Achtung! Dies ist eine Internet-Sonderausgabe des Aufsatzes „New Manuscript Finds in St. Catherine’s Monastery. Part I–II“ von Jost Gippert (2009–2010). Sie sollte nicht zitiert werden. Zitate sind der Originalausgabe in ჰუმანისტარული კვლევები. წელიწდეული / Studies in Humanities. Annual 1, 2010, 103–122 und II, 2012, 170–184 zu entnehmen. Attention! This is a special internet edition of the article “New Manuscript Finds in St. Catherine’s Monastery. Part I–II” by Jost Gippert (2009–2010). It should not be quoted as such. For quotations, please refer to the original edition in ჰუმანისტარული კვლევები. წელიწდეული / Studies in Humanities. Annual 1, 2010, 103–122 and II, 2012, 170–184 Alle Rechte vorbehalten / All rights reserved: Jost Gippert, Frankfurt 2012 / 2022 Jost Gippert New Manuscript Finds in St. Catherine’s Monastery Part I It is well known that St. Catherine’s Monastery on Mt. Sinai hosts the largest collection of Georgian manuscripts outside Georgia. The catalogues compiled by Al. Tsagareli1, N. Marr2, Iv. Javakhishvili3, G. Garitte4, and El. Metreveli, C. Chankievi, L. Khevsuriani, L. Jghamaia, and R. Gvaramia5 comprise in all 108 items6 of which 12 have disap- 1 2 3 4 5 6 Êàòàëîãú ãðóçèíñêèõú ðóêîïèñåé Ñèíàéñêîãî ìîíàñòûðÿ, Ïðàâîñëàâíûé ïàëåñòèíñêèé ñáîðíèê, 10 = IV/1, pp. 193-240; also in the same author’s Ñâåäåíèÿ î ïàìÿòíèêàõú ãðóçèíñêîé ïèñìåííîñòè, âûï. 2 (Ñàíêò-Ïåòåðáóðã, 1889), pp. 51-98. Cagareli’s sojourn in St. Catherine’s Monastery took place in 1882. Îïèñàíèå ãðóçèíñêèõ ðóêîïèñåé ñèíàéñêîãî ìîíàñòûðÿ (Ìîñêâà, 1940) (posthumous edition). sinis mTis qarTul xelnawerTa aRweriloba / Îïèñàíèå ãðóçèíñêèõ ðóêîïèñåé Ñèíàÿ (Tbilisi, 1947). The visit to Mt. Sinai was jointly undertaken by Marr and Javakhishvili in 1902. Catalogue des manuscrits géorgiens littéraires du Mont Sinai (Louvain, 1956) (Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium, 165 / Subsidia, 9); Garitte visited the monastery in 1950, within the mission of the Library of Congress. qarTul xelnawerTa aRweriloba, sinuri koleqcia, t. I, gamosacemad moamzades el. metrevelma, c. Wankievma, l. xevsurianma, l. jRamaiam (Tbilisi, 1978); iqve, t. II, gamosacemad moamzades c. Wankievma, l. jRamaiam (Tbilisi, 1979); iqve, t. III, gamosacemad moamzades r. gvaramiam, el. metrevelma, c. Wankievma, l. xevsurianma, l. jRamaiam (Tbilisi, 1987). 93 items in Tsagareli’s catalogue, 98 in Garitte’s; 11 items of Tsagareli’s listing have no counterpart in Garitte’s, and item no. 87 in the latter is not counted here as it is Armenian. Item no. 98 according to the numbering humanitaruli kvlevebi, weliwdeuli 2010 103 Jost Gippert peared7 and 7 have been removed to other locations.8 To the remaining 89 items, which may now be called the “Old Collection”, an even larger amount of Georgian manuscripts was added in 1975 when in the course of reconstruction work undertaken after a fire in the north eastern part of the monastery grounds, the remnants of far more than 1000 further codexes were found in the debris.9 Among them, about 150 manuscripts have been determined to be Georgian, and the catalogue prepared by Z. Aleksidze, M. Shanidze, L. Khevsuriani and M. Kavtaria10 gives a clear picture of the “New Collection” they constitute. The most important finds in the “New Collection” are the palimpsest manuscripts (Sin. georg.) N 13 and N 5511 which contain, in their lower layer, the first and only manuscript remains of the Caucasian Albanians; these palimpsests have been the object of an 7 8 9 10 11 applied by Garitte is the papyrus Psalter appearing as no. 1 in Cagareli’s description; cf. Garitte, Catalogue pp. 7 and 10-11. The Psalter was kindly made accessible to the present author and his colleagues, M. Shanidze and B. Outtier, during a sojourn in the monastery in May, 2009, by the Librarian of the monastery, Father Justin. The Psalter requires a full restoration as the glass tops it was stored in are broken. Nos. 40, 66, 92, and 93 in Tsagareli’s and nos. 23, 24, 27, 28, 45, 48, 55, and 84 in Garitte’s listing. Nos. 2, 9, 29, 31, and 69 are found in the University Library of Graz/Austria as part of the bequest of Hugo Schuchardt; no. 72 is in Tbilisi and no. 81, in Detroit. For the discovery cf. ,  (, 1998), pp. 8-24 and 25-49. Z. Alexidze (z. aleqsiZe), M. Shanidze (m. SaniZe), L. Khevsuriani (l. xevsuriani) and M. Kavtaria (m. qavTaria),   / sinis mTaze wm. ekaterines monasterSi 1975 wels aRmoCenil qarTul xelnawerTa aRweriloba / Catalogue of Georgian Manuscripts discovered in 1975 at St. Catherine’s Monastery on Mount Sinai ( / aTeni / Athens, 2005). In accordance with the practice proposed in the Catalogue, pp. 361-362, numbers of the New Collection are marked with an N preceding, and numbers of the Old Collection, with an O, in the following treatise. 104 New Manuscript Finds in St. Catherine’s Monastery international project since 2003, and the edition resulting from it has only just been published12 Some further important finds may briefly be mentioned here: N 89, a fragment consisting of two folios which pertain to the famous “Sinai polycephalion” (sinuri mravalTavi, O 32-57-33), filling the gap between fols. 84v and 85r of that codex (i.e. where the parts denominated O 32 and O 57 meet);13 N 71 (8 folios), a palimpsest containing an index of Evangelical lectures for the weeks between Easter and Pentecost compiled and written down by Ioane Zosime;14 N 48 and N 50, two manuscripts containing parts of the Georgian chronicle moqcevaY qarTlisaY;15 and several fragments of hymnaries of the iadgari type (N 2, N 5, N 19, N 97 etc.).16 Apart from the 142 items listed in the Catalogue (99 parchment codices, 33 paper manuscripts, 10 scrolls), the New Collection comprises a large number of unidentified fragments which the compilers of the Catalogue were not yet able to classify and describe.17 12 13 14 15 16 17 The Caucasian Albanian Palimpsests of Mt. Sinai, edited by J. Gippert, W. Schulze, Z. Aleksidze and J.