Hugoye: Journal of Syriac Studies (volume 13): 2010 [2011] 9781463224226

Table of contents :
TABLE OF CONTENTS
HUGOYE 13:1
Introduction to Hugoye 13: A Double Issue on Philoxenos of Mabbug
Papers
New Evidence on the Philoxenian Versions of the New Testament and Nicene Creed
La Vierge Mère de Dieu dans la pensée de Philoxène de Mabboug
The Lust of the Belly is the Beginning of All Sin. A Practical Theology of Asceticism in the Discourses of Philoxenos of Mabbug
Philoxène de Mabboug. Homélies. Introduction, traduction et notes par Eugène Lemoine
Conference Reports
Book Reviews
Bibliographies
HUGOYE 13:2
Introduction to Hugoye 13.2: Philoxenos of Mabbug One More Time
Papers
An Arabic Scholion to Genesis 9:18–21 (Noah’s Drunkenness) Attributed to Philoxenos of Mabbug
Argumentative Strategies in Philoxenos of Mabbug’s Correspondence: From the Syriac Model to the Greek Model
The Philoxenian Gospels as Reconstructed from the Writings of Philoxenos of Mabbug
Thomas Merton’s Novitiate Conferences on Philoxenos of Mabbug (April–June 1965): Philoxenos on the Foundations of the Spiritual Life and the Recovery of Simplicity
A Biblographic Clavis to the Works of Philoxenos of Mabbug
Book Reviews

Citation preview

HUGOYE JOURNAL OF SYRIAC STUDIES A Publication of Beth Mardutho: The Syriac Institute

Volume 13 2010 [2011]

HUGOYE JOURNAL OF SYRIAC STUDIES A Publication of Beth Mardutho: The Syriac Institute GENERAL EDITOR George Anton Kiraz, Beth Mardutho: The Syriac Institute / Gorgias Press EDITORIAL COMMITTEE Sebastian P. Brock, University of Oxford Sidney Griffith, The Catholic University of America Amir Harrak, University of Toronto Susan Harvey, Brown University Mor Gregorios Y. Ibrahim, Mardin-Edessa Publishing House Andreas Juckel, University of Münster Hubert Kaufhold, Oriens Christianus Kathleen McVey, Princeton Theological Seminary Wido T Van Peursen, The Peshitta Institute of Leiden University Lucas Van Rompay, Duke University ONLINE EDITION EDITOR Thomas Joseph, Beth Mardutho: The Syriac Institute BOOK REVIEW EDITOR Kristian Heal, Brigham Young University PRINTED EDITION EDITOR Katie Stott, Gorgias Press

HUGOYE: JOURNAL OF SYRIAC STUDIES (ISSN 1937-318X) Hugoye: Journal of Syriac Studies is a publication of BETH MARDUTHO: THE SYRIAC INSTITUTE. Copyright © 2009 by GORGIAS PRESS and BETH MARDUTHO: THE SYRIAC INSTITUTE. The Syriac word hugoye, plural of hugoyo, derives from the root hg‚ ‘to think, meditate, study’; hence, hugoyo ‘study, meditation’. Recently, hugoye became to be used for ‘academic studies’; hence, hugoye suryoye ‘Syriac Studies’. SUBSCRIPTIONS Subscription requests should be addressed to Gorgias Press, 180 Centennial Ave., Suite A, Piscataway, NJ 08854, USA. Subscriptions may be made online at http://www.gorgiaspress.com. Back issues are available. NOTE FOR CONTRIBUTORS Submission guidelines and instructions are found on the Hugoye web site at http://www.bethmardutho.org. NOTE TO PUBLISHERS Copies for review should be sent directly to the Book Review Editor at the following address: Mr. Kristian S. Heal, Hugoye Book Review Editor, Brigham Young University, Stadium East House - METI, Provo, UT 84604. ADVERTISEMENTS Rates: $250 full page; includes a listing in all e-mail announcements for one year. To place ads, write to the subscription address above.

The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of the American National Standard for Information Sciences—Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials.

TABLE OF CONTENTS HUGOYE 13:1 Introduction to Hugoye 13: A Double Issue on Philoxenos of Mabbug David A. Michelson ......................................................................3 Papers New Evidence on the Philoxenian Versions of the New Testament and Nicene Creed Daniel King ....................................................................................9 La Vierge Mère de Dieu dans la pensée de Philoxène de Mabboug P. Roger-Youssef Akhrass .........................................................31 The Lust of the Belly is the Beginning of All Sin. A Practical Theology of Asceticism in the Discourses of Philoxenos of Mabbug Robert A. Kitchen.......................................................................49 Philoxène de Mabboug. Homélies. Introduction, traduction et notes par Eugène Lemoine Robert A. Kitchen.......................................................................65 Conference Reports ...............................................................................75 Book Reviews .........................................................................................87 Bibliographies .......................................................................................103

v

vi

Table of Contents

HUGOYE 13:2 Introduction to Hugoye 13.2: Philoxenos of Mabbug One More Time Robert A. Kitchen.....................................................................121 Papers An Arabic Scholion to Genesis 9:18–21 (Noah’s Drunkenness) Attributed to Philoxenos of Mabbug Adam C. McCollum..................................................................125 Argumentative Strategies in Philoxenos of Mabbug’s Correspondence: From the Syriac Model to the Greek Model Dana Iuliana Viezure ................................................................149 The Philoxenian Gospels as Reconstructed from the Writings of Philoxenos of Mabbug J. Edward Walters......................................................................177 Thomas Merton’s Novitiate Conferences on Philoxenos of Mabbug (April–June 1965): Philoxenos on the Foundations of the Spiritual Life and the Recovery of Simplicity Thomas Merton. Edited, with an introduction, by David M. Odorisio...............................................................251 A Biblographic Clavis to the Works of Philoxenos of Mabbug David A. Michelson ..................................................................273 Book Reviews.......................................................................................339

Volume 13 2010 [2011]

Number 1

HUGOYE JOURNAL OF SYRIAC STUDIES A Publication of Beth Mardutho: The Syriac Institute

Hugoye: Journal of Syriac Studies, Vol. 13.1, 3–8 © 2010 by Beth Mardutho: The Syriac Institute and Gorgias Press

INTRODUCTION TO HUGOYE 13: A DOUBLE ISSUE ON PHILOXENOS OF MABBUG DAVID A. MICHELSON UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA From his birth in Persia to his exile and death in Thrace (523), the life and work of the fifth-century bishop Philoxenos of Mabbug (‘ÍæéÝàÙñ or ¾ÙæéÜ~) spanned remarkably varied geographic, political, and religious environments.1 Perhaps originally educated as a dyophysite in Edessa, Philoxenos eventually became the miaphysite metropolitan of Mabbug (Hierapolis in Euphratensis). Active in the ecclesiastical politics of Antioch and Constantinople, Philoxenos also strategically used his location on the Euphrates to engage in missionary activity beyond the Roman Frontier both in Persarmenia and Arabia. Over the course of his ecclesiastical career, Philoxenos played the many roles of an experienced bishop: ascetic leader, theologian, exegete, patron of a revised Syriac New Testament, polemicist, and would-be imperial counselor. Philoxenos wrote prolifically leaving works in a variety of genres: polemics, Biblical commentary, homilies, doctrinal theology, letters, and ascetic paranaesis. In a few cases even, first or second hand manuscript copies of these works have survived from the early sixth century. In spite of such a diverse career and voluminous source materials, Philoxenos remains relatively unknown to historians and I would like to thank my co-guest editor, Robert Kitchen, and also George Kiraz and the Hugoye editorial board for their assistance, encouragement, and patience in assembling this issue of Hugoye. 1

3

4

David A. Michelson

theologians studying late antiquity, and at times has been neglected even by those working in Syriac. This thematic double issue of Hugoye dedicated to Philoxenos is a hopeful indicator that the tide of scholarly interest is now turning. Many of the articles here are the fruits of a symposium which brought together several scholars who had each been working on Philoxenos more or less independently. We hope that bringing these studies together in print will spark even further scholarly interest in Philoxenos. One of the obstacles faced by this current florescence of Philoxenian scholarship is the need to reconceptualize the man and his oeuvre. The two major interpreters of Philoxenos in the twentieth century, Joseph Lebon and André de Halleux, have long called scholars to move beyond the traditional “heretical” interpretation of the bishop. One of the greatest deficiencies resulting from this long stereotyped view of Philoxenos is that he has existed, if at all, primarily as a monophysite foil in the larger literature on late antiquity. Such a negative assessment of Philoxenos has a long pedigree. Already in 523, at the time of his death, Philoxenos was alternately revered and reviled by those who commented on his life. This opprobrium, mutatis mutandis, persisted in the earliest of modern accounts of Philoxenos, that of J.S. Assemani. As is the case with all of the interpreters of Philoxenos mentioned here, we owe more than we can calculate to their pioneering efforts. Assemani’s treatment of Philoxenos was the first modern assessment and for some of Philoxenos’ works still provides the only edited editions of certain texts. Nevertheless, Assemani’s assessment of Philoxenos has left two legacies to subsequent scholarship; both of which in their own way have led to a wooden view of Philoxenos and to a tension in our understanding of his influence. Assemani’s interpretation is best summed up in two comments: “Scelestissimum haereticum… Scripsit Syriace, si quis alius elegantissime…”2 Thus in Assemani’s account we have two poles, Philoxenos the ardent or most committed of “monophysites” and Philoxenos the beacon of Syriac literature between the ages of Ephrem and Jacob of Edessa.

J.S. Assemanus, Bibliotheca Orientalis Clementino-Vaticana, II (Rome, 1719), 2: 11, 20. 2

Introduction to Hugoye 13

5

Certainly Assemani’s initial introduction of Philoxenos was not without some grounds at least in its observation of Philoxenos’ commitment to miaphysitism and his place in Syriac letters (though one might disagree with the strength or theological conclusions of Assemani’s assessments). The danger arises from the fact that these two observations remain all that is generally known of Philoxenos. Thus in Frend’s Rise of the Monophysite Movement these two become fused as “The harsh, puritanical views of…Philoxenos… [which] represented the outlook of what was becoming a distinctly Syriacspeaking Monophysitism.”3 This complete identification of Philoxenos with his miaphysite Christology has found unconscious support in other works, even those who sought to view Philoxenos from a sympathetic position. For example in Roberta (Chesnut) Bondi’s study, Philoxenos is presented in negative contrast (perhaps unconsciously) to the moderate Jacob of Serug and the sophisticated Severus.4 While the contours of Assemani’s Philoxenos persist in the scholarly literature, Philoxenos has not remained without a sympathetic and nuanced interpreter. The work of André de Halleux, both textual and historiographic, has served as the foundation for almost all work on Philoxenos since the 1960s. Under the pen of De Halleux, Philoxenos emerged as an adept ecclesiastical politician and a prolific author responding to a range of the pressing issues of his day. De Halleux’s primary aim was to reveal the outlines of Philoxenos’ “génie intuitif” and to explain the simple (anti-scholastic) nature of Philoxenos’ understanding of the incarnation. De Halleux’s Philoxenos is a portrait whose accuracy continues to be confirmed by further research. Nevertheless, it is important to bear in mind the centrality of Christology to De Halleux’s own account. We may take as an example his concluding remarks which seem to equivocate, both emphasizing that “it remains legitimate to confirm the deep agreement between the Christology of Philoxenos and that of the council which he rejected with his whole soul [Chalcedon]” and yet noting that “our theologian occupied, according to all the evidence, an extreme W.H.C. Frend, The Rise of the Monophysite Movement: Chapters in the History of the Church in the Fifth And Sixth Centuries (Cambridge, 1972), 185. 4 R.C. Chesnut, Three Monophysite Christologies: Severus of Antioch, Philoxenus of Mabbug, and Jacob of Sarug (Oxford, 1976). 3

6

David A. Michelson

position.”5 In short, De Halleux’s task was one of rapprochement and perhaps even rehabilitation.6 Given previous disparaging approaches to Philoxenos, this corrective was desperately needed. The question for us, as as the beneficiaries of De Halleux’s labors, is to ask which directions will be most fruitful for future research to turn. In this regard, we may find it useful to turn from De Halleux’s conclusion to his avant-propos, where he wrote: “We present these pages to the reader as an interpretive essay, inviting him to verify them and as needed to correct our conclusions with even greater and deeper inquiries.”7 Using his invitation as a point of departure, I would like to suggest that we need not merely repeat De Halleux’s efforts to “rehabilitate” Philoxenos. Specifically, we can now benefit most from approaching Philoxenos from perspectives other than the Christological disputes. This is not by any means to suggest that we ignore Christology but rather to put Philoxenos’ involvement in the Chalcedonian conflicts within the full context of his ecclesiastical career. A “holistic” approach to Philoxenos will ultimately serve us well in understanding not only this prolific Syriac churchman, but also allow his career and works to provide us with a nuanced and complex window onto many of the perennial questions of late antique scholarship. In short, my argument is that we need to recover Philoxenos as more than just a “monophysite” polemicist. This aim requires that we raise new questions: How can we conceive of Philoxenos as a theologian of miaphysite sympathies without allowing those sympathies to define him? How can we situate Philoxenos, the Syriac bishop, within the broader cultural and linguistic milieu of the empire of Anastasius, of the patriarchate of Antioch, and of the Persian frontier, without conceiving him solely as a forerunner of a later Syrian Orthodox trajectory? How do we approach Philoxenos André de Halleux, Philoxène de Mabbog. Sa vie, ses écrits, sa théologie (Louvain, 1963), 514. 6 De Halleux’s task is perhaps analogous to that of Pauline Allen and C.T.R. Hayward in Severus of Antioch (New York, 2004), cf. 32–4. Note, however, that while Allen and Hayward raise the level of analysis for Severus, in their passing mention Philoxenos remains “the militant antiChalcedonian bishop” (8). 7 De Halleux, Philoxène, viii–ix. 5

Introduction to Hugoye 13

7

as one late antique churchman and ascetic theologian among many, and interpret him in terms of broader trends of late antique Christianity? Conversely, how can we use Philoxenos to learn about late antique Christianity writ large, not just as a case study in miaphysite dogmatism or the particulars of the Syriac tradition? It is the hope of the editors that the articles offered here, by promoting current research on Philoxenos, will be a step toward reintroducing Philoxenos into the larger narratives of late antique religion and culture. As noted above, most of the articles in this issue and in the subsequent issue yet forthcoming originated from a one day symposium, “Reconsidering Philoxenos of Mabbug” held May 8, 2008 at the Center of Theological Inquiry, Princeton, New Jersey and organized by Robert Kitchen and David Michelson. Sponsorship for the symposium came from the Center of Theological Inquiry, Gorgias Press, and Princeton University (including the following units: Center for the Study of Religion, Group for the Study of Late Antiquity, and the Program in Hellenic Studies). A fuller report on this symposium is found in this issue. In the pages that follow, we offer three articles and an extended review of a revised translation of Philoxenos’ Discourses to be followed in the next issue of Hugoye by an additional three articles and a bibliographic clavis. The first article in the present issue addresses what has perhaps been the longest running question of scholarly interest in Philoxenos, the nature and text of the Philoxenian New Testament. Daniel King, in “New Evidence on the Philoxenian Versions of the New Testament and Nicene Creed in the Context of the History of Greco-Syriac Translations” recalibrates the position of Philoxenos in the chronology of Greek to Syriac translation. Drawing on evidence from the Syriac translations of Cyril which predates Philoxenos, King argues that earlier fifth-century experiments in translation had a formative influence on Philoxenos’ as a theologian and reader of the Greek patristic authors. King concludes that it is to this earlier generation of translators which we may attribute the beginnings of the “mirror” style translation, a method continued by the translators of the Philoxenian New Testament. The second article, by Fr. Roger-Youssef Akhrass considers Philoxenos as a theologian of the Theotokos. Specifically, Akhrass identifies the symmetrical role between the virgin birth and the

8

David A. Michelson

eternal generation of the Son in Philoxenos’ doctrine of the incarnation. While this observation adds further to our understanding of Philoxenos’ appeals to the title Theotokos in his polemics, it is equally important for understanding Philoxenos as a constructive theologian in his own right. In short, through Philoxenos’ theology of Christ’s virginal conception we catch a glimpse of the inner workings of his Christology. The third article and a review essay, both by Robert Kitchen, take up the other part of the Philoxenian opera to have received considerable scholarly debate: Philoxenos’ thirteen ascetic Discourses. In “The Lust of the Belly is the Beginning of All Sin: A Practical Theology of Asceticism in the Discourses of Philoxenos of Mabbug,” Kitchen draws on comparisons with the Book of Steps to propose a new interpretive framework for the ascetic system found in the Discourses. Specifically, Kitchen argues that Philoxenos saw the defeat of gluttony as a boundary line which distinguished the untrained novice monk (the upright) from the seasoned ascetic on the path of perfection. Kitchen, who is preparing a revised English translation of the Discourses, also reviews the recent revised translation of the Discourses by René Lavenant in the Sources Chrétienne. Kitchen rightly notes the long running interest this text has generated among scholars as one of the few Syriac texts to have appeared in multiple translations. The articles offered in this issue are but the initial steps toward a new scholarly reconsideration of Philoxenos. While they treat topics which have long been debated, they reveal the fecundity of the Philoxenian sources for future research. Moreover, these articles make at least initial progress towards a more holistic approach to Philoxenos, acknowledging other influences on Philoxenos’ thought besides Christological controversy. May this issue of Hugoye and its forthcoming counterpart provoke further consideration of this prolific and influential Syriac churchman.

Hugoye: Journal of Syriac Studies, Vol. 13.1, 9–30 © 2010 by Beth Mardutho: The Syriac Institute and Gorgias Press

PAPERS

NEW EVIDENCE ON THE PHILOXENIAN VERSIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT AND NICENE CREED DANIEL KING CARDIFF UNIVERSITY In the era after the Council of Chalcedon, the corpus of the ‘Church Fathers’ became a source-book for doctrinal elaboration and the authority attributed to their works rivaled that of the scriptures themselves.1 This paradigm shift in matters of authority in intra-ecclesial disputes had begun already with Cyril of Alexandria who not only laid down in the seventh canon of the Ephesian Council of 431 that henceforth only the Creed of the 318 Fathers of Nicaea was to be permitted as the touchstone of orthodoxy,2 but he also initiated the custom of quoting from the For a fuller description of the phenomenon see, for instance, P.T.R. Gray, “Through the Tunnel with Leontius of Jerusalem: The SixthCentury Transformation of Theology,” in The Sixth Century, End or Beginning?, ed. P. Allen and E. Jeffreys (Brisbane: Australian Association for Byzantine Studies, 1996), 187–96. 2 He wanted to ‘set down dogma’ by ‘raising up the Fathers’ (Acta Conciliorum Oecumenicorum, ed. Schwartz, I,1,4, p. 30,21–2). Cyril even engaged in the later popular activity of accusing (or defending against 1

9

10

Daniel King

unimpeachable ‘Nicene’ fathers as a means of grounding his own theological position in the tradition of the ‘orthodox’ church.3 Hence the lengthy anthology of proof-texts from the Fathers (a florilegium) which was appended to the official Acts of the Council of Ephesus and which itself became the source and fountainhead for patristic florilegia everywhere, among all theological groupings.4 In the conversations that took place between representatives of the Imperial (Chalcedonian) Church and a group of antiChalcedonian bishops in 532 (a number of whom were Syrians by language), the focus was not on philosophical discussion or even on scriptural interpretation but rather on the patristic support for their relative positions.5 The Syrian bishops quoted texts with which they were evidently familiar in their own tongue, which is hardly surprising when we see the size of the florilegia that had by this time developed and which may have been available to them.6 accusation) texts produced by opponents of having been interpolated or adulterated, as we see from his letters to Acacius and Succensus—see R.Y. Ebied and L.R. Wickham, “Athanasius’ Ad Epictetum” (Journal of Theological Studies 23 [1972]), 144–54. 3 He gathers collections of citations in both the De Recta Fide ad Dominas and the Apologia contra Orientales, in both cases using citations that are also found in the Ephesine florilegium. 4 The Collectio Ephesena can be found at ACO I,1,2,39–45. On the early patristic florilegia, e.g. H. Chadwick, “Florilegium,” in Reallexikon für Antike und Christentum, ed. T. Klauser (Stuttgart: Anton Hiersemann, 1969), 7:1131–60, and M. Richard, “Les Florilèges diphysites du Ve et du VIe siècle,” in Das Konzil von Chalkedon: Geschichte und Gegenwart I, ed. A. Grillmeier and H. Bacht (Wurzburg: Echter-Verlag, 1951), 721–43. 5 A good summary in V.L. Menze, Justinian and the Making of the Syrian Orthodox Church, Oxford Early Christian Studies (Oxford: University Press, 2008), 58–67. For the texts describing the meeting, S.P. Brock, “The Conversations with the Syrian Orthodox under Justinian (532)” (Orientalia Christiana Periodica 47 [1981]), 87–121. 6 A number of late antique Syriac florilegia of this type are extant. Some are extraordinarily large and varied in their contents, indicating a long textual prehistory. Perhaps the most important is BL Add. 12156, dated before 562, which includes the so-called Florilegium Edessenum, [A. Rücker, Das Syrische Florilegium Edessenum anonymum (ante 562), Sitz. der Bayerischen Ak. der Wiss. Phil-hist. Abt., Hft 5, München, 1933], among other important documents and collections (see L. Abramowski, “Zur

New Evidence on the Philoxenian Versions

11

In addition to the famous Apollinarian texts attributed to Athanasius and others, and a first public outing for ps-Dionysius, these included also some of the key letters of Cyril of Alexandria that had been written in the wake of the Council of Ephesus during the period when Cyril was trying to forge a reconciliation with John of Antioch. These few letters became a battle-ground later in the fifth century since their conciliatory language could be used by proChalcedonians to draw the legacy of Cyril away from the clutches of their opponents.7 Cyril’s letters were foundational and identity-forming texts for members of the increasingly independent Miaphysite church in Syria. For these opponents of Chalcedon the letters affirmed that their own position was also that of the Fathers and that the dupes of Pope Leo and his Council had veered from the true path of orthodox tradition. In the debate at Constantinople in 532 the parties argued over what the Fathers had said and who was now in ownership of true patristic tradition.8 That such texts were central to anti-Chalcedonian strategy was true even long before the renewed urgency of the years of persecution under Justin and Justinian. For ever since Cyril himself sent one of his Christological treatises to bishop Rabbula of Edessa

geplanten Ausgabe von Brit.Mus.add.12156,” in Texte und Textkritik: Eine Aufsatzsammlung, Texte und Untersuchungen 133, ed. J. Dummer (Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1987), 23–8, and R.Y. Ebied and L.R. Wickham, “Timothy Aelurus: Against Chalcedon,” in After Chalcedon: Studies in Theology and Church History offered to Professor Albert van Roey for his seventieth birthday, Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 18, ed. C. Laga et al. (Leuven: Peeters, 1985), 115–66). A more thorough study of the descent and influence of key groups of patristic loci in Syriac translation would be very revealing. A study on the monastic compilations has been started, H. Teule, “Les compilations monastiques syriaques,” in Symposium Syriacum VII, ed. R. Lavenant (Rome: Pontificio Istituto Orientale, 1998), 249–64. 7 This was the purpose of the Florilegium Cyrillianum, which caused a furore in Constantinople when it appeared and was enough to make Severus write a full length rebuttal in his Philalethes. 8 Hence the key debates over who had accepted as orthodox individuals later shown to be heretical, whose names should be erased from (or restored to) the diptychs, etc.

12

Daniel King

in 432, the Syriac-speaking church had been transmitting these texts and translating them.9 Philoxenus received his theological education in Edessa during the very years of the polarisation of the anti-Chalcedonian/proCyrilline legacy of Rabbula and the Antiochene/pro-Theodoran legacy of Hiba (Ibas).10 The strife came to a head around 448 when Hiba’s Letter to Mari, in which the bishop accuses Cyril’s anathemas of being unorthodox, became widely known. This led to Hiba’s deposition following the so-called ‘Robber’ Council in Ephesus in 449. From this point on the two groups vied for the intellectual and political high ground, at least until the Emperor Zeno in 489 closed down the ‘School of the Persians’, which had become the principal base for the pro-Theodoran party loyal to Hiba, a party that was now to be labeled as ‘Nestorian’. Hence while the future bishop of Mabbug was studying in Edessa as a young man he was able to experience life in both camps.11 We would expect that Cyril, Ep74 (tr. in J.I. McEnerney, St. Cyril of Alexandria: Letters, Fathers of the Church 76–7 (Washington, D.C: Catholic University of America Press, 1987)) tells us that the text was sent to Rabbula on the latter’s request soon after the Council. Whether the extant Syriac De Recta Fide ad Theodosium is in fact the text in question cannot be ascertained for certain (B. Aland and A. Juckel, Das Neue Testament in syrischer Überlieferung I. Die Grossen Katholischen Briefe, Arbeiten zur neutestamentlichen Textforschung, Bd 7 (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1986), 94–107), but we can be sure at least that there was a corpus of Cyrilliana available before the final quarter of the fifth century, on which see further below. 10 On the unrest between these parties, see R. Doran, Stewards of the Poor: The Man of God, Rabbula, and Hiba in Fifth-Century Edessa (Kalamazoo: Cistercian Publications, 2006). The contest between them was well known to later Miaphysite tradition (e.g. to Simeon of Beth-Arsham: A. de Halleux, Philoxène de Mabbog: sa vie, ses écrits, sa théologie (Leuven: Imprimerie Orientaliste, 1963), 25–6). 11 De Halleux, Philoxène de Mabbog, 25–30. Philoxenus seems to have started out by naturally attaching himself to the ‘schools’ which taught exegesis from Theodore and which looked to the Antiochene tradition generally. Although he never lost some of what he learnt at this period, he was drawn ever more into the orbit of the party of Rabbula and would end up by denouncing the doctrines of his former teachers as the ‘bitter cup of Nestorianism’, as he recounts in his second letter to the monks of Beth Gaugal. 9

New Evidence on the Philoxenian Versions

13

during this time he read and digested the central patristic prooftexts being used by the Cyrilline (becoming after 451 the antiChalcedonian) party, which included the Apollinarian forgeries as well as letters and treatises of Cyril. Indeed he later reflected upon the contents of these works.12 Our expectation is confirmed when we see Philoxenus deploying texts both at the beginning of his career, in his ecclesiastical battle against Habbib (his very earliest significant piece of theological exposition), and again at the end, in the letter to the monks of Senoun, written from exile forty years later. The first of these, the Ten Memre against Habbib, was written, according to De Halleux, between the promulgation of Zeno’s Henoticon in 482 and Philoxenus’ appointment as bishop of Mabbug in 484. Appended to the end of the tenth memra was a patristic florilegium in which citations from Ephrem are woven together with citations from the Fathers of the Greek church, Basil, Gregory, Athanasius, Cyril, and others.13 Now the matter of patristic florilegia in Syriac is closely tied to questions of translation. So often one would like to know whether Syriac authors are reading their Greek predecessors in Syriac translation or whether their access was mediated solely through excerpts preserved in florilegia, and if the latter, then whether such collections were formed first in Greek and then translated as In his Letter to the Monks of the Orient, Philoxenus describes the events of Cyril’s reconciliation with John of Antioch, which is grounded in a close reading of Cyril’s letters to Acacius (Ep 40) and Succensus (Ep 45/46). 13 De Halleux, Philoxène de Mabbog, 225–38. The Memre were published by M. Brière and F. Graffin, Sancti Philoxeni Episcopi Mabbugensis Dissertationes Decem, in Patrologia Orientalis. The first two memre appeared in PO 15,4 [1927], the rest rather later (Memre 3–5 in PO 38 [1977]; Memre 5–8 in PO 39 [1979]; Memre 9–10 in PO 40 [1980] and the appendices, including our florilegium, in PO 41 [1982]). On the appended florilegium, F. Graffin, “Le florilège patristique de Philoxène de Mabboug,” in Symposium Syriacum 1972, Orientalia Christiana Analecta 197 (Rome: Pont. Inst. Or. Stud., 1974), 267–90. On other aspects of the theology of the Memre, L. Van Rompay, “Bardaisan and Mani in Philoxenus of Mabbug’s Memre against Habbib,” in Syriac Polemics: Studies in Honour of Gerrit Jan Reinink, ed. W.J. Van Bekkum et al. (Leuven: Peeters, 2007), 77–90. 12

14

Daniel King

collections or whether the anthologies were compiled from alreadytranslated discrete texts. Very often, clear answers to such questions are impossible. In the case of the florilegium found at the end of the Ten Memre against Habbib, a mixture of sources is apparent. The collection in question includes citations from some of the lesser known writers of the fourth/fifth century, such as Theophilus of Alexandria and Atticus of Constantinople, whose works were unlikely ever to have been translated into Syriac, at least not as early as the 480s. These citations probably come from a florilegium in Greek closely related to the Ephesine collection found in the published Acts of the Third Ecumenical Council.14 On the other hand, there are also numerous citations from the Syriac writer Ephrem which did not of course require translation. Others must have been taken from Syriac translations of whole Greek texts. Such has already been shown to be the case for the citations from Athanasius, for in this case Philoxenus’ quotations match almost verbatim their parallels in the complete Syriac versions where these have been preserved such that the latter are the only possible source for the former.15 A Syriac collector evidently took them from the Syriac version of the Athanasian corpus. This observation has allowed scholars to determine a terminus ante quem for the Syriac version of Athanasius, since the date of the florilegium is fixable as c. 484. What has not previously been noted, however, is that the citations from Cyril of Alexandria’s letters fall into the same category. The florilegium includes texts from Cyril’s two letters to Succensus (Epp 45/46), his letter to Acacius (Ep 40), and that to Valerian (Ep 50), and in all four cases the same match-up can be made between the citations in the florilegium and the full versions The provenance of such loci can be followed through numerous florilegia. Philoxenus’ citation from Theophilus is paralleled in Cyril’s Oratio ad Dominas and Timothy Ailuros’ Against Chalcedon; that from Alexander of Alexandria is found also in the Syriac Florilegium Edessenum. Doubtless many lines of reception can be drawn to indicate how these collections were used and re-used in different contexts and ultimately traced back to the collection in the Acta Ephesena. 15 L. Van Rompay, “Mallpânâ dilan Suryâyâ: Ephrem in the Works of Philoxenus of Mabbog: Respect and Distance” (Hugoye 7.1 [2004]), §13. 14

New Evidence on the Philoxenian Versions

15

of these letters which are to be found in a seventh century British Library ms.16 These letters must all have been translated into Syriac before 484 at the latest and furthermore we can estimate that they, among others, must have had a pronounced influence upon the young Philoxenus.17 The Christological formulae which become central to his polemical works are Cyrilline in nature and are drawn at least in part from these key letters. The various sets of anathemas which Philoxenus drew up on different occasions are grounded upon Cyril’s famous twelve anathemas, some of which he discusses in these letters and which he defended at greater length in two other treatises which may also have been translated already in the fifth century.18 Making use of evidence such as this, we can begin to build up a picture of the sorts of texts that Philoxenus, whose ability to read Greek was probably never more than rudimentary at best, might have been studying in his formative years and which influenced his early theological writings. We can at least be certain that a corpus of the anti-Nestorian writings of Cyril of Alexandria was already circulating in the middle third of the fifth century, most likely emanating from Edessa, the very place where Philoxenus received

