Hekamtho Syrian Orthodox Theological Journal

HEKAMTHO SYRIAN ORTHODOX THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL

Syriac Language & Traditions

The Malankara Syrian Orthodox Theological Seminary Udayagiri, Vettickal P.O., Mulanthuruthy, Ernakulam Dist, Kerala, India. Pin - 682314 Ph: 0484 - 2748079, 2974406, 2748061 web: www.msotseminary.edu.in email: [email protected] [email protected], [email protected] Contents

Forward 3

Editorial 4

The Syriac Language and its place within Aramaic 7 Prof. Dr. Sebastian Brock ͔ͦ͗ͣΒ ܬ΍ͮܪܬ ͕έͮܪͣ; ͕ܬ͠΄ܕ ͕ܬͣͼ͹ͮܗ 20 Ͱͯ͘͵ܨ Α͗ ܒͣΏ΅ͮ ܣͣͯ;ͣͼͻͣͮܕ ܝΑ͸ ܬͣΈ͵ Gabriel Rabo

Globalizing Syriac Studies 40 George A. Kiraz

Syriac Translations of the New Testament and the 51 Formation of the Canon in the Antiochian West Syrian Church Dr. Adai Jacob Corepiscopa

The Syriac Heritage 63 Dr. Kuriakose Moolayil Corepiscopa

Christological and Pneumatological Dimensions of Holy 69 Eucharist in West Syrian Tradition Fr. Biju M. Parekkattil Hekamtho || Syrian Orthodox Theological Journal 3 Forward Dearly beloved in Christ, Just like a beautiful flower that buds and blooms, the MSOT seminary has taken its first step towards its accomplishment of an academic theological journal titled “Hekamtho” means Wisdom. This venture was made even more blessed by the holy presence of H.H. Moran Mor Ignatius Aphrem II, Patriarch of Antioch and all the East on 12th February 2015 who released the first volume of Hekamtho by his holy hands. Hekamtho will be a momentous landmark in the history of the Jacobite Syrian Orthodox Church itself. It is quite certain that this endeavor will equip the Church and it’s seminary to contribute pro- ficiently to the discussions in the global scholastic scenario. This publication is intended to focus on a specific meadow of knowledge in each volume. Hence it will nourish the readers with a multifaceted understanding on a specific theme. Moreover it will be a platform to congregate the knowledge and thoughts of various renowned scholars and make it accessible to the interested. The scholars who contribute to the journal are selected with much attention from diverse milieu, to make sure that the readers are able to gain equitable, ratio- nal and empirical insight on the topics. Syriac language has always held a distinctive place in the history of Christianity. The numerous contributions it has made in the growth of the Christian church and worship is accepted by everyone. Hence I deem that it is in all ways apposite to dedicate the opening volume of Hekamtho to the Syriac Language and Traditions itself. On this joyful occasion, I would like to congratulate the entire editorial team for their sincerity, hard work and dedication for bring- ing out a journal of international standards. I am sure that this new initiative by the MSOT Seminary will surely be a valuable contribu- tion in the field of Theological education. Congratulations & Best Wishes

Dr. Theophilose Kuriakose Resident Metropolitan 4 Hekamtho || Syrian Orthodox Theological Journal Editorial

It is with immense pleasure that I am writing this editorial for the very first volume of ‘Hekamtho’, the theological & academic Journal published by our MSOT Seminary. The syriac word ‘Hekamtho’ has been derived from the Hebrew word ‘Hekma’ which means ‘Wisdom’ and this is exactly what this journal aims to achieve. This journal is published with the intention of not just to impart critical knowledge but also to partake and practice the will of God. By imitating the will of God, wisdom becomes the way of life. Therefore, I hope and pray that this new venture becomes an instrument and inspiration for our good conduct, improves our relationship with God and fellow beings and this journal would help us to materialize our theoretical knowledge in to concrete expressions of day-to-day life based on the skill of love, truth and faith, which is the core of true wisdom. Hekamtho is planned to be published bi-annually and each issue will be dedicated exclusively to a specific topic. The first issue of this journal is dedicated to Syriac language and traditions. The prime reason for selecting this topic is because Jesus himself had used Aramaic syriac as his choice of language for his salvific ministry on earth. The syriac language is made even more special because this is the language in which god himself revealed the wisdom of His Kingdom to mankind for the very first time. Moreover, syriac is the official liturgical language of our Syrian orthodox church which makes our liturgy unique and our worships more spiritually enhancing. This journal is intended to share the Syrian Orthodox perspective on various theological, liturgical, social and missiological discussions. It is also meant to develop a sense of critical thinking in the minds of the readers. The authors for this issue are all renowned scholars in the field of Syriac literature and were selectively handpicked in Hekamtho || Syrian Orthodox Theological Journal 5 order to make this journal of impeccable quality. Sebastian Brock in his article “The Syriac language and its place within Aramaic” illustrates the evolution of Syriac as a language from the origin to its current usage. It provides us with a holistic view of the Aramaic heritage. In his Syriac article “Dionysius Jacob Bar Ṣalibi’s confession of the Syrian Orthodox faith”, Gabriel Rabo illustrates the spiritual life of Bar Ṣalibi, a prominent theologian of the Syrian Orthodox Church during the time of Syriac Renaissance. George Kiraz, in his article titled “Globalizing Syriac studies”explains how technology played an important role in connecting various Syriac scholars worldwide to work together for the development of the Syriac language. He also points out the fact that there are only few active members or well wishers for the Syriac language therefore resulting in its slow growth. Adai Jacob Corepiscopa in his article, “ Syriac Translation of New Testament and the formation of the canon in the Antiochian West Syrian Church” assesses the relation between Syriac language and the formation of NT canon. He analyses how Syriac, as a language, has its impact on the canonizing process of the New Testament books. This article also higlights how the translation of the New Testament Bible into Syriac language resulted in creating an importance for this language within Christianity. Kuriakose Moolayil Corepiscopa expalins the linguistic and liturgical heritages of Syriac language in his article “ Syriac heritage”. He presents certain pointers on how the Syriac heritage is nurtured with special reference to the the writings of the Fathers of the Early Church. In the last article by Biju Parekkattil titled “Christological and pneumatological dimension of of Holy Eucharist in West Syrian tradition”, showcases the theological understanding of Eucharist from a West Syrian Church perspective. 6 Hekamtho || Syrian Orthodox Theological Journal On this occasion, I would like to congratulate and thank all the scholars who enriched this journal through their valuable contributions. We were indeed fortunate enough to have these renowned scholars in the field of Syriac language sharing their knowledge and thoughts in this very first volume of the journal. Therefore, I pray to Lord God Almighty to make this new venture a grand success by ensuring that the purpose of this journal is fulfilled which is none other than to impart Wisdom.

Fr. Dr. Ajiyan George (Editor) Hekamtho || Syrian Orthodox Theological Journal 7

The Syriac Language and Its Place Within Aramaic1 Prof. Dr. Sebastian Brock Both Aramaic and Hebrew have been around in written forms for some three millennia and are the longest-lived of all the Semitic languages, and their earliest inscriptions go back to about the tenth century BC. Needless to say, over the course of three thousand years any language will develop, and this is very much the case with Aramaic, which is today known from a large number of different dialects. A few of these dialects were adopted as literary languages with their own distinctive scripts, and sometimes their own name, as is the case with Syriac and Mandaic, while the Aramaic dialect of the Jewish Targums and Talmuds is simply known as ‘Jewish Aramaic’.

1 Further details on the topics covered in this article will be found in various chapters of the first volume of The Hidden Pearl: The Syrian Orthodox Church and its Ancient Aramaic Heritage (ed. S.P. Brock and D.G.K. Taylor, Rome, 2001). 8 Hekamtho || Syrian Orthodox Theological Journal

For convenience scholars have divided the history of Aramaic over the three millennia into five main periods, Old Aramaic, Achaemenid (or Official) Aramaic, Middle Aramaic, Late Aramaic and Modern Aramaic. Old Aramaic Aramaic first emerged as a written language at a time when there were several small Aramean kingdoms in the area of modern Syria. At first these were independent, but they soon fell under the control of the Assyrian Empire (based in the north of modern Iraq). Quite a number of important Aramaic inscriptions from the eighth and seventh centuries BC survive. Towards the end of the Assyrian Empire Aramaic had come to be used widely alongside Akkadian, and a famous relief carving illustrates two scribes in the process of writing: one holds a stylus with which he impresses wedge-shaped signs ~ (‘cuneiform’) on damp clay, writing in Akkadian, while the other has a pen, and he is writing (in ink) on skin, in Aramaic. Thus it was not surprising that Aramaic replaced Akkadian as the language of international relations in the Achaemenid Empire. Achaemenid Aramaic Whereas Old Aramaic is mostly attested in inscriptions on stone, Achaemenid Aramaic (or Official Aramaic, as it is sometimes called) is best known from documents written on papyrus or skin. Several different archives have come to light in different countries. In Egypt, which was under Achaemenid control, there was a Jewish community living in the south of the country, on Elephantine, an island in the river Nile. At the beginning of the twentieth century a large collection of papyrus letters and documents, produced by the community, came to light; of particular interest is a fragment of The Wisdom of Ahiqar, a work which is also known in its later Syriac form. Subsequently, from elsewhere in Egypt several official letters, written on skin, from the Achaemenid administration were discovered, and then Hekamtho || Syrian Orthodox Theological Journal 9

For convenience scholars have divided the history of Aramaic yet another collection of private letters from a pagan community. over the three millennia into five main periods, Old Aramaic, Much more recently another collection of official documents, this Achaemenid (or Official) Aramaic, Middle Aramaic, Late time originating from Afghanistan, has come to light, indicating Aramaic and Modern Aramaic. how widespread the use of Aramaic was under the Achaemenid Empire. Old Aramaic Aramaic first emerged as a written language at a time when Middle Aramaic there were several small Aramean kingdoms in the area of modern The conquests of Alexander the Great brought the Achaemenid Syria. At first these were independent, but they soon fell under the Empire to an end, and during the ensuing Hellenistic period, when control of the Assyrian Empire (based in the north of modern West Asia came under Seleucid rule and Greek became the Iraq). Quite a number of important Aramaic inscriptions from the language of government, Aramaic will have continued to be eighth and seventh centuries BC survive. Towards the end of the widely spoken, but by now different local dialects had developed; Assyrian Empire Aramaic had come to be used widely alongside some of these were also written, and it is from these written Akkadian, and a famous relief carving illustrates two scribes in the dialects, mostly known only from inscriptions, that our knowledge process of writing: one holds a stylus with which he impresses of Middle Aramaic derives, the one exception being Biblical wedge-shaped signs ~ (‘cuneiform’) on damp clay, writing in Aramaic, found in parts of the books of Ezra and Daniel. The roots Akkadian, while the other has a pen, and he is writing (in ink) on of Biblical Aramaic in part go back to Achaemenid Aramaic, and skin, in Aramaic. Thus it was not surprising that Aramaic replaced they have a successor in the Aramaic texts among the Dead Sea Akkadian as the language of international relations in the Scrolls. Achaemenid Empire. Around the turn of the Christian era a number of different local Achaemenid Aramaic Middle Aramaic dialects came to be written down, and these are known from inscriptions, usually on stone. Thus there survive Whereas Old Aramaic is mostly attested in inscriptions on stone, Achaemenid Aramaic (or Official Aramaic, as it is large numbers of inscriptions in Nabataean Aramaic and sometimes called) is best known from documents written on Palmyrene Aramaic, and smaller numbers in Hatran Aramaic (in papyrus or skin. Several different archives have come to light in modern Iraq). Yet another local dialect, for which there are inscriptions from much the same time, was that of Edessa, different countries. In Egypt, which was under Achaemenid otherwise known as Syriac. The dialect of these Edessene control, there was a Jewish community living in the south of the inscriptions has a few differences from what we know today as country, on Elephantine, an island in the river Nile. At the Classical Syriac, and so it is sometimes referred to as ‘Old Syriac’. beginning of the twentieth century a large collection of papyrus letters and documents, produced by the community, came to light; Besides the short inscriptions on stone and in mosaic, there are of particular interest is a fragment of The Wisdom of Ahiqar, a also three legal documents, written on skin in the early 240s; these work which is also known in its later Syriac form. Subsequently, incidentally shed important light on the change of constitution in Edessa at this time: having been a semi-independent kingdom from elsewhere in Egypt several official letters, written on skin, ruled by the Abgar dynasty, it became a Roman colonia in 213, from the Achaemenid administration were discovered, and then 10 Hekamtho || Syrian Orthodox Theological Journal

but reverted briefly to a kingdom in 239-240. In none of these early Syriac inscriptions and documents is there yet any hint of Christianity, but certainly by the second or third century AD Syriac, the dialect of Edessa, had been adopted as the literary language of Aramaic-speaking Christianity, and in the form in which we encounter it in the earliest surviving Syriac literature, Syriac is classified as belonging to Late Aramaic. Late Aramaic Late Aramaic is the period during which several literary dialects of Aramaic developed in different religious communities, each producing a literature that survives. Thus Aramaic as spoken among the Jews developed into two slightly different written dialects, Palestinian Jewish (and Samaritan) Aramaic and Babylonian Jewish Aramaic, while the religious literature of the Mandaeans (in southern Iraq) was written in the Aramaic dialect known as Mandaic. Aramaic-speaking Christians in fact developed two different written dialects: by far the most widespread was Syriac, based on the local dialect of Edessa (Urhoy) and sometimes known as Urhoyo (or Beth Nahroyo, Mesopotamian); the other belongs to Palestine and is generally known as Christian Palestinian Aramaic (an older name was Palestinian Syriac. Christian Palestinian Aramaic is attested for a little less than a thousand years, from the early fifth century to about the fourteenth century, after which is fell out of use; fortunately, however, a certain number of manuscripts written in this dialect and script survive. These manuscripts (which are often fragmentary and forming the erased under-texts of parchment folios that had been re-used) contain only texts translated from Greek. Of the Late Aramaic literatures, Syriac is by far the largest, and it has had a continuous use right up to the present day. Although the grammar remained exactly the same, two different reading traditions developed, Eastern, which preserved in the pronuciation, Hekamtho || Syrian Orthodox Theological Journal 11 but reverted briefly to a kingdom in 239-240. In none of these the original long vowel a, and the Western, which altered long ‘a’ early Syriac inscriptions and documents is there yet any hint of into long ‘o’ (e.g. Eastern malka, but Western malko); otherwise Christianity, but certainly by the second or third century AD there are only minimal differences. With time, the script, too, Syriac, the dialect of Edessa, had been adopted as the literary developed into two distinct sets of letter forms, each with different language of Aramaic-speaking Christianity, and in the form in vowel symbols. which we encounter it in the earliest surviving Syriac literature, Modern Aramaic Syriac is classified as belonging to Late Aramaic. When the Edessene dialect of Aramaic (i.e. Syriac) was Late Aramaic adopted as a literary language, its development was, as it were, Late Aramaic is the period during which several literary frozen, while the different spoken forms of the language moved on dialects of Aramaic developed in different religious communities, and developed, eventually to become the various Modern Aramaic each producing a literature that survives. Thus Aramaic as spoken dialects. None of the Modern dialects is a direct descendant of any among the Jews developed into two slightly different written of the literary dialects, but their ancestors must have been earlier dialects, Palestinian Jewish (and Samaritan) Aramaic and spoken forms of Aramaic for which no evidence survives. The Babylonian Jewish Aramaic, while the religious literature of the Modern Aramaic dialects fall into three distinct geographical Mandaeans (in southern Iraq) was written in the Aramaic dialect groups. Western Aramaic, which was still spoken in the known as Mandaic. Aramaic-speaking Christians in fact seventeenth century in mountainous regions of Lebanon, today developed two different written dialects: by far the most survives only in three villages in Syria, two of which have Muslim widespread was Syriac, based on the local dialect of Edessa populations, and one (Ma‘lula) largely Christian. Central Aramaic (Urhoy) and sometimes known as Urhoyo (or Beth Nahroyo, is represented by Turoyo, the name given to the closely inter- Mesopotamian); the other belongs to Palestine and is generally related village dialects of Tur ‘Abdin in south-east Turkey. Much known as Christian Palestinian Aramaic (an older name was the largest group of Modern Aramaic dialects belongs further east, Palestinian Syriac. Christian Palestinian Aramaic is attested for a to northern Iraq and Iran; these include various Jewish dialects and little less than a thousand years, from the early fifth century to Modern Mandaic, as well as those used by Christian communities. about the fourteenth century, after which is fell out of use; The Christian dialects of Iraq are known as ‘Surith’. Collectively, fortunately, however, a certain number of manuscripts written in all these dialects have come to be designated as North East Neo- this dialect and script survive. These manuscripts (which are often Aramaic (NENA). fragmentary and forming the erased under-texts of parchment Modern Aramaic dialects were occasionally written, as folios that had been re-used) contain only texts translated from well as spoken; this already took place with some Christian (Surit, Greek. Soureth) and Jewish dialects in the seventeenth century, but it was Of the Late Aramaic literatures, Syriac is by far the largest, and primarily in the nineteenth century that, encouraged by American it has had a continuous use right up to the present day. Although missionaries in the Urmia area (NW Iran), Modern Aramaic began the grammar remained exactly the same, two different reading to be used quite widely as a literary language, alongside (or even traditions developed, Eastern, which preserved in the pronuciation, replacing) Classical Syriac; it is now employed quite extensively, 12 Hekamtho || Syrian Orthodox Theological Journal

sometimes (misleadingly) designated as ‘Assyrian’. Only much more recently has Turoyo become a written, as well as a spoken, language; sometimes the Syriac script is used, but (especially in Sweden) the Latin alphabet is also employed. TABLE 1: ARAMAIC WITHIN THE SEMITIC LANGUAGES2 (Proto-Semitic) ______|______| | West Semitic East Semitic |______| | | Central Semitic South Semitic Accadian |______|______North West Semitic | | | | Arabic Epigraphic Ge‘ez _____|______South Arabian (Ethiopic) | | | Canaanite Ugaritic | ___|______Aramaic | | (see Table 2) Phoenician Hebrew TABLE 2: THE FIVE STAGES OF ARAMAIC Approximate dates Type of evidence OLD ARAMAIC 10th-7th century BC Inscriptions ACHAEMENID ARAMAIC 6th - 4th century BC Inscriptions Documents, letters on papyrus and skin (from Egypt to Afghanistan)

2 For a more detailed diagram, see The Hidden Pearl, I, p.14. Hekamtho || Syrian Orthodox Theological Journal 13 sometimes (misleadingly) designated as ‘Assyrian’. Only much MIDDLE more recently has Turoyo become a written, as well as a spoken, ARAMAIC language; sometimes the Syriac script is used, but (especially in 3rd cent. BC - 2nd/3rd cent. AD Sweden) the Latin alphabet is also employed. st rd 2 1 cent, BC- 3 Palestinian Inscriptions, Qumran TABLE 1: ARAMAIC WITHIN THE SEMITIC LANGUAGES cent. AD Aramaic manuscripts st rd (Proto-Semitic) 1 cent. BC - 3 Nabataean Inscriptions, a few ______|______cent. AD legal documents st rd | | 1 cent. BC - 3 Palmyrene Inscriptions West Semitic East Semitic cent. AD st rd |______| 1 - early - 3 cent. Hatran Inscriptions | | AD st rd Central Semitic South Semitic Accadian 1 - 3 cent. AD Edessene (Old Inscriptions, 3 legal |______|______Syriac) documents North West Semitic | | | LATE ARAMAIC | Arabic Epigraphic Ge‘ez 3rd cent. onwards _____|______South Arabian (Ethiopic) Syriac Literature (oldest dated | | | Canaanite Ugaritic | manuscript 411) ___|______Aramaic inscriptions | | (see Table 2) Jewish Aramaic Literature, inscriptions Phoenician Hebrew Samaritan Literature, inscriptions TABLE 2: THE FIVE STAGES OF ARAMAIC Aramaic Mandaic Literature, inscriptions Approximate dates Type of evidence OLD ARAMAIC MODERN ARAMAIC 10th-7th century BC Inscriptions ACHAEMENID attested from 17th Western (Ma ‘lula Only spoken ARAMAIC th th cent. onwards and two other 6 - 4 century BC Inscriptions villages) Documents, letters on Central: Turoyo Only spoken until papyrus and skin (from recently Egypt to Afghanistan) North-Eastern Spoken, but also dialects written from 17th, and especially 19th cent. 2 For a more detailed diagram, see The Hidden Pearl, I, p.14. 14 Hekamtho || Syrian Orthodox Theological Journal

APPENDIX: Aramaic Scripts3 The earliest Aramaic inscriptions are written in an alphabetic (consonantal) script consisting of 22 letters; the letter forms at this early stage were very similar to those of Phoenician (from which the early Greek alphabet was derived). Gradually the Aramaic script became quite distinct from the Phoenician, and thanks to its use as an official language of communication in the Achaemenid Empire, it gained a very wide diffusion. One of the consequences of this was the adoption of the Aramaic alphabet by the Jews on the return from the Exile, abandoning their earlier script (Palaeo- Hebrew) which had close affinities with the Phoenician script. This Aramaic script adopted by the Jews is the direct ancestor of the modern ‘square Hebrew’, the standard printed script of today. Only the Samaritan community preserved and developed the earlier Palaeo-Hebrew script. During the period of Middle Aramaic various distinctive local Aramaic scripts emerged, known today almost entirely from inscriptions, though now supplemented by the small number of manuscripts in Aramaic among the Dead Sea Scrolls (in which the script employed for the two languages, Hebrew and Aramaic, is identical). The main distinctive local scripts that emerged around the beginning of the Christian era were Nabataean (modern Jordan, and north of Saudi Arabia), Palmyrene (in Palmyra and its vicinity), Hatran (in the small kingdom of Hatra, and Syriac (in the region of Edessa). The Edessene inscriptions are in an early form of Estrangelo, while the three legal documents employ a cursive script which must be a distant ancestor of the Serto script which only started to come into use in the West Syriac tradition around the 8th/9th century (though the familiar Serto script in use today is not found until about the twelfth century, which was roughly the time when the distinctive East Syriac script started to develop and go its own way).

3 For a more detailed account, see The Hidden Pearl, I, chapter 3., Hekamtho || Syrian Orthodox Theological Journal 15

APPENDIX: Aramaic Scripts3 The Aramaic scripts of the first millennium BC employed 4 The earliest Aramaic inscriptions are written in an alphabetic special symbols for numerals, and this system was carried over (consonantal) script consisting of 22 letters; the letter forms at this into usage in Syriac as well, where it can be found indicating quire early stage were very similar to those of Phoenician (from which numbers in many manuscripts of the sixth and seventh century. These symbols seem especially to have been used in medical and the early Greek alphabet was derived). Gradually the Aramaic related types of texts even as late as the time of Barhebraeus. script became quite distinct from the Phoenician, and thanks to its Elsewhere, however, the old symbols came eventually to be use as an official language of communication in the Achaemenid Empire, it gained a very wide diffusion. One of the consequences replaced by letters, with 1 to 10 represented by alaph to yodh, 20 of this was the adoption of the Aramaic alphabet by the Jews on to 90 by kaph to sadhe, 100 to 400 by qoph to tau; for higher figures combinations of letters are used, eg. 687 would be trpz the return from the Exile, abandoning their earlier script (Palaeo- (400+200+80+7). Hebrew) which had close affinities with the Phoenician script. This Aramaic script adopted by the Jews is the direct ancestor of A certain number of Asian scripts employed for writing the modern ‘square Hebrew’, the standard printed script of today. different languages are derived from the Aramaic script; thus Only the Samaritan community preserved and developed the offshoots of the Aramaic script in the period of Achaemenid earlier Palaeo-Hebrew script. Aramaic are the Avestan and the Indian Kharoshthi script, and offshoots of Syriac is the Sogdian script, from which in turn the During the period of Middle Aramaic various distinctive local Uighur, Mongolian and Mancu scripts derive.5 Aramaic scripts emerged, known today almost entirely from inscriptions, though now supplemented by the small number of manuscripts in Aramaic among the Dead Sea Scrolls (in which the For further reference script employed for the two languages, Hebrew and Aramaic, is identical). The main distinctive local scripts that emerged around A. OLD ARAMAIC, ACHAEMENID ARAMAIC, MIDDLE the beginning of the Christian era were Nabataean (modern ARAMAIC Jordan, and north of Saudi Arabia), Palmyrene (in Palmyra and its (1) Collections of texts vicinity), Hatran (in the small kingdom of Hatra, and Syriac (in the region of Edessa). The Edessene inscriptions are in an early form G.A. Cooke, A Text-Book of North Semitic Inscriptions (Oxford, of Estrangelo, while the three legal documents employ a cursive 1903). [Still a very helpful collection, though many important script which must be a distant ancestor of the Serto script which inscriptions have subsequently been found]. only started to come into use in the West Syriac tradition around the 8th/9th century (though the familiar Serto script in use today is not found until about the twelfth century, which was roughly the 4 For the old numerical symbols see the Table in The Hidden Pearl, I, p.59, and time when the distinctive East Syriac script started to develop and for more details about the representation of numerals, see G.A. Kiraz, A go its own way). Grammar of the Syriac Language, I. Orthography (Piscataway NJ, 2012), pp.159-73. 5 A diagram illustrating the development and diffusion of the Aramaic alphabet 3 For a more detailed account, see The Hidden Pearl, I, chapter 3., is given in The Hidden Pearl, I, p.60. 16 Hekamtho || Syrian Orthodox Theological Journal

H. Donner and W. Rollig, Kanaanäische und aramäische Inschritften, I-III (5th edn Wiesbaden, 2002). [The standard collection, with commentary]. J.C. Gibson, Syrian Semitic Inscriptions, II. Aramaic (Oxford, 1975). [The most important inscriptions, mostly Old Aramaic]. Achaemenid Aramaic G.R. Driver, Aramaic Documents of the Fifth Century BC (Oxford, 1954, 1957). [Archive of Arsham]. B. Porten and A. Yardeni, Text Book of Aramaic Documents from Ancient Egypt, I-IV (1986-1999). [Documents and Letters from the Jewish settlement on Elephantine; Vol. III includes the Ahiqar text]. S. Shaked, Aramaic Documents from Ancient Bactria (London, 2012). Middle Aramaic: J. Cantineau, Le Nabatéen, I-II (Paris, 1930, 1932). [Vol. has a good selection of inscriptions]. J.A. Fitzmyer and D.J. Harrington, A Manual of Palestinian Aramaic (Rome, 1978). K. Beyer, Die aramäischen Texte vom Toten Meer (I, Göttingen, 1984; Supplement, 1994; II, 2004). B. Aggoula, Inventaire des inscriptions hatréennes (Paris, 1991). D.R. Hillers and E. Cussini, Palmyrene Aramaic Texts (Baltimore, 1996), K. Beyer, Die aramäischen Inschriften aus Assur, Hatra un dem übrigen Ostmesopotamien (Göttingen, 1998).

H.J.W. Drijvers and J.F. Healey, The Old Syriac Inscriptions of Hekamtho || Syrian Orthodox Theological Journal 17

H. Donner and W. Rollig, Kanaanäische und aramäische Edessa and Osrhoene (Leiden, 1999). [Includes the three legal Inschritften, I-III (5th edn Wiesbaden, 2002). [The standard documents of AD 240, 242 and 243]. collection, with commentary]. J.F. Healey, Aramaic Inscriptions and Documents of the Roman J.C. Gibson, Syrian Semitic Inscriptions, II. Aramaic (Oxford, Period (Oxford, 2009). [An excellent selection of Nabataean, 1975). [The most important inscriptions, mostly Old Aramaic]. Palestinian Aramaic, Palmyrene and early Syriac inscriptions with introductions and translations]. Achaemenid Aramaic G.R. Driver, Aramaic Documents of the Fifth Century BC (2) Dictionaries (Oxford, 1954, 1957). [Archive of Arsham]. Inscriptions: J. Hoftijzer and K. Jongeling, Dictionary of the B. Porten and A. Yardeni, Text Book of Aramaic Documents from North-West Semitic Inscriptions, I-II (Leiden, 1995). Ancient Egypt, I-IV Biblical Aramaic: L. Koehler and W. Baumgartner (tr. M.E.J. Richardson), The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old (1986-1999). [Documents and Letters from the Jewish settlement on Elephantine; Vol. III includes the Ahiqar text]. Testament, V, Aramaic (Leiden, 2000). S. Shaked, Aramaic Documents from Ancient Bactria (London, B. LATE ARAMAIC 2012). Main dictionaries Middle Aramaic: Jewish Aramaic J. Cantineau, Le Nabatéen, I-II (Paris, 1930, 1932). [Vol. has a M. Sokoloff, A Dictionary of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic (Ramat good selection of inscriptions]. Gan, 1990). J.A. Fitzmyer and D.J. Harrington, A Manual of Palestinian - , A Dictionary of Jewish Babylonian Aramaic (Ramat Gan, Aramaic (Rome, 1978). 2002). K. Beyer, Die aramäischen Texte vom Toten Meer (I, Göttingen, - , A Dictionary of Judean Aramaic (Ramat Gan, 2003). 1984; Supplement, 1994; II, 2004). [Covering texts from c. 165 BC to AD 200]. B. Aggoula, Inventaire des inscriptions hatréennes (Paris, 1991). Mandaic D.R. Hillers and E. Cussini, Palmyrene Aramaic Texts (Baltimore, E.S. Drower and R. Macuch, A Mandaic Dictionary (Oxford, 1996), 1963). K. Beyer, Die aramäischen Inschriften aus Assur, Hatra un dem Syriac übrigen Ostmesopotamien (Göttingen, 1998). (a) Intermediate H.J.W. Drijvers and J.F. Healey, The Old Syriac Inscriptions of J. Payne Smith (Mrs Margoliouth), Compendious Syriac Dictionary (Oxford, 1903; many reprints). 18 Hekamtho || Syrian Orthodox Theological Journal

L. Costaz, Dictionnaire syriaque-français (Beirut, 1963, repr. 1986). G.A. Kiraz and S.P. Brock, A Concise Syriac-English, English- Syriac Dictionary (Piscataway, forthcoming). (b) Advanced T. Audo, Dictionnaire de la langue chaldéenne, I-II (Mosul, 1897; repr. Stockholm, 1979). [Syriac-Syriac]. R. Payne Smith, Thesaurus Syriacus, I-II (Oxford, 1898, 1901). M. Sokoloff, A Syriac Lexicon (Piscataway NJ, 2009). [Translation and reorganisation of C. Brockelmann’s Lexicon Syriacum (2nd edn 1928)]. Christian Palestinian Aramaic F. Schultess, Lexion Syropalestinum (Berlin, 1901). C. MODERN ARAMAIC Dictionaries Central dialects H. Ritter, Die Volkssprache der syrische Christen des Tur ‘Abdin, B. Wörterbuch (Beirut/Wiesbaden, 1979). Kurillos Ya‘qub and Asmalr El-Khoury, The Guide: the First Literary - Colloquial Syriac Dictionary (Stockholm, 1985). Y. Ishaq (ed.), Leksiqon Swedoyo-Suryoyo (Stockholm, 1988) North-eastern dialects N. Maclean, A Dictionary of the Dialects of Vernacular Syriac (Oxford, 1901). Y Sabar, A Jewish Neo-Aramaic Dictionary (Wiesbaden, 2002). Glossaries are to be found in several of the modern studies of particular local dialects, e.g. G. Khan, The Neo-Aramaic Dialect of Hekamtho || Syrian Orthodox Theological Journal 19

L. Costaz, Dictionnaire syriaque-français (Beirut, 1963, repr. Qaraqosh (Leiden, 2002), The Neo-Aramaic Dialect of Barwar, I- 1986). III (Leiden, 2008). G.A. Kiraz and S.P. Brock, A Concise Syriac-English, English- An excellent collection of poetic texts, dating from the 17th to the Syriac Dictionary (Piscataway, forthcoming). 20th century, has been published by A. Mengozzi, Religious Poetry in Vernacular Syriac from Northern Iraq (Leuven, 2011). (b) Advanced D. ARAMAIC SCRIPTS T. Audo, Dictionnaire de la langue chaldéenne, I-II (Mosul, 1897; repr. Stockholm, 1979). [Syriac-Syriac]. Early Aramaic scripts R. Payne Smith, Thesaurus Syriacus, I-II (Oxford, 1898, 1901). J. Naveh, The Development of the Aramaic Script (Jerusalem, M. Sokoloff, A Syriac Lexicon (Piscataway NJ, 2009). 1970). [Translation and reorganisation of C. Brockelmann’s Lexicon - , Early History of the Alphabet (Leiden/Jerusalem, 1982). Syriacum (2nd edn 1928)]. Syriac scripts Christian Palestinian Aramaic W.H.P. Hatch, An Album of Dated Syriac Manuscripts (Boston, F. Schultess, Lexion Syropalestinum (Berlin, 1901). 1946; repr. with added Introduction by L. van Rompay, Piscataway NJ, 2002). C. MODERN ARAMAIC (see also, The Hidden Pearl, I, chapter 3). Dictionaries Central dialects H. Ritter, Die Volkssprache der syrische Christen des Tur ‘Abdin, B. Wörterbuch (Beirut/Wiesbaden, 1979). Kurillos Ya‘qub and Asmalr El-Khoury, The Guide: the First Literary - Colloquial Syriac Dictionary (Stockholm, 1985). Y. Ishaq (ed.), Leksiqon Swedoyo-Suryoyo (Stockholm, 1988) North-eastern dialects N. Maclean, A Dictionary of the Dialects of Vernacular Syriac (Oxford, 1901). Y Sabar, A Jewish Neo-Aramaic Dictionary (Wiesbaden, 2002). Glossaries are to be found in several of the modern studies of particular local dialects, e.g. G. Khan, The Neo-Aramaic Dialect of 20 Hekamtho || Syrian Orthodox Theological Journal

