Orthodox Syriac manuscript of the 1st volume of St. Isaac the Syrian, sinai syr. 24 (19th treatise)

Abstract. The publication presents the Syriac text of the 19th treatise of the Sin manuscript. syr. 24. The preface talks about the presence of treatises from the Sinai manuscript that were not included in the Greek translation. The textual features of the published treatise are indicated, which support other manuscripts, both West Syriac and East Syriac editions, which allows us to speak about a certain dependence of the two indicated editions on the Sinai list. The appendix offers an exegetical and comparative analysis of the 19th treatise of the East Syrian edition. The textual and exegetical analysis carried out shows that this treatise, which is not found in all manuscripts of the East Syrian tradition, has reached us in a corrupted form and can be classified as a dubious text attributed to St. Isaac the Syrian. In the Sinai manuscript 1 there are six treatises that were not translated into Greek and, accordingly, were not included in the so-called 1st volume of St. Isaac the Syrian. According to the sequential arrangement in the Sinai manuscript, these treatises are numbered as follows: 19, 21, 22, 24, 27, 29 2. In 2019, the translation of these treatises was carried out by M.G. Kalinin, and as an appendix they were included in the book of St. Isaac the Syrian “Words of Asceticism” 3. The preface to this edition 4 states that of the 14 translated treatises, five are present in Orthodox (Melkite) manuscripts 5 . Unfortunately, the translation was done by M.G. Kalinin from the later uncritically published Nestorian manuscript Mardin 46 (XIII century). The chronological interval between this manuscript and the Sinai list is five centuries. For this reason, we believe, it is impossible to assume with sufficient confidence that the Mardin list objectively conveys the original text of the original manuscript tradition 6 . The textual features of the 19th treatise lie, in particular, in the fact that in the Sinai manuscript the 19th treatise is presented as one and is not divided into two separate ones, in contrast to the Syriac text published by P. Bejan 7 . The treatise is found in the same form in another Melkite manuscript, Vat. syr. 125, and also in the Monophysite Vat. syr. 562 and Nestorian Berolin. or. quart. 1159. In the Sinai manuscript, when comparing the text with other manuscripts, a lacuna is discovered, which, apparently, is associated with a copyist’s mistake. The same lacuna is reflected in the three manuscripts listed above, which may indicate a certain dependence on the Sinai list. 19th treatise of St. Isaac the Syrian in the Melkite edition in the Sinai list Edition of the Syriac text, preface, notes and appendix by Jerome. Nikona (Skarga) ͬ ͘ ͒ ͕ ͝ ͗͠ ͕ ͡ ͪ ͝ ͐ ͝ ͚ͤ ͩ ͥ ͠ ͦ ͘ ͪ̈ ͫ ͢ ͑ ͕ ͚ ̈͝ ͐͠ ͕͓̈͐͢͠͝ ͕͚͙̈͐͘͘͢ ͕͚͚ͪ͐͘: 8 ख़ଯ ࠏगर्र्टा मार्टे ͓͐͢͠͝ ͐͗͐͠͝: ͙ͬͬͥͬ͐͘͢͢͡͡͝ ͗͝ ͕͗͐͘͢ ͒ͤ̈͘࠿: ͚ͪ̈͐͘͢͝ ͕ͥ͠ ͐͗ͬ͐͘͠. ͕͗͐ ͕͢͝: ͐ͦ͐͠ ͕͒͐̈͐͟͢͢͟͟͝͡͠: तझ࡯ ठ࡯ङ॥ ࡡࢢ ࢢফ ͢: ͒ ͠ ͥ ͕ ͓ ͠͝ ͢ ͐ ͕ ͡ ͢ ઝ॒ ͘ ͑ ͐ . ͐ ͚ ͪ ͑ ͑ ͗ ͝ ͡ ͡ ͬ ͙ ͝ ͥ ͢ ͘ ͒ ͑ ͒̈ ͓ ͠ ͝ ͢ ͑ 9 ͕ͥ͠ 10 ͟͢͝ ͐ ͝ ͬ ͘ ͬ ͗ . ͩ ͕ ͡ ͝ ͑ ͐ ̇͡ ͢ ͥ ͬ͠ ͐ ͼ ͡ ͢ ͬͪ͡ ͓ͫ̈ͬ͐͢͝ ̈͟͢͢͡͡ मार्टा मे में में मे में में में में में में में में मेंं ࡯ࢢ ࡯्॥ ࠟ . 11 ࠯ࡡ ࠏ ̈ࢢଏ ઝૠ૝ି ௝ ࡯રॢ . ࡡ ࠯ ࡡࢢ ̈઩ ࡡ૫ 12 ࠯ࡡ૬ ࠯ ૫ࢢ ઐ ... ͕ͬ͒ͪͫͬ͗͘͢͢͡ ͕ͪ͢͡ ͓͗͘͢͢͠͝ ͕͒͒ͤͪ ͗̇͢͡ ͢͡ ͬ ͐ ͘ ͪ ͝ ͑ ͐ ͗ͬ͐͠͝ ͬ͐ͪͪ͐͡͡͡ ͕͐ͬ͗̇͝͝͝ . क̈࠯:ࡡ॥࢘ି ࡕड ઇࢪ ࠝࢡ करॠगࢢ .࠯ࢫ ઢ ࠠ ઇࢫ ࠏ઒પ ࡡࢢ ࢢ कमर्ट्टा मे मे मे मे मे मे में मे में ͐ͫ͢ ͕͚͙͐͢ ͐͒͘͢͢:͐͘͟͝ ͕͐ͬ͗͘͢͝͝ ͒͒ͪͬ͐͝ ͕͚ͪͬ͗͘͘͘͢͢: ͒ ͑ ͡ ͝ ͢ ͡ ͕ͤ̈͐͘͟͠͠ ͚ͪ̈͐͘͢͢ ͕ͥ͗͘͢͠͝ ͙ͬͬͥ͡͝ ͒͗͗͘͢ ͢͡ ͛͒͑͐͘͝ .͐͡͡ ͕͢͝ ͕ͦͫ͐͢ ͕͐ͬ͑͟͝ 13 . ͫ͑͘͘ 14 ͚͙͐͡͡ ̈ͬ͗̇͘͟͢͢͠: संगर्ट्ट्ट् ͘͠ ͓ͫ̈͐͝͡ ͐͘͢͢. कतગ࡯ࢗି ࢢঋૡ࢝କ ઝઐ ૫૪ઝપબર . ͚͐ͪ͐ͬ͢͝͝ ͚͙͑͘͢͢ ̣͗͘͢͢ ͕͟ ̣͗͘͢͢:͕͟ ͐͠ ͫ͘͢͝ . 15 कर्मा में में में मे में में में ... ນ ॥ ࡡࢡ ढ़ ࢢࢯଐ 16 ӕࢢ પࢢ३ຒࠀ ͐ͫ͢ ͐͠ ͨ͡ ͐͝ .͗̇͝ ͕͢͝ ͕͕͒̈ͬ͐͘͡ ͚͙ͬ͘͢͢ ͐ͫ̈͢͢͠͠͝. मे मे मे मे में में में में में में ࡯૟૫ࢡ ଏ૕ઠରપપનપપપ૪પપપપ૪પપપ૪પપક . ᡡạạạạạ််််််််််််််််််််််် ͗̇͝ ͕͐ͦ ͐͘͠͠ ͕̈͐͟͝ ͗̈͘͢͝ कॐमट ࠝࢢ ̈ࢯ .ए ੕ࡕ ͢૫ ࢢઇ ธฝ॥ࢯ ॥ࠝ ઝ ઒ઇ ̈ચ ૫ࠝઐ ककढ़ଏ .̇ࢪ ॥ ࠤ̈ઝࡡ િ ࢢ:ૠ ࠫૢર ࡯૫ຒ ࠯ૠ ૫॒ ࡯:࠯ দए ॥ ࡯ࢢ ࢡଏ .य़ দપ ઝ ॥ ̈ ૠ: ु संग्ट करामा मे में मा में में में में में में ธภ ࡡ ̇॥ .ࢢธ ड ࡡࢢି࢝ ࡡ ࠠૐ: कॐर्मार कर्टे मे में में में में क्टे में क्टे ͕͐͢͢͝ ͒͗̇͟͠ ͦͫ͛ͬ͐͘͝ ͚ͤ͢͢͡͡ 18 ͒͗ ͨ̇ͦ͟͟͝ ͕͕ͬ͐͘͟͝ कर्पर्ट्ट्ट्ट:समेंर्ट्ट:समारान ͗͢͠͠͝ ͕ͩ̈ͬ͐͡͝ ͕͐ͬ͐ͪ̀͡͡ मेंरेंपरानन ͬͪͨ͘͝ ͫ͗͘͢͢͝ .