The weekly veneration of Friday, alongside that of Wednesday, is a well-established Christian practice that goes back to the earliest centuries of Church history.Footnote 1 The most conspicuous aspect of this veneration was the custom of fasting on these days.Footnote 2 Although absent from the canonical body of the New Testament writings, references to these fasts appear already in the second century. One of the earliest Christian sources that mentions this practice is the Didache, where the twelve apostles admonish their followers, among other things, not to fast on Monday and Thursday together with the Jewish “hypocrites”, but to do it “on Wednesday and Friday” (τετράδα καὶ παρασκευήν).Footnote 3 Later on, one finds the same days mentioned as time of fasting by Tertullian (De ieiun. 2) and Clement of Alexandria (Strom. 7.12.75.2).
It was, perhaps, due to the influence of the Didache that the stationary fast on Friday and Wednesday received the approval of apostolic authority. This authority was acknowledged and reaffirmed during the third and fourth centuries when this regulation was included and further elaborated in such canonical collections associated with apostles as the Apostolic Canons and Apostolic Constitutions. Canon 69 of the former collection prescribes for Christians, who fail to observe these fasts without a sufficient reason, such serious punishment as deposition for members of the clergy and excommunication for the laity.Footnote 4
In what concerns the theological rationale behind this practice, the primary purpose of these fasts was to commemorate the betrayal of Jesus by Judas on Wednesday and his Passion on Friday. Thus, according to the Apostolic Constitutions (5.14.20), Jesus himself instructed his followers to fast on the fourth and sixth days of the week, the former – “on account of the betrayal” and the latter – “on account of the passion” (διὰ τὸ πάθος).Footnote 5 This brief statement is elaborated further in 7.23.2, where the reason given for fasting on Friday is that “on this day the Lord endured the suffering on the cross, under Pontius Pilate”.Footnote 6
There is however, very little information on how exactly the fasting on Friday and Wednesday was carried out during Late Antiquity. The fifth-century historian Philostorgius relates, for example, that it “is not limited just to abstinence from meat, but that the canons prescribe that no food is to be touched until evening”.Footnote 7 It is also difficult to ascertain how widespread this practice was through the different social strata of Christian society. Clergy, responsible for compiling the canonical collections referred to above would be an obvious group to endorse and promulgate it. Naturally, monks with their enthusiasm for asceticism would also champion it, as one can judge from references to these fasts in works like the Apophthegmata Patrum.Footnote 8 As for other groups of Christians, it is only on rare occasions that we get information about their attitudes toward these fasts, as in the case of the historian Socrates praising the emperor Theodosius II (r. 408-450) for fasting on Wednesdays and Fridays, apparently in imitation of the monastic habit.Footnote 9
Historically dependent on the ecclesiastical tradition of the See of Antioch, Syriac-speaking Christians adopted this basic form of Friday veneration at a relatively early stage. Prayer and fasting on Friday are prescribed in several canonical writings that were translated into Syriac from Greek. As for the former, one of the canons ascribed to the apostle Addai, included into the third chapter of the Syriac Didascalia (ca 4th c.), instructs that at the ninth hour of Friday there should be held a “service” commemorating “the suffering of our Saviour”.Footnote 10
Fasting on Friday is prescribed by the rules included in the Didascalia (Ch. 21),Footnote 11 and in the Canons of the Apostles (§28).Footnote 12 One comes across the instruction to fast “from food and as well as from wine” on Wednesday and Friday in a West Syriac collection of monastic rules.Footnote 13 As in the Greek sources, Syriac canonical collections include penalties for those who fail to observe this custom. Thus, Canon 65 of another Syriac canonical collection attributed to the apostles threatens members of the clergy with deposition and lay persons with suspension for breaking this rule.Footnote 14 The twenty-fifth canon of the synod of Dionysios, the West Syrian patriarch of Antioch (13th c.), likewise prescribes suspension for those who would eat on Friday.Footnote 15
Unfortunately, our evidence for the extent to which these prescriptive texts succeeded in inculcating the importance of Friday veneration among different groups of Syriac-speaking Christians is extremely scarce. The onomastic habits of the Christians of Northern Mesopotamia during the sixth century provide a rare glimpse into the prestige of this day, as testifies the personal name Bar‘eruḇaṯ, i.e. “Son of Friday,” found in the Syriac Life of Mār Awgen.Footnote 16 This form is modelled, most likely, after the pattern of more popular personal names, such as Barḥadbešabbā, i.e. “Son of Sunday,” and might be given to a person who was born on Friday.
From a somewhat later period, we have a testimony to what appears to be a popular development of Friday veneration that ascribed a universal significance to fasting on this day. In his Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, the East Syrian exegete Īšō‘dād of Merv (9th c.) transmits an opinion of some unidentified “divinely inspired teachers” that even carnivorous beasts and birds of prey abstain from food on Friday, out of respect for Jesus's Passion.Footnote 17
Whereas prayer and fasting were the most common and wide-spread customs related to the veneration of Friday among Syriac-speaking Christians during Late Antiquity and later, at a certain point a further development took place, which required from the believers also to cease from work on this day. In what follows, I am going to present and discuss the Story of the Holy Friday, an unpublished and unstudied composition, attested so far only in Syriac, that contains a highly developed argument in favour of this unusual practice.Footnote 18
1. Text and Translation
The Syriac text of the Story is preserved in a single manuscript witness,Footnote 19 Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, syr. 234.Footnote 20 Comprising 463 folios, it is a large-scale anthology of hagiographical works, written in a non-vocalised Serto script. According to information provided by a colophon on f. 344v, the manuscript was completed on September 5th of the year 1192 “in the apostolic see of Antioch in Syria”, by Constantine, son of Jacob, the priest “in the church of the glorious martyr St George”.
The Crusader principality of Antioch, where the manuscript was produced, was a home to the two major groups of Syriac-speaking Christians, Melkites and West Syrians, and was an important centre of Syriac manuscript production during the twelfth and thirteenth centuries.Footnote 21 Although the colophon does not contain explicit references to the confessional affiliation of its scribe, it does provide information that allows us to identify him with certainty as a member of the West Syrian community, since it connects him to the church of St George, where Constantine served as a priest. This church is mentioned by Michael the Syrian as one of the three West Syrian cultic buildings in Antioch that survived the large earthquake of 1170.Footnote 22 In support of the West Syrian origins of BnF syr. 234 is also the fact that it includes works produced by West Syrian authors, such as Simeon of Beth Arsham and John of Ephesus, as well as the Life of Patriarch Dioscorus of Alexandria, a staunch supporter of the Miaphysite Christology.
The hagiographic collection of BnF syr. 234 is comprised of a diverse assortment of works, some of which were written originally in Syriac, while others were translated from Greek. Our composition appears on ff. 221v-229r, preceded by the Story of Euphrosyne of Alexandria (ff. 213v-221v), and followed by the Story of a bishop who denied Christ (ff. 229r-230v).
In what concerns scribal conventions, as observed in the text of the Story, one can single out the following peculiarities:
(a) Abbreviations are used occasionally for such words as ܚܠܦܘ[ܗܝ] (§2), ܐܝܬܘ[ܗܝ] (§§5,7,10,15), ܦܐܛܪܝܪ[ܟܐ] (§17), ܫܘ[ܒܚܐ] (§§17,20), ܐܦܝܣܩܘ[ܦܐ] (§18);
(b) There are several cases when enclitic forms of personal pronouns are merged with participles, as in ܒܥܝܢܢ (§12); ܝ̇ܪܬܬ (§14); ܥܐܠܝܢܢ (§14);
(c) While the scribe does not provide vocalisation for the text, he makes heavy use of diacritical signs, mostly single and double dots, to mark different forms. In addition to the standard double dot sign seyame for marking plural nouns and feminine forms of perfective verbs, an upper dot is used to mark active participles, as in ܐ̇ܡܪ (§2); imperfect of Aphel, as in ܢ̇ܦܩ (§7), ܢ̇ܣܡܟ (§7); Pa‘el stem in perfect, as in ܩ̇ܒ̣ܠܬ (§2); female ending of the verbal perfective singular forms, as in ܝܨܪܬ̇ (§1). The lower dot is used to mark perfective verbal forms, as in ܥܒ̣ܕ (§1).Footnote 23
It should be pointed out that the scribe of BnF syr. 234 was not particularly skilled or careful, at least as far as the text of the Story allows us to judge. The most common manifestation of his inexperience or carelessness is that he would very often start writing the last word in a line without estimating correctly the space required for it, so that he would have to leave it unfinished. There is also a considerable number of straightforward scribal errors.Footnote 24 Sometimes the scribe himself notices his mistakes and marks them accordingly. There are, however, enough occasions when he fails to do so.
There are several cases of hypercorrection in feminine forms of perfect verbs, when the scribe adds an unnecessary yud, apparently, by analogy with 2nd fem. sg. and 3rd fem. pl. forms, as in ܓܕܫܬܝ for ܓܕܫܬ (§12) or ܚܙܝܢܢܝ for ܚܙܝܢܢ (§12). He is also not always consistent in the use of 3rd fem pl. perfect, using interchangeably forms with different endings, as in ܢܦܠ vs ܢܦ̈ܠܝ (§9).
~ Syriac text
ܬܘܒ ܬܫܥܝܬܐ ܕܥܠ ܝܘܡܐ ܕܥܪܘܒܬܐ ܩܕܝܫܬܐ ܕܙܕܩ ܕܬܬܢܛܪ.
1 ܚܒ̈ܝܒܝ ܣܓܝ ܙܕܩ ܠܢ ܕܢܦܪܘܥ ܐܝܩܪܐ ܠܝܘܡܐ ܩܕܝܫܐ ܕܥܪܘܒܬܐ. ܡܛܠ ܕܒܗ ܐܬܥܪܒ ܥܦܪܗ ܕܐܕܡ ܡܢ ܐܖ̈ܒܥ ܦܢ̈ܝܬܗ ܕܥܠܡܐ. ܕܢܗܘܐ ܨܠܡܐ ܦܐܝܐ ܘܝܘܩܢܐ ܕܚ̇ܫܚ ܠܡܠܟܘܬܐ ܘܠܡܥܡܪܐ ܕܒܓܘ ܦܪܕܝܣܐ. ܒܗ ܓܝܪ ܒܗܢܐ ܝܘܡܐ ܩܕܝܫܐ ܕܥܪܘܒܬܐ ܐܬܪܟܢܬ̇ ܐܠܗܘܬܐ ܕܒܐ̈ܝܕܝܗ̇ ܬܥܒܕܝܘܗܝ ܠܒܪܢܫܐ ܩܕܡܝܐ ܘܪܝܫ ܛܘܗ̈ܡܐ. ܡܠܠܘܢ ܕܝܢ ܒܕܡܘܬܐ ܕܐܘܡܢܐ ܕܒܗ ܝ̇ܪܒܐ ܝܕܥܬܗ. ܗ̇ܘ ܕܡܢ ܕܗܒܐ ܘܣܐܡܐ ܘܡܖ̈ܓܢܝܬܐ ܘܟܐ̈ܦܐ ܛܒ̈ܬܐ. ܟܠܝܠܐ ܗܕܝܪܐ ܠܪܝܫ ܡܠܟܘܬܐ ܒܐܘܡܢܘܬܐ ܕܝܠܗ ܥܒܕ ܗܟܢܐ ܐܦ ܗ̣ܝ ܐܠܗܘܬܐ ܡܠܝܬ̇ ܖ̈ܚܡܐ ܡܢ ܡ̈ܝܐ ܘܪܘܚܐ ܘܐܕܡܬܐ |f. 222r| ܝܨܪܬ̇ ܘܣܡܬ̇ ܒܗ ܨܠܡܐ ܕܫܘܒܚܗ̇. ܘܒܗܘܢܐ ܕܠܥܠ ܡܢ ܝܕܥܬܐ ܐܢܫܝܬܐ ܨܒܬܬ̇ ܬܩܢܬܗ. ܘܚܕܬܬ̇ ܘܬܩܢܬ̇ ܡܢ ܐܖ̈ܒܥܐ ܟ̈ܝܢܐ ܣܩܘ̈ܒܠܝܐ. ܨܠܡܐ ܦܐܝܐ ܕܦ̇ܢܐ ܠܥܠ ܘܠܬܚܬ ܘܠܐܖ̈ܒܥ ܦܢ̈ܝܢ. ܘܐܟܙܢܐ ܕܟܠܝܠܐ ܡܐ ܕܐܬܚܫܠ ܐܢܗ̣ܘ ܕܠܐ ܡܬܬܣܝܡ ܒܪܝܫ ܡܠܟܘܬܐ ܠܐ ܡܬܩܪܐ ܟܠܝܠܐ ܕܡܠܟܐ. ܗܟܢܐ ܘܗ̇ܢܘܢ ܐܣܛܘܟ̈ܣܐ ܕܡܢܗܘܢ ܡܩܝܡ ܒܪܢܫܐ.
2 ܡܛܠܗܕܐ ܕܒܐ̈ܝܕܘܗܝ ܕܐܠܗܐ ܐܬܘ ܠܗܘܝܐ. ܘܢܣܒܘ ܕܟܝܘܬܐ ܘܩܕܝܫܘܬܐ. ܘܐܬܓܠܝ ܒܐܝܩܪܐ. ܘܐܬܦܪܫ ܒܝܕܥܬܐ ܝܘܡܐ ܕܥܪܘܒܬܐ. ܐܢܐ ܥ̇ܪܒ ܐܢܐ ܒܗܘܢ ܐܡܪ ܒܪܐ ܠܐܒܐ. ܘܕܐܘܫܛ ܐܝܕܗ ܐܕܡ ܠܦܐܪܐ ܘܢܦܠ. ܐܢܐ ܡܘܫܛ ܐܢܐ ܐ̈ܝܕܝܐ ܕܝܠܝ ܠܨܨ̈ܐ ܘܡܩܝܡ ܐܢܐ ܠܗ. ܥܠ ܕܡܛܠܬܗ ܠܬ̈ܕܝܐ ܕܚܠܒܐ ܥܦܩܬ. ܡܛܠܬܗ ܥܪܘܩܐ ܠܡܨܪܝܢ ܗܘܝܬ. ܡܛܠܬܗ ܒܡ̈ܝܐ ܥܡܕܬ. ܡܛܠܬܗ ܪܘܩܐ ܡܢ ܒܥ̈ܠܕܒܒܐ ܩܒܠܬ. ܡܛܠܬܗ ܐܙܕܒܢܬ. ܡܛܠܬܗ ܐܬܡܝܩܬ. ܡܛܠܬܗ ܓܕܦܘ ܥܠܝ ܥܘ̈ܠܐ. ܚܠܦܘܗܝ ܒܠܥܬ ܘܐܬܚܒܫܬ.Footnote 25 ܚܠܦܘܗܝ ܪܘܩܐ ܒܐ̈ܦܝ ܩܒܠܬ. ܚܠܦܘܗܝ ܐܬܩܦܚܬ. ܚܠܦܘܗܝ ܡܪܖ̈ܐ ܘܚܠܐ ܐܫܩܝܘܢܝ. ܚܠܦܘܗܝ ܥܠ ܩܝܣܐ ܐܙܕܩܦܬ. ܚܠܦܘ[ܗܝ] ܐܣܬܟܟܘ ܐ̈ܝܕܝ ܘܖ̈ܓܠܝ. ܘܒܥܪܘܒܬܐ ܐܢܐ ܚܠܦܘܗܝ ܝܗܒ ܐܢܐ ܢܦܫܝ ܘܥܪܒ ܐܢܐ ܒܗ ܐ̇ܡܪ ܡܪܝܐ. ܪܚ̇ܡ ܥܠܝܗܘܢ ܐܒܝ ܪܚ̇ܡ ܥܠܝܗܘܢ. ܗܠܝܢ ܐܡܪ ܡܪܗ̇ ܕܫܡܝܐ ܘܕܐܪܥܐ. ܟܕ ܐܬܬܠܝ ܥܠ ܩܝܣܐ ܒܓܓܘܠܬܐ. ܘܡܛܠܗܕܐ ܗܠܝܢ ܕܐܡܪܬ ܘ̇ܠܐ ܠܗܘܢ ܠܟܖ̈ܝܣܛܝܢܐ ܕܠܝܘܡܐ ܕܦܘܪܩܢܗܘܢ ܢܝܩܪܘܢ ܒܝܕ ܨܘܡܐ ܘܨܠܘܬܐ. ܘܡܢ ܒܛܠܢܐ ܕܟܠ ܥܒܕܐ ܘܡܢ ܫܠܝܐ ܕܟܠܗܝܢ ܗܠܝܢ |f. 222v| ܕܝܘܬܪܢܐ ܐܢ̈ܝܢ. ܘܠܢܦܫܐ ܘܠܦܓܪܐ ܡܥܕܪܝܢ ܘܡܢܛܪܝܢ ܘܡܪܗ̇ ܕܚ̇ܙܐ ܒܗܕܐ ܡܬܪܥܐ.