Dionysius Jacob Bar Ṣalibi’s Confession of the Syrian Orthodox Faith Gabriel Rabo (Göttingen University) Abstract Bar alibi was a prominent theologian of the Syrian Orthodox Church in the Syriac Renaissance, which begins with him. He was bornṢ in Melitene (Malatya) towards the end of the 11th century. He worked as deacon and teacher, first in the city of his birth, where he had studied, then in Urhoy (Edessa/Urfa). In October 1148 the Patriarch Athanasius Yešu‛ bar Qatreh (1139– 1166) made him bishop of Mar‛aš. For the last five years of his life he was archbishop of Amid (Diyarbakır) in South-East Anatolia. He passed away on 2nd November 1171 and lies buried there, in St Mary’s Cathedral. According to my researches, Bar alibi was the author of 79 works and there are 582 Syriac manuscripts containing one or more of these. One, written in MeliteneṢ between 1158 and 1167, is his Confession of the Syrian Orthodox Faith. Syrian Orthodox Hekamtho || Syrian Orthodox Theological Journal 21

believers had asked him to write a defence of their Faith, because the Chalcedonians maintained that it was a heresy. This Confession of Faith has not yet been edited. I used four manuscripts in making my edition, selecting Mardin 350, olim Deir Za‛faran 97/1, of A. D. 1502, as my base manuscript (the Confession is on foll. 163r–164r). With this I collated the other three: Istanbul Thoma Başaranlar 9/6 (olim Amid), of A. D. ca. 1600, pp. 298–301; Jerusalem St. Mark’s 222, of A. D. 1792, foll. 72r–74v; and Jerusalem St. Mark’s 153, dated after the eighteenth century, pp. 22–30. In this tract Bar alibi expounds the Faith of the Syrian Orthodox Church according to the Creed of the first three Ecumenical Councils.Ṣ In treating of the Trinity and the Dionysius Jacob Bar Ṣalibi’s Confession Incarnation, Bar alibi quotes from Athanasius and Cyril of Alexandria, above all. He refutes the positions of Arius, the of the Syrian Orthodox Faith Tritheists, Eunomius,Ṣ Sabellus, Macedonius, Nestorius, Gabriel Rabo Eutyches, Mani, Marcion, Apollinarius, Julian of Halicarnassus (Göttingen University) and the Chalcedonians and, against all of these, defends the Abstract formula ‘one incarnate nature’ (Greek: mia physis sesarkomene) Bar alibi was a prominent theologian of the Syrian Orthodox in Christ. This Confession sets out concisely and clearly the Church in the Syriac Renaissance, which begins with him. He Faith of the Syrian Orthodox Church. was bornṢ in Melitene (Malatya) towards the end of the 11th century. He worked as deacon and teacher, first in the city of his birth, where he had studied, then in Urhoy (Edessa/Urfa). In October 1148 the Patriarch Athanasius Yešu‛ bar Qatreh (1139– 1166) made him bishop of Mar‛aš. For the last five years of his life he was archbishop of Amid (Diyarbakır) in South-East Anatolia. He passed away on 2nd November 1171 and lies buried there, in St Mary’s Cathedral. According to my researches, Bar alibi was the author of 79 works and there are 582 Syriac manuscripts containing one or more of these. One, written in MeliteneṢ between 1158 and 1167, is his Confession of the Syrian Orthodox Faith. Syrian Orthodox

22 Hekamtho || Syrian Orthodox Theological Journal

ܐܚܒܘܫ ܬܨܝܪܬ ܐܬܝܝܪܘܣ ܐܬܕܥܕ ܐܬܘܢܡܝܗ *ܝܒܝܠܨ ܪܒ ܒܘܩܥܝ ܣܘܝܣܘܢܢܘܝܕ ܝܪܡ ܬܘܦܠ

ܐܒܪ ܠܝܐܪܒܓ ܕܝܒ ܒܝܬ ܨܘܒܐ ܕܓܘܬܝܢܓܢ ـ ܐܠܡܢܝܐ

ܡــܪܝ ܕܝ ܘ ܢܢܘܣ ܝــܘ ܝ ܥܩــܘܒ ܒــܪ ܨܠ ܝܒــܝ ܐܝــܬ ܘܗܝ ܗ ܘ ܐ ܚــܕ ܡــܢ ܝ ܕ ̈ܘܥܬ ܢــܐ

ܛܒ ̈ܝܒــܐ ܘܒ ܚ ܝــ ܐ ܒ ܚ ܩــ ܕܡ ܡܠܠــܘܬ ܐــ ܗ ܘܬ ܐ ܘܕ ܣܦܪܝ ــܘܬ ܐ ܣــܘܪ ܳܝ ܳܝ ܬ ܐ ܒܥــܕܬ ܐ

ܣـــܘܪ ܳܝ ܳܝ ܬ ܐ ܕ ܕܪ ܐ ܬܪ ܥ ܣ ܝܪ ܝ ـــܐ. ܐܝـــܬ ܘܗܝ ܗ ܘܐ ܐ ܢـــܫ ܕܝ ـــ ܨܦ ܗ ܘܐ ܕܡ ܫܠܡ ܢـــܘܬ ܐ ̈ ܕܐ ܒـــ ̈ܗܬܐ܆ ܕܛ ܟܣـــܐ ܘܕܩܢ ̈ܘ ܢـــܐ ܕ ܥـــܕܬ ܐ. ܫ ܓܝـــ ܗ ܘܐ ܐܡܝܢܐܝـــܬ ܒ ܡܟܬܒܢـــ ܘܬܐ ̈ ܕܟܬܒـــܐ ܢ ܢܢ ̈ܝـــܐ܆ ܕܒـــ ܗܘ ܡܝ ـــܬܪ ܘܡ ܣـــܬܪ ܗ ܘܐ ܗܝܡܢـــܘܬܐ ܘܥ ̈ܝـــ ܕܐ ܕ ܥـــܕܬܐ

ܣــܘܪ ܳܝ ܳܝ ܬܐ. ܡܥــ ܕܪ ܗ ܘܐ ܠ ܣܢ ̈ܝܩــܝ ܥــܠ ܝ ܘܠܦܢــܐ ܘܡ ܬܪܟــܢ ܗ ܘܐ ܠ ܕ ܫܐܠܝــܢ ̈ ܡܢــܗ ܘܡܦܢــܐ ܗ ܘܐ ܫܐܠــܬ ܗܘ ܫܦܝܥܐܝــܬ ܘܡܦ ܬܟ ܐ ܝــܬ܆ ܗ ܢ ــܘ ܟــܕ ܚ ܕ ܝــܢ

ܘܪ ܘ ܢܝـــܢ ܒܝ ـــܘܠ ܦܢ ܗ ܘܒ ܡـــܘ ̈ܗ ܒ ܬ ܗ. ܗ ܟܢ ـــܐ ܕܝـــܢ ܦ ܝـــܓ ܕܝ ܠ ܢ ܐ ܝـــܬ ܨܗܝ ـــܘܬ

ܠ ܒـــ ̈ ܘܬ ܐ ܕܣ ܘ̈ܪ ܳܝ ܳ ܝـــܐ ܒܢ ـــ ̈ܝ ܡ ܕܝ ܢـــܬ ܗ ܕܡ ܝܠ ܝܛ ܝܢـــܝ ܥـــܠ ܫـــܘܡܠ ܝ ܨ ܒܝ ܢـــܐ

.ܐܢ ܗ ܢ ܒܪܫ ܝܗܘ ܬܝܐ ܝܗܘ ܠܥܕ ܐܝ ܳ ܝܳ ܪ̈ܘ ܣܕ ܐ ܬܘ ܢ ܡܝ ܗ ܠ ܥ ܕ ܘ ܗ ܬ ܠܐܫ ܕ

ܒܙ ܒܢـــܐ ܗܘ ܥ ܣܩـــܐ ܕܡـــ ܗ ܘܐ ܢ ̈ܘܠـــ ܗ ܢ ܐ ܘܡـــܪ ̈ܪ ܐ ܕ ܕܪ ܐ ܬܪ ܥ ܣ ܝܪ ܝ ـــܐ ܒܢ ـــ ̈ܝ

ܐ ܬ ̈ܪ ܘ ܬ ܐ ܕ ܒ ܝــܬ ܢ ܗ ̈ܪܝــܢ ܘܕ ܒ ܝــܬ ܬ ܚ ̈ܘ ܡــܐ ̈ܪ ܗ ܘ ܡ ܝــܐ ܐ ܝــ ܡܝ ܠܝ ܛܝܢ ــܝ܆ ܡܪ ܥــܫ܆

ܐ ܘܪ ܗ ܝ܆ ܐ ܡܝــܕ ܘ ܚ ܣܢ ــܐ ܕܢ ܐܝ ــܕ ܟ ܐ ܡــܬ ܟܪܬ ܒــܘܬ ܐܘ ܒܫ ܡــܐ ܩܕ ܡ ܝــܐ ܗܢ ܙܝــܬ܆ ܡــܢ

ܓ ܒـــܐ ܚـــܕ ܐ ܝܬ ܝـــ ܗ ܘ ܗ ܘܘ ܒܐ ̈ܘ ܠ ܨ ܢـــܐ ܘܫ ̈ܚ ܩـــܐ ܕ ܫ ̈ܘ ܠܛ ܢـــܐ ܢ ܘܟ ܝ ـــܐ ܐ ܝـــ

ܬ ܘ̈ܪܟ ܝــــܐ ܕܪ ܕܦ ܝــــܢ ܗ ܘܘ ܠــــ ܗ ܘ ܠ ܡ ܫ ̈ܝ ܚ ܝــــܐ ܓــــ ܘ ܢܐ ܝܬ ܘ ܐܚ ܕܝــــܢ ܗ ܘܘ

ܡ ܕܝ̈ܢــܬ ܗ ܘ ܝ ܬ ܝܪ ܐ ܝــܬ ܕ ܝــܢ ܗ ܠ ܝــܢ ܕܣ ܘ̈ܪ ܳܝ ܳ ܝــܐ ܡــ ܝ ܐ ܬܪ ܐ܆ ܟــܕ ܒܐܝــ ܕܐ ܩܛܝܪܝــܬܐ

ܡ ܫܥܒ ܕܝــــܢ ܗ ܘܘ ܠܥ ܡــــܘ̈ܪ ܝ ܗ ܝܢ ܘܟ ܕܢ ܝــــܢ ܗ ܘܘ ܠــــ ܗ ܘ ܬ ܚ ܝــــܬ ܢ ܝــــܪ ܐ

* ܣ ܝܡܐ ܗ ܢܐ ܐܝܬܘܗܝ ܢ ܢܐ ܕܬܘܪ ܓܡܐ ܕܝܠܝ ܕܩܪܝܬܗ ܒܠ ܫܢܐ ܐ ܠ ܡܢܝܐ ܒܠـܘܡ ܕܐ ܣܘܪ ܳܝ ܳ ܝـܐ ܚ ܕܥ ܣܝܪܝ ـܐ ̄ ܕ ܡܬ ܟܢ ܐ Symposium Syriacum ܝܙ ܒܬ ܡܘܢ ܫܢ ܬ ̇ܒܝܒ ܒܡ ܕܝܢ ܬ ܘ ܠ ܛܐ ܒ ܡܠ ܟܘܬܐ ܕ ܓ ܙܪܬܐ ܕ ܡܠ ܛـܐ

.ܝܛ ܝܠ ܡ ܘܐ

Hekamtho || Syrian Orthodox Theological Journal 23

ܕ ܫــܘܠܛ ܢ ܗ ܘ ܆ ܡــܢ ܓ ܒــܐ ܐܚܪ ܢــܐ ܕ ܝـــܢ ܗ ܢ ــܘ ܡ ܫ ̈ܝ ܚ ܝــܐ ܦܠܝ ܓܝــܢ ܗ ܘܘ

ܥــܠ ܚــ ̈ܕ ܕܐ ܘ ܢ ܨܝــܢ ܘ ܕܪ ܫܝــܢ ܗ ܘܘ ܥــܠ ܬ ܘ ܕܝــܬ ܐ ܕ ܥــ ̈ܕ ܬ ܗ ܘ . ܗ ܢــܐ ܕܪ ܫــܐ

ܬ ܘ ܕܝܬ ܢ ܝــܐ ܐ ܥܝــܪ ܕ ̈ܪܘ ܫــܐ ܕܢ ܐܨ ܦــܘ ܝ ܬ ܝــܪ ܕ ܗܘ ܡــܐ ܕܝܠــ ܗܘ ܘܫ ܒــ ܕ ܒــܪ

ܨ ܠܝ ܒــܝ ܢ ܣ ܦــ ܚܝــ ܕܝ ܠــܗ ܘ ܢܟــܬܘܒ ܥــܠ ܗܘ ܫܪ ܒــܐ ܠــܘܩ ܒ ܠ ܗ ܘ .

ܗ ܟܢ ـܐ ܫ ܒـ ܠـܢ ܣ ܥ ܝـܐ ܡـ ܪ ܐ ܫܪ ܒـܐ ܣ ̈ ܝ ܡـܘܗܝ ܗ ܠ ܝــܢ ̈ܪܝ ܫ ܝـܐ ܟܬ ܝܒܬ ܢܐ ܝــܬ

.ܐ ܬܘ ܢ ܡ ܝ ܗ ܠ ܥ ܢܝ ܕ ܘ ܗ ܢ ܡ ܕ

ܣܝ ܡـܐ ܗ ܢـܐ ܕܠܬ ܚــܬ ܐܝـܬ ܘܗܝ ܥـܠ ܗ ܝܡ ܢـܘܬ ܐ ܕ ܥـܕܬܐ ܣـܘܪ ܳܝ ܳܝ ܬܐ ܬܪ ܝـ ܨܬ

ܫܘܒ ܚـܐ ܐ ܘ ܕܣ ܘ̈ܪ ܳܝ ܳ ܝـܐ ܐ ܟܡــܐ ܕ ܗ ܘ ܒـܪ ܨܠܝܒــܝ ܟـܬ ܒ ܒܪ ܝــܫ ܟܬ ܝܒـܬ ܗ. ܗ ܢــܐ

ܡܟ ܣــܝ ܗ ܘܐ ܥ ܕܡــܫ ܡــܢ ܡܒ ̈ܚܢ ܢــܐ ܘܠ ܐ ܢــܫ ܐ ܨ ܚــܗ ܘܐ ܦܩــܗ ܠܠ ̈ܫ ܢــܐ ܘܐ ܦــ

ܦ ܪܣـــܗ. ܢܒ ܢـــܬ ܐ ܩ ܕܡ ܝـــܬ ܐ ܗ ܝ ܕܓܠ ܝܢ ܝـــܗܝ ܘܡ ܠ ܠܢ ـــܢ ܥܠـــܘܗܝ ܠܦـــܘܬ ̈ ̈ .ܐܛܠܡܕ ܐ ܬܪ ܙ ܓ ܒ ܐ ܝܳ ܝܳ ܪܘ ܣ ܐܕ ܡܘ ܠܒ ܐܟܣܘ ܢܕ ܐ ܥܒ ܡ ܳ ܳ ܳ ܶ ܐ ـ ܨ ܳܚ ̈ܚܐ ܕܣ ܳܝ ܡ ܐ ܕ ܗ ܝܡ ܢ ܘܬ ܐ ܕܣ ܘ̈ܪ ܝܳ ܶܝ ܐ

ܣܝ ܡــܐ ܕ ܗ ܝ ܡ ܢ ــܘܬ ܐ ܕ ܒــܪ ܨ ܠܝ ܒــܝ ܫ ܟܝــܒ ܒ ܬܪ ܥ ܣــܪ ܨ ܚ ̈ ܚــܐ܆ ܕܠܬ ܫ ܥــܐ

ܡ ܢـــ ܗ ܘ ܐ ܝـــܬ ܣ ܝ ܩܘ ܡـــܐ ܕ ܫـــܘܡ ܠ ܝ ܟܬ ܒـــܐ. ܐ ـ ܥ ܬ ܝ ܩـــܐ ܕ ܟܠـــ ܗ ܘ

ܐܝـــܬ ܘܗܝ ܢ ܘܣܟـــܐ ܕ ܕܝـــܪ ܐ ܕ ܫܪܦـــ ̈ܗ Charfet Syr 4/1: ܟܬ ܒـــܐ ܕܦـــܘ ܫ ܐ̈ܪ ܢ ܐ

ܥ ̈ܕܬ ܢ ܝـــܐ ܕܟܬ ܝـــܒ ܥـــܠ ܪܩ ܒܐ ܝ̈ـــ ܕܝ ܩ ܫܝ ܫـــܐ ܕܢ ܝܐ ܝـــܠ ܒـــܪ ܝ ـــܘ ܣ ܦ ܒـــܪ

ܣ ܪ ܓ ܝــܕ ܕ ܡـܢ ܒܝـܬ ܣ ܚ ܝ ـܐ ]ܩ ܪܝـܬ ܐ ܒܝـܬ ܕܝـ ܪ ܐ ܕ ܡـܪܝ ܡـܬ ܝ ܘ ܒ ܪܛ ܠ ܠـܝ[ ̈ ܝــ ̄ܗ ܒܟ ܢــܘ ܩ ܕܝــ ܒ ܫܢ ــܬ ܐܪܟــܓ ̄ )ܡ ܫــܘܚܬ ܐ: ܟــܗ x ܝــܙ .cm܆ ܕܦــܐ: 1 ܬܫــܢ܆ ܣ ܘ̈ܪܛـܐ: ܟــܕ ܟ ܐ ܡـܬ ܚܡ ܫܝـܢ ܘܬ ܪܬܝـܢ ܫܢ ̈ܝـܢ ܒـܬ ܪ ܫـܘ ܢ ܝܗ ܕ ܣ ܝ ܘ ܡـܐ

ܒــܪ ܨ ܠܝ ܒــܝ. ܟܬ ܒــܐ ܗ ܢــܐ ܢ ܕ ܩ ܕ ܢــܗ ܘ ܐ ܡــܢ ܒ ܝــܬ ܐ ̈ܪ ܟــܐ ܕ ܕܝــ ܪ ܐ ܕ ܟܘܪܣ ܝــܐ 2 ܦܛܪܝ ܪ ܟ ܝــܐ ܕ ܥــܘܡ ܪ ܐ ܕ ܡــܪܝ ܚܢ ܢ ܝــܐ ܒ ܡ ܪ ܕܝــܢ. ܒ ـ ܢ ܘܣ ܟــܐ ܬ ܪܝ ܢ ــܐ ܕ ܥ ܬ ܝــ

1 ܟܘܪܐܦܝܣܩܘܦܐ ܐܝܣ ܚ ܒܪ ܐܪܡܠܬܐ܆ ܫܘܘ ܕ ܥܐ ܕ ܣܦ ܐ ܣ ܝܛܐ ܣܘ̈ܪ ܳܝ ܳ ܝـܐ ܘ ܣ ܩ ܝـܐ ܕܢܛܝܪܝـܢ ܒܒܝـܬ

ܐ̈ܪ ܟܐ ܕ ܥܘܡ ܪܐ ܟܗ ܢ ܝܐ ܕ ܫܪ ܦ ̈ܗ ܒ ܓ ̈ܘܢ ܝܐ ܐ̇ܨܠܘ. ܦܐܬܐ ܥܐ܆ ܥ ـ ܥܘ. 2 ܡ ܫܪ ܐ ܢܐ ܕܟܬܒܐ ܗ ܢـܐ ܥܬܝܩـܐ ܡـܢ ܕܝـܪܐ ܕܡـܪܝ ܚܢ ܢ ܝـܐ ܢ ܣܒـܗ ܗ ܘܐ ܦܛܪܝ ܪܟـܐ ܡܝܟܐܝـܠ ܪـܪ ܘ ̈ܗ ̈ ̈ ̇ )ܐ ̇ܥܦܓ ـ ܐܦ ܥܡ ܗ ܕܝܢ ܐܝ ܬܠܬܡܐܐ ܟܬܒܐ ܐܚ ܢܐ ܘܡܐ ̈ܢܐ ܝ ܩܝ ܐ ܘܩܢ ܝܢܐ ܕ ܕܝܪܐ ܒـܬܪ ܕܐܣـܬ ܕܩ ܗ ܘܐ

24 Hekamtho || Syrian Orthodox Theological Journal

3 ܐ ܝــܬ ܘܗܝ ܕ ܘܬ ܝ ܩــܐ Vatican Borg Syr 147: ܕܟܬ ܝــܒ ܒ ܫܢ ــܬ ܐܬܦ ̄ . ܓ

ܕ ܕܝــܪ ܐ ܕܟ ܘܪܟܡــܐ ܐܘ ܕܢܥܦــܪܐ ܡ ܢܝ ܢــܐ 1/97: ܛܪܦــܐ ܩܣــܓ ـ ܩܣــܕ܆ ܟܬܒــܐ

ܕܐܪܘ ܥـܘܬܐ ܕܟܬ ܝـܒ ܒ ܫܢ ـܬ ܐܬܩـܒ ̄ ܒܐܝ̈ـ ܕܝ ܕܝ ܪܝ ـܐ ܥ ܙܝـܙ ܡܕܝ ܝـܐ ܒ ܕܝـ ܪ ܐ ܕ ܡـܪܝ

ܗ ܒ ܝــܠ ܘܡــܪܝ ܐ ܒــܪ ܗ ܒ ܡ ܕܝ ــܕ )ܡ ܫــܘܚܬܐ: ܟــܒ x ܝــ .cm: ܛ ܦــܐ: ܬܣــ ܆ 4 ܣܘ̈ܪܛـــܐ: ܠـــܓ܆ ܦـــ ̈ ܨܐ: ܒ . ܕ ܕ ܦ ܗ ܝـــ ܒـــܓ ܐ ܪܐ ܢ ـــܘܪ: ܟܬ ܒـــܐ ܕ ܦܘ ܫ ܩـــܐ ̄ ܕ ܐ̈ܪ ܢ ܢ ܝــܬ ܐ ܕܟܬܝــܒ ܝــܙ ܒــܐ ܒ ܒ ܫܢ ــܬ ܐ ̇ܢ ܥــܕ ̄ ܒ ܕܝــܪ ܐ ܕܡــܪܝ ܒ ܪ ܨܘܡــܐ ܕܒܛــܘܪ ܐ 5 ܕܡ ܝܠ ܝܛ ܝܢ ــܝ. ܗ ـ ܐ ܡ ܝــܕ ܕܬ ܐܘ ܡــܐ ܒ ܫܪܢܠــܪ ܡ ܢܝ ܢ ــܐ 6/9: ܦــܐܬ ܐ ܪܨܚ ـ ܫــܐ܆

ܡܢ ܥܕܬܐ ܣܘܪ ܳܝ ܳܝܬܐ ܬܪܝ ܨܬ ܫܘܒ ܚܐ ܘܐܬܩܬܠ ܆ ܒܡܥܕܪܢ ܘܬܐ ܕܐܝܙ ܓ ܕܐ ܩܬܘܠܝܩ ܝܐ ܕܦ ܢ ܫ ܝـܐ ܕ ܗܘ ܢܒܢـܐ

ܐܘ ܒܠ ܐܢ ܘ ܩܕ ܡܝ ܬ ܠ ܚ ܠܒ ܘ ܡܢ ܬ ܡـܢ ܠ ܕܝـ ܪܐ ܕ ܫܪ ܦـ ̈ܗ ܠ ܠ ܒܢ ـܢ. ) ܚـܘܪ ܒ ܡܟܬ ܒܢ ـܘܬܐ ܕ ܦܛܪܝ ܟـܐ

ܕܐܢܛ ܝܘܟ ܕ ܣܘ̈ܪܝ ܝܐ ܬ ̈ܪܝ ܨܝ ܫܘܒ ܚܐ܆ ܠ ܡܪܝ ܦܝܠ ܠܘܟ ܣܝܢ ܘ ܝ ܘ ܚܢ ܢ ܕܘ ܠ ܒܐܢ ܝ܆ ܡܛ ܒܥܬܐ ܕ ܕܝ ܪܐ ܕ ܡـܪܝ

ܐܦ ܪܝ ܣܘܪܝ ܝܐ ܒ ܗܘ ܠܢ ܕܐ ܫܢ ܬ ܐ̇ܨܨ܆ ܦܐܬܐ ܪܠܗ . ܡܢ ܓ ܒܐ ܕ ܣ ܘ̈ܪܝ ܝܐ ܩ ܬ ̈ܘ ܠ ܝ ܩ ܝܐ ܕܝܢ ܣܗ ܕܝܢ ܠـ ܗ ܕܐ

ܚܣܝ ܐ ܓ ܪܝ ܓ ܘܪܝ ܘ ܐ ܦ ܪ ܝ ܪܪ ܪ ܘܪ )ܝ ܠ ܝܕ ܫܢ ܬ ܐ̇ܨ ̄ ܘ ܦܛܪܝ ܪ ܟ ܐ ܐܝܓܢ ܐܛ ܝܘ ܐ ܢ ܛ ܘܢ ܝـܘ ܚܐܝ ـ

)ܐ̇ܨܝ ـ ̇ܒܙ )ܐܝ ܣܗ ܕܘܬܗ ܕܐܝܙ ܓ ܕܐ ܗܘ ܦ ܪܢ ܫ ܝ ܐ ܕ ܠ ܫܒܥ ܝܢ ܘܬܪ ܝܢ ܛ ̈ܥܢ ܐ ܕܟܬ ̈ܒܐ ܥـܠ ܟܘ ̈ܕܢ ـ ܘܬܐ

ܐܝܬܝ ܗ ܘܐ ܡܝܟܐܝܠ ܪܪ ܘ ̈ܗ ܡܢ ܕܝܪܐ ܕܢܥܦܪܐ ܒܫ ܝܪܬ ܐ ܕܡܢ ܡܪ ܕܝܢ ܠ ܚܠܒ. ܬܢ ـܝ ܠـܝ ܫܪܒـܐ ܗ ܢـܐ

ܟܘܪܝ ܐ ܐܒܪ ܗ ܓܐܪ ܒܬܝ ܐ ܟܗ ܢܐ ܕ ܥܕܬܐ ܕܡܪܝ ܓܒܪܐܝܠ ܕܒ ܓܘܬܒ ܘܪܓ ܒܣ ܘܝܕ ܒ ܟܢ ܘ ܐܚܪܝ ܫܢ ـܬ

̇ܒ ܘܟܬܒ ܠܝ ܒܟ ̄ܓ ܒܐܒ ̇ܒܝܒ ܕܫ ܡܥ ܗ ܘܐ ܡܢ ܟܠ ܚܕ ܡܢ ܗ ܠܝܢ ܬܪܝܢ ܦ ܪܝ ܫܐܝܬ.) ܥ ܠ ܫܪ ܒـܐ

ܕ ܡ ܝ ܟ ܐܝܠ ܚܘܪ ܒ ܣ ܝܛ ܬ ܐ ܕܐ ܡ ܝܕ ܘ ܡ ܪ ܕܐ ܕ ܒ ܪ ܨܘ ܆ ܦܐܬܐ ܪܣܘ ـ ܪܣܙ . A. Baumstark, Geschichte der syrischen Literatur, Bonn 1922, 296, fn. 6. 3 4 ܡܪܝ ܦܝܠ ܠܘܟ ܣܝܢ ܘ ܝ ܘ ܚܢ ܢ ܕܘ ܠ ܒܐܢ ܝ܆ ܡ ܚܘܝ ܢ ܐ ܕܟܬ ̈ܒܐ ܣ ܝ ܛܐ ܕ ܒ ܝـܬ ܐ ̈ܪ ܟـܐ ܕ ܕܝـ ܪ ܐ ܕ ܡـܪܝ ܚܢ ܢ ܝـܐ

ܢ ܥ ܦ ܪܐ ܆ ܕܘ ܒ ܩܐ ܒ. ܕܪܡ ܣܘܩ ܐܨܨܕ܆ ܦܐܬܐ ܫܥܘ ܫـܨܢ. ܟܬ ܒـܐ ܗ ܢـܐ ܢ ܛܝـܪ ܝ ܘ ܡܢ ـܐ ܒܥ ـܕܬܐ ܕܐܪܒܥ ܝـܢ

.350 ܐܬܕܚ ܐ ܢܝ ܢܡ ܬܝܚ ܬ ܢܝܕ ܪܡ ܒ ܐܕ ܗ̈ ܣ 5 ܡܪܝ ܦܝܠ ܠܘܟ ܣܝܢ ܘ ܝ ـܘ ܚܢ ܢ ܕܘ ܠ ܒܐܢ ـܝ܆ ܡ ܚܘܝ ܢ ـܐ ܕܟܬ ̈ܒـܐ ܣ ܝ ܛـܐ ܕ ܒـܬ ̈ܝ ܐ̈ܪ ܟـܐ ܕ ܕܝـ ܬܐ ܘܕ ܥـ ̈ ܕܬܐ

ܣܘ̈ܪܝ ܝܬܐ ܕܒ ܡܕܢ ܚܐ. ܕܘ ܒ ܩـܐ ܓ. ܕܪܡ ܣـܘܩ ܐܨܨܕ܆ ܦـܐܬܐ ܢ ـ ܛ. ܟܬ ܒـܐ ܗ ܢـܐ ܫ ܟܝـܒ ܒܐܣ ܛܢ ܒـܘܠ.

.ܢܝܪܣܥ ܕ ܐܪܕ ܕ ܐܬܝ ܢܝ ܣܥ ܐܝ̈ ܢܫܒ ܐܝ ܢ ܬܕ̈ ܥ ܐܢ ܥܘܣ ܐܘ ܗ ܪܒܕ ܡܘ ܢܡܬ ܐܘ ܗ ܐܝ ܚ ܢܝܕ ܓܒ ܝܗ ܦ ܗܪܡܘ

ܗ ܕܐ ܡܬܝ ܕ ܥܐ ܒܐ ܓܪܬܐ ܚ ܕܐ )ܡܢ ܝܢـܐ ܓ ܕܡـܪܝ ܝ ܘܠ ܝـܘ ܐܝ ـܐ ]ܩـܘܪܐ[ ܕ ܫـܕܪ ̇ܗ ܗ ܘܐ ܡـܢ ܗܢـ ܕܘ

ܠ ܕܝܪܝ ܐ ܝ ܘ ܚܢ ܢ ܕܘ ܠ ܒܐܢ ܝ ܚ ܒ ܟܢ ـܘ ܐܚـܪܝ ܫܢ ـܬ ܐ̇ܨܟـ ̄ )ܐܓـ ܬܐ ܟـܘܡ ܝ ܬܐ ܘܡܢ ـܬܐ ܡـܢ ܦܬܝ̈ ܚـܐ ̄ ̇ ܦܛܪܝ ܟ ܝܐ ܕ ܥܕܬܐ ܣܘܪ ܳܝ ܳܝܬܐ ܐܪܬ ܕܘܟ ܣܝܬܐ ܫܢ ܬ ܐܦܟܐ ـ ܐ̇ܨ ܆ ܐܬܬ ܥܒ ܝ ܒܝ ܕ ܕܝܪܝ ـܐ ܫܡܥـܘ ܪـܐ ܆ ̇ ܚܬܡܐ ܬܪܝ ܢܐ ܒܣ ܘܝܕ ܫܢ ܬ ܒܝܐ. ܦܐܬܐ ܪܗ . ܣܛܪ ܡܢ ܗ ܢܐ ܟܬܒـܐ ܫܟܝ ܚܝـܢ ܗ ܘܘ ܠـ ܘܬ ܦ ܗܝـ ܒـܓ ̈ ̈ ܥܣܪܝܢ ܟܬܒܐ ܐܚ ܢܐ. ܕܝܪܝ ܐ ܝ ܘ ܚܢܢ ܕܘܠܒܐܢ ܝ ܣ ܓܠ ܐܢ ܘ ܒܡ ܚܘܝ ܢܐ ܕܟܬܒܐ ܕܝܠܗ܆ ܕܟـܕ ܣܥـܪ ܗ ܘܐ ̈ ̈ ܢܒ ܢܬܐ ܐܣܛܢܒܘܠ. ) ܕܘܠܒܐܢ ܝ܆ ܡ ܚܘܝ ܢܐ ܕܟܬܒܐ ܣ ܝܛـܐ܆ ܐ ـ ܟـܐ . ܗܠܝـܢ ܬܠـܬܐ ܡ ܚ ̈ܘܝ ܢـܐ ܕܟܬܒـܐ

ܫ ܠ ܐܢ ܘ ܒ ܩܝ ܛܐ ܕܫܢ ܬ ܐ̇ܨܟܒ )ܣ ܦܪ ܚ ̈ܝ ـܐ ܕ ܡـܪܝ ܦܝܠ ܠܘܟ ܣܝܢ ـܘ ܝ ـܘ ܚܢ ܢ ܕܘ ܠ ܒܐܢ ـܝ܆ ܟܬܝ ܒـܬ

Hekamtho || Syrian Orthodox Theological Journal 25

ܟܬܒــܐ ܕܐ ܪ ܘ ܥــܘܬ ܐ ܕܟܬܝــܒ ܠ ܦــ ̈ܝ ܫܢ ــܬ ܐ ̇ )ܡ ܫــܘܚܬܐ: ܟــܒ x ܝــ .cm܆ 6 ̈ ܕܦــܐ: ܬ ܆ ܣܘ̈ܪܛــܐ: ܟــ ܆ ܦــ ̈ ܨܐ: ܒ . ܘ ـ ܗ ܪܦــܪܕ Harvard Syr 47: ܛܪܦــܐ

ܩܣــܓ ـ ܩܣــܒ܆ ܕܟܬܝــܒ ܠ ܦــ ̈ܝ ܕܪ ܐ ܫܬ ܥ ܣ ܝܪ ܝ ــܐ )ܡ ܫــܘܚܬܐ: ܟــܘ x ܝــܘ .cm܆ 7 ܛ ܦــܐ: ܪܢ܆ ܣܘ̈ܪܛــܐ: ܟــܘ܆ ܦــ ̈ ܨܐ: ܒ . ܝ ـ ܕܝــ ܪܐ ܕ ܡــܪܝ ܡ ܪ ܩــܘ ܒܐ ܘܪܫ ܠــ

ܡ ܢܝ ܢ ــܐ 222: ܛܪܦــܐ ܥــܒ ـ ܥــܕ܆ ܟܬܒــܐ ܕܓܪ ܡ ܛ ܝ ܩــܝ ܣܘܪܝ ܝــܐ ܘ ܓܪ ܫܘ ܢ ܝــܐ

ܕ ܦ ܛܪܝ ܪ ܟـــܐ ܡ ܪܘ ܢ ܝـــܐ ܝ ـــܘ ܣܦ ܥ ܐ ܩܘܪ ܝ ـــܐ ܕܟܬܝـــܒ ܒ ܫܢ ـــܬ ܐ ̇ܥـــܨܒ ̄ ܒܐ ܝ̈ـــ ܕܝ 8 ܩــܘܦ ܐܪ )ܡ ܫــܘܚܬܐ: ܟــܒ x ܝــܘ .cm܆ ܛ ܦــܐ: ܩ܆ ܣܘ̈ܪܛــܐ: ܟــܓ܆ ܦــ ܨܐ: ܐ .