͕ͩ͐ͬ͡͝͝ ͒ͩͪ͝ࢯ ͛͡॥࡯ ͗͘͢͠ ͛͒ͬ͘͝ ͗͢͠͝ ͕͐͘͟͝ ͗͢͠͝:ͩͪ͒͐͘͡ ͚̈ͫ͒͗͘͘͢͠͝ ͢͡ ͪ͐͢͝ कॐઇ॥ढॐ ठग्रे मेंर मार्टे में में मे में में में में में का क्र्ट्ट गक़रॐ ࡡ ࢢ ࠘ି ଒ଏૡ࡝૫ର. 19th treatise of the East Syrian edition The 19th treatise, belonging to the East Syriac edition, is absent in the ancient Melkite (Orthodox) manuscripts and in all copies of the West Syriac edition; in addition, it is also missing from one ancient Nestorian manuscript Brit. Add. 14632, fol. 45r. Immediately after the 18th treatise (if we follow the numbering introduced by Bejan) is the 20th treatise. Other Nestorian manuscripts have the same arrangement of treatises: Berolin. or. quart. 1159 and Berolin. or. Oct. 1258. In the last of them, the 19th treatise is placed at the end of the corpus. In another Nestorian manuscript from the British Library Brit. Add. 14633, this treatise is accompanied by a gloss which states that this insertion was made by the Nestorians 19 . A possible reason for this, as we understand, is the frequent mention in this treatise of Theodore of Mopsuestia. Indeed, in the 19th treatise there are three references to the Blessed Interpreter. In the first we see extremely enthusiastic, as G. Bickel puts it, praise of Theodore of Mopsuestia. The second contains a reference to Theodore's commentary on the book of the Acts of the Apostles. The third contains a reference to the interpretation of the Book of Job. Let's look at all three fragments. Regarding the first quotation, it should be noted that this “praiseworthy” fragment lists the biblical books in which Theodore spoke about the “order of revelations”: Genesis, the Book of Job, the 12 Prophets, the Acts of the Apostles and the Gospel of Matthew. However, the author of the 19th treatise only partially uses examples from these books. For example, prophecies and revelations from the 12 prophets are not used at all. It also becomes strange that the author of the 19th treatise more often gives examples from those books that Theodore does not list. Thus, examples from the Apostolic Epistles are given twelve times, the Book of Exodus is quoted eight times, etc. In addition, one can observe how a fragment consisting of praise for Theodore breaks the narrative: “... because he was amazed, as the Scripture says. [Fragment of praise.] For six kinds of revelations are mentioned in Scripture" 20 . One feature also attracts attention. The author of the 19th treatise, despite the presence of references to Theodore, noticeably comes into conflict with the exegetical method of the Mopsuestian interpreter. For example, what the author of the 19th treatise refers to “the order of high insights and knowledge of the nature of God” 21: You are the Christ, the Son of the living God (Matthew 16:16) and Who is the image of the invisible, through whom He also created the worlds (Col.1:15–16; Heb.1:1–2). In his interpretation of these fragments, Theodore of Mopsuestia said the opposite, namely that in these fragments “knowledge of the nature of God” is not revealed. In his interpretation of the Gospel of Matthew (see Matt. 16:16), Theodore writes: “Just as Nathanael, through such a confession, does not appear to have knowledge of the Divinity, so Martha, through such a confession, does not prove her knowledge of the Divinity, and likewise blessed Peter” 22. Ravvula, bishop, also testifies to this. Edessa, in a letter to St. Cyril of Alexandria: “He (Theodore) says that even the apostle did not recognize Christ as God (see Matt. 16:16), but that the Church was created on faith, which is in man” 23. In his interpretation of the second fragment, Theodore also excludes “knowledge of the nature of God.” According to the testimony of Rev. Hesychius of Jerusalem, relying on these fragments, Theodore said, “that He is not the Word incarnate, but a man, through the exaltation of life and the perfection of suffering united with God the Word” 24. In his interpretation of the first verses of the Epistle to the Hebrews (see Heb. 1:1-2), Theodore writes: “indeed, by this we must understand the perceived person who has absolutely nothing in common with God the Word” 25. A similar contradiction can be found in the “fourth order of prophecy.” The author