For the full evidence, see D. King, The Syriac Versions of the Writings of Cyril of Alexandria: A Study in Translation Technique, CSCO 626, Subsidia 123 (Leuven: Peeters, 2008), 45–59. This technique can be used to date other Syriac translations. The Apollinarian corpus, for example, must have been translated early in the sixth century at least, since citations from it are to be found in Philoxenus’ Letter to the Monks of Senoun which match verbatim the fuller versions of the texts in BL Add. 12156, edited in the collection of J.P.G. Flemming and H. Lietzmann, Apollinaristische Schriften syrisch, Berlin, 1904. 17 The letters to Succensus and Acacius were both in the possession of the Syrian (anti-Chalcedonian) delegation to the conversations of 532 at Constantinople (Brock, “Conversations with the Syrian Orthodox,” 104). Ownership of the Cyrilline teaching was a crucial cornerstone of their position. 18 Namely, the Apologia contra Orientales and Apologia contra Theodoretum. For the possible dating of the Syriac versions of these, King, Cyril of Alexandria, 356. 16

16

Daniel King

his theological education and experienced the theological dialectic which shaped the path of his future career.19 Once we recognize that translations from the Greek had played a central role in the formation of Philoxenus’ theology (both in terms of the patristic translations we have been discussing and also naturally the Scriptures themselves), it becomes less surprising that translation as such became a burning issue in his episcopal career and also one that was always a double-edged sword.20 It is our aim now to show that Philoxenus’ reading of the Graeco-Syriac translation literature informed the translation projects that he sponsored in later years, both in matters of general import and in matters of detail. It must be stressed that Philoxenus himself was not a translator (his knowledge of the Greek language was never sufficient for this) and is by no means the only mediator of significant new turns and trends within the Graeco-Syriac translation programme.21 The influences we shall evidence below for the impact of earlier patristic translations upon the Philoxenian New Testament revision could well have been felt without Philoxenus and indeed his understanding of such processes was never profound. Nevertheless he explicitly took a great interest in these new trends, argued forcefully on their behalf and, perhaps most importantly, he drew out their theological significance and claimed them for his own doctrinal party, thereby denying them to his opponents within the Syriac church and positioning himself squarely within the tradition of the ‘orthodox Fathers’. We cannot be sure that Edessa was the origin of the translations, but it remains the most likely place for Philoxenus to have first encountered them. See King, Cyril of Alexandria, 356. For the wider issue of Cyril’s influence on the theology of Philoxenus, op.cit., 348–52. 20 For Philoxenus’ very ambivalent attitudes towards the translation project, see D.A. Michelson, “‘It is not the custom of our Syriac language...’: Reconsidering the Role of Translation in the Polemics of Philoxenos of Mabbug,” paper presented at Shifting Frontiers VIII: Shifting Cultural Frontiers in Late Antiquity, Indiana University, Bloomington, Ind., April 2–5, 2009, forthcoming in conference proceedings. 21 On the subject of Philoxenus’ utility in the Greek language, De Halleux, Philoxène de Mabbog, 20–2, although of course his lack of real knowledge did not prevent the bishop from pontificating on the subject on many occasions. 19

New Evidence on the Philoxenian Versions

17

The best known of the revised translations made during the period of Philoxenus’ episcopate is of course that of the New Testament, executed under his supervision in 507/8 by the chorepiscopus Polycarp. A few years earlier, at least by the year 500, the bishop of Mabbug had ordered a similar revision to be carried out on the text of the Nicene creed, thereby posing a direct challenge to traditional Syriac theology and enforcing his own formulae on the liturgical patterns of his church.22 De Halleux has carefully reconstructed the different stages of this revision and how the new wording adopted for key Christological terms fitted into a typology of different Syriac expressions describing the incarnation.23 The most significant and readily observable of the linguistic phenomena he describes concerns the translation of the Greek passive participles of the creed, Η΅ΕΎΝΌνΑΘ΅ Ύ΅Ϡ πΑ΅ΑΌΕΝΔφΗ΅ΑΘ΅. There is perceptible in the Syriac sources a gradual shift from the ‘old style’ creedal formula ¾ýåûÁ ¿†…† ÀûÅñ þÂß (he was clothed with a body and became a man) which we find, for example, in the Eastern creed of 410,24 through ¾ýåûÁ ¿†…† äýĚ~ (he was em-bodied and became a man) which Philoxenus tells us was current in his day,25 and then finally To this extent, his actions should be seen as comparable to Peter the Fuller’s addition to the Trishagion in the Antiochian liturgy. For Philoxenus’ views on traditional Syriac theological language, see Van Rompay, “Mallpânâ dilan Suryâyâ” (see n. 15 above). 23 A. de Halleux, “La Philoxénienne du symbole,” in Symposium Syriacum II, Orientalia Christiana Analecta 205, ed. R. Lavenant (Rome: Pont. Inst. Or. Stud., 1978), 295–315. De Halleux’s discovery has been applied in other contexts, e.g. L. Van Rompay, “Proclus of Constantinople’s ‘Tomus ad Armenios’ in the Post-Chalcedonian Tradition,” in After Chalcedon: Studies in Theology and Church History offered to Professor Albert van Roey for his seventieth birthday, Orientalia Christiana Analecta 18, ed. C. Laga et al. (Leuven: Peeters, 1985), 425–49. 24 A. Vööbus, “New Sources for the Symbol in Early Syrian Christianity” (Vigiliae Christianae 26 [1972]), 295,16. 25 The term äýĚ~ is rejected by Philoxenus as being the ‘traditional’ Syriac term. It is not, however, used in the older Syriac literature nor in the Peshitta (ÀûÅñ þÂß was always the most traditional expression for the incarnation), but seems to have been gradually introduced in some contexts during the fifth century, for we find it in Narsai and in some of the creeds of the Eastern councils of that century. 22

18

Daniel King

to the calqued terms þåûÁš~† ûéÁš~ (he was en-fleshed and enmanned) that we find in Philoxenus’ later works,26 and which he explains and defends in the Letter to the Monks of Senoun. On finding this specialised terminology in a creed copied in a manuscript dated 500/501 in Mabbug itself, De Halleux concludes that he had here located the ‘Philoxenian’ version of the Creed. De Halleux justifiably adds that Philoxenus, not himself being a good reader of Greek, was probably not the inventor of these neologisms, which was rather some ‘meilleur helléniste’ (p. 307) and that, even then, the terms may have been used sporadically before Philoxenus set his seal upon them by including them in the official version of the creed of the church of Mabbug.27 Bearing this in mind, and taking into account the discussion above about the importance of Greek patristic texts in Syriac in the fifth century, especially their impact upon the young Philoxenus, we should take especial note of instances of these neologisms in earlier texts. For example, ûéÁš~ is far from being a complete novelty in the Philoxenian version of the Creed. It is to be found already in the Syriac versions of Cyril of Alexandria’s Letter to Acacius (Ep 40) and also in the Second Letter to Succensus (Ep 46) both of which, as we saw earlier, must have been translated before 484 and with both of which Philoxenus was familiar.28 De Halleux deals briefly with these letters, but his analysis is a little superficial.29 He argues simply that the apparent mixture of terminology found in these letters is typical of the period when the old usages had not yet There was in fact an intermediate stage in which þåûÁš~† äýĚ~ is found, e.g. in the Letter to the Monks of Palestine (A. de Halleux, “Nouveaux textes inédits de Philoxène de Mabbog I: Lettre aux moines de Palestine; Lettre liminaire au Synodicon d’Éphèse” (Le Muséon 75 [1962]), 37,115 etc.) and in a number of translation texts. 27 De Halleux, “La Philoxénienne du symbole,” 307. 28 R.Y. Ebied and L.R. Wickham, A Collection of Unpublished Syriac Letters of Cyril of Alexandria, CSCO 359/360 (Leuven, 1975), 32,22/52,27. In the latter we also find the derived noun ¿šÍåûéÁÿâ (50,22). 29 De Halleux, “La Philoxénienne du symbole,” 313–4. The principal problem with this brief analysis is that he treats all the texts published by Ebied and Wickham (see previous note) as a corpus, whereas in fact the Letter on the Creed (Ep 55), to which he refers, is certainly of much later date than the others just mentioned. 26

New Evidence on the Philoxenian Versions

19

been wholly superseded by the new. This is only partially true. What we find, in fact, is that the letters which are later in date occasionally preserve earlier forms (as in the þåûÁš~† ¾ĆãýĚ~ of Cyril’s Letter on the Creed)30 and the ones that can now be shown to be early (Letters to Acacius and Succensus) sporadically show instances of later forms. Once these latter texts have been properly located chronologically and are read in terms of their importance to the younger Philoxenus (we recall that he quotes them in his florilegium), their lexical usage takes on a new significance in parallel with De Halleux’s abovementioned suggestions about the ‘meilleur helléniste’ who preceded Philoxenus. Now it could be objected at this point that some later scribe has revised the vocabulary of the early letters in line with the Philoxenian Creed. But the letters as a whole show no signs of such revision. Much vocabulary that one might expect to see changed in a scribal reworking is left untouched and, most importantly, by no means is every instance of Η΅ΕΎΝΌϛΑ΅΍ rendered with ûéÁš~.31 So in fact there is a dual usage, the older terms predominating, the newer occasionally poking their noses in and suggesting alternative futures. We find this pattern elsewhere in fifth century translations. In the Syriac version of Cyril’s Quod Unus sit Christus, for example, which may come from the same period, we find side by side both the ‘Philoxenian’ creedal terminology and the clothing metaphor of the incarnation which Philoxenus specifically abjured.32 What I believe we are seeing in these key texts, then, is not haphazard and patchy revision post-Philoxenus, nor postPhiloxenian texts that retain some older usages, but rather some fifth century Syrian translators experimenting with the target language’s capabilities in dealing with the technical vocabulary of Greek Christology, trying out different options and beginning to come to the conclusion that the traditional terms of Syriac theology

Ebied and Wickham, Unpublished Syriac Letters, 5,15. In fact, in the Letter to Acacius we find both ûéÁš~ and äýĚ~ within the very same sentence (Ebied and Wickham, Unpublished Syriac Letters, 32,22). 32 For the neologisms in Quod Unus Sit Christus, BL Add. 14657, f.51va,65rb,79vb. For the expression ÀûÅñ þÂß in the same text, f. 54ra, 51va,80va,87ra. 30 31

20

Daniel King

are insufficient for the church’s dogmatic task in the debate over Chalcedon.

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE PHILOXENIAN NEW TESTAMENT AND EARLIER PATRISTIC TRANSLATIONS

Let us look at the question from another angle by turning from the matter of the Creed to the better known question of the Philoxenian version/revision of the New Testament. Whether it is at all possible to reconstruct Philoxenus’ revision, and if so how, has been a vexed issue for a long time and remains to some extent a divisive one, with some scholars being only too happy to find ‘citations’ from the Philoxenian in any deviation from the Peshitta in the sixth century literature, others being wary of any results achieved by such a method. It was Zuntz who originally put forward the view that the Philoxenian was a ‘half-way house’ to the better attested Harclean revision of a century later and who first used citations in Philoxenus’ own work as a way into the problem.33 The few verses explicitly discussed by Philoxenus in his Commentary on the Johannine Prologue have proved sufficient to confirm Zuntz’s view.34 But can any more be reconstructed than is possible from these scant remains? Barbara Aland has argued that many writers of the sixth century probably quoted from the Philoxenian more or less literally and that if one uses as a criterion the agreement of citations in the late writings of Philoxenus with parallels in the translation literature

G. Zuntz, The Ancestry of the Harklean New Testament, British Academy Supplementary Papers VII (London: British Academy, 1945). 34 S.P. Brock, “The Resolution of the Philoxenian/Harclean Problem,” in New Testament Textual Criticism: Its significance for Exegesis. Essays in Honour of Bruce M. Metzger, ed. E.J. Epp and G.D. Fee (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1981), 325–43. The Commentary on the Johannine Prologue was not yet published when Zuntz made his study. For a fuller summary and assessment of the scholarship than is possible here, King, Cyril of Alexandria, 281–92. 33

New Evidence on the Philoxenian Versions

21

of the sixth century one can be reasonably sure of reconstructing Philoxenus’ version on such a basis.35 This very optimistic approach has run into some difficulty. Romeny has responded that in order to show for certain that a translator is using an existing, authoritative version rather than simply translating the Greek ‘as it is’, one would have to find citations inexplicable on any other grounds, i.e. one would have to find citations in the translation literature which vary significantly from their Vorlagen and indicate the use of another source such as a ‘Philoxenian’ version.36 For the most part this is almost impossible since the Vorlagen are not usually extant.37 In most, if not all, cases, similarities between citations in Philoxenus and citations in the translations are better explained as a result of a broad stream of tradition, what Aland herself calls a ‘Philoxenian/Harclean Tradition’.38 This ‘tradition’ arose as translators gradually ceased their earlier practice of replacing scriptural citations with their Peshitta equivalents and started instead to make their own versions simply on the basis of the Greek before them.39 B. Aland, “Die philoxenianisch-harklensische Übersetzungstradition: Ergebnisse einer Untersuchung der neutestamentlichen Zitate in der syrischen Literatur” (Le Muséon 94 [1981]), 321–83. 36 B. ter Haar Romeny, “A Philoxenian-Harclean Tradition? Biblical Quotations in Syriac Translations from Greek,” in Syriac Polemics. Studies in honour of Gerrit Jan Reinink, ed. W.J. Van Bekkum et al. (Leuven: Peeters, 2007), 59–76. By applying this slightly harsher criterion, Romeny throws doubt on the previously asserted existence of a Philoxenian version of the Psalter (e.g. p. 63–5). 37 This is true at least for the Severan corpus and Cyril’s Homilies on Luke (save in both cases for the fragments found in the Catenae). For the texts of Cyril, Gregory etc. we are more fortunate with regard to the Vorlagen, but these are less firmly datable. 38 The expression was coined by Barbara Aland in the above mentioned article. The ‘tradition’ concerns only translations from the Greek; native Syriac literature tends to be much more conservative and quotes simply from the Peshitta even after revisions were available. 39 This is a practice everywhere discernible in Syriac literature and especially in the translation of Greek commentaries on the Old Testament where the clash between Peshitta and LXX was sometimes too obvious to avoid. A variety of solutions were tried (L. Van Rompay, “The Christian Syriac Tradition of Interpretation,” in Hebrew Bible, Old Testament: The 35

22

Daniel King

In a number of places within his essay, Romeny notes issues that are of importance for our present purpose. For instance, he urges the possible use of “comparable material from earlier periods which might show a text which is also mid-way between the Peshitta and the Harclean,” and makes the obvious but vitally important point that “the work of Philoxenus’ aide Polycarp stands in—rather than at the beginning of—this line [of translation tradition].”40 Let us turn now to a few selected examples of ‘comparable material from earlier periods.’ The general tendency of translators to move beyond the insertion of the Peshitta and to produce renderings that are closer to the Harclean is especially transparent in the case of certain key terms. For instance, the Old Syriac gospels, in line with traditional K (lit., life) for ΗΝΘ΋Εϟ΅ (salvation). The Syriac language, use ¾ÙÏ Peshitta tentatively begins the process of replacing this with ¾æø˜Íñ and cognate terms (e.g. at Lk 1.69,77,2.11, while all other instances are left as in the Old Syriac) and the Harclean finishes the process by changing all such terms without exception. In translations datable to the first half of the sixth century, we can see a stage in between the Peshitta and the Harclean where more instances have undergone the change in question—e.g. at Lk 3.6 K has been replaced by Ìæø˜Íñ (Hcl: where the Peshitta’s ¾ÙÏ 41 Ìà؃ ¾æø˜Íñ). In the two translation texts that show this particular reading, Cyril of Alexandria’s Scholia on the Incarnation and Explanation of the Twelve Chapters, which may well have been translated by the same individual, almost certainly in the sixth century and probably in

History of its Interpretation, Vol. 1, Pt. 1, ed. M. Sæbø (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1996), 615). Moses of Aggel’s preface to his translation of Cyril of Alexandria’s Glaphyra deals expressly with this issue in the context of exegesis. The changing practice is quite transparent in the Cyril translations: King, Cyril of Alexandria, 277–314. 40 Romeny, “A Philoxenian-Harclean Tradition?,” 68,75. K with 41 King, Cyril of Alexandria, 426. The gradual replacement of ¾ÙÏ ¾æø˜Íñ is typical of the shift away from traditional Syriac formulae towards a more ‘faithful’ reflection of Greek terminology. To this extent, ¾æø˜Íñ is a loan translation.

New Evidence on the Philoxenian Versions

23

the earlier part thereof,42 the New Testament citations are sometimes closely allied to the Peshitta and are sometimes identical with the Harclean. When the latter is the case we can call the resulting version part of the ‘Philoxenian/Harclean Tradition’, although we cannot be sure whether these words stood in the Philoxenian per se. In other cases, the revisions in the Harclean were less theologically motivated and had more to do with the holy grail of consistency. Thus the Greek ΘϱΔΓΖ is rendered in the Old Syriac almost randomly by either ¿ÿ܆ƒ (Mt 26.52 etc.) or by À˜š~ (Mt 14.13 etc.), although À˜š~ prevails on the whole. The Peshitta sometimes replaces À˜š~ with ¿ÿ܆ƒ (Mt 27.33) but for the most part leaves the Old Syriac in tact. The Harclean uses ¿ÿ܆ƒ throughout as a matter of principle, replacing all the Peshitta’s instances of À˜š~. In the case of Jn 14.2 there was a revision of À˜š~ to ¿ÿ܆ƒ not only in the Harclean but in all sixth century translations and in the citation in Philoxenus’ Commentary on the Johannine Prologue. It seems very likely that the Philoxenian had made this particular revision almost, if not entirely, throughout the New Testament already before Thomas of Harkel finished the job.43 At 1 Cor 1.23, the same pattern is quite evident both in the K ) and in the K changing terms used for ‘pagans’ (¾ÙâĂ~,¾ããî ,¾òæÏ revision of ¿ÿàø†š to ¾ĆàýÜ (ΗΎΣΑ΅Έ΅ΏΓΑ):

The Explanatio can be dated before 521 on the basis that Philoxenus quotes the Cyrilline anathemas according to the version found in the revised form of the Explanatio in a letter of that date (op. cit., 339). 43 Very often it would appear that the changes in translation practice over the fifth to seventh centuries were characterized not so much by the introduction of wholly new techniques (though there are undoubtedly some of these) but by the more complete and consistent application of existing techniques. Hence the simple appearance of more ‘literal’ techniques is not necessarily a guarantee of a later date—rather one must look to the consistency of usage of that particular characteristic. 42

24

Daniel King 1 Cor 1.23 K Peshitta ¿šÍÙÓü ¾ÙâĂ½Ć߆ ¾Øƒ†ÌÙß Paul of Callinicum, K Sev. Hom. ¿šÍÙÓü ç؃ ¾ããïß ¾ĆàýÜ (çâJ) Paul of Callinicum, K Sev. Philalethes ¿šÍÙÓü ç؃ ¾ããï ß ‹… ¾ĆàýÜ K J Cyril, Scholia ¿šÍÙÓü ¾òæÐ߆ ¾ĆàýÜ ÌØÿØ~ N K Harclean ¿šÍàß ç؃ ¾òæÐß ¾ĆàýÜ çâJ

¿ÿàø†š K ¾Øƒ†ÌÙß K ¾Øƒ†ÌÙß K ¾Øƒ†ÌÙß K ¾Øƒ†ÌÙß

Now to this pattern we can add Ƣ citation from Philoxenus’ K Commentary on the Johannine Prologue, ¾ĆàýÜ (çâJ) ¾Øƒ†ÌÙß K (‹…†ÿØ~), the key terms of which match Paul ¿šÍÙÓü ç؃ ¾ããïß of Callinicum very closely. The Scholia citation has moved one step further toward the Harclean. We can be reasonably sure in this case that the Philoxenian must have looked very like what Philoxenus has in his Commentary. We cannot conclude that Paul of Callinicum always or consistently follows the Philoxenian, but we can see the development of the ‘Philoxenian/Harclean’ tradition as it moves through these various texts in the sixth-century (Paul of Callinicum translated the Severan corpus in the 520s; Cyril’s Scholia is probably from the same period)44 which tend to share principal characteristics, even where they do not follow each other verbatim. This ‘Philoxenian/Harclean Tradition’ is not always to be found literally in all the translations—hence the revision of äʚ to úýñ evidenced in the Commentary on the Johannine Prologue and in the Harclean is matched in some of the sixth century translation literature but not in all.45 * Now to return to those key letters of Cyril of Alexandria, for which the terminus ante quem is 484. In line with fifth century translations in general, these texts follow the Peshitta for their citations rather than creating their own new versions. However, just as we saw a few scattered examples of the revised creedal language cropping up in these early texts, so also we see signs of the ‘Philoxenian/Harclean Tradition’ of New Testament revision.

44 45

King, Cyril of Alexandria, 356. Mt 1.23 (for details, ibid. 398).

New Evidence on the Philoxenian Versions

25

Thus, for instance, the replacement of Àăâ~ with ¾ÁĂ~ for (Mt 7.15) which is found in the Harclean and which is prefigured in three translations of clear sixth century provenance can be found earlier in a citation in Cyril’s First Letter to Succensus (Ep 45). The same is true of the revision of ‹… ¾ØûÜ to úÙîš~ for ΔΉΕϟΏΙΔϱΖ πΗΘ΍Α (Mt 26.38). Sometimes these ‘early’ cases of minor revision can also be corroborated by a citation from Philoxenus’ Commentary on the Johannine Prologue, e.g. at Rom 1.25: ΔΕΓΆΣΘΝΑ

Peshitta46 Cyril, Ep 50 Philoxenus, Jn. Comm. Cyril, Scholia Harclean

çØÌ؆ûÂ߃ çâ ÃÒ ¿ÿØăÂß Íýãü† J Ì؆ûÂ߃ çâ ÃÒ ¿ÿØûÂß ÍÐàñ ¾Ø†ûÁ çâ ûÂß ¿ÿØûÂß ÍÐàñ† ¾Ø†ûÁ çâ ûÂß ¿ÿØûÂß Ñàñ ¾ØûÁƒ †…J çâ ûÂß ¾ØûÂß ÍÐàñ†

Here, Cyril’s Ep 50 already prefigures a revision made by Philoxenus which was accepted in the sixth century translation literature (here represented by Cyril, Scholia) and in the Harclean. The most important of all examples of this sort, moreover, concerns the version of Hebrews 10.5. This was one of the verses which Philoxenus explicitly discusses when talking about his New Testament revision. The Peshitta read ‘a body you have clothed me with’, a typical piece of Syriac symbolic theology which Philoxenus wanted to do away with. On the basis of ‘better’ Greek texts he made his new version read, ‘a body you have prepared for me’. When we turn again to Cyril’s Letter to Valerian (Ep 50), we find this very ‘revised’ reading in a text translated long before the official promulgation of the Philoxenian New Testament itself:

The Peshitta of Rom 1.25 is quoted verbatim by the fifth century version of Cyril’s De Recta Fide and by Sergius of Resh‘aina early in the sixth century. 46

26

Daniel King Peshitta Cyril, Ep 50 Philoxenian47 Harclean

ÚåÿýÂß~ ç؃ Úß ÿæøš ûÙÄ Úß ÿæøš ç؃ Úß ÿæøš ç؃

ÀûÅñ ÀûÅñ ÀûÅñ ÀûÅñ

Once again we have to grapple with the possibility that a scribe has reworked the text at a later date. As argued earlier, however, there are no other signs of such reworking in these texts where we might expect to find them and the unevennesses of translation technique that they show are typical of their style in general. There is no clear evidence of revision and no need to postulate one in the presence of a better explanation. It seems much more likely that these fifth century translators were already thinking along the same lines as Philoxenus would be a generation later, trying to translate the Greek ‘as it is’. This finding is, after all, quite unsurprising. We know that Philoxenus neither read Greek himself nor was he the originator of the new approaches to translation technique that are associated with his name. We know furthermore that he was exposed to the fifth century patristic translation literature circulating among the schools in Edessa during his formative years. He cited a number of such texts in the florilegium that he wielded in his Memre against Habbib, written before he was elevated to his see in 484. We have now found in these letters haphazard and occasional examples both of Scriptural revisions, such as this one at Hebrews 10.5, and of the creedal revisions which Philoxenus ordered to be incorporated into the Syrian church’s official liturgy around the year 500. It does not seem too far fetched to suggest that the idea of making a thorough and complete revision of both New Testament and Creed developed within the plans of Philoxenus as a result of his having read, digested, and been influenced by these early translations that we have been looking at. * The fifth century translators of Cyril were pioneer theological interpreters in their own right. Their experiments in translation The Philoxenian version of Heb 10.5, as well as being discussed as a crux in the Commentary on the Johannine Prologue, is found in Philoxenus’ later works (Letter to the Monks of Senoun) and in Paul of Callinicum’s translations of Severus. 47

New Evidence on the Philoxenian Versions

27

shaped Philoxenus’ reading and theology, and thus through his redeployment of their methods, they had a profound influence upon Syriac Miaphysite language. If, therefore, we wish to seek antecedents for the increasing Hellenisation and literalism in Syriac translations,48 and indeed in native literature too, in the sixth and seventh centuries, we should not look so much to other Bible translation traditions in antiquity generally, but rather to patristic translations in the Syriac church in particular, and to the theological concerns which underlay their reception in the West Syrian church after Chalcedon. The issue of precision in translation may have arisen initially within the context of scriptural citations embedded in these patristic translations, perhaps at first when Theodore of Mopsuestia’s Old Testament commentaries were being translated at Edessa in the period before the schism.49 From here the problem began to assert itself in all sorts of other contexts. Although in the Patristic translations of the mid fifth century (Cyril and Athanasius above all) the Peshitta still reigns supreme, we can nonetheless watch the translators struggling to find alternative methods, especially when these citations began to involve and to extend to the terminology of doctrinal formulations such as appeared in the creeds and the Miaphysite slogans. It is in these contexts, in the vocabulary of doctrinal formulation and the wording of the creeds, as these are expounded and elaborated in the translation literature, that we begin to see the first steps being taken towards the literalistic, ‘mirror’ style of translation which was fully and consistently adopted over the As outlined in a number of key articles by Sebastian Brock, esp. “Towards a History of Syriac translation technique,” in III Symposium Syriacum, ed. R. Lavenant (Rome: Pont. Inst. Or. Stud., 1983), 1–14; “The Syriac background to Hunayn’s translation techniques” (Aram 3 [1991]), 139–62; “Changing Fashions in Syriac Translation Technique: The Background to Syriac Translations under the Abbasids” (Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 4 [2004]), 3–14. 49 For a summary of the works of Theodore in Syriac together with discussion of their dating, see L. Van Rompay, “Quelques remarques sur la tradition syriaque de l’oeuvre exégétique de Théodore de Mopsueste,” in IV Symposium Syriacum, ed. H.J.W. Drijvers et al. (Rome: Pont. Inst. Or. Stud., 1987), 33–43. 48

28

Daniel King

course of the sixth-seventh century for use in all genres of translation. Philoxenus, as a leader of the Miaphysite movement, threw his weight behind this cultural and theological shift. The inspiration for his doing so was the momentum already begun by those earlier patristic translations which had such a marked influenced upon his own education.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Abramowski, L. “zur geplanten Ausgabe von Brit.Mus.add.12156.” In Texte und Textkritik: Eine Aufsatzsammlung, Texte und Untersuchungen 133, ed. J. Dummer. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1987: 23–8. Aland, B. “Die philoxenianisch-harklensische Übersetzungstradition: Ergebnisse einer Untersuchung der neutestamentlichen Zitate in der syrischen Literatur.” Le Muséon 94 (1981): 321–83. Aland, B. and A. Juckel. Das Neue Testament in syrischer Überlieferung I. Die Grossen Katholischen Briefe. Arbeiten zur neutestamentlichen Textforschung, Bd 7. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1986. Brock, S. P. “The Conversations with the Syrian Orthodox under Justinian (532).” Orientalia Christiana Periodica 47 (1981): 87–121. Reprinted, Studies in Syriac Christianity XIII. _______. “The Resolution of the Philoxenian/Harclean Problem.” In New Testament Textual Criticism: Its significance for Exegesis. Essays in Honour of Bruce M. Metzger, ed. E.J. Epp and G.D. Fee. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1981: 325–43. _______. “Towards a History of Syriac translation technique.” In III Symposium Syriacum, Goslar 7–11 September 1980, ed. R. Lavenant. Rome: Pont. Inst. Or. Stud., 1983: 1–14. _______. “The Syriac background to Hunayn’s translation techniques.” Aram 3 (1991): 139–62. _______. “Changing Fashions in Syriac Translation Technique: The Background to Syriac Translations under the Abbasids.” Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 4 (2004): 3–14. Chadwick, H. “Florilegium.” In Reallexikon für Antike und Christentum, ed. T. Klauser. Stuttgart: Anton Hiersemann, 1969: 7:1131–60. De Halleux, A. “Nouveaux textes inédits de Philoxène de Mabbog I: Lettre aux moines de Palestine; Lettre liminaire au Synodicon d’Éphèse.” Le Muséon 75 (1962): 31–62.

New Evidence on the Philoxenian Versions

29

De Halleux, A. Philoxène de Mabbog: sa vie, ses écrits, sa théologie. Leuven: Imprimerie Orientaliste, 1963. _______. “La Philoxénienne du symbole.” In Symposium Syriacum II, Orientalia Christiana Analecta 205, ed. R. Lavenant. Rome: Pont. Inst. Or. Stud., 1978: 295–315. Doran, R. Stewards of the Poor: The Man of God, Rabbula, and Hiba in FifthCentury Edessa. Kalamazoo: Cistercian Publications, 2006. Ebied, R.Y. and L.R. Wickham. “Athanasius’ Ad Epictetum.” Journal of Theological Studies 23 (1972): 144–54. _______. A Collection of Unpublished Syriac Letters of Cyril of Alexandria. CSCO 359/360. Leuven, 1975. _______. “Timothy Aelurus: Against Chalcedon.” In After Chalcedon: Studies in Theology and Church History offered to Professor Albert van Roey for his seventieth birthday, Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 18, ed. C. Laga et al. Leuven: Peeters, 1985: 115–66. Flemming, J.P.G. and H. Lietzmann. Apollinaristische Schriften syrisch. Berlin, 1904. Graffin, F. “Le florilège patristique de Philoxène de Mabboug.” In Symposium Syriacum 1972, Orientalia Christiana Analecta 197. Rome: Pont. Inst. Or. Stud., 1974: 267–90. Gray, P.T.R. “Through the Tunnel with Leontius of Jerusalem: The SixthCentury Transformation of Theology.” In The Sixth Century, End or Beginning?, ed. P. Allen and E. Jeffreys. Brisbane: Australian Association for Byzantine Studies, 1996: 187–96. King, D. The Syriac Versions of the Writings of Cyril of Alexandria: A Study in Translation Technique. CSCO 626 (Subsidia 123). Leuven: Peeters, 2008. McEnerney, J.I. St. Cyril of Alexandria : Letters. Fathers of the Church 76– 77. Washington, D.C: Catholic University of America Press, 1987. Menze, V.L. Justinian and the Making of the Syrian Orthodox Church. Oxford Early Christian Studies. Oxford: University Press, 2008. Michelson, D.A. “It is not the custom of our Syriac language. Reconsidering the role of Translation in the Polemics of Philoxenos of Mabbug.” In proceedings of Shifting Frontiers VIII (April 2009), Forthcoming. Richard, M. “Les Florilèges diphysites du Ve et du VIe siècle.” In Das Konzil von Chalkedon : Geschichte und Gegenwart I, ed. A. Grillmeier and H. Bacht. Wurzburg: Echter-Verlag, 1951: 721–43.