ܚ ـ ܕܝــܪܐ ܕܡــܪܝ ܡ ܪܩــܘ ܒܐ ܘܪܫܠــ ܡ ܢܝ ܢ ــܐ 153: ܛ ܪܦــܐ ܝ ــ ܒ ـ ܟــܐ܆ ܟܬܒــܐ

ܗ ܘ ܡܟ ܢ ܫـــܐ ܕܠ ܝـــܬ ܠـــܗ ܣ ܝܩ ܘܡـــܐ ܐ ܠ ܟܬܝـــܒ ܒـــܬܪ ܕܪ ܐ ܬܡܢ ܥ ܣܝܪ ܝ ـــܐ 9 )ܡ ܫـــܘܚܬܐ: ܟـــܒ x ܝـــܘ .cm܆ ܛ ܦـــܐ: ܪܢـــܘ܆ ܣܘ̈ܪܛـــܐ: ܟ܆ ܦـــ ܨܐ: ܐ . ܛ ـ

ܐ ܘܟܣܦـــܘܪܕ Oxford Bodleian Syr 142: ܛܪܦـــܐ ܠ ـ ܠـــܓ܆ ܕ ܠ ܣ ܝܩ ܘܡـــܐ 10 )ܡ ܫـــܘܚܬܐ: ܢܥـــܘܪܬܐ܆ ܛ ܦـــܐ: ܩܟـــܐ . ܝ ـ ܡܢ ܫܣـــܬܪ Manchester Syr 10:

ܛܪ ܦــܐ ܐ܆ ܟܬ ܒــܐ ܕ ܦــܘ ܫ ܐ ܘܢ ܓܠܝ ــܘ ܕܟܬܝــܒ ܒ ܫܢ ــܬ ܐ ̇ܦــܨܚ ̄ ܒܐ ܝ̈ــ ܕܝ

ܐ ܝــܐ ܒــܪ ܩ ܫܝ ܫــܐ ܓ ܒ ܪܐ ܝــܠ ܕܘ ܠ ܒ ܐܢ ــܝ ܒܥ ــܕܬܐ ܕ ܡــܪܝ ܒ ܗܢ ــ ܒ ܡ ܪ ܕܝــܢ 11 )ܡ ܫــܘܚܬܐ: x ܟــܒ .cm: ܛ ܦــܐ: ܫــܕ܆ ܣܘ̈ܪܛــܐ: ܠ܆ ܦــ ̈ ܨܐ: ܒ . ܝ ܐ ـ

. ܒܝܩ ܐܬܐܦ ܆ܗܕ ܝܐ 6 ܒܘܩ ܥ ܝ ܝܕ ̈ܝܐܒ ̄ ܕܗܥ̇ ܐ ܬ ܢܫ ܪܕ ܐܒ ܓ̄ ܝ ܒܝܬܟ ܐܢ ܗ ܐܒ ܬܟܒ ܗܒ ܠܝܡ ܚܕ ܕ ܥܕ ܐܣ ܝܕ ܪܦ ܕ ܐܒ ܬܟܘ

ܒܥ ܕܬܐ ܕ ܡܪܝ ܒܗܢ ܒ ܕܪܡ ܣܘܩ. ܟܬ ܒܐ ܗ ܢܐ ܫ ܟܝܒ ܝ ܘ ܡܢ ܐ ܒ ܒܝܬ ܟܘܪܣ ܝܐ ܕ ܚܣܝ ܘܬܐ ܕܝ ܠܢ ܕ ܣܘ̈ܪܝ ܝـܐ

܆ܐܕ ܢܠ ܘܗ ܒ ܝܪ ܦܐ ܝܪܡ ܕ ܐܪ ܝܕ ܒ ܐܛ ܥ ܐܝ ܐ ܐ ܝܪ ܝܕ ܢܒ ܪ ܬܘ ܠ ܒܝܟ ܫ ܗ ܢܡ ܐܬܪܘܨ ܕ ܐܟ ܣܘ ܢ .ܠܘܒ ܢܛ ܣܐܒ .ܝܠܝܕ ܐܟ ܣܘ ܢ ܪܝܨ ܝܗܘܠ ܥܕ M.H. Goshen-Gottstein, Syriac Manuscripts in the Harvard College Library, (Harvard 7 Semitic Studies 23), Michigan 1979, 56–57, 57. 8 ܡܪܝ ܦܝܠ ܠܘܟ ܣܝܢ ܘ ܝ ܘ ܚܢ ܢ ܕܘ ܠ ܒܐܢ ܝ܆ ܡ ܚܘܝ ܢ ܐ ܕܟܬ ̈ܒܐ ܣ ܝ ܛܐ ܕ ܒܝܬ ܐ̈ܪ ܟܐ ܕ ܕܝ ܪܐ ܕ ܡܪܝ ܡܪ ܩـܘ

ܒܐܘܪܫ ܠ . ܕܘ ܒ ܩܐ ܐ. ܕܪܡ ܣܘܩ ܐܨܨܕ܆ ܦܐܬܐ ܬܟܒ ـ ܬܟܓ. 9 ܡܪܝ ܦܝܠ ܠܘܟ ܣܝܢ ܘ ܝ ܘ ܚܢ ܢ ܕܘ ܠ ܒܐܢ ܝ܆ ܡ ܚܘܝ ܢ ܐ ܕܟܬ ̈ܒܐ ܣ ܝ ܛܐ ܕ ܒܝܬ ܐ̈ܪ ܟܐ ܕ ܕܝ ܪܐ ܕ ܡܪܝ ܡܪ ܩـܘ

ܒܐܘܪܫ ܠ . ܦܐܬܐ ܫܝ ـ ܫ . R. P. Smith, Catalogum Codicum Syriacorum Bodleianae, Oxford 1864, 461, 460–467. 10 J. F. Coakley, A Catalogue of the Syriac Manuscripts in the John Ryland’s Library 11

26 Hekamtho || Syrian Orthodox Theological Journal

ܚ ܡــܨ ܥــܕܬܐ ܕܝ ܠــ ܕܬ ܐــ ܗ ܐ ܕ ܢܘ ܢــܪ ܐ ܡ ܢܝ ܢ ــܐ 16: ܦــܐܬ ܐ ܐ ـ ܒ܆ ܟܬܒــܐ ܕܦــܘ ܫ

ܐ ܘܢ ܓ ܠܝ ــܘ ܕܟܬܝــܒ ̄ܚ ܒــܐ ܕܪ ܒ ܫܢ ــܬ ܐ̇ܨ ܣــ ܒܐ ܝ̈ــ ܕܝ ] ܕܝ ܪ ܝ ــܐ[ ܝ ــܘ ܚܢ ܢ ܒــܪ

ܡ ܠܟــܐ ]ܩ ܪܡــܙ[ )ܡ ܫــܘܚܬܐ: ܡــܐ x ܟــ .cm܆ ܛ ܦــܐ: ܫܟــܗ܆ ܣܘ̈ܪܛــܐ: ܠ܆ 12 ܦـ ̈ ܨܐ: ܒ . ܝ ܒ ـ ܕܝـ ܪ ܐ ܕ ܡـܪܝ ܓ ܒ ܪܐ ܝــܠ ܕܠ ܡ ܢܝ ܢ ـܐ܆ ܟܬܝـܒ ܒ ܫܢ ـܬ ܐ̇ܨ ܣــ 13 . ܙܝ x ܗܟ :ܐܬܚܘܫ ܡ( ̄

ܠܝــܬ ܦܘ ܫ ܟــܐ ܕܠ ܢܫܬܟــܒ ܣ ܝܡــܐ ܗ ܢــܐ ܕ ܥــܠ ܗܝܡܢــܘܬܐ ܕܣܘ̈ܪ ܳܝ ܳ ܝــܐ ̈ ܒ ܟܬ ܒــܐ ܐܚ ܢــܐ ܘ ܒ ܝܢ ــܬ ܬܠ ܬ ܝــܢ ܘܐ ܪܒܥــܐ ܢ ܘ ̈ܣ ܟــܐ ܕܐ ܪ ܘ ܥــܘܬ ܐ ܕ ܒــܪ ܨܠ ܝܒــܝ܆

ܗ ܠ ܝــܢ ܕ ܟܢ ܫܢ ــܢ ܫܘܘ ܕ ܥــܐ ܕܥ ܠ ܝــ ܗ ܘ ܠ ܒ ܘ ܚ ܢ ــܐ ܕܝ ܠــܢ ܕܣܝ ܡــܐ ܕ ܕܘܟــܬ ܘ ܪܐ.

ܐ ܠ ܕܠ ܚــܘܪ ܐ ܒــ ܗܘ ܒ ̈ܟ ܬ ܒــܐ ܠ ܡ ܨܝ ــܐ ܕ ܢــ ܕܥ ܕܒܐ ܝܢ ــܐ ܡ ܢــ ܗ ܘ ܫ ܟܝــܒ܆ ܒــ ܗܝ

ܕܠ ܟܬܝــܒ ܥــܠ ܚ ܒ ̈ܝ ܫــܬ ܐ ܕ ܟܠــ ܗ ܘ ܟܬ ̈ܒــܐ ܒ ܡ ܚ ܘܝ ܢ ــܐ ܕܢ ܘ ̈ܣ ܟــܐ ܦ ܪܝ ܫܐܝــܬ.

ܠ ܡܨܝ ـܐ ܕܝـܢ ܕܢـ ܕܘܩ ܗ ܫـܐ ܒ ܟܠـ ܗܘ ܗ ܠܝـܢ ܟܬ ̈ܒـܐ ܕ ܟܠ ܚـܕ ܡܢـ ܗܘ ܢܪܝـ

. ܘܗ ܢܡ ܐܬܪܘܨ ܢܠ ܐܘ ܗܬܕ ܘܐ ܐܬܟܘܕ ܒ ܳ ܳ ܳ ܳ ܳ ܒ ـ ܫܘܡܠ ܝ ܟܬ ܝܒܬ ܐ ܕܣ ܳܝ ܡ ܐ ܕ ܗ ܝܡ ܢ ܘܬ ܐ ܕܣ ܘ̈ܪ ܝܳ ܶܝ ܐ

ܒــܪ ܨܠܝܒــܝ ܟــܬ ܒ ܣܝ ܡــܐ ܕܝܠــܗ ܕ ܥــܠ ܗ ܝܡ ܢــܘ ܬܐ ܕܣ ܘ̈ܪ ܳܝ ܳ ܝــܐ ܒ ܡ ܕܝܢ ــܬ

ܡ ܝ ܠ ܝ ܛܝܢ ـــܝ ܟـــܪ ܕܐ ܬ ܝ ܠـــܕ ܒـــ ̇ܗ. ܗ ܕ ܐ ܗܘ ܡـــܘ ܕܥ ܠـــܢ ܒ ܫܘ ܪܝ ـــܐ ܕܟܬ ܒـــܗ

ܕܐ ܪ ܘ ܥــܘܬ ܐ ܕܠــܘܩܒ ܠ ܟܠܩܝ ܕ ̈ܘ ܢ ܝــܐ. ܐ ܠ ܫــܬܩ ܡــܢ ܕ ܢܬܕܟــܪ ܕܒ ܐܝــ ܕܐ ܫ ܢــܬ ܐ ̈ ܟ ܬܒــܗ. ܒــ ܗ ܝ ܕܫܟ ̈ܝ ܚــܢ ܠــܢ ܟܡــܐ ܡ ܘܕ ܥ ܢــ ܘ ܬ ܐ ܥــܠ ܚܝ ــ ̈ܘܗܝ܆ ܡ ܨܝ ــܐ ܗ ܝ

ܠــܢ ܠ ܡܕܪ ܟــܘ ܐ ܝــ ܕ ܒ ܒ ܨܝــ ܪܘ ܬ ܚܘ ܡــܐ ܕܢ ܒܢ ــܐ ܕܟܬܝܒــܬ ܗ. ܡ ܦ ܣ ܝܢ ــܢ ܕܐ ܬܟــܬ ܒ ܒܝـܬ ܫܢ ̈ ܝـܐ ܐ ̇ܩܢـܒ ـ ܐ ̇ܩܣـܙ ܒ ܙܒܢ ـܐ ܕܬ ܫـܥ ܫܢ ̈ ܝـܐ ܕ ܟܘ ܫـܐ ܕܝ ܠـܗ ܒ ܡܝ ܠ ܝ ܛܝܢ ـܝ 14 ܟ ܐ ܡــܬ ܩــ ܕ ܕ ܢ ܣــܒ ܪ ܝ ܫ ܢ ــܘܬ ܡ ܪ ܥ ܝــܬ ܐ ܕܐ ܡ ܝــܕ ܒ ܫــܘ ܪܝ ܫܢ ــܬ ܐ ̇ܩ ܣــܙ ̄ .

[Manchester], in: BJRL, Vol. 75: 2, Manchester 1993, 129–130. hmml.org 12 13 ܐܫ ܟܚܬܗ ܒܙ ܒܢ ܟ ܪܘܟ ܝܐ ܕܝܠܝ ܒ ܒܝܬ ܐ̈ܪ ܟܐ ܕ ܕܝ ܪܐ ܕ ܡܪܝ ܓܒ ܪܐܝܠ ܒ ܣܝ ܩܘ ܟܓ ܒܬܫ ܪܝـܢ ܩـ ܕ .ܝܒ̇ ܬ ܢܫ 14 ܚܕ ܡܢ ܬܠ ܡ ̈ܝ ܕܐ ܕ ܦܛܪܝ ܪ ܟܐ ܡܪܝ ܡܝ ܟܐܝܠ ܪ ܒܐ )ܐ ̇ܩܣܘ ـ ܐ ̇ܩܨܨ ܕܠ ܝ ܕܝܥ ܫ ܡܗ ܡܘ ܕܥ ܠـܢ ܥـܠ

Hekamtho || Syrian Orthodox Theological Journal 27

ܟܬ ܒــܗ ܒــܪ ܨ ܠ ܝ ܒــܝ ܒ ܙܒܢ ــܐ ܕ ܩــܘܡܬ ܐ ܓ ܡܝــܪܬ ܐ ܕ ̈ܫܢ ــܝ ܚܝ ــ ̈ܘ ܗܝ ܒ ܚ ܝــ ܐ܆ ܟــܕ

ܗ ܘ ܒــܪ ܫܢ ̈ܝــܐ ܒܝــܬ ܫܬ ܝــܢ ܘܠܫܬܝــܢ ܘ ܚܡــܫ. ܣ ܒܪ ܝܢ ــܢ ܕܚ ܝــܐ ܗ ܘܐ ܝ ܬ ܝــܪ

ܡــܢ ܫܒܥ ܝــܢ ܘ ܚܡــܫ ܫܢ ̈ܝــܢ. ܒــ ܗ ܝ ܕܒ ܫܢ ̈ܝــܐ ܐܚ ܝ ــܬ ܐ ܕ ܚܝ ــ ̈ܘܗܝ ܟــܬ ܒ ܗ ܘܐ ̈ ܢ ܒ ܢ ــܬ ܐ ܣ ܓ ̈ܝــܐ ܬ ܐ ܒ ܣ ̈ ܝ ܡــܘܗܝ ܐܚ ܝ ــܐ ܥــܠ ܢ ܦ ܫــܗ »ܐ ܢــܐ ܕܝ ܘܢܢ ܘܣ ܝــܘ

ܣ ܒـܐ«. ܫ ܢـܬ ܐ ܕܡـܘܠ ܕ ܗ ܠ ܝ ܕܝܥـܐ ܠـܢ ܘܠ ܥـܘܕ ܐ ܬܢܛـܪ ܠـܢ ܥـܘܗ ܕ ܢܗ. ܗ ܘ ̈ ܕܟـــܬ ܒ ܗ ܘܐ ܐ ܪ ܝܟ ܐܝـــܬ ܥـــܠ ܚ ̈ܝـــܘܗܝ ܘܟܠـــ ܗܘ ܕܘܒـــ ܘܗܝ܆ ܥܡܠـــܘܗܝ

ܘ ܢ ̈ܨ ܚܢ ــܘܗܝ ܐܝــܬ ܘܗܝ ܗ ܘܐ ܒــܪ ܬ ܪܒ ܝــܬ ܗ ܘ ܚܒــܪܗ ܦ ܛ ܪܝ ܪܟــܐ ܡــܪ ܝ ܡ ܝܟ ܐ ܝــܠ 15 .ܐ ܢ ܡ ܘ ܝ ܕܝ ܒ ܐ ܐܢ ܗ ܐ ܪ ܡܐ ܡ ܕ ܝܗ ܘ̈ ܠ ܒ ܚ ܠ ܐ ܆ܝܗܘ ܡܐ ܡ ܢܡ ܕܚ ܒ ܐ ܒ ܪ

ܥ ܠــܬ ܐ ܕܟــܬ ܒ ܒــܪ ܨܠܝܒــܝ ܥــܠ ܗܝܡܢــܘܬܐ ܕ ܥــܕܬܐ ܣــܘܪ ܳܝ ܳܝ ܬ ܐ ܐ ܝܬ ܝــ ̇ܗ

ܗ ܘ ܬ ܒܥــܬ ܐ ܕܣ ܘ̈ܪ ܳܝ ܳ ܝــܐ ܕܡ ܝܠ ܝܛ ܝܢــܝ. ܐ ܟܡــܐ ܕܡ ܬ ܚــ ܘ ܐ ܒــ ܗܘ ܢܒܢــܐ ܕܪ ܫܝــܢ ܗ ܘܘ

ܬܟܝܒ ܐ ܝـــܬ ܥـــ ܚـــ ̈ܕ ܕ ܐ ܣܘ̈ܪ ܳܝ ܳ ܝـــܐ ܘܝ ̈ܘ ܢ ܝـــܐ ܟܠܩܝ ܕ ̈ܘ ܢ ܝـــܐ ܥـــܠ ܗ ܝܡ ܢـــܘܬ ܐ

ܕ ܥــ ̈ ܕܬ ܗ ܘ . ܥــܠ ܗ ܕܐ ܨ ܒــܘܬ ܐ ܓــ ܒــܪ ܨ ܠܝ ܒــܝ ܘ ܡــܘ ܕܥ ܗ ܟܢ ــܐ: »]ܐ ܢــܐ[

ܕܝ ܘܢܢ ܘܣܝ ـــܘ ܐ ܟܣܢ ܝـــܐ ܘ ܥ ܒـــ ܕܐ ܕ ܐـــ ܗ ܐ܆ ܕ ܟـــܕ ܐ ܬ ܪܟܢ ـــܬ ܠ ܦܝ ܣـــܐ ܕ ܥ ܡـــܐ

ܡ ܗ ܝܡܢ ـــܐ ܕܒ ܡܝ ܠ ܝ ܛܝܢ ـــܝ܆ ܐ ܬ ܝـــܬ ܠـــ ܘ ܬ ܗ ܝ ܕܠ ܗܝ ܡܢ ـــܘܬܐ ܬܪ ܝـــ ܨܬ ܫܘܒ ܚـــܐ

ܕܐ ܚ ܝ ܕܝܢ ــܢ ܐ ܣ ܝــ ܥــܠ ܡܢ ــܪܬ ܐ܆ ܘܐ ܪ ܝــ ܠ ܚ ܣــ ܕܐ ܡــܢ ܐ ܝܣ ܪ ܐ ܝــܠ ܕ ܐــ ܗ ܐ

]ܟܐܡــܬ ܡــܢ ܥܡــܐ ܣܘܪ ܳܝ ܳ ܝــܐ[. ܕ ܗ ܐ ܡ ܬ ܚ ܣــܕ ܡــܢ ܐܚ ܢ ܳܝ ــܳܝ ܫܘܒ ܚــܐ ܒــ 16 ܝ ܕܥــܬ ܐ. ܕܓ ܠ ܝــܙ ܠــ ܡــܢ ܗܝ ܡܢ ــܘܬܐ ܫ ܪܝــܪܬ ܐ«. ܒ ــ ܗ ܕܐ ܡ ܬܝ ܕ ܥــܐ ܕ ܡــܢ ܗ ܘ

ܢܒܢ ܐ ܗ ܢܐ ܕ ܕܝ ܪ ܒـܪ ܨ ܠܝ ܒـܝ ܒ ܡܝ ܠܝ ܛܝܢ ـܝ. ܗ ܢـܐ ܝ ܠـܦ ܡـܢ ܪ ܒـܗ ܘܟـܬܒ ܩ ܦܝ ܣܐܝـܬ ܒܫܢ ـܬ ܐ ̇ܩـܨܢ

ܡ ܫܝ ܚܝܬܐ ܥܠ ܢܨ ܚܢ ̈ܘܗܝ ܕ ܒܪ ܨ ܠܝ ܒܝ ܕ ܠ » ܡܢ ܣ ܓܝܐܘܬ ܛܢ ܢ ـܗ ܘܝ ܨܝ ܦـܘܬܗ ܕܠܝ ̈ܘܠ ܦܢ ـܐ ܘ ܩܢ ̈ܘ ܢـܐ

ܐ ̈ܗܝ ــܐ« ܫܒــ ܗ ܘܐ ܡــܢ ܡ ܕܒܪܢ ــܘܬܐ ܕܡܪ ܥܝــܬܗ )ܕ ܗܘ ܢܒܢــܐ ܬܠܒ ܫــܪ ܘܓܒــܐ ܗ ܘܐ ܠــܗ ܟܘ ܫــܐ ̈ ̈ ܒܡܝܠܝܛܝܢܝ ܘܠ ܫ ܗ ܘܐ ܠܝܠܝ ܐܝܡ ܡܢ ܡܟܬܒܢ ܘܬܐ ܕܟܬܒـܐ ܒ ܚܝـ ܐ. ܥܠـܘܗܝ ܐܪܝܟܐܝـܬ ܟܬܝـܒ

ܒ ܟܬ ܒ ܢ ܕ ܕܘܟܬ ܘ ܪܐ ܕ ܥܠ ܕܝ ܘܢܢ ܘܣ ܝܘ ܒܪ ܨ ܠܝ ܒܝ ܘ ܦܘ ܫ ܩܗ ܕܐ ܓܪܬܐ ܕܠ ܘܬ ̈ܪ ܗܘ ܡ ܝܐ ) ܗܐ ܡܬܛܝ ـܒ

.ܒ ܐܬܐܦ ܆9/6 ܐ ܢܝ ܢܡ ܪܠܢܪܫ ܒ ܐܡ ܘܐܬܕ ܐܒܬܟܒ ܢܝܕ ܪܘܚ . ܐܡܬܚܠ 15 ܆ܐܝ ܝܪܘܣ ܐܝ ܥ ܝܒ ܪ ܐܩ ܒ ܘܕ ܆ܐܒ ܪ ܠܝܐܟ ܝܡ ܝܪܡ ܐܟ ܪ ܝܪܛܦ ܠ ܝܣ ܕ ܐ ܢܒ̈ ܢ ܬܘ ܢܒ ܬܟܡ ܕ ܐܒ ܬܟܒ ܪܘܚ

Chronique de Michel le Syrien, Patriarche Jacobite d'Antioche (1166-1199), ed., J.–B. .ܛܨܣ̇ ܐܬܐܦ Chabot, Vol. 4, Paris 1899/1910. 16 .ܚܨܪ ܐܬܐܦ ܆9/6 ܪܠ ܢܪ ܫ ܒ ܐܡ ܘܐܬܕ ܐܟܣܘ ܢ

28 Hekamtho || Syrian Orthodox Theological Journal

ܢܒܢ ــܐ ܕ ܣܕ ܩــܐ ܕ ܥــ ̈ ܕܬ ܐ ܒ ܣــܘܢ ܗ ܕܘ ܕ ܟܠ ܩܝ ܕܘܢܝ ــܐ ܒ ܫܢ ــܬ ܬ ̇ܢــܐ ̄ ܠ ܐܬܬܢ ܝܚــܘ

ܗ ܘܘ ܡ ܫ ̈ܝ ܚ ܝــܐ ܡــܢ ܬ ܟܬ ̈ܘ ܫــܐ ܕ ܥــ ܚــ ̈ܕ ܕ ܐ ܘܣ ܓــܐ ܗ ܘܐ ܪ ܛܢــܐ ܘܕܪ ܫــܐ ܘ ܚܣــ ܕܐ

.ܬܝܐ ܢܝܡ ܐ ܐ ܕ ܕ ̈ ܚ ܠܥ ܕ ̈ ܐ ܠ ܗ ܢـܐ ܕܪ ܫـܐ ܬ ܘ ܕܝܬ ܢ ܝـܐ ܘܦܝ ܣـܐ ܕ ܥ ܡـܐ ܣ ܘܪ ܳܝ ܳ ܝـܐ ܝ ـܗܒ ܠـܢ ܦـܐ̈ܪ ܐ ܛܒـܐ

ܘܫ ܒــ ܠــܢ ܣ ̈ ܝ ܡــܐ ܝ ܩܝــ ܝ ܕ ܡ ̈ܝ ــܐ ܕܐ ܝــ ܗ ܢــܐ ܘܟܬ ܒــܐ ܪ ܒــܐ ܕܐ ܪ ܘ ܥــܘܬ ܐ ܕ ܒــܪ

ܨ ܠܝ ܒــܝ ܕ ܠــܘܩ ܒ ܠ ܬ ܘܕܝ̈ ــܬ ܐ ܡ ܠــܘ ܕ ܝــܢ ܗ ܢــܐ ܕ ܠــܘܩ ܒ ܠ ܟܠ ܩܝ ܕ ̈ܘ ܢ ܝــܐ܆ ܟــܪ

ܕ ܣ ܝ ܘ ܡـــܐ ܐ ܒـــ ܗ ܘ ܢܒܢ ـــܐ ܘܐ ܒܬܪ ܟـــܢ ܛ ܟـــܕ ܡ ܐܡـــ ܪ ܗ ܕ ܥـــܠ ܗܝ ܡܢ ـــܘܬܐ

ܒܩ ܦـــ ܘ ܬܪ ܝ ܢـــܐ ܕܟܬܒـــܐ ܗ ܢـــܐ. ܒـــ ܗ ܝ ܕܣ ܝܡـــܐ ܗ ܢـــܐ ܡ ܫܡܠـــܝ ܗ ܘ

ܒܬܐܘ ܠܘ ܓܝ ـــܐ ܗܢ ـــܘ ܕܝـــܢ ܒܝ ܘܠ ܦܢ ـــܐ ܕ ܥـــܠ ܬ ܠܝܬܝ ـــܘܬܐ ܘ ܡܬ ܒܪܢ ܫܢ ـــܘܬܐ܆

ܪ ܝ ܫــــܝ ܗ ܘ ܒܥــــܕܬܐ ܣــــܘܪ ܳܝ ܳܝܬܐ ܘܠ ܐܗܡܝــــܘ ܟܬ ̈ܘܒــــܐ ܣܘ̈ܪ ܳܝ ܳ ܝــــܐ ܡــــܢ

ܕ ܢܟܬܒــܘ ܢܝܗܝ ܒ ̈ܟܬܒــܐ ܐܚ ܢــܐ ܐ ܝ ــ ܕܠ ܡܐ ܡــܪ ܒܪ ܝــܫ ܦ ܘ ܫ ܩــܐ ܕܟܬܒــܐ ܩ ܕܝ ܫــܐ

ܕ ܐ ܘܢ ܓ ܠܝ ـــܘ ܕ ܒـــܪ ܨ ܠܝ ܒـــܝ ܐܘ ܒܡ ܟܢ̈ ܫـــܐ ܬܐܘ ܠ ̈ܘ ܓ ܝـــܐ. ܐ ܝـــ ܣـــܘ ܓ ܐܐ

ܕܟܬ ܒــ ̈ܘ ܗܝ ܕ ܒــܪ ܨܠܝܒــܝ ܠ ܐ ܢــܫ ܥ ܕ ܟܝــܠ ܐ ܨܚ ܘܐ ܥ ܒــܪ ܟܬܒــܗ ܕܐ ܪ ܘ ܥــܘܬ ܐ 17 ܕܠــܘܩ ܒ ܠ ܟܠ ܩܝ ܕ ̈ܘ ܢ ܝــܐ ܠܠ ̈ܫܢ ــܐ ܐܚ ܢــܐ ܐܘ ܦܪ ܣــܗ. ܟــܕ ܢ ܟܝــܠ ܡ ܐܡــܪ ܐ

ܕ ܥــܠ ܗܝ ܡܢ ــܘܬܐ ܐܝــ ܣ ̈ܝ ܡــܘܗܝ ܐܚ ܢــܐ܆ ܗ ܢــܐ ܟــܪܐ ܣ ܓــܝ ܘ ܥــܪ ܐ ܒ ܠ ܚــܘܕ

.ܐ ܢ ܦ ܓܘ ܣ ܠܕ ܬܝܐ ܢܠ ܟ ܢܠ ܐ ܪ ܝܛ ܢ ܗ ܬܒܝܬܟ .ܐܒ ܬܟܕ ܐ ܦ̈ ܕ ܐ ܬ ܠ ܬ ܒ ܳ ܳ ܳ ܳ ܳ ܓ ـ ܚܡ ̈ܝܠ ܬ ܐ ܕܣ ܳܝ ܡ ܐ ܕ ܗ ܝܡ ܢ ܘܬ ܐ ܕܣ ܘ̈ܪ ܝܳ ܶܝ ܐ

ܒــܪ ܨ ܠܝ ܒــܝ ܟــܬ ܒ ܣ ܩܝ ܝــܬ܆ ܩ ܪܝ ܚ ܐܝــܬ ܘܩ ܦܝ ܣ ܐܝــܬ ܥــܠ ܟܠ ܗ ܝــܢ ̈ ܕܝܠ ̈ܝــܬ ܐ ܡ ܬܒ ܥ ܝ ܢ ܝــܬ ܐ ܘܐ ܨܝ̈ــܬ ܐ ܕ ܗܝܡܢــܘܬܐ ܕ ܥــܕܬܐ ܣــܘܪ ܳܝ ܳܝ ܬܐ܆ ܟــܕ ܪ ܕ ܐ ܥــܠ

̇ 17 ܡܪܝ ܝ ܘܠ ܝܘ ܝ ܫܘܥ ܪܝ ܔ ܒ ܫܒܘ ܥܐ ܐܚܪܝ ܐ ܕܩ ܕ ܫܘ ܢ ܝܗ ܟܐ ܡܬ ܒܬܫܪܝܢ ܩܕܡ ܝـܐ ܫܢ ـܬ ܒـܗ ̇ ̈ ܫܡܠܝ ܗ ܘܐ ܟܬܝܒܬܐ ܕܣܘ ܓܐܐ ܕܡܢ ܘܬܐ ܕܟܬܒܐ ܕܐܪܘ ܥܘܬܐ ܒܐܬ ̈ܘܬܐ ܕܟܘܡܦ ܝ ـܘܬܪ܆ ܐܠ ܚܒܠـ ̈ܘܗܝ ܕܡـ ܟ

ܬܪܚ ܒܕ ܐܝ ܢ ܬܘܕ ܪܡ ܗܠܝܕ ܐ ܝܪܚܐ ܐܢܚ ܠܘܦ ܐܘ ܗ ܐܢ ܗ .ܗ̇ ܝܥܒܛܢ ܢܟܘ ܗ̇ ܝܨ ܪܬܢܕ ܐܬܦܐ ܗܠ ܒܫ ܠ ܐ ܬܘܡ

ܫܢ ̈ ܝܐ ܕ ܚܝ ̈ܘܗܝ. ܠܬܘܪ ܨܐ ܕܟܬܝܒܬܐ ܗ ܕܐ ܡܬܒ ܥܐ ܥܡ ܣ ܓܝܐ ܐ. ܫ ܪܝܬ ܒ ܡ ܕ ܡܢ ـ ̇ܗ ܘ ܐ ܐـ ܗܐ ܨ ܒـܐ

ܘ ܢܒܢ ܐ ܡ ܦܕ ܨ ܒܝܢ ܢ ܕܢ ܐ ܡܢ ܒـܬܘܪ ܨܐ܆ ܒ ܦܘ ܚ ܡـܐ ܘܒ ܫܘܡ ܠ ܝـܐ ܕ ܟܠ ܗܝـܢ ܡܢ ـ ̈ܘܬܐ ܕܟܬ ܒـܐ ܗ ܢـܐ ܡ ܛـܠ .ܐܣ ܪ ܦ

Hekamtho || Syrian Orthodox Theological Journal 29

ܥ ̈ܩ ܒــܬ ܐ ܕܐ ܒــ ̈ܗ ܬ ܐ ܕܬ ܠــܬ ܣــ ̈ܘ ܢ ܗ ܕܘ ܬ ܒ ̈ܝ ܠ ܝــܬ ܐ ܘ ܒ ܢ ــܐ ܕܝ ܠ ܢ ܐܝــܬ ܥــܠ ܗ ܠ ܝــܢ ̇ ܕ ܥـــܕܬܐ ܬܪ ܝـــ ܨܬ ܫܘܒ ܚـــܐ ܣـــܘܪ ܳܝ ܳܝ ܬܐ ܐ ܡـــܪ ܐ ܢـــܐ ܘ ܐܝ ܓـــܘܦ ܛ ܝܬ ܐ ܕܒܙܒܢـــܐ ܕ ܗ ܝ

ܣــܘܢ ܗ ܕܘ ܕ ܟܠ ܩܝ ܕܘܢܝ ــܐ܆ ܗ ܠܝــܢ ܕ ܒ ܕ ܩــܘ ܘ ܚ ܘ ܝــܘ ܗܝ ܡܢ ــܘܬܐ ܬܪ ܝــ ܨܬ ܫܘܒ ܚــܐ.

