Mechitarists of San Lazarro in four volumes (Venice, 1836).

³ Uj

⁴ Aucher, J.-B. and Moesinger, G., Evangelii Concordantis Expositio facta a Sancto Ephraemo Doctoresyro (Venice, 1876).Google Scholar

⁵ Zahn, Th., Tatian's Diatessaron, Forsch. I (Eriangen, 1881) was the first scholar who made a systematic use of this translation; his work ushered in a new period of Diatessaron study.Google Scholar

⁶ Leloir, L., Saint Éphrem, commentaire de l'évangite concordant, version arménienne; CSCO vol. 137; Arm. t. I (Louvain, 1953).Google Scholar

⁷ Leloir, L., Saint Éphrem, commentaire de l'évangile concordant, version arménienne; CSCO vol. 145; Arm. t. 2 (Louvain, 1954).Google Scholar

⁸ Moesinger, Cf. C., op. cit. pp. xi–xii (in the praefatio editoris): ‘multae hujus opens difficultates sine dubio solverentur, si, quod magnopere desiderandum est, textus ejus originalis Syriacus inveniretur.’Google Scholar

⁹ ‘Beiläufig benichte, dan die syrische Unschrift von Ephraems Kommentar zur Evangelienharmonic des Tatian gefunden scm soll. Dan ich hinter ihr bin, versteht sich von selbst’, Nachrichten der königlichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen (1893), p. 153.Google Scholar

¹⁰ Hjelt, A., Die altsyrische Euangelienübersetzung und Tatians Diatessaron besonders in ihrem gegenseitigen Verhältnis, Forsch. vu, i (Leipzig, 1903), p. 49 note: ‘Leider hat sich dies Gerucht nicht bestätigt.’Google Scholar

¹¹ Harris, J. Rendel, Fragments of the Commentary of Ephrem Syrus upon the Diatessaron (London, 1895).Google Scholar

¹ Harris, J. Rendel, op. cit. p. II: ‘I have collected these (sc. fragments) as far as they have come under my notice in reading… It is needless to say that no attempt is made at completeness.’Google Scholar

² Sedlaček, J. and Chabot, J.-B., Dionysii bar Salībī commentarii in evangelia, i (2), CSCO vol.77 (Louvain, 1915), p. 360, 11. 201.Google Scholar

³ Anyhow, he does not mention Moesinger, J.-B. Aucher-G., op. cit. p. 1Google Scholarcf., L. Leloir, op. cit. (Arm. 2), pp. 117–18.Google Scholar

⁴ That it was a Tatianic reading appears from the occurrence of the word in S^sc (Matt. xiv. 26; S² Mark vi. 49); there is reason to put the words ‘et ipsis visum est, daemonium esse ilium’ of Leloir's translation in italics.

⁵ Harris, J. Rendel, op. cit. pp. 84 f.Google Scholar

⁶ The same introduction occurs in the notice of Mōše bar Kēphā, quoted by Rendel, Harris, op. cit. p. 85.Google Scholar

⁷ Vaschalde, A., Dionysil bar Sa1īibī commentarii in evangelia, II (I), CSCO vol. 95 (Louvain, 1931), p. 81, 11, 20f.Google Scholar

⁸ Vaschalde, A., op. cit. p. 81, 11. 28 ff.; although it is not excluded that Ja'qōḇ bar Ṣalībī is dependent on Mīs;e bar Kēphā, the different wording in the exposition is surprising and presupposes dependence of both on a third source.Google Scholar

¹ Leloir, L., ‘L'original syriaque du commentaire de S. Éphrem sur le Diatessaron’, Biblica, XL (1959), 959–70; 963.Google Scholar

² Leloir, L., loc. cit. p. 964; the high antiquity leaps to the eye when we remember that Mar Ephraem died A.D. 373 and that the Armenian manuscripts are not earlier than A.D. 1195.Google Scholar

³ Leloir, L., loc. cit. p. 965: ‘Du commentaire du Diatessaron, mous ne connaîtrons done toujours, pour une très longue partie, que la version arménienne, à laquelle il faut ajouter les fragments partiellement réunis par Rendel Harris à partir d'auteurs Syriens postérieurs. La version arménienne demeure, dès lors, malgré la découverte Chester Beatty, un témoin indispensable.’Google Scholar

⁴ In a letter of 12 October 1960 M. Leloir wrote me: ‘…le manuscrit Ch. Beatty a une lacune à l'endroit que vous indiquez, et le texte ne reprend qu'au §4 du chap. xxi (= édition arménienne, p. 314).’