3 ܘܡܟܝܠ ܢܐܡܪ ܕܐܝܠܝܢ ܙܕܩ ܠܟܖ̈ܝܣܛܝܢܐ ܕܒܗܢܐ ܝܘܡܐ ܕܥܪܘܒܬܐ ܢܥܒܕܘܢ. ܘܐܝܠܝܢ ܠܐ ܢܥܒܕܘܢ. ܗܕܐ ܕܝܢ ܙܕܩ ܠܟܖ̈ܝܣܛܝܢܐ ܕܠܐ ܢܣܥܪܘܢ. ܠܐ ܟܕܝܢܘܬܐ ܕܦ̈ܕܢܐ. ܠܐ ܒܕܒܪܐ. ܘܠܐ ܒܥܕܢܐ ܕܐܕܪܐ. ܐܦܠܐ ܬܘܒ ܒܫܦܢܐ. ܘܠܐ ܒܚܨܕܐ. ܘܠܐ ܒܩܛܦܐ. ܘܠܐ ܒܠܘܩܛܐ ܕܙ̈ܝܬܐ. ܘܠܐ ܐܢܫ ܢܥܒܕ ܠܚܡܐ ܒܝܘܡܐ ܕܥܪܘܒܬܐ. ܐܠܐ ܐܢ ܒܚܠܘܠܐ ܕܩ̈ܕܝܫܐ ܐܘ ܒܢܝܚܬܐ ܕܥܢ̈ܝܕܐ. ܐܘ ܡܛܠ ܡܣ̈ܟܢܐ. ܗܠܝܢ ܓܝܪ ܙܕܩ ܕܢܗܘܘܢ. ܘܡܕܡ ܕܡܬܝܗܒܝܢ ܪܝܫܝܬܐ ܠܡܕܒܚܐ ܩܕܝܫܐ ܐܦ ܠܗܠܝܢ ܕܒܝܬ ܐܣܝܖ̈ܐ ܚܒܝܫܝܢ. ܘܕܠܐ ܫܠܝܛ ܠܐܢܫ ܕܢܐܟܘܠ ܒܣܪܐ ܒܝܘܡܐ ܕܥܪܘܒܬܐ. ܘܠܐ ܢܬܚܫܚ ܒܦܘܠܚܢܐ ܕܚܕܐ ܡܢ ܐܘܡܢ̈ܘܬܐ ܒܝܘܡܐ ܕܥܪܘܒܬܐ. ܗܠܝܢ ܠܓܒܖ̈ܐ ܐ̇ܡܪ ܐܢܐ ܘܠܢ̈ܫܐ. ܠܣ̈ܒܐ ܘܠܛ̈ܠܝܐ. ܠܪܘܖ̈ܒܐ ܐܟܚܕ ܘܠܙܥܘܖ̈ܐ. ܘܗ̇ܘ ܕܣ̇ܥܐ ܕܢܥܒܕ ܥܒܕܐ ܒܝܘܡܐ ܕܥܪܘܒܬܐ. ܢܬܟܠܐ ܡܢ ܥܕܬܐ ܘܡܢ ܢܣܝܒܘܬܐ ܕܖ̈ܐܙܐ ܩ̈ܕܝܫܐ ܝܘ̈ܡܐ ܬܠܬ̈ܐ. ܘܗܝܕܝܢ ܢܩܪܒܘܢ ܚܠܦܘܗܝ ܬܝܒܘܬܐ ܘܢܥܘܠ ܠܥܕܬܐ.
4 ܗܠܝܢ ܥܠ ܐܦ̈ܝ ܐܝܠܝܢ ܕܠܝ ܫܐܠܬܘܢ ܣ̇ܦ̈ܩܢ. ܐܠܐ ܡܛܠ ܕܐ̇ܡܪ ܢܒܝܐ. ܕܐܬܘ̈ܬܐ ܫܐܠܝܢ. ܘܐܢ̈ܫܐ ܠܚܕܬ̈ܬܐ ܡܣܟܝܢ. ܐܢܐ ܐܢܐ ܩܕܡܝܟܘܢ ܡܛܠܗܕܐ ܕܫܐܠܬܘܢ. ܡܚܘܐ ܐܢܐ ܕܡܘܢ ܝܘܬܪܢܐ ܗ̇ܘܐ ܡܢ ܢܛܘܪܘܬܐ ܕܝܘܡܐ ܗܢܐ ܕܥܪܘܒܬܐ. ܘܡܘܢ ܡܪܕܘܬܐ ܡܩܒܠ ܐܝܢܐ ܕܒܪܚܡܬ ܥܡܠܐ ܣ̇ܥܐ ܘܠܐ ܢ̇ܛܪ ܠܝܘܡܐ ܗܢܐ. ܠܐ ܗܘܐ ܓܝܪ ܐܢܐ ܚܙܝܬ ܗܠܝܢ ܐܠܐ ܐܢܫ ܡܝܠܝܛܘܤ ܬܢܝ ܕܐ̇ܡܪ܇|f. 223r| ܩܕܡܝ ܗܠܝܢ ܕܩܕܡܝܟܘܢ ܗܫܐ ܡܛܝܒ ܐܢܐ
5 ܐ̇ܙܠ ܗܘܝܬ ܗܟܝܠ ܠܘܬܗ ܠܐܢܛܝܘܟܝܐ ܒܗܠܝܢ ܝܘ̈ܡܬܐ ܕܦܐܢܛܝܩܘܣܛܝ. ܘܚܙܝܬܗ ܠܥܡܐ ܕܟܢܝܫ ܗܘܐ ܒܓܘ ܥܕܬܐ. ܝܬܝܪ ܡܢ ܝܘܡܐ ܕܚܕ ܒܫܒܐ. ܘܒܟܠܗܝܢ ܡܕܝܢ̈ܬܐFootnote 26 ܠܐ ܡܫܬܟܚ ܗܘܐ ܐܢܫ ܕܦ̇ܠܚ ܗܘܐ ܒܝܘܡܐ ܕܥܪܘܒܬܐ. ܘܠܐ ܕܠܒ̇ܟ ܗܘܐ ܒܐܘܡܢܘܬܐ ܕܝܠܗ. ܠܐ ܒܩܠܝܠ ܘܠܐ ܒܣܓܝ. ܘܡܢ ܒܬܪ ܕܐܫܬܡܠܝܬ ܬܫܡܫܬܐ. ܟܢܫ ܥܡܐ ܒܥܕܬܐ ܘܠܐ ܐܢܫ ܢܦܩ ܡܢܗ̇. ܘܦܩܕ ܠܝ ܡܝܠܝܛܘܤ ܕܐ̇ܡܪ ܠܥܡܐ ܗ̇ܘ ܡܠܬܐ ܕܝܘܬܪܢܐ ܐܦ ܕܪܘܚܐ ܩܕܝܫܐ. ܠܥܘܕܪܢܐ ܕܫܡܘ̈ܥܐ. ܐܢܐ ܕܝܢ ܐܡܪܬ ܠܗ. ܘܡܢܘ ܥܐܕܐ ܗܢܐ. ܕܩܕܝܫܐ ܐܝܬܘ[ܗܝ] ܐܘ ܕܩܘܕܫ ܗܝܟܠܐ. ܗ̣ܘ ܕܝܢ ܐܡܪ ܠܝ. ܐܝܬܘ[ܗܝ] ܥܐܕܐ ܗܢܐ ܝܘܡܐ ܕܒܗ ܐܬܒܛܠܘ ܚܛ̈ܗܘܗܝ ܕܥܠܡܐ. ܘܡܢ ܒܬܪ ܕܢܦܩܘ ܥܡܐ ܡܢ ܗܝܟܠܐ. ܥܢܝܬ ܘܐܡܪܬ ܠܗ. ܐܝܢ ܐܒܝ. ܘܡܛܠ ܡܘܢ ܒ̇ܛܠܝܢ ܝܘܡܢܐ ܡܢ ܦܘܠܚܢܐ. ܘܗ̣ܘ ܐܡܪ ܠܝ. ܝܘܡܐ ܐܝܬܘ[ܗܝ] ܕܥܪܘܒܬܐ. ܝܘܡܐ ܗܘ ܕܦܘܪܩܢܐ. ܝܘܡܐ ܗܘ ܕܒܘܝܐܐ. ܝܘܡܐ ܗܘ ܕܚܕܘ̈ܬܐ ܠܗܠܝܢ ܕܒܠܐ ܣܒܪܐ ܐܣܝܪܝܢ ܗܘܘ ܒܫܝܘܠ. ܘܐܢܐ ܥܢܝܬ ܘܐܡܪܬ ܠܗ. ܐܝܢ ܐܒܝ܆ ܘܗܟܢܐ ܙ̇ܕܩ ܠܢ ܕܠܝܘܡܐ ܗܢܐ ܕܟܝܐܝܬ ܢ̇ܛܪ. ܗܐ ܓܝܪ ܫܠ̈ܝܚܐ ܩ̈ܕܝܫܐ ܛܒ ܦܩܕܘ ܡܛܠ ܡܛܪܬܐ ܕܝܘ̈ܡܬܐ ܩ̈ܕܝܫܐ. ܘܠܘܬܢ ܠܐ ܓܡܝܪܐܝܬ ܡܬܢܛܪ ܝܘܡܐ ܗܢܐ.
6 ܗ̣ܘ ܕܝܢ ܐܡܪ ܠܝ. ܣܘܪܚܢܐ ܕܟܐ̈ܦܐ ܛܒ̈ܬܐ ܡܢ ܡܗܡܝܢܘܬܐ ܕܐܘܡܢܐ ܗ̇ܘܐ. ܟܕ ܡ̇ܒܣܐ ܒܚܕܐ ܡܢ ܟܐ̈ܦܐ ܛܒ̈ܬܐ ܕܒܢܝܢܐ. ܘܠܐ ܬ̇ܪܨ ܠܗ̇ ܒܕܘܡܣܐ ܐܝܟܢܐ ܕܬܬܠܒܟ ܡܢ ܚܒܖ̈ܬܗ̇. ܘܠܐ ܝ̇ܕܥܬ ܕܡܐ ܕܢܦܠܬ̇ ܠܣܓ̈ܝܐܬܐ ܗܠܝܢ ܕܠܥܠ ܡܢܗ̇ ܒܢ̈ܝܢ ܗܘ̈ܝ ܘܫܦ̈ܝܪܢ ܥܡܗ̇ |f. 223v| ܫ̇ܕܝܐ ܠܗܠܝܢ. ܘܬܘܪܥܬܐ ܥ̇ܒܕܐ. ܘܠܡܚܣܢ ܡܬܒܢܝܐ ܘܓ̇ܕܫ ܬܘܒ ܘܩܒܪܐ ܗܘܝܐ ܠܗܘܢ ܠܗܠܝܢ ܕܬܡܢ ܬܚܘܬܝܗ̇ ܡܛܝܒܝܢ. ܘܚܙܝ ܐܚܝ ܐܝܟܢܐ ܗܠܝܢ ܕܫܦܝܪ ܡܬܩ̈ܢܢ ܗܘ̈ܝ ܐܒܕ ܗܘ̈ܝ. ܘܟܒܪ ܬܘܒ ܕܐܦ ܐܪܕܝܟܠܐ ܗ̇ܘ ܚ̇ܝܒ ܡܘܬܐ ܗܘ. ܘܗܟܢܐ ܪܥܝܐ ܐܘ ܟܗܢܐ ܕܠܐ ܪܥ̇ܐ ܘܡܕܒܪ ܡܪܥܝܬܗ ܫܦܝܪ. ܐܡܬFootnote 27 ܕܕܢ̇ܚ ܪܥܝܐ ܫܡܝܢܐ. ܘܬܒ̇ܥ ܡܢܗܘܢ ܓܙܪܐ ܕܠܗܘܢ ܐܓܥܠ. ܡܛܠ ܕܠܡܐ̈ܟܒܐ ܠܐ ܥܨܒܝܢ. ܘܠܐ ܢܛܪܝܢ ܠܡܖ̈ܥܝܬܗܘܢ ܫܦܝܪ. ܘܕܠܝܬ ܠܗܘܢ ܝܨܝܦܘܬܐ ܘܫܩܠ ܛܥܢܐ ܥܠ ܗ̇ܢܘܢ ܕܡܚܝܠܝܢ ܘܠܐ ܩܢܝܢ ܚܝܠܐ. ܗ̇ܢܘܢ ܕܙ̇ܕܩ ܕܗ̣ܢܘܢ ܒܩܢܘ̈ܡܝܗܘܢ ܡܚܙܝܬܐ ܢܗܘܘܢ ܠܐܚܖ̈ܢܐ. ܐܠܐ ܖ̈ܥܘܬܐ ܕܝܘܡܢ ܚܠܦ ܗܠܝܢ ܗ̣ܢܘܢ ܡܫܪܝܢ ܒܒ̈ܝܫܬܐ. ܘܡܛܠ ܕܢܬܝܩܪܘܢ ܢܣܒܝܢ ܒܐ̈ܦܐ ܕܒܢ̈ܝܢܫܐ. ܘܐܝܟ ܕܒܫܠܝܐ ܐܚܕܝܢ ܠܡܠܬܐ ܕܐܠܗܐ ܘܠܐ ܕܚܠܝܢ. ܘܡܛܠܗܕܐ ܘ̇ܠܐ ܠܢ ܐ̈ܚܝ ܕܠܐ ܢܥܒܪ ܘܢܕܘܫ ܠܡܠܬܐ ܕܐܠܗܐ ܕܒܦܘܡܐ ܕܟܗܢܐ ܐܬܬܣܝܡܬ. ܘܐܢ ܥܠܝܗ̇ ܢܥܒܪ. ܘ̇ܝ ܠܢ ܐ̈ܚܝ. ܒܝܘܡܐ ܗ̇ܘ ܕܪܒ ܖ̈ܥܘܬܐ ܚܘܫܒܢܐ ܕܥܢܗ ܒܐ̈ܝܕܝܢ ܬ̇ܒܥ .
7 ܘܒ̇ܟܐ ܗܘܐ ܘܫܦ̈ܥܢ ܕܡܥܘ̈ܗܝ. ܘܥܕܢ ܥܕܢ ܡܫܬܚܠܦ ܗܘܐ ܦܪܨܘܦܗ ܠܕܡܘܬܐ ܕܢܘܪܐ. ܐܦ ܐܢܐ ܡܬܬܢܚ ܗܘܝܬ. ܐܢܫ ܕܝܢ ܠܘܬܢ ܠܝܬ ܗܘܐ ܒܒܝܬ ܓܙܐ ܐܠܐ ܐܢ ܬܪܝܢܢ ܒܠܚܘܕ. ܘܡܢ ܒܬܪ ܕܒܟܐ ܥܕܢܐ ܣܓܝܐܐ. ܥܢܐ ܘܐܡܪ ܠܝ. ܐܚܝ ܒܥܝ ܡܢ ܡܪܢ ܕܢ̇ܦܩ ܠܢ ܡܢ ܚܠܘܠܐ ܗܢܐ. ܘܢ̇ܣܡܟ ܠܢ ܒܚܠܘܠܐ ܕܝܠܗ ܪܘܚܢܐ. ܕܒܗ ܠܡܣ̈ܟܢܐ ܘܒ̈ܝܫܐ ܡܣܡܟ ܒܝܘܡ ܓܠܝܢܗ ܫܒܝܚܐ. ܘܡܛܠ ܕܫܐܠܬܢܝ ܕܡܢܐ ܐܝܬܘ[ܗܝ] ܝܘܡܐ ܕܥܪܘܒܬܐ ܫ̣ܡܥ |f. 224r| ܕܬܫܡܫܬܐ ܡܬܢܛܪܝܢ. ܘܣ̣ܒ ܘܐ̇ܡܪ ܠܟ. ܦܬ̣ܚ ܦܪܕܝܣܩܐFootnote 28 ܗܢܐ ܕܒܗ ܩܖ̈ܝܢܐ ܕܟܠܗ ܛܟܣܐ ܟܘܪܣܐ ܙܥܘܪܐ ܕܒܗ ܥܘܗܕܢܐ ܕܣܝܡ ܡܛܠ ܢܛܘܪܘܬܐ ܕܥܪܘܒܬܐ ܘܐܦܩܬܗ ܘܐܡܪ ܠܝ. ܣܒ ܩܪܝ ܦܬܩܐ ܗܢܐ. ܘܩܪܝܬ. ܘܐܝܬ ܗܘܐ ܒܗ ܗܟܢܐ.