30

Daniel King

Romeny, B. t. H. “A Philoxenian-Harclean Tradition? Biblical Quotations in Syriac Translations from Greek.” In Syriac Polemics. Studies in honour of Gerrit Jan Reinink, ed. W.J. Van Bekkum et al. Leuven: Peeters, 2007: 59–76. Rücker, A. Das Syrische Florilegium Edessenum anonymum (ante 562). Sitz. der Bayerischen Ak. der Wiss. Phil-hist. Abt., Hft 5. München, 1933. Teule, H. “Les compilations monastiques syriaques.” In Symposium Syriacum VII, ed. R. Lavenant. Rome: Pont. Inst. Or. Stud., 1998: 249–64. Van Rompay, L. “Proclus of Constantinople’s ‘Tomus ad Armenios’ in the Post-Chalcedonian Tradition.” In After Chalcedon: Studies in Theology and Church History offered to Professor Albert van Roey for his seventieth birthday, Orientalia Christiana Analecta 18, ed. C. Laga et al. Leuven: Peeters, 1985: 425–49. _______. “The Christian Syriac Tradition of Interpretation.” In Hebrew Bible, Old Testament : The History of its Interpretation, Vol.1, Pt.1, ed. M. Sæbø. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1996: 612–41. _______. “Mallpânâ dilan Suryâyâ: Ephrem in the Works of Philoxenus of Mabbog: Respect and Distance.” Hugoye 7.1 (2004). _______. “Bardaisan and Mani in Philoxenus of Mabbug’s Memre against Habbib.” In Syriac Polemics: Studies in Honour of Gerrit Jan Reinink, ed. W.J. Van Bekkum et al. Leuven: Peeters, 2007: 77–90. Vööbus, A. “New Sources for the Symbol in Early Syrian Christianity.” Vigiliae Christianae 26 (1972): 291–96. Zuntz, G. The Ancestry of the Harklean New Testament. British Academy Supplementary Papers VII. London: British Academy, 1945.

Hugoye: Journal of Syriac Studies, Vol. 13.1, 31–48 © 2010 by Beth Mardutho: The Syriac Institute and Gorgias Press

LA VIERGE MERE DE DIEU DANS LA PENSEE DE PHILOXENE DE MABBOUG P. ROGER-YOUSSEF AKHRASS SEMINAIRE DE THEOLOGIE DE ST EPHREM, MAARAT SAYDNAYA

INTRODUCTION Philoxène de Mabboug est un auteur et polémiste qui a écrit à profusion dans la polémique christologique au tournant du sixième siècle. Sa christologie était axée sur le principe du « devenir sans changement » pour expliquer l’incarnation du Verbe de Dieu. Philoxène cherchait partout dans la vie de Jésus, des preuves de l’application de ce principe. C’est ainsi qu’il a trouvé dans les mots clefs « né d’une femme » de Gal 4, 4 une justification théologique de l’immutabilité de Dieu dans le devenir qui ne constitua pas une transformation interne, et en même temps une preuve de la connaturalité véritable et complète du Verbe incarné avec la race dans laquelle il venait s’insérer. L’intérêt de ces deux arguments pour la théologie du salut est évident, puisqu’ils garantissent, l’un la solidarité du Sauveur avec l’humanité, et l’autre l’immunité de sa qualité de sauveur divin. Or ce processus salvifique du devenir qui est l’inhumanation du Fils, s’est déclenché d’abord au moment de l’annonciation à Marie et ensuite dans la naissance d’une vierge devenue Mère de Dieu Théotokos. Notre exposé tentera de lire la portée sotériologique de la naissance de Dieu Verbe à partir d’une femme Vierge et Théotokos dans la doctrine philoxénienne. Mais avant cela, on donnera en prélude, les traits humains de la figure mariale dans les écrits de notre théologien. Cette image humaine de 31

32

P. Roger-Youssef Akhrass

Marie corrigera toute fausse compréhension déifiante de Marie, prétendument fondée sur le titre de Mère de Dieu.

1. MARIE : FIGURE HUMAINE Loin d’être amené par le dogme de la Théotokos à diviniser la mère de Jésus au point de la soustraire à la condition humaine, Philoxène témoigne d’une aussi grande liberté que Chrysostome dans l’exégèse des textes évangéliques relatifs à Marie. Jusqu’à la Pentecôte, affirme notre auteur, la Vierge ne connut pas l’exactitude du mystère surnaturel qui s’était opéré en elle; c’est-àdire que, si elle savait bien qu’elle avait conçu et enfanté virginalement, elle ne se rendait pas compte de la divinité naturelle de Son Fils 1. Notre théologien voit dans cette opinion faible la source du manque de foi et du scandale qu’aurait éprouvé Marie : elle s’étonne des paroles de Siméon (Lc 2, 33); elle ne comprend pas la mission de son Fils (Lc 2, 48–50); elle prétend lui imposer l’obéissance, alors que Jésus baptisé n’est plus soumis aux obligations de la Loi (Jn 2, 4) et peut la répudier (Mt 12, 48; Jn 19, 26); elle participe au scandale des disciples la nuit de l’arrestation (Mt 26, 31)2. Par tout ceci, Philoxène n’entend nullement insulter à la sainteté de Marie, mais il lui refuse une situation privilégiée par rapport à celle des disciples, puisque Pierre lui-même, qui put seul, avant le don de l’Esprit, confesser la divinité du Christ (Mt 16, 16) en vertu d’une révélation du Père, n’aurait pas compris le sens d’un mystère caché aux puissances spirituelles elles-mêmes (1 Cor 2, 6– 12; Ep 3, 10)3. Le manque de foi de Marie était d’ailleurs dû à la faiblesse, et non à une volonté mauvaise; aussi fut-il guéri lors du baptême de la Pentecôte; c’est ainsi que Philoxène explique que la

Commentaire de Luc 2, 51–52, fragment 46 dans Philoxenus of Mabbug, Fragments of the Commentary on Matthew and Luke, ed. and tr. J.W. Watt, CSCO 392 = Script. Syri 171 (Louvain, 1978), p. 52 (= Commentaire de Matthieu-Luc). 2 Commentaire de Luc 2, 22–39, fr. 43, p. 44–6; Philoxène de Mabboug. Homélies, tr. E. Lemoine, Sources Chrétiennes 44 (Paris, 1956), 239–43. The Discourses of Philoxenus Bishop of Mabbôgh, A.D. 485–519, ed. E.A. Wallis Budge, Vol I (London, 1894), 249–54. 3 Commentaire de Matthieu 16, 16–17, fr. 27, p. 25–28. 1

La Vierge Mère de Dieu dans la pensée de Philoxène 33 lance du doute et du scandale ne fit que lui traverser le cœur (Lc 2, 35)4.

2. THEOTOKOS 2.1. Au temps de l’annonciation 2.1.1. Marie, semence de David

L’évangile de Matthieu montre que Jésus devint le fils de David à travers Joseph qui accepte de prendre Marie chez lui et, ceci faisant, il intègre Jésus dans la lignée davidique (Mt 1, 18–25). Mais selon Philoxène et les pères syriaques, Jésus fut aussi charnellement le fils de David à travers Marie qui est la semence de David : « Mais nous disons que c’est de la Vierge qu’il l’a voulu et qu’il est devenu, de celle qui est de la descendance de la maison de David, comme l’enseignent les Ecritures et nous le transmettent tous les docteurs de vérité. »5 « C’est lui (le Christ) que l’Ange appela aussi fils de David, parce que celui-ci avait reçu la promesse que le Fils de Dieu devait naître de sa semence. Or la semence de David, c’était la Vierge, de laquelle s’inhumana et naquit le Verbe de Dieu. Et si celui-ci devint homme dans le ventre, c’était pour naître de la femme; et il naquit de celle-ci afin de mourir; et il mourut afin de sauver, à savoir de Satan, de la mort et du péché. »6 2.1.2. Sanctification de la Vierge par l’Esprit-Saint

Philoxène estime que la vierge fut purifiée et sanctifiée par l’Esprit lors de l’annonciation : « Il est descendu et, dans une Vierge pure qui fut sanctifiée par l’Esprit, Dieu a habité et est devenu homme d’elle, sans changement »7. Les conséquences de cette sanctification Commentaire de Luc 2, 22–39, fr. 43, p. 44–46. F. Graffin, Sancti Philoxeni Episcopi Mabbugensis, Dissertationes Decem, De uno e Sancta Trinitate incorporato et passo (Memre contre Habib), V. Appendices, I. Tractatus II. Refutatio. III. Epistula Dogmatica. IV Florilegium, PO 41, 1 (Brepols, 1982), 53. 6 Philoxène de Mabbog, Lettre aux moines de Senoun, tr. A. de Halleux, CSCO 231–232 = Script. Syri 98–99 (Louvain, 1963), 48 [59]. 7 Graffin, Sancti Philoxeni, 43, § 12. 4 5

34

P. Roger-Youssef Akhrass

ne concernent pas la sainteté morale de Marie ou sa purification du péché dit « originel » comme le penseraient certains. Les conséquences sont décisives pour la permanence de la virginité de Marie qui préserve l’incarnation de toute atteinte de mort naturelle et de convoitise : « Or, on ne lui attribue aucune des deux (mort et convoitise), parce que c’est sans recourir à l’union charnelle qu’il a été conçu et est né, et parce que l’Esprit-Saint est venu sur la Vierge, pour que ce fût saintement que se fit, d’elle, l’incorporation du Verbe. »8

On développera davantage les implications christologiques de cette sainteté dans la naissance lorsqu’on traitera plus loin de la perpétuelle virginité de Marie. 2.1.3. Moment de la conception

Dans la lignée de Saint Ephrem, Philoxène soutient que la conception s’est faite avec la parole de l’ange. Cette idée est intrigante car on parle souvent du « oui » d’obéissance de la humble servante du Seigneur qui a librement répondu à l’appel du Seigneur. Et on explique souvent que l’incarnation a eu lieu par une synergie entre l’action divine venue de l’Esprit-Saint et le « oui » de Marie symbolisant l’accueil de l’action divine par l’humanité toute entière. Or pour Philoxène, le projet de Dieu est totalement souverain et ne peut être compromis par quelque possibilité de refus. C’est pourquoi, l’incarnation se fait immédiatement avec la parole de l’ange disant : « Le Seigneur soit avec toi ». A cela s’ajoute l’idée que le Fils est la semence de la Parole de Dieu, que l’archange-semeur sème dans la terre non labourée et vierge Marie. Cette Parole entre par l’oreille, mais n’est pas accueilli par l’intellect comme il se passe ordinairement chez les hommes mais cette fois-ci, dans les entrailles de Marie : «… Aussitôt que l’archange Gabriel eut dit à la Vierge Marie : Salut, pleine de grâce, le Seigneur [soit] avec toi ! En même temps que ce mot de l’ange, le Verbe vint dans la Vierge et entra, lui aussi, en même temps que le mot ou I. Guidi, La lettera di Filosseno ai monaci di Tell’ addâ (Teleda), Atti dl. R. Accad. d. Lincei, cl. di sc. Morali, Memorie III 12 (Rome, 1884), 466. 8

La Vierge Mère de Dieu dans la pensée de Philoxène 35 par son intermédiaire, non pas dans l’intellect, qui normalement reçoit les mots et conçoit les paroles, mais [c’est] hypostatiquement, dans le ventre de la Vierge, [que] le Verbe accourut aussitôt, parce qu’ici il ne voulut pas être conçu spirituellement dans l’intellect, comme chez n’importe qui, mais charnellement, dans le ventre où sont normalement formés tous les nourrissons de la nature… » 9

2.2. Au temps de la naissance 2.2.1. Un nouveau commencement

En parlant du mystère de l’incarnation, il y a des formules qui peuvent choquer à cause du paradoxe christologique. Il semble que des fidèles hésitaient dans l’emploi de ces formules, surtout lorsqu’elles ne sont pas scripturaires. Est-il juste de dire par exemple que Dieu Verbe sans commencement a eu un commencement de la Vierge ? Philoxène répond par l’affirmative : oui ! Dieu Verbe a eu un commencement de la Vierge, en tant qu’il est devenu homme, tout comme on admet communément qu’il est devenu chair et limité alors qu’il est spirituel et illimité : « Il est né charnellement de la Vierge. Ce n’est pas en tant qu’il est Dieu, qu’il a eu un commencement de là, mais parce qu’il est devenu homme de la Vierge. Relativement à son être, il ne commença point, même pas du Père. Mais en tant qu’il est devenu homme, nous ne craignons pas d’affirmer qu’il a eu un commencement de la Vierge. Celui qui est sans commencement en tant que Dieu, lui-même est devenu soumis au commencement en tant qu’homme. Et celui qui est spirituel et illimité, et chez le Père comme Dieu, luimême est devenu corps et limité dans la Vierge comme homme. Et celui qui forme et modèle, façonne, compose et crée les fœtus dans les seins en tant que Dieu, lui-même a été formé et façonné et est devenu personnellement fœtus en tant qu’homme. »10

Philoxène de Mabbog, Lettre aux moines de Senoun, 46 [55–6]. A.A. Vaschalde, Three Letters of Philoxenus Bishop of Mabbôgh (485– 519): Being the Letter to the Monks, the First Letter to the Monks of Beth-Gaugal, and the Letter to Emperor Zeno (Roma, 1902), 149–150. 9

10

36

P. Roger-Youssef Akhrass

2.2.2. Un Fils et deux naissances

Philoxène insiste sur l’idée que dans l’incarnation, il y a un seul Fils avec deux naissances, l’une du Père, naissance spirituelle éternelle et selon la nature, et l’autre de Marie, naissance charnelle, temporelle et surnaturelle qui sauvegarde la virginité de Marie: « En effet, elle ne l’a pas spirituellement engendré, car il possède cet engendrement à partir du Père. Et il n’est pas né de la Vierge comme le Père l’avait engendré, car le Père l’avait engendré en tant que Dieu, selon l’ordre de la nature et de l’engendrement éternel, tandis que la Vierge l’a enfanté charnellement, afin que, par cet engendrement charnel, nous méritions celui-là, le spirituel.»11

Une autre face de l’analogie entre les deux naissances est que la génération du Fils dans les deux cas a lieu d’une seule personne. En effet, notre auteur raisonne comme s’il comptait parmi les propriétés du Fils in divinis d’avoir sa génération ex uno, c’est-à-dire du Père seul; la seconde naissance laissant sa nature inchangée, puisqu’il reste le Fils, elle aura lieu normalement ex una, c’est-à-dire d’une mère seule : « Si celui que nous confessons comme Dieu un inhumané n’est pas deux natures, il est évident qu’il a pour ses deux naissances un seul Père naturel, qui est Dieu, parce que lui, un seul Fils dans les deux naissances, n’a pas plus de père dans la naissance humaine, qu’il n’a de mère pour la naissance divine. De même que le Père et sa nature sont un dans les deux générations, ainsi le Fils et sa nature inhumanée sont un dans celle-ci et dans celle-là, car il continua d’être le Fils par nature, même dans cette naissance d’une mère où il devint homme par la kénose. »12

Le prolongement de cette analogie est que le Père et Marie demeurent intacts dans les deux naissances : ni le Père n’est diminué par la génération du Verbe, ni la Vierge ne perd sa virginité lors de l’inhumanation.13 Vaschalde, Three Letters, 157. Philoxène de Mabbog, Lettre aux moines de Senoun, 27–8 [22–3]. 13 Cf. Philoxeni Mabbugensis tractatus tres de Trinitate et Incarnatione, éd. Arthur Vaschalde, Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium 9 = 11 12

La Vierge Mère de Dieu dans la pensée de Philoxène 37 2.3. Théotokos : titre christocentrique 2.3.1. Théotokos prouve la divinité du Verbe

En effet, le dogme de la Théotokos offre à notre auteur une de ses preuves favorites en faveur de la divinité du Sauveur. Attribuant le salut directement à la naissance, à la passion et à la mort du Verbe incarné, Philoxène devait normalement apporter le plus grand soin à montrer que celui qui naquit, pâtit et mourut n’était autre que Dieu. C’est dans ce contexte qu’il utilise l’argument de la maternité divine, en descendant de la naissance à la mort en croix, mais aussi en remontant de la naissance au devenir; la foi dans la Théotokos assure donc pour lui la divinité du crucifié,—lequel était de toute évidence identique à l’enfant qui naquit,—mais elle est elle-même garantie parce que la naissance de cet enfant ne constituait pour ainsi dire que la dimension expérimentale du devenir divin. Lorsque notre théologien affirme que le devenir précède la naissance, il veut simplement dire que celui qui fut conçu et qui naquit est identique à celui qui « devint », ou, plus précisément, que le devenir n’est pas celui d’un homme assumé par Dieu dans le sein de Marie ; ce qu’il cherche dans le dogme d’Ephèse, c’est donc à la fois la condamnation de la perspective christologique de l’homme assumé et l’attestation du devenir de Dieu; en effet, remarque-t-il, les termes « mère » et « naissance » s’appliquent au devenir et non à l’assomption. Philoxène tient fermement à ce que le Verbe s’est apparenté à la Vierge par nature, et c’est pour cette raison qu’elle a été appelée Mère de Dieu. Et pour notre auteur, les nestoriens refusent ce titre, alors que les chalcédoniens (considérés comme des seminestoriens) et les eutychiens le professent en apparence sans l’admettre véritablement : « D’ailleurs, si la Vierge Marie a été appelée Mère de Dieu, c’est parce que le Verbe, qui est né d’elle, lui est devenu apparenté par nature. Et si l’on réfléchit attentivement à cette idée, on constatera que ni ceux qui pensent comme Nestorius ni ceux qui approuvent

Scriptores Syri Tomus 9 = Ser. II, 27 (Paris/Leipzig, 1907), 34 (= Livre des sentences).

38

P. Roger-Youssef Akhrass le phantasiaste Eutychès ne considèrent la Vierge sainte comme Mère de Dieu. »14

Et Philoxène ajoute que dans tous les cas, on frustre la Vierge et on fausse le mystère de l’Économie. Voyons le détail de ces trois cas. 2.3.2. Cas des nestoriens

L’erreur du nestorianisme est la doctrine de la préexistence dans la Vierge d’un homme auquel Dieu Verbe est venu s’adjoindre et y habiter, comme s’il y avait deux personnes : l’une habitée et l’autre habitant. Cette conception contredit le principe du devenir du Verbe de Dieu. Voici quelques textes qui le montrent : « Dieu n’est pas non plus né homme dans un autre: car ce n’est pas un homme qui est né en qui Dieu demeure, comme l’enseigne l’impie Nestorius et ses disciples en folie, mais Dieu qui s’est incorporé sans changement, c’est lui qui est né de la Vierge. Car celui qui est entré en elle Dieu, le même est sorti homme d’elle. Et celui qu’elle reçut spirituellement, le même elle l’a enfanté corporellement, et celui qui n’a pas de commencement dans sa génération du Père, c’est lui qui est né avec commencement dans sa génération de la Vierge. Il est devenu homme selon la nature surnaturellement ; et il est né au monde selon sa nature surnaturellement ; et il a sucé le lait selon la nature surnaturellement ; et il a grandi en taille selon la nature surnaturellement. »15 « Et encore (nous ne disons pas) non plus qu’un homme qui n’était pas est devenu dans la Vierge et s’est adjoint à Dieu, comme le dit l’impie Nestorius, et que celui-là a supporté et a souffert tout ce qui se rapportait à sa nature, comme l’exige sa nature: ce n’est pas ainsi que l’affirme la vérité et que l’annonce la foi »16. « Les premiers (=Nestoriens), parce qu’ils estiment que le Christ est deux natures, et [parce qu’ils] disent que le A. de Halleux, « Nouveaux textes inédits de Philoxène de Mabbog. I. Lettre aux moines de Palestine-Lettre liminaire au Synodicon d’Ephèse » (Le Muséon, 75 [1962]), 43. 15 Graffin, Sancti Philoxeni, 45, 47. 16 Ibid., 53. 14

La Vierge Mère de Dieu dans la pensée de Philoxène 39 Verbe [né] de Dieu demeurait dans un homme et ne s’est pas incorporé et inhumané : théorie qui implique manifestement que la Vierge sainte ne [peut] être reconnue comme Mère de Dieu. » 17

Pour notre théologien, si l’on parle seulement d’inhabitation du Verbe de Dieu dans un homme ordinaire, ceci nous interdit de l’appeler Mère de Dieu, comme les mères des prophètes ne furent pas appelés mères de l’Esprit bien que l’Esprit Saint habitait dans leurs enfants : « L’Ecriture dit que Dieu demeura en Jérémie avant que ce dernier ne naquit et que l’Esprit-Saint demeura en Jean alors que celui-ci était encore dans le sein de sa mère ; mais la mère de Jérémie n’est pas pour autant considérée comme Mère de Dieu, ni Elisabeth, la mère de Jean, comme Mère de l’Esprit-Saint : ainsi la Vierge ne sera-t-elle pas non plus proprement confessée comme Mère de Dieu si Dieu ne faisait que demeurer dans celui qui est né d’elle … »18 2.3.3. Cas des chalcédoniens

Pour Philoxène, les chalcédoniens sont des semi-nestoriens parce qu’ils sont des diphysites comme les nestoriens mais s’efforcent de professer une seule hypostase, ce qui est impossible à ses yeux. La différence des natures est nécessairement séparation des natures et des hypostases, et on devra reconnaître que Dieu est un autre que l’homme19. C’est le même grief de l’inhabitation nestorienne qui est adressé ici à l’encontre des chalcédoniens. Ceux-ci sont donc accusés de refuser la doctrine de la Théotokos parce qu’ils professent l’inhabitation comme les nestoriens : « En effet, voici comment ils ont écrit : « L’un habite donc et l’autre est habité », c’est-à-dire que l’homme est habité et que Dieu habite en lui. Mais s’il en est ainsi, la Vierge n’est donc pas Mère de Dieu, mais mère d’un homme dans lequel Dieu ne fait que demeurer, comme le prétend Nestorius. Et de même qu’Elisabeth n’est pas mère de l’Esprit, comme je l’ai dit, ni la mère de De Halleux, I. Lettre aux moines de Palestine, 43–4. Ibid. 19 Philoxène de Mabbog, Lettre aux moines de Senoun, 21 [25–6]. 17 18

40

P. Roger-Youssef Akhrass Jérémie mère de Dieu parce que l’Esprit demeurait en Jean et Dieu dans le prophète Jérémie, ainsi ne peut-on penser que la Vierge est Mère de Dieu parce qu’elle aurait engendré un homme en qui Dieu ne faisait qu’habiter. »20

Ce qui est le plus grave à Chalcédoine, c’est que le Tome de Léon a parlé en plus des deux natures, de la conservation des propriétés de chaque nature après l’union. Chaque nature agit ce qui lui est propre avec la participation de l’autre : « Chacune des deux formes opère ce qui lui appartient, le Verbe faisant ce qui est du Verbe, et le corps accomplissant ce qui est du corps ; l’une brille par les miracles et l’autre succombe aux mauvais traitements ». Philoxène et tous les antichalcédoniens ont sévèrement critiqué cette phrase : après l’union réelle, physique et hypostatique qui a constitué le Christ comme un sujet unique, « une nature et hypostase de deux », on ne peut reconnaître aux qualités, attributs, activités le titre de idion (propriété), c’est-à-dire, confesser qu’ils appartiennent à l’une des réalités conçues comme natures, d’une manière exclusive, c’est-àdire, sans appartenir également à l’autre en réalité, mais seulement par relation extrinsèque. Selon Philoxène, cette doctrine qui veut que chaque nature fait ce qui lui est propre détruit la virginité et la maternité divine. En effet, l’appellation Théotokos se justifie par la vérité de cette affirmation : « Dieu est né de la Vierge » ; or dans ce titre, la naissance, qui est une propriété de l’humanité, est rapportée concrètement à la divinité. Ceci est une application de la communication des idiomes et pas de la conservation des propriétés des natures avec leurs activités. Par ailleurs, la propriété de l’homme est de devenir par mariage ; en naissant, un homme ne peut conserver la virginité, mais Dieu si ! C’est Dieu donc qui est né de la Vierge et pas un homme ordinaire : « … si l’on conçoive l’unique Fils comme deux natures ayant leurs propriétés, ainsi que le concile l’a notifié et que l’ont encore compris Léon et Flavien, la Vierge ne se trouve plus être Mère de Dieu, conformément à la foi que tiennent tous les fils de l’Eglise. Et si c’est un homme, comme eux le pensent, et non pas Dieu 20

Philoxène de Mabbog, Lettre aux moines de Senoun, 21 [25–6].

La Vierge Mère de Dieu dans la pensée de Philoxène 41 inhumané, il faut croire qu’il devint par le mariage, car c’est la propriété première de l’homme de devenir par le mariage. Ou bien, s’ils évitent de dire ceci ouvertement, soit par routine, soi par respect humain, ils devront tenir cette autre opinion, que celle qui engendra cet homme ne resta pas vierge. En effet, la virginité ne put rester intacte si celui qui sort du sein est un homme naturel, tandis que si l’engendre est Dieu devenu homme, comme nous le prétendons, il fut engendré comme homme, puisqu’il devint, mais comme Dieu il garda vierge celle qui l’engendra, à cause qu’il ne changea pas. Il naquit comme nourrisson, car c’est ainsi qu’on le voyait et touchait; et il laissa sa mère vierge, même après qu’elle l’eut engendré, car il était Dieu par nature et en puissance, encore qu’engendré comme homme dans la faiblesse. Mais ceux qui ont composé cette définition sont encore coupables de dire que la Vierge a engendré un homme en vertu de cette autre parole, qui déclare que la propriété de chacune des natures est conservée. Car si la propriété est conservée par chacune des natures même après l’union, comme ils disent, outre qu’il n’y a évidemment pas eu union, il s’avère aussi que l’engendré est un homme, puisque c’est la propriété première de l’homme d’être engendré de la femme, et encore, par voie de mariage, tandis que la propriété du Fils de Dieu est qu’il est engendré du Père sans mère. Et il faudrait alors dire que le Verbe fut engendré audessus des temps, mais l’homme dans le temps ; celui-là au-delà de tout commencement, mais celui-ci avec tout commencement. Celui-là comme Dieu né de Dieu, mais celui-ci comme homme né d’une fille d’homme; celui-là du Père sans mère, mais celui-ci du Père et d’une mère. Si l’homme a sa propriété, même dans l’union, la conclusion s’impose que, outre qu’il fut engendré d’une mère, il le fut aussi d’un père, puisqu’il n’est pas un seul homme qui puisse être engendré sans père et sans mère. Or l’Apôtre dit de celui-ci qu’il est sans père et sans mère. Si donc le Christ est deux natures, dont chacune a sa propriété, comme l’a défini le concile, celui qu’ils regardent comme un homme ne se trouve pas être sans père, comme Dieu Verbe est sans mère. Il est force que cet homme ait lui aussi un père, si l’on ne considère pas que Dieu, Père du Verbe,

42

P. Roger-Youssef Akhrass est aussi son Père à lui par nature, parce que celui qui naquit comme homme selon la chair est par nature Fils de Dieu et Dieu. »21

2.3.4. Cas des eutychiens

Selon Philoxène, la pensée eutychianiste a nié la véritable corporalité de Dieu Verbe. A quelques endroits elle était proche du phantasiasme. Il regarde l’eutychianisme comme le renouvellement des anciennes hérésies manichéenne et marcionniste qui méprisaient le corps par un dualisme odieux : « Quiconque dit que l’aspect du Christ est une fausse apparence, et non pas une incarnation véritable de la nature de la Vierge, est le disciple de Mani et de Marcion. Quiconque dit que Dieu a refusé d’assumer un corps de notre nature, vu que nous sommes impurs, et confesse qu’un corps lui a été préparé d’ailleurs, celui-là sera privé de la vie que la corporalité de Dieu nous a prévu. Quiconque ne confesse pas que le Verbe est devenu la descendance de David et d’Abraham par le corps, et qu’il s’est incarné véritablement et sans changement de la Vierge qui l’a engendré, celui-là ne s’est pas encore converti de l’ancienne erreur » 22.

Les eutychianistes prétendaient que le Verbe de Dieu s’est incorporé dans la vierge mais il n’a pas pris corps d’elle. Elle lui fut seulement un canal dans lequel il ne fit que passer. Philoxène s’est opposé à ces idées aussi farouchement qu’il le fit au nestorianisme. Il a écrit : «Il a assumé un corps, et il est devenu de la Vierge, homme parfait, celui qui est Dieu parfait, non pas dans la Vierge, puisque le Verbe n’est pas incorporé de la Vierge, mais vraiment, en elle et d’elle, il est devenu homme. Car la Vierge ne fut pas un canal pour Dieu, mais vraiment une mère, parce qu’il est devenu homme d’elle.» 23

Philoxène de Mabbog, Lettre aux moines de Senoun, 21–3 [25–8]. Vaschalde, Three Letters, 157. 23 Graffin, Sancti Philoxeni, 45. 21 22

La Vierge Mère de Dieu dans la pensée de Philoxène 43 « … Nous ne disons pas, comme les égarés, adeptes de l’enseignement d’Eutychès, qu’il s’est incorporé dans la Vierge, et non d’elle, mais nous croyons que c’est en elle et d’elle, et non pas de n’importe où, comme le disent mensongèrement ceux-là; mais nous disons que c’est de la Vierge qu’il l’a voulu et qu’il est devenu, de celle qui est de la descendance de la maison de David, comme l’enseignent les Ecritures et nous le transmettent tous les docteurs de vérité. »24

Etant donné qu’Eutychès a nié que le corps du Christ est de la même nature que celui de sa mère, Philoxène a insisté sur le fait que le Verbe a pris un corps de la vierge en s’apparentant à elle par nature. Celui qui naquit ressemblait par nature à celle qui l’enfanta et c’est pourquoi il est proprement dit être son fils et elle sa mère : « Ceux qui pensent comme Eutychès ne croient pas que Dieu a pris un corps d’elle, en s’incorporant d’elle et en s’apparentant à elle par nature […]. On frustre la Vierge et on fausse l’économie puisqu’on ne confesse pas que celui qui naquit ressemblait par nature à celle qui l’enfanta, suivant la règle des [êtres] qui naissent par voie de génération, ni lui n’est strictement son fils, ni elle n’est justement dite sa mère […] ainsi la Vierge ne sera-t-elle pas non plus proprement confessée comme Mère de Dieu si ce n’est pas vraiment Dieu qui s’est incorporé et inhumané d’elle sans changement, et nous a été assimilé en tout sauf le péché, comme nous l’a appris Paul. »25

3. VIRGINITE DE MARIE 3.1. Naissance miraculeuse Dans la naissance virginale du Verbe, qui laisse sa mère sans aucune corruption, Philoxène voit le signe en quelque sorte expérimental du miracle surnaturel de la conception virginale, qui la laisse intacte ; quant à cette conception, elle lui apparaît intimement liée, en vertu de son caractère surnaturel, à la divinité de l’enfant qui « devient » de Marie. Il est né d’une vierge pour montrer qu’il 24 25

Graffin, Sancti Philoxeni, 53. De Halleux, I. Lettre aux moines de Palestine, 43–4.