of the 19th treatise claims that revelations “came to the prophets who predicted the future for many centuries” 26, while it is known that Theodore excluded such an opportunity for the prophets to predict events “for many centuries” and limited all prophecies to the era in which this or that prophet lived 27. It is worth noting that the classification of six types of revelation by the author of the 19th treatise is somewhat artificial and conditional and creates considerable confusion. So, for example, the author refers to revelation through the senses as “Jacob’s ladder,” while this revelation, according to the biblical narrative, was in a dream (see Gen. 28:12) and, according to the classification of the 19th treatise, should be classified as the sixth type of revelation - “in a dream.” The phenomenon of the “bush” cannot be attributed to revelation through the elements, since the fire that did not scorch the bush was immaterial. The revelation about the “tabernacle” can rather be attributed to the second type of revelation, but the author of the 19th treatise classifies it as the first type - through the senses. The appearance of three Angels to Abraham contains a prophecy, and, in fact, this is the main reason for the revelation, but the author of the 19th treatise does not even mention this and refers this phenomenon to revelation through the senses. At the end of the treatise, our author was completely confused in the classification of prophecies he himself proposed. So, for example, at the beginning of the 19th treatise, the author claims that the “order of revelation” is higher than human knowledge, 28 at the end of the treatise, on the contrary, he believes that “revelations are not accurate [knowledge] about the truth. Likewise, the actions [of God] and the miracles in those revelations should not be called knowledge and truth" 29 - and further: "From them it is impossible to obtain [knowledge] about the foreknowledge of God, or about the incomprehensibility of His nature, or an understanding of the secrets of His will about people, and so on, which is achieved by sound knowledge about Him" ​​30 . Here we see that “sound knowledge about Him,” that is, about God, is a more accurate testimony than “the revelation and action of God” itself 31. Such a strange statement by the author of the 19th treatise contains several contradictions with the thoughts contained both in the 19th treatise itself and in the writings of St. Isaac the Syrian. For example, from the same 19th treatise we know that revelation conveys “knowledge about the things of the world to come and about the order of resurrection and change of human bodies, and so on, as well as knowledge about the nature of God” 32, but, as we see, this same statement is rejected by the author of the 19th treatise: from these revelations “it is impossible to obtain knowledge of the foreknowledge of God or the incomprehensibility of His nature” 33. You can also see that in the next, 20th treatise of St. Isaac argues that, on the contrary, it is in revelation that knowledge “of the nature of His essence” is communicated. Perhaps such obvious contradictions were the reason why the copyist of the Berolinum or. Oct. 1258 did not include these fragments in the manuscript. Classification of revelations by Theodore of Mopsuestia Now it is necessary to clarify whether Theodore really spoke about six types of revelations in his books. In the Mopsuestian interpreter one can find some classification of revelations, but it is more of a generalization than a distribution. Thus, Theodore identifies such concepts as “vision” and “word of the Lord.” “Scripture,” writes Theodore, “calls the “word of the Lord” such an action by which the prophets, through spiritual gifts, received knowledge of the future, and “vision” it calls the same action, namely Divine revelation, by which they were given knowledge of the unknown. Since the prophets, on the one hand, in an inexpressible way received through the grace-filled influence of the Spirit of God on their souls certain intuited ideas, and on the other hand, they also perceived knowledge of the future as if from someone speaking, through the influence of the Holy Spirit on them, Scripture therefore calls