The history of the origin of translations of the works of St. Isaac the Syrian and their distribution in the Lavra of St. Savva

This article is devoted to the role of the monastery of St. Savva 1 in the dissemination of the “Ascetic Words” of Isaac the Syrian. In addition, I intend to share with you some observations made from a comparative study of the Syriac, Greek, Arabic and Georgian versions of these words. These data come from an analysis of the oldest manuscripts of St. Isaac, distributed in the Holy Lavra. Before moving on to this analysis, I would like to note that the subject of my attention was mainly the Georgian translation and its relationship to other versions of the Words of Isaac the Syrian. In this regard, I would like to remind you that there are several translations of St. Isaac in Georgian. – The first of them, the so-called old translation, contains excerpts from the Words of the 1st collection (1st volume) of Isaac the Syrian. Text contained in Sinai geo. 35 (906), manuscript originating from the monastery of St. Savva. – Two more Words of Isaac (namely the Words corresponding in the publication of Bejan 2 to the 8th and 77th treatises) are attributed to Ephraim the Syrian in a group of manuscripts containing the same collection of texts that was published under the general title “Teaching of the Fathers” 3 . The 38th word of Isaac the Syrian is also included in this collection 4. The oldest manuscript of this group is Sinai geo. 36 (925), also comes from the monastery of St. Savva 5. – The latest Georgian translation of the works of Isaac the Syrian was carried out from the Greek text and was carried out by Euthymius of Athos (955–1028) at the end of the 10th century. on Mount Athos. This Georgian translation corresponds to the one widely used in the Χ–ΧΙΙΙ centuries. the type of Greek manuscripts containing the text recensio brevior, according to M. Pirara 6. Accordingly, Euthymius's translation includes the complete texts of the 32 Words of the 1st collection 7 . As can be seen from this brief excursion into the Georgian manuscript tradition associated with the name of Isaac the Syrian, the oldest Georgian translation is contained in the Sinai geo manuscript. 35, made in the monastery of St. Savva. It should be noted the special role of the monastery of St. Savva in the translation and dissemination of the works of St. Isaac. The first three translations of the “Ascetic Words” appeared there in Greek, Arabic and Georgian. They were carried out in relatively close periods of time: - Greek translation was made at the end of the 8th century. The oldest manuscript containing this translation is Parisinus Suppl. gr. 693 – comes from the monastery of St. Savva; - the oldest manuscript containing an Arabic translation of the works of Isaac the Syrian, - Strasbourg arab. 151 (Strasbourg 4226) – was copied in 885–886. in the monastery of St. Savva. In it, the “Ascetic Words” are presented as a selection of quotations from the Words of the 1st collection; – as already mentioned, the oldest manuscript containing the Georgian translation of the Words of Isaac the Syrian (Sinai geo. 35, 906), also comes from the monastery of St. Savva. The text presented therein, as in the case of the Strasbourg 4226 manuscript, is a compilation of selected passages from various Words of the 1st collection of Isaac the Syrian. West Syrian edition and its relationship with Georgian and Arabic translations Before moving on to a review of the translations of Isaac the Syrian, which were circulated in the Lavra of St. Savva, it should be remembered how the Syrian version of the works of Isaac was presented in the same monastery. As you know, this version exists in two editions: the first is an eastern, earlier one, with a text closer to the author’s; the second is Western, descending from the first and represented in two branches: Syriac-Orthodox and Syriac-Melkite. In total, the Western edition has undergone a significantly greater number of changes in the text compared to the Eastern edition 8 . Thanks to the research of S. Broca, P. Jein, G. Kessel and other scientists, at least one manuscript of the Syriac-Melkite branch has now been identified, which comes from the monastery of St. Savva, – Sinai