Ben C Smith

You are welcome.

The two passages that I had in mind were the one from the commentary on John and the one from the commentary on Revelation.

You are right, however; that passage is quite confusing. I am having trouble tracking the different manuscripts. I can answer the following (indirect) query, however:

The dissertation date was 1979. The full name is Gaius and the Controversy over the Johannine Literature. Sorry, I should have included these details the first time round.

I may be misunderstanding the dense prose, but it looks to me like Rendel Harris is the one who discovered the existence of the Latin translation by Loftus in the Fell manuscripts.

The someone has to be Smith, I think, based on the first half of footnote 24. However, what I fail to understand is how the exemplar for Loftus can be both extant (I presume, since it is catalogued!) and lost at the same time. Could Hill mean that the particular exemplar used by Loftus is lost, but another Syriac text (Cod. Mus. Britt. Add. 7184) has the same marginal gloss? Or does he intend to say that Harris thought the Syriac exemplar was lost, but it was really in the British Museum? Or that it was later discovered and is now catalogued as Cod. Mus. Britt. Add. 7184? Or...?

I imagine many of these questions would be answered by the Smith dissertation.

Chuckle. German is not my strength either.

andrewcriddle

One possibility would be requesting the Cambridge University Library to get a (microform) copy.

In my (limited) experience they will but not rapidly.

Andrew Criddle

Roger Pearse

Thanks for the suggestion. I'm not a great fan of microfilms, tho.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

PS: Why are you reading this at 11pm at night? (I have my excuse ready... what's yours? )

S.C.Carlson

Ben beat me to it, quoting Hill for that missing introduction. I've got a reprint fo Sedlacek's Syriac edition and his Latin translation.

On the question of Hippolytus in general, my impression is that Hill is largely following Brent. I'm not sure since I haven't read Brent.

Stephen

Ben C Smith

Oops. I misunderstood what you were planning to quote.

Do you have a sense for what is going on with all those manuscripts in that passage, Stephen?

If I am understanding correctly, then, both passages have a modern Latin translation, the first made by Loftus in the seventeenth century, the other by Sedlacek in 1909, correct? Do you happen to have the Latin for the first as well (the commentary on John)?

And, just out of curiosity, (how well) do you know Syriac?

Ben.

Roger Pearse

That is my reading also, for what it is worth.

Loftus did publish an English translation of materials from the Commentary on the Gospels, and there is a copy in Cambridge University Library, since I saw it in the catalogue om Wednesday but was too rushed to look at it:

A clear and learned explication of the history of our blessed Saviour Jesus Christ: taken out of above thirty Greek, Syriack, and other oriental authors: by Dionysius Syrus, ... and faithfully translated by D. Loftus. / [by] DIONYSIUS BAR SALIBI, Bishop of Amadia ; Loftus, Dudley ; JESUS CHRIST, 753.c.62. . 1695

I think a modern edition of the Commentary on John must exist, in the CSCO series:

Dionysii bar Salibi Commentarii in Evangelia : Ediderunt I. Sedlacek, I.-B. Chabot et A. Vaschalde
Series: Corpus scriptorum christianorum orientalium. Scriptores syri ; t. 33, 40, 47, 49
Corpus scriptorum christianorum orientalium ; v.77, 85, 95, 98
Publisher: Louvain : Secrétariat du CorpusSCO, 1953

If you have either, any chance of posting it here? Even if just a scan of a page image?

T.H.Robinson's article is out of copyright, so should appear online with the others, since it contains English translations of some fragments of Dionysius Syrus. I'll get hold of it, given time, but I can't go up again to Cambridge just yet.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

andrewcriddle

I came back to supplement something I'd said in another thread and happened to notice your post.

(At least that's my story an I'm sticking to it.)

Andrew Criddle

Roger Pearse

Mine is that I was running a text through my scanner, 25 sheets in the sheetfeeder at a time, which had to be replenished every so often, and didn't want to stop halfway. So I looked in here while I did it. (Nothing of interest to this forum -- English translation of a 10th century Arabic History of the Patriarchs of the Coptic Church of Alexandria).

All the best,

Roger Pearse

S.C.Carlson

That's OK.

The passage is at the very beginning, which is the part of the manuscript most likely to perish in the ravages of time. It took a while to find one whose beginning was intact.

I don't have a copy of the commentary on John. Here's Sedlacek's Latin translation of the introduction to the Apocalypse:

Stephen

Ben C Smith

¡MuchiÌ?simas gracias!

Just for clarification, that phrase eqlisiastiqi seu Historiarum ecciesiasticarum in the first paragraph... are those typos (the q's in the first word, the i for l in the last), or would they be a sic?

Many thanks.

Ben.