it the vision and word of the Lord” 35 . Elsewhere, Theodore again combines revelations received in an ecstatic state with revelations received during sleep. Thus, in a commentary on the book of the prophet Nahum, he writes: “All the prophets received knowledge of ineffable mysteries in an ecstatic state, for it was necessary that their minds be far from the real world and through this be able to rise exclusively to the contemplation of revealed objects. Just as we are unable to fully comprehend the words of a teacher unless we renounce everything extraneous and direct our attention only to his words, so would the prophets have been able to understand those formidable and ineffable Divine revelations if their spirit had not renounced everything earthly? And just as in a dream we, detaching ourselves from the present state of the body, perceive images revealed to our spirit, so the prophets contemplate what is revealed to them when their mind is brought under the gracious action of the Holy Spirit” 36 . In this place, Theodore identifies revelation in a dream and revelation in reality, which does not correspond to the classification of the 19th treatise. In general, in Theodore one cannot find the classification of the six types of revelation that the author of the 19th treatise proposes, referring to the teaching of Theodore. Theodore also has an example of revelation that is not given in the 19th treatise. “Sometimes it seemed to the prophets that the Lord seemed to touch their minds with his hand in order to convey to them the necessary teaching. This is where the use of the expression in Scripture originated: “and the hand of the Lord was upon me.” 37 And another example of revelation through “rapture”: “Sometimes the prophets experienced a sudden rapture of their spirit by the Spirit of God to receive revelations about the future. For example, the prophet Nahum was in such a state when he received the revelation about Nineveh and designated this state with the word “rapture” 38 . However, the example of “mental admiration” by the author of the 19th treatise goes back not to the prophet Nahum, but to the Apostle Paul (see 2 Cor. 12: 2–4). “Therefore, in fact, there were two main ways for them (the prophets - I. N.) to receive ) Divine revelations: one is the direct communication to them of Divine truths and definitions in a simply waking state, and the other is the revelation of the unknown to them in an ecstatic state" 39 . This is the conclusion made by P.V. Guryev in the section “The Teaching of Theodore of Mopsuestia on Prophecies.” Let us move on to consider a fragment of interpretation on the Acts of the Apostles. According to Gustav Bickel, this passage “is not a quotation as such” 40. According to the editors of the text, it is difficult to determine where the supposed quotation ends 41. If we follow Bickel’s observation, we can assume that the reference to the “Blessed Interpreter” was made not by the author of the 19th treatise, but by a copyist who noticed a parallel and decided to consolidate this passage with a quotation. Indeed, a careful reading of this passage reveals the intervention of a copyist. There are several contradictions in this fragment, revealing inconsistency within the quote itself and its inconsistency with the biblical text. The verse says: And those who walked along the way with Paul stood dumbfounded, hearing a voice, but seeing no one (Acts 9:7). The emphasis is on the fact that those walking with Paul “heard a voice, but saw no one.” In the interpretation attributed to Theodore, this thesis is repeated, but then refuted: “In silence and without words, seized with doubt, since they sensually perceived the voice that spoke to him, and saw the light that appeared to him, as far as it was possible for them to see, they saw 42 - so that Saul would not later think that he had invented what happened and affected him, while none of those who were with him heard or saw, since they didn’t see anyone” 43. The presence of such contradictions and blurred boundaries of the quotation may indicate interpolation in this fragment. Finally, consider the third passage in the 19th treatise, where there is a reference to the “Blessed Interpreter.” The 5th paragraph states