44

P. Roger-Youssef Akhrass

reste Dieu même en devenant homme. L’agent de la naissance est Dieu Verbe. « Naître » est le propre de l’homme qui est assumé par Dieu Verbe ; « d’une vierge » est digne de Dieu seulement : «Les Écritures ont distingué des expressions élevées et humbles mais elles ont écrit que toutes conviennent à un seul, qui naquit de la Vierge, lequel est le Verbe qui naquit d’elle selon le corps, en un miracle, comme lui seul le sait. Vois qui naquit et ne scrute pas sa naissance. Si la Vierge enfanta un homme comme chacun, ce qui s’opéra n’est pas un miracle, car toute chose engendre une chose semblable à soi, et ce n’est pas un acte prodigieux. Mais si cette naissance glorieuse est miraculeuse—comme l’écrit Isaïe: Un enfant nous est né et un fils nous a été donné, qui a été appelé du nom de Merveille ; puis, dans un autre endroit, en signe du miracle, Isaïe lui-même répète à Achaz que la Vierge va concevoir et enfanter un fils, qui sera appelé du nom d’Emmanuel—reçois par le prodige de la foi ces choses qui furent administrées par un miracle… »26

Cette position s’explique par ce que notre auteur regarde comme une loi infrangible fixée par le Créateur, aux termes de laquelle l’homme ne peut être formé sans le mariage, loi qu’il exprime positivement sous la forme du principe, plus général encore, que toute nature engendre par société; sur quoi il s’autorise à conclure que ce n’est pas un homme qui naît de la Vierge Marie, mais Dieu lui-même, et que la perspective christologique de l’« homme assumé » conduit logiquement à nier la conception et la naissance virginales. Ceci dit, Philoxène reconnaît que la parthénogénèse ne suffit point par elle seule pour prouver qu’il s’agit du devenir de Dieu, et il amène l’exemple d’Adam et d’Eve, venus au monde par l’action directe du Créateur. 3.2. Répercussions de la virginité sur l’inhumanation du Verbe La conception virginale n’intéresse cependant pas seulement, ni même principalement, le Verbe comme tel, car Philoxène lui accorde une fonction essentielle dans la théologie de l’inhumaA. de Halleux, « La deuxième lettre de Philoxène aux monastères du Beit Gaugal » (Le Muséon, 96 [1983]), 74–5. 26

La Vierge Mère de Dieu dans la pensée de Philoxène 45 nation strictement dite. La virginité de Marie montre que le Verbe « n’a pas l’incarnation selon la condamnation du péché », c’est-àdire « devient » dans le corps et l’âme qu’avait l’Adam d’avant la transgression. Notre auteur entend avant tout exprimer par là l’immunité du péché dont jouissait le Sauveur; mais au péché proprement dit il joint la convoitise, qui en est la cause, et « des suites de la condamnation », c’est-à-dire les « besoins », les « passions » et la mort, qui en sont la conséquence. C’est en rapport avec cette franchise du Verbe en tant qu’homme, que Philoxène fait intervenir la conception virginale; en effet, il déclare formellement que nature corruptible et mortelle se transmet par la voie du mariage ; les enfants participent à la nature de leurs parents imprégnée de convoitise et de mort. Le mariage est un instrument de propagation et de transmission de ces suites du péché. Voilà pourquoi le Sauveur divin, qui devait devenir de la nature humaine homme véritable et complet, mais aussi demeurer, même en tant qu’homme, supérieur au péché, et partant à la convoitise et à la mort, est conçu par génération, mais sans l’acte du mariage, c’est-à-dire d’une mère vierge, en dehors de tout « mouvement de la nature et écoulement de la convoitise » : « Du fait de la transgression première, la mort a régné, et la mort et la concupiscence se sont mêlées à la nature ; et désormais, quiconque entre dans le monde par le mariage naît mortel naturellement, et qu’il pèche ou non, qu’il pèche peu ou beaucoup, de toute façon, il est soumis à la mort, parce que la mort est mêlée à la nature. Mais Dieu, lorsqu’Il voulut devenir homme de la Vierge, pour nous créer par son devenir d’une manière nouvelle, ne prit pas corps et ne naquit pas du mariage à la façon ancienne, afin d’être supérieur à la mort dans son incorporation même, c’est-à-dire, supérieur aussi à la concupiscence, |parce que c’est par l’union des sexes que toutes deux prennent cours dans la nature.|27 Or, on ne lui attribue aucune des deux, parce que c’est sans recourir à l’union charnelle qu’il a été conçu et est né, et parce que l’Esprit-Saint est venu sur la Vierge, pour que ce fût saintement que se fit, d’elle, l’incorporation du Verbe. Voici donc que le Dieu Autre traduction possible : « parce que les deux choses découlent du mariage dans la nature ». 27

46

P. Roger-Youssef Akhrass immortel, lorsqu’il voulut se faire homme de la femme, devint homme par une incorporation qui n’est pas non plus celle d’un mortel parce que c’est sans recourir à l’union charnelle (mariage) dans laquelle est incorporée la mort »28

Notre auteur affirme sans aucune ambiguïté l’humanité intégrale du Verbe, en vertu du principe suivant lequel le Verbe devint homme complet pour sauver tout l’homme en lui; si on pressait notre théologien de s’expliquer, il répondrait donc sans doute que le péché n’est ni homme, ni nature, ni créature de Dieu, et que ses concomitants, c’est-à-dire la convoitise, les passions et la mort, sont pareillement « entrés du dehors, en sus de la formation de l’homme », qu’ils privaient de ses privilèges originels, constituant en quelque sorte un pis-être que la rédemption eut pour fin non de sauver mais d’anéantir. En appui à cette idée, nous citons un autre passage où Philoxène montre comment en naissant humainement d’une Vierge, le Verbe de Dieu a honoré la naissance humaine après qu’elle était dédaignée et méprisable à cause des douleurs survenues après la sentence judiciaire. La naissance d’une vierge enlevait les douleurs : «Car il ne refuse pas les (propriétés) vers lesquelles il vint dans sa volonté, pour que, les ayant faites siennes en une union inexplicable, il honore dans son hypostase celles-ci mêmes qui, en dehors de lui, apparaissent méprisables. Car elle était dédaignée et méprisée la naissance qui propage notre nature, en ce que le Créateur y avait attaché dès le début la sentence judiciaire des souffrances et des douleurs. Car une chose qui ne demeure pas dans son inaccessibilité devient objet de dédain. La naissance de notre nature fut donc honorée par la naissance du Verbe à partir de la Vierge. Et il délia et abolit les douleurs et les souffrances que la sanction judiciaire nous avait adjointes, en ce qu’il naquit sans douleur, en un miracle; ce dont témoigne le fait que la virginité de la Vierge qui l’enfanta ne fut pas corrompue en sa naissance: car le

28

Guidi, La lettera di Filosseno, 465–6.

La Vierge Mère de Dieu dans la pensée de Philoxène 47 sceau véritable de la virginité proclame qu’en sa naissance la passion de la douleur n’advint pas. » 29

CONCLUSION Au demeurant, Philoxène apparaît comme l’un des champions de la glorieuse maternité divine de Marie. Sa qualité de Théotokos résume sa part d’intervention dans l’accomplissement du mystère en tant que la chair du Verbe est tirée de la sienne. L’interprétation philoxénienne de la maternité divine de Marie apparaît donc comme exclusivement christocentrique; il n’en va pas autrement pour la virginité, que notre théologien considère, non comme un privilège personnel de la Mère de Dieu, mais uniquement comme l’expression de la conception et de la naissance virginale du Verbe incarné qui dit son immunité contre le péché et ses suites. Lorsque Marie est considérée seule, elle est mise au même rang que les disciples avec toutes leurs faiblesses humaines; vue en relation avec son Fils, elle est source de bien et de bénédictions : « Mais nous la proclamons seulement et avec raison Mère de Dieu, nom qui suscite la foi dans l’âme et attire l’homme à admirer et à être surpris par la richesse de l’amour de Dieu. »30

BIBLIOGRAPHIE André de Halleux, Philoxène de Mabbog. Sa vie, ses écrits, sa théologie, Louvain, 1963. Joseph Lebon, Le monophysisme sévérien. Etude historique, littéraire et théologique sur la résistance monophysite au concile de Chalcédoine jusqu’à la constitution de l’église jacobite (Univ. Cath. Lovaniensis. Diss. II 4), 1909.

De Halleux, « La deuxième lettre de Philoxène aux monastères du Beit Gaugal », 62–3. 30 Sancti Philoxeni Episcopi Mabbugensis Dissertationes decem de Uno e Sancta Trinitate incorporato et passo. IV. Dissertationes 9a, 10a. éd. & tr. M. Brière et F. Graffin, Patrologia Orientalis 40 (2) (Turnhout, 1980), 43. 29

48

P. Roger-Youssef Akhrass

Œuvres de Philoxène (Sources) : Traités Philoxène de Mabboug. Homélies, Eugène Lemoine (tr.), Sources Chrétiennes 44, Paris, 1956. Wallis Budge, E.A. (ed.), The Discourses of Philoxenus Bishop of Mabbôgh, A. D. 485–519., Vol I, London, 1894. Sancti Philoxeni Episcopi Mabbugensis Dissertationes decem de Uno e Sancta Trinitate incorporato et passo. IV. Dissertationes 9a, 10a. M. Brière et F. Graffin (éd. & tr.), Patrologia Orientalis 40 (2), Turnhout, 1980. Philoxeni Mabbugensis tractatus tres de Trinitate et Incarnatione, Arthur Vaschalde (éd.), Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium 9 = Scriptores Syri Tomus 9 = Ser. II, 27, Paris-Leipzig, 1907. (= Livre des sentences). Fragments exégétiques Philoxenus of Mabbug. Fragments of the Commentary on Matthew and Luke, J.W. Watt (ed. & tr.), CSCO 392 = Script. Syri 171, Louvain 1978. Lettres André de Halleux, Nouveaux textes inédits de Philoxène de Mabbog. I. Lettre aux moines de Palestine-Lettre liminaire au Synodicon d’Ephèse, dans Le Muséon 75, 1962, p. 31–62. André de Halleux, La deuxième lettre de Philoxène aux monastères du Beit Gaugal, dans Le Muséon 96, 1983, p. 5–79. La lettera di Filosseno ai monaci di Tell’ addâ (Teleda), (Atti dl. R. Accad. d. Lincei, Ignazio Guidi (éd.), cl. di sc. Morali, Memorie III 12), Rome, 1884. Sancti Philoxeni Episcopi Mabbugensis, Dissertationes Decem, De uno e Sancta Trinitate incorporato et passo (Memre contre Habib), V. Appendices, I. Tractatus II. Refutatio. III. Epistula Dogmatica. IV Florilegium, François Graffin (éd. & tr.), PO 41, 1, Brepols, 1982. Philoxène de Mabbog, Lettre aux moines de Senoun, André de Halleux (éd. & tr.), CSCO 231–232 = Script. Syri 98–99, Louvain, 1963. Three Letters of Philoxenus Bishop of Mabbôgh (485–519): Being the Letter to the Monks, the First Letter to the Monks of Beth-Gaugal, and the Letter to Emperor Zeno, Arthur Adolphe Vaschalde (éd. & tr.) Roma 1902.

Hugoye: Journal of Syriac Studies, Vol. 13.1, 49–63 © 2010 by Beth Mardutho: The Syriac Institute and Gorgias Press

THE LUST OF THE BELLY IS THE BEGINNING OF ALL SIN A PRACTICAL THEOLOGY OF ASCETICISM IN THE DISCOURSES OF PHILOXENOS OF MABBUG ROBERT A. KITCHEN KNOX-METROPOLITAN UNITED CHURCH REGINA, SASKATCHEWAN

ABSTRACT The thirteen Discourses of Philoxenos of Mabbug are addressed to monks under his episcopal care and concern traditional challenges of the monastic and spiritual life. E. W. Budge suggested that Philoxenos was attempting to follow Aphrahat’s choice of subjects and at first this seems to be the case. Later on, a progression based on Evagrius Ponticus’ schema appears probable, beginning with the tenth mĔmrć, “On the Lust of the Belly.” The intention here is to demonstrate that this tenth mĔmrć is the critical Discourse in the collection, as Philoxenos shifts from the theology of the spiritual life and renunciation to the most significant practical aspect of monastic community life—the discipline of eating and the consequences of the undisciplined life, i.e., gluttony and fornication. This also indicates a shift in the distinction between the Upright and Perfect ones described in the Book of Steps and The Discourses from celibacy to conquering gluttony.

49

50

Robert A. Kitchen

This paper is not finally about Philoxenos, but about the nature of Perfection in early Syriac asceticism. Perfection is not merely a theological construct or vision in the Syriac tradition, but a dynamic attempt to progress towards complete sanctification, often in the company of a community. The functioning of one of those attempts through a two-level hierarchy of the Upright (kĔnĔ) and Perfect (gemĪrĔ) in two major texts—the Book of Steps (Liber Graduum) and the Discourses of Philoxenos of Mabbug—is still enigmatic to those who try to comprehend the essential character of early Syriac asceticism. It is not surprising to students of asceticism that the late-fourth century Book of Steps requires celibacy of one who wishes to ascend from Uprightness to Perfection. However, in the late-fifth/earlysixth century, the situation has changed and the monks to whom Philoxenos writes are all celibate. The intent of this paper is to suggest that for Philoxenos the taming of the passion of gluttony— the lust of the belly—has superseded celibacy as the entrance point from Uprightness into the realms of Perfection, a shift born out of practical ascetical experience. To live in a quiet age was not the luxury of Philoxenos of Mabbug. Persecution and controversy assailed him throughout his entire life, for the years following the Council of Chalcedon in 451 were generally troubled times for the Syriac Church, and Philoxenos, it seems, consistently found himself in the eye of the storm. By the late-fifth century monasticism had established itself as a powerful religious and political force.1 For Philoxenos, bishop of Mabbug in west Syria northeast of Antioch, the monks under his episcopal jurisdiction were his favorites, and correspondence with individual monks and communities comprised the majority of his literary output. The largest and most famous monastery at Senun, near Mabbug, was the recipient of his last letter which urged the monks there to stand firm by their miaphysite faith.2 It was to these monks at Senun, André de Halleux speculates, that Philoxenos

1

Cf. David Brakke, Athanasius and the Politics of Asceticism (Oxford,

1995). Philoxène de Mabbog, Lettres aux moines de Senoun, ed. André de Halleux, CSCO 231–232/Syr 98–99 (Louvain, 1963). 2

The Lust of the Belly is the Beginning of All Sin

51

directed his Discourses,3 which De Halleux believes was “probably the most read and recopied work”4 of Philoxenos—a collection of 13 mĔmrĔ or Discourses on the ascetical life.5 I have been reading and pondering these Discourses for over three decades and am preparing a new translation and introduction for Cistercian Publications. Whimsically, I have called the Discourses the companion volume to the Book of Steps, yet for this chapter in Syriac asceticism these two works travel along a similar trajectory.

ORGANIZATION OF THE DISCOURSES The starting point for all modern studies of the Discourses is E.W. Budge’s two-volume edition of the Syriac text with an English translation and introduction. The only other modern language translation, Eugène Lemoine’s French version,6 uses Budge’s Syriac text as its base. In 2007, Sources Chrétiennes reissued SC 44 bis, a significant ‘revue’ by René Lavenant.7 Lemoine believes that the Discourses were written to be read in the monastery and were edited specifically for this purpose.8 He sees no traces of miaphysitism in the Discourses.9 Irenée Hausherr had earlier promoted this view that the Christological ideas of the miaphysites have no influence on their ascetical and mystical teachings.10 Nevertheless, there are a number of “casual” remarks that reflect Philoxenos’ Christological understanding sprinkled throughout the mĔmrĔ which are neither calculated nor programmatic for the content of the Discourses. André de Halleux, Philoxène de Mabbog. Sa vie, ses écrits, sa théologie (Louvain: Imprimerie Orientaliste, 1963), 45. 4 De Halleux, Philoxène de Mabbog. Sa vie, 283. 5 Discourses of Philoxenus, Bishop of Mabbôgh, 2 vols., ed. E.A.W. Budge (London, 1894). 6 Philoxène de Mabboug, Homélies, tr. E. Lemoine, SC 44 (Paris, 1956). 7 Philoxène de Mabboug, Homélies, tr. E. Lemoine; Nouvelle édition revue par R. Lavenant, S.J., SC 44 bis (Paris, 2007). My review of this new edition is included in this number of Hugoye. 8 Lemoine, Homélies, 12–3. 9 Ibid., 15. 10 I. Hausherr, “Contemplation et Sainteté: Une remarquable mise au point par Philoxène de Mabboug” (RAM, 14 [1933]), 15. 3

52

Robert A. Kitchen

Philoxenos begins with an introductory mĔmrć, and then proceeds with six pairs of mĔmrĔ, each pair treating a single topic. The pairs are: Faith (2 & 3); Simplicity (4 & 5), Fear of God (6 & 7); Renunciation of the World (8 & 9); Gluttony (10 & 11); and Fornication (12 & 13). While maintaining that the Discourses are a unified work, Budge notes that “they (the manuscripts) were frequently divided into two volumes; the first volume contained the first nine, and the second volume the last four of the Discourses.”11 Budge speculates that Philoxenos probably intended the Discourses to be a supplement or sequel to the 22 Demonstrations of Aphrahat.12 To underline the literary connection, Budge includes a translation of Aphrahat’s first Demonstration, also entitled “On Faith,” in the edition of the Discourses. Lemoine also attempts to discern a pattern in Philoxenos’ organization of the Discourses and so developed a theory that stimulated a great deal of debate.13 He observes that in each pair of mĔmrĔ written on the same topic the ideas of the first were relatively simple, while the ideas of the second were more sophisticated. Lemoine concludes that Philoxenos combined in his Discourses two series of mĔmrĔ written at different times for different purposes. Initially, Philoxenos dealt with each topic in one mĔmrć, but after a certain interval of time he reworked his ideas into a theologically more mature second homily. During this “interval” Lemoine perceives Philoxenos’ thought becoming more mystical. Lemoine theorizes that usually the first member of each pair was written in a moralistic tone “with the memory of what is said in the Holy Books”; the second member was written in a mystical tone “with the experience of what is said in the Holy Books.”14 The further Lemoine tries to demonstrate his theory the more it begins to unravel. Upon closer analysis, Lemoine places two mĔmrĔ, the fourth on Simplicity and the sixth on the Fear of God, out of their expected sequence. Although these two mĔmrĔ are the first ones to deal with their respective topics, Lemoine assigns them to the second mystical series because they emphasize mystical Budge, Vol. II, lxxiii. Ibid., II, lxxiii–lxxiv. 13 Lemoine, Homélies, 20–4. 14 Ibid., 163. 11 12

The Lust of the Belly is the Beginning of All Sin

53

ideas and experience. Moreover, Lemoine writes, Philoxenos himself indicated the original order of the mĔmrĔ in the fifth Discourse: “We spoke in our preceding discourse [On Faith] of simplicity and innocence; it is of that useful subject that I wish to speak again now” (120:13–16). The fifth Discourse, therefore, should have been in the fourth position.15 Following this analysis, Lemoine’s division of the Discourses is as follows: moralistic discourses—2, 5, 7, 8, 10, 12; mystical discourses—3, 4, 6, 9, 11, 13. The major problem with Lemoine’s theory is that his classification of moralistic and mystical is too subjective, for depending upon one’s definition of these concepts, one could contest either way the classification of any of the Discourses. Scholars have felt compelled to develop theories about Philoxenos’ organization and plan, and most see the influence of Evagrius Ponticus factored in.16 De Halleux suggests that the traditional collection of 13 mĔmrĔ is probably an incomplete or unfinished work. In the introductory mĔmrć De Halleux sees Philoxenos proposing a three-part outline: mĔmrĔ 2–7 deal with the beginning of the spiritual life or the “degree of the body”; mĔmrĔ 8–13 show the progress of the individual in the struggle against the passions or the “degree of the soul”; while the third part was to examine the “degree of the spirit.” A series of 9th–11th century manuscripts reproduce ascetical florilegia which include extracts of mĔmrĔ 9 and 13 along with fragments on humility, penitence, and prayer.17 These fragments, De Halleux suggests, are from the last mĔmrĔ of the third part, the “degree of the spirit.”18

Lemoine, Homélies, 163, 90–1. Cf. Paul Harb, “L’attitude de Philoxène de Mabboug à l’égard de la spiritualité ‘savante’ d’Évagre le Pontique,” in Mémorial Mgr. Gabriel KhouriSarkis (1898–1968), ed. F. Graffin (Louvain, 1969), 135–6. Also, John W. Watt, “Philoxenus and the Old Syriac Version of Evagrius’ Centuries” (OC, 64 [1980]), 65–81. 17 François Graffin, S.J., “Le florilège patristique de Philoxène de Mabboug,” in Symposium Syriacum 1972, Orientalia Christiana Analecta 197 (Rome, 1974), 267–90. 18 De Halleux, Philoxène, 285–6. 15 16

54

Robert A. Kitchen

Evagrius’ most enduring contribution has been his identifications of the eight vices or “principal thoughts.”19 The first two are gluttony or the lust of the belly and the lust of fornication—the second and third pairs following the renunciation of the world in Philoxenos’ so-called second section. It seems likely that Philoxenos intended to complete the series of “principal thoughts”: love of money, sadness, anger, listlessness, vainglory, and pride. Then he would move on to treat the topics of “the degree of the spirit” of which we may have been afforded a glimpse in the ascetical florilegia.

MēMRē ON THE LUST OF THE BELLY There is a vast amount of material in Philoxenos’ Discourses, and even selecting one theme is too much for this article, but I believe the crucial mĔmrĔ are the 10th and 11th on gluttony or the lust of the belly.20 It is crucial, not for any academic schematization of the Discourses, but in order to perceive the spiritual dynamic that Philoxenos sees always at play in the infancy of the ascetical and monastic life.21 Up to this juncture, Philoxenos has been talking about essentially spiritual matters and behavior—faith, simplicity, fear of God, even renunciation of the world—recognizing that the physical struggle of renouncing and departing from the world is in the past for his listeners. Now he turns to a literally visceral aspect of living in the solitude of the monastery, the craving for food that Jeremy Driscoll, OSB, The ‘Ad Monachos’ of Evagrius Ponticus: Its Structure and a Select Commentary, Studia Anselmiana 104 (Rome, 1991), 12– 17; also, Augustine M. Casiday, Evagrius Ponticus, Early Church Fathers (New York: Routledge, 2006). 20 Budge, Discourses (Vol. 1: Syriac text)—Discourse 10 “Against Gluttony,” pp. 353–419; Discourse 11 “On Abstinence,” 420–93. 21 Philoxenos is not alone in attributing initial importance to gluttony and fornication. Not only does Evagrius provide a probable source, John Cassian locates the twin passions at the beginning of his Institutes, transl. Boniface Ramsey, Ancient Christian Writers 58 (New York: Paulist Press, 2000), Books Five and Six; and John Climacus also positions gluttony and fornication at the foot of the ladder in his The Ladder of Divine Ascent, transl. Colm Luibheid & Norman Russell, The Classics of Western Spirituality (New York: Paulist Press, 1982): “Indeed I wonder if anyone breaks free of this mistress [the stomach] before he dies,” p. 165. 19

The Lust of the Belly is the Beginning of All Sin

55

can set one’s discipline askew. It is a daunting physical discipline, and therefore a path either to spiritual triumph or to spiritual destruction. This is the mĔmrć towards which all previous Discourses have been heading and without which these same mĔmrĔ cannot be fully comprehended.

EXCERPT The question of whether Philoxenos wrote the Discourses to be read before the monks, or orally delivered them himself is not finally solvable. There are evidences of written style, as well as the vibrant cadence of the spoken word. Given that these mĔmrĔ are 66 and 73 pages, respectively, in Budge’s Syriac edition, if he preached them with a tremendous amount of energy and dynamic non-stop delivery, he might have been able to stop preaching around the 2 hour 10 minute mark for either mĔmrć. My Puritan forerunners preached for two hours regularly in colonial New England, so it is possible, at least for the preacher! From the first section of the 10th mĔmrć, here is an overture on gluttony that leaves little to conjecture regarding the place of gluttony in Philoxenos’ monastic scheme. This passion of the lust of the belly is the most despicable of all the passions. Once someone has become its servant and carried its heavy yoke upon his shoulder, it no longer gives him rest from its service, but works in him night and day, sending him like a wearied servant everywhere it wishes, not on beautiful paths, but on roads full of stumbling blocks and wherever harmful things are found. The friend of pleasures does not have eyes that see the light, because even if [he does have eyes,] they are darkened by the weight of food. Day is night to him, and night is a second death sinking his intelligence into the heaviness of sleep. His thoughts are scattered by ravings [as a result] of the body’s dampness. The natural fire in him is cold because it is extinguished by the unusual dampness. His thoughts are obscured from knowledge because his soul’s eye that seeks knowledge is shut. A heavy weight is suspended on him at all times, because joined to his body is another body of food. (MĔmrć 10; Vol. I, 353:9–355:6)

56

Robert A. Kitchen

AGAINST THE LUST OF THE BELLY AND FORNICATION Philoxenos is far from finished with his diatribe. The fifth pair of mĔmrĔ deals with the lust of the belly (rahmat/rĔgat karsć) or gluttony, and then abstinence or asceticism (‘anwĪyŠtć). Philoxenos states vividly how gluttony functions. “Therefore, the lust of the belly is the most disgraceful and abominable of all the lusts, and there is nothing similar to it among the rest of the other passions, except only in this: it is the mother and nurturer of them all. Just as a root bears the branches of the tree with everything in them, so also gluttony (ya’nŠtć) of the belly is the root of all the vices” (363:10–16). “Just as abstinence, that is, a fast from all foods, is the beginning of the way of the struggles of righteousness, so also the lust of the belly is the beginning of shameful works” (363:21– 364:2). The rhetorical tenor of the 10th mĔmrć suggests an oral delivery, for the majority of the mĔmrć is a long diatribe against a hypothetical glutton (ya’nć). His audience either was underwhelmed by the tedium or deeply engaged, participating gleefully in Philoxenos’ caricatures of the self-absorbed glutton. “Therefore, the glutton is not capable of any other thing, except only this [business] of eating. For all actions, aside from this one, are considered empty by him. He does not think that a person was made for any other thing, except only for this thing, to fulfill his desires” (367:12–16). Philoxenos sees at play a fundamental violation of the divinely created order. “This is justly worthy of punishment, not only on account of the fact that he is indulging his pleasures, and enrages God by his desire, but also because by his gluttony he damages healthy members that were well established by the Maker. Whoever corrupts the members of his body by means of his gluttony is an associate of a murderer and a companion of a destructive thief…. He damages the beautiful creation of God, and tears down the building of his body that the will of the architect had previously built” (380:12–7, 22–3). And there is a fundamental Edenic transgression committed by the glutton as well. “You have been made a god by the True God, but have you made your belly God? …. Your Lord has loved you to the point that he would become food for you, but you, for his love, [why] do you not abstain from vile foods? The Living One is dead and has been buried in order to

The Lust of the Belly is the Beginning of All Sin

57

save you, yet have you made yourself a tomb for food?” (382:17– 18, 24–383:2) Philoxenos does lighten the lesson humorously. “Perhaps the feet of Abraham when love was carrying them and running to the herd in order to bring a calf to the angels were not as light as the feet of the glutton [who] rushes to whomever brings him food” (387:15–20). “Two eggs are more dear to him than the New and Old [Testaments]” (389:8–9). Philoxenos finds numerous gluttonous occasions in the Biblical narrative to illustrate his cautionary tale. Adam fell from innocence through the lust of the belly (Genesis 3:6) (412:4–414:5). Esau lost his birthright and blessings while merely eating lentils (Genesis 25:29–34) due to his lust for food (414:18–20). Elijah, on the other hand, ate meat (1 Kings 17:6), but was considered spiritual (452:2–17). Then the people of Israel forgot God on account of their food and worshipped instead the golden calf (Exodus 32:1–6) (414:20–2). Even the drinking of cold water, if done with lust, can bring one down, as nearly happened to David at Bethlehem before he poured out the water before the Lord to suppress his lust (2 Samuel 23:15–7) (452:18–453:8). Positively, Philoxenos tells of Daniel and the three young men (Daniel 1:3–16) who refused to eat the rich diet of King Nebuchadnezzar’s court for three years and wound up being in better physical condition than those who did eat all the rich food— and the young men also received revelations of divine knowledge as a spiritual dividend for their discipline (471:1–473:12). Philoxenos understands the story of Gideon’s selection of his attack force against the Midianites (Judges 7:1–23) as a test in the struggle against the lust and passion of fornication.22 Because the Since E.W. Budge believed that there was a conscious attempt on Philoxenos’ part to continue or imitate Aphrahat’s Demonstrations, it is appropriate to note that Aphrahat’s exegesis of the Gideon story is likewise detailed, though with a different interpretation (Demonstration 7; col. 341:15–345:26). George Nedungatt sees the retelling of the Gideon story (Judges 7) to be the narrative of the admission of candidates to the bnay qyćmć or Covenanters. Celibacy is the dividing line again, but the Midianites are barely mentioned, and the harshness of fornication is not raised. Cf. G. Nedungatt, “The Covenanters of the Early Syriac-Speaking Church,” OCP 39 (1973), 191–215, 419–44, esp. 438–42. 22

58

Robert A. Kitchen

Israelites had whored with the daughters of Midian (Numbers 25:1), the army of Midian now symbolizes fornication. Philoxenos’ physiology of fornication assumes that lust is fed by too much water, so taking in only a little water with caution—as did those 300—dries up the passion. The sound of the horn is the commandment of God; the breaking of the pitchers is the breaking of the passion of fornication; and the light inside the pitcher is that of divine knowledge (597:15–601:18). Philoxenos interprets this act of lapping up water as a rejection of fornication—an embracement of celibacy—and therefore a monastic requirement. The desire for food, not food or eating itself, is the stumblingblock for the Upright. “Do not think that food is naturally blameworthy (‘adĪlć), but [only] when one eats it with desire” (446:7–9). To direct one’s struggle against food is futile and misguided. “Therefore, do not fight against food, but against desire. Therefore, if you fight against one [kind of] food, when you have been victorious in battle over one, another will fight against you; but if you are victorious over desire in one thing [you are victorious over] many things” (441:18–22). To prove his point that desire is the real impediment, Philoxenos employs the quintessential Biblical meal. “It was not the fruit that Eve had eaten [that] had engendered death, but the desire of the fruit [that] had brought forth death” (446:11–3).23 Philoxenos, addressing his recently-arrived monks, presents an orderly system of asceticism and spirituality aimed towards Perfection—which approximates the state of apatheia or passionlessness (lć h暊šŠtć). The Discourses were a sort of “remedial” course in the foundations of spirituality for the novice monks, many of whom were still insecure in their vocation and vulnerable to temptations brought with them from “the world” in their heads.

