515
Christian Palestinian.
By Agues Smith Lewis.
Only a few weeks ago, on my return from Egypt, I have
had the opportunity of seeing the emendations which Dr. Schulthess
and Dr. Jacoh have suggested in the Christian Palestinian texts
edited by Mrs. Gibson and myself, which they have published in
tbe ZDMG. 53, 709—713; 55, 142—144, and the Gött. Gel. Anz.
204—206. Although many of these obviously refer to a period
anterior to that in which any manuscript now extant was written,
I have thought it my duty to examine carefully all the MSS. and
photographs of MSS. from which we have worked, in order to
ascertain whether any mistake of ours may have caused the necessity for these emendations. And I beg now to offer the following remarks.
I. In the case of the Palestinian Syriac Lectionary of the
Gospels, although there are errors in the rubrics, where Carshuni
words have been wrongly divided, these are such as Arabic scholars
can easily correct for themselves. As yet I have failed to find
any in the text.
On p. 197, John XVIII, 36 .^V, « is written distinctly in one
word, both in Cod. B and Cod. C. I prefer to think that in these
MSS. ».oi of Cod. A has been carelessly dropped; rather than
that should be changed to JJ (ZDMG. p. 137).
On p. 71, Matt. VI, 28 ^JJ and ^JJ ai-e unfortunately
very distinct in my photographs; but I agree with Dr. Jacob that
they should be (ZDMG. p. 136).
II. In Studia Sinaitica No. VI, the only cases in which I have
cause to doubt the accuracy of my own transcription are:
p. 6, 1. 19 ^otlOo.^/. The daleth in this MS. has sometimes
its dot. but more generally it has not. Resh always has its dot.
Therefore I was entitted to read a daleth here. But .^ojLo-.V*-/
is bettei'.
516 Smith Lewis, Christian Palestinian.
p. 27 (1. 6, Isaiah IX, 5). In J -,-- yod is a small thick letter,
but it is not at all like waw. There is a possibility that the
scribe meant it for a waw, but that beneath the ^ of had
not space to form it properly. (Schulthess, ZDMG. p. 710.)
p. 30,1. 19 Ow-Vjj is better than Ow-jjj. Arabic ^j^y (Jacob,
ZDMG. p. 138.) ^ * ^' "
p. 31, 1. 7. J'A\ < might be read Jö\. < , but it is far more like
the former. (Schulthess, ZDMG. p. 710.)*
p. 58,1. 5 opJ-lSD might well be o^Sj-OD. (Jacob, ZDMG. p. 139.)
p. 75, 1. 4. In ^o^, the first letter may have been intended
for an 'ain. 'Am and yod are very like each other in this MS.,
but 'ain has a slight stroke at the top, which is in this case
lacking. We can easily see how the scribe might mistake one
letter for the other. (Schulthess, ZDMG. p. 712.)
On p. 102, 1. 8 there is a mistake which I much regret, as it
has misled both Dr. Nestle and Dr. Schulthess. (See Note to
Gen. XIX, 18, p. XLV.) The yaj^ fc^ijo of the MS. has been
printed QJOJj bk«siJo, and as I cannot believe that I copied this
wrongly, I am inclined to think that it is due to a misprint which
I overlooked. (Schulthess, ZDMG. p. 712.)
p. 123, ICor. XV, 10. The obvious mistake is not mine, the
scribe of the MS. having evidently failed to understand the Apostle's
meaning. The punctuation must be altered, and we must read :
etc. JJ/ JJ ^oj5>.QD ^ -».b^ J)/ (Jacob, ZDMG. p. 139).
I cannot understand why Dr. Jacob says (ZDMG. pp. 55, 135)
that Cod. B is the oldest MS. of the Lectionary. Its date is
A. D. 1104, whilst that ofthe Vatican Codex (Cod. A) is A. D. 1030.
III. In the Taylor Schechter Fragments Mrs. Gibson and I
accept the following corrections :
p. 20 col. a 1. 3 for ^ovv^^ read ^0)S «a«^D. col. b 1. 4
for \ .\rt\ read J«xJD.
p. 60 col. a 1. 1 for J^y read J^j; hne 3 for J^ read
These four were suggested by Mr. Burkitt. Also p. 58 col. b 1. 11
for J^o read J^O.
p. 70 col. b 1. 12 read p. 79 11. 13. 14 read ^npi^y. «
y.-S*..feJOO, p. 77 1. 12 for Q^j^ read o\ (Schulthess, GGA.
pp. 205, 206). ^
Smith Lewis, Christian Palestinian. 517
On p. 12 1. 17 ^jQjoJij should perhaps he Jjoojil. We agree
to a possible nun, but the alaf is completely washed away. Many
of those fragments were very wet when Dr. Schechter received them.
p. 4 col. b 1. 11. I still read ,5^;^© in the MS. If the
i is a ^ the lowest stroke is now represented by part of the thin
line which was ruled before the word was written. (GGA. p. 205.)