that “all the revelations that God gives to teach people and instruct them about things”, and then follows the statement that “this is clearly shown by the Blessed Interpreter in the second volume on Job” 44. Here the next question arises. If Theodore really taught that in the book of Job there were various kinds of Divine revelations, then it follows that this book is divinely inspired, since through it God revealed Himself to people “to teach people.” And if there are true revelations in the book of Job, this means that they were given for someone and to someone. Thus, the historical reality of this book is recognized, which contradicts the well-known fact that Theodore considered the book of Job to be a fable, devoid of historical reality, and, moreover, a book not inspired by God, believing that God did not reveal Himself through it. And Theodore considered blessed Job himself to be “an uneducated man” 45. This book was “alien and incomprehensible to Theodore of Mopsuestia - the one who heretically “cut” Christ “in two”, dividing Him into two persons, distorting the truth about Him” 46. For this reason, Theodore removed this book from the biblical canon 47. So, another contradiction again suggests the intervention of a copyist, who obviously entered the name of the “Blessed Interpreter” instead of someone else, because Theodore could not interpret the book of Job in such a way. Classification of revelations by St. Isaac the Syrian It is also necessary to add that if we compare the method of interpretation of the six types of revelation with the writings of St. Isaac, then the desired identity will not be found. In the 21st Word of the Russian edition, the question of revelations and visions is raised several times 48: “Are vision and revelation the same thing or not?” The author answers: “No. They are different from each other." And then St. Isaac describes the ways of seeing: “In images and images, as it happened in ancient times in the Old Testament, in deep sleep or in a waking state, and sometimes with all accuracy, and sometimes as if in a ghost and somewhat implicitly, which is why the one who has a vision often does not know whether he sees in a waking state or in a sleepy state” 49 . Here we see that classification has only three ways: in images, in dreams and in the waking state; a fourth way is also possible - in some mixed state, half asleep. One of the main reasons for visions and revelations, which is indicated by St. Isaac and which is absent both from the author of the 19th treatise and from Theodore of Mopsuestia, there is “the purity and depravity of the conscience” 50, as well as the state of “spiritual prayer” 51. As we see, the classification of six types of revelations proposed by the author of the 19th treatise is absent from both Theodore of Mopsuestia and St. Isaac the Syrian. All such contradictions and inconsistencies indicate that the 19th treatise, found only in the Nestorian version of the 1st volume, has reached us in a corrupted form. So, taking into account the fact that the 19th treatise is not present in all manuscripts of the East Syrian edition, as well as the presence of obvious contradictions in this treatise, we can say with a greater degree of probability that this treatise contains interpolations introduced by the Nestorian scribe. To the question whether the 19th treatise belongs to St. Isaac the Syrian, we cannot answer with confidence for the following reasons. As stated above, this treatise is absent from the West Syriac and Melkite manuscript traditions. It is also absent in the early East Syrian manuscripts, which is confirmed by the Nestorian manuscript of the 10th century. Brit. Add. 14632. Its appearance in a Nestorian manuscript of the 11th–12th centuries. accompanied by a gloss stating that the treatise bears traces of interpolation 52. In later manuscripts of the East Syriac edition, for example Berolin. or. Oct. 1258, treatise 19 is already at the end of the corpus and contains gaps 53. It seems to us that this treatise was included in manuscripts at a later time (c. XII-XIII centuries) and became entrenched in the East Syrian tradition. For the above reasons, the 19th treatise of the East Syrian edition must be classified as dubious