WHY GLUTTONY? The lust of the belly or gluttony may seem an odd focus for a practical theology of asceticism. The key is in the development of Scripture does not give us much detail, Philoxenos says, but oral tradition indicates that the fruit Eve ate was from the fig tree (tĔtć) (¿ÿå~š ) (446:17–23). M 23

The Lust of the Belly is the Beginning of All Sin

59

the status of Perfection seen played out between the fourth-century Book of Steps and the Discourses of Philoxenos, the only two Syriac works to describe the dichotomy of the Upright (kĔnĔ) and the Perfect (gmĪrĔ) within a faith community. The Book of Steps or Liber Graduum, is a mid-to-late-fourth century collection of 30 mĔmrĔ, written by an intentionally anonymous author inside the Persian Empire (northeast Iraq).24 The mĔmrĔ treat a wide range of ascetical and theological subjects in a variety of literary genres, but what most readers immediately pick up on is the pervasive organization of this pre-monastic community into the two levels of the Upright and Perfect.25 Briefly, the Upright ones are lay people, married, work at a job, earn money and have possessions, but have accepted the commission to perform the active acts of charity within the town or village in which they live: feed the hungry, clothe the naked, heal the sick, and also provide for the physical needs of the Perfect ones (occasionally a point of tension). The Perfect, on the other hand, are celibate, pointedly do not work or perform labor, have no possessions or home and thereby wander, teach, and mediate conflicts, and practice unceasing prayer. What is of concern in examining Philoxenos’ use of the same terminology and institutions are the boundary lines and entry points. For the Book of Steps, the critical boundary is the requirement of celibacy and renunciation of the world. Since this is not yet a monastic community isolated from the town, the Perfect have to renounce the world “out in the open,” so to speak, while still remaining in public view. The Upright, committed as they are to the Gospel principles, are reluctant to become celibate and renounce their marriages. It appears that the decision to become Perfect or Upright is made at a very early stage in one’s spiritual

Liber Graduum, ed. M. Kmosko, Patrologia Syriaca 3 (Paris, 1926) Syriac text and Latin translation, plus introduction and other Greek texts associated with the Messalian controversy. The Book of Steps: The Syriac Liber Graduum, English translation & introduction by R.A. Kitchen & Martien F.G. Parmentier, Cistercian Studies 196 (Kalamazoo, Michigan: Cistercian Publications, 2004). 25 A fuller description of these two levels is found in the Introduction to the above translation, xxxviii–xlvii. 24

60

Robert A. Kitchen

journey and practically difficult to alter at a later juncture. Not very many are willing, living in the world, to make that kind of decision. A century and a half later, Philoxenos’ utilization of the same structure and terminology occurs within a much changed ecclesiastical and social situation.26 The Upright and Perfect ones are described in very similar terms to the Book of Steps, though Philoxenos never directly cites the earlier work. No longer, however, is the setting in the unknown town where the Book of Steps was lived out, but in a monastery, Senun perhaps, where the Christian life takes on a quite different shape and economy. All the residents have departed from “the world”—albeit for a variety of spiritual and often questionable reasons—leaving behind possessions and family, and for the time being are celibate. That weighty and momentous choice one has to make has already been made. Philoxenos emends the Upright/Perfect dichotomy into a continuum applicable to his audience. A young monk, still not sure of what he has bargained for, begins in the status of Uprightness and progresses spiritually towards the status of Perfection. The level which one has attained is a matter of spiritual direction and discernment rather than overt physical actions and accomplishments. Philoxenos begins his instruction on the ascetical life with the Evagrian fundamentals of the ascetic life—faith, simplicity, and the fear of God. Interpreted in the context of monastic life, these can be received as solid catechetical instruction for a novice in the Christian faith, as probably some of his monks were. He becomes more serious when he reaches “the renunciation of the world.” The shift from the physical to the spiritual realm is apparent, for Philoxenos does not need to urge anyone to “depart from the world.” However, many have not spiritually renounced the world, still dwelling mentally in the memories of worldly settings of family and marriage, instead of their minds dwelling spiritually in the kingdom of heaven or the Garden of Eden. All of this theological musing on renunciation is still prolegomena for the monks since it concerns an action and event on which they have already embarked, however imperfectly and incompletely. In MĔmrć 10, Philoxenos drops the shoe and talks 26

Ibid., lxxxiii.

The Lust of the Belly is the Beginning of All Sin

61

bluntly of the beginning of all sin. Gluttony or the lust of the belly is a psychosomatic stumbling block, not only to physical health, but also to spiritual vitality and divine knowledge. In the physiology of asceticism the lust of the belly leads directly to the spirit of fornication, and then to worse spiritual malaise. This is not manichaeistic dualism at play, for nothing is wrong with food, Philoxenos emphasizes, it is a matter of how you eat, of not allowing desire to have control over you. In Philoxenos’ favorite Scriptural example of Daniel and the three young men groomed for greatness at the Persian court, it is the right kind of food that matters most—not rich foods, but simple fare (471:1–473:12). In the two long mĔmrĔ on gluttony, fasting (sawmć) is not the primary focus, since the most difficult of sins develop in situations where the individual does not recognize the dire consequences and sinfulness of what he is doing. Philoxenos cautions, rather warns, against the delusion that if the monk believes he has conquered the rich and fancier foods that he has defeated gluttony. No, one must be alert even more to the temptations of eating too much plain, regular food. Once one is in control regarding plain food, then the challenge of richer foods is a moot point.27 A later important figure in Greek monastic spirituality and disciple of Evagrius, John Climacus, similarly places his greatest worries around the times when his charges are not formally fasting. The days to fear for the monk are, in fact, the ‘feast days.’28 Philoxenos does not address this circumstance directly, but his concern is also for the situations in which the monk’s weaknesses indulge the lust of the belly under legitimate cover. Of course, Philoxenos’ intention is to tame, transcend, and be victorious over the lust of the belly and that has become the new boundary line for his understanding of the ascetical and monastic life, superseding the requirement of celibacy for entry into Perfection for the Book of Steps. A decision which leads to an authentic commitment typically is of sufficient stringency that one cannot make it with half-measures. Gluttony is the beginning of all MĔmrć 10, 415:11–416:8. “The gluttonous monk celebrates on Saturdays and Sundays. He counts the days to Easter, and for days in advance he gets the food ready. The slave of the belly ponders the menu with which to celebrate the feast.” John Climacus: The Ladder of Divine Ascent, 165. 27 28

62

Robert A. Kitchen

sin, and the rejection of its control over one’s body and soul necessitates at first a clearly uncomfortable transformation of one’s entire being, spirit, soul, and body. The “battle” (taktŠšć/qrćbć) has moved inwardly, where gluttony plays out its beguiling challenge. This emphasis upon gluttony and then fornication does seem to take us back to the perception that Philoxenos was attempting an Evagrian model of sins and vices in the construction of his mĔmrĔ.29 However, given that there is no clear manuscript evidence for a continuation of the Discourses, I suggest that this is all Philoxenos intended to write and deliver. The practical skills of prayer and fasting and worship can be left to other hands, for if you have extinguished the all-consuming lust of the belly, Philoxenos keeps saying, everything else is a piece of cake.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Discourses of Philoxenus, Bishop of Mabbôgh, 2 vols., ed. & tr. E.A.W. Budge (London, 1894). Philoxène de Mabboug. Homélies, tr. E. Lemoine. Sources Chrétiennes 44 (Paris, 1956). Philoxène de Mabboug. Homélies, tr. E. Lemoine; Nouvelle édition revue par R. Lavenant, S.J. Sources Chrétiennes 44bis (Paris, 2007). Philoxène de Mabbog. Lettres aux moines de Senoun, ed. André de Halleux. CSCO 231–232/Syr 98–99 (Louvain, 1963). André de Halleux, Philoxène de Mabbog: Sa vie, ses écrits, sa théologie (Louvain: Imprimerie Orientaliste, 1963). Liber Graduum, ed. Michel Kmosko. Patrologia Syriaca 3 (Paris, 1926). The Book of Steps: The Syriac Liber Graduum, English translation & introduction by Robert A. Kitchen & Martien F.G. Parmentier. Cistercian Studies 196 (Kalamazoo, Michigan: Cistercian Publications, 2004). Aphraatis Sapientis Persae Demonstrationes, ed. & tr. J. Parisot. Patrologia Syriaca 1–2 (Paris, 1894, 1907). John Cassian. The Institutes, tr. Boniface Ramsey. Ancient Christian Writers 58 (New York: Paulist Press, 2000). Cf. David A. Michelson, Practice Leads to Theory: Orthodoxy and the Spiritual Struggle in the World of Philoxenos of Mabbug (470–523), Ph.D dissertation (Princeton University, 2007). Chapter 2: Monastic Practice and Divine Knowledge: The Evagrian Background to Philoxenos’ Vision of Christian Faith and Life. 29

The Lust of the Belly is the Beginning of All Sin

63

John Climacus. The Ladder of Divine Ascent, tr. Colm Luibheid & Norman Russell. The Classics of Western Spirituality (New York: Paulist Press, 1982). David Brakke, Athanasius and the Politics of Asceticism (Oxford, 1995). Augustine M. Casiday, Evagrius Ponticus. Early Church Fathers (New York: Routledge, 2006). Jeremy Driscoll, OSB, The ‘Ad Monachos’ of Evagrius Ponticus: Its Structure and a Select Commentary. Studia Anselmiana 104 (Rome, 1991), 12–17. François Graffin, S.I., “Le florilège patristique de Philoxène de Mabboug.” In Symposium Syriacum 1972. Orientalia Christiana Analecta 197 (Rome: 1974), 267–290. Irenée Hausherr, “Contemplation et Sainteté: Une remarquable mise au point par Philoxène de Mabboug.” Revue d’Ascétique et de Mystique 14 (1933): 15. Paul Harb, “L’attitude de Philoxène de Mabboug à l’égard de la spiritualité ‘savante’ d’Évagre le Pontique.” In Mémorial Mgr. Gabriel KhouriSarkis (1898–1968), ed. F. Graffin (Louvain, 1969), 135–6. David A. Michelson, Practice Leads to Theory: Orthodoxy and the Spiritual Struggle in the World of Philoxenos of Mabbug (470–523), Ph.D dissertation (Princeton University, 2007). George Nedungatt, “The Covenanters of the Early Syriac-Speaking Church.” Orientalia Christiana Periodica 39 (1973): 191–215, 419– 444. John W. Watt, “Philoxenus and the Old Syriac Version of Evagrius’ Centuries.” Oriens Christianus 64 (1980): 65–81.

Hugoye: Journal of Syriac Studies, Vol. 13.1, 65–73 © 2010 by Beth Mardutho: The Syriac Institute and Gorgias Press

PHILOXENE DE MABBOUG HOMELIES INTRODUCTION, TRADUCTION ET NOTES PAR EUGENE LEMOINE Nouvelle édition revue par René Lavenant, S.J. Sources Chrétiennes No. 44 bis Paris: les Éditions du Cerf, 2007, pp. 576, € 78.00 ROBERT A. KITCHEN KNOX-METROPOLITAN UNITED CHURCH REGINA, SASKATCHEWAN The venerable French language series of early Christian writings, Sources Chrétiennes, has surpassed the 530 volume mark and is not stopping. Most of the volumes are Greek or Latin texts with the original language and translation on facing pages. Notably, the very first Syriac text was published in 1956, Philoxène de Mabboug. Homélies, translated and introduced by Eugène Lemoine.1 Since then there have been translations of Ephrem,2 John the Solitary of Philoxène de Mabboug: Homélies. Introduction, Trad. et Notes par Eugène Lemoine, Sources Chrétiennes 44 (Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1956). (Abbreviation: Lem) 2 Éphrem de Nisibe: Hymnes sur le Paradis, tr. F. Graffin, R. Lavenant, Sources Chrétiennes 137 (Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1968); Éphrem de 1

65

66

Robert A. Kitchen

Apamea,3 Aphrahat,4 the Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch,5 and two Armenian texts have been published.6 Regrettably, the Syriac texts themselves have not been included in these volumes. Perhaps in time there will be editions of important Coptic, Ge’ez (Ethiopic), Georgian, and Christian Arabic works, as well as many more Syriac texts. Fifty years can be a long time for a translation and Lemoine’s herculean effort to provide a French version from E. W. Budge’s critical edition and English translation7 has been a significant resource, but not without its problems. The length (625 pages in Budge’s Syriac text) and complexity of Philoxenos’ thirteen mĔmrĔ on the spiritual and monastic life present a formidable challenge to any scholar. Lemoine’s introduction and translation was the first significant scholarly attempt to analyze Philoxenos’ most popular work, but his efforts drew significant criticism. Through my own work on producing a new English translation of The Discourses for Cistercian Publications, I have become aware of the many contentious issues that can be involved in such an important, but lengthy text. Lemoine, recognizing the evident structure of an introductory mĔmrć followed by six pairs of mĔmrĔ, each on a single broad theme, Nisibe: Homélies sur la Nativité, ed. F. Cassingena-Trévedy, F. Graffin, Sources Chrétiennes 459 (Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 2001); Éphrem de Nisibe: Homélies pascales, ed. F. Cassingena-Trévedy, Sources Chrétiennes 502 (Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 2006). 3 Jean d’Apamée: Dialogues et Traités, traduction seule par R. Lavenant, Sources Chrétiennes 311 (Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1984). 4 Aphraate le Sage persan: Exposés, t. I, ed. M.-J. Pierre, Sources Chrétiennes 349 (Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1988); t. II, Sources Chrétiennes 359 (Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1988). 5 Apocalypse syriaque de Baruch, intr. et trad., t. I, par P. Bogaert, Sources Chrétiennes 144 (Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1969); Commentaire et tables, t. II, Sources Chrétiennes 145 (Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1969). 6 Grégoire de Narek: Le Livre de prières, ed. J. Kéchichian, traduction seule, Sources Chrétiennes 78 (Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1961; 2000: reprint of first edition). Also, Nersès Šnorhali, Jésus, Fils unique du Père, ed. I. Kéchichian, traduction seule, Sources Chrétiennes 203 (Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1973). 7 Discourses of Philoxenus, Bishop of Mabbôgh, 2 vols, ed. E.A.W. Budge (London, 1894).

Philoxène de Mabboug. Homélies

67

worked hard to squeeze a pattern out of Philoxenos’ long discourses. At first read, it sounded plausible: Philoxenos wrote one mĔmrć on a particular theme from a moralistic perspective, and then after an undetermined interval wrote the second corresponding mĔmrć from a different, mystical approach. This pattern unraveled quickly for two interrelated reasons: first, Lemoine was not able to define “moralistic” and “mystical” adequately to distinguish their separate approaches; and second, as a consequence, Lemoine immediately began to reverse the order of the mĔmrĔ from their supposed sequence. His exceptions proved that there was no rule. Irenée Hausherr wasted no time in challenging and dismissing this theoretical construct.8 Lemoine was correct in wondering about the thematic pairs of mĔmrĔ, but since his attempt no one has ventured such an all-encompassing explanation of Philoxenos’ homiletical strategy. The dust had barely settled on this introductory issue when Taeke Jansma published a short, but detailed review article, focusing on the nature of the translation itself.9 Jansma recognized the magnitude of the task Lemoine faced and while appreciative of the difficulty of avoiding problems in such a long text, he did not hesitate to enumerate the problems in detailed lists of passages. He referred the reader to Hausherr’s comments and even Lemoine’s own article10 to dispense with the moralistic/mystical scheme. Jansma then focused on the many omissions of text, the occasional rearrangement of the narrative, certain mis-translations, as well as Lemoine’s running arguments with Philoxenos over monastic spirituality—which Jansma did not consider an appropriate activity for a translator. Deficiencies not withstanding, Lemoine’s translation has served as a valuable resource for half a century, making a major Syriac text accessible to scholars and religious communities in a way that Budge’s original edition was never able to do. As the Sources Chrétiennes corpus has grown, the editorial staff has in recent years ventured to look back at some of its earlier texts and Irenée Hausherr, “Spiritualité Syrienne: Philoxène de Mabboug en version française” (Orientalia Christiana Periodica, 23 [1957]), 171–85. 9 T. Jansma (Vigiliae Christianae, XII, 4 [December 1958]), 233–8. 10 Eugène Lemoine, “La spiritualité de Philoxène de Mabboug” (L’Orient Syrien, 2 [1957]), 351–66. 8

68

Robert A. Kitchen

produced new revised versions. René Lavenant assumed the responsibility of producing “une nouvelle édition avec révision de la traduction, additions et corrections”—a volume with the same title, but enumerated SC 44 bis (for the sake of clarity, references below to the Lemoine and Lavenant editions will be appreviated Lem and Lav respectively).11 Lavenant’s “avant-propos” (Lav 7–8) succinctly sets out his strategy which appears to be to respectfully make numerous corrections and amendments to a lengthy text without appearing obtrusive, a delicate assignment he accomplishes exceedingly well, both in maintaining the character and felicity of Lemoine’s translation and introduction, and in providing a more accurate text. Lavenant notes that his revision is based upon three critical sources in the wake of the original edition. First, is André de Halleux’s magisterial 1963 dissertation on Philoxenos that remains the starting point for all subsequent Philoxenian research.12 Second and third are the previously mentioned articles by Hausherr and Jansma. Lavenant has had to take Jansma’s check-lists seriously and observes that he has adopted “quasiment” all of Jansma’s corrections and ameliorations (Lav 7). Lavenant, however, is careful to insist that his revision is not a rewriting of Lemoine’s work, noting that he leaves roughly 80% of the original remains as is (Lav 8). Indeed, a reader has to look closely to find the 20%. Lavenant outlines four specific areas in which he has made amendments (Lav 8). (1) Numerous terms and expressions were inadvertently not translated and are now restored for the integrity and completeness of the translation. Most of these omissions do not affect the meaning or flow of the text; (2) Lavenant straightforwardly states that he has excised the theses of Lemoine concerning the schema of the two homilies on the same subject; (3) Lemoine omitted noting 18 cases where the copyist’s faults oblige one to amend the Syriac text. The majority of these occur in Discourses 9, 10, 11, and 13; (4) In Discourse 9 Philoxène de Mabboug: Homélies. Introduction, Traduction et Notes par Eugène Lemoine. Nouvelle édition revue par René Lavenant, s.j., Sources Chrétiennes 44 bis (Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 2007). (Abbreviation: Lav). 12 André de Halleux, Philoxène de Mabbog. Sa vie, ses écrits, sa théologie (Louvain: Imprimerie Orientaliste, 1963). 11

Philoxène de Mabboug. Homélies

69

(Syriac page 338), Lemoine reorders the paragraphs to render a better flow of ideas, but Lavenant has reinstated the original order. In general, Lavenant has not tampered with the basic structure of Lemoine’s volume. Beginning with a general introduction, Lavenant follows the original layout of slightly shorter introductions for each pair of mĔmrĔ, treating Lemoine’s contribution with respect. Lavenant essentially retains the original text, though in places he subtly edits his predecessor’s narrative by excising certain elements of the earlier edition. It is worthwhile to mention some of these subtleties. Lemoine employed the full title of Philoxenos’ introductory mĔmrć to indicate the grand goals and strategy of Philoxenos’ collection. Lavenant’s hand is seen readily in a more detailed definition and explanation of the root *d-b-r in the word frequently used by Philoxenos, dŠbbćrĔ—“ways of life, customs,” which Lemoine/Lavenant usually translate, “règles/rules.” Lavenant deletes several observations by Rubens Duval cited by Lemoine (Lem 11, 13), perhaps because Duval’s 1907 Histoire de littérature syriaque13 is no longer considered a modern reference. Both translators agree that the literary genre of mĔmrć here is “la lecture spirituelle,” a unique genre utilized almost solely in religious communities, so that Philoxenos wrote these mĔmrĔ in order to read them himself before monks (Lem 13/Lav 12). Further witness to an academic generation gap are the sources used by the two translators when they offer a brief summary of the life and affairs of Philoxenos. Lemoine relies on an article written by Cardinal Tisserant,14 while Lavenant refers to De Halleux’s master work.15 One of the more important scholarly legacies derives from Lemoine’s simple statement that there is no trace of monophysitism in these Homélies, implying that the monastic milieu and content of these discourses were free of the Christological

Rubens Duval, Histoire de littérature syriaque (Paris: Gabalda, 1907), 219–21. 14 E. Tisserant, “Philoxène de Mabboug,” in Dictionnaire de Théologie catholique, t. 12 (1935), col. 1509–16. 15 De Halleux, Philoxène, 3–105. 13

70

Robert A. Kitchen

controversies for which Philoxenos was infamous.16 This has remained comfortably as the scholarly consensus. Lavenant, however, follows De Halleux in noting that there are a few phrases scattered throughout the work witnessing to the presence of a miaphysite perspective.17 The recent dissertation of David Michelson has shown that, indeed, the characteristic elements of Philoxenos’ controversial theology are imbedded in the Discourses as well.18 What Lavenant deletes from Lemoine without comment does nevertheless make a certain editorial comment. A lengthy section in which Lemoine discusses Philoxenos’ reputed disdain for bishops who do not possess the integrity and holiness of the desert fathers and monks had tried to extract a little more out of the Discourses than seems legitimate or even relevant (Lem 16). When Lavenant does reach the issue of the organization of the pairs of mĔmrĔ he does not ignore the problem, but along with De Halleux and Hausherr agrees that for the time being any attempt to systematize the structure and content of the thirteen discourses is best avoided (Lav 19). As a further instance, Lavenant summarizes De Halleux’s suggestion that a possible tripartite plan of Philoxenos along the lines of Evagrius Ponticus was not realized: mĔmrĔ 2–7 were considered “the degree of the body,” and 8–13 were counted as “the degree of the soul.” However, Philoxenos did not carry through with the necessary mĔmrĔ on “the degree of the spirit.” Lavenant refers to De Halleux’s discussion about the existence of 9th–11th century florilegia that include extracts of mĔmrĔ 9 and 13, along with other Philoxenian fragments on humility, penance and prayer—fragments conjectured by De Halleux to be from that lost section on “the degree of the spirit.”19

“Il n’y a aucune trace de monophysisme dans les homélies,” Lemoine, 15. 17 De Halleux, 283; Lavenant, 15. 18 David A. Michelson, Practice Leads to Theory: Orthodoxy and the Spiritual Struggle in the World of Philoxenos of Mabbug (470–523), Ph.D dissertation (Princeton University, 2007). 19 De Halleux, 285–6. Cf. discussion in the article included in this edition of Hugoye, R.A. Kitchen, “The Lust of the Belly Is the Beginning of All Sin.” 16

Philoxène de Mabboug. Homélies

71

Lavenant concludes his general introduction by emphasizing Philoxenos’ debt to the Syriac tradition before him, especially to Aphrahat and Ephrem, but also to John the Solitary of Apamea and Evagrius. As well, the Liber Graduum/Book of Steps had bequeathed to Philoxenos the dichotomy of the Upright and Perfect ones, along with a Messalian “current of thought” (Lav 20– 22). Lavenant next moves on to the separate introductions to the thematic pairs, generally producing a slightly shorter version than Lemoine’s. The introduction to the first two mĔmrĔ on Faith is simply a summary of the main arguments of Philoxenos in serial order. The second pair, 4 & 5 on Simplicity, is again a summary of the argument, though in comparison one can see that Lavenant has subtly reworked Lemoine’s descriptions to render them more concise. Lavenant does edit Lemoine’s section discussing the virtue of “spiritual purity” required for the simplicity of monastic life (Lem 92) which Lavenant renders as “spiritual serenity.” The key word and concept frequently employed by Philoxenos is šapyŠtć/šapyć which he observes others translate as “transparency/limpidity,” or “integrity.” Lavenant offers an eloquent image of the concept— “Ils [terms šapyŠtć/šapyć] impliquent l’idée de quelque chose, comme une surface dont la transparence n’est pas ternie par la moindre tache” (Lav 89). In the introduction to the 6th & 7th mĔmrĔ on the Fear of God, Lavenant scarcely changes a word from Lemoine’s introduction until he arrives at the final paragraph. Halfway through this concluding paragraph, Lavenant concludes his introduction, for Lemoine had returned to the matter of the moralistic/mystical mĔmrĔ (Lem 163). This is one of the pairs in which Lemoine proposed to switch the order, identifying the 7th as moralistic, so written first, and the 6th mystical mĔmrć being written at a later date, a conjectural revision now viewed as moot. In the introduction to the 8th & 9th mĔmrĔ on the Renunciation of the World, Lavenant contributes a brief observation regarding the levels of the Upright and the Perfect. Along with Gribomont and Hausherr, he sees the distinction between these levels emerging out of the Messalian current of thought, though not out of the infamous sect itself. However, he notes that Philoxenos

72

Robert A. Kitchen

avoided falling totally into “the excesses of Messalian pneumatism” (Lav 218). The important imagery used by Philoxenos of the fetus leaving the womb to enter the world as an analogy of a monk departing from the world to enter the new life of the monastery is rewritten by Lavenant, yet agreeing still with Lemoine’s description (Lem 217–218/Lav 220–221). Lavenant notes that the Syrians have had a penchant for the biological and medical sciences, though this does not mean that Philoxenos himself practiced medicine (Lav 221).20 Lavenant also considerably edits down the comments of Lemoine regarding Philoxenos’ perception of the distinction between Uprightness and Perfection (Lem 218–220), another instance in which Lemoine indulged in a debate with Philoxenos, along with a homiletical reflection on those who have practiced and still do practice the “justice of the law.” The beginning of the introduction by Lemoine to the 10th and th 11 mĔmrĔ on Gluttony and Abstinence is retained by Lavenant who concurs that Philoxenos does not speak with the same tone or voice in the two mĔmrĔ (Lem 313/Lav 321). The 10th is “un gros orage,” while the 11th is “toute serein.” Lavenant does delete a short paragraph in which Lemoine disagrees with Philoxenos’ view that a person experiences autonomy only in the desert or monastery—and not also in the church and in the world (Lem 316). Finally, the introduction to the 12th and 13th mĔmrĔ on Fornication is Lemoine’s longest (Lem 429–440), but also the one from which Lavenant has excised and edited the most material (Lav 437–445). For example, Lavenant deletes several lengthy sections: Lemoine mentions Philoxenos referring to the “preceding homily (on the lust of the belly),” and attempts to make the reference another piece of evidence regarding the existence of a conscious two-tier scheme of mĔmrĔ (Lem 429). Several paragraphs later Lemoine indulges in a minor excursus on Adam and Eve’s discovery of their nudity “when their eyes were opened,” then a long paragraph debating the place and necessity of marriage versus celibacy in which Philoxenos almost fades out of the discussion (Lem 435–6). Lavenant edits five of the last six paragraphs down to Cf. E. Lemoine, “Physionomie d’un moine syrien: Philoxène de Mabboug” (L’Orient Syrien, 3 [1958]), 91–102. 20

Philoxène de Mabboug. Homélies

73

one, omitting as well an excursus on Philoxenos’ misreading of Paul (Lem 438–440). Lavenant’s strategy is to keep the introductory material spare and accurate regarding what one can say about this particular text. It is not that Lavenant passively allows the text to “speak for itself”, rather Lavenant does not attempt to speak for or against the text and its author. There are arguably several different ways in which to present the translation of such a significant text, but Lavenant has focused his efforts on providing an accurate text, and while providing guidance in the introductions, has deferred to future scholars the theological analysis of the text. Most of this volume, therefore, is the venue in which Lavenant enables Philoxenos to be encountered by a new generation. This reviewer will not attempt the scrutiny that Jansma exerted on Lemoine’s original edition, but after working extensively with both versions, there is no doubt that Lavenant has provided us with a more reliable and complete translation. Jansma did recognize the readability of Lemoine’s translation, and as Lavenant declared at the first, 80% or so of the original version is retained. Lavenant’s touch is marked by restraint over much of the text. As he outlined in his avant-propos, one of his primary tasks has been to restore the numerous inadvertent omissions of the Syriac text by Lemoine that sometimes were a source of criticism. Lavenant’s footnotes are more detailed, noting the occasions where the printed edition needs to be amended and no variant is offered. It would have been helpful to have noted the many instances in which Lemoine or Lavenant have adopted a variant reading, but considering the length of the text that would be asking a great deal. Most importantly, there are a number of passages where Philoxenos’ complexity of thought and expression leads to confusion and misunderstanding, and Lavenant consistently addresses such passages with a comprehension of the Syriac language few have approached. With 625 pages of text to be negotiated it would be naive to say that there remain no problems or alternative translations for this revised version of Philoxenos’ longest and most revered work, yet Lavenant’s edition is certainly evidence that a standard worthy of the goals of the Sources Chrétiennes series has been renewed.

CONFERENCE REPORTS “Reconsidering Philoxenos of Mabbug”, a symposium organized by Center of Theological Inquiry and Princeton University, Princeton, N.J., Saturday, May 3, 2008 DAVID A. MICHELSON, UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA

This symposium, the fruits of which can be found in the current issue of Hugoye, sought to bring together new research on the often neglected late antique bishop Philoxenos of Mabbug (c. 440–523). In spite of Philoxenos’ diverse career and prolific writings, he remains relatively unknown to historians and theologians studying late antiquity. This symposium brought together scholars working on Philoxenos with the aim of re-evaluating his life and works and positioning them in contexts larger than the history of Syriac Christianity. The symposium was co-sponsored by Center of Theological Inquiry, Gorgias Press, and by the following academic units at Princeton University: Center for the Study of Religion, Group for the Study of Late Antiquity, and Program in Hellenic Studies. Presenters came from institutions in four countries and included: David Michelson, Princeton University, “Philoxenos of Mabbug: Prospects for Future Research” Dan King, Cardiff University, “New Evidence on the Philoxenian Versions of the New Testament and Nicene Creed in the Context of the History of Graeco-Syriac Translations” Robert Kitchen, Center of Theological Inquiry/Knox-Metropolitan United Church, “The Lust of the Belly is Beginning of All Sin: A Practical Theology of Asceticism in the Discourses of Philoxenos of Mabbug” Iuliana Viezure, University of Toronto, “Philoxenos of Mabbug and the Defense of the Theopaschite Trisagion” Karl Pinggera, Philipps-Universität Marburg, “Philoxenos and Julianism” Andrea Sterk, Center of Theological Inquiry/University of Florida and Emmanuel Papoutsakis, Princeton University served as panel chairs.

75

76

Conference Reports

Over thirty people attended part or all of the symposium. One senior scholar speculated as to whether this was perhaps the first ever academic event to focus solely on Philoxenos. In spite of such previous scholarly neglect, the conversations generated by the symposium proved that Philoxenos’ ecclesiastical career is a rich source for historical and theological research.”