ܡ ܫــ ܪ ܐ ܩܕ ܡ ܐܝــܬ ܥــܠ ܬ ܠ ܝܬ ܝ ــܘܬ ܐ ܩ ܕܝܫــܬ ܐ ܘ ܕܝ ܠ ̈ ܝــܬ ܐ ܡܝ ̈ܩܢ ܢ ܝــܬ ܐ ܕ ܟــܠ ܚــܕ

ܡـــܢ ܩܢ ̈ܘ ܡـــܐ ܦ ܪܝ ܫ ܐܝـــܬ܆ ܟـــܢ ܥـــܠ ܡ ܬ ܒܪܢ ܫ ܢ ـــܘܬ ܐ ܕ ܡ ܠـــܬ ܐ ܐـــ ܗ ܐ. ܒـــܪ

ܨ ܠܝ ܒــــܝ ܪ ܫــــܐ ܒܬܪ ܟــــܢ ܠ ܗ ̈ܪܝ ܛܝ ܩ ܝــــܐ ܗ ܠܝــــܢ ܕܒ ܫܘܪܝ ــــܐ ܕ ܚܡ ܫــــܐ ܕ ̈ܪܐ

ܕܡ ܫܝ ܚܝ ــܘܬܐ ܐ ܒܥــܘ ܝ ܘ ̈ܠ ܦܢ ــܐ ܡ ܚ ̈ܒــ ܘ ܒ ــ ܗ ܕܐ ܐــܨܘ ܠ ܒــ ̈ܗܬܐ ܕ ܥــܕܬܐ ܕܢ ܪܘ ܚــܘ

ܚـــܘܓܬܐ ܕ ܡܚ ܫܒـــܬ ܗ ܘ ܘܝ ܬܝـــܪ ܢ ܡܠ ܠـــܘ ܆ ܢܕܪ ܫـــܘ ܘ ܢܟܬ ܒـــܘ ܥـــܠ

ܬܐܘ ܠܘ ܓܝ ــܐ ܘ ܢܥܒــ ܕܘ ܬ ܚܘ ܡــܐ ܠ ܗܝ ܡܢ ــܘܬܐ ܡ ܫܝ ܚܝــܬܐ. ܣ ܥــܐ ܡ ܫܡ ܗ ܐܝــܬ ̈ ܥــܠ ܛ ̈ ܖܝܬ ܐ ܝܛ ܝــܐ ܡــ ̈ܘ ܕ ܳܝ ܳܝ ܒ ܬܠــܬ ܐ ܐــ ̈ܗ ܐ܆ ܥــܠ ܐ ̈ܪܝ ܢــܘ ܡ ܗܝܡܢ ــܝ ܒ ܬܠــܬ ܐ

ܟ ̈ ܝܢ ــܐ܆ ܥــܠ ܣ ܐ ̈ܒܠܝ ܢ ــܘ ܡ ܚ ̈ܒ ܟــܝ ܩܢ ̈ܘ ܡــܐ ܒ ̈ܚــ ܕ ܕ ܐ ܘ ܥــܠ ܡ ܩ ܕܘ ̈ܢܝ ܢ ــܘ ܡ ܒــܨ ̈ܪܝ

ܪ ܘ ܚــܐ ܩ ܕܝ ܫــܐ܆ ܥــܠ ܢܣ ܛܘ̈ܪܝ ܢ ــܘ ܡ ܓ ̈ܒ ܠــܝ ܗ ܝܟــ ܠ ܡܠــܬܐ ܐــ ܗܐ܆ ܥــܠ ̈ ܐ ܘܛ ̈ܘܟ ܝـܐ ܡ ܣܒܠـܝ ܒـܘܠܒ ܠܟ ܝܢـܐ ܕܡܠــܬܐ܆ ܥـܠ ܡ ܢ ܳ ̈ܝ ܢ ܝـܐ ܡ ̈ܚـܬܝ ܦܓــܪܐ ̈ ܫ ܡ ܝܢــܐ ܠܒــܪܐ܆ ܥــܠ ܐܦ ܘܠܝܢ ܝ ܢــܘ ܡܠ ܳܝ ــܳܝ ܐــ ܗܘܬܐ ܒ ܕܘܟــܬ ܢ ܦ ܫــܐ܆ ܥــܠ

ܗ ܓ ܓ ̈ܝــܐ ܡ ܚــ ̈ܘ ܳܝ ܳܝ ܡ ܫܝ ܚــܐ ܒ ܗ ܓ ܓــܘܬܐ ܥــܠ ܐܪ ܥــܐ ܘ ܥــܠ ܟܠܩܝ ܕ ̈ܘ ܢ ܝــܐ

ܬ̈ܪ ܳܝ ܳܝ ܟ ̈ ܝܢـܐ. ܒـܪ ܨܠܝܒـܝ ܡ ܣܬܡـ ܥـܠ ܬ ܚ ̈ܘܡـܐ ܘܣ ̈ ܝܡـܐ ܕܐ ܒـ ̈ܗ ܬ ܐ ܐ ܝـ ܡـܪܝ

ܐ ܬ ܢ ܐܣ ܝــܘ ܪ ܒــܐ )ܪܨܚ ـ ܫܥــܓ ܘ ܡــܪܝ ܩܘܪ ܝܠܠــܘ )ܫܥــܗ\ܫــܦ ـ ܬܡــܕ

ܐ ܟ ܣ ܢܕ̈ܪ ܝ ــܐ ܘܡــܪܝ ܓܪ ܝ ܓ ܘܪܝ ــܘ ܢ ܙܝ ܢܙܝ ــܐ )ܫܟــ ـ ܫــܨ ܘ ܐܚ ܢــܐ ܣܘ̈ܪ ܳܝ ܳ ܝــܐ ̈ ܝ ܕ ̈ܘܥܬܢــܐ ܡ ܫܡــܗܐ ܕܠ ܐ ܕ ܟــܪ ܫܡ ܗܝ̈ــܗܘ ܐ ܝــ ܡــܪܝ ܣܐ ܘܝــܪܐ ܪܒــܐ ܦܛܪܝ ܪܟــܐ 18 ܕܐܢܛ ܝܘܟܝ ــــܐ ܕܐܬܩــــ ܪܝ ܬ ܓــــܐ ܕ ܣܘ̈ܪܝ ܝــــܐ )ܬܢــــܘ ـ ܬܩܠــــܒ ܘ ܡــــܪܝ

18 ed. I. Lebon, . ܘܩ ܝܛܡ ܪ ܓ ܐܥ ܝܫ ܪ ܠܒ ܩܘܠ ܕ ܐ ܝܟܘܝ ܛܢ ܐܕ ܐܟ ܪ ܝܪܛܦ ܐܪ ܝܘ ܐܣ ܝܪܡ ܐܫ ܝܕ ܩ ܕ ܐܒ ܬܟ in: CSCO 93/Syr. 45, Vol. 2, Louvain 1929; 101/Syr. 50, Vol. 3, 1933; 111/Syr. 58, Vol.

ܐܪܝܘ ܐܣ ܕ ܐܕ ܕ ̈ ܚܠ ܕ ܐܬ ܓܐܘ . ܘܝ ܠܦܐܢ ܬܘ ܠܕ ܐ ܝܟܘܝ ܛܢܐܕ ܐܟ ܪ ܝܪܛܦ ܐܪܝܘ ܐܣ ܐܫ ܝܕ ܩ ܕ ܐ ܡܐܡ / 4, 1938;

ܕܝܬܝܠ ܠ ܝܦ / ed. I. Lebon, in: CSCO 119/Syr. 64. 1949. ܘܩ ܝܛܡ ܪ ܓ ܕܝܓ ܪܣ ܕܘ ܐܟ ܪ ܝܪܛܦ

Severi Philalethes, ed. A. Sanda, .ܐ ܢܝ ̈ ܟ ܝ ܝܪ̈ܬ ܠܒ ܩܘܠ ܘ ܐܬܘ ܢܫ ܢܪܒ ܬܡ ܠܥ ܐܪ ܝܘ ܐܣ ܝܪܡ ܠ ܝܣ ܕ Beirut 1928.

30 Hekamtho || Syrian Orthodox Theological Journal

ܦܝܠ ܠܘܟ ܣ ܝܢ ـــܘ ܚܣ ܝـــܐ ܕ ܡ ܒـــܘܓ )ܬ ـ ܬܩܟـــܓ 19 ܘ ܡـــܪܝ ܝ ܥ ܩـــܘܒ

ܡܛ ܪܘ ܦܘ ܠܝ ܛـــܐ ܕܐ ܘܪ ܗ ܝ )ܬܪܠـــܓ ـ ܬܫـــܒ 20 ܘ ܦ ܛܪܝ ܪ ܟـــܐ ܡـــܪܝ ܩܘܪܝ ܩـــܘ 21 ܕܐܢܛ ܝܘܟܝ ــܐ )ܬܫــܨܓ ـ ܬܬܝــܙ . ܒ ܙ ܒــܢ ܕ ܝــܢ ܡــܐܪ ܢ ܥــܠ ܣــ ̈ܗ ܕ ܘ ܬ ܐ ܕ ܡــܢ

ܟܬܒــܐ ܩ ܕܝ ܫــܐ ܘ ܡ ܝــܬ ܐ ̈ ܡــܬܠ ܡــܢ ܐܣܛ ̈ܘܟ ܣــܐ ܕܒ ܪܝــܬ ܐ ܠܬ ̈ܚــܘܝ ܬ ܐ ܕܣܥ ܝــܐ ̈ ܕܝܠــܗ܆ ܗ ܟ ܢــܐ ܒ ܗ ܝــܢ ܡ ܚــ ܘ ܐ ܘܡ ܫــܪ ܪ ܗܝܡܢــܘܬܐ ܕ ܥــܕܬܐ ܣــܘܪ ܳܝ ܳܝ ܬܐ. ܕܘܡ ܝــܐ

ܬܚ ܘܝ̈ܬ ܢ ܝــܐ ܕܐ ܝ ــ ܗ ܠ ܝــܢ ܕ ܒــܪ ܨܠܝܒــܝ ܡ ܫܬ ܟ ܚ ܝــܢ ܠــ ܘܬ ܬ ܐ ܘܠ ̈ܘ ܓ ܝــܐ ܐܚ ܢــܐ 22 .ܐܬܘܢܡܝܗ ܠܥ ܘܒ ܬܟܕ ܐܝ ܳ ܝܳ ܪ̈ܘܣ ܐ ܬ ܗ̈ ܒ ܐ ̈ ̈ ܠܬ ܚܬ ܪ ܫܡ ܝܢ ܢ ܟܬܝܒܬ ܐ » ܕܣ ܝܡܐ ܕ ܗ ܝܡ ܢ ܘܬ ܐ ܕܣ ܘܖ ܳܝ ܳ ܝܐ ܐ ܝـ ܕܒ ܙ ܥـܘܖܝ ܬ ܐ«

ܢܝܕ ̈ܝܐܒ ܒܝܟ ܫܕ ܐܩ ܝܬܥ ܐܚ ܚ ܨ ܐܬܣܐܬܫ ܗ̇ ܠ ܝܣ ܕ ܆ܗ̇ ܝ ܬܝܐܕ ܐ ܡ ܟ ܐ ܬܝܐ ܝܠܡܫ ܡ

ܒܝܬܟܕ ]350 ܐ ܢ ܝܢ ܡ ܢܝܕ ܪܡ ܒ ܐ ܢܡܘ ܝ[ 97/1 ܐ ܢ ܝܢ ܡ ܐܪܦܥܢ ܕ ܘܐ ܐܡ ܟܪܘܟܕ ܐܪܝܕ ܕ ܘܗ

ܫܢ ܬ ܐܬܩܒ ̄ ܆ ܛܪ ܦܐ ܩܣܓ ـ ܩܣܕ. ܟܬ ܒܐ ܗܘ ܥܬܝ ܩܐ ܕ ܟܠ ܗܘ ܕ ܕܝ ܪܐ ܕ ܫܪ ܦ ̈ܗ

ܠ ܡܛܐ ܠܝ̈ ܕܝܢ ܕ ܢܣܒܝܘܗܝ ܠ ̇ܗ ܠ ܫܬܐܣܬܐ ܐܝ ܕܝ ܐܐ ܗ ܘܐ. ܐ ܬܦ ܚ ܡـܬ ܕ ܝـܢ ܥـܠ

19 ܣ :ܐܦܪܛ ܆222 ܐ ܢܝ ܢܡ ܠܫܪܘܐܕ ܘܩ ܪܡ ܝܪܡ ܕ ܐܪܝܕ ܕ ܐܟ ܣܘ ܢ :ܐܬܘ ܢܡ ܝܗ ܕ ܐܡ ܘܚ ܬܕ ܐܢ ܙܒ ܕ ܐܡ ܝ ܣ

ܥܒ. ܢ ܘܣܟܐ ܐܚܪ ܢܐ ܕ ܕܝـܪܐ ܕܡـܪܝ ܡܪܩـܘ ܡܢ ܝܢ ـܐ 153܆ ܛܪܦـܐ: ܝـܓ ܝـܙ. ܕܠـܘܢܕ ܡܢܝܢـܐ .Add

17.201܆ ܛܪܦܐ: ܘ. ܡܐܡ ܐ ܕ ܡܪܝ ܦܝܠ ܠܘܟ ܣܝܢ ܘ ܕ ܥܠ ܬ ܠܝܬܝ ܘܬܐ ܘ ܥܠ ܡܬ ܒܪܢ ܫܢ ـܘܬܐ ܕܝ ܚܝ ܕܝ ـܐ

ed. A. Vaschalde, in: CSCO 9/Syr 9, Louvain 1907..ܪܣ ܒܒ ܕ ܐܬܘ ܢܪ ܒܕ ܡ ܠܥ ܘ 20 ܐ ܓܪܬܐ ܕ ܥܠ ܡ ܕܒܪܢ ܘܬܐ ܕܐ ܗܐ ܡܠܬܐ. ܢ ܘܣ ܟـܐ ܕ ܕܝـܪܐ ܕ ܡـܪܝ ܡܪ ܩـܘ ܕܐܘܪܫܠـ ܡܢ ܝܢ ـܐ 222܆

.ܒܣ ܐܟ :ܐܦܪܛ ܆153 ܐ ܢܝ ܢܡ ܘܩܪܡ ܝܪܡܕ ܐܪܝܕ ܕ ܐܢ ܪܚܐ ܐܟܣܘ ܢ .ܛܨ ܘܥ :ܐܦܪܛ 21 ܐܘ ܡܘܠܘܓܝ ܐ ܕܝ ܠܗ ܕ ܩ ܕܝ ܫܐ ܘܠ ܒܝܫ ܠܠ ܗܐ܇ ܡܪܝ ܩܘܪܝ ܩܘ ܦܐܛܪܝ ܐܪ ܟܝܕ ܕܐܢܛ ܝܘܟܝ ܐ ܕ ܣܘܪܝ ـܐ.

ܢ ܘܣܟܐ ܕ ܕܝܪܐ ܕܡܪܝ ܡܪܩܘ ܒܐܘܪܫܠ ܡܢ ܝܢ ܐ 129܆ ܦܐܬܐ: ܩܨܐ ܩܨܗ. )ܟܬܝܒ ܒܫܢ ܬ ܬܬܘ ̄ ܥـܠ

ܢ ܘܣ ܟܐ ܫܪ ܫܢ ܝܐ . ܡܘ ܕܐ ܐ ܢܐ ܠ ܒܘ ܕܝ ܪܝ ـܐ ܡܝ ܟܐܝـܠ ܐܘܢ ܕ ܫـ ܕܪ ܠـܝ ܦܚ ܡـܐ ܕܢ ܘܣ ܟـܐ ܗܢـܐ. ܟܬܝܒـܬܐ

Cyriacus of Tagrit and his Book on Divine Providence, Piscataway ܗܒ ܬܟܒ ܠܝܐܟ ܝܡ ܐ ܝ ܪ ܝܕ ܗ̇ ܣ ܪܦ 2012, 427-443. 22 ܚܣ ܝـܐ ܡـܪܝ ܦܝܠ ܠܘܟ ܣܝܢ ـܘ ܕ ܡ ܒـܘܓ ܒܟܬ ܒـܐ ܕܠ ܥـܠ ܕ ܥـܠ ܬ ܠܝܬܝ ـܘܬܐ ܘ ܡܬ ܒܪܢ ܫܢ ـܘܬܐ

ܕܝ ܚܝ ܕܝ ܐ ܡܝܬܐ ܬ ̈ܚܘܝ ܬܐ ܫ ܦܝ ܬܐ ܕ ܚܢ̈ ܝـܢ ܠ ܫܪ ܒـܐ ܘܝ ـܐܐ ܠܡ ܚ ܘܝ ـܘ ܗܪ ܟـܐ. ܟـܬܒ ܥـܠ ܡܬ ܒܪܢ ܫܢ ـܘܬܐ

ܕ ܡܠܬܐ ܐ ܗܐ ܗ ܟܢ ܐ: »ܐ ܝ ܟܢ ܐ ܕ ܝܢ ܐ ܬ ܡ ܙܓ ܡ ܠܬ ܐ ܥ ܒ ܣ ܪ ܐ ܕܝ ܠ ܗ. ܗ ܢ ـܘ ܕ ܝـܢ ܐ ܬ ܚܝ ـܕ ܘܠ ܐ ܣܬ ܥـܪ

ܒ ܘܠ ܒ ܐ ܘ ܓ ܕܫ ܚܘ ܒ . ܐ ܨܐ ܐ ܝ ܕܒ ܕܘܡܝ ܐ ܠ ܡ ܚ ܘ ܝ ܘ. ܐ ܝ ܢ ܗ ܝ ܪ ܐ ܒܥ ܝܢ ܐ. ܐ ܝ ܡ ܠܬ ܐ ܒ ܩـ . ܐ ܝـ

ܚ ̈ܘ ܫ ܒ ܐ ܒܢ ܦ ܫ ܐ. ܐ ܝ ܝ ܘܠ ܦ ܢ ܐ ܒܬ ܪ ܥ ܝܬ ܐ. ܐ ܝ ܢ ܘܪ ܐ ܒ ܕܗ ܒ ܐ. ܐ ܝ ܢ ܠ ̈ܝ ܩ ܐ ܒܐ ܐ ܪ. ܐ ܝـ ܣ ܛ ̈ܘ ܟ ܝـܐ ܒ ̈ܚـ ܕ ܕ ܐ.

. ܐܬܐܦ .»ܐ ܡ̈ ܕ ܗ ܒ ܐ ܫ ܦ ܢ ܝ ܐ .ܐ ܢ ܒ ܒ̈ ܐܒ ܐ ܚ ܝܪ̈ ܝ ܐ .ܐܪ̈ ܐܦ ܒ ܐ ܬ ܘ ܢܕ ܒ̈ ܥ ܡ ܝ ܐ .ܐ ܩ ܥ ܒ ܝ̈ ܚ ܝ ܐ

Hekamtho || Syrian Orthodox Theological Journal 31

ܬܠܬܐ ܨ ܚ ̈ܚܐ ܕܬܐܘ ܡܐ ܒ ܫܪܢܠܪ ܡܢ ܝܢ ܐ 6/9 ܕܡܢ ܚـ ܕ̈ܪܝ ܫܢ ـܬ ܐ ̇ ̄ ܆ ܦـܐܬܐ ܪܨܛ ـ ̄ ܫܐ. ܕܐ ܘܪܫܠ ܡ ܢܝ ܢ ܐ 222 ܕܟܬ ܝܒ ܒ ܫܢ ܬ ܐ ̇ܥـܨܒ ܆ ܛܪܦـܐ ܥـܒ ـ ܥـܕ܆ ܘܬܪܝ ܢـܐ 23 ܕܐܘܪܫܠ ܡ ܢܝ ܢ ܐ 153 ܕܟܬܝܒ ܒܬܪ ܕܪ ܐ ܬܡܢܬ ܥ ܣܝܪ ܝ ܐ܆ ܦ ܐܬ ܐ ܟـܒ ـ ܠ. ܐ ܦـܢ

ܕܟ ܬ ܘܒ ܐ ܕ ܗ ܢܐ ܐܚܪ ܝ ܐ ܕܐ ܘܪܫܠ ܠ ܐ ܬܕ ܟܪ ܕ ܥـܠ ܐ ܝܢ ـܐ ܟܬ ܒـܐ ܟـܬ ܒ ܢ ـܘܣ ܟ ܗ܆ ܐܠ

ܐ ܟ ܡــܐ ܕ ܡ ܬ ܚــ ܘ ܐ ܒ ̈ܣ ܦــܐ ܕܠܬ ܚــܬ ܡ ܗܝܡܢ ܝܢ ــܢ ܕܢ ܣ ܟــܗ ܥــܠ ܗ ܢــܐ ܕܫ ܟܝــܒ

ܒܐܘܪܫܠ ܕܡܢ ܝܢ ܐ 222. ܒ ܗ ܝ ܕܠ ܝـܬ ܫܘܚܠ ܦـܐ ܒ ܝـܬ ܬ̈ܪ ܝـ ܗ ܘ ܢ ܘ ̈ܣܟـܐ ܘܒܢ̈ـܬ

̈ܩـ ܕܬ ̈ܪܝـ ܗ ܘ ܕ ̈ܡ ܝـܢ ܠ ̈ܚـ ܕ ܕ ܐ ܘ ܒ ܙ ܒـܢ ܫ ̈ܘܚ ܠ ܦـܐ ܕܝـܢ ܦ ܝ ܫـܢ ܡـܢ ܗ ܘ ܕܬܐܘ ܡـܐ

ܒ ܫ ܪܢ ܠܪ. ܘ ܗ ܠܝܢ ܬܪܝܢ ܨ ܚ ̈ ܚܐ ܕܐܘܪܫ ܠ ܩ ܪܝ ܒܝܢ ܠ ܗܘ ܕ ܕܝ ܪܐ ܕ ܢܥ ܦ ܪܐ . ܒ ܩ ܒ ܝـܬܐ

ܐܪܝܕ ܕ ܐ ܚ ܚ ܨ ܠ Z ܐ ܬܘ ܬ ܐܕ ܐ ܫ ܝ ܢ ܝܣ ܬܬܐ ܐܬܘ ܢܡ ܝܗ ܕ ܐܡ ܝ ܣܕ ܐ ܝܬܚܬ ܐܦܣ ܒ ܐܦܠܚ̈ ܘܫ ܕ

222 ܐ ܢܝ ܢܡ ܘܩܪܡ ܝܪܡܕ ܐܪܝܕ ܕ ܘ ܗ ܠ M1 ܆ܪ ܠܢ ܪܫ ܒ ܐ ܡ ܘܐ ܬܕ ܘܗ ܠ B ܆ ܐܪܦܥܢ ܕ

ܘ M2 ܠ ܗܘ ܕܡ ܢܝ ܢ ܐ 153܆ ܘܢ ܝ ܫ ܐ ܕܨܠ ܝܒ ܐ + ܠܬ ܘ ܣ ܦܬ ܐ ܘܕ ܣ ܪܛ ܘ ܢܐ – ܠ ܒ ܨܝـܪ ܘܬ ܐ ̈ .ܐ ܨ ܪܘ ܬܕ ܩ ܬܪ ܒ ܝܨ ܪ̈ܘ ܬܠܘ ܐ ܬܘ ܦܝ ܦܥ ܠ 2 x ܆ܐ ܟ ܣ̈ ܘ ܢܒܕ ܩ ܬ̈ܢ ܒܕ ̄ ̈ ̈ ܒܢܬ ܩ ܟ ܝ ܬܐ ܕܝ ܕܝ̈ܥܢ ܠ ܓـ ܘܐ ܐܝـ ܫـ ̄ܘܒ܆ ܩـ ̄ܕ܆ ܐ ܝـܬ ̄ܘ܆ ̄ܗ܆ ܒـܬ ̄ܘ܆ ܗܝـ ̈ ܘܐ ܐܬܬܫ̈ ܩ ܘܓ ܒ ܐܬܦܣ̈ ܘܬ ܝܡܝ̈ ܣ ܬ ܬ ܐ ܠܕܒ ܐܡ ܫܘܓ ܕ ܐܬܒܝܬܟܒ ܝ ܠ ܡ ܬܫܐ ܐܟܪܫ ܘ

ܐܫܬܘ ܕܥ ܥܠܝ ܗܝܢ ܦܪܝ ܫܐܝـܬ. ܬܘ̈ܪ ܨܝ ܡـܢ ܐ ܬ ܟܬܒـܘ ܒ ܓـܘ ܟܬ ܝܒـܬܐ܆ ܟـܕ ܐܪܢ ܬ ̈ ̈ ܥܠܝ ܗܘ ܒܣܦܐ ܬ ̈ܚܬܝ ܐ. ܟܬ ܝܒܬ ܐ ܕܐܪܒܥ ܬ ܝ̈ـ ܗ ܘ ܢ ܘܣܟـܐ ܕܦܘ ܚܡـܐ ܐܝـ ܥ ܝـ ܕܐ ̈ .ܢ ܫ ܝ̈ ܩ ܢ ܢܝܕ ܢܝܗ ܢܡܕ ܐ ܬ ܝܢ ܕ ܚ̈ ܕܚ ܩ ܬ̈ ܢܒ ܢ ܡ ܪ ܛܣ ܐ ܥ ܘ̈ ܢ ܠܕ ܗ̇ ܝ ܬܝ ܐ

23 ܡܘ ܕܐ ܐ ܢܐ ܠܒܘ ܕܝܪܝ ܐ ܫܡܥ ܘ ܪܐ ܡ ܕܒܪ ܢܐ ܕܒܝܬ ܐ̈ܪ ܟܐ ܕ ܕܝـܪܐ ܕܡـܪܝ ܡܪ ܩـܘ ܕܐܦـܕ ܘܠܒـܘ

.ܐܬܒܝܬܟܕ ܐܡ ܚ ܘܦܠ ܐܪ ܝܕ ܕ ܐܟ ܣ̈ ܘ ܢ ܘܗ ܝܪ̈ܬܕ ܐܬܪܘܨ ܝܠ ܪܕ ܫ ܕ ܔ ܝܪ ܐܫ ܘܡ ܐ ܝܪ ܝܕ

32 Hekamtho || Syrian Orthodox Theological Journal

ܳ ܳ ܳ ܳ ܳ ١ ܕ ـ ܣ ܳܝܡܐ ܕ ܗ ܝ ܡܢ ܘ ܬ ܐ ܕܣ ܘ̈ܪ ܝܳ ܶ ܝܐ ܕܡ ܪܝ ܕܝ ܳܘܢ ܢܘܣ ܳܝ ܘܣ ܝ ܥܩ ܘܒ ܒ ܪ ܨܠ ܝܒ ܝ Z.163a B.299 ̈ ̈ ܏ ܡܗܝܡܢܝܢــܢ ܚܢــܢ ܣܘܖ ܳܝ ܳܝــܐ ܬܖܝــܨܝ ܫܘܒܚــܐ ܒܐܒــܐ ܘܒܒــܪܐ ܘܒܪܘܚــܐ ܩܕܝܫــܐ. M2.18a

ܬܠܝܬܝــــܘܬܐ ܩܕܝܫــــܬܐ. ܘܠ ܒܪܝــــܬܐ. ܐܝܬ ܳܝ ܳܝــــܬܐ ܏ ܘܡܬܘܡܝــــܬܐ. ܫــــܘܝ ܳܬ M1.72b 24 ܒܐ ̇ܘ ܣܝ ــܐ ܘܟ ܝܢ ــܐ. ܒܐܝ ܩــ ܪܐ ܘܒ ܫܘܠ ܛܢ ــܐ. ܒ ܨܒ ܝܢ ــܐ ܘܒ ܡــ ܪܘܬܐ. ܗ ܝ ܕܐܝܬܝــ ̇ܗ ٢ ٣ 25 ٤ 5 ܚـ ܕܐ ܐـ ܗܘܬܐ. ܐܘܟܝـܬ ܚـܕ ܐـ ܗܐ܆ ܩܢ ̈ܘܡـܐ ܕܝـܢ ܬܠـܬܐ ܘܦ ܨܘܦـܐ ܬܠـܬܐ. ٥ ٦ ܕܒ ܕܝ ̈ ܠ ܝـــܬܐ ܡܝ ̈ܩ ܢ ܢ ܝـــܬܐ ܕ ܗ ܠܝـــܢ. ܡܬ ܕ ̈ܠ ܠـــܢ ܘ ܡܬܝ ̈ܕ ܥـــܢ܆ ܘ ܠܩܢ ̈ܘ ܡـــܐ

ܡܬܝ ̈ܗ ܒـــܢ. ܠ ܒـــܐ ܓܝـــܪ ܗܘ ܥܠـــܬܐ ܕ ܥ ̈ܠ ܬ ܢـــܐ: ܝ ܠـــܘ ܕܘܬ ܐ ܠ ܚـــܘܕ ܘܠ ٧ ܝ ܠ ܝــ ܕܘܬܐ ܐܘ ܢܦܘܩــܘܬܐ. ܠܒــܪܐ ܕܝــܢ ܥܠܬ ܢــܐ ܕ ܡــܢ ܥܠــܬܐ܆ ܝ ܠ ܝــ ܕܘܬܐ ܘܠ

ܝ ܠــܘ ܕܘܬܐ ܘܐܦــ ܢܦܘ ܩــܘܬܐ. ܠܪܘ ܚــܐ ܬܘܒ ܥܠܬ ܢــܐ ܕ ܡــܢ ܥܠــܬܐ܆ ܢܦܘ ܩــܘܬܐ. ̈ 10 ܘܠ ܐܝـــܬ ܠـــܗ ܝ ܠ ܝـــ ܕܘܬܐ ܐܘ ܝ ܠـــܘܕܘܬ ܐ. ܕܝܠ ̈ܝـــܬܐ ܐܘܣ ܝ ܝـــܬܐ ܘܟ ܝܢ ̈ܝـــܬ ܐ

