Roger Pearse

The same here. Many thanks for raising this interesting topic!

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Roger Pearse

I don't know if Ben is still around, but I have a little more to add. Today I drove up to Oxford, and had a look at the Fell manuscripts 6 and 7.

These, if you recall our earlier discussion, contain a Latin translation by Dudley Loftus (made in the 17th century) of Dionysius Bar Salibi, Commentary on the gospels. In fact the Ms. also contains his (or Moses Bar Kepha's?) Commentary on the letters of St. Paul.

The Syriac Ms. that Loftus used is now lost. Neither the Syriac nor any translation of Dionysius' comments on John has ever been published at all, so this post is something of a world first, such as it is!

Fell 6 contains Matthew and Mark; Fell 7 contains Luke, John, and the letters. The handwriting isn't at all bad -- clearly Loftus intended that the printers should use it for his projected edition, and so made sure it was better than handwriting. Being no expert on 17th century handwriting, I still had some difficulty. Loftus had also used a few abbreviations, such as q+squiggle for 'que'.

Unfortunately the Bodleian made me wait almost 3 hours for the manuscripts, so I could only transcribe a small portion (John is contained in folios 105-193); this is from f.124, where his commentary on chapter 2 of John starts. From the top of the page (underlinings by Loftus):

Et die tertio factum est convivium. Expositio Mosis Bar Capha, -- non conformendo hunc diem cum die baptismi, ita dixit, sed cum isto die quo rediit e deserto, cum vicisset Diabolum; si enim cum die baptismi eum contulisset, composisetur esse quartus dies, non tertius, quia antea dixit die postero, id est, post diem interrogationis sacerdotum vidit Johannes Jesum bonientem, alioque die stabat, & duo ex discipulis eius, alio etiam die voluit Jesus exire in Galileam; non refert igitur hunc diem ad diem baptismi sed ad ipsum quo rediit e deserto.-- Sanctus Hypolitus Romanus) dies primus, ipso fuit, quo interrogarunt Pharisei Johannem, Quis es? et secundus dies, fuit ipse, quo baptisavit Dominum nostrum, statimque abiit in desertum, ibique mansit quadraginta dies et postea rediit, primus dies fuit, quando vidit eum ambulantem & secuti sunt eum duo discipuli, secundus quando abiit in Galileam, tertius quando factum est convivium. Gaius haereticus reprehendebat Johannem quia non concors fuit cum sociis dicontibus, quod post baptismum abiit in Galileam. et fecit miraculum vini in Kaina). Santus Hippolytus e contrario, s?? dicit (?), Christus postquam baptizatus fuerat abiit in desertum, et quando inquisitio facta erat de illo per discipulos Johannis et per populum, quarebant eum & non inveniebant, quia in deserto erat, cum vero finita fuisset temptatio & rediisset, venit in partos habitatas non ut baptizaretur, baptizatus enim iam fuerat, sed ut monstraretur a Johanne qui dixit intuens eum, Ecce agnus Dei! [etc]

A rough translation:

And on the third day the (wedding) feast happened. The exposition of Moses Bar Kepha, -- this day cannot be made to agree with the day of baptism 1, but with that day when he returned from the desert 2, when he had conquered the Devil; for if it be tied to the day of baptism, four days will be computed, because earlier he said 'the next day', i.e., after the day of the interrogation of the priests, John saw Jesus and his goodness, and on another day also two of his disciples, and on another day again Jesus wanted to leave Galilee; therefore this day does not relate to the day of baptism, but to that on which he returned from the desert. -- St. Hippolytus of Rome) the first day, so-called, when the Pharisees asked John, Who are you? and the supposed second day, when he baptised our Lord, and at once He went off into the desert, and remained there for 40 days, and afterwards returned, was the first day, because he saw him walking and two disciples were following him; the second when he went off into Galilee, the third when the (wedding) feast happened. Gaius the heretic used to criticise John because he was not in agreement with his fellow ??? (cum sociis dicontibus) because (he says that) after the baptism he went off into Galilee and performed the miracle of the wine in Cana). St. Hippolytus, on the contrary, [uncertain in ms. -- says to this?], Christ, after he had been baptised, went off into the desert, and when an inquiry was made concerning him by the disciples of John, and by the people, seeking and not finding him, because he was in the desert, when indeed the temptation had been finished and he had returned, he came into the habitable parts, not to be baptised, for he had already been baptised, but that he might be pointed out by John who said, looking at him, Behold the lamb of God! [etc]

1. Matt. 3:13.

2. Luke 4:14.

I'm fairly sure 'dicontibus' is the word, but what it means I cannot say.

The sense of all this is another mention of Gaius. It's basically the same as the text which Hill gives from that Syriac Ms; where 'dicontibus' is 'evangelists'. It does NOT say that Gaius rejected John's gospel; but that Gaius had a problem with at least one bit of it may legitimately be inferred.

So Loftus' lost Ms. said more or less the same as the Paris Ms. that Smith quoted.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Ben C Smith

Lurking....

Well, that was just way above the call of duty. Many, many thanks for the Latin and the translation.

Could it be a mistake for dicentibus, his fellow tellers or relaters [of the account]?

Thanks again.

Ben.

Roger Pearse

You're welcome. Actually I'm on holiday and wanted a day out, and decided to go to Oxford. Since I was going there, I thought I'd look at the Fell Mss. Mind you, they made me wait almost 3 hours for them! (but I did get an apology for the wait afterwards). To transcribe the bit I did took around an hour, so there was no question of doing much more. It doesn't look much, typed up -- it's about a sheet of A4.

The thought occurred to me this morning, and is the more likely since Loftus wrote his 'e' as an 'o' with a knot at the top, and I tripped over this several times while transcribing it.

Again, I place both text and translation into the public domain.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Roger Pearse

I now have a copy of Hermas in Arcadia, which includes the Syriac text of the opening of the commentary on the Gospels of Dionysius bar Salibi. Actually there is a fair bit of Syriac in the article (in the estrangelo font), so I'm not sure whether I can sensibly scan it. I'd have to look up each letter in the grammar, you see.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Roger Pearse

I have run it through the scanner and produced a PDF of the page images -- no OCR -- if anyone wants this.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Ben C Smith

[Politely raising hand in the back row.] Could you perhaps send it to me as an email attachment? You have my address.

Thanks (for about the twentieth time).

Ben.

Roger Pearse

I don't think I do! But I've placed it here -- it's around 850k. Let me know when you have it (you can use my feedback form to do so.

I've also been investigating the 'lost' manuscript of the Commentary on the Four Gospels used by Loftus. Hill said it was lost -- but Harris says it went to Trinity College Dublin. I've emailed them and they have such a manuscript (shelfmark 1512) in their collection.

I also emailed Hill about his stuff, but got no reply. But I think his account was merely too condensed, and we're most of the way there ourselves.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Ben C Smith

How did you get those emails on Petrus de Riga to me without my email address?

Got it. Many thanks.

It would be quite a coup if you got hold of that!

Ben.

Roger Pearse

Good thought. But I searched for 'Smith' in my mailbox and could find nothing. I should have searched for Petrus, of course.

Well, they were willing for me to look at it. But since I don't know any Syriac, it wouldn't be clever for me to go and do so. I've been buying Syriac grammars lately, but haven't yet had the chance to get into them much. If I could actually read the section on John, of course, it would be a different matter.

All the best,

Roger Pearse