Report on SBL 2009 Annual Meeting: International Syriac Language Project sessions. The International Syriac Language Project (ISLP) met for three sessions during the SBL 2009 Annual Meeting. As usual the sessions were characterized by diversity of presenters, languages and topics. The presenters ranged from unknown PhD students to world renowned scholars and lexicographers, the languages discussed included Syriac, Hebrew, Aramaic, Phoenician, Ugaritic, and Greek, while the topics ranged across historical linguistics and every kind of modern linguistics, verbal valency, semantic structure, the problems of content and structure in lexical entries, text critical issues, and translation. The only aspect of the ISLP sessions that provided no variety was that every session took place immediately after lunch. The variety, however, staved off the inclination to sleep. For any readers who missed sessions, the papers presented will be peer reviewed and published in Foundations for Syriac Lexicography V (Piscataway: Gorgias Press) in the series ‘Perspectives on Syriac Linguistics.’ In the meantime, however, a small preview of each paper will remind those who attended the session what they heard and whet the appitites of those who are awaiting the book. The first ISLP session took place after lunch on Saturday and attracted a respectable crowd. The session was presided over by Richard A. Taylor of Dallas Theological Seminary with Anne Thompson of the University of Cambridge as the first speaker. Thompson’s paper, Simpler for Lexicographer and Reader: The Making of Entries for Verbs in Greek Lexica, was a very practical paper which proposed some solutions to the problems lexicographers face when attempting to write ‘user-friendly’ entries for Greek verbs. Although she used Greek verbs as her sample, the principles were tranferable to other languages. The second speaker in the first session was a PhD student from St. Mark’s College, Charles Sturt University, Canberra. Craig’s paper, Pioneers and No Through Roads: The Story of Early Hebrew-English Lexicons, was an historical exploration of Hebrew-English lexicography from 1593 to 1800, showing the pioneering and inventive spirit of these works and presenting possible reasons for the failure of these lexicons to have any lasting influence. 77

78

Conference Reports

Another PhD student, Marjetta Liljeström from the University of Helsinki, gave the third paper of this session. Liljeström grappled with textual issues facing Syriac lexicographers in her paper entitled, The Syrohexapla of 1 Samuel as a Translation. She argued that “the Syrohexapla has to be studied in its own right before it can be used properly for lexicographical, text-critical, and other interrelated purposes.” This meant dealing with its translational features, which required the scholar to compare it with Greek versions and other Syriac translations. The last speaker for the day was Terry Falla from Whitley College, University of Melbourne, whose paper, Metaphor, Lexicography and Modern Linguistics: Should Figurative Speech Figure in Future Ancient-Language Lexica?, surveyed literature on cognitive linguistics, corpus linguistics, philosophical linguistics, psycholinguistics, media ecology, neurolinguistics, biologicalevolutionary linguistics, and cognitive neurology to find the answer to the question presented in the title of his paper. Falla concluded, “Non-cognitive-linguists present no obstacle to registering and analyzing figurative speech in a lexicon. For their part, cognitive linguists embrace a diversity of positions from the uncompromising that disallows figurative speech to approaches that actually utilize their discipline... to identify and lexicalize metaphor and other forms of figurative speech.” The Sunday session was presided over by Peter Williams of Tyndale House. The first speaker was one of Terry Falla’s PhD students from Whitley College, University of Melbourne, Steven Shaw. Shaw’s paper Verbal Valence in the Early Syriac Translations of the New Testament with Special Attention to the Peshitta Version focused on the prepositional phrases that attach to verbs and shift their meaning. Shaw pointed out that this aspect of verbs is neglected in Syriac lexica. He demonstrated the need for a methodology to aid the lexicographer in the task of properly and fully determining the meaning of verbs that co-occur with prepositions. In true ISLP style, the next paper was something completely different. Regine Hunziker-Rodewald from the University of Strasbourg presented Celebrating the Full Moon: Northwest Semitic Terminology for Concepts of Time. Hunziker-Rodewald showed that the lexical evidence of Ugaritic texts exhibit a linguistic structure of time that has a distinct orientation towards the moon, while the evidence of Hebrew texts exhibits a linguistic structure of time that

Conference Reports

79

is predominantly aligned toward the sun. Within the Old Testament texts, however, there is some evidence of lunar concepts of time which raise questions of heritage and influence and their deposits in language. The paper also looked briefly at the Aramaic and Phonecian terminology of time as well as the iconographical evidence from Israel/Palestine. The third speaker was Michael Sokoloff of Bar Ilan University, Ramat Gan, Israel, who has recently published an English translation of Brockelmann’s Syriac lexicon. In his paper, Lexical Archaeology: The Case of Brockelmann’s Lexicon Syriacum, Sokoloff shared what he had discovered of Brockelmann’s lexicographical methods as he prepared the English translation. The following list was taken from his abstract: 1. The references and citations were collected in nearly all cases by the author himself and were not gleaned from the works of his predecessors. 2. For a few books with detailed indices (e.g. Moberg’s edition of Barhebraeus’ grammar), the citations were taken directly from them. 3. The material from the first edition (1895) was included in the second edition but was not rechecked for errors. 4. The many English glosses in the first edition were deleted in the second edition and were replaced by a small number of German ones. 5. While the publication date is given as 1928, the dictionary was actually prepared years earlier and published in fascicles. As a result, there are nearly no references to works published after 1912. 6. New references from the many re-editions of Syriac texts published after the first edition of the dictionary are cited from the older ones without any updating of the references. This fascinating glimpse into the history of a lexicon was followed by an equally fascinating glimpse into the developing methods of a contemporary Hebrew lexicographer, Reinier de Blois from the United Bible Societies. De Blois’s paper, The Semantic Structure of Biblical Hebrew, provided his audience with insight into what his work on the semantic structure of Biblical Hebrew can contribute to the ever present problems presented by a limited corpus and the hapax legomena that such a corpus

80

Conference Reports

generates. De Blois demonstrated “ how a thorough semantic analysis of Biblical Hebrew from a cognitive linguistic perspective can help to reconstruct a kind of ‘semantic grid’ for this language, and how this grid provides the lexicographer with more certainty in his/her efforts to determine the meaning of ‘difficult’ words.” The final session took place on Monday and was presided over by Michael Sokoloff. Unlike the other sessions only two papers were presented in this session, with the remaining time being used for the ISLP business meeting. The first speaker for this session was Janet W. Dyk of Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam. Her paper, The Peshitta rendering of Psalm 25: Spelling, Synonyms, and Syntax, looked at what happens to a text, in which form plays a significant part in the communication of its message, when it undergoes translation. She asked, “Does the message of the source language remain intact when, of necessity, the form is transformed into that of the target language? What types of compromises are made and what are their effects?” Using Psalm 25 as her sample, she categorized all the observed differences and evaluated how faithfully the Peshitta text conveyed the Masoretic text of the psalm. The last speaker for the conference was George Kiraz of Beth Mardutho: The Syriac Institute. His paper, The Historical Development of the Vocalization System in Syriac, outlined the historical development of the Syriac vocalization system, which developed over a long period of time and went through a number of stages with each new stage incorporating its pedecessors. He showed that a multi-teared system developed which is still in current use and he shed some light on its modern reception following Segal’s treatment of the subject.

The Letter of Mara Bar Serapion in Context Utrecht University, 10–12 December 2009 ILARIA L.E. RAMELLI, CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF MILAN, ITALY

A symposium devoted to the enigmatic and much-debated Syriac letter of Mara Bar Serapion to his son was held at Utrecht University on December 10–12 2009. Specialists from various disciplines (Syriac studies, classics, Roman history, New Testament studies, ancient philosophy, Jewish studies, archaeology, and history of ancient religions) from all over the world gathered following the invitation of the two organizers, Prof. Dr. Annette Merz and Dr. Teun Tieleman. The opening session, in the evening of December 10, was devoted to a general presentation of the forthcoming book of Merz, Tieleman, and Prof. David Rensberger (Atlanta, GA), The Letter of Mara Bar Serapion, forthcoming in Tübingen, in Mohr Siebeck’s SAPERE series. It will include a new edition of the letter itself with a translation and commentary by Rensberger and interpretive essays by Merz and Tieleman.1 The group of essays that were presented in the morning of December 11 were thematically related and all of historical nature. Social structure and cultural identity in Commagene, the land of Mara bar Serapion, was the focus of the paper by Dr. Margherita Facella (Pisa). Such an investigation is all the more important in that it is clear that Mara—like Bardaisan, the very next outstanding author in Syriac literature—belonged to the upper class of Commagene. Prof. Dr. Michael A. Speidel (Basel) analyzed the historical circumstances that are reflected in the letter of Mara, in particular the capture of Samosata on the part of the Romans. Such an analysis is crucial also because it is one of the main factors on which the dating of the letter depends. The most probable historical setting is that of the fall of Samosata in A.D. 73, which would place the latter shortly afterwards, unless it is not pseudoThey have already devoted an article to this letter a couple of years ago: Annette Merz—Teun Tieleman, “The Letter of Mara Bar Serapion: Some Comments on Its Philosophical and Historical Context,” in A. Houtman, A. de Jong, M. Misset van de Weg, eds., Empsychoi Logoi. Religious Innovations in Antiquity. Studies in Honour of Pieter Willem van der Horst (Leiden: Brill, 2008), 107–34. 1

81

82

Conference Reports

epigraphical or a rhetorical exercise. Dr. Miguel John Versluys (Leiden) focused on the Romanization of Commagene after the fall of Samosata. This element is indeed reflected in Mara’s letter, and Mara’s own attitude vis-à-vis this new situation is resumed in his statement, “Let us obey the kingdom that Fate has given us.” The three papers delivered in the afternoon of December 11 dealt more with philosophical issues. Prof. David L. Blank (UCLA) examined the relationship of the letter of Mara to Greek philosophy, concluding that of course this is not a first-rate philosophical treatise and that it is rather closer to Stoic popular philosophy. Some elements in it, such as the attention to a good reputation, would even seem to contradict the Stoic thought. This is what Rensberger also observes in note 58 to his translation. However, rather than contradicting himself in praising “lovers of a good reputation” in § 14, whereas in § 24 he criticizes these same persons, Mara may be explaining—I hypothesize—what it means to be truly and positively lovers of a good reputation: it is to be wise, of course in the Stoic sense, to “choose for oneself something that does not wear out,” not to cast blame on God, fate, or anyone, and to lead one’s life fearlessly and joyfully. The negative sense of seeking glory and reputation from fellow-humans is used in the other places, whereas here the true and positive sense is given. Anna Ntinti, MPhil (Utrecht), starting from the motif of the death of three philosophers (Socrates, Pythagoras, and the “wise king of the Jews”) in Mara’s letter, proposed a reading of the traditions of the death of Plato. She highlighted the variety of accounts in the biographical and doxographical traditions and showed their interrelationships. Em. Prof. Dr. Pancratius C. Beentjes (Tilburg) offered a detailed and stimulating paper in which he highlighted all the affinities between the letter of Mara bar Serapion and Semitic Wisdom literature. His argument, which was convincing, seems to me not at all at odds with the presence of philosophical themes in the letter of Mara. The integration of wisdom traditions of various peoples was in fact a typical feature in Neostoicism (see, for instance, Chaeremon, who allegorized Egyptian religious traditions, and references in Cornutus, both of them probably very close to Mara also from the chronological point of view). In the morning of December 12 three other essays were presented. Dr. Michael Blömer (Münster) offered a rich

Conference Reports

83

archaeological report concerning the evidence of religious life in Commagene in the first century A.D., paying special attention to the cultic reform of Antiochus I. But references ranged from the Iron Age to the Luvian period to Late Antiquity and the XIII centuries. The quality, interest, and relevance of the displayed images was also high. Prof. Dr. Albert de Jonge (Leiden), starting from the way in which Mara speaks of God and the gods in his letter, reflected on the religious language of belonging, with particular focus on Iranian religion. As he rightly observed, Iranian elements seem to be absent from the letter of Mara. Ilaria Ramelli (Milan), who during the last dozen years has devoted essays and a chapter to the letter,2 also providing the first Italian translation of it, was invited to offer comments on Rensberger’s Syriac edition, translation, and commentary. Given that the book has not yet appeared, she was glad that these will serve as suggestions. Prof. Ramelli, who agrees with Rensberger, Tieleman, and Merz on the early dating of the letter and its Stoic traits, expressed an overall very positive evaluation of Rensberger’s work. She pointed out many convergences between his and her own version and interpretation of the letter, and the importance of many linguistic and philological elements (e.g., the frequent use of the absolute state and of words and forms unattested elsewhere, or scribal mistakes that can have occurred only in a square Aramaic/Palmyrene script) that indicate that the letter represents the first extant Syriac literary document. She suggested to use and include references to Michael Sokoloff’s new edition of Brockelmann’s lexicon (Gorgias/Eisenbrauns, 2009) in the notes, besides Brockelmann’s original edition and Payne Smith (maior and minor), and to employ the Vetus Syra in addition to the Peshitta for parallels with the New Testament, given that the Old Syriac version “Stoicismo e Cristianesimo in area siriaca nella seconda metà del I secolo d.C.,” Sileno 25 (1999) 197–212; “La lettera di Mara Bar Serapion” (Stylos, 13 [2004]), 77–104; “Gesù tra i sapienti greci perseguitati ingiustamente in un antico documento filosofico pagano di lingua siriaca” (Rivista di Filosofia Neoscolastica, 97 [2005]), 545–70; Stoici romani minori, critical essays, editions and translations, commentaries, apparatuses, and bibliographies (Milan: Bompiani, 2008), Appendix: Mara bar Serapion (2555–2598), reviewed by Gretchen Reydams-Schils, BMCR 2009 http://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2009/2009–10–10.html. 2

84

Conference Reports

is much closer to Mara’s time than the Peshitta. Ramelli offered many suggestions for the improvement of the edition, translation, and commentary in numerous respects, from the philological to the rhetorical and the philosophical point of view (including parallels to Roman Stoicism). I only cite very few instances, such as the addition of titles and breaks in the translation and of references to close parallels in the Liber Legum Regionum in the commentary, the use of a “verse” structure to render parallel kola not only in the places in which Rensberger has employed it, but also in others in which the same structure is detectable, several alternative renderings of controversial points in the letter, some textual emendations, and translations and interpretations that reveal precise Stoic philosophical doctrines.3 The essay by em. Prof. Dr Pieter W. van der Horst (Zeist) was unfortunately read in absentia; thus, it was impossible to discuss it with him, which would have been very fruitful, also given the interest of the essay and its divergent conclusions vis-à-vis the dating proposed by Tieleman, Merz, and Rensberger. Van der I cite only one example of the last kind. At the end of § 28, Rensberger translates: “instead of rage, obey graciously.” Now, I find that he is right to criticise the interpretation “instead of obey rage, obey virtue,” since if “virtue” is the direct object of “obey” it should be introduced by a F rather than a &, like here. This is why he translates adverbially: “obey in kindness” > “obey graciously.” This is correct, but I think that Mara is exhorting his son to “obey in virtue rather than obeying in rage/anger,” that is, “obey with virtue rather than obeying with anger,” i.e.: “instead of obeying angrily, obey virtuously.” The first two words of the sentence, literally meaning “instead of anger,” must be resolved as follows: “instead of (obeying with) anger.” I prefer this translation, which is perfectly plausible from the grammatical point of view, because it expresses an important tenet of Stoicism: the wise must accept, and thus obey, fate, with a voluntary adhesion, in virtue, not against his will (fac nollem, comitabor gemens), in vice: Duc o parens celsique dominator poli / quocumque placuit; nulla parendi mora est. / Adsum impiger: fac nolle, comitabor gemens, / malusque patiar quod pati licuit bono. / Ducunt volentem fata, nolentem trahunt (Cleanthes translated by Seneca, Ep. 107.10). The one who obeys voluntarily is virtuous, bonus; the one who obeys against his will, in anger and sadness, gemens, is in vice: malus. This is exactly the fully Stoic conception that underlies Mara’s exhortation: “instead of obeying angrily, obey virtuously.” 3

Conference Reports

85

Horst proposes an inspiring comparison between Mara’s letter and Boethius’ Consolatio, both read as consolation works written in prison, and advocates a dating of Mara’s letter to the third-fourth century. He is also inclined to see Mara as a Christian—mainly for his interpretation of the destruction of Jerusalem as a punishment for the killing of Jesus—and to play down his philosophical standing, which is evaluated more positively by Merz and Tieleman. In addition to that of van der Horst, other interesting contributions in the afternoon of December 12 were offered by Prof. Dr. Petr Pokorny (Prague), who specifically examined the “intention” of the letter of Mara bar Serapion, and by drs. Martin Ruf (Utrecht), who offered an original reading of the letter of Mara and the conception of the “world” that emerges from it in a comparison with the notion of “world” that is found in Peter (error, pollution, and corruption). If the early dating of the letter of Mara is right, this approach seems to be all the more sound in that the letter would prove broadly contemporary with the New Testament. The organization itself was very good, just as the overall quality of the contributions. It is to be hoped that both the volume by Tieleman, Merz, and Rensberger and the proceedings of the conference will appear soon. These two works will undoubtedly be a point of reference or all the scholars who will approach and examine the letter of Mara Bar Serapion.

BOOK REVIEWS J.W. Childers and D.C. Parker, Transmission and Reception: New Testament Text-critical and Exegetical Studies. Texts and studies. Third series 4 (Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias 2006) Pp. xxiii + 327. Hardback. CRAIG E. MORRISON, PONTIFICAL BIBLICAL INSTITUTE, ROME

The Greek witnesses to the New Testament and the ancient versions preserve both variant readings and early interpretations of the biblical text. Because the ancient versions are first and foremost translations, they are conservative in their interpretations, which are often the result of an ambiguous Greek text. In their preface, Childers and Parker set the purpose of their volume in more dramatic terms: “Ancient manuscripts are not mere repositories of textual data; they reverberate with the echoes of faithful meditation, intellectual discourse, and mighty battles between opposing parties. Manuscript investigations create resonances with contemporary concerns in surprising and often provocative ways” (p. xiii). The majority of the articles in this volume, which honors Carroll D. Osburn on the occasion of his sixty-fifth birthday, illustrate this proposition. The articles are divided into two categories: transmission and reception. Under transmission there are nine articles: Larry W. Hurtado, “The New Testament in the Second Century: Text, Collections and Canon” (3–27); Klaus Wachtel, Early Variants in the Byzantine Text of the Gospels (28–47); D.C. Parker, “Manuscripts of John’s Gospel with Hermeneiai” (48–68); Curt Niccum, “The Ethiopic Version and the ‘Western’ Text of Acts in Le Texte Occidental des Actes des Apôtres (69–88); Michael W. Holmes, “The Text of the Epistles Sixty Years After: An Assessment of Günther Zuntz’s Contribution to Text-Critical Methodology and History” (89–113); Barbara Aland, “Sind Schreiber früher neutestamentlicher Handschriften Interpreten des Textes?” (114– 122); Eldon Jay Epp, “Minor Textual Variants in Romans 16:7” (123–141); Gordon D. Fee, “The Spirit and Resurrection in Paul: Text and Meaning in Romans 8:11” (142–153); J.W. Childers, “The Life of Porphyry: Clarifying the Relationship of the Greek and 87

88

Book Reviews

Georgian Versions through the Study of New Testament Citations (154–178). Under the heading “reception” there are seven articles: Mark W. Hamilton, “11QTemple 57–59, Ps.-Aristeas 187–300, and Second Temple Period Political Theory” (181–195); Kenneth V. Neller, “Water into Wine (John 2:1–11): Foreshadow of the Atonement” (196–211); Richard E. Oster, Jr., “The Ephesian Artemis ‘Whom All Asia and the World Worship’ (Acts 19:27): Representative Epigraphical Testimony to ̡ΕΘΉΐ΍Ζ ̳ΚΉΗϟ΅ outside Ephesos” (212–231); Kenneth K. Cukrowski, “An Exegetical Note on the Ellipsis in 1 Timothy 2:9” (232–238); James W. Thompson, “The Epistle to the Hebrews in the Works of Clement of Alexandria” (239–254); Everett Ferguson, “The Greek Grammar of Sexuality” (255–269); Frederick D. Aquino, “Clement of Alexandria: An Epistemology of Christian Paideia” (270–284). In a final article Tera Harmon reviews the life and scholarly contributions of Carroll D. Osburn. Syriac scholars will be interested in four of these articles. L.W. Hurtado reviews the literature on the transmission of the NT in the second century, an obscure period. He stresses the need for greater attention to the techniques that second century Greek authors employed when citing the New Testament. His counsel applies to the citations of early Syriac authors as well. Hurtado makes a brief reference to the Diatessaron but does not consider how the gospel was transmitted in Aramaic speaking communities in the second century. E.J. Epp, in his study on the name Junias (masculine) or Junia (feminine) in Rom 16:7, notes that the Syriac versions affirm that the person named in that verse, Junia, is “indeed a woman apostle” (p. 130). C. Niccum’s article examines the Ethiopic version of the Acts of the Apostles to challenge the notion that this version is an important witness to the “Western” text. He revisits the research of M-.É Boismard and A. Lamouille and shows that their evidence does not support the conclusion that the Ethiopic version is a “Western” text. In the process, he disputes the argument that the original translation of the Acts of the Apostles into Ethiopic from a Greek source (the “A-text”) was revised in the sixth century to bring it closer to the Syriac Peshitta. There was no Syriac revision. The readings, erroneously thought to be from the Peshitta, are, in fact, evidence of a medieval revision on the basis of an Arabic text.

Book Reviews

89

J.W. Childers studies the Greek and Georgian versions of the Life of Porphyry. He confirms the argument that the Georgian version was translated from a Syriac exemplar, which witnesses to the impact that Syriac literature had on Georgian Christian literature from the 4th to the 7th centuries. Aramaic literature continued even in Hellenized areas as is suggested by the Semitic names in the Life of Porphyry. Was the Life first composed in Syriac or in Greek? Childers concludes that “the Syriac source of the Georgian Life of Porphyry was translated from the Greek version of the Life” (p. 178). Thus, the Georgian version is not an earlier form of the Life of Porphyry. These articles, along with those that deal exclusively with the Greek text, illustrate the sober and sometimes tedious approach that textual criticism brings to biblical interpretation. Sometimes the Syriac witnesses could have received greater attention. In K.L. Cukrowski’s discussion of 1 Tim 2:9, where commentators want to add ̅ΓϾΏΓΐ΅΍ ΔΕΓΗΉϾΛΉΗΌ΅΍, it should be noted that the meaning of the Greek text without this addition was apparent to the Peshitta translator. (The Peshitta reads Ύ΅Ϡ [Ύ΅Ϡ ·ΙΑ΅ϧΎ΅Ζ; $g§N Yƒ] which is omitted in important Greek witnesses.) When the meaning of the Greek is obscure, the ancient versions often witness to that obscurity by offering a lucid translation. This was not the case in 1 Tim 2:9. This volume reminds New Testament exegetes that a careful reading of the Greek witnesses along with an assessment of the ancient versions is an essential component of biblical interpretation.

Christine Shephardson, Anti-Judaism and Christian Orthodoxy. Ephrem’s Hymns in Fourth-Century Syria. North American Patristic Society Patristic Monograph Series 20. Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of American Press, 2008. J. W. CHILDERS, ABILENE CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY

This revised dissertation represents a substantial contribution to the continuing exploration of the rhetorical practices by which influential voices negotiated orthodox Christian identity in Late Antiquity. Focusing on the infamous anti-Judaism of Ephrem’s hymns, the author identifies the prolific 4th-century deacon as a significant yet often overlooked participant in the “imperial theological struggles” (3) over the implications of Nicene orthodoxy. In his original ecclesial context, Ephrem’s apparent anti-Judaism is due more to his desire to champion Nicea and construct an orthodox Syriac community than to his active opposition to Judaism or Jews. Chapter One presents the book’s basic argument and outlines its contents. Ephrem often expresses an easy confidence in the triumph of Nicene orthodoxy. Yet his hymns continually caution vigilance against the pull of the “Judaizers” and the “Arians,” betraying his anxieties about the firmness of his congregants’ allegiances and the outcomes of the political-theological turmoil of his setting. Building on a legacy of Christian anti-Jewish polemic, Ephrem uses the figure of “the Jew” as the quintessential other to Christianity in order to fashion a subordinationist anti-type of the faithful Christian. The liturgical rhetoric by which he constructs this image is designed to leave his congregation with no choice but to side with Nicea, against the “Judaizing” Arians. In Chapter Two the author sets Ephrem’s anti-Jewish language in the context of 4th-century disputes about Christian identity in the Roman empire, proposing that Ephrem’s use of passionate anti-Jewish rhetoric functions primarily to construct a distinctive Christianity bounded by Nicene orthodoxy. Though the author acknowledges that at least some of Ephrem’s references may have actual Christian-Jewish interactions in view, she asserts that Jewish proselytizing is not the main backdrop. Instead, Ephrem deploys anti-Jewish rhetoric in response to the complex and subtle overlapping of the two communities. Apparently, a “visible minority” (46) in Ephrem’s context treats the boundaries as 90

Book Reviews

91

somewhat porous, periodically attending both synagogue and Christian worship and engaging in practices of both. Ephrem attempts to distinguish the groups more cleanly by repeatedly applying pairs of mutually exclusive categories and by reciting markedly different histories for the two. Having established clear demarcation, Ephrem employs a range of insults against the Jews and issues dire warnings about them in order to create a sense of dread about crossing the boundaries. By thus constructing the communities as unambiguous “binary opposites” (53), Ephrem leaves his congregants with little choice but to eschew Jewish ritual practices and seek security solely within his Nicene community. Yet solidifying the boundaries between Christianity and Judaism is not his ultimate aim. Ephrem is principally concerned to segregate Nicene Christianity from Arianism. In order to correlate Arians with Jews, Ephrem must go well beyond his congregation’s direct experiences with Judaism and appeal to scriptural history. Chapter Three explores the complex telling of the history of God’s people by which Ephrem invalidates both Judaism and Arianism. After describing Ephrem’s christocentric-typological reading strategies, the author explains the interpretive devices by which Ephrem splits Israel into two distinct groups. Depending especially on the Golden Calf narrative of Exodus 32, Ephrem identifies a clear difference between the voluntarily adulterous and chronically unfaithful mainstream of the Jewish people and the good and pure character of Moses. The former are rejected by God whereas the latter provides the channel through which God continues his work—a distinct minority stream of faithful heroes. This line culminates in the Jewish Messiah Jesus, whose crucifixion at the hands of unbelieving Jews clarifies once again the difference between those who reject God’s covenant and are therefore rejected by him (the Jews) and those who recognize his Messiah and enjoy a covenant relationship with him (the church). Christians are Jesus’ spiritual descendents and heirs to the promises of Israel. As the prophets foretold, they carry forward the line of God’s faithful. Outside the borders of that well-defined community are all those subject to the failures of Exodus 32: “a wide variety of opponents, including idolatrous pagans, divinely rejected Jews, and also his Christian opponents who… just like the Jews at Mt. Sinai go astray by searching after God inappropriately” (90). Ephrem’s

92

Book Reviews

reading of scriptural history provides him the “ideological framework” (105) he uses to help his congregants perceive what he does, that sharp distinctions exist, not only between Christianity and Judaism, but especially between Nicene Christianity and the “Judaizing” Arians. Chapter Four conducts a comparison between Ephrem’s strategies of community formation and those of some Greek contemporaries, especially Athanasius. Like Athanasius, Ephrem was an ardent supporter of Nicea yet lived during a period in which shifting political and ecclesial fortunes repeatedly called the outcomes of Nicea into question. Ephrem’s strategies and devices are similar to those of Athanasius. The content of Ephrem’s arguments in the Hymns on Faith and Sermons on Faith indicate that he was reacting to the subordinationist doctrines of people in Nisibis influenced by Aetians, whose teachings must have been infiltrating his church. The puzzling recurrence of anti-Jewish rhetoric alongside these anti-Homoian polemics functions to conflate Jews and subordinationist Christians so that Ephrem may erase the ambiguities between two Christian groups, identifying the quarrelsome “Arians” with Jews and underscoring Nicene orthodoxy as true Christianity. Chapter Five summarizes the implications of the author’s study, recommending several modifications to the traditional picture of early Syriac Christianity. First, connections between Jews and Syrian Christians in the 4th century must be seen as more complex than previously assumed. Not only were traditions and interpretive methods passing between the two groups, but individual believers were as well—yet this does not mean Jews were actively proselytizing Christians or that Syriac Christianity was “Jewish-Christian.” Also, the anti-Jewish rhetoric of such writers as Ephrem must be interpreted with greater sophistication. Although Ephrem’s harsh language reacts partly to actual relations with Judaism, it functions mainly to define subordinationist Christianity and distinguish it from Nicene Christianity, for the sake of shaping his congregants’ response to Arianism. Finally, neither 4th-century Syriac Christianity nor Ephrem should be treated in isolation from the issues facing Christianity in the wider Roman empire. They must to be studied as full and constructive participants within the broader setting of late antique culture and Christianity.

Book Reviews

93

The book concludes with a classified bibliography, an index of Ephrem citations, and a general index. Ample footnotes conduct discussions about various matters, some more ancillary than others. The style is clear and readable, though the book’s origins as a dissertation are evident—thesis statements and summaries occur redundantly throughout. Yet these do not distract from a wellargued and coherent book that advances crucial discussion on several fronts. In the reviewer’s judgment, the basic conclusions of the book are sound and the author’s discussion highly stimulating. Her careful reframing of Ephrem’s anti-Jewish rhetoric enables a more nuanced reading of him and contextualizes him more richly. The book should engage anyone interested in Ephrem and early Syriac Christianity, Jewish-Christian relations in Late Antiquity, the history of the Nicene controversy, or the function of rhetoric in social construction and theological debate. A few matters invite further consideration. In the author’s reading of Ephrem’s retelling of Israel’s history, Jews are basically cut off as a result of crucifying Christ, an event that culminates their long tradition of rebellion against God. Jesus’ own Jewishness accentuates their wickedness. The minority stream of faith in Israel passes through Christ and into Gentile Christianity, a construct that serves Ephrem well in 4th-century Nisibis and Edessa. However, we are left wondering how Ephrem accounted for the Jewishness of so many early Christians in the biblical narrative, whether that posed any problem for his historical reconstruction, and if so, how he resolved it. Although the author strongly and repeatedly suggests that the need for pro-Nicene community formation and not actual Jewish contact is the primary stimulus for Ephrem’s anti-Jewish polemics, it is evident that she is at something of a loss to ground the argument as solidly as she would like to be able to do. She correctly ascertains that her methods are not yet capable of clarifying just what relations Ephrem and his congregants may have had with actual Jews or with actual “Arians.” The author’s hesitance to speak with too much certitude is merited, e.g. when she draws the highly qualified conclusion that “the immediate context for some of [Ephrem’s] anti-Jewish language was primarily the intra-Christian Trinitarian debate…” (117; emphasis hers). The question of Jewish/Christian relations in Syriac Christianity and in Ephrem’s

94

Book Reviews

context continues to beg attention. Armed with the enhanced perspectives on Ephrem’s anti-Judaism that this book provides, a fuller investigation with the aim of describing more precisely these relationships would be welcome. Furthermore, as the author points out, anti-Jewish rhetoric deployed to aid in the formation of Christian community as distinct from Judaism had been a recurring phenomenon since the 1st century, long before Nicea was a factor. Although the book locates some clear contacts between Ephrem’s pro-Nicene and anti-Judaic language, at times it points to their mere co-existence in his rhetoric as evidence that the two strands of polemic should be more closely correlated. One of the book’s contributions is to open the way for even further clarification regarding just what it is about Ephrem’s anti-Jewish rhetoric that makes it distinctively Nicene.