:ܐ ܬ ܝܢ ܦ ܠ ܚ̈ ܬܫܡ ܠܘ ܐ ܬ ܝ ܡ ܘ̈ ܬܡܘ ٨ ┐ ٩ ܟܠ ܗ ܝــܢ ܓ ܝــܪ ܐܝ ܠ ܝــܢ ܕܐ ܝـــܬ ܠ ܒــܐ ܕܒــ ܪܐ ܐ ܢܝــܢ ܘܕܪ ܘ ܚــܐ ܆ ܤ ܛــܪ ܡــܢ ┐ ١٠ ܐ ܒــ ܗܘܬ ܐ. ܘ ܟܠ ܗ ܝــܢ ܐܝ ܠ ܝــܢ ܕܐ ܝــܬ ܠܒــ ܪ ܐ ܕܐ ܒــܐ ܘܕܪ ܘ ܚــܐ ܐ ܢܝــܢ܆ ܤ ܛــܪ ܡــܢ ١١ ܝ ܠܝـــ ܕܘܬ ܐ ܘܒܪ ܘ ܬܢ ـــ ܘ ܬ ܐ ܘܡܬ ܓܫܡܢـــܘܬ ܐ. ܘܟ ܠ ܗ ܝـــܢ ܕܐܝـــܬ ܠܪ ܘ ܚـــܐ ܕܐ ܒـــܐ fol. 301 ١٢ 15 ܘ ܕܒــܪ ܐ ܐ ܢܝــܢ܆ ܤܛــܪ ܡــܢ ܢܦܘܩــܘܬ ܐ. ܘܐܝܬ ܝــ ܗ ܘ ܚــܕ ܟ ܝܢــܐ ܘܐ ̇ܘ ܣ ܝ ــܐ ܘܝ ــܬܐ܆ ̈ ١٣ ̈ ١٤ M2.18b ܩܢ ܘ ܡــܐ ܕ ܝــܢ ܬܠــܬ ܐ. ܟــܕ ܠ ܩܢ ܘ ܡــܐ ܏ ܡܬܩ ܦܣ ܝــܢ ܏ ܕܢــܗܘ ܘ ܚــܕ܆ ܐ ܝــ Z.163b

24 ܒܪܬ ܩ ܗܝ ܝ ܘ ܢܝܬܐ (οὐσία (ousía ܘܡܬܦܫܩܐ ܐܝܬܝ ܐ. ܫܪ ܫ ̇ܗ ܩܕܡ ܝܐ ܡـܢ ܕܡـܢ ܩـ ܕ ܡ ܫܝ ܚـܐ ̈ .ܐܝ ܝܪ̈ܘܣ ܐܒܬܟܒ ܦܐ ܢܒܙܒ ܐܚ ܝܟܫ ܟܘܣ ܐܢ ܗ ܒ .ܐܢܝ ܢܩ ܐ ܘ ܗ ܝܗܘܬܝܐ 25 .πρόσωπα (prosopa) ܝܗ ܐܬܝܢܘܝ

Hekamtho || Syrian Orthodox Theological Journal 33

┐ ١ ܳ ܳ ܳ ܳ ܳ ١ ܟ ܝܢ ــܐ ܘܐ ̇ܘ ܣܝ ــܐ ܘܝ ــܬܐ: ܘܐ ܦــ ܐ ̇ܘ ܣܝ ــܐ ܘܟ ܝܢ ــܐ ܘܝ ــܬܐ ܡ ܳܬ ܦ ܳ ܬܝــܢ ܕ ܢــܗ ܘܘ ܕ ـ ܣ ܳܝܡܐ ܕ ܗ ܝ ܡܢ ܘ ܬ ܐ ܕܣ ܘ̈ܪ ܝܳ ܶ ܝܐ ܕܡ ܪܝ ܕܝ ܳܘܢ ܢܘܣ ܳܝ ܘܣ ܝ ܥܩ ܘܒ ܒ ܪ ܨܠ ܝܒ ܝ ٢ ̈ ̈ ٣ ┐ Z.163a B.299 ̈ ̈ ̈ ܬܠـــܬ ܐ܆ ܐ ܝـــ ܩܢ ܘ ܡـــܐ ܘܕܝ ܠ ܝـــܬܐ ܘܦ ܖܨ ܘܦـــܐ. ܐ ܠ ܐܝـــܬܘܗܝ ܚـــܕ ܬܠـــܬ ܐ. ܏ ܡ ܗܝܡܢܝܢ ــܢ ܚܢ ــܢ ܣܘܖ ܳܝ ܳ ܝــܐ ܬܖܝــ ܨܝ ܫܘܒ ܚــܐ ܒܐܒــܐ ܘܒܒــܪܐ ܘܒܪܘ ܚــܐ ܩ ܕܝ ܫــܐ. ٤ ٥ M2.18a ܘܬܠـــܬ ܐ ܚـــܕ. ܕܫـــ ܘܝܢ ܠ ̈ܚـــ ܕ ܕ ܐ ܒ ܚܝـــ . ܒ ܡܥܒ ܕܢ ـــܘܬ ܐ. ܒܐ ܝ ܩـــܪ ܐ ܫܘܝ ـــܐ. ܬܠܝܬܝــــܘܬܐ ܩܕܝܫــــܬܐ. ܘܠ ܒܪܝــــܬܐ. ܐܝܬ ܳܝ ܳܝــــܬܐ ܏ ܘܡܬܘܡܝــــܬܐ. ܫــــܘܝ ܳܬ M1.72b ٦ 24 ܒܫ ܘܠܛ ܢܐ ܡܪܢܝܐ. ܒܐ ̇ܘ ܣܝ ــܐ ܘܟ ܝܢ ــܐ. ܒܐܝ ܩــ ܪܐ ܘܒ ܫܘܠ ܛܢ ــܐ. ܒ ܨܒ ܝܢ ــܐ ܘܒ ܡــ ܪܘܬܐ. ܗ ܝ ܕܐܝܬܝــ ̇ܗ ٢ ٣ 25 ٤ 5 ܟـܕ ܗ ܟ ܝــܠ ܗܠܝـܢ ܗ ܟ ܢـܐ ܐܣܬܒܪܢـܢ ܘܩܒܠܢـܢ: ܕܠ ܚـܕ ܘܒܠ ܚـܘ ܕܘܗܝ ܐـܗ ܐ 5 ܚـ ܕܐ ܐـ ܗܘܬܐ. ܐܘܟܝـܬ ܚـܕ ܐـ ܗܐ܆ ܩܢ ̈ܘܡـܐ ܕܝـܢ ܬܠـܬܐ ܘܦ ܨܘܦـܐ ܬܠـܬܐ. ٧ ٨ ٥ ٦ ܢܣ ܓــܘܕ܆ ܘ ܠܚــ ܕܐ ܐــ ܗ ܘܬ ܐ ܒܬ ܠــܬ ܐ ܩܢ ̈ܘ ܡــܐ ܗܢ ــܘ ܐ ܒــܐ ܘܒــ ܪ ܐ ܘܪ ܘ ܚــܐ ܕܒ ܕܝ ̈ ܠ ܝـــܬܐ ܡܝ ̈ܩ ܢ ܢ ܝـــܬܐ ܕ ܗ ܠܝـــܢ. ܡܬ ܕ ̈ܠ ܠـــܢ ܘ ܡܬܝ ̈ܕ ܥـــܢ܆ ܘ ܠܩܢ ̈ܘ ܡـــܐ ٩ ١٠ ١١ ̈ ܩ ܕܝ ܫــܐ܆ ܠ ܣــ ܡــܘ ܕ ܝܢ ܢ ܒܬܠــܬ ܐ ܩܢ ̈ܘܡــܐ ܕܬܠ ܝܬܝ ــܘܬ ܐ ܩ ܕܝܫــܬ ܐ: ܬܠــܬ ܡܬܝ ̈ܗ ܒـــܢ. ܠܒـــܐ ܓܝـــܪ ܗܘ ܥܠـــܬܐ ܕܥܠ ܬ ܢـــܐ: ܝ ܠـــܘ ܕܘܬ ܐ ܠ ܚـــܘܕ ܘܠ ١٢ ١٣ ٧ ܐ ̇ܘ ܣ ̈ܝـــܐ ܢ ـــܘܟ ̈ܖܝ ܬܐ ܘ ܐـــ ̈ܗ ܘ ܬܐ: ܐܟ ܡـــܐ ܕܐܡܪܝـــܢ ܛ ̈ ܖܝܬ ܐ ܝܛ ܝـــܐ. ܘܐ ܦـــ ܝ ܠ ܝــ ܕܘܬܐ ܐܘ ܢܦܘܩــܘܬܐ. ܠܒــܪܐ ܕܝــܢ ܥܠܬ ܢــܐ ܕ ܡــܢ ܥܠــܬܐ܆ ܝ ܠ ܝــ ܕܘܬܐ ܘܠ ١٤ ̈ ̈ ̈ ܬ ܘܒ ܬܠــܬ ܐ ܟ ܝܢــܐ ܢܘܟ ܖܝ ــܐ ܘܐ ܟܣ ܢ ܝــܐ܆ ܐ ܝــ ܕܫܦــܪܐ ܠ ܪ ܝ ــܘ ܘܐ ܘܢ ܘܡ ܝــܘ . M1.73a ܝܠــܘܕܘܬܐ ܘܐܦــ ܢܦܘܩــܘܬܐ. ܠܪܘܚــܐ ܬܘܒ ܥܠܬܢــܐ ܕ ܡــܢ ܥܠــܬܐ܆ ܢܦܘܩــܘܬܐ. ̈ ̈ ١٥ ١٦ ̈ ̈ ̈ 10 ܘܐ ܦــ ܚܒܝ ܟ ܝــܢ ܩܢ ܘ ܡــܐ ܒܚــ ܕܕ ܐ ܘܡܙܝ ܓܝــܢ܆ ܐ ܝــ ܕܐܡــܪ ܣ ܒܠ ܝــܘ . ܘܠ 10 ܘܠ ܐܝـــܬ ܠـــܗ ܝܠ ܝـــܕܘܬܐ ܐܘ ܝܠـــܘܕܘܬ ܐ. ܕܝܠ ܝـــܬܐ ܐܘܣ ܝ ܝـــܬܐ ܘܟܝܢ ܝـــܬ ܐ ١٧ ١٨ ܒ ܨܝــܪ ܪ ܘ ܚــܐ ܡــܢ ܐ ܒــܐ ܘܒــ ܪ ܐ܆ ܐ ܝــ ܕ ܡ ܬ ܪ ܥــܐ ܡ ܩ ܕܘܢ ܝــܘ . ܐ ܠ ܟــܠ ܚــܕ ܘܡܬ ̈ܘ ܡ ܝ ܬ ܐ ܘܠ ܡܫܬ ̈ܚ ܠܦ ܢܝ ܬ ܐ:

̈ ̈ ٨ ┐ ٩ ܡــܢ ܩܢ ܘ ܡــܐ܆ ܡــܐ ܕܡ ܢــܗ ܘܠــܗ ܡܬ ܝــ ܕܥ܆ ܡ ܬܩــܪ ܐ ܐــܗ ܐ. ܢــܘܗܪ ܐ: ܚ ܝــܐ: ܟܠ ܗ ܝــܢ ܓ ܝــܪ ܐܝ ܠ ܝــܢ ܕܐ ܝـــܬ ܠ ܒــܐ ܕܒــ ܪܐ ܐ ܢܝــܢ ܘܕܪ ܘ ܚــܐ ܆ ܤ ܛــܪ ܡــܢ ١٩ ̈ ┐ ١٠ ܫــܪ ܪ ܐ: ܛܒــܐ: ܘܟ ܠܡــܕ ܕܠܗ ܠ ܝــܢ ܕܡــܐ܆ ܐ ܟܡــܐ ܕܐܡ ܝــܪ ܡــܢ ܡܠܦ ܢــܐ ܐ ܒــ ܗܘܬ ܐ. ܘ ܟܠ ܗ ܝــܢ ܐܝ ܠ ܝــܢ ܕܐ ܝــܬ ܠܒــ ܪ ܐ ܕܐ ܒــܐ ܘܕܪ ܘ ܚــܐ ܐ ܢܝــܢ܆ ܤ ܛــܪ ܡــܢ ٢٠ ̇ ܩ ܕܝ̈ܫــــܐ܆ ܥــــܠ ܚــــ ܕܐ ܐــــܗ ܘܬ ܐ ܘܐܘܣܝ ــــܐ܆ ܗܝ ܕܚ ܕܢ ܐ ܝــــܬ ܏ ܡܬܝ ܕܥــــܐ M2.19a ١١ ܝ ܠܝـــ ܕܘܬ ܐ ܘܒܪ ܘ ܬܢ ـــ ܘ ܬ ܐ ܘܡܬ ܓܫܡܢـــܘܬ ܐ. ܘܟ ܠ ܗ ܝـــܢ ܕܐܝـــܬ ܠܪ ܘ ܚـــܐ ܕܐ ܒـــܐ ٢١ fol. 301 ̈ 15 ١٢ ܒ ܬܠ ܬ ܐ ܩ ܢܘ ܡ ܐ ܀ 15 ܘ ܕܒــܪ ܐ ܐ ܢܝــܢ܆ ܤܛــܪ ܡــܢ ܢܦܘܩــܘܬ ܐ. ܘܐܝܬ ܝــ ܗ ܘ ܚــܕ ܟ ܝܢــܐ ܘܐ ̇ܘ ܣ ܝ ــܐ ܘܝ ــܬܐ܆ ١٣ ١٤ ܡ ܗܝܡܢ ܝܢ ـــܢ ܬ ܘܒ ܏ ܕ ܚـــܕ ܡـــܢ ܩܢ ̈ܘ ܡـــܐ ܕܬܠ ܝܬ ܝ ـــܘܬ ܐ ܩ ܕܝܫـــܬ ܐ ܒـــܪ ܐ ܝ ܚܝ ܕܝ ـــܐ M2.18b ̈ ̈ B.300 ܩܢ ܘ ܡــܐ ܕ ܝــܢ ܬܠــܬ ܐ. ܟــܕ ܠ ܩܢ ܘ ܡــܐ ܏ ܡܬܩ ܦܣ ܝــܢ ܏ ܕܢــܗܘ ܘ ܚــܕ܆ ܐ ܝــ Z.163b

34 Hekamtho || Syrian Orthodox Theological Journal

١ ٢ ܟـܕ ܠ ܩـ ܕ ܐܬܓܒـܠ ܗܝܟـ ܘܐ ܓـܢ ܒـܗ ܡܠـܬ ܐ܆ ܐ ܝـ ܕܐ ܡـܪ ܢܣܛـܘܪ. ܘܠ ٣ ٤ ܣܒــܠ ܒــܘܠܒ ܘܡܘܢ ܓــܐ ܐ ܝــ ܚܡــܪ ܐ ܘܡ ̈ܝــܐ܆ ܐ ܝــ ܕܐ ܡــܪ ܐ ܘܛ ̇ܘ ܟــܐ. ܘܠــܘ ٥ ٦ ܡــܢ ܫ ܡ ܝــܐ ܐ ܚــܬ ܠــܗ ܦ ܓــܪ ܐ܆ ܐ ܝــ ܕܐ ܡــܪܘ ܡܐܢ ــܝ ܘ ܡܪܩ ܝــܘ . ܘܐ ܦــ ٧ ܐـــ ܗ ܘܬ ܐ ܡܠܝ ـــ ܳܬ ܠـــܗ ܕܘ ܟـــ ܳܬ ܢ ܦ ܫـــܐ܆ ܐ ܝـــ ܕܐ ܡـــܪ ܐ ܦ ܘܠ ܝܢ ܐܪܝ ـــܘ . ܘܠ ٨ 5 ܐ ܬܚـــܙ ܝ ܒܥ ܠܡـــܐ ܒ ܗ ܓ ܓـــܘܬ ܐ ܘܦ ܢܛܣ ܝ ـــܐ܆ ܐ ܝـــ ܕܐ ܡـــܪ ܝ ܘܠܝ ܢـــܐ. ܘܐ ܦـــ ٩ ܐ ܝـــܬ ܘܗܝ ܬܪ ܝـــܢ ܟܝ ܢ̈ـــܐ ܒـــܬ ܪ ܚ ܕܝ ـــܘܬ ܐ ܠ ܡܬ ܡܠ ܠ ܢ ܝـــܬ ܐ܆ ܐ ܟ ܡـــܐ ܕܐ ܡـــ ܪܬ ١٠ ١١ ┐ ܣــܘܢܢ ܕܘ ܕ ܟܠ ܩܝ ܕܘܢ ــܐ. ܐ ܕ ܝــܢ ܬܪ ܝـــܢ ܟܝ ܢ̈ــܐ ܐܬܘ ܠܚ ܕܝ ــܘܬ ܐ: ܘܬܪ ܝـــܢ ١٢ ܬ ܘܒ ܦܫــܘ ܘ ܟــܬܪܘ ܒــܬ ܪ ܚ ܕܝ ــܘܬ ܐ. ܡ ܕ ܝــܢ ܠ ܢ ܕ ܩ ܣــ ܕܬ ܐܡــ ܪ ̇ܘ ܚ ܕܝ ــܘܬ ܐ܆ ┐ ̈ ١٣ ١٤ M2.19b ܚܕܝـܘܬ ܐ ܓܝـܪ ܕܬܪܝـܢ ܟܝܢـܐ ܏ ܡܩܒـ ܆ ܘܬܪ ܝ ــ ܢ ܏ ܦ ܢܝـܐ ܝ ܗܒـܐ܆ ܐܦـ ܚܕܝـܘܬ ܐ M1.73b ١٥ .ܗ̇ ܝܬܝܐ ܘܐ ܬܘ ܗ ܦܐ ܆ܐ ܝܪܩܬܡ 10

܏ ܐܠ ܡܘܕܝܢܢ ܕܐܝـܬ ܘܗܝ ܚـܕ ܡܪܝ ـܐ. ܚـܕ ܡܫܝܚـܐ. ܚـܕ ܩܢܘܡـܐ ܡܪܟܒـܐ. ܚـܕ ܟ ܝܢـܐ Z.164a ١٦ ܕܝܠــܗ ܕ ܡܠــܬܐ ܕܡ ܒ ܣــܪ ܘܡ ܒܪܢ ــܫ ܕܠ ܫܘܚܠܦــܐ ܘ ܫܘܓܢ ܝــܐ܆ ܐܟ ܡــܐ ܕܐ ܡــܪ ١٧ ١٨ ܐܬܢ ܐܣ ܝــܘ ܪ ܒــܐ܆ ܘ ܒܬܪ ܟــܢ ܩܘܪ ܝ ܠــܘ ܢ ܗܝــ ܪܐ ܒ ܟܠ ܗܝــܢ ܡܟܬ ܒܢ̈ــ ܘܬܗ: ١٩ ܐ ܡــܪ ܓܝــܪ ܩ ܕܝ ܫــܐ. ܕ ܡܠــܬ ܐ ܓܝــܪ ܕܚ ܕܝ ــܘܬ ܐ ܠ ܡܢ ܝܢ ــܐ ܕܚ ܩــܐ܆ ܠ ܫܘܚܠܦــܐ ٢٠ ٢١ ̈ ̈ 15 ܕܝـܢ ܠ ܛܥܢـܐ. ܐܟܙܢـܐ ܕܒܪܢ ܫـܐ ܕܝܠـܢ ܕܡܪܟـܒ ܡـܢ ܬܪܝـܢ ܟ ܝܢـܐ ܣܩܘܒ ܠ ܝـܐ: ̈ ܗܢ ــܘ ܢ ܦܫــܐ ܘܦܓــܪܐ: ܘܒܢܦ ܫــܗ ̇ܫــ ܘ ܳܐ ܠܢܦ ܫــܬܐ ܕ ܫܪܟــܐ܇ ܘܒܦܓــܪܗ ܕܡــܐ ٢٢ ܠ ܚ ̈ܝــ ܘܬܐ. ܟــܕ ܫ ܘ ܘ ܕܥــܐ ܕܫ ܘ ܚܠ ܦــܐ ܟ ܝܢ ܝــܐ ܢܛܝــܪ ܠ ܒܠ ܝ ܝــܬ܆ ܘܠ ܡ ܬ ܩــܪ ܐ ٢٣ ܒ ܪ ܢ ܫــܐ ܬܪ ܝــܢ ܟ ̈ ܝܢ ــܐ ܒــܬ ܪ ܚ ܕܝ ــܘ ܬܐ܆ ܐ ܠ ܚــܕ ܩܢ ܘ ܡــܐ ܘܟ ܝܢ ــܐ ܡ ܪܟ ܒــܐ. ܗ ܟــ ܘ ܬ ٢٤ ܬ ܘܒ ܘܦ ܘܠـــܘ ܗܘ ܪ ܒـــܐ ܐ ܡـــܪ. ܕܐܦـــܢ ܒ ܪ ܢ ܫـــܢ ܒܪܝ ـــܐ ܡܬ ܚ ܒـــܠ܆ ܐܠ

Hekamtho || Syrian Orthodox Theological Journal 35

١ ܒ ܪ ܢ ܫـــܐ ܕܠ ܓـــܘ ܡܬ ܚـــ ܕܬ ]ܒ ܩܘ̈ܪܝܢܬܝـــܐ ܕ. ܝـــܘ[. ܘܐܦـــܢ ܩـــܪ ܐ ܠܦ ܓـــܪ ܐ ٢ ٣ ̈ ܒ ܪ ܢ ܫـــܐ ܘܠܢ ܦ ܫـــܐ ܒ ܪ ܢ ܫـــܐ: ܐ ܠ ܗ ܘ ܦ ܘܠـــܘ ܘܟ ܠـــ ܗ ܘ ܡ ܠܦ ܢـــܐ܆ ܚـــܕ ٤ ٥ M2.20a . ܘ ܓ ܘ ܠܘ ܐ ܬ ܪܪܫ ܡ ܐ ܕ ܗ ܠܘ .ܢ ܢ ܡ ܕܚ ܠ ܟܠ ܢܝܕ ܘܡ ܘ ܢܝܥ ܕ ܝ ܏ ܐ ܫ ܢ ܪ ܒ ٦.26 ٧ ܘܒــܪܬ ܩــ ܐ ܘܟ ܝــܬ ܣܘܠܒــܐ ܕ ܚــܕ: ܐܡــܪ ܩ ܘܪ ܝܠܠــܘ ܆ ܠــܘ ܥــܠ ܫــ ̈ܘ ܳܝ ܳܝ ٨ ٩ ١٠ 5 ܒܐ ̇ܘܣܝ ـــܐ ܡܬ ܐܡـــܪ ܐ ܏ ܠ ܚـــܘܕ܆ ܐ ܠ ܘ ܥـــܠ ܢـــܘܟ ̈ ܖܝ ܝ ܒܐ ̇ܘܣܝ ـــܐ. ܐܟܙܢـــܐ B.301 ̇ ̇ ١١ ̈ ܕܒ ܪܢ ܫــܐ ܕ ܡܪ ܟــܒ ܡــܢ ܢ ܦܫــܐ ܘܦ ܓــܪ ܐ: ܕܠ ܫــܘܝ ܢ ܒܟܝܢــܐ ܘܒܐܘܣܝ ــܐ ܠ ܚــܕ ܕ ܐ: ١٢ ܘܡ ܬܩــܪ ܐ ܒ ܪ ܢ ܫــܐ ܚــܕ ܩܢܘܡــܐ ܘ ܚــܕ ܟ ܝܢــܐ ܡܪܟܒــܐ. ܘܦــܪܢܠ ܘܢ ــ ܘ ܪ ܐ ܕܢ ــ ܳܘܟ ̈ܖ ܝ ܝܢ ١٣ ܠ ̈ܚـ ܕ ܕ ܐ ܒܐ ̇ܘ ܣܝ ـܐ. ܘ ܟـܕ ܡܬ ܚܝ ܕܝـܢ܆ ܡܬܩ ܪ ܝـܢ ܚـܕ ܦـܪܢܠ ܡܢ ܝـ ܪܐ ܘܡ ܫܠܗ ܒـܐ. ١٤ ܘܩ ܝܣــܐ ܬ ܘܒ ܘܢ ــ ܘ ܪ ܐ܆ ܬܪ ܝــܢ ܟ ̈ ܝܢــܐ ܢ ܘ ܟ ̈ ܖܝ ــܐ ܡܬܩܪ ܝــܢ ܘܦ ̈ܖ ܝ ܫــܐ ܘܦܠ ̈ܝ ܓــܐ. ١٥ 10 ܟــܠ ܟܡــܐ ܕܠ ܡ ܚܝ ܕܝــܢ. ܏ ܐܡــܬܝ ܓ ܝــܪ ܕܥــܐܠ ܢــܘܪ ܐ ܒܩ ܝܣــܐ ܘܡܬ ܚܝــ ܕܐ M1.74a ١٦ ١٧ ܠـܗ: ܠـܘ ܬܪ ܝ ــ ܢ ܟ ̈ ܝܢ ـܐ ܡܬܩ ܪܝـܢ܆ ܐ ܠ ܚـ ܕܐ ܓ ܡـܘܪܬܐ ܘܚـ ܕܐ ܓـܘܡ ܪܐ܆ ܘ ܠـܘ ١٨ .ܐ ܖ̈ ܡܘ ܓ ܢܝ ܬܪ ܬ

ܐ ܠ ܐ ܝــܬ ܐ ܢ ܫ ̈ܝــܢ ܬܘܒ ܡــܢ ܟܠ ܩܝ ܕ ̈ܘ ܢ ܝــܐ ܕ ܩܪܝــܢ ܠــܢ ܡܐ ̈ܚ ܫــܝ ܐــ ܗ ܐ܆ ܐ ܟ ܡــܐ

ܕܚܢ ܢ ܠـ ܗ ܘ ܩ ܪܝܢ ـܢ ܢܤ ܛܘ ̈ܖܝ ܢ ـܘ.١٩ ܚܢ ـܢ ܕ ܝـܢ ܚـܕ ܠـܢ٢٠ ܕܢ ܐ ܡـܪ ܕ ܐـ ܗ ܐ ܚـܫ ̈ 15 ܒܟ ܝܢــܗ. ܐܠ ܐܟܡــܐ ܕܐ ܡــܪܘ ܡ ܠܦ ܢــܐ ܐܡܪܝܢــܢ. ܕܐــܗ ܐ ܚــܫ ܏ ܒ ܒܣــܪ܆ ܘܡܝــܬ M2.20b ٢١ ܒ ܒ ܣـــܪ܆ ܟـــܕ ܒܐ ܠـــ ܗ ܘܬ ܗ ܪ ܘܡܥ ܠـــܝ ܡـــܢ ܚ ܫـــܐ ܘ ܡـــܘܬܐ. ܘܐܟܙ ܢـــܐ ٢٢ ٢٣ ܕܐܡܪ ܝܢ ــܢ ܥــܠ ܦ ܛــܪ ܘ ܕܡ ܝــܬ܆ ܘܠ ܡــ ܨܐ ܕܢ ܐܡــܪ ܐ ܢــܫ ܕܢ ܦ ܫــܗ ܥــ

ܦ ܓــܪ ܗ ܡ ܝــܬ ܬ܆ ܡ ܛــܠ ܕܡܥ ܠ ܝــܐ ܢ ܦ ܫــܐ ܡــܢ ܡــܘܬܐ: ܘ ܡــܢ ܡ ̇ܢــܬܐ ܥــܠ

ܟ ܠـܗ ܒ ܪ ܢ ܫـܐ ܥܒـܪ ܡـܘܬܐ ܡ ܛـܠ ܚ ܕܝ ـ ܘ ܬܐ܆ ܗ ܟ ܢـܐ ܟـܕ ܐ ܡܪ ܝܢـܢ ܥـܠ ܡ ܫ ܝ ܚـܐ

26 ܝ ـܘ ܢܝܬܐ ܗܝ (συλλαβή (syllabe ܘܡܬܦܫܩـܐ »ܒـ ܪ ܬ ܩـ « ܣـܘܪܝ ܐܝܬ ܐ ܝـ ܕܟܬ ܝـܒ ܠܥـܠ

.ܐ ܢܝ ܓܗ ܬܘܬܐ ܐܥ ܝܕ ܝ ܠܡܡ ܨܪܘܬܒܘ

36 Hekamtho || Syrian Orthodox Theological Journal

̈ ܕ ܚــܫ ܘ ܡ ܝــܬ܇ ܝ ܕ ܥܝܢــܢ ܐܟܡــܐ ܕ ܐܦــܘ ܠــܢ ܡ ܠܦ ܢــܐ܆ ܕ ܒܒ ܣــܪ ܚــܫ ܘܡ ܝــܬ

ܘܠــܘ ܒܐ ܠــ ܗ ܘܬ ܗ. ܐ ܠ ܡ ܛــܠ ܚ ܕܝ ــܘܬܐ ܫܪ ܝــܪܬܐ ܘܠ ܡܬܦܫܩ ܢ ܝــܬܐ܆ ܒܝــܬ ܝ ̈ ܐ ܢـܘ ܠـܗ ܠ ܚܫـܐ ܕܦ ܓـܪ ܐ: ܏ ܘܥܒـܕ ܐ ܢـܘ ܕ ܝܠـܗ. ܬܘܒ ܕܝـܢ ܢ ܦܫـܐ ܡ ܛـܠ Z.164b

ܕܐ ܝܬ ܝـ ̇ܗ ܒ ܪܝـܬܐ: ܚܐ ܫـܐ ܘ ܡ ܬܬ ܥ ܝ ܩـܐ ܥـ ܦܓـ ܪ ܐ. ܡ ܠـܬܐ ܐـ ܗ ܐ ܐ ܦـܢ ܐܬ ܚܝ ـܕ

5 ܠܒ ܣـܪ ܐ ܡܢܦܫـܐ ܘܡܡܕܥـܐ: ܠ ܐ ܡܪ ܝܢـܢ ܕ ܚـܫ ܐ ܟܡـܐ ܕ ܚܐ ܫـܐ ܢ ܦܫـܐ ܥـ ܦ ܓـܪ ܐ ١ ٢ ܫــܘܬܦ ̇ܗ. ܐ ܠ ܡ ܐܠܠــܘ ܡܚ ܫܢــܐ ܕ ܚ ̈ܫــܐ ܗ ܘ ܐ܆ ܒܝ ــܕ ܚ ܫــܗ ܕܒ ܒ ܣــܪ. ܬܘܒ. 27 ٣ ܐ ܐ ܢــܫ ܠ ܟ ܪܛ ܝܣــܐ ܕ ܡܠــܬܐ ܕܐــ ܗ ܐ ܟܬ ܝܒــܐ ܒــܗ ܡܬܠــܒ܆ ܡ ܬ ܐܡــܪ ܐ ̇ ܕܥــ ܟܪܛ ܝ ܣــܐ ܐ ܦ ܠܡ ܠــܬܐ ܚܒــܠ܆ ܡ ܛــܠ ܕܒܝܬܝ ــ ܳܬ ܠــܗ ܡ ܠــܬܐ ܠ ܚ ܫــܐ ̇ ܕ ܟܪܛ ܝܣـــܐ. ܟـــܕ ܝ ܕ ܝܥـــܐ ܕܡ ܠـــܬܐ ܕܠ ܏ ܓܫـــ ܘ ܐ ܝܬ ܝـــܗ. ܘܠ ܡ ܬ ܬ ܠܚـــܐ M2.21a ٤ 10 ܘܡ ܬ ܚܒــ ܘܚܐܫــܐ܆ ܘܐ ܦــ ܡ ܬ ܠ ܒܟــܐ ܒܐ ܝ̈ ܕܝ ــܐ. ܝ ܬ ܝــܪ ܡــܢ ܗܟــܢ܆ ܐ ܝــܬ ܘܗܝ ̇ ̈ ܠܥــܠ ܡــܢ ܚܫــܐ ܡ ܠــܬܐ ܐــܗ ܐ. ܏ ܡ ܛــܠ ܕܒ ܪ ܘܝ ــܐ ܗ ܘ܆ ܘܠــܘ ܒܪܝــܬܐ ܐ ܝــ M1.74b

.ܐܬܝ ܫ ܢ ܐ ܐܬܠ ܡ 28 ܀ ܢ ܠ ܝܕ ܐܬܘ ܢܡ ܝ ܗ ܠ ܥ ܐ ܚ ܘܪ ܒܩܦ ܡ ܆ܢ ܢܕ ܒ ܥ ܐܬ ܝܖ̈ ܘ ܥ ܙܒ ܢܝ ܠ ܗ ܘ