syr. 24 9 (dated to the 8th–10th centuries according to paleographic criteria). The Paris fragment of this manuscript contains a record that the manuscript was copied in the Lavra of St. Savva 10. Additional arguments in favor of the Melkite origin of this manuscript were given by G. M. Kessel 11 . From the above, in particular, it follows that at the time of the appearance of all the translations listed above, the manuscripts of the Western edition of the Syriac version of the works of St. Isaac was still converted at the monastery of St. Savva. The dependence of the Greek translation on the West Syriac edition of the Words (to which this manuscript belongs) is clearly proven in the critical edition of the Greek translation made by M. Pirard, who systematically noted in the critical apparatus of his publication the discrepancies between the readings of the Eastern and Western editions, showing at the same time the closeness of the Greek translation with the Western edition. What can be said about Georgian and Arabic translations in this regard? A systematic comparison of the Georgian version presented in the Sinai geo manuscript. 35, with the East Syriac and West Syriac editions of the text showed that in all cases where the East and West Syriac editions differ in their readings, the Georgian translation, without exception, supports the readings proposed by the Western edition of the text 12. A comparison of the same type has shown us that the Arabic translation of the works of Isaac the Syrian, presented in the Strasbourg manuscript, follows the readings of the West Syrian edition in all cases where the West and East Syrian versions diverge. To bring methodological clarity to this comparison, we note that we addressed the readings of the East Syrian edition using the publication of P. Bejan. This edition is not critical, it is based on the Mardin 46 manuscript (currently Paris, BnF syr. 359, XIII century), but Bejan also took into account some other manuscripts. Work with the West Syriac version of the text was carried out according to the most important manuscripts that represent this version, namely BnF syr. 378, Vat. syr. 124 (XIV century), Vat. syr 125 (X century), Vat. syr. 562 (1487). As noted above, the reference apparatus of the critical edition of the Greek version of the works of Isaac the Syrian contains systematic information regarding the discrepancies between the West Syrian and East Syrian versions. It does not take many examples to demonstrate the dependence of the Arabic and Georgian translations on the West Syrian edition; I will give only one typical example. The reading ͥ͠͠͡ (l-ʕālmā) in the East Syriac recension becomes ͓ͩͫ͐͡͡ (gušmā) in the Western version of the text. The variant ͓ͩͫ͐͡͡ (gušmā) is supported by all three translations, giving respectively σῶμα, कॐपदर मार्ट्ट् (Mar Isaacus Ninivita. De perfectione religiosa. P. 41, 1.17–18); कॐયা ททททททททททททททททท byทททททททททท byททททททท (Soc (Vat. syr. 124, f. 27v; Vat. syr. 562, f.13r)); ...οὗτος τυφλὸς τέλειός ἐστιν, διότι τὸ μὲν σῶμα ἑκουσίως καὶ μάχεται (Pirard M. Ἀββᾶ Ἰσαὰκ Σύρου... P. 261, 1. 33–35); (Strasb. Ar. 4226 f. 87v); ესე ბრმაჲ არს სრჳლი: ამისთჳს, რამეთუ მას ყოველი გუამი მისი ნებითა თჳსითა დაუტევებიეს, და ერჩის ერთ და ასოთა მისთაგანსა ზედა (8, 5–7) 13 . Thus, all three translations depend on the West Syrian edition of the text, which is quite natural, since, as noted above, it was this edition that was distributed in the monastery of St. Sava, material evidence of which is the manuscript of Sinai syr. 24. One more characteristic feature of the Greek version of the works of Isaac the Syrian should be noted: it erroneously included four homilies of John of Daljat. S. Brock suggested that the text of these homilies was not added by the translators (Abrahamius and Patrickius, inhabitants of the monastery of St. Sava) to the corpus of the works of Isaac the Syrian, but was already part of the West Syrian version at the time of the creation of the Greek translation 14. Now this hypothesis can be confirmed by new arguments based on the analysis of Georgian and Arabic translations. In fact, both translations include excerpts from the homilies of John of Daljat. Thus, in the manuscript Sinai geo. 35 