Two Life-boundaries fall on this page, and both are marked the same way: a SHORT last line
closed with a pause, then a ONE-WORD (or name + ܢܒܝܐ) rubric standing alone on the next line,
then the Life opening with the name repeated.
· lines 258-259 end of the unnamed Life that runs through p. 98 (line 259 is short: ... ܟܠܗ̇ ܂)
· line 260 rubric ܢܚܘܡ ܂ — NAHUM
· lines 261-268 Life of Nahum (line 268 short: ܘܐܬܩܒܪ ܒܐܪܥܗ ܂)
· line 269 rubric ܚܒܩܘܩ ܢܒܝܐ ܂ — HABAKKUK the prophet
· lines 270-277 Life of Habakkuk, running on to p. 100 (it ends at line 295 with ܀)
⚠ Note the rubric is NOT uniform: Nahum's is the bare name, Habakkuk's adds ܢܒܝܐ. Same on
pp. 101-102 (ܚܓܝ ܂ bare, ܙܟܪܝܐ ܢܒܝܐ ܂ and ܡܠܐܟܝ ܢܒܝܐ ܂ with, ܢܬܢ ܂ bare). Nestle prints the
rubric as its own line, indented to about the centre of the measure.
⛔ No individual codex is named here either; only the section's 'e tribus codicibus Musei
Britannici'.
No vowel signs anywhere in the twenty lines. Seyame present (e.g. ܝܘ̈ܡܬܐ at 275); dalath/rish
points present and read letter by letter; pause marks ܂ and ܆ both used. No ܀ on this page —
the two Life-endings here are closed with the ordinary low point, NOT with the diamond, which
is a real inconsistency in Nestle's setting (p. 100 line 295 and p. 101 line 300 DO carry ܀).
Th. Schermann, PROPHETARUM VITAE FABULOSAE, Teubner 1907 — archive.org prophetarumvita00schegoog. Latin version of the Syriac (cod. Sinait. syro 10) at pp. 105-106, leaf = page + 74 (calibrated on two running heads); Index nominum propriorum at printed p. 240. ⛔ The Latin Appendix is a two-page CAPITULUM (a summary list of 22 prophets), not the full Lives — SENSE-level control only, and a thin one. It catches a mis-keyed name or a meaningless sentence; it never adjudicates pointing and cannot be aligned page-for-page. See research/syriac-peshitta-editions.md
260, 265, 270, 275 in the RIGHT (outer) margin — p. 99 is a recto — standing against printed lines 3, 8, 13 and 18. The page carries lines 258-277.
Conventions and flag forms exactly as in c098-1.toml: ⟨?ܟܟܟ⟩ = letters read but doubtful;
⟨?…⟩ = one or more words NOT read, with nothing asserted about their letters.
Qushshaya/rukkakha and participle points not transcribed (known gap). Dalath/rish point read.