١ ٢ ٣ ٤ ̄ | ܐܒ 2x M1 | ܐܗܐ M2.M1 | ܐܢܫܚܐܡ M2.M1.Z | - M2.M1

̇ ̈ 27 ܐܬܘܬܐ ܟܘܪܒ ܬܡܐܟ ܐܣ ܝ ܛܪܟ ܐܥܘ̈ ܢ ܥ ܗܪܬܒܕ ܐܬܪܚܐܘ ܐܣ ܝ ܛܪܟ ܐܬܫܩܢ ܥ ܐܕ ܗ ܩ ܬܪ ܒ ܐܒܝܬܟ

ܩܕ ܡܝܬܐ ܟ ܘܦ ܘ ܒܚ ܒܨ ܛܝܬ. ܐܟ ܡܐ ܕ ܡܬ ܚ ܘܐ ܗ ܢܐ ܪܬ ܡܐ ܝ ܬܝܪ ܬܪܝܨ ܡܢ ܗܘ ܡـܐ ܕܚܢ ـܢ ܣܘ̈ܪܝ ܝـܐ ܒ ܗ ܢـܐ ̇ ܢܒܢـܐ ܪܬܡܝܢ ـܢ ܟܪܛܝܣـܐ ܒܩـܘ ܫܝ ܟ ܘܒܦـܬܚ ܛ. ܫܪ ܫـ ̇ܗ ܝ ܘ ܢܝ ـܐ ܗܘ (χάρτης (chártēs ܘܡܬܩـܪܐ

ܟܪܛܝܕ. ܒܟܬܒܐ ܕܣܝܡܬܐ ܕܠܫܢܐ ܣܘܪܝ ܝܐ ܕܦܝـܢ ܣܡܝـ ܬ ܟܬܝـܒ ܟܪܛܝܣـܐ )162 ܐܠ ܕܬܐܘܡـܐ ܐܘ ܕܘ ̇ )482 ܘ ܕܐܘ ܓܝـܢ ܡܢܢـܐ )353 ܟܪܛܝܣـܐ. ܡ ܕܝـܢ ܒـ ܪܬ ܩـ ܟܪܛܝܣـܐ ܬܪܝ ܨܐܝـܬ ܡܬܪܬܡـܐ ܗ ܘܬ ܒـ ܕܪܐ

ܬ ܪܥ ܣܝ ܪܝ ܐ ܐܝ ܕܒ ܙܒܢ ܐ ܕ ܡ ܦܩܬܐ ܦ ܫܝܛܬܐ ܒ ܕܪܐ ܪ ܒܝ ܥ ܝܐ )ܒ ܝܘܚܢܢ ܐ. ܝܒ . ـ ܥܠ ܫܪ ܒـܐ ܕ ܟܪܛܝ ܣـܐ

ܘ ܡܠܬܐ ܕܐܝ ܟܢ ܐ ܐܬܝ ܠܕ ܡܠܬܐ ܡܢ ܐ ܒܐ ܟܬܒ ܒܪ ܨ ܠܝ ܒܝ ܒ ܦܘ ܫ ܩܗ ܕܐ ܘܢ ܓܠܝ ܘ )ܩـ ̄ܦ ܝـ ̄ܒ ܗ ܟܢ ـܐ:

ܡܠܬܐ ܐܬܝ ܠܕ ܡـܢ ܐ ܒـܐ܆ ܐܝـ ܡܠـܬܐ ܕܝ ܠـܢ ܡـܢ ܗܘ ܢـܐ. ܘܐܝ ܟܢ ـܐ ܕ ܡܠـܬܐ ܡܬ ܪܫ ܡـܐ ܘ ܡܬ ܓܫ ܡـܐ

ܒܟܪܛ ܝܣܐ. ܘܠܘ ܗܘ ܢܐ ܕܐܡܪ ̇ܗ. ܐܦ ܪܘ ܚܐ ܗ ̇ܘ ܕܡܢܗ ܢܦܩـܐ. ܗܟܢـܐ ܘܡܠـܬܐ ܐܬ ܓ ܫـ . ܘܠـܘ ܗܘ ܢـܐ

ܐܒܐ. ܐܦ ܪܘ ܚܐ ܗ ̇ܘ ܕܡܢ ܐܒܐ ܢܦ . )ܢ ܘܣ ܟܐ ܕܡܪ ܕܝܢ ܡܢ ܝܢܐ ܨܚ. ܡܢ ܕܪܐ ܝ ̄ܓ ـ ܝ ̄ܕ. ܛܪܦܐ ܓ . ̇ 28 .ܪܬܘ ܝܦܡܘܟ ܠ ܐܬܘ ܢܡ ܝܗ ܬܒ ܝܬܟ ܬܘ ܢܪ ܒܥܡ ܒ ܐ ܝܪܘܫ ܒ ܝܢܪܕܥ ܕ ܢܝܕ ܝܐ ܝܪ ܒܨ ܫ̄ ܩ ܘܒ ܠ ܝܕ ܘܬ

Hekamtho || Syrian Orthodox Theological Journal 37

ܳ ܗ ـ ܚܘܬ ܳ ܡܐ

ܣ ܟ ܐ ܠ ܡܐ ܡـܪ ܒـܪ ܨ ܠܝ ܒـܝ ܟـܬ ܒ ܣ ܝ ܡـܐ ܕܝ ܠـܗ ܕ ܥـܠ ܗܝ ܡܢ ـܘܬܐ ܕ ܥـܕܬܐ

ܣܘܪ ܳܝ ܳܝܬܐ ܬܪ ܝ ܨܬ ܫܘܒ ܚ ܐ ܡܪܝܩ ܐܝܬ ܘܓܡܝܪܐܝܬ. ܝ ܘܠܦ ܢ ܐ ܗ ܢܐ ܕ ܥـܠ ܬܠ ܝܬ ܝ ـܘܬ ܐ

ܘ ܡ ܬ ܒ ܪܢ ܫ ܢ ܘܬ ܐ ܒ ܟܠ ܗ ܝܢ ܝ ܕ ̈ܥ ܬ ܗ ܝܢ ܘ ̈ܫ ܡ ܗ ܬ ܗ ܝܢ ܐܝܬ ܘܗܝ ܠ ܦـܘܬ ܫـܘܪ ܪ ܐ ܕܬ ܠـܬ

ܣــܘ ̈ܢ ܗ ܕܘ ܬ ܒ ̈ܝܠ ܝــܬ ܐ ܘܐ ܒــ ̈ ܗܬ ܐ ܕ ܥــܕܬܐ ܘ ܫ ܬ ܐܣــܬ ܐ ܗ ܘ ܠ ܡ ܙ ܕܥܙ ܥ ܢ ܝــܬ ܐ ܕ ܥــܕܬܐ

ܣܘܪ ܳܝ ܳܝܬܐ. ܬܠ ܝܬ ܝ ܘܬ ܐ ܟ ܐܡ ܬ ܐ ܒ ܐ ܝ ܠ ܘ ܕܐ܆ ܒܪ ܐ ܝ ܠ ܝ ܕܐ ܘܪ ܘ ܚ ܐ ܢܦ ܘܩ ܘܬ ܐ ܐܝܬܝـ ̇ܗ ܚـܕ

ܐ ܗ ܐ ܥ ܟܠ ܗ ܝܢ ܕܝ̈ ܠ ܝ ܬ ܐ ܡܝ ̈ܩܢ ܢ ܝ ܬ ܐ ܕܬ ܠ ܬ ܐ ܩܢ ̈ܘ ܡـܐ ܘ ܦ ܨܘ ܦـܐ. ܡ ܬ ܒ ܪܢ ܫ ܢ ـܘܬ ܐ

ܕܝ ܚ ܝ ܕܝ ܐ ܒܪ ܐ ܡ ܠܬ ܐ ܐ ܗ ܐ ܪܝ ܫ ܝܐ ܗܝ ܦܪܝ ܫܐܝܬ ܒ ܗܝܡܢܘܬܐ ܕ ܥܕܬܐ ܬܪܝـ ܨܬ ܫܘܒ ܚـܐ

ܘܡܥ ܠ ܝܐ ܗܝ ܡܘܕܝ ܢ ܘܬܐ ܕܒ ܚܕ ܡܪܝ ܐ܆ ܒ ܚܕ ܡ ܫܝ ܚ ܐ ܕ ܡܢ ܚܕ ܩܢ ܘ ܡـܐ ܡ ܪܟ ܒـܐ ܘ ܡـܢ

ܘ ܗ ܐܡ ܓ ܬܦ ܝ ܐ ܐܬܘ ܝܕ ܚ ܪܬܒ ܫ ܢܪܒ ܡܘ ܪܣ ܒ ܡܕ ܐ ܗ ܐ ܐܬܠܡ ܕ ܐܒ ܟܪ ܡ ܐ ܢܝ ܟ ܕܚ

ܝ ܘ ܢܝ ܐ ܕܐܡܪܘܗܝ ܡܪܝ ܐܬܢ ܐܣ ܝܘ ܘܡܪܝ ܩܘܪܝܠܠܘ ܕ ܐܟ ܣܢܕܪ ܝ ـܐ μία φύσις 29 τοῦ θεοῦ λόγου σεσαρκωμένη ܝ ܬܝܪܐܝܬ ܕܝـܢ ܓܠ ܝـܐ ܗܝ ܕܡ ܠـܬ ܐ ܐـܗ ܐ

.ܬܝܡ ܘ ܫܚ ܗܬܘܫ ܢ ܐܒ ܠܐ ܗ ܬܘ ܗ ܠ ܐܒ ܘܠ ܕ

ܡܘܕܝ ܢ ــܘܬܐ ܕ ܒ ܬ ܠ ܝܬ ܝ ــܘܬ ܐ ܘܒ ܡ ܬ ܒ ܪܢ ܫ ܢ ــܘܬ ܐ ܕ ܡ ܠــܬ ܐ ܐــ ܗ ܐ ܘܒ ܗܝ ܡܢ ــܘܬܐ

ܕ ܥــܕܬܐ ܐ ܠــ ܨܐ ܗ ܝ ܛــܒ ܒ ܡ ܫܝ ܚ ܝ ــܘܬ ܐ. ܕܐܝــ ܗ ܕܐ ܫܟܝ ܚــܐ ܒܥــܕܬܐ ܣــܘܪ ܳܝ ܳܝܬܐ 30 ܒܟܬܒـــܐ ܕܐܡ ܘܠ ܘ ܓ ܝ ـــܐ܆ ܕܟܝܪܘܛܘܢ ܝ ـــܐ ܐ ܘ ܕܣ ܝـــ ܐ ܝـــ ܕܐ. ܡ ܫܠܡ ܢـــܘܬ ܐ ܗ ܝ

ܥ ܬ ܝܩــܬ ܐ ܟ ܒــܪ ܡــܢ ܕܪܐ ܚ ܡܝ ܫ ܝــܐ ܕ ܒــܬ ܪ ܦــܘ ܠ ܓ ܥــ ̈ ܕܬ ܐ ܒ ܣــܘܢܢ ܗ ܕܘ ܕ ܗ ܝ

ܕ ܟܠ ܩܝ ܕܘܢܝ ــــܐ ܕ ܟــــܠ ܕ ܡ ܬܬ ܣــــ ܪܚ ܠ ܕܪ ܓــــܐ ܕܡ ܫܡ ܫܢ ــــܘܬܐ܆ ܕ ܩ ܫܝ ܫــــܘܬ ܐ܆

ܕܐ ܦܝܣ ܩܘ ܦــܘܬ ܐ ܐ ܘ ܕ ܦ ܛ ܪܝ ܪ ܟــܘܬ ܐ ܩــ ܪ ܐ ܘܬ ܢــܐ ܠــ ̇ܗ ܠ ܡܘܕܝ ܢ ــܘܬ ܐ ܩــ ܕ ܟ ܠــܗ

C. Andresen/A.M. Ritter, Geschichte des Christentums I/1, (Theologische Wissenschaft, 29 Vol. 6,1), Stuttgart 1993, 85-8;. J. McGuckin, Saint Cyril of Alexandria and the Christological Controversy. Its History, Theology, and Texts, Leiden 2004, 140. 30 ܚــܘܪ ܠ ܥــܠ ܒ ܡܢ ܝܢ ــܐ 21 ܒ ܣܦــܐ ܬܚܬܝ ــܐ ܒܢ ܘܣ ܟــܐ ܕܐܘܪܫ ܠــ . ܐ ܡܘ ܠܘ ܓܝ ــܐ ܕ ܦܛܪܝ ܪ ܟــܐ ܡــܪܝ

ܩܘܪܝ ܩܘ . ܘ ܦܢ ܩܝܬܐ ܕ ܟܝ ܛܘܢܝ ܐ ܒ ܛܟ ܣܐ ܕ ܥـܕܬܐ ܣـܘܪܝ ܝܬܐ ܐܪܬ ܕܘܟ ܣܝـܬܐ ܕܐܢܛ ܝـܘܟ܆ ܦ ܪܝ ܣـܐ ܒܝ ـܕ

ܡ ܪ ܦܛܪܝ ܪ ܟܐ ܡ ܪܝ ܐܝܓܢ ܐܛ ܝܘ ܢ ܟܝ ܩܕ ܡ ܝܐ܆ ܕܪܡ ܣܘܩ ܫܢ ܬ ̇ܒ . ܦـܐܬܐ ܩܡـܕ ـ ܩܡـ ܆ ܫ ـ ܫـܗ܆

ܬܝܗ ـ ܬܝ . ܟ ܬܝܒܬܐ ܕ ܡܘܕܝ ܢ ܘܬܐ ܕܛܒ ܥܐ ܗ ܢܐ ܩ ܦܝ ܣܐ. ܗܝ ܡ ܫܡ ܠ ܝܬܐ ܐܪܝܟܬܐ ܫ ܟܝ ܚܐ ܒܨ ̈ ܚ ܚܐ.

38 Hekamtho || Syrian Orthodox Theological Journal

ܥ ܡــܐ ܠ ܫــܘܪܪܐ ܕ ܗܝ ܡܢ ــܘܬܗ ܘܠ ܫܠ ܡــܘܬܐ ܕܠܥ ــܕܬܐ ܣــܘܪܝ ܝܬܐ܆ ܐ ܝــ ܩܢ ܘ ܢــܐ ܐܘ

ܬ ܚܘ ܡـــܐ ܕ ܗ ܝ ܡ ܢ ـــܘܬ ܐ » ܕܡ ܗ ܝܡܢ ܝܢ ـــܢ ܒ ܚـــܕ ܐـــ ܗ ܐ ܐ ܒـــܐ ܐ ܚ ܝـــܕ ܟـــܠ«

ܕ ܣـــܘܢܢ ܗ ܕܘ ܕܢ ܝ ܩܝ ـــܐ ܘ ܒܬܪ ܟـــܢ ܬܘ ̈ܣ ܦـــܬܗ ܒـــ ܗܝ ܕ ܩܘܣ ܛܢ ܛܝܢ ܘ ܦـــܘ ܠ ܝܕ

ܕܬ ܢܐ ܠـܗ ܐ ܢـܫ ܡـܢ ܡ ܫ ̈ܡ ܫ ܢ ـܐ ܒ ܩـ ܪ ܡـܐ ܒ ܡܨ ܥـܬ ܥـܕܬܐ ܩـ ܕ ܟܠـܗ ܥ ܡـܐ 31 .ܐ ܬܘ ̈ ܠ ܨܕ ܐ ܬܫ ܡ̈ ܫ ܬ ܢܝܗ ܠܟ ܕ ܐ ܡ ܠ ܘܫ ܒ

ܒــܪ ܨܠܝܒــܝ ܡܬܩܠــܕ ܘܡ ܬܝ ܩــܪ ܛــܒ ܒܥــܕܬܐ ܣــܘܪ ܳܝ ܳܝܬܐ. ܐ ܝــܬ ܘܗܝ ܗ ܘ ܐ

ܡ ܠ ܦ ܢ ــܐ ܡ ܠ ܝــ ܘ ܟܘܟ ܒــܐ ܢ ܗ ܝــ ܪ ܐ ܕ ܕܪ ܗ ܘ ܕܘܡ ܝــܐ ܕ ܡ ̈ܠ ܦܢ ــܐ ܒ ܚ ܝــ ܐ܆ ܚ ܫܝــܒ ̈ ܗ ܘܐ ܒ ܣــــܕܪܐ ܥܠ ܝــــܐ ܕܡܟܬܒܢــــܐ ܣܘ̈ܪܝ ܝــــܐ ܘܥܒــــܪ ܗ ܘ ܐ ܒ ܡܠܦܢــــܘܬܗ

ܠܝ ܕܘ ̈ܥ ܬ ܢـــܐ ܡ ܗܝـــ ܐ ܣ ܓ ̈ܝـــܐܐ ܐ ܟ ܡـــܐ ܕ ܣـــ ܗ ܕ ܥ ܠـــܘܗܝ ܦ ܛ ܪܝ ܪ ܟـــܐ ܡـــܪܝ 33 32 ܡ ܝ ܟ ܐ ܝـܠ ܪ ܒـܐ ܘ ܒܬܪ ܟـܢ ܡـܪܝ ܓ ܪܝ ܓܘܪܝ ـܘ ܝ ـܘ ܚܢ ܢ ܒـܪ ܥܒ ܪܝ ـܐ. ܫ ܡـܫ

ܢܒܢ ـــܐ ܐܪܝ ܟـــܐ ܡ ܫܡ ܫܢ ـــܘܬܐ ܘ ܡܠ ܦܢ ـــܘܬܐ ܒ ܡܝ ܠܝ ܛܝܢ ـــܝ ܘܒـــܐܘܪ ܗܝ ܘ ܥ ܣ ܪܝـــܢ

ܘܬ ܪܬ ܝـܢ ܫܢ ̈ܝـܢ ܕܝـܢ ܪ ܝـܫ ܟ ܗܢ ـܘܬ ܐ ܒ ܫـܬ ܡ ܥ ܝـܬ ܐ ܕ ܡ ܪ ܥـܫ܆ ܦܪܢ ܡـܢ܆ ܩ ܠ ܥـܐ

ܪ ܗ ܘ ܡ ܝــܬ ܐ܆ ܡ ܒــܘܓ܆ ܬ ܠ ܒ ܫــܪ ܘܐܚ ܪܝ ــܬ ܒܐ ܡܝــܕ܆ ܟــܪ ܕܥܢ ــܕ ܬܪܝــܢ ܒܬܫ ܪܝــܢ

ܐܚــܪܝ ܒܫܢ ــܬ ܐ ̇ܩܥــܐ ̄ ܘܐܬܩ ܒــܪ ܬ ܡــܢ ܒܥ ــܕܬ ܐ ܕܝ ܠــ ܕܬ ܐــ ܗ ܐ. ܠܦــܘܬ ܒــܘ ܚ ܢ ܢ

ܕܥ ܠــܘܗܝ ܟــܬܒ ܟܢ ܝ ܫܐܝــܬ ܫܒܥ ܝــܢ ܘܬܫ ܥــܐ ܣ ̈ ܝ ܡــܐ ܢ ܢܢ ̈ܝ ــܐ ܟ ܝ ــܐ ܘܐ ̈ܪܝ ܟــܐ

ܒ ܟ ܠــ ̇ܗ ܚܩــ ܕܝ ܘܠ ܦ ܢ ــܐ܆ ܕ ܣــܘܓܐ ܗܘ ܢ ܛܝ ܪܝـــܢ ܠــܢ ܘܫ ܟܝ ܚܝــܢ ܝ ܘ ܡܢ ــܐ

31 ܢܝܕ ܘܠ ܘ( ܐ ܢܫ ܡ̈ ܫ ܡ ܐܕ ܕ ܚ̈ ܥ ܢܝܢ ܬܕ ܢܠ ܝܕ ܐܬܕ ̈ ܥ ܕ ܢܝܗ ܢܡ ܒ ܐܕ ܝ ܥ ܐܘ ܗ ܐܬ ܝ ܚܐ ܐܝ̈ ܢܫ ܪܣ ܥ ܢܝܠ ܗ ܒ

ܥܡܐ ܕܠ ܩܝܢܬܐ ܬ ܚܘܡܐ ܕ ܗܝܡܢܘܬܐ ܐܝـ ܥ ܝـ ܕܐ ܕܪ ܕܐ ܒܥـ ̈ܕܬܐ ܡܥ ܒ ܝـܬܐ ܠ ܣـܘ̈ܪ ܳܝ ܳ ܝܬܐ. ܐܫـܬܘܦ ܕܬܩـ ܘܐ

ܒ ܓ ܘܐ ܡܫܠ ܡܢ ܘܬܐ ܥܬܝܩܬܐ ܕ ܥܕܬܐ ܕܝ ܠܢ ܣـܘܪܝ ܝܬܐ ܕ ܢܬ ܢـܐ ܘܢ ܙ ܡـܪ ܬ ܚܘ ܡـܐ ܕ ܗܝ ܡܢ ـܘܬܐ ܒܠ ܚـܘܕ ܚـܕ

.ܐܕ ܕ ̈ ܚ ܥ ܕ ܘܗ ܢܡ ܝܬܥ ܐܕ ܝ ܥ ܐܢ ܗ ܕ ܐܢ ܐ ܢܡ ܝܗ ܡ .ܐܬܕܥ ܬܥ ܨ ܡ ܒ ܐ ܢܡ̈ܝܗ ܡ ܘܗ ܠܟ ܕ ܩ ܐ ܢ ܫ ܡܫ ܡ

ܒ ܫܘܪܝ ܐ ܚܕ ܬ ܢܐ ܗ ܘܐ ܒܡ ܨܥܬܐ ܘ ܐܚ ܢܐ ܡܗܦܟܝܢ ܗ ܘܘ ܥܠܘܗܝ ܐ ܒܩـ ܪܡـܐ ܘܐ ܒܠܒـ ܗܘ ܆ ܐܝـ

.ܐܢ ܗܟ ܪܬܒ ܗ ܢܝܒ ܫܘܫ ܘܐ ܐܕ ܝܡ ܥ ܐܢ ܬܕ ܐܕ ܡ ܥ ܒ ܕ ܝܗ ܐܬܘܡ ܠܫ ܘ ܐܬܘ ܢ ܝܕܘܡ ̇ ̇ ̈ 32 ܡܟܬܒܢܘܬ ܢܒܢܐ ܕ ܣܝ ܠܦܛܪܝ ܪܟܐ ܡܪܝ ܡܝܟܐܝܠ ܪܒـܐ܆ ܦـܐܬܐ ܣـܨܛ ـ ܥ. ܘ ܐ ܢـܫ ܠ ܝ ܕܝـܥ ܫܡـܗ

ܪܒ ܕ ܐܬܘܥ ܘܪܐܕ ܐܒ ܬܟܠ ܕ ܗܠ ܝܕ ܐܚ ܘܪ ܒ ܦ ܡ ܒ ܗܒ ܪ ܬܘܦ ܠ ܐܕ ܗ ܠ ܕܗ ܣ ܐܒ ܪ ܠܝܐܟ ܝܡ ܝܪܡ ܕ ܐܕ ܝܡ ܠܬ

ܨ ܠܝ ܒܝ ܕ ܠ ܥ ܒ ܪ ܗ ܘ ܐ ܒ ܡܠ ܦܢ ܘܬܗ ܠ ܡـܪܝ ܝ ܥ ܩـܘܒ ܕܐܘܪ ܗܝ܆ ܐܝـ ܘܐܢܢ ܝܕ ܕ ܕܪܐ ܘ ܡܘ ܫـܐ ܒـܪ ܟܐ ܦـܐ܆

.ܐ ܐܬܐܦ ܆9/6 ܪܠ ܢܪ ܫ ܒ ܐܡ ܘܐܬܕ ܐܚ ܚ ܨ 33 ܟܬ ܒ ܐ ܕܐ ܩ ܠ ܣܝ ܣܛ ܝ ܩ ܝ ܕ ܣ ܝ ܠ ܡ ܪܝ ܓ ܪܝ ܓ ܘܪܝ ܘ ܝ ܘ ܚܢ ܢ ܒـܪ ܥ ܒ ܪ ܝ ـܐ܆ .J.-B. Abbeloos/Th.J Lamy, Louvain 1872, 559.

Hekamtho || Syrian Orthodox Theological Journal 39

34 ܒ ܚ ܡܫ ܡــܐܐ ܘܬ ܡܢ ܝــܢ ܘܬܪܝــܢ ܢ ܘ ̈ܣ ܟــܐ ܕܟܬ ܒــ ̈ܝ ܐܝــ ܕܐ. ܡ ܢــ ܗ ܘ ܕܣܝ ܡــ ̈ܘܗܝ

ܐ ܬܦ ܪ ܫــܘ ܘܐ ܬܓ ܒ ܝــܘ ܠ ܛܟ ܣــܐ ܥܕܬ ܢ ܝــܐ ܐܝــ ܚ ̈ܘ ܣ ܝــܐ ܘܐܢܢ ܐ ܦــܘ ̈ܪܐ ܘ ܩܢ ̈ܘ ܢــܐ

ܡ ܗܕܝ̈ ܢ ـــܐ ܘܠܝ ܘܠ ܦ ܢ ـــܐ ܕ ܗܝ ܡܢ ـــܘܬܐ ܕ ܥـــܕܬܐ ܘܐܬܬ ܚܡـــܘ ܒܬܫ ܡܫـــܬܐ ܕ ܩܘܪ ܒـــܐ

ܐ ܗ ܝ ــܐ܆ ܐ ܝــ ܕܠ ܡܐ ܡــܪ ܡܐܡــ ܪܗ ܗ ܢــܐ ܬܐܘ ܠܘ ܓ ܝــܐ ܕ ܗܝ ܡܢ ــܘܬܐ ܕܚ ܡܝــܠ

ܣـܘ ܟ ܥ ܡܝ ܩـܐ܆ ܒܙ ܒـܢ ܩ ܨܝ ـܐ ܘܪ ܫ ܡـܐ ܟـܠ ܟ ܗ ܢـܐ ܕܡ ܩـ ܪܒ ܕܒܚـܬܐ ܐ ܗܝـܬܐ

ܐ ܡــܪ: » ܫ ܪܝ ܪ ܐܝــܬ ܚــܫ ܡ ܠــܬ ܐ ܐــ ܗ ܐ ܒ ܒ ܣــܪ ܘܐ ܬܕ ܒــܒ ܘܐ ܬܩــ ܨܝ ܒ ܙ ܩܝ ܦــܐ܆

ܘܐ ܬ ܦܪ ܫــܬ ܢ ܦ ܫــܗ ܡــܢ ܦܓــ ܪ ܗ܆ ܟــܕ ܐــ ܗ ܘܬ ܗ ܠ ܣــ ܐ ܬ ܦܪ ܫــܬ ܠ ܡــܢ

ܢ ܦ ܫــܗ ܘܠ ܡــܢ ܦ ܓــܪ ܗ ... ܘܠܝ ܘܡــܐ ܬܠ ܝܬ ܝ ــܐ ܩــ ܡــܢ ܩ ܒــܪ ܐ. ܘ ܚــܕ ܗ ܘ

ܥ ܡܢ ـــܘܐ ܝܠ ܘܠ ܡ ܬ ܦ ܠـــܓ ܡـــܢ ܒـــܬܪ ܚ ܕܝ ـــܘܬ ܐ ܠ ܡ ܬ ܦܠ ܓ ܢ ܝـــܬ ܐ ܠ ܬܪ ܝـــܢ

ܟ ̈ ܝܢ ܝـܢ. ܗ ܟܢ ـܐ ܡ ܗ ܝܡܢ ܝܢ ـܢ ܘ ܗ ܟܢ ـܐ ܡـܘ ܕ ܝܢ ܢ ܕ ܗ ܢـܐ ܦܓـ ܪ ܐ ܕ ܗ ܢـܐ ܕ ܡـܐ ܐܝـܬ ܘܗܝ 35 .»ܝܗܘܬܝܐ ܐ ܪ ܓܦ ܐܢ ܗ ܕ ܐ ܡ ܕ ܐܢ ܗ ܘ

34 ܗ ܘܐ ܢ ܘܓ ܪܐ ܐܪܝ ܟܐ ܕ ܫܩ ܠܬ ܛܥܢ ܐ ܘ ܦ ܠܝܬ ܡ ܚ ̈ܘܝ ܢ ـܐ ܘܟܬܝ̈ ܒـܬܐ ܕ ܡـܢ ܫܢ ـܬ ܐ ̇ܥܝـܘ ܘܠ ܟـܐ ܕ ܥـܠ

ܟܬ ܒ ̈ܝ ܐܝ ܕܐ ܣܘ̈ܪܝ ܝܐ ܕܒܒܬ ̈ܝ ܐ̈ܪ ܟܐ ܕ ܡܕܢ ܚܐ ܐ ܡܪ ܐ ܢܐ ܘܕ ܡܥܪܒܐ ܘ ܟܪ ܟܬ ܕܝـܢ ܦܪܝ ܫܐܝـܬ ܒ ܗܠܝـܢ ܕ ܥـ ̈ ܕܬܐ

ܘܕ ܕܝ ܬܐ ܕܛܘܪ ܥܒ ܕܝܢ ܘܐ ܡܝܕ ܘܕ ܐ ܢ ܫ ̈ܝܢ ܕܝܠܢ ̈ܝܐ܆ ܟܕ ܟܢ ܫܬ ܫܘ ̈ܘ ܕ ܥܐ ܥܠ ܣ ܝ ܡ ̈ܘܗܝ ܗܠܝܢ ܕ ܒܪ ܨܠܝܒـܝ ̇ ܕ ܗ ܘܝܢ ܝ ܘܡܢ ܐ )ܒ ܟܢ ܘ ܐܚܪܝ ܒܝܗ ܒ ܡܢ ܝܢ ܐ ܫܬܡـܐܐ ܘܬܫܥ ܝـܢ ܘܬܪܝـܢ ܢ ـܘ ̈ܣ ܟܝ ܣ ̈ܝ ܡـܐ ܕܢܛܝܪܝـܢ ܐܝـ

ܕܟܬܝܒ ܠ ܥܠ ܒ ܚ ܡܫ ܡܐܐ ܘܬ ܡܢ ܝܢ ܘܬܪܝܢ ܟܬ ̈ܒܐ ܕܟܬܝ ܒܝܢ ܒܐܝ ܕܐ ܐܝ ܕܒ ܣܘ ܓܐܐ ܒ ܒـܬ ̈ܝ ܐ̈ܪ ܟـܐ ܕ ܕܝـ ܪܐ

ܐܢ ܗ ܐܫ ܢܟ ܡ .ܕܝܡ ܐܒܘ ܗ ܓܢܝܡ ܪܝܒ ܒ ܆ ܐܟ ܝܬܦ ܒ ܆ ܠ ܫܪܘܐܒ ܘܩ ܪܡ ܝܪܡ ܕ ܐܪ ܝܕ ܕ ܆ܢܝܕ ܪܡ ܒ ܐܡ ܟܪܘܟ ܕ

ܡ ܒܝܬܝ ܠܟܬ ܒܐ ܕܝܠܝ ܕ ܕܘܟܬܘ ܪܐ ܕ ܥܠ ܒܪ ܨ ܠܝ ܒܝ ܕܐܬ ܩ ܒܠ ܒ ܒܝܬ ܨܘ ܒܐ ܬܐܘ ܠܘ ܓ ܝܐ ܕ ܓـܘܬܝܢ ܓܢ

.ܕܝܒ̇ ܬ ܢܫ ܕ ܩ ܢܝܪ ܫܬܒ ܟܒ 35 ܐܢ ܐ ܦܘ ܪܐ ܐܝ ܛܟ ܣܐ ܕ ܥܕܬܐ ܣܘܪܝ ܝܬܐ ܬܪܝ ܨܬ ܫܘܒ ܚܐ ܕܐܢܛ ܝܘܟ܆ ܐܬܦ ܪ ܒܝ ܕ ܡܪܝ ܝ ܘܠ ܝܘ ܝ ܫـܘܥ

.ܗܡ ܐܬܐܦ ܆ܗܦܨ̇ܐ ܐܕ ܢܠ ܘܗ ܝܪ ܦܐ ܝܪܡ ܕ ܐܪ ܝܕ ܒ ܆ ܔ ܝܪ

40 Hekamtho || Syrian Orthodox Theological Journal

Globalizing Syriac Studies George A. Kiraz (Beth Mardutho: The Syriac Institute) Globalization is a term with many definitions.1 According to the Oxford English Dictionary (online edition), the term was first used in 1930 in the context of holistic education. The term globalization is used here with a general sense and refers to the expansion of the field of Syriac studies well beyond the bounds of university campuses or the cells of learned monks in monasteries. Since the emergence of international symposia dedicated exclusively to Syriac studies in the 1970s until the modern era of the Web 2.0, the field of Syriac studies has seen tremendous expansion. But centuries before these modern

1 I am grateful to Sebastian Brock, Hubert Kaufhold, and Lucas Van Rompay for their input on this topic. Van Rompay pointed out that globalization had its beginnings in the archaic period and emphasized the importance of the Syriac diaspora. Melonie Schmierer copy-edited the final draft. Hekamtho || Syrian Orthodox Theological Journal 41

activities, globalization was already well underway in the field of Syriac studies, and as early as the medieval period the study of Syriac had moved into a state of ‘proto-globalization’. Proto-Globalization While the term globalization is modern, it has been applied to earlier periods to describe ‘archaic’ globalization in which groups from different communities worked together and exchanged ideas. One such case is the Islamic golden age under the Abbasid rulers, when Jewish, Christian and Muslim traders and scholars interacted and created an intellectual environment. Earlier Syriac-Greek interactions arguably fall within the bounds of archaic globalization, however as this paper is concerned with Syriac studies as the domain of globalization, the earliest forms of globalization may be attributed to Eastern scholars who Globalizing Syriac Studies traveled to Europe and introduced Syriac studies there. Mardin th George A. Kiraz lies at the heart of this globalization. In the 16 -century, the Syriac Orthodox Patriarch Abdullah I bar Stephanos sent to (Beth Mardutho: The Syriac Institute) Rome a priest called Mushe, a native of Qaluq near Sawro, who Globalization is a term with many definitions.1 According to became known in Europe as Mushe of Mardin. In Rome, Mushe the Oxford English Dictionary (online edition), the term was taught the Syriac language and cooperated with Europeans to first used in 1930 in the context of holistic education. The term publish, for the first time, the Syriac New Testament. During the th th globalization is used here with a general sense and refers to the 17 and 18 century, the Maronite College in Rome would expansion of the field of Syriac studies well beyond the bounds become instrumental in introducing Syriac studies in Europe, of university campuses or the cells of learned monks in with Maronite scholars like Ibrahim al-Haqillani and the th monasteries. Since the emergence of international symposia Assemanis playing an important role. The 19 and the first half th dedicated exclusively to Syriac studies in the 1970s until the of the 20 century witnessed much travel in the opposite modern era of the Web 2.0, the field of Syriac studies has seen direction, as scholars and missionaries set out from Europe for tremendous expansion. But centuries before these modern the Middle East. They too contributed to the globalization of Syriac during this early period. It has been during the second th 1 half of the 20 century, however, that the effects of I am grateful to Sebastian Brock, Hubert Kaufhold, and Lucas Van globalization can be seen most vividly, especially with the Rompay for their input on this topic. Van Rompay pointed out that globalization had its beginnings in the archaic period and emphasized the introduction of technology. importance of the Syriac diaspora. Melonie Schmierer copy-edited the final draft. 42 Hekamtho || Syrian Orthodox Theological Journal

Symposia The beginning of modern globalization for Syriac studies can be found in the early 1970s, when scholars in the field decided to hold an international symposium to bring together scholars interested in Syriac. In 1971, Werner Strothmann organized a Syriac conference in Göttingen with the theme Synkretismus im syrisch-persischen Kulturgebiet, supported by the Göttingen Academy of Sciences.2 It was attended by European scholars, and the Syriac Orthodox Patriarch Jacob III who read a paper. Ca. 40 scholars attended, mostly from Germany, but also from other countries including Sebastian Brock (England), Han Drijvers (Netherlands), Paul Harb (Lebanon), Élie Khalifé-Hachem (Lebanon), William F. Macomber (USA; Rome), and Ignacio Ortiz de Urbina (Rome). As most of the papers were delivered in German, the Lebanese Prof. Michel Breydy, who was at the time living in Germany, translated simultaneously for the patriarch.3 This symposium began the tradition repeated in all subsequent symposia, gathering scholars from the Middle East and from Europe. Prior to the 1971 symposium (but after plans for the event were in place), invitations were issued for the first Symposium Syriacum. The history of this beginning was recounted by Rene Lavenant in a personal communication to me, and was subsequently published on the Beth Mardutho website in 2001.