(In ZDMG. pp. 143, 144, Dr. Jacob.)
p. 20 col. a 1. 3 for o)S «^^s read ^0)3 ^'s^^' ^'
is certainly ^cllJ^o- Col. b 1. 8 read ^jo) not ijSj ^yo»
as Dr. Jacob suggests.
p. 28 col. a 1. 9. Here the MS. has distinctly J ,.j^ ^o>-n as I have printed it.
p. 30 col. a 1. 2. jLoJCD might possibly be jLo^jCD) as there
is room for a o having been washed completely away. But in
col. b 11. 15. 16 Jb^..^- is )♦—.
p. 56 col. a 1. 12 ^^O) is most distinct. In col. b 1. 18 ^- tO>
should be the tail of she aadde being washed away.
p. 66 col. a 1. 8 whatever the word here may be it is not
p. 74, 81, 82, 89, 90 ,1 hope to re-print in No. XI of Studia
Sinaitica; as their text has been identified by Dr. Ryssel.
p. 84 col. b 11. 15, 16. Here J-Ch-'%\ and Jpr».'i\. ft are quite correct.
p. 102 col. a 11. 1, 5. It is impossible to see whether the
second letter of .^-t>;vn and is a daleth or a resh. In the
second case there is no dot above the letter, and there is a hole
in its heart where the dot of a daleth should be. Its perpen¬
dicular stroke is also represented by a hole, the ink, or the
impress of the pen, having there eaten the vellum away.
p. 64 col. a 1. 13. I accept Jlo^J for jLcuiitj (GGA.
p. 206). In col. b 1. 6. I cannot now see whether the first word
is or oo^L hut there seems to be no room for a o).
3 7 *
518
Über prana und apana.
Von 0. Böhtlingk.
Oben S. 261 fgg. hat W. Caland von Neuem seine Auffassung
von präna und apäna , die in geradem Widerspruch mit der
meinigen steht, zu rechtfertigen unternommen , und es ist ibm ge¬
lungen mich vollständig zu überzeugen. Hoffentlich ist die Sache
nun ein für alle Mal abgethan. Das Pundament hat Speyer gelegt,
Caland hat den Bau bis zum Dache geführt, und ich beabsichtige
jetzt dieses aufzusetzen, indem ich nachzuweisen versuche , weshalb
der Aushauch mit präna und der Einhauch mit apäna bezeichnet
wurde, und woher der Aushauch die Hauptrolle spielt.
Der Inder kannte, wie ich in BKSGW. 52, 149 fgg. mit nach¬
träglicher Zustimmung vieler Fachgenossen und Philosophen glaube
endgültig dargethan zu haben, nicht die unbewegte Luft, wohl aber
den leeren Luftraum und den Wind , die als zwei Elemente dem
griechischen Elemente arjQ entsprechen. Das Athmen , das auch
bei Windstille vor sich ging, konnte also nicht durch Einziehen
und Ausstossen der im Lufti-aum befindlichen Luft erklärt werden.
Es musste ein im Körper befindlicher Wind oder Hauch an¬
genommen werden , der sich zunächst als Aushauch zu erkennen
gab. Dass dieses Aushauchen durch an mit pra bezeichnet wurde,
bedarf kaum einer Erklärung: es ist der aus dem Innern hinaus-
(/wa)-gestossene Wind; apäna ist nicht der aus dem Innern aus¬
gestossene , sondern der dem Luftraum wieder ent-(a^a)-zogene
Aushauch. Dass ein solches Athmen das Leben nicht erhalten,
sondern vernichten würde , konnte der Inder nicht wissen. Der
Aushauch ist also das Prius, der Einhauch das Posterius, und daher
die grosse Rolle, die der Aushauch spielt. Verlässt er den Körper,
den er bewohnt und erhält, ohne als Einhauch wieder zurück¬
zukehren, so tritt der Tod ein.
Den ai^äna könnte man jetzt wohl zutreffender Rückhauch
benennen, wodurch mancher Vergleich verständlicher würde.
3 7 *