-P. Mahé (Turnhout, 2008) (Monumenta Palaeographica Medii Aevi, Series ibero-caucasica, 2). In this edition, the structure of the (upper) Georgian layer has been thoroughly investigated by the present author, thus correcting several assumptions as printed in the Catalogue; the suggestion that N 13 and N 55 represent one Georgian codex has been confirmed beyond doubt. Cf. the Catalogue, pp. 149-151 / 305-306 / 432-433. Cf. the Catalogue, pp. 136-137 / 297-298 / 424-425; different from the information given there, the underwriting is not Coptic but Palestinian Syriac; the script used is similar to that appearing in the fly-leaves of the Sinai polycephalion (O 32-57-33), for which cf. A. Smith-Lewis, Catalogue of the Syriac Mss. in the Convent of S. Catherine on Mount Sinai (London, 1894) (Studia Sinaitica, 1), pp. 118-120. Cf. Z. Aleksidzé ed., Le nouveau manuscrit géorgien sinaïtique N Sin 50. Édition en fac-similé. Introduction par Z. Aleksidzé, traduite du géorgien par J.-P. Mahé (Lovanii, 2001). Cf. the Catalogue, pp. 43-44 / 240-241 / 368-369. The number of unidentified fragments is given as “c. 1800” in the Catalogue (p. 45/242/371); ca. 150 Georgian fragments were available to the researchers in May 2009 (cf. below). 105 Jost Gippert During a research visit to the monastery undertaken in May, 2009, in connection with the international project “Critical Edition of the Old Georgian Versions of Matthew’s and Mark’s Gospels – Catalogue of the Manuscripts Containing the Old Georgian Translation of the Gospels”,18 a group of scholars consisting of M. Shanidze, S. Sarjveladze, D. Tvaltvadze, B. Outtier and the present author had the opportunity to study the Georgian manuscripts of Mt. Sinai in detail.19 In the following pages, I shall summarise a few of the findings, with special emphasis on the fragments that have not been identified so far and the methods applicable for their identification. Many parts of the New Collection, and especially the fragments, which are at present kept in cardboard slipcases in the monastery library, have been preserved in a very bad state caused by the fire that led to their discovery in 1975. This is not only true for their size which is reduced to less than 10×10cm in most cases, leaving but a few lines or words visible, but also for their surface which shows all kinds of damages that result from being burnt or singed; cf. Images 1 and 2 (Fragments A and B)20 showing such damage. Img. 1: Fr. A 18 19 20 Img. 2: Fr. B Project kindly supported by INTAS, Brussels, under ref. no. 05-10000088026. The members of the group are extremely grateful to the monastery librarian, Father Justin, for the kind support he provided during their stay. Hereafter, capital letters are used for easy reference to individual fragments; there is no cataloguing function implied. 106 New Manuscript Finds in St. Catherine’s Monastery The first step in analysing a given fragment will always consist in identifying the text passages it contains. It is clear that a certain number of characters must be discernible for this purpose; on the basis of the huge database of digitized Old Georgian texts that has been made available in the TITUS and ARMAZI projects,21 even a small number of characters may suffice for this. Cp., e.g., Fragm. C displayed in Images 3a and b which can easily be identified as containing verses from the 4th chapter of the Gospel of Luke (4:41 and 4:43-44), with their internal order clearly determining the recto and the verso of the fragment.22 Img. 3a: Fragm. Cr Img. 3b: Fragm. Cv Lk. 4:41: <da ganvidodes eSmakni mravalTagan RaRadebdes da ityodes v˜d Sen xar q˜H ZH R˜Y : da Sehrisxna maT> da <ara oKtevebda sit>yoKad : <r˜ icodes v˜d ese> ars q˜H :— Lk. 4:43-44: <x˜ Tavadman hq˜a maT v˜d sxoKaTaca qalaqTa jer ars Cemda xarebad sasoK>fev<eli R˜Y r˜ amisTKs> moviv<line : da qadagebda> y˜lTa Se<sakrebelTa galileaYsaTa : > 21 22 Cf. http://titus.uni-frankfurt.de/texte/texte2.htm#georgant for the inventory of texts and http://titus.fkidg1.uni-frankfurt.de/database/titusinx/titusinx.asp for the retrieval engine. Lk, 4:41 is the only text passage in the TITUS database matching a search for ...yuad and ars and qristH within a context of maximally twenty words; the query can be carried out with the following URL string: http://titus.fkidg1.uni-frankfurt.de/database/titusinx/titusinx.asp? 107 Jost Gippert The identification of a text passage is not enough to identify a manuscript fragment though. Text passages from Gospel texts may pertain to Gospel manuscripts, but also to lectionaries of various kinds, and they may even represent mere quotations in homiletic, hagiographic, or other texts. In the given case, the latter option is less likely as we seem to have not single verses here but a continuous text which extends over several verses of the same Gospel chapter; this would be surprising in a quotation context. The decision whether we have a Gospel manuscript or a lectionary here is less easy to arrive at. For this purpose we have to take several further criteria into account. First, lectionary manuscripts have typical features such as, titles for example indicating lectures to be read or indications of the date and place of a lecture reading. This can easily be seen in another set of fragments found in the New Collection; cf. Fragm. D (Images 4a and b), a badly damaged scrap on which just the indication of the month (ianvar-) has been preserved, written in red ink as usual in many lectionaries (cf. below as to this fragment). On Fragm. C, no such indication is discernible. Second, the text passages as present in lectionaries may differ from those contained in Gospel manuscripts. This is certainly true for many of the Old Georgian lectionaries in comparison with the redactions of the Gospel tradition proper. In the case of Fragm. C, the amount of text available is by no means sufficient to answer this question. Third, it was but a restricted set of Gospel passages that were read as lectures, which implies that certain passages are less likely to be found in a lectionary. In the period of Old Georgian, there were two lectionary traditions available, viz. the so-called Jerusalem rite commonly regarded as archaic, and the later Byzantine rite. Among the Sinai manuscripts, those written in Asomtavruli script usually belong to the Jerusalem tradition while the Byzantine rite is represented by younger Nuskhuri manuscripts such as the paper codex N 14p of the New Collection.23 As a matter of fact, the text passage we find on Fragm. Cr (Lk. 4:41) is not contained as such in any Old Georgian lectionary of the Jerusalem type, while the Byzantine rite has a matching passage on the Monday of the 19th week after Pentecost 23 Cf. the Catalogue, p. 636 for a facsimile of fol. 3r of N 14p, showing lectures for the Wednesday and Thursday of the Easter week (Jo. 1:47-51; 3:1-4). 