2 The details on this symposium were provided by H. Kaufhold and I provide them here for historical purposes. 3 Kaufhold published a photo of a reception hosted by the Mayor of Göttingen in Peter Bruns and Heinz Otto Luthe (eds.), Vom Euphrat an die Altmühl. Die Forschungsstelle Christlicher Orient an der Katholischen Universität Eichstätt-Ingolstadt (Eichstätter Beiträge zum Christlichen Orient 1; Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2012). The papers of the conference are subsequently published in Gernot Wießner (ed.), Erkenntnisse und Meinungen, vol. I and II (Wiesbaden 1973, 1978). Hekamtho || Syrian Orthodox Theological Journal 43

Symposia The new website of Beth Mardutho, designed in 2011, no longer includes this account, and its details had to be resurrected by an The beginning of modern globalization for Syriac studies can overnight search on my computer for the purposes of this paper. be found in the early 1970s, when scholars in the field decided The phenomenon of losing electronic published material is to hold an international symposium to bring together scholars problematic for many fields of research, including that of Syraic interested in Syriac. studies, and it will be revisited later in this paper. According to In 1971, Werner Strothmann organized a Syriac conference Lavenant’s account: in Göttingen with the theme Synkretismus im syrisch-persischen 2 Fr. Ivan Zuzek, S.J., at that time Rector of the Pontifical Oriental Kulturgebiet, supported by the Göttingen Academy of Sciences. Institute, Rome, and Father Ignacio Ortiz de Urbina, S.J. († 1984), It was attended by European scholars, and the Syriac Orthodox professor of Syriac at the Institute, became aware of this problem, Patriarch Jacob III who read a paper. Ca. 40 scholars attended, when they realised that all the energies of the Institute were mostly from Germany, but also from other countries including concentrated on the Russian and Byzantine studies. Their view was shared also by Prof. Antoine Guillaumont († 2000), professor of the Sebastian Brock (England), Han Drijvers (Netherlands), Paul Syriac patristics at l’Ecole Pratique des Hautes Etudes of Sorbonne Harb (Lebanon), Élie Khalifé-Hachem (Lebanon), William F. (later at the Collège de France) and Father François Graffin, S.J. Macomber (USA; Rome), and Ignacio Ortiz de Urbina (Rome). professor of Syriac at the Institut catholique in Paris (at that time As most of the papers were delivered in German, the Lebanese also the director of Patrologia Orientalis. It was then that the Prof. Michel Breydy, who was at the time living in decision to organise a symposium of Syriac studies every fourth year was taken. Germany, translated simultaneously for the patriarch.3 This symposium began the tradition repeated in all subsequent The first meeting of the Symposium Syriacum took place in symposia, gathering scholars from the Middle East and from 1972, with about 80 participants, and was attended by the Syriac Europe. Catholic Patriarch Ignatius Anton Hayek. Although most of the participants were experts in the field, the symposium was Prior to the 1971 symposium (but after plans for the event attended by a few sharwoye ‘beginners’. One such beginner was were in place), invitations were issued for the first Symposium Lucas van Rompay, 22 years old at the time: Syriacum. The history of this beginning was recounted by Rene Lavenant in a personal communication to me, and was I vividly remember seeing some of these great scholars with whose subsequently published on the Beth Mardutho website in 2001. names I was familiar from my readings: I. Ortiz de Urbina, J. Mateos, Jules Leroy, Jean Maurice Fiey, Werner Strothmann,

2 François Graffin, E. Hambye, Luise Abramowski, William The details on this symposium were provided by H. Kaufhold and I Macomber, … and some of the (then!) slightly younger generation: 4 provide them here for historical purposes. Rifaat Ebied, Sebastian Brock, Robert Taft. 3 Kaufhold published a photo of a reception hosted by the Mayor of Göttingen in Peter Bruns and Heinz Otto Luthe (eds.), Vom Euphrat an die Subsequent meetings took place every four years with the last Altmühl. Die Forschungsstelle Christlicher Orient an der Katholischen meeting held in Malta in 2012. These symposia, as well as other Universität Eichstätt-Ingolstadt (Eichstätter Beiträge zum Christlichen Orient 1; Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2012). The papers of the conference are subsequent regional symposia series that were held in the 1980s subsequently published in Gernot Wießner (ed.), Erkenntnisse und Meinungen, vol. I and II (Wiesbaden 1973, 1978). 4 Personal communication to G. Kiraz, April 6, 2012. 44 Hekamtho || Syrian Orthodox Theological Journal

and 1990s,5 provided a networking platform that would change the field of Syriac studies in the 20th and 21st centuries. The Static Web By the time of the 1992 Symposium Syriacum in Cambridge, some Syriac scholars had begun to use email accounts. These facilitated communication and brought scholars closer to each other. (My first email account was imposed on me in 1991 when I joined the M.Phil. program in Computer Speech and Language Processing at the University of Cambridge. I had resisted getting one the previous year in Oxford as I thought it would waste my time.) But scholars with email addresses were still few in number. In the early 1990s I had asked on the 590-member hugoye-list if anyone had an email account that was used for scholarly purposes, and only two people replied. While email communications facilitated cooperation, in essence all it did was make communication easier. Scholars were still able to communicate prior to email via ‘snail mail’. The real impact email had is that it changed the culture of communication. Although students could in theory communicate with eminent scholars by letter, in practice they were unlikely to do so. The advent of email culture removed such barriers, and senior scholars began to find themselves spending hours each week answering queries from around the world. One ‘early’ project illustrates the use of this virtual email network: the Comparative Edition to the Syriac Gospels project. This project produced an edition of the Syriac Gospels aligning the texts of the Sinaiticus MS, the Curetonianus MS, the Peshitta, and the Harklean versions.6 All these texts needed to be proof read. An announcement was placed on the Internet in 1994

5 S. P. Brock and A. M. Butts, ‘Syriac Conferences’, GEDSH 389-90. 6 For the history of the project, see G. Kiraz, Comparative Edition of the Syriac Gospels (1996), vol. 1, p. xvii-xix. Hekamtho || Syrian Orthodox Theological Journal 45 and 1990s,5 provided a networking platform that would change (on the ANE list which was administered by the University of the field of Syriac studies in the 20th and 21st centuries. Chicago) asking for volunteers. Twenty scholars replied, ten of which would go on to proof the text. Out of the ten, I had only The Static Web met one in person before, and to date I have not met all. By the time of the 1992 Symposium Syriacum in Cambridge, The next major development in the globalization process was some Syriac scholars had begun to use email accounts. These the development of the World Wide Web. In its beginnings in facilitated communication and brought scholars closer to each the early 1990s, it was simply a system of read-only hypertexts other. (My first email account was imposed on me in 1991 when (i.e. texts with links). The first web pages in the academic I joined the M.Phil. program in Computer Speech and Language domain of Syriac studies were probably those of the Syriac Processing at the University of Cambridge. I had resisted getting Computing Institute (SyrCOM, the forerunner of Beth one the previous year in Oxford as I thought it would waste my Mardutho). I am unable to determine a date as to when SyrCOM time.) But scholars with email addresses were still few in went public and a previous attempt to find such a date on the number. In the early 1990s I had asked on the 590-member server of the University of Cambridge gave no results. If hugoye-list if anyone had an email account that was used for memory serves me, this website must have gone public in 1993 scholarly purposes, and only two people replied. or 1994 at the latest. It was an informational website about the While email communications facilitated cooperation, in activities of the Institute. As time moved on, academic essence all it did was make communication easier. Scholars institutions began to have their own websites and faculty were still able to communicate prior to email via ‘snail mail’. members began to have their own web pages. The real impact email had is that it changed the culture of Specialized websites also began to appear. In the mid–late communication. Although students could in theory communicate 1990s, scholars began to publish peer-reviewed electronic with eminent scholars by letter, in practice they were unlikely to journals on the Internet. Hugoye: Journal of Syriac Studies was do so. The advent of email culture removed such barriers, and one of the earliest of these journals. While today one takes senior scholars began to find themselves spending hours each electronic academic journals for granted, at the time the week answering queries from around the world. electronic medium for such publications was not taken seriously. One ‘early’ project illustrates the use of this virtual email Scholars did not consider electronic journals to be of the same network: the Comparative Edition to the Syriac Gospels project. academic caliber as printed editions, and it took some time, even This project produced an edition of the Syriac Gospels aligning until the mid-2000s, for scholarly attitudes to shift. the texts of the Sinaiticus MS, the Curetonianus MS, the Hugoye is by no means the only online resource. Kristian Peshitta, and the Harklean versions.6 All these texts needed to be Heal of Brigham Young University provides an extensive list of proof read. An announcement was placed on the Internet in 1994 resources (Hugoye 15.1). The list is now available as a page on the Beth Mardutho website under the “Resources” menu item. 5 S. P. Brock and A. M. Butts, ‘Syriac Conferences’, GEDSH 389-90. The page lists online resources for books, corpora, databases, 6 For the history of the project, see G. Kiraz, Comparative Edition of the email lists, e-journals, and manuscript repositories. Today, one Syriac Gospels (1996), vol. 1, p. xvii-xix. 46 Hekamtho || Syrian Orthodox Theological Journal

can do research in places as remote as Deir al-Za‛faran, a monastery outside Mardin, with an Internet connection. In fact, many of us are now online anytime, anywhere, with various mobile devices. I began compiling data on the number of hits the term ‘Syriac’ gets on Google search in 2005 when a search on the term resulted in 300,000 hits. The Web was by then expanding exponentially. The following year, hits jumped to 1.7 million. The following two years did not change significantly: 2007 also resulted in 1.7 million results and 2008 the number dropped slightly to 1.6 million. The results rose to 2.8 million in 2009 only to drop back to 1.8 million in 2010. With the move to Web 2.0 (which will be discussed shortly), the number of results became much more significant: 2011 saw 4.1 million hits and 2012 an astonishing 28 million hits at the beginning of the year. This is due to the fact that the past few years have witnessed a surge in the amount of Syriac material online in terms of book digitization, most notably in Google Books and Archive.org. This may be the reason behind the surge in search results for the term ‘Syriac’ in 2012. It is interesting to note the Google automatic suggestions for search terms that begin with “Syriac”, and how these have changed in the last six years. Terms are tabulated below (each list gives the terms in order): 2006 syriac orthodox church syriac orthodox syriac church syriac alphabet syriac christianity syriac bible syriac fonts syriacus Hekamtho || Syrian Orthodox Theological Journal 47 can do research in places as remote as Deir al-Za‛faran, a monastery outside Mardin, with an Internet connection. In fact, 2007 many of us are now online anytime, anywhere, with various syriac orthodox church mobile devices. syriac orthodox syriac alphabet I began compiling data on the number of hits the term syriac bible ‘Syriac’ gets on Google search in 2005 when a search on the syriac language term resulted in 300,000 hits. The Web was by then expanding exponentially. The following year, hits jumped to 1.7 million. syriac church The following two years did not change significantly: 2007 also syriac dictionary syriac christianity resulted in 1.7 million results and 2008 the number dropped syriac font slightly to 1.6 million. The results rose to 2.8 million in 2009 only to drop back to 1.8 million in 2010. With the move to Web 2008 2.0 (which will be discussed shortly), the number of results became much more significant: 2011 saw 4.1 million hits and syriac orthodox church syriac language 2012 an astonishing 28 million hits at the beginning of the year. syriac bible This is due to the fact that the past few years have witnessed a syriac orthodox surge in the amount of Syriac material online in terms of book syriac church digitization, most notably in Google Books and Archive.org. syriac alphabet This may be the reason behind the surge in search results for the syriacomment.com term ‘Syriac’ in 2012. syriac christianity It is interesting to note the Google automatic suggestions for syriac font search terms that begin with “Syriac”, and how these have changed in the last six years. Terms are tabulated below (each 2009 list gives the terms in order): syriac orthodox church 2006 syriac bible syriac orthodox church syriac alphabet syriac orthodox syriac language syriac church syriac catholic church syriac alphabet syriac christianity syriac christianity syriac dictionary syriac bible syriac font syriac fonts syriac script syriacus 48 Hekamtho || Syrian Orthodox Theological Journal

2010 syriac orthodox church syriac language syriac bible syriac alphabet syriac christianity syriac peshitta syriac catholic church syriac aramaic syriac font syriac new testament

2011 syriac orthodox church syriac bible syriac catholics syriac christianity syriacstudies.com syriac alphabet syriac peshitta syriac studies syriac orthodox youth convention

2012 syriac orthodox church syriac bible syriac alphabet syriac voice syriac people syriac christianity syriac orthodox church india syriac dictionary Hekamtho || Syrian Orthodox Theological Journal 49

2010 All of these activities fall under what is now termed Web 1.0, syriac orthodox church a static mostly read-only content. The move to participatory syriac language websites, such as social networking, has begun to take Syriac syriac bible studies into the realm of Web 2.0. syriac alphabet The Dynamic Web 2.0: 2000 – syriac christianity syriac peshitta The term ‘Web 2.0’ also does not have an agreed upon syriac catholic church definition. In general, it refers to the World Wide Web where syriac aramaic information on the Internet is aggregated in a participatory syriac font manner. Examples of the Web 2.0 include sites relying on crowd syriac new testament sourcing (like Wikipedia) and the various social network systems. 2011 One may add discussion lists to this genre, although syriac orthodox church discussion lists have preceded not only Web 2.0, but also what is syriac bible now known as Web 1.0. One of the earliest discussion lists was syriac catholics ANE (not the current ANE) hosted at the University of Chicago. syriac christianity While ANE covered primarily the Ancient Near East, many of syriacstudies.com the posts were concerned with Syriac studies. The first list syriac alphabet dedicated to Syriac was founded by the Peshitta Institute. It was, syriac peshitta and remains, an announcement list rather than a discussion syriac studies group. Today hugoye-list, founded by Beth Mardutho, is the syriac orthodox youth convention primary discussion group for Syriac studies. The first message was posted on September 30, 1998 and as of April 6, 2011, it 2012 had 5196 messages and 590 members. Officially, the list is syriac orthodox church moderated. Practically, however, it is semi-moderated in that syriac bible messages are published without the approval of list moderators. syriac alphabet When participants break the rules of the list, they are tagged to syriac voice be moderated after which all their messages have to be approved syriac people by one of the list moderators. The success of hugoye-list lies in syriac christianity the fact that it is closer to a question-answer list rather than a syriac orthodox church india fully-fledged discussion list. The QA nature of hugoye-list is in syriac dictionary fact invaluable. It combines the knowledge base of almost 600 individuals in one place. While not all queries find answers, the majority do. 50 Hekamtho || Syrian Orthodox Theological Journal

Thus far, Syriac studies has not witnessed successful crowd sourcing websites. In fact, it is doubtful whether such sites can be successful when the number of participants is low (as in Syriac studies). If one is to take Wikipedia as a measuring tool, one finds that articles on Wikipedia on topics with a large academic community behind it are more reliable than ones where the academic community is small. (Even in the former case, one must always exercise caution when using Wikipedia articles.) For crowd sourcing to succeed, there must be a critical mass that is large enough to warrant projects to go that route. The field of Syriac studies is therefore not a good candidate for crowed sourcing. Conclusion In summary, the globalization of Syriac studies began with the convention of dedicated international conferences, Syriac Translations of the New Testament providingscholars with a broader contact base. Following these, and the Formation of the Canon in the the development of the Internet in the 1990s paved the way for Antiochian West Syrian Church Syriac studies to become a global, yet specialized, subject area. Dr. Adai Jacob Corepiscopa There is, of course, a downside to the reliance on hosted digital content. As mentioned earlier, Lavenant’s account of the In the first century AD the language of the common people in the Middle East and Mesopotamia was Aramaic. But gradually history of international Syriac Symposia is no longer available st online. For a period of two weeks in May 2012, the entirety of in the 1 century itself in Palestine Syria and Mesopotamia a the Beth Mardutho website was down due to technical new language began to sprout as a branch or as a daughter the difficulties and no one had access to Hugoye. In fact, the future Aramaic language and it was called Syriac. The language had of hosting journals like Hugoye in the coming decades is variations in accordance with regions, Antioch Edessa etc for unknown. HTML and PDF formats may become obsolete, and if example in Palestine. During the time of Jesus the common there is no one to take care of conversions, all of this content people in Palestine conversed in Palestinian Syriac, which was a will be lost. (For this reason, Hugoye is also published in print.) branch of Aramaic language. When we closely examine, we come to the conclusion that the language spoken by Jesus was The hope, however, remains that with advancements in 1 technology, Syriac studies will follow the path of future Palestinian Syriac . The Gospel for the salvation of the human technologies, whatever that may lead. ܡܠܫ܀ race was thus preached at first by Jesus and his disciples in Syriac Language.

1 Wikenhauser.A, Einlaitung in das Neue Testament, 88.

52 Hekamtho || Syrian Orthodox Theological Journal

Another important and unique position of Syriac language was that it was born and brought up in Christian background. Therefore in the early centuries Syriac became a Synonym for everything Christian. From the 2nd century onwards Edessa began to develop as the main centre of the Syriac language and Christian scholasticism and within a few years syriac became a full-fledged literary language. It is argued that the first biblical writing in Syriac is Diatessaron of Tatian and it was written in Edessa in AD 150. The theological school of Edessa became a great centre for biblical and theological studies and the medium of instruction was Syriac. Another important centre of Syriac language was Nissibis, where one more Syriac Theological school flourished in the early centuries. From the concept of New Testament Canon and from the idea of canonisation we mean the acceptance and selection of the NT books as authoritative books of the Christian Church. Canon therefore contains a fairly long history of the selection and approval of the various books of NT. The acceptance of the NT books was not a sudden incident but a gradual process. Only step by step in the course of time the NT books were selected and accepted. The Syrian church has its own history of canonisation and it deserves special attention. A comparison of the canonisation process of the Syrian Church with that of the Greek and Latin churches will show that the Syrian Church adopted a strict and discretionary attitude towards canonisation. The modern scientific research proves that the strict attitude of the Syrian Church in the case of acceptance of certain books of the NT was based on sound reasons. Apostolic origin, apostolic background or connection, conformity with the rule of faith and divine inspiration are the main criteria to get acceptance as a canonical book. We can assume that Syrian Church was very strict in keeping the criteria and cautious in the selection of books.

Hekamtho || Syrian Orthodox Theological Journal 53

Another important and unique position of Syriac language As an inseparable part of the process of canonisation we have was that it was born and brought up in Christian background. to deal with the different translations of New Testament in to the Therefore in the early centuries Syriac became a Synonym for Syriac language from the 2nd till the 7th century. Therefore this everything Christian. From the 2nd century onwards Edessa small presentation is divided into two parts. The first part deals began to develop as the main centre of the Syriac language and with the various translations of the New Testament into Syriac Christian scholasticism and within a few years syriac became a and the second part deals with the process of canonisation. full-fledged literary language. It is argued that the first biblical Part I - The Various Translations of the NT into Syriac writing in Syriac is Diatessaron of Tatian and it was written in Edessa in AD 150. The theological school of Edessa became a The list of books found in the translations done during great centre for biblical and theological studies and the medium centuries is the most important evidence for the development of of instruction was Syriac. Another important centre of Syriac the Syriac canon of NT. language was Nissibis, where one more Syriac Theological 1. The Old Syriac Translation2 school flourished in the early centuries. For the Old Syriac translation of the four Gospels we have From the concept of New Testament Canon and from the idea two important Manuscript evidences. The first one is a of canonisation we mean the acceptance and selection of the NT manuscript found in the Monastery of St. Mary in the desert at books as authoritative books of the Christian Church. Canon the Western side of Cairo. This manuscript was discovered by therefore contains a fairly long history of the selection and William Cureton in 1842 and it is now kept in the British approval of the various books of NT. The acceptance of the NT Museum. It was published in 1858 with the name Curetonian books was not a sudden incident but a gradual process. Only Syriac version (Syrc). The second manuscript evidence for the step by step in the course of time the NT books were selected Old Syriac translation of the four Gospels is a Palimpsest found and accepted. The Syrian church has its own history of in the monastery of St. Catherine in Sinai. This manuscript was canonisation and it deserves special attention. A comparison of discovered in 1892 by Agnas Smith Lewis and it is called the canonisation process of the Syrian Church with that of the Sinaitic Syriac version (Syrs). Some of the scholars have the Greek and Latin churches will show that the Syrian Church opinion that these manuscripts were originally written in the adopted a strict and discretionary attitude towards canonisation. middle or 2nd half of the second century. The modern scientific research proves that the strict attitude of the Syrian Church in the case of acceptance of certain books of Manuscript evidence for Old Syriac translation of Acts and the NT was based on sound reasons. Apostolic origin, apostolic letters of Paul are traceable from the writings of Syrian Fathers. background or connection, conformity with the rule of faith and St. Ephrem had written commentaries on Acts and letters of Paul divine inspiration are the main criteria to get acceptance as a using the text of the Old Syriac translation. This translation is canonical book. We can assume that Syrian Church was very considered to be still older than the translation of the four strict in keeping the criteria and cautious in the selection of books. 2 Compare A. Vööbus, The Old Syriac Version in a new light ..., Stockholm, 1949, Studies in the history of the Gospel Text in Syriac, Louvrain, 1951

54 Hekamtho || Syrian Orthodox Theological Journal

Gospels. Old Syriac translation for the Catholic letters and for the book of Revelation is not available. 2. Diatessaron of Tatian3 A Syrian Monk called Tatian wrote a harmony of the four Gospels and it is called Diatessaron. It was written in the 2nd half of the second century. Many of the scholars believe that Diatessaron is the oldest Syriac manuscript of the NT4. The influence of Diatessaron was great in the Syrian Church and at least for three centuries Diatessaron was used for public reading instead of the four gospels. In the early centuries in the NT canon of the Syrian church, Diatessaron occupied the position of the four gospels. 3. Peshitta (Syrpesh) In the beginning of the 5th century a new translation of the books of NT appeared and it became part of the official Bible of the Syrian Church. From the 10th century onwards this new version of the Syriac Bible began to be called “Peshitta”. The NT Peshitta contains only 22 books. The four minor Catholic letters and the book of Revelation are omitted. There is no exact information regarding the master brain behind the formation of Peshitta. The critic F. Burkitt has the opinion that Bishop Rabbula of Edessa (411-431) is the creator of Peshitta. Bishop Rabbula had made an exact translation of NT in to Syriac using the Greek text. Burkitt identifies this Syriac translation made by Rabbula with Peshitta. Regarding the time of Origin of Peshitta Arthur Voobus holds another view. According to him Peshitta originated at the end of the 4th century. He defends the argument saying that Peshitta was widely in use even before the split in the Syrian

3 Compare T.. Zahn, Tatian's Diatessaron, Erlangen 1881, Untersuchungen zum Diatessaron Tatians, Heidelberg 1918 4 S. Brock, The hidden Pearl, Vol. III, P. 221ff.

Hekamtho || Syrian Orthodox Theological Journal 55

Gospels. Old Syriac translation for the Catholic letters and for Church in 431. M. Black after a critical examination expresses the book of Revelation is not available. his own opinion regarding the role of bishop Rabulla to the 2. Diatessaron of Tatian3 formation of Peshitta. According to him bishop Rabulla made a complete revision of the Old Syriac Text and this revision was A Syrian Monk called Tatian wrote a harmony of the four an important step towards the formation of Peshitta. nd Gospels and it is called Diatessaron. It was written in the 2 half ph of the second century. Many of the scholars believe that 4. Philoxiniana (Syr ) Diatessaron is the oldest Syriac manuscript of the NT4. The In the West Syrian Church there was always the tendency to influence of Diatessaron was great in the Syrian Church and at revise the older Syriac texts of the NT. Bishop Philoxinos of least for three centuries Diatessaron was used for public reading Mabug inititated a revision of Peshitta in the year 508 with the instead of the four gospels. In the early centuries in the NT help of his assistant Polycarpos. He made a new translation of canon of the Syrian church, Diatessaron occupied the position of NT into Syriac comparing and using the Greek Manuscripts the four gospels. making it closer to the Greek text. In this translation as a result pesh of the comparison with the Greek canon the four minor Catholic 3. Peshitta (Syr ) Epistles and the book of Revelation which were omitted in th In the beginning of the 5 century a new translation of the Peshitta were included. books of NT appeared and it became part of the official Bible of h the Syrian Church. From the 10th century onwards this new 5. Charclensis (Syr ) version of the Syriac Bible began to be called “Peshitta”. The Thomas of Charkel/Harkel was Bishop of Mabug but he was NT Peshitta contains only 22 books. The four minor Catholic expelled by Caeser Mauritius and therefore he was staying in St. letters and the book of Revelation are omitted. There is no exact Anthony's Monastery near Alexandria. He himself said that he information regarding the master brain behind the formation of had made a comparison of Philoxiniana with Greek Manuscripts Peshitta. The critic F. Burkitt has the opinion that Bishop in the year 616. This means that Bishop Thomas of Charkel Rabbula of Edessa (411-431) is the creator of Peshitta. Bishop revised Philoxiniana using the Western type of Manuscripts. Rabbula had made an exact translation of NT in to Syriac using This revision is known as Charclensis/ harclensis. the Greek text. Burkitt identifies this Syriac translation made by Pal 6. The Palestinian-Syriac Translation (Syr ) Rabbula with Peshitta. Greek was the language used in Palestine during early Regarding the time of Origin of Peshitta Arthur Voobus centuries of Christian era. But there were a lot of common holds another view. According to him Peshitta originated at the th people, who were not able to understand Greek but knew a type end of the 4 century. He defends the argument saying that of Syriac dialect called the Palestinian Syriac. Therefore during Peshitta was widely in use even before the split in the Syrian the time of worship the readings from the Bible and the Homily were translated into Palestinian Syriac. This popular dialect of 3 Compare T.. Zahn, Tatian's Diatessaron, Erlangen 1881, Untersuchungen the common people was an offshoot of the Aramaic language zum Diatessaron Tatians, Heidelberg 1918 4 S. Brock, The hidden Pearl, Vol. III, P. 221ff. and was spoken by Jesus Christ. According to Lagrange a

56 Hekamtho || Syrian Orthodox Theological Journal

translation of NT was made in the 5th century into the above mentioned Palestinian Syriac. For this translation a complete Manuscript evidence is not available, but we have 3 lectionaries and other fragments of gospels to prove the existence of such a translation. Part II - Formation of the Canon of the New Testament in the Syrian Church In the Syrian Church also the formation of the canon of the New Testament was a gradual process. Without much conscious effort as a natural phenomenon the canonisation process started already in the 2nd century and continued till the 7th century. We will try to analyse the development of the canon on Chronological basis. 1. Situation of the Canon in the 2nd century In the case of gospels two types of Syriac translations emerged during this period. The first type is the translation of the four gospels done separately as we see now. This translation was later known as evengelion “da mepharreshe” and it means separated gospels. It is believed that this translation took place in the middle of the 2nd century and if so it is perhaps the oldest translation of the gospels. The date of origin is highly disputed. The Manuscript evidence is the old Syriac translation called Syrsin. Acts and the letters of Paul were also translated into old Syriac in the 2nd century. Most probably from the letters of Paul ‘Hebrews’ and ‘Philemon’ were excluded. Therefore in the 2nd century the canon of the Syrian Church contained only 17 books including 4 gospels, Acts and 12 letters of Paul. The second type of translation was made by the Syrian Monk called Tatian5 who was expelled from the Church in Rome and came back to the Orient in the year 172. As we know he made a

5 Wikenhanser, Einleitung 81, Kümmel, Einleitung, 467.

Hekamtho || Syrian Orthodox Theological Journal 57 translation of NT was made in the 5th century into the above harmony of the four gospels in Syriac known as Diatessaron and mentioned Palestinian Syriac. For this translation a complete it was also known as Evengelion “damehallete” and it means Manuscript evidence is not available, but we have 3 lectionaries mixed gospels. Some of the Scholars have the opinion that and other fragments of gospels to prove the existence of such a Tatian had used Old Syriac translation of the separated gospels translation. to write his Diatessaron6. Soon in the canon of the Syrian Church the four Gospels were replaced by Diatessaron. Till the Part II - Formation of the Canon of the New Testament in 5th century Diatessaron enjoyed the position of a canonical book the Syrian Church in the place of the four gospels. In the Syrian Church also the formation of the canon of the rd th New Testament was a gradual process. Without much conscious 2. Position of the Canon in the 3 and 4 centuries effort as a natural phenomenon the canonisation process started Regarding Canon no radical change occurred in the 3rd already in the 2nd century and continued till the 7th century. We Century. We can assume that the situation in the 2nd century will try to analyse the development of the canon on continued in the 3rd century also. But from the 4th century Chronological basis. onwards we get more information from the writings of the th nd Fathers. In the beginning of the 4 century the Syrian Church in 1. Situation of the Canon in the 2 century Antioch accepted only three Catholic letters as canonical books In the case of gospels two types of Syriac translations (James, 1Pet, l Jn) and rejected the other four minor Catholic emerged during this period. The first type is the translation of Epistles and the book of Revelation. Lucian of Antioch (312) the four gospels done separately as we see now. This translation who had his education in Edessa and settled down in Antioch was later known as evengelion “da mepharreshe” and it means was one of the leaders of the Antiochian school of thought. John separated gospels. It is believed that this translation took place Chrysostom also accepted only the three Catholic Epistles. nd in the middle of the 2 century and if so it is perhaps the oldest Diodorus of Tarsus (394), Severian from Gabala, Polychronius translation of the gospels. The date of origin is highly disputed. of Apamea etc. belong to the Antiochian school of thought. The Manuscript evidence is the old Syriac translation called With the end of the 4th century the Canon of the Syrian Church sin Syr . Acts and the letters of Paul were also translated into old contained 22 (19) books. But instead of the four gospels nd Syriac in the 2 century. Most probably from the letters of Paul Diatessaron was used. Fathers like Aprahat and Ephrem had ‘Hebrews’ and ‘Philemon’ were excluded. Therefore in the 2nd quoted from Diatessaron and St. Ephrem had written a century the canon of the Syrian Church contained only 17 books commentary on Diatessaron. including 4 gospels, Acts and 12 letters of Paul. 3. Development of the Canon in 5th century The second type of translation was made by the Syrian Monk th called Tatian5 who was expelled from the Church in Rome and 5 century became the most decisive and crucial period in the came back to the Orient in the year 172. As we know he made a history of the New Testament canon. Majority of the documents that give a clear picture of the New Testament Canon of the

5 Wikenhanser, Einleitung 81, Kümmel, Einleitung, 467. 6 Einleitung 85.

58 Hekamtho || Syrian Orthodox Theological Journal

Syrian Church were written in the fifth century. A Brief survey of those documents will provide us with ample material to grasp the attitude of the Syrian Church toward the New Testament canon. 3.1 Doctrine of Addai7 This document emerged around the year 400 and it gives a hint regarding the Syriac canon just before the time of Peshitta. Addai is considered as the founder of the Church in Edessa. At the time of his death he called his disciple and gave the following advise; “The Law, the Gospels, the letters of Paul and Acts of the Apostles are the books that you can read in the church of Christ and outside those you should not read anything because nothing is given outside them in which the truth is written”. Here the gospels mean most probably Diatessaron. But the canonical books are listed here. 3.2 Syriac Canon from Sinai Some of the scholars hold the view that the Syriac Canon discovered by A. S. Lewis was written around 400 A.D. In this canon the four separate gospels (listed instead of Diatessaron), the Acts of the Apostles and the letters of Paul are the books approved by the Holy Church. 3.3 Apostolic Constitution This book was written in the beginning of the 5th century. This contains the list of books that can be read during worship. In this list also we see only the four gospels, Acts and the letters of Paul. In the beginning of the fifth century in the list of letters of Paul among the 14 letters the letter to the Hebrews and a third

7 Kümmel, Einleitung 443.

Hekamtho || Syrian Orthodox Theological Journal 59

Syrian Church were written in the fifth century. A Brief survey letter to the Corithians are included, but the letter to Philemon is of those documents will provide us with ample material to grasp omitted. the attitude of the Syrian Church toward the New Testament 3.4 Apostolic Canon canon. th 7 Apostolic Canon is also from the 5 century. This book 3.1 Doctrine of Addai seems to be an appendix to the Apostolic Constitution. This document emerged around the year 400 and it gives a According to this canon the 7 Catholic letters are approved as hint regarding the Syriac canon just before the time of Peshitta. canonical books. But the book of Revelation is omitted. Addai is considered as the founder of the Church in Edessa. At 3.5 Introduction of Peshitta the time of his death he called his disciple and gave the following advise; “The Law, the Gospels, the letters of Paul and In the beginning of the 5th century Peshitta was introduced Acts of the Apostles are the books that you can read in the as the official Bible of the Syrian Church and that was the most church of Christ and outside those you should not read anything important incident in the history of the canon of the Syrian because nothing is given outside them in which the truth is Church. From the seven Catholic Epistles only the three major written”. Here the gospels mean most probably Diatessaron. But epistles - James, I Peter and I John were approved. Therefore the the canonical books are listed here. original New Testament canon of the Syrian Church contained only 22 books. The date of origin of Peshitta is a matter of 3.2 Syriac Canon from Sinai debate and dispute. After the council of Ephesus in 431 as we all Some of the scholars hold the view that the Syriac Canon know there occurred the great split in the Syrian Church and discovered by A. S. Lewis was written around 400 A.D. In this East Syrians separated themselves and formed their own canon the four separate gospels (listed instead of Diatessaron), Church. But Peshitta was the common Bible for both. In the the Acts of the Apostles and the letters of Paul are the books West Syrian Church there was the tendency to revise the canon approved by the Holy Church. of the New Testament. 3.3 Apostolic Constitution 4. Canon of the West Syrian Church in the 6th century This book was written in the beginning of the 5th century. In the beginning of the 6th century a revision of the canon of This contains the list of books that can be read during worship. the New Testament took place in the West Syrian Church. This In this list also we see only the four gospels, Acts and the letters revision was initiated by Bishop Philexinos of Mabug. In the of Paul. In the beginning of the fifth century in the list of letters new revised list the four minor Catholic Epistles and the book of Paul among the 14 letters the letter to the Hebrews and a third Revelation were included. It is perhaps because of the influence of the Coptic and Greek churches that the West Syrian church included those 5 books in the Syriac canon. Thus the number of NT books was fixed as 27. 7 Kümmel, Einleitung 443.