8 ܓܒܪܐ ܠܡ ܚܕ ܐܝܬ ܗܘܐ ܠܐ ܟܪܝܣܛܝܢܐ ܡܢ ܡܕܝܢܬܐ ܐܢܛܝܘܟܝܐ. ܘܐܝܬ ܗܘܐ ܠܗ ܥܒ̈ܕܐ ܚܡ̈ܫܐ. ܚܕ ܕܝܢ ܡܢܗܘܢ ܫܡܗ ܗܘܐ ܝܘܚܢܢ. ܘܢ̇ܛܪ ܗܘܐ ܠܝܘܡܐ ܩܕܝܫܐ ܕܥܪܘܒܬܐ ܕܟܝܐܝܬ ܘܕܠܐ ܛܘܠܫܐ. ܟܕ ܠܐ ܥ̇ܒܕ ܗܘܐ ܥܒܕܐ ܣܟ. ܒܝܕ ܕܥ̇ܒܕ ܗܘܐ ܢܦܫܗ ܐܝܟ ܗ̇ܘ ܕܟܪܝܗ ܗܘܐ ܟܠ ܝܘܡܐ ܕܢܓܗ ܥܪܘܒܬܐ. ܘܥܕܡܐ ܠܢܓܗ ܕܫܒܬܐ ܠܐ ܛ̇ܥܡ ܗܘܐ ܡܕܡ. ܗ̣ܘ ܕܝܢ ܒܝܫܐ ܡܪܕܘܬܐ ܕܠܐ ܖ̈ܚܡܐ ܡܣܒܠ ܗܘܐ ܠܗ ܠܝܘܚܢܢ . ܘܡܛܠܗܕܐ ܐ̇ܡܪ ܗܘܐ ܠܗ ܟܕ ܡ̇ܚܐ ܠܗ. ܕܠܐ ܠܡ ܟܪܝܗ ܐܢܬ. ܐܠܐ ܒܐܘܡܢܘܬܐ ܣ̇ܥܪ ܐܢܬ ܠܗܕܐ. ܘܡܢܓܕ ܗܘܐ ܠܗ. ܗܐ ܠܡ ܚܒܖ̈ܝܟ ܦܠܚܝܢ ܒܝܘܡܐ ܕܥܪܘܒܬܐ ܘܐܢܬ ܒܛܝܠ ܐܢܬ. ܐܠܐ ܐܢܬ ܗ̇ܘܐ ܐܢܬ ܠܚܒܖ̈ܝܟ ܚܘܪܐ ܒܝܫܐ. ܘܗ̣ܢܘܢ ܡܚܣܕܝܢ ܠܝ ܒܟ. ܗ̣ܘ ܕܝܢ ܥܒܕܐ ܟܐܢܐ ܡܩܒܠ ܗܘܐ ܡܚܘ̈ܬܐ ܘܚܣ̈ܕܐ ܕܠܐ ܣܟ ܟܕ ܚ̇ܕܐ. ܠܐ ܓܝܪ ܨ̇ܒܐ ܗܘܐ ܘܠܐ ܕܢܡܠܠ ܒܝܘܡܐ ܕܥܪܒܬܐ.Footnote 29 ܘܙܒܢ̈ܝܢ ܣܓ̈ܝܐܢ ܨ̇ܒܐ ܗܘܐ ܕܢܩܛܠܝܘܗܝ. ܘܡܢ ܥܠܬ ܦܘܪܣܐ ܕܐܢܬܬܗ ܡܬܟܠܐ ܗܘܐ. ܗ̣ܝ ܕܝܢ ܐܢܬܬܗ ܡܦܝܣܐ ܗܘܬ ܐܡܝܢܐܝܬ ܡܛܠ ܕܪܓܝܫܐ ܗܘܬ ܕܟܐܢܐ ܗܘܐ. ܡܢ ܥܠܬܐ ܐܝܕܐ ܕܓܕܫܬܝ ܠܗ̇.
ܡܣܚܝܐ ܗܘܬ|f. 224v| 9 ܒܚܕ ܕܝܢ ܡܢ ܝܘ̈ܡܝܢ ܟܕ ܓܒܪܗ̇ ܠܐ ܗܘܐ ܬܡܢ . ܗ̣ܝ ܠܒܢ̈ܬܗ̇ ܒܝܘܡܐ ܕܥܪܘܒܬܐ ܘܚ̇ܝܦܐ ܠܗܝܢ ܥܠ ܓܢܒ ܒܐܪܐ ܕܐܝܬ ܒܒܝܬܗܝܢ . ܘܫܒܩܬ ܐܢ̈ܝܢ ܘܥܠܬ ܠܒܝܬܗ̇. ܘܩ̈ܡܝ ܗܘ̈ܝ ܒܢ̈ܬܗ̇ ܕܢܫܬܥ̈ܝܢ ܚܕܐ ܥܡ ܚܕܐ. ܘܒܗ̇ ܒܫܥܬܐ ܢܦܠ ܐܟܚܕܐ ܬܖ̈ܬܝܗܝܢ ܒܒܐܪܐ. ܘܗ̣ܘ ܝܘܚܢܢ ܠܘܬ ܒܐܪܐ ܡܐܓܤ ܗܘܐ. ܘܟܕ ܚܙܐ ܐܢ̈ܝܢ ܕܢܦ̈ܠܝ . ܐܬܬܢܚ ܘܐܡܪ ܒܠܒܗ. ܐܠܗܐ ܥܕܪ. ܘܥܠ ܬܘܟܠܢܐ ܕܗܕܐ ܠܐ ܐܝܠܠ ܗܘܐ. ܘܟܕ ܢܦܩܬ ܐܡܗܝܢ ܒܥܬ ܐܢ̈ܝܢ ܘܩܪܬ ܐܢ̈ܝܢ ܘܠܝܬ ܕܥ̇ܢܐ ܠܗ̇. ܘܬܪܥܐ ܕܕܪܬܐ ܕܝܠܗܘܢ ܪܡ ܗܘܐ ܕܠܐ ܒܙܥܘܪ. ܘܪܗܛܬ ܟܕ ܩ̇ܪܝܐ ܠܗܝܢ ܠܥܠ ܘܠܬܚܬ ܘܠܝܬ ܐܢ̈ܝܢ. ܘܩܪܒܬ ܠܘܬ ܝܘܚܢܢ ܨܝܕ ܒܐܪܐ ܟܕ ܒ̇ܟܝܐ ܫܐܠܬ ܥܠܝܗܝܢ. ܘܟܕ ܚܙܐ ܝܘܚܢܢ ܠܡܪܬܗ ܕܒ̇ܟܝܐ ܡܪܝܪܐܝܬ ܥܢܐ ܘܐܡܪ ܠܗ̇. ܕܒܢ̈ܬܟܝ ܒܒܐܪܐ ܢܦ̈ܠܝ . ܘܐܝܬ ܠܝ ܣܒܪܐ ܒܐܠܗܐ ܕܝܘܡܐ ܩܕܝܫܐ ܕܥܪܘܒܬܐ ܫܘܙܒ ܐܢ̈ܝܢ ܕܠܐ ܢܬܚܢ̈ܩܢ. ܗ̣ܝ ܕܝܢ ܐܕܝܩܬ ܒܒܐܪܐ ܘܚܙܬ ܐܢ̈ܝܢ ܟܕ ܝ̇ܬܒ̈ܢ ܠܥܠ ܡܢ ܡ̈ܝܐ ܐܝܟ ܕܥܠ ܐܪܥܐ ܝܒܝܫܬܐ. ܘܫܡܥܬ ܐܦ ܠܩܠܗܝܢ ܟܕ ܡܡܠ̈ܠܢ ܥܡ ܚ̈ܕܕܐ. ܘܥܢܬ ܘܐܡܪܬ ܠܝܘܚܢܢ. ܒ̇ܥܝܐ ܐܢܐ ܡܢܟ ܡܪܝ ܩܘܡ ܐܣܩ ܒܢ̈ܬܝ. ܡܛܠ ܕܒܨܠܘ̈ܬܟ ܚ̇ܐܝܢ ܐܢ̈ܝܢ. ܘܠܐ ܐܢܫ ܢܪܓܫ ܒܗܕܐ. ܕܠܡܐ ܢܫܡܥ ܫܘܬܦܝ ܘܢܩܛܠܢܝ ܘܠܓܠܝܐ ܐ̇ܬܝܐ ܙܕܝܩܘܬܟ. ܗ̣ܘ ܕܝܢ ܝܘܚܢܢ ܦܩܕ ܠܗ̇ ܕܬ̇ܝܬܐ ܚܒܠܐ ܘܣܐܠܐ ܚܕ ܪܒܐ ܘܥܒܕ ܥܠܝܗܘܢ ܨܠܝܒܐ. ܘܩܛܪ ܚܒܠܐ ܒܣܐܠܐ. ܘܫܕܪ ܒܒܐܪܐ. ܘܩܪܐ ܠܛ̈ܠܝܬܐ. ܘܥܠܝܢ ܠܣܐܠܐ ܬܖ̈ܬܝܗܝܢ ܘܕܠܐ ܗܘܬ ܠܗܝܢ ܐܡܗܝܢ ܟܕ ܐ̇ܡܪܐ. |f. 225r| ܐܢ̈ܝܢ. ܘܟܕ ܣܠܩ̈ܝ ܚܙܘ ܐܢ̈ܝܢ ܕܠܐ ܪܛܒܝ ܡܢ ܡ̈ܝܐ. ܘܡܫܐܠܐ ܕܐܝܟܢܐ <ܢܦ̈ܠܛܢ>Footnote 30 ܢܦܠܬܝܢ ܘܡ̇ܢ ܛܥܝܢ ܗܘܐ ܠܟܝܢ ܠܥܠ ܡܢ ܡ̈ܝܐ. ܗ̈ܢܝܢ ܕܝܢ ܐܡܪܝܢ ܠܗ.Footnote 31 ܕܓܒܪܐ ܚܕ ܐܘܟܡܐ ܢ̇ܓܕ ܗܘܐ ܠܢ ܠܥܠ ܡܢ ܒܐܪܐ ܘܢܦܠܢܢ ܒܗ̇. ܘܗܢܐ ܕܝܢ ܥܒܕܐ ܕܝܠܢ ܝܘܚܢܢ ܢܚܬ ܠܘܬܢ. ܘܝܗܒܢ ܠܐܢܬܬܐ ܚܕܐ ܫܦܝܪܬ ܚܙܘܐ. ܘܗ̣ܝ ܛܥܝܢܐ ܗܘܬ ܠܢ ܠܥܠ ܡܢ ܡ̈ܝܐ. ܘܟܕ ܗܕܐ ܫܡܥܬ ܡܢ ܒܢ̈ܬܗ̇. ܩܪܒܬ ܠܘܬ ܝܘܚܢܢ ܘܐ̇ܡܪ ܠܗ̇.Footnote 32 ܒܚܝܝ̈ܟ ܡܪܝ ܐܡܪ ܠܝ. ܐܝܕܐ ܡܢ ܐܠܗ̈ܝܬܐ ܦܨܝܬ ܒܢ̈ܬܝ ܡܢ ܚܢܘܩܝܐ. ܕܐܦ ܐܢܐ ܐܣܓܘܕ ܠܗ.Footnote 33 ܗ̣ܘ ܕܝܢ ܐܡܪ ܠܗ̇. ܕܡܪܢ ܝܫܘܥ ܡܫܝܚܐ ܫܘܙܒ ܐܢ̈ܝܢ ܘܥܪܘܒܬܐ ܩܕܝܫܬܐ. ܘܣܡܬ ܐܢܬܬܐ ܪܐܙܐ ܗܢܐ ܒܠܒܗ̇ ܘܠܐ ܓܠܬ ܠܐܢܫ. ܥܕܡܐ ܕܐܬܘ ܕܢܗܘܘܢ ܟܖ̈ܝܣܛܝܢܐ.