shows his first homily in its entirety, inscribed with the name of Isaac 15. This text also exists in a Greek translation, also under the name of Isaac: we are talking about the 43rd Word in the Theotokis edition 16 and the 1st appendix in the Pirara edition 17. Its Syriac text was published by Hayat. In the Strasbourg manuscript we find excerpts from the same first homily of John of Daljat (f. 99r–99v) 18 . Based on the fact that the erroneous attribution of the homilies of John of Daliyat (namely his first homily) to Isaac the Syrian occurs in all three translations - Greek, Arabic and Georgian - there is every reason to believe that this attribution already existed at the level of the Western Syrian version of the works of Isaac the Syrian and was already inherited from this version by the named translations. Of course, the history of research has not gone unnoticed by the fact that several West Syriac manuscripts - it should be noted that they contain a text very close to the one from which the Greek translation was supposed to be made - give rise to and to some extent prepare the ground for the emergence of this false attribution 19. So, according to my observations, Sinai syr. The 24 homilies of John of Daljat are included in the work of Isaac the Syrian (f. 129–134) due to the fact that the 36th notebook was inserted between the 24th and 25th notebooks. This rearranged notebook contains the homilies of John of Daljat, corresponding to numbers 20 (f. 129v–130r·), 21 (130r–131v) and 22 (131v–134v) according to Asemani’s description 20 . The first and last of these homilies are precisely the same texts that appear (along with two others) in the Greek translation under the false attribution to Isaac the Syrian 21 . Researchers also noted that in the Syro-Melkite manuscript Vat. syr. 125 (10th century) the homilies of John of Daljat follow directly the works of Isaac the Syrian, while the authorship of John is not noted in any way in the main text; it is indicated only by a gloss in the margins, introduced at a later time 22. So, to summarize, it should be noted that all translations of the works of Isaac the Syrian, dating back to the monastery of St. Sava and those dependent on the West Syriac version of the text inherited from this version the falsely attributed text of John of Daliyat. In all three translations, the first homily of John of Daliyat is found, presented as the work of Isaac the Syrian (in the Greek and Georgian translations it appears in full, and in Arabic - fragmentarily). Correlation of Sinai geo manuscripts. 35, Strasbourg arab. 151 and Sinai syr. 24 Sinai geo. 35 is a codex containing various texts of an ascetic nature. Based on the colophon, it dates back to 906. In the second half of the 10th century. the manuscript left the monastery of St. Sava and ended up in Sinai. The Georgian translation of the “Ascetic Words” is a compilation of passages coming from different Words, mostly without any markings to identify the beginning or end of a particular Word 23 . . This compilation included passages containing practical advice regarding the ascetic lifestyle; theoretical considerations concerning mystical experience and contemplation, on the contrary, were excluded. The translation preserves the order of the works of Isaac the Syrian, even if not all the Words are represented there. For example, in the Georgian version the 7th Word is placed after the 6th, and in the Greek translation 24 the 7th Word is placed after the 12th, while in the Arabic version (according to the Strasbourg manuscript) it is completely absent. In the Arabic version, Words 16 and 17 do not follow each other (unlike all other versions), but are separated by several treatises. It is important to note that the 23rd and 24th Words presented in the Georgian translation are contained in the Syro-Western tradition, but were not translated into Greek. It must be assumed that the Greek translators used a Syriac manuscript in which these words were absent. The 23rd and 24th Words are also presented in the Arabic translation of the Strasbourg manuscript. Based on paleographic criteria, this manuscript is dated to the 8th–10th centuries. It is older than the Sinai geo manuscript. 