W.Th. van Peursen, Language and Interpretation in the Syriac Text of Ben Sira: A Comparative Linguistic and Literary Study, Monographs of the Peshitta Institute, Leiden. Studies in the Syriac Versions of the Bible and their Cultural Contexts, volume 16 (Leiden: Brill, 2007) Pp. xvi + 473. Hardback. PAUL S. STEVENSON, CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF AMERICA

This volume continues the series of insightful books and articles that Wido van Peursen has written on the book of Ben Sira. It also continues the series of studies on biblical texts that is being carried out by the scholars associated with the “Computer-Assisted Linguistic Analysis of the Peshitta” (CALAP) project.1 This book is composed of 28 chapters grouped in six sections. Each chapter is tightly focused and most of them are short, which makes it easy for the reader to absorb the information. Section One, “Sirach in Syriac,” is a monograph in its own right which covers much of the ground typical of the studies of translation technique that have come out in recent decades such as those of Szpek,2 Morrison,3 Greenberg,4 and Carbajosa.5 Van Peursen discusses the manuscripts of the Syriac version, the portions of the Hebrew version that have been found, and the Greek and Latin versions; relationships among these texts and text types are quite complex. Van Peursen then examines specific characteristics and tendencies that distinguish the Syriac text and he looks for clues to the religious profile of the translator himself. It seems likely that the writer had a Jewish background and a The project is introduced and a sample of the research on 1 Kings is presented in Corpus Linguistics and Textual History: A Computer-Assisted Interdisciplinary Approach to the Peshitta, ed. P.S.F. Keulen and W.Th. van Peursen (Assen: Van Gorcum, 2006). 2 Heidi M. Szpek, Translation Technique in the Peshitta to Job: A Model for Evaluating a Text with Documentation from the Peshitta to Job (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992). 3 Craig E. Morrison, The Character of the Syriac Version of the First Book of Samuel (Leiden: Brill, 2001). 4 Gillian Greenberg, Translation Technique in the Peshitta to Jeremiah (Leiden: Brill, 2002). 5 Ignacio Carbajosa, The Character of the Syriac Version of Psalms: A Study of Psalms 90–150 in the Peshitta, tr. Paul Stevenson (Leiden: Brill, 2008). 1

95

96

Book Reviews

knowledge, though imperfect, of Hebrew. His attitudes toward the Law, sacrifices and other Jewish practices show that he was in all likelihood a convert to Christianity, but the available data are so scanty that it is impossible to say which variety (pace earlier scholars who have tried to pinpoint it). Section Two, “Methodology of the Computer-Assisted Linguistic Analysis,” has a careful, very readable explanation of the function of each the various programs used by CALAP. As a linguist with a decided preference for using the cerebellum rather than the computer as an analytical tool, I found this section blessedly light on computer jargon and thus quite easy to follow. Van Peursen’ approach made it clear to me that the function of the CALAP programs is not to do analysis in lieu of a human linguist, but rather to add rigor to the human linguist’s work by ensuring that he or she looks at every word, phrase and clause, and then determines its internal analysis as well as its relationship to other units at or above its level. The CALAP model uses a strictly form-to-function approach to the data. This approach is well nigh indispensable in a computerbased model. It is also a sound model for non-computational approaches; just recall the great muddle linguists got themselves into in the 1960’s and 1970’s arguing about what the nature of “subjecthood” was. A lot of confusion resulted from the failure to maintain a clear distinction between the formal role (the argument that agreed with the verb) and the functional role (agent, experiencer, etc.). The next three sections form a natural group that concentrates on the linguistic analysis of the text of Ben Sira. It is composed of Section Three, “Phrase Structure,” Section Four, “Clause Structure,” and Section Five, “Text Hierarchy.” I will discuss highlights of these sections in more detail below. Section Six, “Conclusions,” summarizes the most important points of the preceding five sections. The book ends with an extensive bibliography, an index of passages, and an index of authors. Section Three comprises chapters 9–15. In Chapter 9, “Preliminary Remarks on Phrase Structure,” van Peursen introduces the concept of “phrase atoms,” that is, an irreducible core of the phrase. It seems this idea was formalized in the course of the development of CALAP. A phrase atom may consist of a

Book Reviews

97

single noun but also of a sequence consisting of [construct noun + noun] or [preposition + noun]. These phrase atoms may be extended into more elaborate phrases by the addition of adjectives, d-phrases, or other elements. The distinction between a phrase atom and a phrase with extensions is seen, among other ways, in the kinds of differences found in inner-Syriac manuscript variation. Extensions may be added or dropped, but phrase atoms are not broken. A significant observation about translation technique emerges from the comparison of phrase atoms and full phrases in the Syriac and Hebrew versions of Ben Sira. Often phrase atoms correspond in the two versions, but not infrequently one version has a single noun where the other has a phrase atom and vice versa. Sometimes a single noun in one language corresponds to a noun phrase in the other. The frequency with which such correspondences occur strongly suggests, not that the Hebrew Vorlage of the Syriac translator was greatly different from that in the manuscripts that have been recovered, but that the Syriac version was translated phrase by phrase rather than word by word. Chapters 10–12 discuss phrase atoms with one or more extensions added. In Chapter 13 van Peursen presents another important feature that demonstrates the inviolability of phrase atoms with complex internal structure. It is that a phrase may be broken up by an enclitic pronoun (such as †…) or a connective particle (ûÙÄ, ç؃), but such a particle comes after the first phrase atom, not simply the first word. This simplifies traditional descriptions which have to posit various exceptions to a basic “first word” rule. Section Four comprises chapters 16–24. In Chapter 16, which introduces the discussion of clauses, van Peursen agrees with A. Hoftijzer’s proposal to consider the person-marking affixes of a finite verb the subject of the predication, while any nominal constituent that agrees with the affix is considered an extraposed element (p. 280). This analysis has interesting implications for the issue of topic and comment further on. In verbless clauses, van Peursen borrows a hierarchy of definiteness proposed by J. Dyk and E. Talstra for Hebrew (pp. 281–282). The entity with the higher level of definiteness is taken to be the subject of the nominal clause (NC). This is a useful means of resolving some cases which might otherwise be ambiguous.

98

Book Reviews

Chapters 17, 18, and 19 deal with bipartite, tripartite and quadripartite nominal clauses, respectively. In these chapters van Peursen contrasts the analyses of T. Muraoka and G. Goldenberg. Muraoka classifies NCs in a way that corresponds fairly closely to the surface patterns observed. Goldenberg only recognizes one basic pattern: [predicate + pronominal subject]. He regards full noun phrases that refer to the subject as extraposed elements. In the case of bipartite nominal clauses that have only a noun phrase as subject and no pronominal subject, he considers the clauses elliptical, lacking an enclitic pronominal subject (p. 289). Similarly, he considers the enclitic personal pronoun the true subject in other NCs. Van Peursen is careful to point out that while it is harder to reconcile the data of the Syriac Ben Sira with this analysis, Ben Sira is not written in the Classical Syriac of later centuries, but in a very early variety of it. Goldenberg’s analysis may fit the later Classical Syriac more completely. In addition, Goldenberg’s analysis of NCs ultimately fits very nicely with van Peursen’s analysis of fronted elements in verbal clauses, as becomes clear in chapter 21. Chapter 21 uses insights from G. Khan as the basis for a discussion of the matter of extraposition. This construction, traditionally called “casus pendens” or “nominative absolute,” consists of placing a nominal element before a clause to which it has no direct grammatical connection. Its function is shown by a coreferential personal pronoun inside the clause proper. The main function of extraposition in the Syriac of Ben Sira, van Peursen tells us, is topicalization or thematization (p. 321). This phenomenon is more common in the Syriac than in the extant corresponding passages of the Hebrew of Ben Sira. Functionally related to extraposition is anticipatory pronominal agreement. The latter takes place when an enclitic personal pronoun is used proleptically, that is, to refer to an entity that is later specified by a noun. One of the most common occurrences of this phenomenon is found in genitive constructions such as …ÿàσ ¾Øû⃠‘the fear of the Lord’. At the phrase level, it is also common after áÜ. At the clause level it is less common, but it occurs marking direct objects in constructions such as Ìß ‹ÌÙÐÂü ‘Praise him’. While extraposition and anticipatory pronominal agreement are functionally similar, they differ in that “the element in extraposition is always topicalized, whereas the fronted element in a pronominal

Book Reviews

99

agreement construction sometimes receives focus” (p. 330). The main formal difference is that the anticipatory pronoun, unlike an extraposed noun phrase, is part of the predication structure of the clause. One of the most interesting parts of van Peursen’s discussion is how he relates extraposition and anticipatory pronominal agreement with some of the NC patterns discussed earlier. It is in this discussion that the value of Goldenberg’s analysis of NCs becomes apparent. Goldenberg analyzes noun phrase “subjects” of NCs as extraposed elements, whether they precede or follow the nuclear clause (predicate + enclitic personal pronoun serving as true subject). “Even if one disagrees with Goldenberg’s analysis, one has to agree that in both the tripartite NCs and the extraposition structures the topic is placed in the first position” (p. 332). Chapter 24 offers an excellent analysis of the structure commonly called the cleft sentence. The basic structure is [nonverbal clause element + †… + ordinary clause]. This construction serves to rhematize some part of the clause. The verb is the usual source of new information in a verbal clause; when another element of the clause is the new information, it is rhematized by means of clefting. Cleft sentences show similarities to tripartite NCs of the pattern [subject + enclitic pronoun + predicate]. In both cases the element before the enclitic pronoun is rhematized. Chapter 26 offers a discussion of interclausal relations that is key for understanding the construction of discourses in Syriac. Generally speaking, a clause constitutes a “discourse segment.” However, van Peursen points out that traditionally grammars of Semitic languages have recognized only two types of interclausal relations: parataxis and hypotaxis. The crucial category of embedded clauses (subject clauses, complement clauses and restrictive relative clauses) has been subsumed under hypotaxis.6 The concept of embedded clauses as distinct from hypotactically subordinated clause was developed long ago in the literature of general linguistics. See, for example, chapter 11 “Clause as Term” (pp. 304–17) in Grammatical Analysis by Kenneth L. Pike and Evelyn G. Pike (Arlington, Texas: Summer Institute of Linguistics and University of Texas at Arlington, 1982). The theory behind phenomena such as embedded and merged clauses is dealt with by Robert E. Longacre in his book The 6

100

Book Reviews

Van Peursen cites J. Schilperoord and A. Verhagen for an explanation of the role of embedding in determining discourse structure: “ ’If a constituent of a matrix-clause A is conceptually dependent on the contents of a subordinate clause B, then B is not a separate discourse segment.’ In other words: the exceptional status of embedded clauses is not due to their dependency on the matrix clause, but rather to the dependency of the matrix clause on the embedded clause for its conceptual realization” (p. 387). Consequently, a matrix clause and its embedded clause constitute a single discourse unit. An example of this is found in Sir 3:21 (p. 389):

K ¾ïÁš ¾Ćß Þæâ çÙýøƒ ‘Do not seek [what is too difficult for you].’

The translation is van Peursen’s, but I have enclosed the embedded clause in brackets for ease of identification. After defining the discourse segment, van Peursen moves on to a discussion of how these units are joined in coherent discourses. He makes use of the seminal work of Halliday and Hasan in his discussion of coherence (notional connections) and cohesion (surface markers of coherence). He makes the important point that the CALAP programs are limited in their ability to deal with coherence, since they can only take into account the surface signals of cohesion. The human analyst must consider six factors (clause opening type; grammatical clause type; grammatical and lexical correspondences; distance; set of participants; syntactic marking of paragraphs) as he or she determines to which preceding clause the current one is connected and what the nature of the connection is. Since the markers of cohesion are optional, it is not surprising that they show considerable variability between the Syriac and Hebrew texts of Ben Sira, as well as in inner-Syriac and innerHebrew variation. Consequently, such differences are of little use for textual critics in their efforts to determine the Hebrew Vorlage of this book. Just as Chapter 26 contributes to our knowledge of the discourse structure of Ben Sira, so Chapter 27 shows how the Grammar of Discourse (New York: Plenum Press, 1983). See the discussion of secondary exponence and recursion, pp. 279–89.

Book Reviews

101

detailed examination of syntactic structure required by CALAP gives us insight into the genre of a section of this book. Specifically, van Peursen considers the claim that the “Praise of the Fathers” section (chapters 44–49) is an example of the Beispielreihe genre. Upon minutely examining the paragraph structure in Sir 44:17–23 (Noah, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob) and comparing it to that of clear examples of Beispielreihe (Hebrews 11; 1 Macc 2:52–60), van Peursen finds appreciable differences. He continues his examination with Sir 47:23–48:15 (Elijah and Elisha) and finds similar results. These lead him to conclude that the “Praise of the Fathers” does not in fact conform to the canons of the Beispielreihe genre, as he once thought. Rather, “Ben Sira is deeply concerned with the flow of history as an ongoing chain of interrelated events rather than with the individual heroes who played a role in it” (p. 413). This brief survey of the highlights of this book shows just how wide-ranging its contents are and in how many ways the computerassisted study of language can yield insights into ancient texts. The editorial problems in this book (see Addendum) are few and its contributions to Syriac studies are great. The author is to be commended for bringing together such a wide variety of material in a well-organized fashion inside the covers of a single volume.

ADDENDUM: TYPOGRAPHICAL ERRORS Although the number of typographical errors is not large, there are some. Problems in English include: p. 163: “disambiguing” should be “disambiguating” p. 187: “these two lexemes became to be treated,” where “became” should be “came.” p. 251: “Now the sons of Bilha and the sons of Leah, the maidservants of Leah and Rachel,” where the first “Leah” should be “Zilpa.” p. 355: “take ... council” for “take ... counsel” (translation of 9:14; the author has presumably taken this archaic spelling from Payne Smith’s Compendious Syriac Dictionary) p. 357: A period appears in the middle of a sentence: “...the internal temporal constituency of an event. that has not taken place.” p. 395: “a syntactical devices” should be “a syntactical device.”

102

Book Reviews

The plural of “hero” is spelled “hero’s” (p. 405) and “heros” (p. 409) as well as the correct “heroes” (most of the time). In Syriac the errors include: p. 157 (about three-quarters of the way down the page): À˜Íæß ¾Ć⃃ for À˜Íæß ¾Ć⃃ p. 269: ‹…ÍÂøƒ for ‹…ÍÁ~ƒ (3:11) p. 309: ÀûÐâ for À˜ûÐâ (1 Cor 7:22) p. 332: ÀûÁƒ for ÀûÂă and also Àûùî~ for ÀûùØ~ (3:11) p. 355: ðãéãß for ðãýãß (5:11a) p. 389: ÀûÅß for ÀûÂÅß (14:20–26). There is also at least one problem of the type that plague those who write right-to-left languages in a work primarily written in a left-to-write language. The problem appears about the middle of p. 157: ƒ ¾ĆâÊî corresponds to äø, ʸʹʠ ʣʲ to ʭʷ, and ¾ÙÂå to ʠʩʡʰ. Clearly, äø and ʸʹʠ ʣʲ have been reversed from their correct order. While I myself have sometimes had considerable difficulty working around problems like this, it does not seem unreasonable to expect a prestigious publisher such as Brill to find a means of catching and fixing such problems before printing them in books that require considerable sacrifices for most scholars to afford.

BIBLIOGRAPHIES Recent Books on Syriac Topics. Part 13 SEBASTIAN P. BROCK, UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD

The present listing continues on from previous listings in the first number of Hugoye fore each of the years 1998–2009. Once again it should be noted that reprints are not included (for a number of important ones, see http://www.gorgiaspress.com). 2002 G. White, Daily Prayer and its Ascetic Content in the Syriac and Ethiopic Testamentum Domini (Joensu: Joensu University Press).

2006 A. Badwi, The Liturgical Year Iconography of the Syro-Maronite Church (Kaslik: Université Saint-Esprit, Département d’Art Sacré).

2007 C. Chartouni (ed.), Christianisme oriental. Kérygme et Histoire. Mélanges offerts au Père Michel Hayek (Paris: Geuthner). [Several contributions of Syriac concern] J. Teixidor, Hommage à Baghdad. Traducteurs et lettrés de l’époque abbaside (Paris: CNRS).

2008 E. Aydin, Das Leben des heiligen Jakob von Nisibis ([Glane]: Bar Ebroyo Verlag). A.H. Becker, Sources for the Study of the School of Nisibis (Translated Texts for Historians 50; Liverpool: Liverpool University Press). I.A. Barsoum (tr. M. Moosa), History of the Za’afaran Monastery (Piscataway NJ: Gorgias). D. Benjamin (tr. Y. Baaba), The Patriarchs of the Church of the East (Piscataway NJ: Gorgias). M. Bernabò (ed.), Il Tetravangelo di Rabbula, Firenze, Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana, Plut. I.56. L’illustrazione del Nuovo Testamento nella Sira del VI secolo (Rome: Edizioni di Storia e Letteratura).

103

104

Bibliographies

S.P. Brock, The History of the Holy Mar Ma’in. With a Guide to the Persian Martyr Acts (Persian Martyr Acts in Syriac: Texts and Translations 1; Piscataway NJ: Gorgias). F. del Rio Sánchez, Manuscrits syriaques conservés dans la Bibliothèque des Maronites d’Alep (Syrie) (Eastern Christian Studies 5; Piscataway NJ: Gorgias). P. Hagman, Understanding Asceticism. Body and Society in the Asceticism of St Isaac of Nineveh (Ųbo: Ųbo Akademi). T.H.F. Halbertsma, Early Christian Remains of Inner Mongolia. Discovery, Reconstruction and Appropriation (Leiden). S.K.S. Jarkins, Aphrahat the Persian Sage and the Temple of God. A Study of Early Syriac Anthropology (Gorgias Dissertations 36/Early Christian Studies 8; Piscataway NJ: Gorgias). P. Jenkins, The Lost History of Christianity: the Thousand-Year Golden Age of the Church in the Middle East, Africa and Asia—and how it died (New York: Harper). T. Kollampararmpil, Jacob of Sarug’s Homily on the Presentation of our Lord (The Metrical Homilies of Mar Jacob of Sarug 15; Piscataway NJ: Gorgias). H. Lehmann, Students of the Bible in the 4th and 5th Century Syria. Seats of Learning, Sidelights and Syriacisms (Ųrhus: University Press). J. Luzarraga, El Evangelio de Juan en las versiones siríacas (Subsidia Biblica 33; Rome: Pontificio Istituto Biblico). P. Pallath, The Eucharistic Liturgy of the St Thomas Christians and the Synod of Diamper (Kottayam: Oriental Institute of Religious Studies India). R. Phenix, The Sermons on Joseph of Balai of Qenneshrin. Rhetoric and Interpretation in Fifth-Century Syriac Literature (Studien und Texte zu Antike und Christentum 50; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck). F. Placida, Le omilie battesimali e mistagogiche di Teodoro di Mopsuestia (Torino: Istituto teologico san Tommaso). F. Thome, Studien zum Johanneskommentar des Theodor von Mopsuestia (Hereditas 26; Bonn: Borengässer). Yuyaqim Unfal, Izgado d-shayno. Ambassador of Peace [Visit of Patriarch Ignatius Zakka I Iwas to India 2008; in Syriac] (Ma ‘aret Saidnaya: Monastery of St Ephrem). M. Westerhoff, Das Paulusverständnis im Liber Graduum (Patristische Texte und Studien 64; Berlin: de Gruyter).

Bibliographies

105

2009 Y.A. Baaba, The Assyrian Homeland before World War I (Alamo CA: the Author). A.I. Barsoum (tr. M. Moosa), History of the Syriac Dioceses I-II (Piscataway NJ: Gorgias). Beth Mardootho (ed.), The Volume of the Fourth Syriac Language Conference (Duhok, Iraq: Beth Mardootho). P. G. Borbone, Storia di Mar Yahballaha e di Rabban Sauma. Cronaca siriaca del XIV secolo (Moncalieri, To.: Lulu Press). [ISBN 978–1–4092– 6044–8; with Syriac text] S.P. Brock, A Brief Outline of Syriac Literature (2nd edn, Moran Etho 9; Kottayam). S.P. Brock, Jacob of Sarug’s Homily on the Veil on Molses’ Face (The Metrical Homilies of Mar Jacob of Sarug, 1; Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias). D. Bumazhnov, E. Grypeou, T.B. Sailors, and A. Toepel (eds), Bibel, Byzanz und christlicher Orient. Festschrift für Stephen Gerö (Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 187; Leuven: Peeters). A.M. Butts, Jacob of Sarug’s Homily on the Tower of Babel (The Metrical Homilies of Mar Jacob of Sarug, 15; Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias). M. Debié (ed.), L’historiographie syriaque (Études syriaques 6; Paris: Geuthner). J. Dyk (ed.), Foundations for Syriac Lexicography III (Perspectives on Syriac Linguistics 4; Piscataway NJ: Gorgias). J. Fenwick, The Forgotten Bishops. The Malabar Independent Syrian Church and its Place in the Story of the St Thomas Christians of South India (Piscataway NJ: Gorgias). L. Greisiger, C. Rammelt, J. Tubach (eds.), Edessa in hellenistischrömischer Zeit. Religion,Kultur und Politik zwischen Ost und West (Beiruter Texte und Studien 116; Beirut/Würzburg: Ergon). D.M. Gurtner, Second Baruch: a Critical Edition of the Syriac Text (London: T&T Clark/Continuum). M. Guscin, The Image of Edessa (Leiden: Brill). A. Harrak, Jacob of Sarug’s Homily on the Partaking of the Holy Mysteries (The Metrical Homilies of Mar Jacob of Sarug, 17; Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias). E.C.D. Hunter (ed.), The Christian Heritage of Iraq. Collected Papers from the Christianity of Iraq I–V Seminar Days (Piscataway NJ: Gorgias Press).

106

Bibliographies

O. Ioan, Muslime und Araber bei Isho’jahb III. (649–659) (Göttinger Orientforschungen, Syriaca 37; Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz). Ignatius Zakka I Iwas (ed. Y. Unfal): Fenqitho d-Qudoshe b-tekso d-’idto suryoyto ortoduksoyto d-Antyuk I (Ma’arret Saidnaya: Monastery of St Ephrem). ______, Fenqitho d-kirotuniyas d-tekso d-’idto suryoyto ortoduksoyto d-Antyuk (Ma’aret Saidnaya: Monastery of St Ephrem). M. Immerzeel, Identity Puzzles. Medieval Christian Art in Syria and Lebanon (Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 184; Leuven: Peeters). A. Juckel, Approximation of the ‘Traditions’ in Jacob of Edessa’s Revision of Isaiah (Analecta Gorgiana 124, 2009). S.A. Kaufman, Jacob of Sarug’s Homilies on Elijah (The Metrical Homilies of Mar Jacob of Sarug, 9–13; Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias). G.A. Kiraz (ed.), Barhebraeus’ Book of Conversation of Wisdom [facsimile edn] (Piscataway NJ: Gorgias). M. Lattke (tr. M. Ehrhardt, ed. H. Attridge), Odes of Solomon: a Commentary (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress). E.G. Matthew, Jacob of Sarug’s Homilies on the Six Days of Creation: the First Day (The Metrical Homilies of Mar Jacob of Sarug, 29; Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias). A.C. McCollum, Jacob of Sarug’s Homily on Simon Peter, when our Lord said ‘Get behind me, Satan’ (The Metrical Homilies of Mar Jacob of Sarug, 22; Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias). ______, A Greek and Syriac Index to Sergius of Resh’aina’s Version of the De Mundo (Piscataway NJ: Gorgias). ______, Jacob of Sarug’s Homily on Simon Peter, when our Lord said ‘Get behond me, Satan’ (Piscataway NJ: Gorgias). V. Menze and K. Akalïn, John of Tella’s Profession of Faith. The Legacy of a Sixth-Century Syrian Orthodox Bishop (Texts from Christian Late Antiquity 25; Piscataway NJ: Gorgias). A. Merz, D. Rensberger, and T. Tieleman, Mara bar Sarapion, Letter to his Son (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck). M. Metselaar, Die Nestorianer und der frühe Islam. Wechselwirkungen zwischen den ostsyrischen Christen und ihre arabischen Nachbarn (Frankfurt: P.Lang). R.J. Mouawad, Les Maronites, Chrétiens du Liban (Fils d’Abraham; Turnhout: Brepols). S.E. Myers, Spirit Epicleses in the Acts of Thomas (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament, II; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck).

Bibliographies

107

Ph.M. Nayis, Ktobo da-snunitho d-’al slawotho d-sawmo d-Ninwe wad-sawmo qadisho d-arb’in w-shabu’o d-hasho mahyono (Ma’arret Saidnaya: St Ephrem Monastery). E. Odisho, Linguistic and Cultural Studies in Aramaic and Arabic (Piscataway NJ: Gorgias). S. Plathottathil, Themes of Incarnation in the Sedre for the Period of Suboro-Yaldo according to the Mosul Fenqitho (Moran Etha 30; Kottayam:SEERI). J. Puthuparampil (ed.), Liturgy of St James. Its Impact on Theologizing in India (Pune: BVP Publications). I. Saka, Commentary on the Liturgy of the Syrian Orthodox Church of Antioch (Piscataway NJ: Gorgias). A. Shemunkasho, Konsekration und Konsekrationgeschehen in der syrischen eucharistischen und in der Liturgie der anderen Mysterien (Piscataway NJ: Gorgias). M. Sokoloff, A Syriac Lexicon (Piscataway NJ: Gorgias). J. Soskice, Sisters of Sinai. How two Lady Adventurers found the Hidden Gospels (London: Chatto and Windus). Sh. Talay, Suryoye l-Suryoye: Ausgewählte Beiträge zur aramäischen Sprache, Geschichte und Kultur (Piscataway NJ: Gorgias). M. Tamcke, Die Christen vom Tur Abdin. Hinführung zur Syrisch-Orthodoxen Kirche (Frankfurt a/M,: Otto Lembeck). A.A. Terpelyuk, Martyrdom of Mar Quryaqus and Yoliti (Cyriacus and Julitta) (Moscow: Assyrian Church of the East). (ISBN 978–5– 9901637–1–3; critical edn. based on Vat. Syr. 161, with Russian tr. and introd.). D.M. Walter, Studies in the Peshitta of Kings (Texts and Studies 7; Piscataway NJ: Gorgias). P.J. Williams (ed.), Foundations for Syriac Lexicography II (Perspectives on Syriac Linguistics 3; Piscataway NJ: Gorgias). D.W. Winkler nd Li Tang (eds), Hidden Treasures and Intercultural Encounters. Studies on East Syriac Christianity in China and Central Asia (Orientalia-Patristica-Oecumenica, 1; Wien/Berlin: LIT). I. Yacoub III (tr. M.M. Moosa), History of the Syrian Church of India (Piscataway NJ: Gorgias).

Annotated Bibliography of Syriac Studies in Russian 2009 NIKOLAI N. SELEZNYOV, INSTITUTE FOR ORIENTAL AND CLASSICAL STUDIES, RUSSIAN STATE UNIVERSITY FOR THE HUMANITIES, MOSCOW

Aržanov, īu.N. “EvagriĬ PontiĬskiĬ, Poslanie k Melanii. Kniga svĬatogo IerofeĬa.” In: AntologiĬa vostoăno-hristianskoĬ bogoslovskoĬ mysli: ortodoksiĬa i geterodoksiĬa, pod. red. G.I. Beneviăa i D.S. BirĬukova; sost. G.I. Beneviă. Tom 1. RusskaĬa hristianskaĬa gumanitarnaĬa akademiĬa; Institut istorii hristianskoĬ mysli (Saint-Petersburg: RusskaĬa hristianskaĬa gumanitarnaĬa akademiĬa, 2009), pp. 465– 528. — ISBN 978-5-88812-388-1. A Russian translation from Syriac of Evagrius of Pontus’ Letter to Melania and The Book of the Holy Hierotheos ascribed to Stephen Bar-Sudhaile (a fragment), by Yury Arzhanov. The translation is accompanied by introductions and commentaries. It is a part of the fist volume of a comprehensive anthology of writings of Eastern Christian authors (pp. 465–97; 498–528).

Aržanov, īu.N. “K istorii hristianstva v doislamskoĬ Aravii: Poslanie Simeona Betaršamskogo o goneniĬah na hristian.” BogoslovskiĬ vestnik (MDAiS) 8–9 (2008–2009): 155–221. On the History of Christianity in Pre-Islamic Arabia: The Letter of Simeon of Beth-Arsham about persecution of Christians, by Yury Arzhanov This article by Yury Arzhanov is on the persecution of Christians in South Arabia, mainly in the city of Nagran, at the beginning of the 6th century, initiated by the Jewish Himyarite king Dhu Nuwas. It contains an introduction with a general survey of the history of Christianity and Judaism in pre-Islamic South Arabia and a Russian translation from Syriac of one of the main sources about the persecution of Christians—a letter of the Monophysite bishop Simeon of Beth-Arsham. The translation is supplied with a detailed commentary.

Aržanov, īu.N. “K istorii hristianstva i iudaizma v doislamskoĬ Aravii.” Simvol: Žurnal hristianskoĬ kul’tury, osnovannyĬ SlavĬanskoĬ bibliotekoĬ v Pariže. Tom 55: “DuhovnaĬa kul’tura siriĬcev” (Paris/Moscow, 2009): 287–307. — ISSN 0222-1292. On the History of Christianity and Judaism in Pre-Islamic Arabia, by Yury Arzhanov

108

Bibliographies

109

The article provides an examination of the sources on the history of Judaism and Christianity in South-Arabia in the pre-Islamic period, which bear witness to contacts between the East-Syriac Christians and the Jews in that region. Pointing at relationships with the Jews served as a popular polemical device in the Christian literature. Nonetheless we have enough evidence showing that contacts between Jews and Christians took place, and the base for them provided an institute of the “Godfearers” in the Jewish synagogues.

BarskiĬ, E.V. “Molitva ili plaă? SiriĬskaĬa versiĬa 4-Ĭ knigi Ezry v istorii bibleĬskih perevodov.” Simvol: Žurnal hristianskoĬ kul’tury, osnovannyĬ SlavĬanskoĬ bibliotekoĬ v Pariže. Tom 55: “DuhovnaĬa kul’tura siriĬcev” (Paris/Moscow, 2009): 47–68. — ISSN 02221292. Prayer or weeping? Syriac Version of 4 Ezra in the History of Biblical Translations, by Evgeny Barsky The article deals with the Fourth Book of Ezra, a Jewish apocryphon composed about 100 A.D. Special attention is paid to the textual relations of the book with 5 and 6 Ezra, with which it is joined in the Vulgate, as well as to the specific characteristics of its Syriac version. Accounts of Ezra’s fasts in different versions are thoroughly compared: the question “Did Ezra pray or weep when fasting?” seems to be unsolvable with available data but its discussion provides us with precious information about the book’s early history.

īazyki mira: Semitskie Ĭazyki. AkkadskiĬ Ĭazyk. Severozapadnosemitskie Ĭazyki. RossiĬskaĬa akademiĬa nauk; Institut ĬazykoznaniĬa (ǚoscow: Academia, 2009). 832 pp. Ȧ ISBN 978-5-87444-284-2. Languages of the World: The Semitic Languages. Akkadian. Northwest Semitic. Anna Belova, Leonid Kogan, Sergei Loesov, Olga Romanova (eds.) This book continues the encyclopedic multi-volume series “Languages of the World”, which is being prepared at the Institute of Linguistics, Russian Academy of Sciences. This is the first part of the two-volume set dealing with Semitic languages. It comprises a general survey of the Semitic language family, as well as descriptions of individual Semitic languages: Akkadian (with separate articles on Old Assyrian and Sargonic) and the

110

Bibliographies Northwest Semitic languages (Ugaritic, Phoenician, Ancient and Modern Hebrew, Imperial Aramaic, Jewish Palestinian Aramaic, Classical Syriac, Classical Mandaic, Neo-Aramaic of Maalula, Turoyo, and Modern Mandaic). Also included are general surveys of Aramaic and Canaanite, as well as a summary description of Modern Northeast Aramaic. Each essay follows the typologically oriented template maintained throughout the Languages of the World series. This volume concludes with several appendices: a concise history of Northwest Semitic alphabets (with samples) and a set of maps illustrating the ancient and modern spread of the Semitic languages. This volume is intended to be both a fundamental linguistic study and a reference source. It is addressed to a wide audience of linguists from various fields, historians, cultural anthropologists, teachers and students, and anyone interested in Semitic studies.