ܒܐܘܪܫܠܡ ܟܠܗܘܢ ⟨?ܝܘ̈ܡܬܐ⟩ ܕܗܝ ܡܕܝܢܬܐ ⟨?…⟩ ܠܐܪܥܐ ⟨?…⟩ ܟܠܗ̇ ܂ ܢܚܘܡ ܂ ܢܚܘܡ ܐܝܬܘܗܝ ܗܘܐ ܡܢ ܐܠܩܘܫ ܂ ܡܢ ܥܒܪܐ ܕܒܝܬ ⟨?…⟩ ܂ ܡܢ ܫܒܛܐ ܕܫܡܥܘܢ ܂ ܗܘܐ ܡܢ ܒܬܪ ⟨?ܕܝܢ⟩ ܐܬܪܐ ⟨?…⟩ ܂ ܕܡܢ ⟨?ܡ̈ܝܐ⟩ ⟨?…⟩ ܆ ܘܡܢ ⟨?…⟩ ܕܠܬܚܬ ܡܢ ܐܪܥܐ ⟨?…⟩ ܂ ⟨?…⟩ ܗܘܐ ܗܘܬ ܂ ⟨?…⟩ ܠܗ ⟨?…⟩ ⟨?…⟩ ܕܗܘܐ ܂ ⟨?…⟩ ܐܬܪ ⟨?…⟩ ܡܢ ⟨?ܡܕܝܢܬܐ⟩ ܂ ⟨?…⟩ ܕܐܝܬ ܗܘܐ ܒܗ̇ ⟨?…⟩ ܂ ܡܝܬ ܕܝܢ ܒܫܠܡܐ ܘܐܬܩܒܪ ܒܐܪܥܗ ܂ ܚܒܩܘܩ ܢܒܝܐ ܂ ܚܒܩܘܩ ܐܝܬܘܗܝ ܗܘܐ ܡܢ ܫܒܛܐ ܕܫܡܥܘܢ ܂ ܡܢ ⟨?…⟩ ܕܒܝܬ ⟨?…⟩ ܂ ܗܘܐ ⟨?ܚܝܐ⟩ ܡܢ ܩܕܝܡ ⟨?ܫܒܝܬܐ⟩ ⟨?…⟩ ܕܐܘܪܫܠܡ ⟨?…⟩ ܗܘ ⟨?…⟩ ܂ ⟨?…⟩ ܐܬܪܐ ⟨?…⟩ ܠܐܘܪܫܠܡ ܂ ⟨?ܒܪܡ⟩ ܠܒܝܬ ⟨?…⟩ ܂ ܘܐܝܬܘܗܝ ܗܘܐ ܬܘܬܒܐ ܒܐܪܥܐ ⟨?…⟩ ܟܠܗ ܝܘ̈ܡܬܐ ܆ ⟨?…⟩ ܗܠܝܢ ܕܗܘܘ ܒܐܘܪܫܠܡ ⟨?…⟩ ܂ ⟨?…⟩ ܗܘܐ ⟨?…⟩ ܒܐܪܥܗ ܆ ܘܡܫܡܫ ܗܘܐ ⟨?…⟩ ܂
NONE. No rule, no small type at the foot. ⭐ But the page DOES carry a printer's signature at
the foot, centred under the text block: G. (Chrest. I's opening page, p. 67, carries E —
same asterisked form, so the gathering signatures of this volume run E, F, G … and p. 99 is
the head of gathering G.) No square brackets on the page.
keyed from the plate, UNVERIFIED: of ~130 word-slots, roughly 58 are keyed as confident, 7 keyed and flagged ⟨?word⟩, the rest inside ⟨?…⟩ gaps. No line was wholly unread. No Syriac-reading control exists for this piece.
Better than p. 98 because the page is dense in the Vitae's formulaic vocabulary (three name-rubrics, two tribe formulas, two burial formulas) and those are exactly the strings this pass reads reliably. The gaps are the narrative interior and the place-names. See c098-1.toml [extraction] for the method and the reason flagged guesses were refused.
⭐ THE CONTROL ACTUALLY BIT ON THIS PAGE, twice, and independently of my letter-reading:
1. Line 262, read from the plate as ... ܡܢ ܫܒܛܐ ܕܫܡܥܘܢ ܂ ... inside the Life headed
ܢܚܘܡ ܂ — Schermann XVIII: 'Nahum fuit ex tribu Simeon.' Tribe agrees.
2. Line 270, ܚܒܩܘܩ ܐܝܬܘܗܝ ܗܘܐ ܡܢ ܫܒܛܐ ܕܫܡܥܘܢ ܂ — Schermann XIX: 'Habacuc fuit tempore
captivitatis, ex tribu Simeon.' Tribe agrees again.
3. SEQUENCE agrees: Nahum (260) then Habakkuk (269), = capitulum XVIII then XIX.
⚠ Note what that is worth: ܫܒܛܐ ܕܫܡܥܘܢ was read from the plate BEFORE the capitulum was
consulted, and the two witnesses are a Syriac chrestomathy page and a Latin summary of a
different Syriac manuscript — so the agreement is real evidence, not circular. It is still only
SENSE-level: it says nothing about pointing, word division or the rest of the line.
WHAT THE CONTROL CANNOT DO HERE: everything else. The capitulum gives Nahum one clause and
Habakkuk two; this page gives them eighteen lines. ܡܢ ܐܠܩܘܫ (Elkosh, line 261) has NO
counterpart in the capitulum at all — it is a detail of the full Life, and the control can
neither confirm nor deny it. Most of the page has no parallel of any kind.
UNCERTAIN READINGS: ⟨?ܝܘ̈ܡܬܐ⟩ (258) · ⟨?ܕܝܢ⟩, ⟨?ܡ̈ܝܐ⟩ (263) · ⟨?ܡܕܝܢܬܐ⟩ (266) · ⟨?ܚܝܐ⟩ (271) · ⟨?ܫܒܝܬܐ⟩ (272) · ⟨?ܒܪܡ⟩ (273).