texts attributed to St. Isaac the Syrian. Acts of the Ecumenical Councils. T. 3. Constantinople 2nd. Ecumenical V. Isaac the Syrian, St. Ascetic words. Sergiev Posad: STSL Printing House, 1911. Isaac the Syrian, St. On Divine Mysteries and Spiritual Life: Newly Discovered Texts / Trans. with sire., note., preface. and after. Metropolitan Hilarion (Alfeev). St. Petersburg: Oleg Abyshko Publishing House, 2013. Isaac the Syrian, St. Words Ascetic. [Sergiev Posad:] STSL, 2019. Hesychius Hierosolymitanus. Ab Ecclesiastica historia // Concilium universale Constantinopolitanum sub Iustiniano habitum. Concilii actiones VIII/Ed. J. Straub. Berolini: In aedibus Walter de Gruyter & Co., 1971 (ACO; [Vol. IV], vol. I). P. 90–91. Mar Isaacus Ninivita. De perfectione religiosa / Ed. P. Badjan. Paris; Leipzig: Otto Harrassowitz, 1909. Rabbula Edessenus. Epistola ad sanctum Cyrillum contra impium Theodorum // Concilium universale Constantinopolitanum sub Iustiniano habitum. Concilii actiones VIII/Ed. J. Straub. Berolini: In aedibus Walter de Gruyter & Co., 1971 (ACO; [Vol. IV], vol. I). P. 89. Theodorus Mopsuestenus. Ex libro quinto commenti de creatura // Concilium universale Constantinopolitanum sub Iustiniano habitum. Concilii actiones VIII/Ed. J. Straub. Berolini: In aedibus Walter de Gruyter & Co., 1971 (ACO.; [T. IV], vol. I). Guryev P.V. Theodore, Bishop of Mopsuestia. M.: Printing house of L. and A. Snegirev, 1890. Kavvadas N. The world of ideas of Mar Ishak. The Antiochian foundation of Ishak’s theology // Isaac the Syrian, St. (Mar Ishaq of Nineveh) . Book about the ascent of a monk: First collection (treatises I–VI) / General. ed. and lane from Syriac, Arabic, Greek A.V. Muravyova. M.: Publishing house "Yask", 2016. pp. 137–142. Kalinin M.G. Applications // Isaac the Syrian, St. Words Ascetic. [Sergiev Pasad:] STSL, 2019. pp. 526–580. Kessel G.M. Manuscript tradition of the first volume of the Syrian corpus of Isaac of Nineveh [Introductory part] // Isaac the Syrian, St. (Mar Ishaq of Nineveh) . Book about the ascent of a monk: First collection (treatises I–VI) / General. ed. and lane from Syriac, Arabic, Greek A.V. Muravyova. M.: Publishing house "Yask", 2016. Malkov P.Yu. Lover of Christ. Patristic interpretations of the Book of Job. M.: Sretensky Monastery Publishing House, 2014. Muravyov A.V. The world of ideas of Mar Ishak. Sources and context // Isaac the Syrian, St. (Mar Ishaq of Nineveh) . Book about the ascent of a monk: First collection (treatises I–VI) / General. ed. and lane from Syriac, Arabic, Greek A.V. Muravyova. M.: Publishing house "Yask", 2016. Savrey V.Ya. Antiochian school in the history of Christian thought. M.: Moscow University Publishing House, 2012. Timofeev B., priest. Typology in the interpretation of prophecies by Theodore of Mopsuestia // Kh. 2016. No. 2. pp. 193–207. Hagman P. Asceticism as political theology: the ascetic as a sacrament in St. Isaac of Nineveh // Venerable Isaac the Syrian and his spiritual heritage: Materials of the First International Patristic Conference of the All-Church Postgraduate and Doctoral Studies named after Saints Cyril and Methodius. M.: [Church-wide postgraduate and doctoral studies named after. St. Cyril and Methodius], 2014. pp. 259–273. Bickell G. Ausgewählte Schriften der syrischen Kirchenväter Aphraates, Rabulas und Isaak von Ninive, zum ersten Male aus dem Syrischen übersetzt. Kempten, 1874. [Miller]. The Ascetical Homilies of Saint Isaac the Syrian. Boston: Holy Transfiguration Monastery, 2011. See the table of ratios of treatises: Nikon (Skarga) Hierom. Orthodox Syriac manuscript of the 1st volume of St. Isaac the Syrian, Sinai syr. 24 (18th treatise) // Diacrisis. 