108 New Manuscript Finds in St. Catherine’s Monastery (Lk. 4:37-44). This cannot be taken as a sufficient argument for attributing Fragm. C to a lectionary of the Byzantine rite however, all the more since it is written in Asomtavruli letters. If we consider that the index of Evangelical lectures compiled by Ioane Zosime prescribes the reading of Lk. 4:31-41 for the 3rd Sunday and of Lk. 4:42-5,11 for the 4th Sunday after Epiphany,24 the latter information being matched by the Latal lectionary,25 we may well assume that the fragment in question might represent the same tradition. Different from the “internal”, i.e., text-based criteria mentioned so far, another type of argumentation is related to “external” characteristics such as the handwriting and the measures which may admit to attributing a given fragment to a codex that has been classified. In this context, “measures” can hardly mean anything but the distance between lines and the size of characters, given that tiny fragments such as C cannot tell anything about the size and the number of lines of the original they derive from. As to the handwriting of Fragm. C, the few letters that are discernible are hardly enough to prove its descendance from one of the known codexes of the New (or Old) Collection. The same is true for the measure, given that only two lines have been preserved. We do arrive at a reasonable argument, however, if we try to calculate the amount of lines the text passage must have comprised originally. Provided that the text flowed continuously from Lk. 4:41 to 44, the actual amount of text can hardly have comprised more than 12 lines, with an average of 17 characters per line or rather, column (cf. Tab. 1 which displays the corresponding reconstruction of the text). While the latter feature, together with the handwriting, would match the outline of the 10th century “Jerusalem” lectionary contained in the New Collection as N 11,26 the number of lines clearly contra- 24 25 26 Cf. G. Garitte, Un index géorgien des lectures évangéliques selon l’ancien rite de Jérusalem, Le Muséon 85 (1972), pp. 391-392, nos. 321-322. Cf. M. Tarchnischvili, Le grand lectionnaire de l’église de Jérusalem, [édition], t. II (Louvain, 1960), p. 74 note (no. 1426Bd); for the preceding Sunday, the same lectionary notes only Lk. 31-37 (cf. ib., no. 1426Bc). Cf. the Catalogue, p. 519 for a facsimile of fol. 2r of N 11. 109 Jost Gippert dicts this as the two-column manuscript N 11 has 30 lines per page. The difference would be hard to account for, even if we assumed a title to have been inserted between 4:41 and 4:43. The question whether Fragm. C can be grouped together with N 11 must thus remain open. Img. 4a (Fragm. Da) Img. 4b (Fragm. Db) With other fragments of this type, prospects are better. This is true, for example, for Fragm. E, again a very badly damaged scrap (cf. Images 5a and b). Here, the black ink has totally disappeared but the Asomtavruli characters have remained discernible against the stained background. In the upper lines, the words igi mimcems me and vals v(iTarc)a can be made out, which is sufficient for identifying the text passage as Mk. 14:2021. Again the fragment might derive from both a Gospel manuscript and a lectionary. In the given case, the passage in question is well attested as a lecture of the “Jerusalem” rite, forming part of the reading of Mk. 14:12-26 prescribed for Maundy Thursday in the Kala lectionary and Sin. O 36.27 This is confirmed by the other side of the same fragment, which exhibits the same type of lecture title written in red ink as in Fragm. D (cf. Img. 5b), here indicating Good Friday (didsa paraskevsa); if Mk. 14:20-21 is correctly associated with Maundy Thursday, the sequence of recto and verso is thus established again. 27 Cf. M. Tarchnischvili, Le grand lectionnaire de l’église de Jérusalem, [édition], t. I (Louvain, 1959), p. 115 (no. 639e); k. danelia, b. SaviSvili, s. Cxenkeli, qarTuli leqcionaris parizuli xelnaweri (Zveli da axali aRTqmis sakiTxavebi), t. I/2 (Tbilisi, 1997), K 151v-152v. 110 New Manuscript Finds in St. Catherine’s Monastery Img. 5a (Fragm. Er) Img. 5b (Fragm. Ev) Different from the recto, Fragm. Ev shows but faint traces of the text passage following the lecture title. What we can make out easily is a large initial m, again written in red ink, in the line below. This does not suffice for an identification of the lecture; however, the three letters preceding the lecture title, also in red ink but of minor size, are decisive here (cf. the enlarged picture displayed in Img. 6): if they are correctly read as tīT, the alphanumeric notation of 319, this must be the Ammonian section number of a Gospel passage, and the only Gospel passage that can be meant here is Mt. 27:3 which does begin with m: maSin v(iTarc)a ixila... As a matter of fact, the sequence of the letters va indicating the abbreviated conjunction v(iTarc)a seems to be discernible in the middle of the same line. Indeed, a lecture extending from Mt. 27:3-56 is part of the services for Good Friday in the lectionaries of the Jerusalem type.28 If we further consider the outer appearance of the characters discernible in Fragm. E, we may suppose that this fragment, as well as Fragm. D and a few others with similar features, were part of ms. N 10, a lectionary of the Jerusalem type attributed to the 9th century; cf. Img. 7 which exhibits fol. 1v of N 10, showing Lk. 19:35-38 and Jo. 12:12-13 as parts of the second 28 Cf. M. Tarchnischvili, Lectionnaire [édition], t. I, p. 127 (no. 686); the indication of the section number rl̄T = 139 for the given passage in the Paris lectionary is odd. 111 Jost Gippert and third lectures for the Monday of the Holy Week. As a matter of fact, the eight fols. of N 10 that have been preserved as such all contain lectures for the Holy Week, and fol. 4r, which contains Mt. 27:7-14, may well be the continuation of what we have in Fragm. Ev. Img. 6 (Fragm. Ev, extract, enlarged) Whether Fragm. D belongs to the same lectionary remains uncertain, for if it does, the original must have extended much beyond the time of Easter as Fragm. D indicates a date of ianvari. Possibly we have the 18th January here if the first word of the line below the title is monastersa (with mona discernible) and this denotes qozibas RmrTismSoblisa monastersa as in the Paris and Latal lectionaries.29 This would match one further piece, Fragm. F (cf. Images 8a and b), which clearly exhibits a title of January, too, with the word mociquli (moci discernible) and an initial x following. This might mean the 29th January which has a lecture from St. Paul’s letter to the Galatians (6:14-18) in the Jerusalem rite, here announced as sakiTxavi pavle mociqulisa galaTelTaY or the like;30 note that this is the only January lecture from St. Paul’s Epistles that begins with x (xolo). 