PREFACE — CHAPTER I. / ON THE MANUSCRIPTS OF THE BOOK OF STEPS.

It is impossible. Sermon II is found in four codices, and Sermon XIV in five, but the scope of each sermon is so modest that this difficult question can hardly be resolved with their help. If one wishes to consider Sermon II, almost all the codices are of a later age, nor are they far apart in time from one another; Sermon XIV, conversely, is so brief that no certain conclusion regarding the fate of the book can be deduced from it, all the more so since the text of the most ancient Codex A recurs almost verbatim in E. Only Codex C is the one that reveals subtle clues about the history of the text. While the remaining codices are very often in agreement against C, several readings are found in this codex that, at first glance, already display a great appearance of antiquity. In Sermon XIX, 3, C reads: the Siracid says original: "d'amar sirach"; the rest: the Scripture says; XIX, 9, C: unless a man has forsaken his whole kindred original: "an anash la shbaq lekulle tohmeh"; the rest: all uncleanness original: "lekulle tanputa"; XIX, 15, C cites Heb. xiii, 4 with the words: original: "nehwe neqpa arsa de-kulnash"; the rest read according to the Vulgate text: original: "dekya hi arsehon". These examples prove that all the remaining codices belong to a different recension of the book, into the text of which various changes were introduced that mitigate the sense of certain passages; in other words: C approaches the archetype of the Work more closely than Codices Dαβγ, which, viewed in their agreement against C, seem to belong to some later recension of the Work. Nothing certain is known about the author of this recension or his age; but if one considers that the texts of α and β are as closely related as possible, it seems probable that the author of the later recension of the Book of Steps was the same man who prefixed that preface common to both codices to the entire Book. Moreover, whoever the author of its recension may have been, the most ancient codices A and B themselves testify that the text of Codex α was faithfully and accurately transcribed, which is for this reason alone a matter of the greatest importance, since nearly half of the work is preserved in this codex alone. It is certainly not free of errors and mistakes, which for the most part can only be corrected by conjecture; yet, generally speaking, it deserves trust and is all the more precious as other codices are lacking.

We have used the recently praised codices in this edition of the Book of Steps in such a way that, having adopted the text of the most ancient codex, we have noted the variant readings of the others. We have not abandoned this rule unless persuaded by solid reasons. We illustrate the matter with the attached table:

The texts of Codices α and β are very closely related; it was not easy to judge the value of the variant readings in every case. For at one time α, and at another β, exhibits better readings. However, since the scribe of Codex β acted merely as an excerptor, notwithstanding the greater antiquity of the codex, we have not rarely followed the readings of the other codex, where solid reasons so demanded.

3. Regarding the author of the Book of Steps, the codices themselves reveal nothing certain. In the preface prefixed to the text of the Work in α and β, the author is called "one of the last disciples of the apostles." This assertion is clearly false; for in the Book of Steps, the text of the Tatianic "Gospel" Diatessaron a harmony of the four gospels is cited, and therefore the work could not have been composed before the 3rd century. Certain sermons—XIV in Codices AEζ, XXIX in Codex δ—are placed among the works of Evagrius; C attributes Sermons XVI and XIX to John the monk, placing them among his works. Both are easily refuted. Evagrius was a man of Greek nationality, who did not even know Syriac; the Book of Steps is written in elegant Syriac, immune to Graecisms, nor can it be considered a translation of any Greek work, since it cites the Holy Scriptures of the Old Testament according to the Peshitta the standard Syriac version of the Bible version, and the Gospel according to the text of Tatian; the doctrine of the work also differs totally from the tenets of Evagrius O. Zöckler, Evagrius Pontikus (Biblische und kirchenhistorische Studien, viertes Heft). München, 1893, pp. 54-80.. These things must also be said regarding John the monk of Lycopolis The Lausiac History of Palladius, by C. Butler. Cambridge, 1904, c. xxxv (Migne, c. xliii) and see the note ib. p. 212. Wright, CBM. p. 760 (Add. 17,172 fol. 164ᵃ)., whose works contained in several codices of the British Museum do not bear the slightest similarity to the Book of Steps.

4. Besides the praised codices, mention is made of the Book of Steps in a certain small excerpt, which is preserved in British Museum Codex Add. 17,193 fol. 3. (Wright, CBM N. DCCCLXI, 5, p. 989). The excerpt excites our attention primarily because in its rubric the author of the Book of Steps is called Eusebius the monk. Nevertheless, absolutely nothing can be deduced from this testimony about the author of the Book. Not only because the person of Eusebius is completely unknown, but also because the fragment was not drawn from the Book of Steps, but from some other writing, apparently exegetical, whose author pillaged certain sentences of the Book of Steps, and to whom the excerptor, or perhaps someone else, wrongly assigned the entire Work as if it belonged to the same author. To prove the thesis, it suffices to oppose the words of the Book of Steps to the provided text of the excerpt and its translation.

original: "D-Eusebius yahidaya. Men dubbare debdin leh darge de-parqana. De-men de-deyn de-parqana qadmita malta de-hi de-amar be-metle: de-aykanyut kulah teshmesta de-alaha be-pagra aykana de-netdeka de-neqabbel ruha de-qudsha ayk de-malta hi de-amar de-neshtallem leh" Of Eusebius the Solitary. From the practices that the steps of the perfect perform. Of that which is of the perfect, the first word is that which he says in the Proverbs: of the manner of all the service of God in the body, in such a way that one may be purified to receive the Holy Spirit, as that word says which he says: to be perfected for Him.