2019. No. 1 (1). pp. 20–49; [Miller]. The Ascetical Homilies of Saint Isaac the Syrian. Boston, 2011. P. 575. In the Bejan edition they correspond to treatises: 20–21, 23, 24, 26, 29, 31. See: Kalinin M.G. Applications // Isaac the Syrian, St. Words Ascetic. [Sergiev Posad,] 2019. pp. 526–580. In our opinion, the beginning of the appendix, which contains newly translated texts, seems strange. The first page shows a photograph of a leaf from a 10th-century Orthodox manuscript, while the appendix itself contains a translation made from a 13th-century Nestorian manuscript. Even more surprising is why M.G. Kalinin (I think that for a sirologist this cannot be a simple mistake) chose a sheet that, as he himself believes, contains a text attributed to the Monophysite writer Philoxenus. See: From the editor. pp. 5–8. It is important to note that the most ancient monument containing the 1st volume of St. Isaac the Syrian, is the Sinai manuscript. syr. 24, VIII–IX centuries. In contrast to this manuscript, M.G. Kalinin points to another Nestorian manuscript, Vat. syr. 367, which some scholars date to the 8th century. However, according to paleographic features, this manuscript is close to the manuscripts of the 8th–9th centuries. (see: Kessel G.M. Manuscript tradition of the first volume of the Syrian corpus of Ishak of Nineveh // Isaac the Syrian, Venerable (Mar Ishak of Nineveh). Book about the ascent of a monk: First collection (treatises I–VI) / General ed. and translation from Syriac, Arabic, Greek. A.V. Muravyova. M., 2016. P. 72) and in fact appears to be the same age as the Sinai list. In addition, the Vatican manuscript is badly damaged and contains an incomplete volume: 25 treatises out of 82. According to G.M. Kessel, in Chabot’s study this manuscript was considered in the category of unauthentic texts (see: Kessel G.M. Manuscript tradition... P. 57, note 184): most likely, Chabot had in mind the damage to the manuscript. Given these facts, the manuscript Vat. syr. 367 can act as a primary source for the manuscript tradition (East Syriac edition) along with the Sinai list. M.G. Kalinin makes a mistake: in the Melkite tradition, not five, but seven (or rather, six) of the translated treatises are known: the 20th and 21st treatises (according to the numbering introduced by Bejan) are presented in the Melkite manuscripts as one treatise. See: Sin. syr. 24, fol. 6r–6v; Vat. syr. 125, fol. 11r–11v. The text Bejan published does not accurately represent the original manuscript. Bejan made unspecified amendments. The corrections present in the margins were introduced by him into the main text without any comment (see: Kessel G.M. Manuscript tradition... P. 65). Very often Bejan introduced emendations into the main text, and the main text was entered into the apparatus (see ibid. p. 64). In general, the publishing activity of this Catholic scientist is not at all flawless. According to the Russian sirologist G.M. Kessel, “editions of Bejan’s Syriac texts are often far from the norms of critical work with the text” (ibid., p. 57). Accordingly, translations from these texts can no longer be perceived as a full reproduction of the original. It would be much better if M.G. Kalinin did it from the original manuscript - then they would have had a completely different scientific interest. And one more small note, or rather a wish. For the Orthodox reader, first of all, those words of the St. are not only interesting, but also in demand. Isaac the Syrian, which are found in the Orthodox (Melkite) manuscripts of the 1st volume and which have not been translated into Greek. It seems to us that it was necessary to begin introducing the Russian Orthodox reader to the translation of these words. And the translation of these words had to be done not from the Nestorian manuscript of the 13th century, but from the Sinai Sin. syr. 24 (VIII century), copied in the same monastery of St. Sava the Sanctified, in which a Greek translation was made at the turn of the 8th–9th centuries. Then, of course, the translation of these words would harmoniously fit into the general context of the 1st volume and would bring that completeness that the Greek translators failed to achieve. In this edition these are mems 20 and 21. See: Mar Isaacus Ninivita. De perfectione religiosa / Ed. P. Badjan. Paris; Leipzig, 1909, pp. 161–163. There is a lacuna in the text of the two manuscripts, which we reconstruct from two British manuscripts: Brit. Add. 14632, 14633: ॥