Book of Prayers

What the circumstances of those explanations are, or to whom it is proper to attribute them, here is a brief sketch of their character, from which the value and the time of the author can be understood.

Indeed, it appears in the commentator that he tries to clarify the secrets of the book, but he does not apply an equal effort of skill to the important parts. Because of this, in many places, he treats the cryptic phrases either with silence, or leaves them in obscurity with superficial words, or expresses inappropriate meanings, as will be seen in the order of our own explanations. Contrary to this, he often explains easy-to-understand words or phrases tirelessly, not once or twice. For example: dzhokhak hellish, shnorhayin gracious, ankhardakh unfeigned/honest, pashtpanel to defend, tshuaruhi wretched woman, etc. And he does this sometimes with verbosity, as at the beginning of the book, "Voice of sighing," where he begins to count the kinds of voices: the articulate and the inarticulate, the significant and the insignificant, and explains each with examples as needed. Similarly, in the phrase stated there, "From the depths of feelings," he takes it as material for extensive discourse, teaching the division of the feelings and faculties of the soul, and the comparison of each of them with one another, for which there was no need in that place. It is possible to see in it references to other books, attributing the words of one book to another. For example, in the phrase A. 2, the statement "The day of the Lord is near," which is in Joel 3:14, the explainer attributes to Hosea, where it does not exist. He does such things elsewhere as well.

In many places, he uses common language and style unnecessarily, such as: shutov quickly, nalan epot unclear/colloquial expression, kharnik khurnikanen mixed/tangled, khmel to drink, tsetsotal to beat/hammer. "Look closely, so that you know what the Lord God is saying." Look. (meaning: in that way.) "He pulled his head." "You did." "In order for me to be hammered." "I am melting." "The dough is mixed." "Ever-occurring." I am worthy of this and many others. "Blind eyes." "Five what? ...falls from the flour." "Ash-water." "Enchantment" is what they build and tie from glass beads, they call it pakapanq amulets/charms; and so on.

And not only this, but in many places he uses foreign terms familiarly and without distinction—those of the Turk, and of the Arab, and of others. For example, in explaining the "whole burnt offering," he puts: vor e nasib ay which is God's lot/fate. Bas, meaning cup/vessel. Rayath, instead of mediocre/commoners. Ghapalay, instead of deed/contract. Lash, meaning leash/strap. Eek, lachni, meaning pledge/guarantee. Amanath, meaning deposit/trust. Ghaul, meaning covenant/agreement. Davejar, meaning prosecutor. Minay, meaning harbor/port. Ngashel, meaning to draw/paint. Ghasp anel, meaning to sin against the king. Phayik, meaning courier/messenger. Khazinay, meaning treasury. Trukh, alam, meaning flag/banner. Saton, meaning soap. Lepros, meaning leprosy, taken from the Latin lepras.

Now, weighing these circumstances of the explanations, who would even care to listen, let alone insist, that they were the work of the commentator Sargis,