60 Hekamtho || Syrian Orthodox Theological Journal

5. Canon of the West Syrian Church in the 7th century An important witness to the Canon of the West Syrian Church in the 7th century is the new translation made by Bishop Thomas of Charkel. The list of NT books found in Philexiniana was adopted in this version also. In the West Syrian church all the 27 books began to get approval. But the book of Revelation was never fully accepted and not used for public reading. 6. An Important Witness to the Canon of the West Syrian Church in the 12th century In the 12th century Dionasius Bar Sleebi was an outstanding Theologian, linguist and liturgist of the West Syrian Church. His commentary on the 27 books of the New Testament is an important testimony to prove that the West Syrian church has approved all the 27 books of NT. But for public reading during worship the minor Catholic letters are very seldom used and the book of revelation is not used. 7. Bar Ebraya Mar Gregorios Yuhanon Bar Ebraya was consecrated as the Catholicose or Maphrian of Tigiris in the year 1264. He was a scholar not only in Theology and Biblical Studies, but in all arena of leaning. In him we can see an ocean of wisdom8 and he was always engaged in reading, studying and writing books. In the Syrian Orthodox church he is unique in scholastic excellence. When we examine his exegetical writings on NT books we can see that he used the original Peshitta having only 22 books excluding 2nd letter of Peter, 2nd and 3rd letters of John, Jude and the book of Revelation. Several revisions of the canon by the Syrian church during the course of several centuries didn’t affect Bar Ebraya.29

Ö. Joseph, das Meer der Weisheit, 82. 8 Ö. Joseph, das Meer der Weisheit, 83. 9

Hekamtho || Syrian Orthodox Theological Journal 61

5. Canon of the West Syrian Church in the 7th century Conclusion An important witness to the Canon of the West Syrian In the first five centuries the Syrian Church was perhaps the Church in the 7th century is the new translation made by Bishop most flourishing church in the world. Syriac became a Thomas of Charkel. The list of NT books found in Philexiniana developed language of the learned and the Syrian Universities of was adopted in this version also. In the West Syrian church all Edessa and Nissibis were great centres of learning. In the field the 27 books began to get approval. But the book of Revelation of Textual criticism more research is needed to trace out the was never fully accepted and not used for public reading. crucial role of the Syriac language in the formation of the New Testament. 6. An Important Witness to the Canon of the West Syrian Church in the 12th century Bibliography In the 12th century Dionasius Bar Sleebi was an outstanding Bauer, W. Der Apostoles der Syrer, Giessen, 1903 Theologian, linguist and liturgist of the West Syrian Church. His Bauer, W. Rechtglaubigkeit and Ketzerei in attesten commentary on the 27 books of the New Testament is an Christentum, Tubingen, 1934, 6 - 48 important testimony to prove that the West Syrian church has approved all the 27 books of NT. But for public reading during Baumstark, A, Geschichte der Syrischen Literatur, Bonn 1922 worship the minor Catholic letters are very seldom used and the Black, M. Rabbula of Edessa and the Peshitta in BJRL 33 (1950/ book of revelation is not used. 51) 203 - 210 7. Bar Ebraya Black, M. The Palestinian Syriac Gospels and the Diatessaron in Mar Gregorios Yuhanon Bar Ebraya was consecrated as the : Och 35 (1939) 101 - 111. Catholicose or Maphrian of Tigiris in the year 1264. He was a Burkitt, F. C. Evangelion da-Mepharreshe, Cambridge -1904 scholar not only in Theology and Biblical Studies, but in all arena of leaning. In him we can see an ocean of wisdom8 and he Burkitt, F. C. Untersuchungen in Orient, Tubingen 1907 was always engaged in reading, studying and writing books. In Kahle, P. The Cairo Geniza, London, 1947 the Syrian Orthodox church he is unique in scholastic excellence. When we examine his exegetical writings on NT Kiimmel, W. G. Einleitung in das Neue Testament Quelle + books we can see that he used the original Peshitta having only Meyer, Heidelberg 1973 22 books excluding 2nd letter of Peter, 2nd and 3rd letters of John, Lagrange, L'Origene de la version Syro Palestinienne des Jude and the book of Revelation. Several revisions of the canon evengeles in RE34 (1925) 481 - 504 by the Syrian church during the course of several centuries Mertens, H. A., Handbuch der Bibelkunde Patmos-Verlag, didn’t affect Bar Ebraya.29 Dusseldorf 1966 Plooij, D. A further study of the liege Diatessaron, Leidin 1925 Ö. Joseph, das Meer der Weisheit, 82. 8 Ö. Joseph, das Meer der Weisheit, 83. 9

62 Hekamtho || Syrian Orthodox Theological Journal

Hekamtho || Syrian Orthodox Theological Journal 63

Preuschen, E. Untersuchungen zum Diatessaron Tatians S. B. Heidelberg 1918 Torry, C. C., Documents of the primitive Church New York, 1912 Voobus, A. Studies in the history of the Gospel text in Syriac Louvain 1951 Voobus, A. NEUentdeektes Test material zur Vetus Syria in Th Z 7 (1951) 30 -38 Voobus, A. The Old Syriac Version in a new light an urgent Task in Testual criticism of the NT in Apophoreta Tartuensia Stockhelm 1949, 144ff Voobus, A. Investigations in to the text of the NT used by Rabbula of Edessa, Pinnenberg 1947 The Syriac Heritage1 Voobus, A. Researches on the circulation of Peshitta in the middle of the 5U Cent. Pirmerberg 1947 Dr. Kuriakose Corepiscopa Moolayil Voobus, A. New Dates for the Solution of the Problem Syriac is the Edessan dialect2 of the Palestinian Aramaic concerning Philexenian Version, spiritus et Veritas, Festschr. K. Language. Aramaic3 itself is the Palestine dialect of the Hebrew, Kundsin 1953. 169 ff. the classical language of the Jewish tribe. Hebrew and other Wickenhauser, A. Einlectung in das Neue Testament Herder language of the Semitic family are the descendent languages Friburg 1953 from Semitic heritage. There are Syriac scholars who believe that the Hebrew is the first language of the whole humanity. Zahn, Th. Die Urauggabe der Apg 1916. Palestinians, during the times of Jesus Christ were using Zahn, Th. Tatians Diatessaron, Erlaugen 1881. 1 Joseph, Önder Das Meer der Weisheiten: Ein BriefWechsel Syriac Heritage is the ancestral privilege of the Syrian Orthodox Church of Antioch. The rich literal and liturgical treasure of this church is a wide topic zwischen dem Jakobitisschen Maphrian des Ostens, Mar of research. See Aprem I, The scattered Pearls, S.P. Broke, An outline to Gregorios Yuhano Bar Ebraya und Mar Denha I, Katholikos der Syriac Literature, George A. Kiruz, Dictionary of Syriac Heritage, etc. Nestorianer in der Blütezeit das 13. Jahrhunderts Bar Hebräus 2 Modern Urfa in southeastern Turkey known in Syriac as Urhoi. 3 Verlag, 7585 glane, 2009, P. 83 Aramaic is came of the ancient languages of the entire humanity. It has a spoken and written history of more than 3000 years. Aramaic used different Brock, Sebastian P. (Editor) The hidden Pearl Vol (III), At the scripts in its long history. The Jewish Aramaic script is related to Hebrew Turn of the Third Millennium, the Syrian Orthodox Witness, square script whereas the Christian Palestinian script is related to Estrangela Transworld Film Italia, Rome 2001. script.

64 Hekamtho || Syrian Orthodox Theological Journal

Aramaic as the mother tongue. So Jesus and his disciples used this language in their daily life and Ministry. The gospels are traditionally believed to be written in Greek language. Nevertheless origin of the Gospels in its original form that was spoken and enacted in the Aramaic medium. The writers of the Gospel texts retained the Aramaic forms in this Greek text to emphasis, interpret, clarify and to keep the originality of the context in which Jesus performed His Ministry4. Gospels in Syriac When Christianity spread widely into the Greek and other language communities, the text forms of the Gospel and the other bible texts were written in Greek. These texts are now known as the basic text of origin of the New Testament. Even then the importance of the Gospel text in its Aramaic (Syriac) verbal form cannot be ignored. There are mentions about the Syriac Gospel texts of St. Mathew seen among the Syriac Speaking Christians. Later the Edessan Christians became very influential in the field of biblical texts and its interpretations5. The School of Nisibis The school of Nisibis, where Mor Aphrem and his contemporaries taught under the great teacher Mor Jacob of Nisibis is one of the ancient schools of Christian scholarship and Syriac literature. When Nisibis was added to the Persian Empire the orthodox teachers and others under the leadership of Mor Aphrem moved to Edessa and started the school of Edessa. The Syriac Scripts The Syriac in Edessa developed the vocalization of the Syriac alphabets using Greek vowels and the Easterners of the Roman

4 The Syriac peshitha is believed to the closest rendering of the Aramaic originality. 5 Saint Mor Aprem the Syrian is the most known figure of the Edessan school, first known as the school of the Persians. Hekamtho || Syrian Orthodox Theological Journal 65

Aramaic as the mother tongue. So Jesus and his disciples used Empire developed vocalization using the diacritical points. The this language in their daily life and Ministry. The gospels are scripts also developed in two different ways in addition to the traditionally believed to be written in Greek language. estrangelo, which is now used exclusively to write titles and Nevertheless origin of the Gospels in its original form that was other figurative forms only. Thus the Syriac language took the spoken and enacted in the Aramaic medium. The writers of the distinctive names, the West Syriac (Edessan) and the East Syriac Gospel texts retained the Aramaic forms in this Greek text to (Persian). The East Syriacs who adopted the Nestorian theology emphasis, interpret, clarify and to keep the originality of the took the East Syriac as their official version and the Antiochean context in which Jesus performed His Ministry4. (Edessan) Syrian Orthodox took the Serto as their version of choice6. The estrengelo script was also used by some scribes. Gospels in Syriac When Christianity spread widely into the Greek and other Bible in Syriac Tradition language communities, the text forms of the Gospel and the Some parts of the Old Testament were written in Aramaic7. other bible texts were written in Greek. These texts are now In Palestine the Old Testament was rendered into Aramaic, the known as the basic text of origin of the New Testament. Even language of the Common people. The Old Testament Aramaic then the importance of the Gospel text in its Aramaic (Syriac) rendering was known as the Targum. ‘Targum’ means the verbal form cannot be ignored. There are mentions about the translation. The Hebrew texts were either translated into Syriac Gospel texts of St. Mathew seen among the Syriac Aramaic or the Rabbis did the translations extempore. Speaking Christians. Later the Edessan Christians became very Syrian New Testament influential in the field of biblical texts and its interpretations5. Gospel of Mathew is believed to be written in Syriac The School of Nisibis according to the witness of certain Church fathers. But majority The school of Nisibis, where Mor Aphrem and his of modern scholars believe that all the gospel texts were written contemporaries taught under the great teacher Mor Jacob of in the Greek language. The number of Aramaic words and Nisibis is one of the ancient schools of Christian scholarship and expressions retained in the gospel texts are numerous in the Syriac literature. When Nisibis was added to the Persian Empire Mathew, when compared to other texts. The close conformity of the orthodox teachers and others under the leadership of Mor the gospel of Mathew to Aramaic background is very explicit. Aphrem moved to Edessa and started the school of Edessa. The Syrian speaking communities of Syria and Edessa were The Syriac Scripts using the gospel of Mathew more than any other texts. Before the collection and compilation of the NT as an authorized The Syriac in Edessa developed the vocalization of the Syriac alphabets using Greek vowels and the Easterners of the Roman 6 The Serto script is now used by the Syrian Orthodox, Maronite, The Malankara Churches of the Orthodox, Catholic and Protestantt traditions. The 4 The Syriac peshitha is believed to the closest rendering of the Aramaic Chaldean script is issued by the Church of the East, Chaldean Catholics and originality. Syro – Malabar Christians. 5 Saint Mor Aprem the Syrian is the most known figure of the Edessan 7 The book of David, Dead Sea documents, Jewish Targuns etc are examples, school, first known as the school of the Persians. where Aramaic is used in parts. 66 Hekamtho || Syrian Orthodox Theological Journal

volume Churches in different regions used any of the available texts. It was only in the 4th century that all the NT books were canonized and compilation of the texts done formally by the church. The Syriac church also had the four distinctive gospels in the 2nd century. The first version of the Syriac Gospels is known as the Old Syriac Gospels. Copies of this text are extant. The most famous gospel text in Syriac during the latter part of the 2nd century is the one compiled by the great scholar named Tatian the Syrian. It is known as the Diatessaron8. The Syriac Diatessaron Diatessaron is the harmonious blending of the four Gospel texts into one. Thus the four Gospels were rendered into one very prudently, but skillfully avoiding certain texts to suit the bias of the compiler. Tatian was a Syrian by birth and was a lover of knowledge interested in travelling. He gained mastery in Syriac, Greek and Bible. He traveled up to Rome and was a disciple of Justin Martyr. His diatessaron became so popular among the Syrians and none other than St. Aphrem wrote a commentary of the Gospel on the basis of the diatessaron text. Nevertheless, the Church later disapproved the diatesseron and reaffirmed the use of the separate gospels. Rabulla the bishop of Edessa intervened and had to burn all the available copies of diatessaron . Old Syriac Gospels The ancient Syriac Gospel text in the separate fourfold from is the famous old Syriac Gospels. This text was used in the Syriac Church before the origin of diatessaron as well as after the abolition of it.

8 See S.P. Brockes, Bible in Syriac Tradition

Hekamtho || Syrian Orthodox Theological Journal 67 volume Churches in different regions used any of the available Syriac Bible texts. It was only in the 4th century that all the NT books were A series of scholarly translations, revisions and updations of canonized and compilation of the texts done formally by the the Syriac version of the Bible were done by eminent scholars. church. Mor Polycarpos, the Corepiscopa under Mor Philexinose of The Syriac church also had the four distinctive gospels in the Mabbug, Paul of Tella etc. contributed at large for the different 2nd century. The first version of the Syriac Gospels is known as updations of the Syriac Bible. The Syriac Peshitta is a parallel the Old Syriac Gospels. Copies of this text are extant. The most development in the history of the Syriac Bible. It is a gradual famous gospel text in Syriac during the latter part of the 2nd development which in course of time formed the Peshitta text, century is the one compiled by the great scholar named Tatian the editors of this text is anonymous. and is believed to be the the Syrian. It is known as the Diatessaron8. work of many scholars over different centuries. The Syriac Diatessaron Liturgical Heritage Diatessaron is the harmonious blending of the four Gospel The Syrian church has a great treasury of liturgical text. The texts into one. Thus the four Gospels were rendered into one holy Eucharist service text are 79 in numbers, beginning from very prudently, but skillfully avoiding certain texts to suit the the Anaphora of St. James of Jerusalem believed to be the oldest bias of the compiler. Tatian was a Syrian by birth and was a and is the basic text of all other Anaphore. Yearly prayer book lover of knowledge interested in travelling. He gained mastery known as the Penkeesa include prayers of the seven hours of all in Syriac, Greek and Bible. He traveled up to Rome and was a major feasts and Sundays. There are Syriac prayers for the days disciple of Justin Martyr. His diatessaron became so popular of the week, known as the Shimo for the seven days of the week. among the Syrians and none other than St. Aphrem wrote a Bethgaso is the treasury of the Syriac music. All the poetic commentary of the Gospel on the basis of the diatessaron text. prayers in the Syriac tradition are in different modes, which Nevertheless, the Church later disapproved the diatesseron and again can be sung in eight tunes, known as Octoechos. All the reaffirmed the use of the separate gospels. Rabulla the bishop of eight tunes of all the poetic prayers are stored in specified texts Edessa intervened and had to burn all the available copies of handed over to generations by music teachers to their students. diatessaron . Syriac Patristics Old Syriac Gospels Syriac fathers contributed a lot to the Christian literature in The ancient Syriac Gospel text in the separate fourfold from parallel to the Greek patristic writings. Aphrahat, Aprem, Jacob is the famous old Syriac Gospels. This text was used in the of Edessa, Jacob of Serug, Michael Rabo, Bar Sleebi, Bar Syriac Church before the origin of diatessaron as well as after Ebroyo, etc are eminent literal figures whose outstanding works the abolition of it. that still survive as monuments in Christian literature. Patriarch Aphrem Barsaum and Mor Phelexinos Dolabani are the literary luminaries that kindled the light of knowledge and awakened the 8 See S.P. Brockes, Bible in Syriac Tradition Syriac heritage in the 20th century. 19th century orientalists like

68 Hekamtho || Syrian Orthodox Theological Journal

Hekamtho || Syrian Orthodox Theological Journal 69

Asemani, Edmund Beck, Payne Smith, William Wright attracted western scholarship into this stream of Christian scholastic heritage. Dr. Sebastian Brock of our times contributed with dedication in the field of Syriac research to lead and guide the rediscovery of Syriac heritage. Dr. George Kiraz and his Gorgias press are rendering valuable services in the development of Syriac Patrimony. Conclusion Syriac Scholarship in India is now a rejuvenating branch of academics. St. Ephrem Ecumenical Research Institute Under the leadership of Rev. Dr. Jacob Thekkeparambil is known as the light house of Syriac learning in India. There M.A. and Ph.D. courses are offered in Syriac. The Institute is affiliated to Mahatma Gandhi University, Kottayam. The contributions of Konat Mathan Corepiscopa and his family, and the contributions Christological and Pneumatological of Kurian Corepiscopa Kaniamparambil are worth to be Dimensions of Holy Eucharist elaborated. More detailed introduction to the field of scholarship in West Syrian Tradition in Syriac Heritage is to come. Fr. Biju M. Parekkattil Introduction The Syrian Orthodox Liturgy, especially the liturgy of St. James, is Trinitarian in character. The role of the Trinity in the economy of salvation is beautifully and profoundly presented throughout the service of the liturgy. The Liturgical Service of the Eucharist is brought to the Father by the Son, a sacrifice in which we take part, the bread and wine become Jesus’ body and blood through the Holy Spirit. The participation in the Holy Eucharist unifies man and community with Holy Trinity by grace and facilitates to experience the Kingdom of God here and now. Therefore the Christological and pneumatological 70 Hekamtho || Syrian Orthodox Theological Journal

dimensions of the Eucharist is very beautifully allocated in its Trinitarian context in the West Syrian Liturgical tradition. Pneumotological Dimension of the Liturgy Holy Spirit has the primary place in the life of the Church, though he operates within and outside the Church. Holy Spirit participates in the Creation, redemption, and sanctification of the human beings and cosmos (1 Cor. 6:11; Ps. 104:30). West Syrian Church Fathers always pointed out the presence and operation of the Holy Spirit as the essential condition for the consecration. But they had almost never identified a single moment of transformation with any particular element of the Anaphora. Epiclesis is the prayer addressed to God the Father the first person of the Trinity, to send the Holy Spirit in order to sanctify the Holy elements offered in the Eucharist, the offering priest and the faithful. In the West Syrian Liturgical tradition, Epiclesis and institution are mutually complementary. Bar Salibi writes: “(The priest) recites the words that our Lord said in the upper-room when he accomplished the mystery. By these (words), he indicates that he is the one who consecrates now as well as these elements which are placed on the altar, by the will of the Father and by the operation of the Spirit, through the priest who signs crosses and recites the words. It is not the one who ministers, but the one who is invoked on the mysteries, who consecrates. Again the bread receives the first sign (rushmo) of consecration through the signing (hatmo) of the crosses. It symbolizes the mystical consecration which was accomplished on that evening in the upper-room. Again the sign (hatmo) of the crosses symbolizes him who consecrates the offered gifts by the will of his Father and by the operation of the Spirit.”1 Therefore

1 B.Vargis, The Syriac Version of the Liturgy of St. James, P.30. Hekamtho || Syrian Orthodox Theological Journal 71 dimensions of the Eucharist is very beautifully allocated in its it highlights the importance of both the institution narrative and Trinitarian context in the West Syrian Liturgical tradition. the epiclesis. The invocation of Holy Spirit has a profound significance in the consecration of the liturgy in the Orthodox Pneumotological Dimension of the Liturgy tradition. “We cannot grasp what is meant by the Eucharistic Holy Spirit has the primary place in the life of the Church, eating of the flesh of Christ without keeping in mind the though he operates within and outside the Church. Holy Spirit working of the Holy Spirit”2 participates in the Creation, redemption, and sanctification of The Anamnesis in the Eucharist always comprises the gifts of the human beings and cosmos (1 Cor. 6:11; Ps. 104:30). West the Holy Spirit too. According J.M.R. Tillard, in oriental Syrian Church Fathers always pointed out the presence and tradition, pneumatological dimensions of the Eucharist always operation of the Holy Spirit as the essential condition for the includes the gifts of the Spirit.3 Epiclesis reminds us the fact that consecration. But they had almost never identified a single Pentecost is not merely a historical experience of the Church in moment of transformation with any particular element of the the first century, but an ongoing experience in the Church. Anaphora. Epiclesis is the prayer addressed to God the Father Therefore Epiclesis is a prayer for the renewal of the Pentecost the first person of the Trinity, to send the Holy Spirit in order to and to remain as a living experience.4 The invocation of Holy sanctify the Holy elements offered in the Eucharist, the offering Spirit both on the Eucharistic elements and on the participants is priest and the faithful. In the West Syrian Liturgical tradition, an acknowledgement of the work of Holy Spirit in the Church Epiclesis and institution are mutually complementary. Bar Salibi through the sacraments. To celebrate Holy Eucharist is not writes: “(The priest) recites the words that our Lord said in the possible without mediation of Holy Spirit, because it is the Holy upper-room when he accomplished the mystery. By these Ghost that mediates the effects of Christ in us. (words), he indicates that he is the one who consecrates now as well as these elements which are placed on the altar, by the will There are two types of epiclesis are found in West Syrian of the Father and by the operation of the Spirit, through the tradition namely, consecratory epiclesis and epiclesis of priest who signs crosses and recites the words. It is not the one sanctification. The Eucharistic epiclesis has three objectives who ministers, but the one who is invoked on the mysteries, who such as 1) the presence of Holy Spirit in Congregation and in consecrates. Again the bread receives the first sign (rushmo) of the oblation, 2) the transformation of the bread and wine into the consecration through the signing (hatmo) of the crosses. It body and blood of Christ, and 3) to cause the fruits of the symbolizes the mystical consecration which was accomplished communicant. The invocation and coming of the Spirit can be on that evening in the upper-room. Again the sign (hatmo) of the also regarded as an anticipation of the final Parousia of the Lord. crosses symbolizes him who consecrates the offered gifts by the will of his Father and by the operation of the Spirit.”1 Therefore 2 D.M. Stanley, The Bread of Life, Worship 32, P. 488 3 J.M.R.Tillard, L’ Eucharistie, P.387. 1 B.Vargis, The Syriac Version of the Liturgy of St. James, P.30. 4 J.J. Von Allmen, Lord’s Supper,P. 31 72 Hekamtho || Syrian Orthodox Theological Journal

Christological Dimension of the Liturgy The most important characteristic of the Liturgy is its Christological nature, as a part of the Trinitarian Theology. The liturgy makes us known both the plan of salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ and commemorates the redeeming action of God in Christ. All the events of Christ’s sacrifice, the incarnation, the last Supper, the Crucifixion, the Resurrection, and the Ascension are not repeated in the Eucharist, but they are made present. Therefore every Eucharistic celebration is the “Eucharista” or thanksgiving of the Church for the salvation achieved through Christ. Soteriological themes are well reflected in the Anaphora of the St.James and it is very close to the New Testament Faith and Preaching that Jesus is Lord and Saviour. At Eucharist, we recognise Christ, both as Priest and Victim. St. Severius of Antioch clearly reveals the Christological dimension of the Eucharist in his letter to Misael the deacon: “It is not the offerer himself who, as by his own power and virtue, changes the bread into Christ’s body, and the cup of blessing into Christ’s blood, but the God-befitting and efficacious power of the words which Christ who instituted the mystery commanded to be pronounced over the things that are offered. The priest who stands before the altar, since he fulfils a mere ministerial function, pronouncing his words as in the person of Christ, and carrying back the rite that is being performed to the time at which he began the sacrifice for his apostles, says over the bread, “This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me”: while over the cup again he pronounces the words, “this cup is the New Testament in my blood, which is shed for you” (Lk. 22:19-20). Accordingly it is Christ who still even now offers, and the power of his divine words perfects the things that are provided Hekamtho || Syrian Orthodox Theological Journal 73

Christological Dimension of the Liturgy so that they may become his body and blood”.5 In another letter, he teaches that in the person of the priest, Christ himself The most important characteristic of the Liturgy is its pronounces the sacramental words: “You should know that the Christological nature, as a part of the Trinitarian Theology. The priest who offers, represents the great God and our Saviour liturgy makes us known both the plan of salvation through our Jesus Christ; for he in fact celebrates the memory of the sacrifice Lord Jesus Christ and commemorates the redeeming action of which he himself instituted, and of that which he himself began God in Christ. All the events of Christ’s sacrifice, the in the mysterious supper”.6 Therefore in the Syrian Orthodox incarnation, the last Supper, the Crucifixion, the Resurrection, anaphora, all prayers are addressed to the Father, except the last and the Ascension are not repeated in the Eucharist, but they are one before dismissal. Mose Bar Kepha explains the theological made present. Therefore every Eucharistic celebration is the significance of this prayer as follows: “Wherefore….all the “Eucharista” or thanksgiving of the Church for the salvation prayers of the qurobo are addressed to the Father, except this achieved through Christ. Soteriological themes are well prayer, the last of all prayers, which is addressed to the Son, reflected in the Anaphora of the St.James and it is very close to wherein priest confesses to the Son, because that through him the New Testament Faith and Preaching that Jesus is Lord and we have gained access to the Father, and he is the way that leads Saviour. At Eucharist, we recognise Christ, both as Priest and us, and door that brings us into the Father according to his own Victim. St. Severius of Antioch clearly reveals the unimpeachable and all holy words”7. The role of Christ as the Christological dimension of the Eucharist in his letter to Misael offerer is clearly depicted in the anaphora, without discarding the deacon: “It is not the offerer himself who, as by his own Christ’s role as the offering. power and virtue, changes the bread into Christ’s body, and the cup of blessing into Christ’s blood, but the God-befitting and Eucharist is the response of redeemed Church to its redeemer. efficacious power of the words which Christ who instituted the Therefore in our Eucharistic liturgical celebration, we mystery commanded to be pronounced over the things that are acknowledge, it is in Christ that we are made worthy to receive offered. The priest who stands before the altar, since he fulfils a the benefits from God. It is both the commemoration of the mere ministerial function, pronouncing his words as in the paschal mystery of Christ and the thanks giving for whole person of Christ, and carrying back the rite that is being dispensation and redemption. We make memorial of the whole performed to the time at which he began the sacrifice for his economy of salvation and give thanks to God for them. It apostles, says over the bread, “This is my body which is given includes all the salvific events like the moment of His for you: this do in remembrance of me”: while over the cup incarnation, crucifixion, resurrection, ascension, glorification in again he pronounces the words, “this cup is the New Testament heaven and His continued offering of Himself to the Father. In in my blood, which is shed for you” (Lk. 22:19-20).

Accordingly it is Christ who still even now offers, and the 5 Severus, Select Letters, II-1, p 238. power of his divine words perfects the things that are provided 6 Severus, Letter 105, To Caesarea the Hypatissa, PO. XIV, 256. 7 B.Vargis, The Syriac Version of the Liturgy of St. James, P.52. 74 Hekamtho || Syrian Orthodox Theological Journal

post Sanctus prayer, in west Syrian tradition, the Christological economy of salvation is narrated from incarnation onwards and it makes possible to include all life Christ in the salvation history of the people of God. The redemption in Christ is commemorated in every Eucharistic prayer, as the redemption of the Israelites from Egypt in every Passover celebration8. Christological dimension of the liturgy is the central to the Eucharistic celebration, because its source and model is in the Last Supper of our Lord Jesus Christ. Conclusion Eucharistic celebration is the centre of the Christian life and the sublime expression of our faith. All the prayers and sacramental rituals together are meant to signify what God has done for our salvation. The Church is the body of Christ, committed to his mission of the kingdom of God. The epiclesis in the Eucharistic liturgy expresses pneumatological aspects of the liturgy. So in the Eucharist, we get strengthened in our mission knowing that Holy Spirit guides us in our prayers as well as in our life, and that our mission must continue until the Parousia, which we joyfully anticipate.

8 L. Bouyer, Life and Liturgy, 125.