ऒ ॠ: પି ทททททททททททททททท byททททททททททททททททഗ In Vat. 125 added: ͗ͼ͝. The letter ͠ in the manuscript is difficult to read, we restore it according to Vat. #125: Fol. 43v. Let us note that the German syrologist Gustav Bickel made his own remark about the first two fragments. Thus, he writes: “However, one Monophysite marginal note explains this connection as a Nestorian interpolation; in fact, it only emphasizes the uselessness of this connection (it is not a quotation as such, but only an addition after a somehow meaningless note that Theodore, in his commentary on the Acts of the Apostles, and in all his writings, spoke in the same way) and does not in any way confirm Isaac’s connection with Theodore of Mopsuestia, but is only an overly pompous praise addressed to him.” Bickell G. Ausgewählte Schriften der syrischen Kirchenväter Aphraates, Rabulas und Isaak von Ninive, zum ersten Male aus dem Syrischen übersetzt. Kempten, 1874. S. 280). Kalinin M.G. Appendix... P. 528. Theodorus Mopsuestenus. Ex libro primo de incarnatione [actio IV, XXV] // Concilium Universale Constantinopolitanum sub Iustiniano habitum. Concilii actiones VIII/Ed. J. Straub. Berlin, 1971 (ACO; [T. IV], vol. I). P. 55. Rus. Transl.: Acts of the Ecumenical Councils. T. 3. Constantinople 2nd. Ecumenical V. St. Petersburg, 1996. 4th meeting, § 25. P. 324. Rabbula Edessenus. Epistola ad sanctum Cyrillum contra impium Theodorum [actio V] // Concilium Universale Constantinopolitanum. P. 89. Rus. Transl.: Acts of the Ecumenical Councils. T. 3. Meeting 5th. P. 356. Hesychius Hierosolymitanus. Ab Ecclesiastica historia [actio V] // Concilium Universale Constantinopolitanum. P. 90. Rus. Transl.: Acts of the Ecumenical Councils. T. 3. Meeting 5th. P. 357. Acts of the Ecumenical Councils. T. 3. Meeting 5th. P. 349. Kalinin M.G. Appendix... P. 531. See: Timofeev Boris, priest. Typology in the interpretation of prophecies by Theodore of Mopsuestia // Kh. 2016. No. 2. P. 206. See: Kalinin M.G. Appendix... P. 527. Theodorus Mopsuestenus. Commentarius in Abdiam prophetam // PG. 66. Col. 308. Rus. Transl.: Guryev P.V. Theodore, Bishop of Mopsuestia. M., 1890. P. 211. Theodorus Mopsuestenus. Commentarius in Nahumum prophetam // PG. 66. Col. 401–404. Rus. Transl.: Guryev P.V. Theodore, Bishop of Mopsuestia. pp. 211–212. Guryev P.V. Theodore, Bishop of Mopsuestia. P. 212. Bickell G. Ausgewählte Schriften der syrischen Kirchenväter Aphraates. S. 280. See: Kalinin M.G. Appendix... P. 530, note. 4. The last phrase is omitted in M.G.’s translation. Kalinin, while in the translation by Metropolitan. Hilarion, it is preserved, which corresponds to the Syriac text. (See: Bedjan, 1909. R. 157). It should be added that after the words “and they saw” in the Syriac text there is a period, which may indicate the end of the intended quotation. Translators violate this punctuation, as a result of which it becomes really difficult to determine the boundaries of the quotation. Kalinin M.G. Appendix... P. 530. See also the translation of Met. Hilarion (Alfeev): Isaac the Syrian, St. About Divine mysteries and spiritual life. Newly discovered texts. St. Petersburg, 2013, pp. 293–294. Right there. P. 295. See also: Kalinin M.G. Appendix... P. 533. See: Theodorus Mopsuestenus. Ex Commentario in Iob [actio IV, LXVI] // Concilium Universale Constantinopolitanum. P. 67. Rus. Transl.: Acts of the Ecumenical Councils. T. 3. Meeting 4th. § 66. P. 334. Malkov P.Yu. Lover of Christ. Patristic interpretations of the Book of Job. M., 2014. pp. 791–792. See: Guryev P.V. Theodore, Bishop of Mopsuestia... P. 92–93; Savrey V.Ya. Antioch School. M., 2012. P. 104. It is interesting to note that the 21st Word is not so far removed from the 19th treatise; Based on this logic, one would expect the questioner about revelation to be referred to the 19th treatise or, at least, to encounter a repetition of the same thoughts that are set out in the 19th treatise and relate to the topic. But we see neither the first nor the second in the 21st Word. Sermo I, 35 // Mar Isaacus Ninivita. De perfectione religiosa / Ed. P. Badjan. Paris; Leipzig, 1909. P. 347. Rus. Transl.: Isaac the Syrian, St. Ascetic words. P. 135. Page numbering is given according to the same edition in which the application is located. See: Isaac the Syrian, St. Ascetic words. P. 134. It can be noted that the German researcher Gustav Bickel treated this note without much criticism and even with some confidence. See: Bickell G. Ausgewählte Schriften der syrischen Kirchenväter Aphraates… S. 280. See: Kessel G.M. Manuscript tradition... pp. 69, 78.