35, so theoretically nothing prevents it from being a model for the Georgian manuscript. This hypothesis could also be confirmed by the fact that Sinai syr. 24 contains numbers of notebooks in Georgian and Syriac (S. Brock was the first to draw attention to this fact 25). I carefully studied this numbering, as well as other cases of bilingual numbering of notebooks in the Sinaitic manuscripts, and found that such numbering often occurs in those manuscripts that were used for translation into Georgian 26 . Thus, the question naturally arises whether Sinai syr. 24 be considered the manuscript from which the translation contained in the Sinai geo was made. 35. This question must be answered in the negative, since the comparison Sinai syr. 24 and Sinai geo. 35 made it possible to identify discrepancies that, in my opinion, do not allow us to assume a direct relationship between these manuscripts 27. (It should also be recalled that Sinai syr. 24 is not considered the original for the Greek translation.) Strasbourg arab. 151 (Strasbourg 4226) Manuscript Strasbourg arab. 151 (Strasbourg 4226), as noted above, was copied in the monastery of St. Savva by the monk Anthony-David in 885–886. 28. In an article dedicated to this copyist, S. Griffith notes that, in all likelihood, the translations (from Greek into Arabic) of the treatises included in the two manuscripts he copied cannot be attributed to Anthony-David. These translations were made earlier in the same monastery of St. Savva 29. The Strasbourg manuscript is well known to researchers of the Georgian version of the works of Ephraim the Syrian, since in addition to the Words of Isaac, it also contains an Arabic translation of the homilies of Ephraim the Syrian, parallel versions of which also exist in Georgian 30 . From an analysis of these homilies, Uttier suggested that the Strasbourg manuscript was the model for the Georgian translation presented in a group of manuscripts published under the title "Teaching of the Fathers". In other words, the Strasbourg 4226 manuscript was used by Georgian translators. This fact leads to the logical question whether the Words of Isaac the Syrian in Sinai geo. 35 translation from the Strasbourg manuscript? There are several good reasons for a positive answer to this question: – both manuscripts – Sinai geo. 35, and Strasbourg arab. 151 (Strasbourg 4226) - come from the same Lavra of St. Savva; – the Strasbourg manuscript is slightly older than the Georgian; – the text of Isaac the Syrian in both manuscripts is a compilation of excerpts from his Words. List of fragments contained in Sinai geo. 35, was cited above in the review of this manuscript; for Strasbourg arab. 151 the list of fragments is as follows (the numbers of Words are given according to Bejan's edition): 1 (f. 81v–83r·), 2 (f. 83r–84v), 3 (f. 84v–87r·), 4 (f. 87r–90v), 5 (f. 90v–92v), 6 (f. 92v–96), 16 (f. 96v), 23 (f. 96v), 24 (f. 96v), 53 (f. 97r–98r), 17 (f. 98r–99r), first homily of John of Daljat (f. 99r–99ν), unidentifiable fragment (f. 99v–101r·), 50 (f. 101r–101v), 74 (f. 102v), 35 (f. 103r–104v), 8 (f. 104v–106v), 11 (f. 106v–107v), 12 (f. 107v–109r), 35 (f. 109r–121v), 53 (f. 121v–123r), 50 (f. 123r–124v), 15 (f. 124v–125r), 13 (f. 125r–125v), 22 (f. 125v–127r), 41 (f. 127r–129v), 63 (f. 129v–135r), 61 (f. 135r–136v), 60 (f. 136v–137v), 77 (f. 137v–139v), 36 (f. 139v–142r), 47 (f. 42r–143v), 48 (f. 143v–144v), 37 (f. 144v); - the Strasbourg manuscript was familiar to Georgian translators, at least in that part that contains the homilies of Ephraim the Syrian. Nevertheless, a comparison of the Strasbourg manuscript with the Georgian one shows that these compilations are not identical, the lists of Words presented in them do not coincide in all respects. Thus, in the Georgian translation there are Words 7, 10, 14 and 38, which are not in Arabic. In those cases where the same Words of Isaac the Syrian are presented in both manuscripts, the fragments often do not match because the translators selected different excerpts from the same Words in the original Syriac. In addition, in the Georgian translation the order of the Words is observed, but in the Arabic translation this is not always the case, for example, the 11th and 12th Words are placed after the 50th and 