10 ܗ̣ܝ ܕܝܢ ܚ̇ܫܐ ܗܘܬ ܒܠܒܗ̇ ܥܠ ܝܘܚܢܢ ܕܚ̇ܙܝܐ ܗܘܬ ܠܗ ܕܡܬܢܓܕ ܗܘܐ ܡܢ ܒܥܠܗ̇. ܘܙܒܢ̈ܬܐ ܣܓ̈ܝܐܬܐ ܡܦܝܣܐ ܗܘܬ ܡܛܠܬܗ. ܥܕܡܐ ܕܐܦ ܒܥܠܗ̇ ܣܓܝ ܪܓܙ ܗܘܐ ܥܠܝܗ̇ ܘܐܡܪ ܠܗ̇. ܕܠܐ ܗܘܐ ܡܛܠ ܫܦܝܖ̈ܬܐ ܒ̇ܥܝܐ ܐܢܬܝ ܡܛܠܬܗ ܘܚܠܦܘܗܝ. ܗܫܐ ܡܛܠܬܟܝ ܐܩܛܠܝܘܗܝ. ܘܟܕ ܗܠܝܢ ܫܡܥܬ ܡܢܗ ܠܐ ܐܘܣܦܬ ܬܘܒ ܬܐܡܪ ܠܗ ܡܕܡ . ܐܠܐ ܠܝܘܚܢܢ ܡܦܝܣܐ ܗܘܬ ܕܥ̇ܒܕ ܨܒܝܢܐ ܠܒܥܠܗ̇. ܘܢܦܠܘܚ ܩܠܝܠ ܚܕ ܝܘܡܐ. ܘܟܕ ܣܓܝ ܡܦܝܣܐ ܗܘܬ ܕܢܦܘܫ ܡܢ ܨܒܝܢܗ. ܐܡܪܐ ܗܘܬ ܠܗ. ܕܠܝܬ ܠܟ ܚܛܝܬܐ. ܗ̣ܘ ܕܝܢ ܠܐ ܐܬܛܦܝܤ ܐܠܐ ܐ̇ܡܪ ܗܘܐ. ܕܗܕܐ ܚܕܘܬܐ ܐܝܬܝܗ̇ ܠܝ. ܘܗ̇ܘ ܝܘܡܐ ܥܪܘܒܬܐ ܗܘܐ. ܘܟܕ |f. 225v| ܒܚܕ ܕܝܢ ܡܢ ܝܘ̈ܡܬܐ. ܐܬܘ ܨܝܕ ܚܢܦܐ ܐܢ̈ܫܐ ܕܢܥܕܪܘܢܝܗܝ ܒܚܨܕܐ. ܥܒ̈ܕܐ ܚܒܖ̈ܘܗܝ ܢܟܣܝܢ ܗܘܘ ܒܣܪܐ. ܘܡܬܩܢܝܢ ܗܘܘ ܠܗ̇ܢܘܢ ܕܚܨܕܝܢ ܗܘܘ. ܗ̣ܘ ܕܝܢ ܝܘܚܢܢ ܒܩܝܩܠܬܐ ܪܡܐܸ ܗܘܐ ܥܠ ܐܦ̈ܘܗܝ ܟܕ ܒ̇ܟܐ. ܘܡܪܗ ܥܡ ܚܨܘ̈ܕܐ ܐܝܬܘ[ܗܝ] ܗܘܐ. ܘܟܕ ܐܬܐ ܡܪܗ ܡܢ ܚܩܠܐ. ܚܙܝܗܝ ܠܝܘܚܢܢ ܥܠ ܩܝܩܠܬܐ ܐܝܟ ܗ̇ܘ <ܕܩܪܝܗܝ>Footnote 34 ܕܟܪܝܗ ܗܘܐ. ܘܐܬܚܡܬ. ܘܢܚܬ ܡܢ ܣܘܣܝܗ. ܘܫܡܛ ܣܝܦܗ ܘܐܢܝܦ ܕܢܡܚܝܘܗܝ. ܘܐܬܬܟܤ ܗܘܐ ܠܒܣܬܪܗ. ܘܩܪܝܗܝ ܠܝܘܚܢܢ ܕܬܖ̈ܬܝܢ ܙܒܢ̈ܝܢ ܕܢܐܙܠ ܨܝܕ ܚܒܖ̈ܘܗܝ ܘܠܐ ܨܒܐ. ܘܬܠܐ ܗܘܐ ܬܘܒ ܕܢܡܚܝܘܗܝ. ܘܐܬܚܙܝܬ ܠܗ ܐܢܬܬܐ ܫܦܝܪܬ ܚܙܘܐ. ܘܠܒܝܫܐ ܡܐ̈ܢܐ ܐܘܟ̈ܡܐ ܘܙܠܝܚܝܢ ܗܘܘ ܒܕܡܐ ܦܐܝܐ. ܘܦܫܛܬ ܐܝܕܗ̇ ܘܫܩܠܬܗ ܠܣܝܦܐ ܡܢܗ. ܘܡܚܬܗ ܒܗ ܠܚܢܦܐ ܘܢܦܠ ܠܒܣܬܪܗ. ܘܥܢܬ ܘܐܡܪܬ ܠܗ. ܐܘ ܚܢܦܐ ܒܝܫܐ ܘܕܠܐ ܐܠܗܝ. ܐܠܘ ܠܐ ܕܒܥܘܬܐ ܕܝܘܚܢܢ ܩܕܝܫܐ. ܕܒ̇ܥܐ ܗܘܐ ܚܠܦܝܟ ܘܐܠܐ ܫܢܝܘ ܠܗܘܢ ܚ̈ܝܝܟ ܘܕܒܢ̈ܝܟ ܡܢ ܥܠܡܐ ܗܢܐ. ܘܒܝܬܟ ܩܒܪܐ ܥܒܝܕ ܗܘܐ ܠܟ. ܡܟܝܠ ܗܐ ܪܡܝܐ ܐܢܐ ܢܘܪܐ ܒܚܨܘ̈ܕܐ ܕܝܠܟ. ܗܠܝܢ ܕܥܡ ܚܢܦܘܬܟ ܚܨܕܝܢ ܡܛܠ ܠܥܒܘܬܐ ܕܟܪܣܗܘܢ. ܘܡܨܥܪܝܢ ܠܝܘܡܐ ܩܕܝܫܐ ܕܥܪܘܒܬܐ. ܠܗ ܕܝܢ ܠܙܪܥܐ ܠܐ ܣܟ ܐܘܩܕ. ܡܛܠ ܝܘܚܢܢ ܩܕܝܫܐ ܕܐܠܝ ܒܗ ܘܙܪܥܗ. ܡܛܠܬܗ ܓܝܪ ܣܓܐ ܩܢܝܢܟ ܘܟܠܡܕܡ ܕܐܝܬ ܒܒܝܬܟ ܒܗ ܐܬܒܪܟ. ܘܒܝܕ ܗܢܐ ܓܒܪܐ ܐܬܢܛܪ ܒܝܬܟ ܘܙܪܥܟ. ܘܟܠ ܕܐܝܬ ܠܟ ܘܠܐ ܝܩܕ. ܕܢܗܘܐ ܬܘܪܣܝܐ ܠܝܬ̈ܡܐ ܘܠܐܖ̈ܡܠܬܐ. ܘܟܕ ܗܠܝܢ ܐܡܪܬ. ܫܢܝܬ ܡܢ ܠܘܬܗ.
ܕܡܢ ܢܘܓܪܐ ܣܓܝܐܐ. ܘܡܢ ܒܬܪ ܩܠܝܠ ܐܬܬܥܝܪ. ܩܪܒ |f. 226r|11 ܗ̣ܘ ܕܝܢ ܙܐܦܢܐ ܫܕܐܸ ܗܘܐ ܐܝܟ ܡܝܬܐ ܠܘܬ ܝܘܚܢܢ ܥܒܕܗ ܘܐܡܪ ܠܗ. ܐܬܪܚܡ ܥܠܝ ܐܘ ܥܒܕܗ ܕܐܠܗܐ ܚܝܐ. ܘܫܒܘܩ ܠܝ ܟܠ ܕܐܣܟܠܬ ܒܟ. ܘܨܠܐ ܥܠܝ ܠܐܠܗܟ ܕܠܗ ܣ̇ܓܕ ܐܢܐ ܡܟܝܠ ܘܠܥܠܡ. ܗ̣ܘ ܕܝܢ ܝܘܚܢܢ ܦܫܛ ܐܝܕܗ ܘܚܬܡܗ ܠܡܪܗ ܒܨܠܝܒܐ ܒܫܡܐ ܕܐܠܗܐ ܚܝܐ. ܘܡܚܕܐ ܬܩܢ ܗܘܐ ܗܘܢܗ. ܘܩܡ ܥܠ ܖ̈ܓܠܘܗܝ ܘܚܙܐ ܠܣܝܦܗ ܟܕ ܬܒܝܪ ܬܠܬ̈ܐ ܬܒܖ̈ܐ. ܘܐܝܕܗ ܕܝܡܝܢܐ ܝܒܝܫܐ ܗܘܬ ܐܝܟ ܩܝܣܐ. ܘܥܢܐ ܘܐܡܪ ܠܝܘܚܢܢ. ܡܘܡܐ ܐܢܐ ܠܟ ܒܐܠܗܐ ܕܒܗ ܡܗܝܡܢ ܐܢܬ. ܕܬܨܠܐ ܐܦ ܥܠ ܐܝܕܝ ܕܬܬܐܣܐ. ܕܗܐ ܓܝܪ ܝܒܫܬ ܠܗ̇ ܡܢܝ. ܗ̣ܘ ܕܝܢ ܝܘܚܢܢ ܦܫܛ ܐܝܕܗ ܘܚܬܡܗ̇ ܠܐܝܕܗ ܕܡܪܗ ܘܬܩܢܬ ܐܝܟ ܚܒܪܬܗ̇. ܘܟܕ ܚܙܐ ܡܪܗ ܗܠܝܢ. ܘܕܐܝܟܢܐ ܐܬܐܣܝ ܒܥܓܠ ܒܡܠܬܗ ܕܝܘܚܢܢ ܢܦܠ ܥܠ ܐܪܥܐ. ܘܣܓܕ ܠܗ ܘܐܡܪ. ܐܒܝ ܘܡܪܝ ܫܒܘܩ ܠܝ. ܘܬܐ ܢܐܙܠ ܠܘܬ ܚܨܘ̈ܕܐ. ܘܢܚܙܐ ܡܢܐ ܗܘܐ ܡܢܗܘܢ. ܕܫܪܝܪܐܝܬ ܐܝܟ ܕܣ̇ܒܪ ܠܝ ܡܪܝ܆ ܐܒܕܘ ܠܗܘܢ .
12 ܘܢܦܩܘ ܬܖ̈ܝܗܘܢ ܟܕ ܡܗܠܟܝܢ. ܘܟܕ ܡܛܝܘ ܠܚܩܠܐ. ܐܫܟܚܘ ܠܚܨܘ̈ܕܐ ܟܕ ܝܩܝܕܝܢ. ܘܠܐ ܦܫܘ ܐܢܫ ܡܢܗܘܢ ܕܠܐ ܝܩܕܘ. ܐܠܐ ܐܝܟ ܥܣܖ̈ܝܢ ܢܦ̈ܫܢ ܝܬ̈ܡܐ ܘܐܖ̈ܡܠܬܐ ܕܠܐ ܐܝܬܝܗܘܢ ܗܘܘ ܒܬܪ ܚܨܘ̈ܕܐ. ܘܥܢ̈ܝ ܗ̇ܢܘܢFootnote 35 ܗ̈ܢܝܢ ܢ̈ܫܐ ܘܐܡܪܘFootnote 36 ܠܗ. ܟܕ ܐܦܩܬܢ. ܚܙܝܢܢܝ ܡܪܝ ܕܡܘܬܐ ܕܐܢܬܬܐ ܫܦܝܪܬܐFootnote 37 ܚܙܘܐ. ܕܢܚܬܬ ܡܢ ܪܘܡܐ ܘܩܡܬ ܩܕܡ ܚܨܘ̈ܕܐ ܘܐܡܪܬ ܠܗܘܢ. ܐܘ ܥܘ̈ܠܐ ܥܕܡܐ ܠܐܡܬܝ ܠܐ ܗܦܟܝܢ ܐܢܬܘܢ ܡܢ ܒ̈ܝܫܬܟܘܢ. ܘܠܝܘܡܐ ܕܚܫܗ ܕܡܪܢ ܠܐ ܢܛܪܝܢ ܐܢܬܘܢ. ܐܠܐ ܫܝܛܝܢ ܐܢܬܘܢ. ܘܠܐ ܒܗܬܝܢ ܐܢܬܘܢ. ܡܟܝܠ ܩܒܠFootnote 38 ܒܟܠܗ ܥܠܡܐ. |f. 226v| ܡܣܡ ܒܪܝܫܐ ܕܐܬܐ ܥܠܝܟܘܢ ܡܢ ܝܩܕܢܐ ܕܢܘܪܐ. ܘܗܘܘ ܠܐܬܐ ܕܚܝܠܬܐ ܘܪܗܝܒܬܐ ܕܙܘܥܬܐ ܕܐܟܘܬܟܘܢ ܐܢܫ ܠܐ ܢܡܪܚ ܠܡܥܒܕ ܗܕܐ. ܗ̣ܝ ܕܝܢ ܐܢܬܬܐ ܛܥܝܢܐ ܗܘܬ ܕܡܘܬܐ ܕܡܟܢܫܬܐ ܕܢܘܪܐ. ܘܡܬܢܒܪܫܐ ܗܘܬ ܐܝܟ ܢܦܛܐ. ܘܩܪܒܬ ܠܘܬ ܟܠ ܚܕ ܚܕ ܡܢ ܚܨܘ̈ܕܐ. ܘܪܡܝܐ ܗܘܬ ܒܗ ܢܘܪܐ. ܘܗܟܢܐ ܣܦܬ ܒܗܘܢ ܐܝܟ ܪܦܦ ܥܝܢܐ ܘܐܝܩܕܘ ܟܠܗܘܢ ܐܟܡܐ ܕܚܙܝܢ ܐܢܬܘܢ. ܠܘܬܢ ܕܝܢ ܠܐ ܩܪܒܬ. ܘܒܥܝܢܢ ܕܢܥܪܘܩ ܘܠܐ ܐܫܟܚܢܢ ܡܢ ܗܠܝܢ ܕܚܙܝܢ ܗܘܝܢ ܕܚܠܬܐ ܪܒܬܐ.
13 ܘܩܪܒ ܚܢܦܐ ܗ̇ܘ ܘܡܬܒܩܐ ܗܘܐ ܒܗ̇ܢܘܢ ܕܐܝܩܕܘ. ܘܕܡܝܢ ܗܘܘ ܠܩ̈ܝܣܐ ܡܚܖ̈ܟܐ ܕܢܦܝܩܝܢ ܡܢ ܢܘܪܐ. ܘܗ̈ܕܡܝܗܘܢ ܡܢܗܘܢ ܩܝܡܝܢ ܗܘܘ ܘܡܢܗܘܢ ܝܩܝܕܝܢ ܗܘܘ ܘܡܛܠܩܝܢ . ܙܖ̈ܥܐ ܕܝܢ ܘܟ̈ܦܐ ܕܒܐ̈ܝܕܝܗܘܢ ܠܐ ܝܩܕܘ ܘܐܦܠܐ ܚܕܐ ܫܒܠܐ ܡܢܗܘܢ. ܐܝܬ ܗܘܐ ܕܝܢ ܡܢܗܘܢ ܟܕ ܠܒܝܟܝܢ ܗܘܘ ܠܫܒ̈ܠܐ ܒܐ̈ܝܕܝܗܘܢ. ܘܐܚܖ̈ܢܐ ܪܡܝܢ ܗܘܘ ܥܠ ܟ̈ܦܐ. ܘܟ̈ܦܐ ܠܐ ܝܩܕܝ ܗܘܝ. ܗ̣ܢܘܢ ܕܝܢ ܚܨܘ̈ܕܐ ܝܩܝܕܝܢ ܗܘܘ. ܘܟܕ ܚܙܐ ܙܐܦܢܐ ܗܠܝܢ ܕܓܕܫ ܡܬܕܡܪ ܗܘܐ. ܘܝܗܒ ܘܝܐ ܠܢܦܫܗ. ܐܦ ܗ̣ܘ ܝܘܚܢܢ ܒ̇ܟܐ ܗܘܐ. ܘܐܡܪ ܠܗ ܚܢܦܐ. ܐܘ ܝܘܚܢܢ ܐܝܟܢܐ ܦ̇ܩܕ ܐܢܬ ܕܢܥܒܕ ܡܢ ܗܠܝܢ. ܦܩܚ ܠܢ ܕܢܥܪܘܩ ܕܠܐ ܢܐܬܘܢ ܐܒܗ̈ܝܗܘܢ ܘܢ̈ܫܝܗܘܢ ܘܢܬܒܥܘܢ ܕܡܐ ܕܝܠܗܘܢ ܡܢܢ. ܐ̇ܡܪ ܠܗ ܝܘܚܢܢ. ܡܪܕܘܬܐ ܕܡܢ ܐܠܗܐ ܡܫܬܕܪܐ ܥܠ ܡܣ̈ܟܠܢܐ ܕܢܪܫܐ ܐܢܫ ܥܠܝܗ̇ ܠܐ ܡܨܐܸ. ܣܦܩܐ ܠܗܘܢ ܕܡܢ ܡܘܬܐ ܕܒܢ̈ܝܗܘܢ ܐܬܦܠܛܘ. ܡܛܠ ܕܒܫܪܪܐ ܗ̇ܢܘܢ ܫܘܝܢ ܗܘܘ ܠܡܪܕܘܬܐ ܗܕܐ. ܥܠ ܕܠܐ ܪܕܘ ܗܘܘ ܒܢ̈ܝܗܘܢ ܕܒܝܘܡܐ ܕܥܪܘܒܬܐ ܠܐ ܢܣܥܪܘܢ ܡܕܡ ܕܒܝܫ. ܕܚܠܐ ܪܒܐ ܐܘ ܚܒ̈ܝܒܝ ܠܡܗ̈ܝܡܢܐ ܕܒܝܘܡܐ ܕܥܪܘܒܬܐ ܢܡܪܚܘܢ ܕܢܥܒܕܘܢ ܡܕܡ܇ |f. 227r|
14 ܘܚܢܦܐ ܐܡܪ. ܘܚܢܢ ܕܐܝܬܝܢ ܚܢ̈ܦܐ ܐܝܬ ܠܢ ܚܛ̈ܗܐ. ܐ̇ܡܪ ܠܗ ܝܘܚܢܢ. ܠܐ ܐ̇ܡܪ ܐܢܐ ܕܐܝܬ ܠܟܘܢ ܫܝܢܐ. ܡܛܠ ܕܠܝܬ ܠܟܘܢ ܣܒܪܐ ܕܚ̈ܝܐ ܕܥܬܝܕܝܢ. ܘܛ̈ܥܝܐ ܓܝܪ ܐܝܬܝܟܘܢ. ܘܡܐ ܕܡܝܬܝܢ ܐܢܬܘܢ ܐܬܦܣܩܘFootnote 39 ܠܗ ܣܒܪܐ ܕܝܠܟܘܢ. ܘܓܝܗܢܐ ܡܛܝܒܐ ܠܟܘܢ ܠܥܠܡ ܥܠܡܝܢ. ܘܡܢܗ̇ ܠܐ ܡܬܕܠܝܢ ܐܢܬܘܢ. ܚܢܦܐ ܕܝܢ ܫܪܝ ܕܢܫܐܠܗ ܥܠ ܪܐܙܗܘܢ ܕܟܖ̈ܝܣܛܝܢܐ. ܡܛܠ ܕܕ̇ܚܠ ܗܘܐ ܘܪܚ̇ܡ ܠܡܫܝܚܐ. ܥܢܐ ܘܐܡܪ ܠܝܘܚܢܢ. ܐܡܪ ܠܝ ܐܚܝ. ܘܐܢܬܘܢ ܡܢܐ ܝ̇ܪܬܝܢ ܐܢܬܘܢ. ܥܢܐ ܝܘܚܢܢ ܘܐܡܪ ܠܗ. ܚܢܢ ܝܗ̇ܒ ܠܢ ܡܫܝܚܐ ܡܠܟܘܬܐ ܕܫܡܝܐ ܗ̇ܝ ܕܠܥܠܡܝܢ ܠܐ ܥ̇ܒܪܐ. ܚܢܦܐ ܐ̇ܡܪ. ܘܐܢ ܗ̇ܘܐ ܐܢܐ ܟܪܝܣܛܝܢܐ ܥ̇ܪܒ ܐܢܬ ܠܝ ܕܝܗ̇ܒ ܠܝ ܡܫܝܚܐ ܡܠܟܘܬܗ. ܝܘܚܢܢ ܐܡܪ. ܥ̇ܪܒ ܐܢܐ ܒܟ. ܘܠܘ ܐܢܐ ܒܠܚܘܕ ܐܠܐ ܘܐܦ ܡܫܝܚܐ ܕܝ̇ܪܬܬ ܚ̈ܝܐ ܘܡܠܟܘܬܐ ܕܠܐ ܡܫܬܪܝܐ. ܘܟܕ ܐܦܝܣܗ ܚܢܦܐ. ܬܪܓܡ ܝܘܚܢܢ ܥܠ ܡܕܒܪܢܘܬܗ ܕܡܫܝܚܐ ܥܕܡܐ ܠܣܘܠܩܗ. ܘܟܕ ܗܠܝܢ ܫܡܥ ܚܢܦܐ ܐܡܪ ܠܝܘܚܢܢ. ܐܒܐ ܡܛܠ ܡܪܢ ܐܥܡܕܝܢܝ ܒܗܠܝܢ ܡ̈ܝܐ ܕܐܝܬ ܗܪܟܐ. ܘܡܚܕܐ ܕܥܐܠܝܢܢ ܡܥܡܕ ܐܢܬ ܠܒܢ̈ܝ ܒܝܬܐ ܕܝܠܝ. ܐ̇ܡܪ ܠܗ ܝܘܚܢܢ. ܠܝܬ ܥܠܝ ܕܪܓܐ ܕܟܗܢܘܬܐ. ܡܥܡܕܝܢ ܠܟܘܢ ܕܝܢ ܟܗ̈ܢܐ ܐ̈ܚܝܕܝ ܫܘܠܛܢܐ ܥܠ ܗܕܐ. ܐ̇ܡܪ ܗ̇ܘ ܚܢܦܐ ܠܐ ܫܡܗ ܚܝܐ ܕܐܠܗܐ. ܠܐ ܐܢܫ ܐܚܪܝܢ ܡܥܡܕ ܠܝ ܐܠܐ ܐܢ ܐܢܬ. ܕܥ̇ܪܒ ܐܢܬ ܒܝ. ܕܝܗ̇ܒ ܠܝ ܡܫܝܚܐ ܡܠܟܘܬܗ.