⁵ Harris, J. Rendel, op. cit. p. 89.Google Scholar

⁶ Both are dealing with the problem, whether Judas received the sacrament or not; cf. text and notes 6 and 7, p. 292.

⁷ Harris, J. Rendel, op. cit. p. 85.Google Scholar

⁸ Vaschalde, A., op. cit. p. 81, 11. 20 f.Google Scholar

¹ The saying alludes to Ps. xxxi. 6, where the Hebrew reads ℸℸℶ (Targum, cf. ℸℸℵℶ); see my ‘The Gospel Text in the Biography of Rabbula’, V.C. XXV (1960), 103–27; 118 f.Google Scholar

² The Palestinian Syriac Lectionary has.

³ The translation ‘comsnendo’ adopted by J.-B. Aucher and G. Moesinger, is repeated by L. Leloir. Dr A. F. J. Klijn of Utrecht kindly wrote me that according to his view the verb of the quotation in the commentary does not deviate from that of the Greek Gospel text.

⁴ Conybeare, F. C., ‘An Armenian Diatessaron?’, J.T.S. XXV (1924), 232–45; 237.Google Scholar

¹ Harris, J. Rendel, op. cit. p.14:Google Scholar ‘But when we say that Ephrem commented upon the text of the Diatessaron, we do not mean to imply that the text of the Diatessaron had come down unchanged to Ephrem's clay’; the problem of the history of the Diatessaron has been dealt with by Baumstark, A. ‘Zur Geschichte des Tatiantextes vor Aphrem’, O.C. XXX (1933), 1–12.Google Scholar

² The view that the Diatessaron was prior to all Syriac Gospel translations, was adopted by Baethgen and Zahn, and by many prominent scholars after them, among whom Vogels, Baumstark and Peters.

³ See for a theory of a direct relation between the Vetus Syra and a West Aramaic source, Black, M. ‘The sources and antiquity of the Old Syriac’ in his An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (Oxford, ² 1954), pp. 297 if.Google Scholar

⁴ The Syriac testifies for a twice occurring

⁵ I dare not say anything concerning the dogmatic position of the Armenian translator. The little fragment does not allow to speak with much assurance in this respect; cf. under (t).

¹ The verb is used to denote the passio magna of Christ, for example, Acts i. 3 μετά τό πόθεθετν: Peŝ.

² J.-B. Aucher and G. Moesinger have rendered ‘in passione’; L. Leloir renders ‘cruciatam’. If one adopts the conjecture of Leloir (in his apparatus of the edition), which has much in favour since the Syriac text supports the proposed reading, then one has to translate ‘cruciatum’.

³ The infinitive is almost identical with the participle.

⁴ The sudden transition from feminine to masculine may be significant for the theology of Mar Ephraem. He does not mention the new subject and object explicitly, but there is reason to think of Father and Son. This would mean that he is identifying Father and godhead, Son and manhood. Therefore it could get a place in the Nestorian dogmatic catena in our manuscript.

¹ Although the Armenian ‘ille’ sometimes is an introductory particle (Meillet, A., Allarmenisehes Elementarbuch (Heidelberg, 1913), § 172), it is not very probable that it renders here the Syriac cf. under (0), where the Armenian renders with a simple.Google Scholar

¹ L. Leloir prefers the reading of A ‘opera sua’; J.-B. Aucher and G. Moesinger chose that of B ‘opus suum’.

² See under (b), (f), (h), (i), (k), (n), (p), (s) and (u we may refer here to the words of Leloir, L., loc. cit. p. 966: ‘Dans les passages syriaques conservés, le texte arménien donne généralement une traduction fidzèle… il ne faut pas minimiser tout Ce que continue a nous apporter la version arménienne.’Google Scholar

³ See under (g); cf., L. Leloir,Google Scholaribid.: ‘Il arrive d'aileurs qu'il y ait des fautes de transcription du syriaque; l'arménien aide à les corriger.’

⁴ See under (i)t, (j) (k), (l) ‘ and (o).

⁵ See under (c) suffix, (d)a, (f)(m)(o), (t) and (u)a.

⁶ See under (m) and (q), where both texts differ in the verbs used.

⁷ Cf., L. Leloir, op. cit. p. 966: ‘Souvent le syriaque aide à comprendre des passages obscurs de l'arménienne.’Google Scholar