74th; The 35th Word is broken up and inserted before the 22nd, etc. Thus the Georgian text of the works of Isaac the Syrian as presented in Sinai geo. 35, cannot be considered a translation from the Arabic text contained in Strasbourg arab. 151. Based on all that has been said, it can be argued that the original for the Greek, Georgian and Arabic translators was not the same Syriac manuscript. But the problem of the dependence of manuscripts on each other is not the same as the problem of the relationship/dependence between versions. In particular, the fact that Sinai geo. 35 is not a translation of Strasbourg arab. 151 does not mean that the Georgian translation does not come from the Arabic version (for example, theoretically it could be made from another Arabic manuscript that would contain the full text of the Arabic translation of the Words). So what is the relationship between the versions? The origin of the Greek version from the Syriac is already known. A comparison between the Georgian and Greek, Syriac and Arabic versions allows us to draw the following conclusions. Georgian version, presented in the Sinai geo manuscript. 35, cannot be considered a translation from the Greek text: wherever there are discrepancies between the Syriac and Greek versions, the Georgian translation supports the readings of the Syriac version. No exceptions to this rule were noted. The Georgian version contains the 23rd and 24th Words, which are not in the Greek translation. Linguistic analysis of the Georgian translation shows that the latter is strongly influenced by Semitic syntax. The translation contains a large number of morphosyntactic Semitisms, the appearance of which is associated with the calque of Syriac phrases 31 . Terminological analysis also indicates a connection between the Georgian translation and the Syriac, and not the Greek, version 32. A comparison of the Arabic translation presented in the Strasbourg manuscript with the Greek and West Syriac versions of the works of Isaac the Syrian showed that this translation was made from the Syriac text and, in the presence of discrepancies between the Greek and West Syriac versions, follows the latter. Let us illustrate this with one expressive example: და აღმოჰჴდა მზჱ და შემომადგა პირსა და (37, 10–11) The Georgian translation contains the word "clothes" (სამოსელი). This word is not found in the Greek text, but appears in both the Syriac and Arabic versions 33: ὅτε ἀνέτειλεν ὁ ἥλιος εἰς τὸ πρόσωπόν μου καὶ ἐθερμάνθη τὸ σῶμα μου, οὐκ ᾐσθήθην ποῦ ἤμεν (Pirard M. Ἀββᾶ Ἰσαὰκ Σύρου... P. 632, l. (259–260); ͐̈͢͡͝ ͥ͠ ͓ͫ͘͡͡͝ (Mar Isaacus Ninivita. De perfectione religiosa. P. 389, l. 19); (Strasb. Ar. 4226, f. 97v). Summarizing all that has been said, we can formulate several conclusions regarding all versions of the works of Isaac the Syrian that were widespread in the monastery of St. Savvy: – all three translations depend on the Syriac Western edition. But they obviously did not use the same Syriac manuscript as a model; – Sinai geo manuscript. 35 is not directly dependent on either Sinai syr. 24, neither from Strasbourg arab. 151; - The Arabic translation of the Strasbourg manuscript was made from the Syriac language. – the Georgian translation does not come from the Greek version, it is made from a Semitic language, apparently from Syriac 34. Studies of the Syriac manuscript tradition have shown that the surviving manuscripts of Melkite origin are generally older than the Syriac-Orthodox manuscripts. In addition, according to Mr. Kessel’s remark, the absence of the name Evagrius of Pontus in the West Syrian edition should indicate that it was preceded by a Melkite edition 35 . It seems very likely that the transition from the Melkite version to the West Syrian one took place in the monastery of St. Sava, one of the most important monastic centers in the Middle East, the place of origin of the oldest manuscripts of the Melkite edition of the Words of Isaac the Syrian and all the ancient translations of his works. We hope that future studies will shed light on this issue. Monastery of St. Sabbas, or Mar Saba, located in the vicinity of Jerusalem, was founded in the 5th century. See about the monastery: The Sabaite heritage in the Orthodox Church from the fifth century to the present / Ed. J. Patrich. Leuven 2001. (Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta, 98); Ehrhard A. Das griechische Kloster Mar-Saba in Palestina, seine Geschichte und seine litterarischen Denkmäler // Römische Quartalschrift. 