29 30 M. Tarchnischvili, Lectionnaire [édition], t. I, p. 29 (no. 153: P 7ra). The Paris Lectionary has only sakiTxavi pavle galaTelTaY; cf. M. Tarchnischvili, Lectionnaire [édition], t. I, p. 34 (no. 184). Note that the Jerusalem lectionaries do not contain any lecture from the Acts of Apostles (saqmჱ mociqulTaY) to be read in January. 112 New Manuscript Finds in St. Catherine’s Monastery Img. 7 (N 10, 1v) Both fragments D and F may well pertain to N 11, the Asomtavruli lectionary manuscript allegedly of the 10th century mentioned above, which consists of 7 folios plus three minor fragments. This manuscript must have covered quite a large part of the ecclesiastical year as the entries preserved comprise the Saturday of the Meat Fare Week (6rv: 1.Cor. 15:41-57; 1.Thess. 4:13-18; Lk. 20:27), Good Friday (1rv: Is. 52:14-53,12; Heb. 2:11-15; 2rv: Jo. 19:34-38; Is. 57:1-4; Is. 59:15-19; Lam. Jer. 3:52-66), Holy Saturday 113 Jost Gippert (3rv: Ez. 37:11-14; 1.Cor. 15:1-11; Mt. 28:1-4), Bright Tuesday and Wednesday (4rv: Lk. 24:11-12; Act. 2:22-28; Act. 2:30-41), various feasts (5rv: Gen. 2:15-25; Is. 61:10; Heb. 12:28-13,6; Mt. 19:1-12; Jo. 2:1), and the 17th-25th May (on a folio represented by the three fragments 8, 9, and 10, cf. Img. 9: Lk. 21:28-35; Mt. 23:24-24:1). Img. 8a (Fragm. Fa) Img. 8b (Fragm. Fb) One more damaged folio (7rv), N 11 contains a larger sequence of text passages from Jeremy, comprising Jer. 14:7-9; 15:20-21; 31:23; and 16:19, most probably part of a collection of “Litanies from Jeremy” as contained in the Paris lectionary.31 At least one part of the missing column of this folio has now been detected among the unidentified fragments, viz. Fragm. G displayed in Images 10a and b. The two faces of this scrap clearly exhibit the text of Jer. 14:19-21 and 15:17-18, exactly matching the gaps of N 11; cf. Img. 11 showing the recto rearranged. 31 Cf. Tarchnischvili, Lectionnaire [édition], pp. 95-96 (nos. 1589-1590). Of the lecture preceding Jer. 14:7, only the last words have remained: r(omel)i mivec mamaTa Tq(oKe)nTa samkKrdebelad; in the given context, they may represent Jer. 7:7 rather than Jos. 1:2, Bar. 2:21, or Ez. 36:28 which have a similar wording. 114 New Manuscript Finds in St. Catherine’s Monastery Img. 9 (N 11, 8v + 9v + 10v) There is at least one more fragment that seems likely to pertain to N 11, even though its case is less clear. This is Fragm. H displayed in Images 12a and b. On one of its sides, we have a lecture title in red ink again, obviously indicating a text passage from Genesis (ႣႡ[ႣႡႨႱჂ = dabadebisaY). At first glance, the few words that can be made out from the text passage itself (... movida ... TKsTa ...) do not admit to identifying it with certainty, 115 Jost Gippert Img. 10a (Fragm. Gr) Img. 10a (Fragm. Gr) at least four verses matching this within Genesis (9:22: ... gamovida gare da uTxra ZmaTa TKsTa;32 19,14: gamovida loT da Tqua siZeTa mimarT TKsTa;33 37:23: da iyo, raJams movida ioseb ZmaTa TKsTa Tana;34 38:1: da iyo mas Jamsa oden warmovida iuda ZmaTa TKsTagan); if we read TKsisa instead of TKsTa, 27:30 might as well be taken into account 32 33 34 Thus in the Paris Lectionary (cf. k. danelia, s. Cxenkeli, b. SaviSvili, qarTuli leqcionaris parizuli xelnaweri, t. I/1 (Tbilisi, 1987), P 45v; lecture of the Thursday of the first week of Lent, cf. M. Tarchnischvili, Lectionnaire [édition], t. I, p. 55, no. 343); the Mcxeta Bible has gamosrulman instead of gamovida gare. Thus the Mcxeta Bible; the Paris Lectionary (cf. k. danelia, s. Cxenkeli, b. SaviSvili, P 170v; first lecture of Maundy Thursday, cf. M. Tarchnischvili, Lectionnaire [édition], t. I, p. 110, no. 619) has maT instead of TKsTa. Thus the Oshki Bible; the Paris Lectionary has misTa instead of TKisTa (cf. k. danelia, s. Cxenkeli, b. SaviSvili, P 89v; lecture of the Wednesday of the third week of Lent, cf. M. Tarchnischili, Lectionnaire [édition], t. I, p. 70, no. 418); the Mcxeta Bible omits Tana. 116 New Manuscript Finds in St. Catherine’s Monastery (... gamovida iakob pirisagan isakisa, mamisa TKsisa). If we consider the outer appearance of N 11, which has an average of 17 letters per line per column, only Gen. 9:22 and 19,14 seem to remain valid candidates for what we find in Fragm. H; and indeed, both these passages are attested in the Jerusalem type lectionaries (read on the Thursday of the first week of Lent and on Maundy Thursday, resp.).35 However, the characters following later on in the fragment (...esm... igi y... ...r(omel)i e... an..da...) only match with Gen. 37:23-24, which continues ganZarcues mas36 samoseli igi yuaviloani,37 romeli38 emosa. da miiyvanes da STaagdes igi... We thus arrive at about 13 characters per line, which seems too few for N 11. Instead, the fragment is much more likely to pertain to yet another lectionary manuscript of the New Collection, viz. N 88, which may have been written by the same hand as N 11 but differs in its measures, showing only 22 lines per column with an average of 13 characters. And indeed, one of the two folios of N 88 that have been preserved contains just the passage in question (Gen. 37:23-31), with the beginning of the lecture missing; cf. Img. 13 which shows how Fragm. Hr fits into the remnants of fol. 2r of N 88.39 In the same way, the verso of the fragment, Hv, can be inserted into the remainder of fol. 2v of N 88 (cf. Img. 14), thus admitting of a tentative reconstruction of the text which has been burnt off (cf. Tab. 2). Given this identification, we may finally suppose that the indication of the date, of which only ¸Ⴁ[ႧႱႠ = SabaTsa has survived, stands for xuTSabaTsa here as the lecture in question is read on a Thursday (of the third week of Lent) according to the Jerusalem rite. 35 36 37 38 39 Cf. notes 133 and 134 above. Thus the Mtskheta Bible; the Oshki Bible and the Paris Lectionary have iosebs instead. Thus the Paris Lectionary; the Oshki and Mtskheta Bibles have Wreli instead. Thus the Oshki Bible and the Paris Lectionary; the Mtskheta Bible has romel instead. Cf. the Catalogue, p. 609 for a facsimile of fol. 1v of N 88 which has been preserved in its entirety. 