15 ܘܟܕ ܗܠܝܢ ܡܡܠܠܝܢ ܗܘܘ. ܗܐ ܗܠܝܢ ܚܨܘ̈ܕܐ ܡܛܘ ܠܬܪܥܐ ܒܪܝܐ ܕܕܪܬܐ. ܗ̇ܢܘܢ ܕܛܥܝܢܝܢ ܗܘܘ ܠܗܘܢ ܠܚܢܦܐ. ܥܘܠ ܐܢܬ ܘܟܠܗ ܛܘܝܒܐ ܗ̇ܘ ܕܗܘܐ ܠܚܨܘ̈ܕܐ ܐܘܩܕܝܗܝ |f. 227v| ܣܝܒܪܬܐ. ܥܢܐ ܝܘܚܢܢ ܘܐܡܪ ܒܢܘܪܐ. ܟܕ ܠܐ ܫ̇ܒܩ ܐܢܬ ܡܢܗ ܡܕܡ ܣܟ. ܘܡܚܕܐ ܥܠ ܗܘܐ ܘܐܝܟܢ ܕܐܡܪ ܠܗ ܝܘܚܢܢ ܥܒܕ. ܘܫܩܠ ܕܝܢ ܚܕ ܡܢ ܥܒ̈ܕܐ ܕܐܝܬܘ[ܗܝ] ܗܘܐ ܪܘܡܝܐ. ܟܕ ܚܙܐ ܕܡܫܬܕܐ ܒܣܪܐ ܡܒܫܠܐ. ܪܗܛ ܝܥܢܐ ܘܢܣܒ ܚܕ ܡܢ ܡܢܘ̈ܬܐ ܕܒܣܪܐ ܡܢ ܢܘܪܐ. ܘܣܡ ܒܦܘܡܗ. ܘܚܕܐ ܡܢ ܓܘܡܖ̈ܐ ܕܒܝܩ̈ܢ ܗܘ̈ܝ ܒܗ ܒܒܣܪܐ. ܘܡܚܕܐ ܣܦܬ ܒܗ ܢܘܪܐ ܒܦܪܨܘܦܗ ܘܒܪܝܫܗ. ܘܡܢ ܐܘܠܨܢܐ ܕܢܦܫܗ ܪܗܛ ܫܕܐ ܢܦܫܗ ܒܒܐܪܐ ܕܡ̈ܝܐ ܘܐܬܚܢܩ. ܘܪܗܛ ܚܢܦܐ ܠܘܬ ܝܘܚܢܢ ܘܐܡܪ ܠܗ. ܚܙܝ ܕܣܦܬ ܢܘܪܐ ܒܛ̈ܠܝܐ ܘܗܐ ܡܘܩܕܐ ܠܗܘܢ. ܗ̣ܘ ܕܝܢ ܝܘܚܢܢ ܐܡܪ ܠܗ. ܠܐ ܬܬܪܗܒ ܠܐܝܠܝܢ ܕܐܝܬܝܗܘܢ ܡܣܟ̈ܠܢܐ ܝܕܥܐ ܡܪܕܘܬܐ.
16 ܘܩܡ ܝܘܚܢܢ ܘܥܠ ܥܡ ܡܪܗ ܠܘܬ ܥܡܐ ܕܬܡܢ ܟܢܝܫ ܗܘܐ. ܣܓ̈ܝܐܐ ܓܝܪ ܐܬܘ ܥܠ ܩܠܐ ܕܝܠ̈ܠܬܐ ܕܗ̇ܢܘܢ ܕܡܪܩܕܝܢ ܗܘܘ ܥܠ ܗܠܝܢ ܕܝܩܕܘ. ܘܟܕ ܚܙܘ ܠܝܘܚܢܢ ܣܓܕܘ ܠܗ ܟܠܗܘܢ ܘܐܡܪܘ. ܐܒܘܢ ܨܠܐ ܥܠܝܢ. ܗ̣ܘ ܕܝܢ ܥܢܐ ܘܐܡܪ ܠܗܘܢ. ܠܘ ܡܢܝ ܬܒܥܘܢ ܫܘܒܩܢܐ. ܐܠܐ ܡܢ ܡܪܝܐ ܘܚܐܝܢ ܐܢܬܘܢ. ܟܕ ܠܝܘܡܐ ܕܚܫܗ ܢܛܪܝܢ ܐܢܬܘܢ ܡܢ ܦܘܠܚܢܐ ܘܡܢ ܚܛ̈ܗܐ. ܥܢܘ ܟܠܗܘܢ ܘܐܡܪܘ. ܟܠ ܕܐ̇ܡܪ ܠܢ ܢܫܡܠܐ. ܘܟܕ ܟܢܝܫܝܢ ܗܘܘ. ܩܡܬ ܐܢܬܬܗ ܕܚܢܦܐ. ܡܬܢܝܐ ܩܕܡܝܗܘܢ ܐܝܠܝܢ ܕܓܕܫܝ ܒܒܢ̈ܬܗ̇ ܟܕ ܢܦ̈ܠܝ ܒܓܘ ܒܐܪܐ ܘܐܣܩ ܐܢ̈ܝܢ. ܘܕܚܠܘ ܗ̇ܢܘܢ ܕܫܡܥܘ ܕܚܠܬܐ ܪܒܬܐ. ܗܝܕܝܢ ܐܣܩFootnote 40 ܡܢ ܒܐܪܐ ܠܗ̇ܘ ܕܐܬܚܢܩ ܒܗ̇. ܘܠܗ ܘܠܗ̇ܢܘܢ ܕܝܩܕܘ ܐܥܠܘ ܪܒܬܐ. ܘܐܬܐ ܗ̇ܘ ܚܢܦܐ ܘܬܢܝ|f. 228r| ܐܢܘܢ ܠܡܕܝܢܬܐ ܘܣܡFootnote 41 ܐܢܘܢ ܥܠ ܬܪܥܐ ܕܥܕܬܐ. ܘܗܘܬ ܬܡܢ ܒܟܬܐ ܠܗܘܢ ܩܕܡ ܟܠܢܫ ܐܝܠܝܢ ܕܓܕܫ ܠܗ ܒܐ̈ܝܕܝ ܝܘܚܢܢ. ܝܘܚܢܢ ܕܝܢ ܠܐ ܥܠ ܥܡܗܘܢ ܠܡܕܝܢܬܐ.
17 ܘܦܩܕ ܡܝܠܝܛܘܤ ܦܐܛܪܝܪ[ܟܐ] ܕܐܢܛܝܘܟܝܐ ܡܕܝܢܬܐ. ܕܢܐܙܠܘܢ ܘܢܝܬܘܢ ܠܓܒܪܐ ܕܐܠܗܐ. ܡܪܝ ܝܘܚܢܢ. ܘܐܡܪ ܠܗܘܢ ܡܢܐ ܒܥܝܢ ܐܢܬܘܢ ܠܝ. ܠܓܒܪܐ ܚܛܝܐ. ܗ̣ܢܘܢ ܕܝܢ ܐܡܪܘ ܠܗ. ܐܒܘܢ ܚܣܝܐ ܡܪܝ ܡܝܠܝܛܘܤ ܦܐܛܪܝܪܟܐ ܫܕܪ ܒܬܪܟ. ܘܡܚܕܐ ܩܡ ܘܐܙܠ ܥܡܗܘܢ ܟܕ ܒ̇ܟܐ. ܘܟܕ ܚܙܝܗܝ ܚܣܝܐ ܕܐܠܗܐ ܡܝܠܝܛܘܤ. ܩܡ ܡܢ ܟܘܪܣܝܗ ܘܥܦܩܗ ܟܕ ܒ̇ܟܐ ܘܐܡܪ ܠܗ. ܬܐ ܒܫܠܡܐ ܐܝܘܒ ܚܕܬܐ ܕܝܒܠܘ ܠܢ ܡܢ ܒܝܬ ܡ̈ܝܬܐ. ܬܐ ܒܫܠܡܐ ܥܒܕܐ ܛܒܐ ܕܦ̇ܠܚ ܗܘܐ ܟܣܝܐܝܬ ܘܓܠܝܐܝܬ ܠܬܖ̈ܝܢ ܡܖ̈ܘܢ. ܗ̣ܘ ܕܝܢ ܝܘܚܢܢ ܥܢܐ ܘܐܡܪ ܠܗ. ܫܒܘܩܝܢܝ ܡܪܝ. ܠܐ ܬܟܫܐ ܥܠ ܪܝܫܝ ܡܘܒܠܐ ܕܫܘ[ܒܚܐ] ܣܪܝܩܐ. ܥܢܐ ܡܝܠܝܛܘܤ ܘܐܡܪ ܠܗ. ܐܒܝ ܨܒ̇ܐ ܐܢܐ ܕܐܝܠܝܢ ܕܡܪܝܐ ܟܣܝ ܐܢ̈ܝܢ ܗܫܐ ܐܓܠܐ ܐܢ̈ܝܢ ܩܕܡ ܟܠܢܫ. ܘܟܕ ܗܠܝܢ ܫܡܥ ܝܘܚܢܢ ܬܡܗ. ܘܥܢܐ ܘܐܡܪ ܠܡܝܠܝܛܘܤ. ܐܒFootnote 42 ܫܒܘܩ ܠܝ. ܐܢܐ ܓܝܪ ܐ̇ܙܠ ܐܢܐ ܠܐܝܟܐ ܕܡܢ ܬܡܢ ܐܬܝܬ. ܡܛܠ ܕܣܓܝܘ ܚܘ̈ܒܝ ܘܚܛ̈ܗܝ ܕܠܐ ܟܝܠܐ. ܘܟܕ ܢܦܩ ܬܪܨ ܕܢܐܙܠ ܠܩܝܩܠܬܐ ܕܒܗ̇ ܡܓܤ ܗܘܐ. ܘܦܩܕ ܩܕܝܫܐ ܡܝܠܝܛܘܤ ܘܛܥܢܘܗܝ ܠܩܕܝܫܐ ܥܠ ܐ̈ܝܕܝܗܘܢ. ܘܐܗܦܟܘܗܝ ܠܘܬܗ. ܗ̣ܘ ܕܝܢ ܝܘܚܢܢ ܥܢܐ ܘܐܡܪ ܠܗ. ܐܒܝ ܫܒܘܩ ܠܝ. ܠܐ ܫ̇ܘܐ ܐܢܐ ܠܗܕܐ. ܡܢ ܗ̇ܘ ܕܡܠܐ̈ܟܐ ܡܐܛܠܝܢ ܥܠܘܗܝ .
|f. 228v| 18 ܘܡܝܠܝܛܘܤ ܐܡܪ. ܦܩܘܕ ܐܒܘܢ ܡܢܐ ܢܥܒܕ ܠܗܠܝܢ ܕܕܠܐ ܢܛܘܪܬܐ ܕܦܘ̈ܩܕܢܐ ܡܝܬܘ. ܘܡܛܠ ܬܫܒܘܚܬܐ ܕܐܠܗܐ ܡܢܐ ܢܥܒܕ ܠܗܘܢ. ܘܐܢ ܙܕܩ ܕܢܬܠܘܢFootnote 43 ܡܛܠ ܕܟܠ ܕܬܦܩܘܕ ܠܢ ܢܥܒܕ. ܘܝܘܚܢܢ ܐܡܪ. ܗܕܐ ܠܘ ܕܝܠܝ ܐܝܬܝܗ̇. ܐܠܐ ܠܗ̇ܘ ܕܡܪܗ ܥܢܗ ܐܓܥܠ ܠܗ. ܡܝܠܝܛܘܤ ܕܝܢ ܥܢܐ ܘܐܡܪ ܠܗ. ܡܪܝ ܝܘܚܢܢ ܐܦܝܣܩܘ[ܦܐ] ܕܡܛܫܝ ܗܘܐ ܡܢ ܡܕܝܢܬܗ ܗܐ ܥܣܖ̈ܝܢ ܘܫܒ̈ܥ ܫܢ̈ܝܢ. ܒܐܠܟܣܢܕܪܝܐ ܩܒܠ ܣܝܡ ܐܝܕܐ. ܩܘܡ ܨܠܐ ܥܠܝܢ. ܘܫܒܘܩ ܠܢ. ܘܟܕ ܫܡܥ ܝܘܚܢܢ ܗܠܝܢ ܩܡ ܒܕܘܟܬܗ. ܘܐܢܝܦ ܐܝܕܐ ܠܡܝܠܝܛܘܤ ܘܐܡܪ ܠܗ. ܦܪܣܝܬܢܝ ܐܒܝ ܩܕܡ ܟܠܢܫ. ܡܟܝܠ ܐܦ ܐܢܐ ܐܦܪܣܝܟ. ܕܗܐ ܣܝܡܬܐ ܗ̇ܝ ܕܚܡܫܡܐ ܠܝܛܖ̈ܐ ܕܗܒܐ. ܗ̇ܝ ܕܒܒܝܬ ܓܐܙܐ ܐܬܝܗܒ ܠܟ. ܦܩܘܕ ܕܬܗܘܐ ܠܡܣܟ̈ܢܐ ܘܠܒ̈ܝܫܐ. ܗ̇ܢܘܢ ܕܒܗܘܢ ܚ̇ܕܐ ܡܫܝܚܐ. ܘܠܘ ܒܨܒܬܐ ܕܐ̈ܣܐ. ܟܕ ܕܝܢ ܫܡܥ ܡܝܠܝܛܘܤ ܗܕܐ ܬܗܪ. ܘܥܢܐ ܘܐܡܪ ܠܗ ܟܠ ܡܐ ܕܬܦܩܘܕ ܠܝ ܐܢܐ ܐܫܡܠܐ. ܗܫܐ ܦܩܘܕ ܠܝ ܡܢܐ ܐܥܒܕ ܠܗܠܝܢ. ܘܝܘܚܢܢ ܐܡܪ. ܐܒܝ ܟܠܗ̇ ܥ̈ܢܐ ܡܥܓܠܐFootnote 44 ܒܐ̈ܝܕܝܟ. ܡܝܠܝܛܘܤ ܐܡܪ. ܟܕ ܠܘܬܢ ܐܢܬ ܟܠܗܝܢ ܦܩܘܕ. ܘܝܘܚܢܢ ܐܡܪ. ܢܬܠܘܘܢ ܗ̇ܢܘܢ ܕܒܚܩܠܐ ܝܩܕܘ. ܘܗ̇ܘ ܕܫܕܐ ܢܦܫܗ ܒܡ̈ܝܐ ܦ̇ܩܕ ܐܢܐ ܕܠܐ ܢܬܠܘܐ. ܐܠܐ ܒܠܚܘܕܘܗܝ ܒܐܪܥܐ ܒܥܦܪܐ ܢܬܛܡܪ. ܘܟܕ ܩܒܪFootnote 45 ܐܢܘܢ ܐܝܟ ܕܐܡܪ ܝܘܚܢܢ. ܦܢܘ ܘܐܬܘ ܠܥܕܬܐ. ܘܥܡܗܘܢ ܚܢ̈ܦܐ ܘܝܘ̈ܕܝܐ.