1893. N 7. P. 32–79; Vailhé S. Les ecrivains de Mar Saba // Échos de l’Orient. 1898. N 2. P. 1–11; Meinardus F. A. Historical Notes on the Lavra of Mar Saba // Eastern Churches Review. 1968–1969 N 2. P. 392–401; Hirshfeld Y. The Judean Desert Monasteries in the Byzantine Period: An Archaeological Investigation. Jerusalem, 1987; Blake R. La littérature grecque en Palestine au VIII siècle // Le Museon. 1965. N 78. P. 367–380. Mar Isaacus Ninivita. De perfectione religiosa / Ed. P. Badjan. P., 1909. აბულაძე ი. X და XI მიხედვით [Abuladze I. “Teachings of the Fathers” according to manuscripts of the 10th and 11th centuries. Tbilisi, 1955]. This publication is based on the following manuscripts: Tbil. S–1139 (930–940), Tbil. N–1662 (1040), Tbil. A-1142, which is a copy of Ath. 9 (977). The Sinai geo manuscript also belongs to this group. 36 (925), which was not available to Abuladze during his work on the publication of “Teachings of the Fathers”. But in the manuscript Sinai geo. 36 this homily is still missing. See Pataridze T. Discours Ascétiques d’Isaac de Ninive: Etude de la tradition géorgienne et de ses rapports avec les autres versions // Le Muséon. 2011. N 124. P. 27–58. See Pirard M. Ἀββᾶ Ἰσαὰκ Σύρου, Λόγοι ἀσκητικοί. Κριτικὴ ἔκδοση. Ἱερὰ Μονὴ Ἰβήρων, 2012. Ρ. 187. These are the following Words: 4, 5, 6, 35, 15, 36, 8, 10, 11, 13, 14, 12, 7, John of Daljat (2 according to Theotokis edition), 16, 17, 30, 32, [1, 63, 5, 2, John of Daljat 1], 33, 34, 37, 38, 39, 40, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 50, 57. Word numbers are given according to the Bejan edition. For these two editions, see mainly: G. Kessel, Manuscript Tradition of the First Volume of the Syriac Corpus of Isaac of Nineveh. Preliminary observations (in press; will be published in the collection Muravyov A., Julien F., Kavvadas N., Kessel G., Pataridze T., Pirar M. Map Isaac of Nineveh (Isaac the Syrian): The Book of the Ascension of the Monk. [Vol. I, treatises 1–6]. M., 2014; Chialà S. L’opera di Isaaco di Ninive nella tradizione manoscritta siriaca: PhD Thesis. Louvain, 2007; [Miller D.] The Ascetical Homilies of Isaac the Syrian. Boston, 1984; Pirard M. Ἀββά Ἰσαὰκ Σύρου… This manuscript is divided into three parts: BnF syr. 378 (fol. 61–68), Milan, Ambr. A–296 (fol. 122–129) and Sinai syr 24. See Briquel-Chatonnet F. Manuscrits syriaques de la Bibliothèque nationale de France (nos356–535, entrés depuis 1911). P., 1997. P. 76–77; Nau F. Analyze du manuscrit syriaque de Paris No. 378” // Revue de l’Orient Chretien. 1929–1930. N 7/27. P. 411–415; Géhin P. Manuscrits Sinaïtiques disperses I: Les fragments syriaques et arabes de Paris // Oriens Christianus. 2006. N 90. P. 23–43; Chabot J. B. Inventaire des fragments de mss. Syriaques // Le Muséon. 1936. N 49. P. 44; Smith Lawis A. Catalog of the Syriac Manuscripts in the Convent of the S. Catharine. L., 1894. P. 41; Kamil M. Catalog of All Manuscripts in the Monastery of St. Catharine. Wiesbaden, 1970. P. 15. See Brock S. Syriac on Sinai: the Main Connexions // ΕΥΚΟΣΜΙΑ, Studi miscellanei per il 75 di Vincenzo Poggi. Rubbettino, 2003. P. 111. See Kessel G. Sinai Syr 24 as an Important Witness to the Reception History of Some Syriac Ascetic Textes // Sur les pas des Araméens сhrétiens, Mélanges offerts à A. Desreumeux / Ed. F. Briquel-Chatonnet, M. Debié. P., 2010. P. 195–207. See Pataridze T. Une version géorgienne des Discours Ascétiques d’Isaac de Ninive (VIIes.) et son substrat sémitique: Introduction, édition et étude philologique: PhD Thesis. Louvain, 2012, pp. 113–134. Pataridze T. Une version géorgienne... P. 121. See Brock S. Syriac into Greek at Mar Saba: The translation of St. Isaac the Syrian // The Sabaite heritage in the Orthodox Church from the fifth century to the present / Ed. J. Patrich. Leuven 2001. P. 206. See Pataridze T. Une version géorgienne... P. 55–56, for the text edition see Ibid. Vol. 2. P. 37–45. See also: Idem. Discours Ascétiques... P. 30–31. For a critical