117 Jost Gippert Img. 11 (N 11, 7r re-joined with Fragm. Gr) Img. 12a (Fragm. Hr) 118 Img. 12b (Fragm. Hv) New Manuscript Finds in St. Catherine’s Monastery Img. 13 (N 88, 2r + Fragm. Hr) Img. 14 (N 88, 2v + Fragm. Hv) 119 Jost Gippert Tab. 1: Text of Fragm. C restored 1 ႣႠ Ⴅ<Ⴀ ႢႠႬႧႤႬႠ ႢႠႫႳႥႨႣႠ 2 ႫႨႤႰ ႣႠ ÂႠႰႥႨႣႠ ႳჃႣႠႡ 3 ႬႳႱႠ ႠႣႢႨႪႱႠ ႣႠ ႤႰႨ ႨႢႨ 4 Ⴄ¾ႨႤႡႣႠ ႫႠႱ ႣႠ ႫႳႥႨႣႤႱ 5 ႫႨႱႠ ႣႠ Ⴈ¶ႤႬႤႡႣႤႱ ႫႠႱ 6 ႣႠ ႢႠႬႥႨႣႳႣႤႱ 7 Ⴄ¸ႫႠÖႬႨ ႫႰႠႥႠႪႧႠႢAႬ Ⴞ~ ႧႠႥႠႣႫႠႬ Ⴠ[ႵႠ ႫႠႧ Ⴅ<Ⴃ 8 ÏႠÏႠႣႤႡႣႤႱ ႣႠ Ⴈº¶ႳႣႤႱ ႱႾႳჃႠႧႠႺႠ ႵႠႪႠႵႧႠ ÔႤႰ 9 Ⴅ<Ⴃ ¸ႤႬ ႾႠႰ Ⴕ<É ¾É Ï<Ⴢ ႠႰႱ ÆႤႫႣႠ ႾႠႰႤႡႠႣ ႱႠႱႳჃ 10 ႣႠ ¸ႤჀႰႨႱႾႬႠ ႫႠႧ ႣႠ Ⴀ ႴႤႥႤႪႨ Ï<Ⴢ Ⴐ~ ႠႫႨႱႧჃႱ 11 ႰႠ ႳჃºႤႥႤႡႣႠ ႱႨº¶ႳჃႠႣ : ႫႳႥႨႥႪႨႬႤ ႣႠ ႵႠႣႠႢႤႡႣႠ Ⴐ~ ႨႺႳႣႤႱ Ⴅ<Ⴃ ႤႱႤ ႠႰႱ Ⴕ~É : _ 12 Ⴐ<ႠႫႺႠ ႠႰႠ ÂႠႰႥႨႣႠ ႫႠႧႢ~Ⴌ: ¶<L ႧႠ ¸ႤႱႠÖႰႤႡႤႪႧႠ ႢႠႪႨ Tab. 2: Sin. georg. N 88, fol. 2 + Fragm. H recto 1 <des ersa Cemsa oKk>- Joel 2 2:27 <oKnisamde : da sc>- 3 <naT r˜ i˜Hlsa S˜s> 4 <me var o˜li R˜Ti> 5 <Tq˜ni da aravin a><da aRivsnen> <rs Cemsa gareSH da> 7 <ka>[l]o[n]<i Tq˜ni ifqli- <ara hrcxoKenodes> 8 Ta da gardaecem- <ersa Cemsa oKkoKni>- 9 odia[n] <sawnexelni> <samde :> 10 Tq˜ni [R]<KniTa da ze>- 6 2:24 120 Gen. <d R˜sa ē>Sb˜Tsa <g^> New Manuscript Finds in St. Catherine’s Monastery 11 2:25 TiTa <: da mogago T>qoKe[n] <welTa maT wil> 12 <ā skT>[x˜i] dbd˜bisY : -37:23 <d a rJ˜s> movida [i]<o>[s]- 13 r˜ lTa [S]<eWama mkal>- 14 man d[a] <boKzman da> <g˜nsZar>[coK]es m[a]<s sa>- 15 geslma[n] <da Wiaman> <mosel>[i igi y]<oKavi>- 16 da Z<al>[ma]<n Cemman> <loani> [r˜]i e[m]<osa> 17 2:26 didman Tq˜a <o˜n : da> <eb Zm>[a]<T>[a] TKsTa [T]<ana> 37:24 <da m>[ii]<yv>an[es] d[a] 18 g˜nsZRneT aqebd[iT] [S]<Ta>agd[es] [igi] {j˜r}- 19 saxelsa o˜isa R˜Tis- [R]moKl[s]a [m]{as} 20 a Tq˜nisasa r˜n yo sa- {Sin}[a] oKdabn[o]{Ysasa} 21 kKrve[li Tq˜n Tana] 22 37:25 d a ara h[rc]xoKeno- da d[asx]d[es] igi[n]<i W>am[a]<d> p[oKrisa] <da> verso 1 (37:25) <aRixilnes ToKal>- <is z˜a r˜ ZmaY C˜ni> 2 <ni maTni da aha> <ars ismines misi> 3 <esera ixilnes mo-> 4 <gzaoKrni ismai>- <warmovides kacni> 5 <telni vaWarni mo>- <igi madiamelni> 6 <mavalni galaa>- <vaWarni da mihyi>- 7 <diT da aqlemni> <des ioseb> [isma]<i>- 8 <maTni savse iyoK>- <telTa maT o>[c] drah- 9 <nes sakoKmeveli>- <kanis da> [w]ariyv- 10 <T>a [da ST]{axSi}<Ta da> <anes igi egK>[p]tes 11 [mi]<v>[ido]{des} <STa> <<da warmoiyva>>na 12 <slv>[ad] {egKpt}<ed> <<igi petefr>>[[e]] 13 37:26 <h˜ q˜a ioK>[da] {Zm}<aTa> 37:28 37:29 <ZmaTa misTa : da> <moiqca roKb>en joK- 14 <TKsTa> {raY s}<ar>- <rRmoKlsa> [m]as da 15 <gebel> a{rs o}<KkoKeToK> <ara pov>[a] iosebi 121 Jost Gippert 16 <movkla>[T] {Z}<maY ese> <da dai>p[o] <sa>mose- 17 <CoKe>{ni} [d]<a davs>- 18 {Txi}[oT] [sis]{xli misi} [Zm]aTa TKsTa Tana 19 37:27 [m]o[vediT] da [mivh]- da h˜qa maT yrmaY 20 {y}i[doT i]{gi} i[sma]it- ig[i] aqa ara ars d- 21 {el}Ta [im]aT da [n]o[K] a aw me vire vide 22 iyof[in] U[el]i [C˜n]i m- 37:30 37:31 <li TKs>[i] da movida x˜ maT moiRes samo<<seli ...>> 122 Jost Gippert New Manuscript Finds in St. Catherine’s Monastery Part II Among the unidentified fragments of the New Collection of Georgian manuscripts in St. Catherine’s Monastery1, Biblical passages are not only found written in Asomtavruli script. The two sides of the Nuskha-Khutsuri Fragm. I displayed in Images 1a and b clearly represent passages from Ps. 117, viz. verses 10-11 and 19-22, their sequence determining the recto and verso. And again, we may wonder whether the original they derive from was a lectionary manuscript or not. It would be surprising, however, to find a larger sequence of verses pertaining to the same psalm written in full in a lectionary. Instead, the fragment will rather pertain to a Psalter manuscript, and N 82 of the New Collection would be a good candidate for this as its catalogued remnants begin with Ps. 118,3.2 Fragm. J, also written in Nuskha-Khutsuri minuscules (cf. Images 2a and b), is a bit more difficult to account for. The main part of the text it contains is from Ex. 2, with verses 11-15 (on the recto) and verse 22 (on the verso) clearly representing a continuous passage. On line 7 of the verso, however, another text passage begins; what we can make out is likely to pertain to the book of Job, the text passage in question being either 1,6-8 or 2,1-3, with a priority for the former as it contains the word queyana (of Job 1 2 Cf. Part I of the present article for a survey of the Georgian fragments here dealt with. Cf. the image of fol. 1r of N 82 printed in the catalogue by Z. Aleksidze (z. aleqsiZe), M. Shanidze (m. SaniZe), L. Khevsuriani (l. xevsuriani) and M. Kavtaria (m. qavTaria), Kat avlogo~ gewr gi anwvn cei r ogr avf wn eur eqevnt wn kat avt ov1975 ei ~ t hvn i er avn monhvn t ouvqeobadi vs t ou ovrou~ Si nav Agi av~ Ai kat er i vnh~ / sinis mTaze wm. ekaterines monasterSi 1975 wels aRmoCenil qarTul xelnawerTa aRweriloba / Catalogue of Georgian Manuscripts Discovered in 1975 at St. Catherine’s Monastery on Mount Sinai, (Aqhvna / aTeni / Athens 2005), p. 603. 170 humanitaruli kvlevebi, weliwdeuli 2012 New Manuscript Finds in St. Catherine’s Monastery 1,7) discernible in line 10 of the fragment. It is clear by this that we have a lectionary manuscript here, with the lecture titles missing. As a matter of fact, all passages in question (Ex. 2,11-22, Job 1,6-8 and 2,1-3) figure in both the Jerusalem and the Byzantine lectionaries; in none of them the passage from Exodus is immediately followed by Job 1, however (in the Byzantine rite, Job 1,1-12 follows Ex. 1,1-20 on Holy Monday, and Ex. 2,11-22 is followed by Job 2,1-10 on Holy Wednesday; the Jerusalem lectionaries have Img. 1a (Fragm. Ir) Img. 1b (Fragm. Iv) Img. 2a (Fragm. Jr) Img. 2b (Fragm. Jv) 171 Jost Gippert Ex. 1,1-2,22 on the Wednesday of the first week of Lent, and Job 1,1-22 and 2,1-3,26 on the Sunday and Tuesday before that).3 The actual provenance of Fragm. J thus remains open. Img. 3a (Fragm. Kr) Img. 4a (Fragm. Lr) 3 Img. 3b (Fragm. Kv) Img. 4b (Fragm. Lv) Nos. 342, 334 and 339 in M. Tarchnischvili, Le grand lectionnaire de l’église de Jérusalem, [édition], t. I (Louvain 1959), t. I, p. 53-54. 