19 ܘܦܩܕ ܡܝܠܝܛܘܤ ܕܢܬܪܓܡ ܠܥܡܐ ܘܩܡ ܬܪܓܡ ܡܠ̈ܐ ܚܢ̈ܝܓܬܐ. ܘܐܬܬܠܡܕ ܒܗ̇ܘ ܝܘܡܐ ܡܐ̈ܬܝܢ ܢܦ̈ܫܢ. ܘܢܣܒܘ ܡܥܡܘܕܝܬܐ ܘܗܘܘ ܟܖ̈ܝܣܛܝܢܐ. ܗ̣ܘ ܕܝܢ ܝܘܚܢܢ ܐܥܡܕ ܐܢܘܢ ܒܦܝܣܐ ܣܓܝܐܐ. ܟܕ ܕܝܢ ܥܡܕ ܗ̇ܘ ܚܢܦܐ ܡܪܗ ܕܝܘܚܢܢ ܘܒܝܬܝܘ̈ܗܝ ܟܠܗܘܢ. ܘܐܬܩܪܝ ܫܡܗ ܕܚܢܦܐ ܬܐܘܕܘܪܐ. ܘܕܒܪ ܐܢܘܢ ܬܐܘܕܘܪܐ ܠܥܒ̈ܕܘܗܝ ܘܐܫܠܡ ܐܢܘܢ ܠܝܘܚܢܢ ܘܐܡܪ ܠܗ. ܣܒ ܐܢܘܢ ܡܪܝ ܠܗܠܝܢ ܘܗܒ ܠܗܘܢ ܚܘܪܪܐ ܐܝܟ|f. 229r|ܕܨܒ̇ܐ ܐܢܬ. ܘܢܣܒ ܐܢܘܢ ܝܘܚܢܢ ܠܥܒ̈ܕܐ ܕܡܪܗ ܘܚܪܪ ܐܢܘܢ .
20 ܗ̇ܘ ܕܒܝܕ ܨܠܘ̈ܬܗ ܘܒܒ̈ܥܘܬܗ ܘܕܟܠܗܘܢ ܩ̈ܕܝܫܐ ܟܢܘ̈ܬܗ ܢܣܬܬܪ ܡܢ ܒܝܫܐ ܘܚܝܠܗ. ܘܢ̇ܣܩ ܫܘ[ܒܚܐ] ܠܐܒܐ ܘܠܒܪܐ ܘܠܪܘܚܐ ܩܕܝܫܐ. ܕܠܗ ܫܘ[ܒܚܐ] ܘܥܠ ܟܠܢ ܖ̈ܚܡܘܗܝ ܠܥܠܡܝܢ ܐܡܝܢ .
ܫܠܡܬ ܬܫܥܝܬܐ ܕܥܠ ܝܘܡܐ ܕܥܪܘܒܬܐ.
English translation
Again, a story about the day of Holy Friday: that it ought to be observed.
1. My beloved, we ought very much to render honour to the holy day of Friday, because on it the dust of Adam was mingledFootnote 46 from the four corners of the world, so that he would become a beautiful image and semblance that would be suitable to reign and to dwell inside Paradise. For on this holy day of Friday the Godhead descended in order to make the first man and the head of races with its hands. Or rather, in the likeness of a craftsman, whose knowledge is great in him, who by his skill made from gold, and silver, and pearls, and precious stones a splendid crown for the head of a kingdom, – thus also the Godhead, full of mercy, created (him) from water, and spirit, and earth, and placed in him the image of its glory. And through the intelligence that surpasses human understanding it adorned (and) fashioned him. And it renewed and fashioned from the four opposite natures a beautiful image that turns upward and downward and to the four corners (of the world). And as a crown, when it has been forged, but if it is not placed upon the head of a kingdom, it is not called “the crown of a king”, – likewise and those elements, from which human being is made.
2. “Because they came into being through God and received purity and holiness, and he (i.e. man) was revealed in glory and was distinguished with the knowledge (of) the day of Friday, I pledge myself for them”, said the Son to the Father. “And because Adam has stretched his hand to the fruit and fell, I myself stretch my hands to the nails and raise him up. Because for his sake I embraced the breasts with milk; for his sake I became a fugitive in Egypt; for his sake I was baptised in water; for his sake I received spittle from enemies; for his sake I was sold; for his sake I was mocked; for his sake the wicked reviled me; on his account I was beaten and imprisoned; on his account I received spittle in my face; on his account I was insulted; on his account they gave me to drink the gall and vinegar; on his account I was crucified on a cross; on his account my hands and feet were nailed; and on his account I gave my soul on Friday and became a pledge for him”, says the Lord. “Have mercy upon them, my father, have mercy upon them!” – The Lord of the heaven and earth said these (things), when he was hanged on the cross on Golgotha. “And because of these (things) that I have said, the Christians should honour the day of their redemption by fast and prayer, and by suspension of all work, and by ceasing from all these (activities) that are profitable. And (these) assist and preserve the soul and body,Footnote 47 and its Lord, who sees it, is pleased”.
3. So then, let us say what is right for the Christians to do on this day of Friday, and what they should not do. This is, then, what the Christians ought not to do: not yoking to the ploughs; not ploughing; and not the season of the threshing floor; moreover, also not harrowing; and not reaping; and not harvesting; and not olive picking. And no one should make bread on the day of Friday, except for a banquet of the saints, or for the repose of the dead, or for the poor, for it is right to do these; and anything that is given as first-fruits to the holy altar, and to those who are confined in a prison. And it is not lawful for anyone to eat meat on the day of Friday, and also to engage in one of the crafts on the day of Friday. I am saying that to men and women, to old and young, to the great and the small. And one, who dares to do work on the day of Friday, should be suspended from church and from receiving Holy Communion for three days. And then they should offer (a prayer of) repentance on his behalf, and he might enter the church.
4. That (alone) would suffice for what you (pl.) have asked me. However, because the prophet says, “They ask for signs, and people look for novelties”,Footnote 48 I myself, on account of what you have asked, am going to show you what profit there is in keeping this day of Friday, and what chastisement one receives, who out of the love for work dares and does not keep this day. It was not me however, who saw these (things), but the man (called) Meletius narrated to me what I am now presenting to you, saying:
5. I was then on a journey to Antioch in the days of Pentecost, and I saw a crowd gathered inside a church, more numerous than on the day of Sunday. And in the whole citiesFootnote 49 no person was found, who would work on the day of Friday, and who would engage in his craft, neither a little bit nor greatly. And after the service ended, the people gathered in the church and no one would leave it. And Meletius ordered me that I should say a beneficial and spiritual word to those people, for the benefit of the listeners. I then said to him, “And what is this feast? Is it of a saint or of the dedication of the church?” He then said to me, “It is the feast of this day, on which the sins of the world were annulled”. And after the people left the church, I answered and said to him, “Well, my father, and on account of what do they cease today from work?” And he said to me, “It is Friday today, the day of redemption, the day of consolation, the day of rejoicing for those who were imprisoned in Sheol without hope”. And I answered and said to him, “Well, my father, and how we should keep this day in purity? For behold, the holy apostles have commanded much about observing the holy days. And is not this day observed perfectly among us?”
6. He then said to me, “The negligence of an artisan causes destruction of the sound stones, when he neglects one of the sound stones of a building and does not set it straight within the house, so that it would be held by other (stones). Do not you realise, then, that when it has fallen out, it will throw down with it the many fine (stones) built above it, and cause a ruin. And it is erected with difficulty, and yet it happens that it buries these, who are found there, under it. And see, my brother, how came to nought these that were constructed well. And, doubtless, also that builder deserves death. And, likewise, a bishop or priest, who does not tend and lead his flock well, when the heavenly shepherd appears and demands from them the herd that he entrusted to them, – because they do not bandage the sick, and do not guard their flocks well, and they have no diligence and care for those who are weak and have no strength, – those who themselves ought to be an example to others. However, instead of that the shepherds of nowadays are paralysed by wickedness. And in order to be held in honour they behave favourably towards the people, and they hold in silence the word of God and are not afraid. And because of that, my brothers, we should not transgress and trample upon the word of God that was placed in the priest's mouth! And if we transgress it, woe to us, my brothers, on that day when the Lord of shepherds is going to demand from our hands an account of his flock”.
7. And he wept and his tears flowed. And little by little his countenance was changing into a fiery image. And I (myself) was groaning. However, there were none else with us in the sacristy, but only the two of us. And after he wept for a long time, he answered and said to me, “My brother, beseech our Lord that he would lead us out from this banquet and make us recline in the spiritual banquet of his, in which he is going to make the needy and poor recline on the day of his glorious revelation. And because you have asked me what this day of Friday is, listen and I will tell you. Open this chest, in which readings for the whole order of service are kept, and take the small quire, in which a memorandum on the keeping of Friday is written”. And I have brought it forth, and he said to me, “Take and read this letter”. And I have read (it), and there was the following (story):
8. There was a certain man, not Christian, from the city of Antioch. And he had five slaves. And one of them was named John, and he was keeping the holy day of Friday in purity and undefiled, as he would not do any work at all, by pretending to be sick on every day when Friday would dawn. And he would not taste anything until the dawn of Saturday. But the evil one would inflict merciless chastisement upon John. And because of that he would say to him, while beating him, “You are not sick, but you are doing this in (your) craftiness”. And he would scourge him, (saying) “Behold! Your fellows are working on the day of Friday, and you are idle. But you are setting a bad example for your fellows, and they reproach me because of you”. The just slave, however, would receive the blows and reproaches without end while rejoicing. For he did not want even to talk on the day of Friday. And he (i.e. the master) wanted to kill him many times, but because of the stratagem of his wife he was restrained. For his wife would constantly entreat (him), because she was aware that he (i.e. the slave) was just, on account of what had happened to her.
9. For on one of the days, when her husband was not there, she was washing and rubbing her daughters on the day of Friday, by the side of a well that was in their house. And she left them and entered her house. And her daughters rose to play with each other, and at that very moment both of them fell together into the well. And John was lying down near the well. And when he saw that they fell down, he groaned and said in his heart, “God help!” And confident of this (i.e. God's help) he did not wail. And when their mother went out, she sought them and called them, and there was no one to answer her. And the gate of their courtyard was of a considerable height. And she ran to and fro, while calling them, but they were not (there). And she came near John at the well, while weeping, (and) asked about them. And when John saw that his mistress is weeping bitterly, he answered and said to her, “Your daughters fell down into the well. And I have hope in God that the holy day of Friday has saved them from drowning”. She then looked into the well and saw them sitting above the water as if upon the dry ground. And she also heard their voice as they were talking to each other. And she answered and said to John, “I beseech you, my lord, rise and bring up my daughters! Because by your prayers they are alive. And no one should know about this, lest my husband hear and kill me, and your righteousness would be revealed”. John, then, ordered her to bring a rope and a big basket. And he made a sign of the cross over them, and tied the rope to the basket. And he let (it) down into the well, and called the girls. And both of them got into the basket, and he drew them out. And when they ascended, they (i.e. John and the mother) saw that they did not get wet from the water. And their mother was asking them, saying, “How did you fall down, and who was carrying you above the water?” Then, they said to her, “A certain black man drew us over the well, and we fell into it. Then, this slave of ours John descended to us and gave us to a certain woman of beautiful appearance, and she was carrying us above the water”. And when she heard this from her daughters, she approached John and said to him, “By your life, my lord, tell me which of the goddesses saved my daughters from drowning, so that I might also worship her”. He, then, said to her, “Our Lord Jesus Christ saved them, and the holy Friday”. And the woman put this secret in her heart, and she did not reveal (it) to anyone, until they became Christians.
10. She then felt sorry for John in her heart, as she saw him being beaten by her husband. And she entreated (him) many times on his behalf, until her husband became very angry with her and said to her, “Is it not that you beseech on his behalf and for him because of (his) good looks? Now, because of you I will kill him!” And when she heard these (words) from him, she did not say anything else to him, but entreated John to do the will of her husband and to work a little bit (just) a single day. And as she was entreating him very much to desist from his will, she would say, “It is not a sin for you!” He, however, was not persuaded, but would say to her, “It is a joy for me”. Then, on one of the days some men came to the pagan, to help him with the harvest, and that day was Friday. And while his fellow slaves would slaughter meat and cook (it) for those, who were harvesting, John was prostrated with his face down on the dung-heap, weeping. And his master was with the harvesters. And when his master came from the field, he saw John on the dung-heap as if he was sick, and he became furious. And he got down from his horse, and drew out his sword, and lifted (it) up to strike him. And he (i.e. John) was constrained on his back. And he (i.e. the master) called John two times to go to his fellows, but he did not want to. And he raised (his hand) again to strike him. And a woman of beautiful appearance appeared to him, and she was dressed in black garments, and they were sprinkled with the bespatteredFootnote 50 blood. And she stretched her hand and took the sword from him. And she struck the pagan with it and he fell backwards. And she answered and said to him, “O evil and godless pagan, if not for the intercession of the holy John, who was beseeching on your behalf, you and your sons would have departed from this world, and your house would have become your grave. Therefore, behold! I am going to pour fire upon your harvesters, who are harvesting together with your impiety because of the avarice of their belly and insulting the holy day of Friday. However, I will not burn the grain at all, on account of the holy John, who laboured on it and sowed it. For it is because of him that your possessions increased, and through him everything that there is in your house was blessed. And through this man your house and your offspring have been preserved. And let everything that you have, and that has not been burnt up, be for support for orphans and widows”. And when she said these (words), she departed from him.
11. And the liar was lying down as if dead for a long time. And after a while he woke up, (and) approached his slave John, and said to him, “Have mercy upon me, O servant of the living God! And forgive me everything that I have offended you with. And pray for me to your God, whom I am going to worship from now and forever”. John, then, stretched out his hand and signed his master with the (sign) of the cross in the name of the living God, and his mind regained peace at once. And he stood up on his feet and saw his sword, broken into three pieces. And his right hand was dry like (a piece of) wood. And he answered and said to John, “I adjure you by God, in whom you believe, that you pray also for my hand to be healed! For behold, it has dried up”. John, then, stretched out his hand and signed the hand of his master, and it was restored like the other. And when his master saw that, and how very quickly he has been healed by the word of John, he fell upon the ground and bowed down to him, and said, “My father and my master, forgive me! Let us go to the harvesters, to see what happened to them; whether it is true that they have perished, as I think (they have), my master”.
12. And the two of them went out, walking. And when they reached the field, they found the harvesters burnt up. And not a single person among them remained, who was not burnt, except some twenty souls, orphans and widows, who did not follow the harvesters. And these women answered and said to him, “When you, our master, sent us forth, we saw a likeness of a woman of beautiful appearance, who descended from above and stood up in front of the harvesters. And she said to them, ‘O wicked ones, until when are you going to not turn away from your evils and to not keep the day of the suffering of Our Lord, but to treat (it) with contempt and not be ashamed? Therefore, receive the punishment that is about to come upon you from a burning fire, and become a dreadful and fearful sign of terror in the whole world, so that no one would dare to do this like you!’ And the woman bore the likeness of a broom of fire, and it was burning like a torch.Footnote 51 And she approached each of the harvesters, one after another, and cast fire upon him. And thus she set fire to them in a twinkling of the eye, and they all burnt up, as you see. Us, however, she did not approach. And we sought to flee, but were not able because of the great fear from what we have seen”.
13. And that pagan approached and observed those who had burnt up, and they resembled charred pieces of wood that come out from fire. And some of their limbs remained, whereas some were burnt up and consumed. However, the grain and sheaves in their hands did not burn up, not even a single ear from them. For there were some among them, who held ears (of wheat) in their hands, and others who were lying upon the sheaves. And the sheaves did not burn up, but the harvesters did. And when the liar saw what happened, he was amazed. And he uttered a lamentation for himself. And John was also weeping. And the pagan said to him, “O John, what would be your order regarding what to do with these? It would be better for us to flee, lest their parents and wives come and avenge their blood upon us”. John says to him, “A chastisement is sent out from God upon evil-doers, so that no one would be able to complain about it. It is enough for them that they have escaped the death of their sons. For, in truth, they themselves would deserve this chastisement, for not instructing their sons to do no evil on the day of Friday. O my beloved ones, great fear is upon the believers who would dare to do any work on the day of Friday!”
14. And the pagan said, “And for us, who are pagans, is it a sin?” John said to him, “I am not saying that you are at peace, because you have no hope of the life to come. For you are deceived, and when you die, your hope is lost. And Gehenna is prepared for you for eternity, and you will not be lifted up from it”. The pagan then started to ask him about the mystery of Christians, because he feared (God) and loved Christ. He answered and said to John, “My brother, tell me about you (pl.), what do you inherit?” John answered and said to him, “As for us, Christ gives us the kingdom of heaven, which does not ever pass away”. The pagan said, “And if I will become Christian, would you pledge to me that Christ will give me his kingdom?” John said, “I will pledge for you. And not only me alone, but Christ as well, that you will inherit the life and the kingdom that does not end”. And after the pagan entreated him, John expounded the dispensation of Christ up until his ascension. And when the pagan heard that, he said to John, “Father, for the sake of Our Lord, baptise me in this water that is here. And as soon as we come, you will baptise my household”. John says to him, “I do not have the rank of priesthood, for it is priests, who have authority to do this, who would baptise you?” The pagan says, “No, (by) the living name of God! No one else is going to baptise me but you, who pledges for me that Christ will give me his kingdom”.
15. And while they were saying these (words), behold, those harvesters arrived at the outer gate of the courtyard, who were carrying provisions for them. John answered and said to the pagan, “Go and burn in fire everything that had been prepared for the harvesters, while not leaving anything from it at all”. And he entered at once and did as John told him. But one of the slaves, who was Roman, moved when he saw the cooked meat being thrown away. He ran avariciously, and took a piece of meat from the fire, and put (it) into his mouth. And one of the burning coals got stuck to the meat, and his face and his head were at once set on fire. And from the affliction of his soul he ran (and) threw himself into the well of water, and drowned. And the pagan ran to John and said to him, “Look, the lads are on fire! And behold, it is burning them up!” John then said to him, “Do not be frightened! The chastisement knows those who are evil-doers”.
16. And John stood up and entered, together with his master, to the people who were gathered there. For many came to the sound of wailing of those who were lamenting these, who burnt up. And when they saw John, they all bowed down to him and said, “Our father, pray for us!” He then answered and said to them, “Do not request forgiveness from me, but from the Lord, and you will live, – as far as you are preserving the day of His passion from work and from sins”. And they all answered and said, “We will fulfil everything that you say to us”. And when they were gathered, the pagan's wife stood up, recounting before them what happened to her daughters when they fell into the well and he brought them up. And great fear seized those who heard (it). Then theyFootnote 52 brought up from the well the one, who had drowned in it. And they brought him, and those who burnt up, to the city and laid them at the door of the church. And there was a great weeping there. And that pagan came and told them, before everyone, what happened to him through John. John, however, did not enter with them to the city.
17. And Meletius, the patriarch of the city of Antioch, ordered them to go and to bring the man of God, Mār John. And he said to them, “Why are you looking for me, a sinful man?” They then said to him, “Our father, pious patriarch Mār Meletius sent after you”. And immediately he stood up and went with them, while weeping. And when the pious (man) of God Meletius saw him, he stood up from his throne and embraced him, while weeping. And he said to him, “Come in peace, new Job, brought to us from among the dead! Come in peace, good servant, who secretly and openly served two masters!” John, then, answered and said to him, “Forgive me, my lord! Do not pile up upon my head the burden of vain glory”. Meletius answered and said to him, “My father, I want to reveal now before everyone things that the Lord has hidden”. And when John heard that, he stood speechless. And he answered and said to Meletius, “Forgive me, father! For I am going back to where I came from, because my sins and faults have increased beyond measure”. And when he went out, he went straight to the dung-heap, where he used to recline. And the holy Meletius ordered, and they carried the holy (man) on their hands, and they brought him back to him. John then answered and said to him, “Forgive me, my father! I am not worthy of this (honour) from the one, whom the angels overshadow”.Footnote 53
18. And Meletius said, “Our father, give a command as to what we shall do with these, who died without keeping commandments. And what shall we do with them on account of the glory of God? And whether it is right that they should be brought to the grave? Because we shall do everything that you will command us”. And John said, “It is not up to me, but up to him whom his Lord entrusted his flock”. Meletius then answered and said to him, “My lord John, bishop who was hiding from his city for twenty seven years already (and) who was ordained in Alexandria, rise (and) pray for us, and forgive us!” And when John heard these (words), he stood up in his place, and he raised (his) hand towards Meletius and said to him, “My father, you have exposed me before everyone. Therefore, I will expose you as well. For, behold, that treasure of five hundred pounds of gold in the treasury that was granted to you, – order that it will be for the needy and poor, those, in whom Christ rejoices, and not for the embellishment of walls”. And when Meletius heard that, he was struck dumb. And he answered and said to him, “I will fulfil everything that you will order me! Now, order me what should I do with these”. And John said, “My father, the whole flock is entrusted into your hands”. Meletius said, “While you are with us, you order everything”. And John said, “Let those, who burnt up in the field, be brought to the grave. As for that one, who threw himself into the water, I order that he should not be brought to the grave, but let him be covered only by the dust of the earth”. And when they buried them as John said, they returned and came to the church, and together with them pagans and Jews.
19. And Meletius ordered him to preach to the people, and he stood up (and) preached (with) words full of sorrow. And two hundred souls were instructed on that day, and received baptism, and became Christians. John then baptised them with a great confidence. And when that pagan, the master of John, and his whole household were baptised, the pagan received the name Theodor. And Theodor led his slaves and handed them over to John, and said to him, “My lord, take them and set them free, as you wish”. And John took the slaves of his master and freed them.
20. So, let us be protected from the Evil One and his forces by his (i.e. John's) prayers and through his supplications, and those of all saints, his companions. And let us offer praise to the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, to whom is glory for all his mercies forever. Amen.
Completed is the story about the day of Friday.
2. Structure and language
The Story has a complex narrative structure. It can be divided into three main parts, in accordance with three distinctive narrative layers that succeed each other: (1) the introductory part, related by the anonymous narrator; (2) the dialogue between the narrator and cleric Meletius in Antioch; (3) the anonymous written source, supplied by Meletius.
The first part (§§1-4) serves as an introduction, in which the primary narrator, speaking in the first person, exhorts his audience to venerate Friday properly. An elaborate reflection on the creation of Adam, which took place on Friday, in §1, is followed by an extended recital recounting various aspects of Jesus’ life and his execution on Friday, in their relation to his salvific mission to the fallen Adam (§2). Presented as Jesus’ direct speech, this list might be derived from a liturgical text, possibly related to the cycle of Good Friday. In §3, a detailed description is offered of what the proper veneration of Friday involves, with the main focus on enumerating all kinds of work that Christians are prohibited from performing on this day. In §4, the narrator proposes to recount a story, supposed to demonstrate that there is “profit” for the correct keeping of Friday and “chastisement” for failing to do so. He refers to a certain Meletius as his source.
The second part (§§5-7), describes the meeting between the narrator and Meletius. When the former arrives from an unknown destination to the city of Antioch during the days of Pentecost, he comes across a great crowd of people celebrating an unknown feast in a church. He also notices that no one in the city performed any work on this day. After the end of the service, the narrator meets Meletius, a cleric of unspecified rank, who, presumably, was leading it. To his inquiry about the reason for such a celebration, Meletius answers that it was held in honour of the day of Friday. The narrator wonders whether the customary veneration of this day by Christians, performed in accordance with the apostolic precepts, is not enough (§5). In response to that, Meletius delivers a speech, aimed at bishops and priests, in which he exhorts them to exercise faithfully their pastoral duties. Meletius rebukes the “shepherds of nowadays”, who disregard the word of God in order to find favour with their congregations, and threatens them with divine punishment at the time of the Second Coming (§6). He then tells the narrator to open the chest in the sacristy, where the conversation is apparently held, and to take from there “the small quire, in which a memorandum on the keeping of Friday is written”. This text is meant to provide an answer to the narrator's inquiry (§7).
The third and longest part (§§8-20) presents the story contained in the “memorandum”, which recounts two miracles, salvific and punishing, performed by the personified figure of Friday. The main protagonist of this part is a certain John, a Christian slave of an unnamed pagan from Antioch. While working for his master, he is said to keep “the holy day of Friday in purity and undefiled” by abstaining from every kind of work on this day. In order to do so, John pretends to be sick every Friday. Angry at such behaviour, his master would accuse him of deceit, beat him, and threaten to kill him. Only the intervention of the master's wife, aware of John's righteousness, stops him from realising the threat (§8). What led the woman to think so, was a miracle that happened one Friday, when her two little daughters, left unattended for a while, fell into a well. It was only through the intervention of John that the girls were rescued. The miraculous aspect of their rescue consisted in the intervention of the personified Friday, who appeared as a beautiful female figure and kept the girls above the water in the well (§9). Grateful, the woman would intervene on John's behalf with her husband, while keeping the miracle in secret. Another miracle also occurs on Friday, when a group of hired workers arrived at the estate to help the landowner with the harvest. While the harvesters were busy with their work, the house slaves were cooking food for them, with the exception of John, who again pretended to be sick. When his master discovered John's absence from work, he became angry and, after failing to make his slave return to his tasks, he attacked John, intending to kill him with the sword. It was the intervention of Friday, who again appeared as a woman dressed in black garments, that saved John from imminent death. She struck the master down with his own sword and spared him only because of John's prayers for him. Instead, Friday went to punish the harvesters for working on this day (§10). When the master regained consciousness, he asked John for forgiveness. John absolved the master and healed his right hand that had withered after he was struck by Friday (§11). When John and his master went to the field, they discovered the harvesters dead, burnt up by Friday. However, she spared the women and children who were there, and did not burn the grain and sheaves (§§12-13). After they had lamented over the dead, the master asks John whether pagans are held accountable for disrespecting Friday. After John's reply that they are doomed for Gehenna anyway, the master expresses his desire to get baptised and become Christian. John welcomes his decision, but refuses to baptise him, arguing that he is not a priest (§14). Then, when a group of servants arrives with the provisions for the harvesters, the master orders it to be burnt. One of the slaves, not able to restrain his greed, snatches a piece of meat from the fire, but is punished at once – afflicted by a piece of burning coal stuck to the meat, he throws himself into a well and drowns (§15). After John admonishes the people to honour Friday, they bring the bodies of the dead harvesters and of the greedy slave into the city, i.e. Antioch, and lay them in front of the church. (§16) Meletius, the patriarch of the city, orders them to bring John, who complies. During their warm meeting, Meletius tells John that he wants to reveal his secret. After that, John leaves the city, but is brought back on Meletius’ order (§17). Meletius then asks John how to dispose of the bodies of the sinners. When the latter refuses to answer, arguing that only a member of clergy is qualified to do so, Meletius publicly pronounces him to be the bishop of Alexandria, who has been in hiding for twenty-seven years. Angry, John also exposes Meletius, accusing him of the misuse of the money donated for charity. Amazed, the patriarch promises to amend, and repeats his question about the dead bodies. John orders that the burnt harvesters should be properly buried, while the slave should merely be covered with dustFootnote 54 (§18). Then, John preaches to the people. It is reported that two hundred people were baptised on that day, including John's former master, who assumed the name Theodor. Theodor handed over to John the rest of his slaves, and he freed them (§19). In the concluding sentences, the narrator praises God and seeks protection from Satan in the prayers of John and other saints (§20).
The question of the original language of the Story poses certain difficulties. On the one hand, given the fact that the narrative is set in the city of Antioch and its surroundings, and that its two principal characters, i.e. John and Meletius, are bishops of Alexandria and Antioch respectively, one might expect that the work was originally composed in Greek, and that it was translated into Syriac later on. However, besides such general considerations, there seems to be no substantial evidence, textual or contextual, to support this hypothesis.
First of all, it should be pointed out that there is no evidence for the existence of a Greek version of our account. No Greek-speaking writer from Late Antiquity or the Middle Ages seems to be aware of, or alludes to, this narrative. In addition to that, the Syriac language of the Story does not exhibit unambiguous syntactical or other peculiarities that could be explained on the presumption that it was translated from Greek. A number of Greek loan-words that it features are well attested in the corpus of Syriac texts and can hardly be taken as evidence of a Greek original.Footnote 55
At the same time, several arguments can be brought in favour of Syriac as the original language of the Story. Thus, the narrative contains several instances of intra-Syriac puns on the noun ‘ruḇṯā, “Friday”. One such case, that appears in §1, involves etymologising word-play, where the verb ’eṯ‘reḇ, “to be mingled” is used to describe the creation of Adam on the day of Friday. A similar instance of word-play is found in §2, where the verb ‘reḇ, “to pledge” is put into Jesus's mouth to describe his salvific mission towards the fallen Adam, which likewise culminates in his crucifixion on Friday.
In addition to this, the narrative style of the Story exhibits a predilection for using pairs of synonyms, such as ܕܟܝܘܬܐ ܘܩܕܝܫܘܬܐ (§2), ܡܣ̈ܟܢܐ ܘܒ̈ܝܫܐ (§§7,18), ܕܟܝܐܝܬ ܘܕܠܐ ܛܘܠܫܐ (§8), ܡܣܚܝܐ ܘܚܝܦܐ (§9), ܕܚܝܠܬܐ ܘܪܗܝܒܬܐ (§12), ܚܘ̈ܒܝ ܘܚܛ̈ܗܝ (§17). Related to this is a frequent use of the verbal pair ܥܢܐ ܘܐܡܪ, “answered and said”, to introduce responses of protagonists in the dialogues. This paratactic pair appears 19 times in the text of the Story. Such conspicuous propensity for parallelism and parataxis seems to be more characteristic of the style of Syriac prose writing, than that of Greek. It should, however, be stressed that these linguistic features alone can by no means be considered definite proof that Syriac was the original language of our work, since they are occasionally found in Syriac translations from Greek.