edition of the Syriac text of the first homily of John of Dalyatha, see Jean de Dalyatha, les homélies I–XV / Ed. N. Khayyat. Antelias 2007, pp. 98–113. Theotokes N. Τοῦ ὁσίου πατρὸς ήμῶν Ἰσαάκ, ἐπισκόπου Νινευὶ τοῦ Σύρου τὰ εὑρεθέντα Ἀσκητικά, ἀξιώσει μὲν τοῦ μακαριωτάτου θειοτάτου ????? Παλαιστίνης κυρίου Ἐφραίμ. Lpz., 1770. Pirard M. Ἀββᾶ Ἰσαὰκ Σύρου... Ρ. 802–812. Pataridze T. Une version géorgienne... P. 63; Idem. Discours Ascétiques... P. 29. See Brock S. Syriac into Greek... P. 206; Chialà S. L'opera di Isacco di Ninive... See Assemani G. S. Bibliotheca Orientalis. Rome, 1719. Vol. 1. P. 435–441. This is Word 20 (according to Bejan) = 2 (according to Theotokis) = Appendix 2 (according to Pirard, see: Pirard M. Ἀββά Ἰσαὰκ Σύρου... P. 813–817); Word 22 (according to Bejan) = 80 (according to Theotokis) = Appendix 3 (according to Pirard, see: Ibid. R. 818–819). As was said, a total of four homilies in the Greek translation of Isaac the Syrian belong to the authorship of John of Daliyat (20, 8, 1, 22 according to Assemani’s description). These are Words 2, 7, 43, 80 according to the Theotokis edition. In Pirard's critical edition these texts are published as 4 appendices to the main text. See also: Brock S. From Qatar to Tokyo, by way of Mar Saba: the translations of Isaac of Beth Qatraye // ARAM. 1999–2000. N 11–12. P. 477; Idem. Syriac into Greek... P. 205. See: Brock S. Syriac into Greek… P.206. These are the following Homilies (numbers according to Bejan's edition): 1 (f. 126v–r), 2 (f. 126r–127v), 3 (f. 127v–128v), 4 (f. 128v–130r), 5 (f. I30r–133v), 6 (f. 133v–135v), 7 (f. 135v–136v), 10 (f. 136v), 14 (f. 136r), 16 (f. 136r), 17 (f. 136r–138v), 23 (f. 138v–138r), 24 (f. 138r), 53 (f. 138r–139r), first homily John of Daljat (f. 139r–I43v), 74 (f. 143 v–r) and 38 (f. 143r–144r). See Pirard M. Ἀββά Ἰσαὰκ Σύρου... P. 881–883. See Brock S. Syriac on Sinai... P. 107. See Pataridze T. Les signatures des cahiers unilingues et bilingues dans les manuscrits sinaïtiques (géorgiens, arabes et syriaques) // Manuscripta Orientalia. 2012. Vol. 18 (1). P. 15–35. See Pataridze T. Une version géorgienne... P. 69–70. On the colophon, see I. Krachkovsky. New Testament apocrypha in the Arabic manuscript of 885–886 // Byzantine timebook. 1907. No. 14. P. 246–275; Garitte G. Homélie d’Éphrem “sur la mort et le diable”, version géorgienne et version arabe // Le Muséon. 1969. N 82. P. 125–129. For the composition of the manuscript, see Esbroeck M. van. Un feuillet oublié du codex arabe Or. 4226 à Strasbourg // Analecta Bollandiana. 1978. Vol. 96. P. 383–384; Oestrup J. Über zwei arabische Codices sinaitici der Strassburger Universitats – und Landesbibliothek // Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft. 1897. N 51. P. 543–471; Heffening W. Die griechische Ephraem-Paraenesis gegen das Lachen in arabischer Übersetzung // Oriens Christianus. 1927. N 23. P. 94–119. Griffith S. H. Anthony David of Baghdad, Scribe and Monk of Mar Saba: Arabic in the Monasteries of Palestine // Arabic Christianity in the Monasteries of Ninth-Century Palestine. 1992. P. 13. Sauget J. M. Le dossier éphrémien du manuscrit arabe Strasbourg 4226 et de ses membra disiecta // Orientalia Christiana Periodica. 1976. N 42. P. 426–458; Samir Kh. L’Ephrem arabe, état des travaux // Orientalia Christiana Analecta 205: Symposium Syriacum 1976. Roma, 1978. P. 229–240; Idem. Les plus anciens homéliaires géorgiens et les versions patristiques arabes // Orientalia Christiana Periodica. 1976. N 42. P. 217–231; Pataridze T. Une version géorgienne... P. 59–61. For example, the frequent use of personal pronouns with the verb, although the morphology of the Georgian verb leaves no need for this (these pronouns correspond to the Syriac enclitics with the predicative participle); the frequent use of sentences beginning with a relative pronoun, uncharacteristic of the Georgian text; rare use of adjectives, instead of which genitive constructions are usually used; rare use of the infinitive to express indirect modality, etc. (see Pataridze T. Une version géorgienne... P. 134–153). See Pataridze T. Une version géorgienne. P. 149. See Pataridze T. Une version géorgienne. P. 204–236. See Kessel G. Sinai Syr 24 as an Important Witness... P. 214.