172 New Manuscript Finds in St. Catherine’s Monastery Even for non-Biblical fragments, an identification may be possible, provided a sufficient amount of text has been preserved on them. This is true, e.g., for Fragm. K displayed in Images 3a and b, which contains a passage from the Life of St. Euthymius, one of the Vitae authored by Cyril of Scythopolis.4 Together with some other fragments, among them the badly burnt Fragm. A (cf. Part I, Img. 1),5 it can be proven to pertain to N 94 of the New Collection, a set of two folios which in their turn are likely to derive from the original catalogued as no. 43 in the Old Collection;6 cp. fols. 1v-2r of N 94 as displayed in the Catalogue, p. 615. Another remarkable fragment containing non-Biblical text is Fragm. L (Images 4a and b), obviously a palimpsest. By all its outer appearance, it resembles manuscript N 71 of the New Collection, one of the manuscripts attributed to Ioane Zosime.7 In the given case, it is not only the hand of the famous copyist that can be identified (cf. the facsimile of fol. 6v-7r in the Catalogue, p. 592) but also the script of the Syro-Palestinian underwriting.8 However, the upper text appearing on Fragm. K does not match the lecture index contained in N 71. What we have here instead is a passage from the letter of Cyril of Jerusalem to Emperor Constantine relating the Invention of the Holy Cross. If we consider that in the services of the Jerusalem rite, this letter is one of the few non-Biblical lectures (figuring on the 7th May, the day devoted to the Holy Cross), its appearance in a lectionary-like environment is less astonishing, just as it was printed as an appendix, together with the lecture index of Sinai O 37, in M. Tarchnischvili’s edition of the Paris Lectionary.9 In quite the same way, Ioane Zosime may have 4 5 6 7 8 9 The Georgian version has been edited by V. Imnaishvili on the basis of ms. Add. 11281 of the British Library in the collection entitled mamaTa cxorebani (Tbilisi, 1975); the text passage present on Fragm. K corresponds to p. 118, ll. 1-3 and 6-9 of the edited text. Note that the fragment matches the text of the British manuscript in spelling saPliT instead of saxliT (Kr, l. 3 from bottom). Fragm. A corresponds to p. 146, ll. 15-17 of the printed text. Cf. the Catalogue, p. 155-156 / 308 / 435. Cf. the Catalogue, p. 136-137 / 297-298 / 424-425. Cf. Part I, note 31. Tarchnischvili, Lectionnaire [édition], t. II (Louvain 1960), p. 144-150 173 Jost Gippert added the “exceptional” lecture to his lecture index. There is at least one fragment that contains ascetic material, a topic that is typical for the Sinai environment. This is Fragm. M displayed in Images 5a and b. The few words visible on it, written in a clumsy hand, clearly pertain to the 4th letter of St. Anthony, the Georgian version of which has been preserved in toto in two Sinai mss. of the Old Collection (O 25 and 35). However, the present fragment derives not from one of these two codices but from a manuscript of the New Collection, viz. N 13 which contains the larger part of the “Albanian” palimpsest. And indeed, Fragm. M can be proven to have been dissolved from fol. 106, one of the most damaged folios of N 13 which, in its underwriting, contains the “Albanian” text of Lk. 1,61-64 on its verso and 1,78-80 on its recto.10 As Images 6a and b show, the underwriting of fol. 106r comprises about 9 lines, with the upper layer covering it turned by 90 degrees. As the reconstruction of the upper text in Tab. 1a and b proves, Fragm. M continues the upper part of fol. 106 (cf. Img. 7 showing the fragment attached at the correct place), and it must have borne an underwriting corresponding to Lk. 1,66-67 on its recto and 1,73-74 on its verso, two passages that had to be omitted in the edition for lack of evidence (cf. Tab. 2 showing the text layout of fols. 105v and 106r of the palimpsest)11. Unfortunately, there was no multispectral equipment available on Mt. Sinai when Fragm. M (and the other ones here analysed) were inspected in May, 2009; the decipherment of its lower text thus requires further studies. 10 11 (App. IIa); the passage present on Fragm. L corresponds to paragraphs 3-5 of the edition. Cf. the edition by J. Gippert, W. Schulze, Z. Aleksidze and J.-P. Mahé, The Caucasian Albanian Palimpsests of Mt. Sinai [Monumenta Palaeographica Medii Aevi, Series ibero-caucasica, 2], (Turnhout, 2008), p. VI-20 – VI-23; fol. 106 constitutes a bifoliate with fol. 105. Taken from vol. III of the edition (The Armenian Layer, ed. by J. Gippert, Turnhout 2010; Monumenta Palaeographica Medii Aevi, Series iberocaucasica, 2/3), p. I-25, with the part corresponding to Fragm. M indicated by gray shading. Cf. ib., p. I-24 for the restitution of fols. 105r and 106v. 174 New Manuscript Finds in St. Catherine’s Monastery Img. 5a (Fragm. Mr) Img. 5b (Fragm. Mv) Img. 21a (N 13, 106r) 175 Jost Gippert Img. 21b (same, MuSIS picture) Img. 22 (Sin. N 13, 106r + Fragm. Mr) 176 New Manuscript Finds in St. Catherine’s Monastery Tab. 1a: Sin. georg. N 13, fol. 106 + Fragm. M (upper text) <მი-> recto N 13, 106r 97 98 99 Frgm. Mr 100 lost 101 1 <მართ შ>[ე]მოქმედისა დღე და ღამე, რ˜ა 1 2 გამოვიდეს თქ˜ნდა შეწევნაჲ მაღლი- 2 3 სა მიერ და მოზღუდნეს გულნი თქ˜ნ<ნი> 3 4 და გულისსიტ[ყ]ჳანი ქ˜ეს მიერ : ჭეშმარ- 4 5 იტად შვილნო სახლსა შინა ავაზაკი- 5 6 სასა მყოფ ვართ [და] საკრველითა 6 7 სიკჳდილისაჲთა ვარ<თ> ჩუენ შეკრულ : 7 8 <ჭე>[შ]მარიტად გეტყჳ თქ˜ნ [რ˜] ჩ˜ნი ესე უდ- 8 9 <ებე>ბაჲ და დამდაბლე[ბაჲ] და გარეშე 9 10 <ყო>[ფ]აჲ ესე ჩ˜ნი სა<თნ>[ოე]ბისაგან არა 10 11 <ხ˜თ>[უ] ჩ˜ნდა ზღვევა [არ]<ს> ა˜დ ანგელ- 11 12 <ოზთაცა შ>[რო]მა არს [და ყ˜]ლთა წ˜თა 12 13 <ქ˜ჱსთა რ˜ არღა სა>და [ა]ქამომდ<ე> [გა]ნ- 13 14 <უსუენებიეს ჩ˜ნთჳს ჭეშმ>[ა]რი[ტ]<ად> 14 15 <შვილნო რ˜ დ>ამ[დ]<აბლებაჲ ესე ჩ˜ნი> 15 16 <მწუხარე>[ბა] არს მათ <ყ˜ლთა, და კ˜დ> 16 17 <ცხორე>ბაჲ ჩ˜ნი და ს<იქადული სიხა>- 17 18 <რულს-ცე>მნ მათ ყ˜ლთა <და ცანთ რ˜ სა>- 18 19 <ხიერე>ბაჲ მამისაჲ არ<ა დაცხრების ვი>- 19 20 <ნაჲთგან აღიძრა ქველის-ყოფად ჩ˜ნდა> 20 21 <მარადის ვ˜ე დღინდღელად დღედმდე> 21 22 <რ˜ა არა თანამდებ გყვნეს ჩ˜ნ თავისა> 22 23 <ჩ˜ნისა : და რ˜ თჳთ-ჴელმწიფედ> 23 177 Jost Gippert Tab. 1b: Sin. georg. N 13, fol. 106 + Fragm. M (upper text) verso N 13,106v 102 103 104 Frgm. Mv lost 178 1 დავებადენით ამის თჳის [გ]<უეძიებ>- 1 2 ენ ჩ˜ნ ეშმაკნი მ˜ს ამისთჳის წერილ არ[ს]<:> 2 3 [დ]აბანაკებულ არს ანგელოზი ო˜ჲ გარ- 3 4 ემო მოშიშთა მისთა და იჴსნეს იგინი : 4 5 [ა]წ შვილნო უწყებაჲ თქ˜ნი მნებავს 5 6 ვინაჲთგან [ა]<ღ>ძრვაჲ ესე იყო ვ˜ე 6 7 აქამომდე ყ˜ნივე : რავდენნი გარეშ[ე] 7 8 იქმნეს სა[თ]<ნო>ებისაგან და აღეს<რუ>- 8 9 ლნეს უკეთურებანი მათნი [შ]<ვილ>- 9 10 ად ეშმაკისა <შე>[რა]ცხილ არიან : დ[ა] <აწ>- 10 11 ვე მათგა[ნ]<თ>ა ცნეს : და ა[მი]<სთჳსცა> 11 12 ჴ[ელი] შეყვეს სა[ქ]მედ <თითოეულისა ჩ˜ნი>- 12 13 [სა ნ]ებისაებრ [მ]ა<თისა რ˜ ესე იციან> 13 14 <ვ˜დ ზ>[ე]<ცით გარდამოვარდა ეშმაკი> 14 15 <ამპარტავანე>ბი[თ]ა ა<მისთჳსცა რ˜ლ>- 15 16 <ნი იგი მიიწინ>ნეს დიდ<სა ზომსა> 16 17 <გარდარეულს>[ა] ესე მოუჴ<დიან> 17 18 <მათ პ˜დ : რ˜> [ჴ]ელოან არია[ნ] <ამ>- 18 19 <პარტავანებითა და> [მაო]<ცნებე>- 19 20 <ლობთა ურთიერთარს : ...> 20 21 ... 21 New Manuscript Finds in St. Catherine’s Monastery Tab. 2: Sin. georg. N 13, fol. 105v / 106r + Fragm. M (lower text) 179 Jost Gippert bibliografia References Z. Aleksidze, M. Shanidze, L. Khevsuriani and M. Kavtaria, Catalogue of Georgian Manuscripts Discovered in 1975 at St. Catherine’s Monastery on Mount Sinai (Athens, 2005). J. Gippert, W. Schulze, Z. Aleksidze and J.-P. Mahé, The Caucasian Albanian Palimpsests of Mt. Sinai, vol. II [Monumenta Palaeographica Medii Aevi, Series ibero-caucasica: 2/2] (Turnhout, 2008). J. Gippert, The Caucasian Albanian Palimpsests of Mt. Sinai. vol. III: The Armenian Layer [Monumenta Palaeographica Medii Aevi, Series iberocaucasica: 2/3] (Turnhout, 2010). V. Imnaishvili, Teachings of Holy Fathers (Tbilisi, 1975) (in Georgian). M. Tarchnischvili, Le grand lectionnaire de l’église de Jérusalem [édition], t. I-II (Louvain, 1959-1960). iost giperti wminda ekaterines monasterSi aRmoCenili axali xelnawerebi winamdebare naSromSi ganxilulia sinas mTis qarTuli xelnawerebis axali koleqciis fragmentebi, romlebic ar aris Setanili wminda ekaterines monastris qarTul xelnawerTa axal katalogSi. warmodgenilia, agreTve, fragmentebis identificirebisaTvis gamoyenebuli meTodebi. sagulisxmoa is garemoeba, rom axali koleqciis didi nawili Zalian cud mdgomareobaSia, gansakuTrebiT _ fragmentebi. Sesabamisad, analizis pirveli etapi fragmentebSi mocemuli teqstis nawyvetebis identificirebas moicavs, risTvisac aucilebelia asoebis garkveuli raodenobis amokiTxva. TITUS-ARMAZI-is Zveli qarTuli teqstebis monacemTa bazis meSveobiT teqstis identificireba asoebis mcire raodenobis SemTxvevaSic aris SesaZlebeli. magaliTad, rogorc irkveva, fragmenti C Seicavs muxlebs lukas saxarebidan (4,41 da 43-44). amasTanave, teqstis erTi nawyvetis amocnoba ar aris sakmarisi fragmentis identificirebisTvis. oTxTavis nawyveti SeiZleba iyos sakuTriv saxarebidan da leqcionaridanac, an citirebuli iyos holimetikur, hagiografiul da sxva tipis teqstebSi. gansaxilveli fragmenti C Seicavs uwyvet teqsts, romelic warmodgenilia erTi da imave 180 New Manuscript Finds in St. Catherine’s Monastery Tavis ramdenime muxliT, rac, faqtobrivad, gamoricxulia citirebis SemTxvevaSi. gacilebiT rTulia imis dadgena, fragmenti saxarebidan momdinareobs Tu leqcionaridan. Sesabamisad, gasaTvaliswinebelia Semdegi garemoebebi: pirveli _ leqcionarebisTvis damaxasiaTebelia tipuri liturgikuli teqstis arseboba _ saTaurebis dasaTaureba an misi wakiTxvis drois miTiTeba. amisi naTeli magaliTia fragmenti D, romelzec kargadaa Semonaxuli Tvis saxelwodeba (ianvar-). rogorc sxva mraval leqcionarSi, aqac igi wiTeli feris melniTaa dawerili. meore _ nawyvetebi leqcionaridan gansxvavdeba saxarebis nawyvetisgan. fragment C-s SemTxvevaSi amokiTxuli teqstis raodenoba ar aris sakmarisi am sakiTxis gadasaWrelad. mesame _ saxarebis pasaJebis mxolod SezRuduli raodenoba ikiTxeba sakiTxavebis saxiT. Zveli qarTuli leqcionarebi am TvalsazrisiT ori tradiciis matarebelia: arqauli _ ierusalimurisa da gviani _ bizantiurisa. sinaze daculi, asomTavruli anbaniT dawerili, leqcionarebi, Cveulebriv, misdevs ierusalimur tradicias, maSin rodesac bizantiuri stili warmodgenilia nusxuri anbaniT Sesrulebul xelnawerebSi. fragment C-s recto-ze (luka 4,41) warmodgenili teqsti ar gvxvdeba ierusalimis tipis qarTul leqcionarebSi, bizantiur tips ki aqvs Sesatyvisi (sulTmofenobidan mecxramete kviris orSabaTis) sakiTxavi. amasTanave, es mainc ar aris sakmarisi imisTvis, rom fragmenti C mivakuTnoT bizantiur leqcionars, ramdenadac is asomTavruli anbaniTaa dawerili. Tu gaviTvaliswinebiT im garemoebas, rom sakiTxavis indeqsi, ioane-zosimes ganmartebiT, aris luka 4,31-41 mesame kvirisTvis da luka 4,42-5,11 meoTxe kvirisTvis epifanes Semdeg, mocemuli fragmenti SeiZleba „misi“ tradiciis matarebeli aRmoCndes. fragmentis ama Tu im xelnawerisTvis mikuTvnebis mizniT gasaTvaliswinebelia iseTi garegnuli maxasiaTeblebic, rogoricaa xelwera da zomebi. mocemuli konteqstidan gamomdinare, „zomebSi“ igulisxmeba daSoreba striqonebs Soris da asoebis zomebi/parametrebi. Tumca, iseTi patara fragmenti, rogoric aris C, ar gviCvenebs xelnaweri wyaros striqonebis raodenobas. arc amokiTxuli asoebia sakmarisi imisaTvis, rom igi sinuri koleqciis romelime xelnaweris nawilad miviCnioT. igive SeiZleba iTqvas misi zomebis gansazRvrazec _ fragmentSi mxolod ori striqonia SemorCenili. miuxedavad amisa, SesaZlebelia gamovian- 181 Jost Gippert gariSoT teqstis pasaJSi arsebuli striqonebis raodenoba (daaxloebiT 12 striqoni luka 4,41-dan 44-mde da TiToeul striqonze daaxloebiT 17 aso). Sesabamisad, mocemuli xelnaweri, savaraudod, unda warmoadgendes X saukunis ierusalimuri leqcionaris (N11) nawils. Tumca, am ukanasknelis TiToeuli gverdi 30 striqons moicavs. sxva fragmentebis SemTxvevaSi ukeTesi mdgomareobaa. magaliTad, fragment E-Si SegviZlia amovikiTxoT: igi mimcems me da vals v(iTarc)a, rac Seesabameba markoz 14, 20-21-s; es nawyveti fiqsirdeba ierusalimuri tipis leqcionaris vnebis xuTSabaTis sakiTxavSic (markoz 14,12-26). amis dasturia fragment E-s verso-ze saTaurad gamotanili