3. Message and context
To understand the message that the Story strives to convey, one needs to pay attention to its literary genre. Since it presents the audience with a pious narrative of an anecdotal nature, our composition can be related to the genre of “edifying stories”, known also as “spiritually beneficial tales” (from Greek διηγήσɛις ψυχωφɛλɛῖς).Footnote 56 These usually brief narratives were produced and circulated originally in the monastic circles of Egypt and Palestine. Their main purpose was to propagate values and set standards of conduct —first for those who chose to pursue the monastic way of life, but later on for the secular laity as well. The edifying stories are distinct from the genre of apophthegmata, the sayings of the Desert Fathers that conveyed their teaching, in that they demonstrated how this theory should be applied in the course of everyday life. By providing “real-life” examples of the enactment of Christian virtues, these stories taught spiritual lessons while aiming at moral improvement. The earliest specimens of this genre appear during the late fourth century. Such stories circulated as separate units, as in our case, and could be incorporated into other longer works or aggregated into collections.Footnote 57
It may be noted that the Story is not a typical representative of the genre, since it has some features that make it conspicuous within this category. To begin with, it is considerably longer and more compositionally elaborate than most of the edifying stories. Another peculiarity that sets it apart is the extended introductory part (§§1-4), which provides a theological rationale for the promoted practice, as well as information on its practicalities. These distinguishing characteristics could be regarded as hallmarks of a relatively late origin of our composition. The Story seems to represents a later stage in the development of the genre of edifying stories, when they start to be used to serve a greater variety of agendas, beyond properly monastic concerns, and, thus, become more sophisticated structurally.
The main purpose of our composition is to advertise the custom of veneration of Friday. This objective is made explicit in the introductory part. To convey this message, the storyteller presents a narrative in which he brings together several themes and images. While some of these are attested in the previous tradition of Christian veneration of Friday, others appear to be unique and new developments. The most remarkable aspect of the Story is that its author strives to promote a very peculiar form of this custom, which goes far beyond what was traditional Christian practice in this regard, in that he demands from believers not only to fast and pray on this day, but also to abstain completely from any kind of work.
In order to achieve his goal, the storyteller weaves together an intricate plot, at the core of which stands the narrative about the conflict between the pagan landowner and his Christian slave John, found in the third part. This subordinate story is a typical example of what Michael Satlow has aptly called “texts of terror”, in his analysis of rabbinic rhetorical strategies from Late Antiquity.Footnote 58 By presenting Friday as a potent agent that has the power to reward those who honour it and to punish those who fail to do so, it seeks to mobilise the audience through instilling the fear of divine punishment.
One puzzling aspect of the Story is that, in order to convey his message of supererogatory Friday veneration, the author chooses to link it to the figure of Meletius of Antioch.Footnote 59 The immediate reasons for this choice are obscure. The patriarch of Antioch Meletius of our composition should be, almost certainly, identified with the most famous Antiochene patriarch bearing this name, who was active during the second half of the fourth century (d. 381).Footnote 60
There is little doubt that the portrayal of Meletius in the Story is completely fictional and has little, if anything at all, to do with the historical figure of the fourth-century bishop of Antioch. No composition dealing with the veneration of Friday can be found among the surviving genuine and spurious works of this preacher and theologian.Footnote 61 Moreover, we possess no evidence whatsoever that during Meletius’ life-time there was any attempt in Antiochene ecclesiastical circles, or anywhere else for that matter, to introduce the peculiar kind of Friday veneration described in our composition.
The figure of Meletius did achieve a certain level of prominence among Syriac-speaking Christians during Late Antiquity. Apparently, he was considered to be a saint on account of his adherence to the Nicene cause during the Arian crisis. There is a Syriac translation of the Funeral Oration on Meletius by Gregory of Nyssa, made before the seventh century.Footnote 62 The sixth-century East Syrian historiographer Barḥadbešabbā ‘Arbāyā extols the bishop as a staunch defender of Nicene orthodoxy against Arianism in his Ecclesiastical History (chs. 8, 16).Footnote 63 A still unpublished text of apparently Christological content, ascribed to “the holy Meletius, patriarch of the city of Antioch”, is preserved in ms. Deir al-Surian, Syr. 28 (West Syriac, 6th/7th c.), ff. 18r-19r.Footnote 64 There are also several quotations from Meletius’ works included into Syriac patristic florilegia, such as those of mss. British Library, Add. 12155 and Add. 14532 (West Syriac, ca 8th c.).Footnote 65 We know that Meletius was liturgically commemorated on September 23, together with the martyr Babylas, according to the testimony of the West Syriac menologion from the late seventh century.Footnote 66
It should be added that Meletius is mentioned also in two other edifying stories preserved in Syriac, the Story of the Christian merchant Mark and the pagan Gaspar, and the Story of a rich man and his poor neighbour, which appear in ms. BnF syr. 234, together with our composition.Footnote 67 In both these accounts, their narrators refer to Meletius as their source.Footnote 68 Whereas these two narratives are clearly related to each other, their relevance for understanding the figure and function of Meletius in the Story is not immediately apparent, especially given the fact that neither of them portrays him as a bishop.
The puzzling choice of Meletius of Antioch as one of the main protagonists in the Story is exacerbated by the perplexing figure of the holy man John, an undercover bishop of Alexandria in (self-assumed?) exile. It is difficult to explain satisfactorily the narrative purpose of the conflict that takes place between the two high-ranking protagonists, in which John gains the upper hand over Meletius. This abstruse narrative meander, which has no immediate bearing upon advancement of the main message of the Story, i.e. the promotion of Friday veneration, had to be meaningful and transparent to its intended audience. One might wonder if this sub-plot reflects in a veiled form some conflict or rivalry between the two ecclesiastical centres, that is Alexandria and Antioch, which took place during the time of the Story’s composition.
The question of the time of composition of our work is complicated and cannot be answered with an absolute degree of certainty. The terminus ante quem is provided by the dating of the Syriac manuscript where it appears – BnF syr. 234, which was produced in the year 1192. It can hardly be doubted, however, that the text of the Story, as it appears in this textual witness, is not an autograph, but was copied by the anthology's compiler from some other, earlier manuscript. As to the terminus post quem, the situation is less certain, with the mention of the fourth-century bishop Meletius of Antioch being the most obvious anchor point.
A more secure approach to the dating and contextualising of the Story should be focused on the peculiar form of Friday veneration promoted by its author, namely the abstaining from work on this day. The only witness to this practice before the twelfth century that I have been able to discover so far comes from the writings of Jacob of Edessa (ca. 633-708), the famous West Syrian bishop and scholar.Footnote 69 It appears in the letter containing a series of questions and answers on canonical matters exchanged between Jacob and John the Stylite from the village of Litarba near Aleppo. In responsum #17, John asks the bishop about his opinion on “the observance of the day of Friday”. Jacob answers by referring to the tradition, handed down by the apostles, regarding veneration of Wednesday and Friday, which requires “that the service and the morning prayers shall be performed on them and the reading of the sacred books before the people and the fast until the evening”. Immediately after that, however, the bishop dismisses as non-apostolic the following practice that appears to be a recent innovation, introduced by some unidentified members of the clergy,—“But the observance (of ceasing) from work and labour of hands was spread by the clerics. On account of the observance of those that were commanded, and not of those that are not commanded, the observance (of ceasing) from work of hands is superfluous”.Footnote 70 A shorter version of this responsum is preserved also in the Nomocanon of Gregory Barhebraeus (13th c.). Jacob is quoted there as confirming apostolic authority only for such forms of the veneration of Friday and Wednesday as fasting and liturgical reading of Scripture, and not for the prohibition of work.Footnote 71
Jacob's answer demonstrates that at the time of its promulgation there existed within the West Syrian clergy a group which sought to augment the traditional repertoire of Friday veneration with the novel custom of abstaining from work. It is unclear when exactly this particular exchange of letters between Jacob and John the Stylite took place.Footnote 72 Given the humble and self-deprecatory tone of the introductory paragraph of Jacob's letter,Footnote 73 it seems likely that it was written after the tumultuous end of his tenure as bishop of Edessa. Jacob was consecrated to the see around the year 684 and, after four years, retired to the convent of Mār Jacob of Kaišum, as a result of the prolonged conflict over enforcement of ecclesiastical law with his fellow clergymen, including Patriarch Julian II Romāyā, appointed in 686.Footnote 74 Since no other Syriac-speaking author or source before the time of Jacob addresses the issue of the prohibition of work on Friday, it seems reasonable to suggest that this pious practice was a recent development, which came into existence not long before the last decade of the seventh or the first decade of the eighth century. This date, then, would provide a more probable terminus post quem for the Story.
Our composition, thus, could be regarded as a propaganda piece composed and disseminated by the anonymous opponents of Jacob, who were seeking to popularise this un-canonical practice in the West Syrian community. The hypothesis of a West Syrian origin of the Story does help us to explain some obscure details of this composition, such, for instance, as the figure of the greedy “Roman” slave in §15. The fact that this is the only ethnic label that appears in our composition requires explanation, since its usage had to be rooted somehow in the collective imagination of the author's intended audience, and was supposed to trigger a particular reader response. What might be the narrative function of labelling as “Roman” this negative protagonist, whose primary role is to exemplify the vice of greediness? I believe that an answer to this question can be found if we try to understand it as a caricature of the Romans, rooted in the historical experience of the West Syrian community.
The accusation of greediness was levelled against Romans and their empire by many subjugated peoples, from Africa to Britain.Footnote 75 It is noteworthy that similar anti-Roman rhetoric is attested in the works of some West Syrian authors, where its beginnings can be traced back to the persecution of Syrian Miaphysites by the pro-Chalcedonian imperial administration during the sixth century. A good example of such anti-Roman sentiment is provided by the Chronicle of Zuqnin, composed in the eighth century. While describing the persecution launched by the Chalcedonian patriarch of Antioch Paul I (518-521) against the Miaphysites of Syria, Palestine and Arabia, the chronicler bemoans how the armed forces of “the barbarian Romans” (rhumāyē barbarāyē) would “greedily and barbarically” (ya‘nāiṯ w-barbarāiṯ) pillage property of the arrested followers of Severus and of their sympathisers.Footnote 76 Thus, in addition to its immediate narrative function, the character of the greedy slave in the Story might have evoked in its audience the memory of these traumatic events.
While certainly plausible, the contextualisation of the Story’s origins within the West Syrian tradition remains speculative, since we do not know how much popularity this form of Friday veneration had gained among the West Syrians, and whether its rebuttal by Jacob had an immediate effect. For example, one may wonder whether the inclusion of the Story into the manuscript BnF syr. 234 should be explained by its appeal to the merely antiquarian interests of its scribe or sponsor, or it shows that abstaining from work on Friday was still considered a legitimate practice among some West Syrians in twelfth-century Antioch.
The latter scenario is supported by evidence from the works of Nikon of the Black Mountain (ca. 1025–1100), a Greek-speaking Melkite monk and ecclesiastical writer who was active in the monasteries of the Black Mountain to the west of Antioch.Footnote 77 In the Taktikon, one of his two major compositions which deals, among other things, with various canonical issues, Nikon addresses the issue of abstention from work on Friday on two occasions: in Logos 14.87-89 and Logos 39.4.Footnote 78 In the former passage, after reasserting the canonical prohibition against rest on Saturday aimed against “Judaising” Christians, he mentions some unspecified “others” (ἕτɛροι) who “rest on the day of Friday” (ἀργοῦσιν τὴν ἡμέραν τῆς παρασκɛυῆς) “from the works that we were instructed to do by the Lord” (ἀπὸ ἔργων τῶν ὑποδɛιχθέντων ἡμῖν παρὰ κυρίου πρὸς ἐργασίαν). To demonstrate erroneousness of their position, Nikon quotes an unidentified “divine scripture” (θɛίᾳ γραφῇ) that explicitly prohibits this practice. In the second passage, he quotes this source at greater length, introducing it as “Of Saint Basil—that one should not rest on the day of Friday” (Τοῦ ἁγίου Βασιλɛίου. Ὅτι οὐ χρὴ ἀργɛῖν ἐν ἡμέρα τῆς παρασκɛυῆς). It is noteworthy that according to this source, abstention from work on Friday is closely linked to oneiric divinatory practices, the exact nature of which is not clear from the text.
Nikon's polemical efforts demonstrate that the practice of resting on Friday gained some currency among the Melkite communities of the Antiochene patriarchate during the eleventh century, if not earlier. One particularly intriguing aspect of his evidence is the quote from the unknown work attributed to Basil of Caesarea. So far, I have not been able to identify source of this passage in the dossier of published works of Basil, genuine or spurious. Reading the Pseudo-Basilian excerpt one wonders what was the exact relationship between rest on Friday and divinatory practices, condemned by its author as “Satanic dreams” (ὀνɛιράτων σατανικῶν). Another open question in connection with Nikon's testimony is whether the custom of Friday rest was adopted by the Melkites under the influence of their West Syrian neighbours. Only further research into the liturgical and canonical developments within the two Christian communities during the early medieval period can enable scholars to answer these questions with any certainty.
4. Conclusion
All this said, the Story leaves us with more questions than answers. The principal problem that it poses to scholars is whether one should regard the novel form of Friday veneration, promoted in this composition, as a result of purely internal development within the religious tradition of Syriac Christianity, or understand it as a response to some external factors. In what concerns the latter, the fact that this form of Friday veneration is securely attested only at a time after the Arab conquest of the Near East may not be accidental. Reading the Story as an early medieval text and analysing it through a comparative prism, one cannot help but bring into discussion the prominent role of Friday in the Muslim religious tradition.
Authorised by the Qur’ān (cf. Sūrat al-Jumu‘a 62:9-11), the importance of Friday as the weekly day of obligatory congregational prayer is attested during the earliest formative period of the new religion.Footnote 79 In light of the prominence of Friday as the day of communal worship in Islam, one might consider a possibility that the Story engages in some sort of a dialogue with this tradition. It can hardly, though, be a case of a direct influence of the Muslim tradition upon the Syriac Christian author, since there is no prohibition or restriction of work on that day in Islam. As an alternative, one can mention the hypothesis of Carl Kaiser, who has suggested, in connection with the aforementioned responsum of Jacob of Edessa, that this novel practice might reflect a desire among some late seventh-century West Syrian Christians to secure the favour of their Muslim masters.Footnote 80
Another possible way of contextualising the idiosyncratic version of Friday veneration in the Story is to understand it as an attempt to counterbalance the importance, with which this day was invested in the Muslim tradition, by ascribing to it a special prominence based on different principles. The prohibition of work on this day becomes, thus an exercise in drawing boundaries, that aims at making a greater difference between the two traditions of Friday veneration, the Christian and the Muslim. By demanding from their Christian audience a complete refraining from all kinds of work, the people behind the Story might be hoping to prevent them from participating in the activities that their Muslim neighbours would engage in on that day, including those related to the Friday market.Footnote 81 The impact of the Muslim Friday upon the Christian population of the cities of Bilād al-Šām was probably exacerbated by the fact that in many of these urban centres the Muslim Arabs would gather for communal prayer within the functioning churches or build the Friday mosques adjacent to the main Christian shrines, creating thus a shared sacred area.Footnote 82 The situation is made even more complicated by evidence from the early centuries of Islam, that some Muslims, apparently, did practice fasting on Friday.Footnote 83
The phenomenon of blurred confessional boundaries during the first centuries after the Arab conquest of the Near East, and, related to this, processes of reciprocal boundary-making, are in need of further investigation, which cannot be undertaken in the framework of this article. The treatment of Friday in the Story can, however, be compared to other Christian strategies for coming to terms with the prestigious status ascribed to this day by Muslim tradition. One example of the conscious engagement with the Muslim notion of Friday among Syriac Christians is found in the so-called Legend of Sergius Baḥīrā, an apologetic work composed in Syriac during the ninth century. Explaining the rise of Islam, the Christian author of the Legend presents the Christian monk Baḥīrā as the teacher of Muḥammad, who instructed him, among other things, to establish Friday as the day of “a great congregation … and a fixed prayer”.Footnote 84
However one might conceive of the relationship between our composition and the Muslim tradition of Friday worship, the Story should also be analysed in the larger context of different approaches towards Friday that developed throughout Christendom during Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages. It is a task for future studies to situate the Story in relation to various trajectories of Christian Friday veneration, attested in such works as the Legend of the Twelve Fridays, a popular composition attested in Greek, Slavonic, Latin and several vernaculars,Footnote 85 or the corpus of hagiographical works associated with the cult of St Parasceve, a female martyr popular both in the Byzantine East and Latin West.Footnote 86 A comprehensive analysis of this rich material might reveal some common patterns as well as regional differences in the evolution of Christian attitudes and practices related to Friday.Footnote 87