sityvebi didsa paraskevsa. Tumca, maT mosdevs teqstis pasaJis „bundovani“ kvali. ikiTxeba mxolod wiTeli melniT Sesrulebuli sawyisi aso m, rac ar aris sakmarisi sakiTxavis identificirebisTvis. Tumca, mocemul SemTxvevaSi, saTauramde daweril patara zomis sam asos gadamwyveti mniSvneloba eniWeba. tiT unda iyos oTxTavis erTi pasaJis, amonas Tavis ricxviTi mniSvneloba (319), maTe 27,3, romelic m asoTi iwyeba: maSin v(iTarc)a ixila... aSkaraa isic, rom, maTe 27,3-56 ikiTxeba ierusalimuri tipis didi paraskevis sakiTxavebSi. fragment E-s analizis Sedegad SegviZlia vivaraudoT, rom is iyo sxva ierusalimuri leqcionaris xelnaweris, N10-is, nawili. amasTanave, N10-is rva furceli Seicavs vnebis kviris sakiTxavebs, xolo 4recto, romelzec maTe 27,7-14 aris warmodgenili, SeiZleba iyos fragment E-s verso-s gagrZeleba. fragment D-Si miTiTebuli TariRis (ianvar-) gaTvaliswinebiT, Zneldeba misi mikuTvneba imave leqcionarisTvis. SesaZloa, es aris 18 ianvris sakiTxavi. amas gvavaraudebinebs teqstis pirveli savaraudo sityva monastersa, romelic ierusalimuri tipis leqcionarSi dacul qozibas RvTismSoblis monasters emTxveva. savaraudoa, aRniSnuli Seesabamebodes fragment F-sac, romelsac saTaurad warmodgenili aqvs ianvari. am ukanasknels mosdevs sityva mociquli da iniciali x. savaraudod, es unda iyos 29 ianvris sakiTxavi. ierusalimuri tipis leqcionarSi daculia sakiTxavi samociqulodan galatelTa mimarT (6,14-18) saTauriT sakiTxavi pavle mociqulisa galatelTaY. es aris erTaderTi citata epistoleebidan ianvris Tvis sakiTxavebSi, romelic iwyeba x-Ti (xolo). D da F fragmentebi SegviZlia mivakuTvnoT N11 xelnawers, romelic Sedgeba 7 furclisa da sami patara fragmentisgan. savaraudod, am 182 New Manuscript Finds in St. Catherine’s Monastery xelnawerSi Sedioda wlis sakiTxavebis didi nawilic, razec miuTiTebs Cvenamde moRweuli araerTi Sesavali nawili (miTiTebuli periodiT _ xorcielis kviridan 25 maisamde). N11 xelnaweris sxva furcelze weria nawyveti ieremias winaswarmetyvelebidan (14,7-9; 15,20-21; 31,23; da 16,19). am gverdze waSlili svetis erTi nawili aRmoCnda fragment G-Si. is warmogvidgens ieremia 14,19-21sa da 15,17-18 -s da zustad Seesabameba N11-is „gamotovebul“ adgilebs. xelnawerebs Soris aris kidev erTi fragmenti d H, romelic SeiZleba mivakuTvnoT N11 xelnawers. am fragmentSi daculi sakiTxavis saTauri aSkarad warmoadgens dabadebis teqsts (ႣႡႣႡႨႱჂ). Tumca, is ramdenime sityva, romelic Semdgom ikiTxeba (...movida... TKsTa...) ar iZleva nawyvetis identificirebis saSualebas. msgavsi sityvebi dabadebis oTx muxlSi aris warmodgenili (9,22: ... gamovida gare da uTxra ZmaTa TKsTa; 19,14: gamovida loT da Tqua siZeTa mimarT TKsTa; 37,23: da iyo, raJams movida ioseb ZmaTa TKsTa Tana; 38,1: da iyo mas Jamsa oden warmovida iuda ZmaTa TKsTagan); TKsisa-d wakiTxvis SemTxvevaSi ki 27,30-ic aris gasaTvaliswinebeli (gamovida iakob pirisagan isakisa, mamisa TKsisa). Tu mxedvelobaSi miviRebT N11 xelnaweris garegnul mxares, maSin mxolod ierusalimis leqcionarebSi warmodgenili 9,22 da 19,14 pasaJebi CaiTvleba fragment H-s Sesabamisad. Tumca, fragment H-Si miTiTebuli momdevo asoebi (...esm... igi y... ...r(omel)i e... an..da...) Seesabameba mxolod 37,23-24-s, romelic ikiTxeba, rogorc: ganZarcues mas samoseli igi yuaviloani, romeli emosa. da miiyvanes da STaagdes igi... Sesabamisad, TiToeul striqonSi fiqsirdeba 13 aso, rac Zalian cotaa N11-isTvis. Tumca, fragmenti H ufro metad Seesabameba leqcionar N88-s. savaraudod, N11 da N88 erTi da imave gadamweris mier aris Sesrulebuli (N88 Sesrulebulia gansxvavebul zomebSi _ 22 striqoni da 13 aso TiToeul striqonSi). N88 xelnaweris erTi furceli Seicavs dabadebis 37,23-31 muxlebs, xolo fragmenti H avsebs gamotovebuli sakiTxavis dasawyiss. sinas mTaze dacul fragmentebs Soris bibliuri teqstebis nawyvetebi mxolod asomTavruliT ar aris dawerili. nusxuriT Sesrulebuli fragmenti I-is ori furceli calsaxad warmoadgens 117 fsalmunis 10-11 da 19-22 muxlebs. savaraudoa isic, rom mocemuli fragmenti leqcionaridan momdinareobs. Tumca, gasakviria, leqcionarSi erTi fsalmunis muxlebis grZeli Tanmimdevrobis dafiqsireba. aqedan gamomdinare, fragmenti I warmoadgens fsalmunis xelnaweris, kerZod, N82 xelnaweris nawils, romelic 118 fsalmunis mesame muxliT iwyeba. 183 Jost Gippert nusxuriT Sesrulebuli fragmenti J-s warmomavlobis dadgena ufro Znelia. masSi daculi teqstis didi nawili aris moses xuTwigneulis gamoslvaTa 2,11-15 da 22 da aSkarad warmoadgens uwyvet pasaJs. Tumca, verso-s meSvide striqonidan sxva teqstis nawyveti iwyeba. savaraudod, is unda iyos saqme mociqulTadan _ 1,6-8, an 2,1-3. amaTgan upiratesoba eniWeba 1,6-8-s, romlis meaTe striqoni Seicavs sityvas queyanaY (1,7). maSasadame, is SeiZleba iyos leqcionaris sakiTxavi saTaurebis gareSe. aRsaniSnavia is garemoebac, rom yvela miTiTebuli pasaJi (gamoslvaTa 2,11-22, saqme mociqulTa 1,6-8 da 2,1-3) warmodgenilia rogorc ierusalimuri, aseve bizantiuri tipis leqcionarSi, nawyvets ar mosdevs saqme mociqulTas pirveli Tavis muxlebi. Sesabamisad, fragmenti J-s warmomavlobis sakiTxi gaurkvevelia. sakmarisi raodenobis teqstis amokiTxvis SemTxvevaSi, arabibliuri fragmentebis warmomavlobis dadgenac aris SesaZlebeli. amisi magaliTia fragmenti K, romelic Seicavs nawyvets wm. efTvimes cxovrebidan. SesaZloa imisi mtkiceba, rom is (sxva fragmentebTan erTad) ekuTvnis Zvel koleqciis N43-dan warmomdgar N94 xelnawers. arabibliuri teqstis Semcveli fragmentebidan aRsaniSnavia fragmenti L, romelic aSkarad siriul-palestinuri palimfsestia. garegnuli niSnebis mixedviT is hgavs N71-s, romelic ioane-zosimes xelnawerad aris miCneuli. Tumca fragmenti K-s zeda teqsti ar mihyveba N 71-is sakiTxavTa saZiebels. is warmoadgens nawyvets kirile ierusalimelis sityvidan jvris povnis Sesaxeb. ierusalimuri tipis leqcionarSi es werili ikiTxeba 7 maiss. Sesabamisad, unda vivaraudoT, rom arsebobda saZiebelSi misi Camatebis SesaZleblobac. fragmenti M Seicavs asketur masals. masSi warmodgenili ramdenime sityva aris wm. antonis meoTxe sityvidan. is aSkarad momdinareobs N13 xelnaweridan, romelic „albanuri“ palimfsestis ZiriTad nawils Seicavs. saubaria 106-e furcelze, romlis verso-ze daculia „albanuri teqsti“ luka 1,61-64-isa, xolo recto-ze warmodgenilia 1,78-80. radgan fragment M-is qarTuli teqsti agrZelebs 106-s, misi qveda fenis rectoze arsebuli teqsti Seesabameba luka 1,66-67-s, xolo verso-ze _ luka 1,73-74-s. 184