IstoriĬa muăeniăestva Mćr َŠryćُŠsa i YňlĪʞy (Kirika i Iulitty). RossiĬskiĬ gosudarstvennyĬ gumanitarnyĬ universitet, Institut vostoănyh kul tur i antiănosti; KritiăeskiĬ tekst, perevod s siriĬskogo, issledovanie A.A. Terpelyuk (Moscow: AssiriĬskaĬa Cerkov’ Vostoka, 2009). 112 pp. — ISBN 978–5–9901637–1–3 Martyrdom of Mćr QŠryćqŠs and YňlĪʜĪ (Cyriacus & Julitta) / Russian State University for the Humanities, Institute for Oriental and Classical Studies; Critical text, Russian translation from Syriac, and research by ǎlisa Ǡerpelyuk The present critical edition of the Martyrdom of Cyriacus and Julitta is based on the MS of the Vatican Library, Syriac 161 (its facsimile reproduction was issued by the Bibliotheca Apostolica Vaticana together with Brigham Young University) and on the text of the Martyrdom edited by P. Bedjan (Acta Martyrum et Sanctorum III). The latter was collated with the relevant part of the MS of the Institute of Oriental Manuscripts, SaintPetersburg (Diettrich d). The edition is accompanied by a thorough philological analysis of the text. The target audience of the edition are scholars specialized in the Syriac literature (in particular, Syriac hagiography and apocrypha) as well as those interested in studying Syriac language and textual criticism. The edition is published by the Assyrian Church of the East, Moscow.

Bibliographies

111

Kessel’, G.M. “‘Knižica krupic’ — antologiĬa vostoănosiriĬskoĬ pis’mennosti.” Simvol: Žurnal hristianskoĬ kul’tury, osnovannyĬ SlavĬanskoĬ bibliotekoĬ v Pariže. Tom 55: “DuhovnaĬa kul’tura siriĬcev” (Paris/Moscow, 2009): 327–56. — ISSN 0222-1292. The Book of Crumbs: An Anthology of East-Syriac Literature, by Gregory Kessel. The anthology — Ktćbňnć d-partŠtĔ — was first published by the Anglican mission of the Archbishop of Canterbury in Urmi in AD 1898 and later was republished. The article is an annotated description of the contents of the book which precedes by an introduction that tell the history of the edition.

Kofski, A., Ruzer, S. “RaĬ kak sad asketiăeskih uslad: germenevtiăeskie strategii ‘Knigi stepeneĬ’.” Simvol: Žurnal hristianskoĬ kul’tury, osnovannyĬ SlavĬanskoĬ bibliotekoĬ v Pariže. Tom 55: “DuhovnaĬa kul’tura siriĬcev” (Paris/Moscow, 2009): 71–93. — ISSN 0222-1292. The Garden of Ascetic Delights: Hermeneutic Strategies in the Liber Graduum, by Aryeh Kofsky and Serge Ruzer This study focuses on the peculiar concept of a dual paradise characteristic of the Liber Graduum (LG), where it also determines other aspects of the discussion such as the nature of primordial sin—as a shift in the intellectual focus—and the way of restoring the paradisiacal mode of existence via imitation of Christ’s kenosis. The study highlights the way in which the ascetic agenda of LG informs its author’s hermeneutical strategies with regard to the biblical narrative on the Garden of Eden. Some particularities of this foundational narrative clearly contradict the LG’s ascetic stance and thus engender idiosyncratic exegetical solutions.

Minov S.V. “Adam i Eva v siriĬskoĬ ‘Pešăere sokrovišă’.” Simvol: Žurnal hristianskoĬ kul’tury, osnovannyĬ SlavĬanskoĬ bibliotekoĬ v Pariže. Tom 55: “DuhovnaĬa kul’tura siriĬcev” (Paris/Moscow, 2009): 9– 46. — ISSN 0222-1292. Adam and Eve in the Syriac Cave of Treasures, by Sergey Minov In this article for the first time a Russian translation of the part dealing with Adam and Eve from the Cave of Treasures (chapters II–VI) is offered. The translation is preceded by a brief introduction and followed by a commentary.

112

Bibliographies

Morozov D.A. “ZaterĬannye teksty Efrema Sirina.” Simvol: Žurnal hristianskoĬ kul’tury, osnovannyĬ SlavĬanskoĬ bibliotekoĬ v Pariže. Tom 55: “DuhovnaĬa kul’tura siriĬcev” (Paris/Moscow, 2009): 377–88. — ISSN 0222-1292. Lost and refound texts of Ephrem the Syrian, by Dmitry Morozov Qawl Ȩalć-š-Šayʞćn wa-l-Mawt (Saying on the Devil and the Death) attributed to Ephrem the Syrian and extant only in Arabic and Georgian versions was incompletely edited and translated into Russian in 1908 by the eminent orientalist I.Yu. Krachkovskiy. Later, he also published another extract from the same Arabic codex. Both the parts were misattributed for a long time. The present paper exhibits the exciting history of studies of these disiecta membra. A Russian version of the missing initial lines as well as some corrigenda is appended.

Murav’ëv, A.V. “Naăalo vtoroĬ volny hristianizacii Aksuma: ‘Gedle cadkan’ i siriĬskie ƄƑƔƌƑÍ.” Vestnik drevneĬ istorii 1 (2009): 181– 197. — ISSN 0321-0391. The Beginning of the Second Wave of Christianization of Axum: Gädlä Cadqan and the Syrian ƄƑƔƌƑÍ, by Alexei Muraviev. The Christianization of the Late Antique Axum in Ethiopia is still a widely debated area of research. Much attention has been drawn to the legendary figure of Aedesius-Frumentios. However, no solid ground underlying this story told by Rufinus could be seen up to the present time. The second evangelization is also quite poorly depicted in the sources. The Ethiopic Gädlä Cadqan is a hagiographic text which tells the story of the first group of the Syrian monks who arrived from the Roman Empire. In the article the meager data of the Gädlä Cadqan are compared to what is known about the Syrian monophysite migration to Eastern countries following repressive measures taken by the Byzantine emperor Justin. The author points out the ascetical behaviour of the Righteous (cadqan) which is similar to the ƣưƴƫưƠ-asceticism attested in Greek sources. The grazers (ƣưƴƫưƠ) practiced the same type of diet and self-mortification as the Ethiopian enlighteners. The role of these first Syrian immigrants is quite important: they established a path to Axum as a way of missionary movement outside the Empire. The Nine Saints were the next group of

Bibliographies

113

Syrians that followed in their footsteps later in the 6th century A.D.

Pritula A.D. “VostoănosiriĬskie pesnoneniĬa (ɸonity) i gomilii NarsaĬa: šest’ gimnov iz sbornika ‘Varda’.” Simvol: Žurnal hristianskoĬ kul’tury, osnovannyĬ SlavĬanskoĬ bibliotekoĬ v Pariže. Tom 55: “DuhovnaĬa kul’tura siriĬcev” (Paris/Moscow, 2009): 152–253. — ISSN 0222-1292. East-Syriac hymns (ɸňnyćtć) and homilies of Narsai: Six hymns from the liturgical book Warda, by Anton Pritula The publication presents six strophical hymns (ɸňnyćtć) used in the East-Syrian Church for different holiday services. The hymns form with other more than one hundred ɸňnyćtć the so called Warda collection, many MSS of which still survive. Such hymns are mostly ascribed to Giwargis Warda (13th century) whose name bears the the collection itself. The article is focused on the connection of such hymns to the East-Syrian Church poetry tradition. The influence of Mar Narsai’s homilies (5th century) could be traced in many of them. One can even conclude that the ɸňnyćtć genre was aimed to adjusting the Church tradition to the contemporary tastes.

Pritula A.D. “Gimn o neravenstve v ăeloveăeskom obšăestve: iz vostoănosiriĬskogo sbornika ‘Varda’.” VolšebnaĬa Gora, XV (Moscow: VG, 2009): 167–78. — ISSN 1813-6028. A hymn on inequality in human society from the liturgical book Warda, by Anton Pritula The hymn of the third Sunday of the šawň’ć of Elias is published along with its Russian translation and preceded by an introduction. Its style is quite like what is supposed to be Giwargis Warda’s style, but the text is absent from the earliest MS of Warda (Cambridge Add. 1983). In Vat. Syr. 567 it is put in the section of the “Friday of the departed”. The publication is based on another Cambridge MS (Add. 1982) in which the hymn explicitly ascribed to Giwargis Warda.

Seleznëv, N.N. “ImĬa NestoriĬa kak simvol i vopros ego poăitaniĬa v vostoănosiriĬskoĬ tradicii hristianstva.” Simvol: Žurnal hristianskoĬ kul’tury, osnovannyĬ SlavĬanskoĬ bibliotekoĬ v Pariže. Tom 55:

114

Bibliographies

“DuhovnaĬa kul’tura siriĬcev” (Paris/Moscow, 2009): 257–86. — ISSN 0222-1292. The name of Nestorius as a symbol, and the question of his veneration in the East-Syriac tradition of Christianity, by Nikolai Seleznyov This article is an historical analysis of different attitudes towards Nestorius of Constantinople which became ‘traditional’ and even formed opposing traditions in Christianity. The main focus of the article is on the entering of veneration of Nestorius into the East-Syrian tradition as well as on the regular attempts of the those condemning Nestorius to erase his name from the symbolic books of the Church of the East.

Seleznëv, N.N. “Katolikos-Patriarh Cerkvi Vostoka Mćr IliĬa III i ego ‘Slovo na prazdnik Roždestva Hristova’.” Simvol: Žurnal hristianskoĬ kul’tury, osnovannyĬ SlavĬanskoĬ bibliotekoĬ v Pariže. Tom 55: “DuhovnaĬa kul’tura siriĬcev” (Paris/Moscow, 2009): 389–95. — ISSN 0222-1292. Mćr Eliya III Catholicos-Patriarch of the Church of the East and his Turgama on the Nativity of Christ, by Nikolai Seleznyov This publication is a Russian translation of Mćr Eliya’s Turgama on the Nativity of Christ, from the Arabic text published in AD 1656 as a part of the chrestomathy within the Arabicæ lingvæ tyrocinium, id est Thomæ Erpenii Grammatica Arabica. The translation is made by N. N. Seleznyov and D. A. Morozov, and preceded with an introductory article by N. N. Seleznyov.

Seleznëv, N.N. “K istorii zaterĬannoĬ kul’tury hristianskogo Vostoka: palestinskie mel’kity.” VolšebnaĬa Gora, XV (Moscow: VG, 2009): 179–85. — ISSN 1813-6028. On the history of a lost culture of Christian East: Palestinian Melkites, by Nikolai Seleznyov The Melkites of Syro-Palestinian tradition — the Palestinian Arameans who were partisans of Byzantium in the Middle East — are known to the scholars for using Christian Palestinian Aramaic language and their own specific script. The question the author discusses in the article is what were the forming factors of the tradition and why it later disappeared in the Arabic Christianity.

Bibliographies

115

Smelova, N.S. “īazyk simvolov: bogorodiănaĬa tipologiĬa v perevodnoĬ siriĬskoĬ gimnografii.” Simvol: Žurnal hristianskoĬ kul’tury, osnovannyĬ SlavĬanskoĬ bibliotekoĬ v Pariže. Tom 55: “DuhovnaĬa kul’tura siriĬcev” (Paris/Moscow, 2009): 94–120. — ISSN 02221292. Language of symbols: Typology of Theotokia in the Syriac hymnology translated from Greek, by Natalia Smelova The main focus of the article is the Old Testament typology of the Virgin in the Syriac hymnographical texts to the Theotokos from the 9th–11th centuries. The texts were translated from Greek into Syriac and belong to both Syriac Chalcedonian and the West Syrian traditions. The author undertakes a comparative study of every single type of the Virgin in the Syriac text with the respective ones in the original Greek theotokia and other Syriac versions and translations. All known Syriac and Greek versions of the Old and New Testament are used including primarily the Peshitta and the Septuaginta. In some cases comparisons are made with the Hebrew Bible, St. Jerome’s Latin translation and Origen’s Hexapla.

Smelova, N.S. “SiriĬskaĬa rukopis’ gomiliĬ Severa AntiohiĬskogo VIII v. iz sobraniĬ Sankt-Peterburga: kodikologiăeskie nablĬudeniĬa.” In: Hrizograf. Tom 3. Srednevekovye knižnye centry: mestnye tradicii i mežregional’nye svĬazi. Materialy meždunarodnoĬ nauănoĬ konferencii (Moskva, 5–7 sentĬabrĬa 2005 g.) (Moscow, 2009), pp. 12–29. An 8th–century Syriac MS with homilies by Severus of Antioch from Saint-Petersburg MSS collections: some codicological observations, by Natalia Smelova The article deals with the 8th–century Syriac manuscript of Homiliae Cathedrales by Severus of Antioch. Its fragments are divided between two Oriental manuscript collections in St Petersburg: the Russian National Library (24 fols.) and the Institute for Oriental Manuscripts of the Russian Academy of Sciences (53 fols.). Both parts of the manuscript contain sections of the homilies 59, 62, 63, 69, 70, 76, 79, 81 and the full text of the homilies 64–68, and 71–75. A codicological study of the fragments made it possible to provide a reconstruction of the codex of which six complete and six partial quires had survived. Some palaeographical features indicate that St Petersburg

116

Bibliographies fragments are probably earlier than all other known manuscripts containing the Syriac text of the Homiliae Cathedrales.

Tolstoluženko, M.īu. “‘Kniga sokrovišă’ Iakova bar Šakko: bogoslovskaĬa kompilĬaciĬa epohi siriĬskogo renessansa.” Simvol: Žurnal hristianskoĬ kul’tury, osnovannyĬ SlavĬanskoĬ bibliotekoĬ v Pariže. Tom 55: “DuhovnaĬa kul’tura siriĬcev” (Paris/Moscow, 2009): 357– 374. — ISSN 0222-1292. Jacob bar Shakko’s Book of Treasures: A Theological Compilation from the Period of the Syrian Renaissance, by Mikhail Tolstoluzhenko Jacob bar Shakko’s Book of Treasures is a little-known Syriac theological treatise written in 1231 AD. This book is sometimes called a theological summa and is likened to its contemporary Latin summae. The article briefly surveys the structure of the Book of Treasures and shows that this comparison with the Western summae is not quite correct.

Treiger, A.S. “Moglo li ăeloveăestvo Hrista sozercat’ Ego božestvo? Spor VIII veka meždu Ioannom Dal’Ĭatskim i Timateosom I, Katolikosom Cerkvi Vostoka.” Simvol: Žurnal hristianskoĬ kul’tury, osnovannyĬ SlavĬanskoĬ bibliotekoĬ v Pariže. Tom 55: “DuhovnaĬa kul’tura siriĬcev” (Paris/Moscow, 2009): 121–51. — ISSN 0222-1292. Could Christ’s Humanity See His Divinity?: An Eighth-Century Controversy between John of Dalyatha and Timothy I, Catholicos of the Church of the East, by Alexander Treiger This study focuses on the eighth century East-Syriac mystic John of Dalyatha and his views on the vision of God. These views, inspired by Evagrius and the Dionysian corpus, were condemned by a church council in 786 as being at odds with the christological and trinitarian doctrines of the Church of the East. In addition to the doctrinal background, the article analyzes the social causes of John of Dalyatha’s condemnation. It argues that the Catholicos Timothy I’s “anti-messalian” campaign of which John of Dalyatha’s condemnation was a part must be seen against the backdrop of the uneasy relations between the Church of the East and the Islamic state in the early Abbasid period. The article is followed by a Russian translation of the Letter 34 of John of Dalyatha by Nikolai Seleznyov.

Bibliographies

117

ZaĬa, Iosif. IstoriĬa assiriĬcev s drevnih vremën do padeniĬa Vizantii (Moscow: IPC Maska, 2009). 312 pp., ills. — ISBN 978-5-91146311-3. History of Assyrians from the Ancient Times till the Fall of Byzantium, by Iosif Zaya. This is a comprehensive historical research focused on ethnogenesis of contemporary Assyrians who are defined as descendants of Aramaic-speaking population of Syria and Mesopotamia. The author, a native Assyrian himself, is specialized in social anthropology.

Volume 13 2010 [2011]

Number 2

HUGOYE JOURNAL OF SYRIAC STUDIES A Publication of Beth Mardutho: The Syriac Institute

Hugoye: Journal of Syriac Studies, Vol. 13.2, 121–124 © 2010 by Beth Mardutho: The Syriac Institute and Gorgias Press

INTRODUCTION TO HUGOYE 13.2: PHILOXENOS OF MABBUG ONE MORE TIME ROBERT A. KITCHEN KNOX-METROPOLITAN UNITED CHURCH REGINA, SASKATCHEWAN While Philoxenos, bishop of Mabbug, may not enjoy the same reputation as more prolific authors in the Syriac language—e.g., Ephrem, Jacob of Serug, or Bar Hebraeus are better known—he was not an underachiever. The Discourses at 625 pages of Syriac text is one of the longest sustained arguments in Syriac literature, and his many letters and commentaries add up to a considerable corpus. This is one of the reasons why we are presenting a second issue of Hugoye volume 13 focusing on Philoxenos—he wrote too much for us to be satisfied with a brief overview. The first ever conference to examine the works of Philoxenos of Mabbug was conducted on May 3, 2008, “Reconsidering Philoxenos of Mabbug,” at the Center of Theological Inquiry, Princeton, New Jersey. Organized by David Michelson and Robert Kitchen, the symposium was sponsored by Center of Theological Inquiry, Gorgias Press, and Princeton University (including the following units: Center for the Study of Religion, Group for the Study of Late Antiquity, and the Program in Hellenic Studies). Five speakers from five countries provided the program (further details are in the symposium report in Hugoye 13.1) which acquired the euphemistic title, “Philoxenos Fest.” Our first issue presented articles by Daniel King, Fr. Roger-Youssef Akhrass, and Robert Kitchen, as well as an extended review of the revised translation of Philoxenos’ Discourses in the French patristic series, Sources 121

122

Robert A. Kitchen

Chrétiennes. There was significant response to the renewed study of Philoxenos and now four more articles are being brought forward, as well as a bibliographical clavis. Adam C. McCollum, settling in as Lead Cataloguer, Eastern Christian Manuscript Project, at the Hill Museum & Manuscript Library, St. John’s University, Collegeville, Minnesota, offers an article on an Arabic scholion on Genesis 9:18–21 attributed to Philoxenos of Mabbug. There are a number of texts attributed to Philoxenos in Arabic and Ethiopic literature, but few that appear to be authentic. This particular scholion, featuring midrashic details regarding Noah’s drunkenness, probably owes its Syriac origins to Ephrem. McCollum sorts out the sources from Jewish provenance, but gives full attention to the passage in Ephrem’s Commentary on Genesis and in several hymns that treat this Biblical passage. Dana Iuliana Viezure, Assistant Professor, Religious Studies Department, Seton Hall University, and one of the Phest lecturers, examines the shift in literary strategies utilized by Philoxenos in his letter-writing over the course of his ecclesiastical career. Viezure identifies four periods of letters extending over nearly forty years. The shift in emphases moves at first from scriptural reasoning in his doctrinal argumentation, with judicious use of paradox à la Ephrem, to a more strident emphasis on the personal background of the heretics rather than the heresies, to finally a more gracious attitude towards opponents developed through contact with the issues and strategies of Greek Miaphysite thought—but then the absence of Ephrem from his references is striking. J. Edward Walters, a doctoral student at Princeton Theological Seminary, presents a summary of his masters thesis under Jeff Childers at Abilene Christian University on the so-called Philoxenian translation of the New Testament. The co-editors wish to thank Dr. Andreas Jückel for his kind assistance in this project. The basic problem is that the Philoxenian version has not survived, except perhaps in the works of Philoxenos. Walters begins the journey by focusing on the exegetical and theological writings of the bishop and comparing his citations of several selected Gospel passages with the Peshitta and the later Harclean version that was reputed to have built upon the work of the Philoxenian. Walters demonstrates the nuances with which the Philoxenian version addressed perceived doctrinal and philological deficiencies in the Peshitta.

Introduction to Hugoye 13.2

123

David M. Odorisio, a member of the International Thomas Merton Society and a 2008 recipient of its Shannon Fellowship Award, has provided a very different direction in the modern reception of Philoxenos. He has transcribed several lectures of Thomas Merton, O.C.S.O., given while the novice master at Our Lady of Gethsemane Abbey, on The Discourses of Philoxenos and their implication for the spiritual life of Trappist monks in the 1960’s. These audio-recorded lectures from the Thomas Merton Center archives, Bellarmine University, Louisville, Kentucky, are transcribed and published here by David Odorisio for the first time. Merton did not have any knowledge of Syriac language and literature, but discovered Philoxenos in Eugène Lemoine’s translation and introduction in the French Sources Chrétiennes series (vol. 44, Paris: 1956) (cf. my review article in Hugoye 13.1, “Philoxène de Mabboug. Homélies. Introduction, traduction et notes par Eugène Lemoine”). While Syriacists may take issue with Merton’s interpretation at points, one cannot help be caught up in his excitement for and insight into Philoxenos’ monastic spirituality. David A. Michelson, Assistant Professor of History, University of Alabama and co-editor of these two special issues of Hugoye 13, offers a bibliographical clavis of the texts and studies of Philoxenos, a critical tool for future research on an author whose significant corpus is widely dispersed and not amply studied. Obviously, the efforts of these two issues barely scratch the surface of Philoxenos, his life, his writings, and his theological reflections, but hopefully a few new perspectives have been explored as well as perennial issues looked at in a new light. By the diversity of these articles, it is apparent how broad the scope of Philoxenos’ works entails. As for suggestions of further work on the Bishop of Mabbug, one would simply be to ask for more studies that focus upon particular texts, their settings, use of language and the Bible, and his various forays into the doctrinal issues of the day. Much of the research heretofore has viewed Philoxenos and his writings and life as a totality, but seldom stops to narrow in on the occasion and content of a single text. To switch around the metaphor, a sharper examination of the trees may help us to understand the forest more clearly and accurately.

124

Robert A. Kitchen

Neither last nor least, the suggestion of Andrea Sterk, University of Florida and Center of Theological Inquiry, and one of the moderators of the Princeton Phest, may nudge us towards solving one piece of the Philoxenian puzzle. How did Philoxenos go about being a bishop? What episcopal and pastoral duties did he undertake that were in keeping with the patterns of contemporary bishops and which ones were idiosyncratic? May these two issues of Hugoye 13 devoted to Philoxenos of Mabbug inspire, encourage, and agitate more readers to a deeper examination of this major theologian, ecclesiastical controversialist, and elegant writer of the Syriac language.

Hugoye: Journal of Syriac Studies, Vol. 13.2, 125–148 © 2010 by Beth Mardutho: The Syriac Institute and Gorgias Press

PAPERS

AN ARABIC SCHOLION TO GENESIS 9:18–21 (NOAH’S DRUNKENNESS) ATTRIBUTED TO PHILOXENOS OF MABBUG ADAM C. MCCOLLUM LEAD CATALOGUER, EASTERN CHRISTIAN MANUSCRIPT PROJECT HILL MUSEUM & MANUSCRIPT LIBRARY ST. JOHN’S UNIVERSITY COLLEGEVILLE, MINNESOTA

ABSTRACT Among the scholia of an Arabic catena to Genesis published by P. de Lagarde in 1867 is an explanation of Gen 9:18–21 attributed to Philoxenos of Mabbug. This short passage is the subject of the present study. After a brief survey of the biblical text in question according to various Arabic versions, it will be shown that there is very little to commend its Philoxenian authenticity, while it clearly echoes an interpretation found in Ephrem’s Commentary on Genesis. In addition, two other related passages (one with a new interpretation) in Ephrem are brought to the discussion, and the scholion’s similarity and difference to Jewish traditions recorded in the Targums, Bereshit Rabba, and Midrash Tanhuma (Buber) are also pointed out. 125

126

Adam C. McCollum

In his monumental and weighty work on Christian literature existing in Arabic, Georg Graf, when speaking of the exegetical literature of Philoxenos that was translated and survives in Arabic, remarks: “Minor [or tenuous] loans from the exegetical work of Philoxenos are found as scholia in the Arabic Pentateuch catena together with Ephrem at Gen 1:21 (on the extraordinary pairing of the dragons), independently at Gen 9:18–20...”1 This brief note will take a closer look at the scholion on Gen 9 in question, but before turning there, it is worth asking why Graf connects Philoxenos here with Gen 1:21 and Ephrem’s interpretation of it. In the catena itself,2 only Ephrem and Moshe bar Kepha are named together there, and a perusal of the passage leads to no indication of Philoxenos at all (as observed also by de Halleux).3 Graf’s work being of the sort it is—a survey, albeit a very detailed and comprehensive one—he goes into no further detail about this specific passage. Perhaps there are Philoxenian elements in this exegesis of Gen 1:21, but the catena’s compiler was apparently unaware of them or unwilling to grant the Bishop of Mabbug any part in those remarks. Philoxenos did not fare as well as some other authors when it came to rendering Syriac literature into Arabic. This does not, of course, mean that he ceased being read in Syriac, as the number of surviving Syriac manuscripts to his work bears witness.4 But he is Georg Graf, Geschichte der christlichen arabischen Literatur, vols. 1–2, Studi e Testi 118, 133 (Vatican City: Bibliotheca Apostolica Vaticana, 1944, 1947) [= GCAL], vol. 1, 452–453. “Unbeteutende Anleihen aus dem exegetischen Schrifttum des Philoxenos finden sich in Scholienform in der arabischen Pentateuch-Katene zusammen mit Ephräm zu Gen 1,21 (über die aussergewöhnliche Paarung der Drachen); selbständig zu Gn 9,18–20...” 2 Paul de Lagarde, ed., Materialien zur Kritik und Geschichte des Pentateuchs, vol. 2 (Leipzig: Teubner, 1867), 17. 3 André de Halleux, Philoxène de Mabbog. Sa vie, ses écrits, sa théologie (Louvain: Imprimerie Orientaliste, 1963), 126. 4 See E.A.W. Budge, ed. and trans., Discourses of Philoxenos, vol. 2 (London, 1894), xlviii-lxv, for manuscripts in London, Paris, and Rome, with additional manuscripts pointed out in Anton Baumstark, Geschichte der syrischen Literatur (Bonn: A. Marcus and E. Webers Verlag, 1922) [= GSL], 141–144. 1

An Arabic Scholion to Genesis 9:18–21

127

not mentioned at all in AbŠ al-Barakćt’s (d. 1324) Catalog of Christian Literature in Arabic.5 The part of Philoxenos’ oeuvres in Arabic with the greatest representation is his letters (Vat. Syr. 207, Vat. Ar. 126, Mingana Syr. 401, Jerusalem Hl. Grab Ar. 24, Cairo 563 and 702, Sbath 1018, Fihris 440). His Discourses are known in Arabic only in a MS. at the Za‘faran monastery6 and, in a truncated form, from BNF Syr. (Garshuni) 239.7 Finally, a number of manuscripts preserve his prayers.8 Noticeably absent from this list is Philoxenos’ exegetical work, and Graf’s description, “unbedeutende Anleihen/minor loans” is apt for that whole class of his commentaries. Before we look specifically at the Gen 9 scholion, it is worthwhile first to offer a few remarks on the catena to the Pentateuch published by Lagarde in which the scholion occurs. The MS. he used is Leiden Or. 230,9 but there are also several others.10 The catena typically gives a block of Scripture, often following the words ΏΎΘϜϟ΍ ϝΎϗ “Scripture said,” and then proceeds with exegetical remarks from this or that named Greek or Syriac writer.11 The proem to the Catena12 includes a narrative of how the Torah was passed on and preserved from God to Moses through (See Wilhelm Riedel, ed. and trans., “Der Katalog der christlichen Schriften in arabischer Sprache von AbŠ ’l-Barakćt,” in Nachrichten der Kgl. Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen, Philologisch-hist. Klasse 5 [1902], 635–706; for a recent ET by the present writer, see http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/abu_l_barakat_catalogue.htm). 6 See GCAL, vol. 1, 453, who cites Louis Cheikho, Catalogue des manuscrits des auteurs arabes chrétiens depuis l’Islam [in Arabic] (Beirut, 1924), 167. 7 H. Zotenberg, Catalogues des manuscrits syriaques et sabéens (mandaïtes) de la Bibliothèque Nationale (Paris, 1874), 194–195, also cited by Budge, Discourses, vol. 2, lxv. 8 For these, see Budge, Discourses, vol. 2: lxv, and GCAL, vol. 1, 453, no. 4. In Ge‘ez, too, his prayers seem to have been at least somewhat popular. 9 See J. Just Witkam, Inventory of the Oriental Manuscripts of the Library of the University of Leiden, vol. 1 (Leiden: Ter Lugt, 2007), 99. 10 See GCAL, vol. 2, 289 for a list. 11 See Lagarde, Materialien, vol. 1, xv–xvi for an index of authors named. 12 Ibid., vol. 2, 2–4. 5

128

Adam C. McCollum

various personages of the Hebrew Bible down to Zechariah (father of John the Baptist) and later Annas and Caiaphas (cf. Lk 3:2, Jn 18:13), as well as a supposed reference to Eusebius of Caesarea’s notice in his Chronicle (ϥΎϣΰϟ΍ ΐΘϜϣ) of the translation of the Torah into Greek under Ptolemy Philadelphus, but the details given at the beginning of the Arabic Catena are not to be found in Eusebius’ Chronicle as we know it.13 The Catena claims, supposedly based on Eusebius, that Ptolemy, upon finding different interpretations among the translators, threw them bound into prison, and put the translation of the Torah into a pit with fire and ash for seven days, and after that they covered it with garbage, in which condition it remained for seventy years.14 The book survived, it says, unharmed, and was brought out of the pit later, perhaps in the 21st year of Ptolemy V Epiphanes (?),15 but nothing else of its fate is mentioned in the proem, which then ends by spending several lines describing the scattering of the Jews.

For mention of the event in Jerome’s translation, see Rudolf Helm, ed., Die Chronik des Hieronymus, GCS 24, Eusebius Werke 7.1 (Leipzig, 1913), 129, lines 15–26. I do not have access to J. Karst’s translation of the Armenian version, Die Chronik, aus dem Armenischen übersetzt, GCS 20, Eusebius Werke 5 (Leipzig, 1911). 14 According to the Chronicle of Ps.-Zacharias (Syriac text in J.P.N. Land, Anecdota Syriaca, vol. 3 [Leiden: Brill, 1870], 327), also supposedly based on the Chronicle (ƎƠƀƌƢƃ) of Eusebius, Ptolemy, having provided for the translation of the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek, “hid and kept them to himself” (ĬŁŴƆ ķŴƌĥ Ƣźƌĭ ƈƊŶ). For a brief discussion of the passage, see Abraham Wasserstein and David L. Wasserstein, The Legend of the Septuagint from Classical Antiquity to Today (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), 133–134. 15 Reigned 204–181 BCE. This identity is merely a guess. The Arabic reads ϚϠϤϟ΍ αϮσϮϧΎϴϓ΍, so I am assuming the name has been garbled in transmission. Since the last king mentioned was a Ptolemy, and no other qualification is given with this name, it is reasonable to suppose that we have another Ptolemy here. The next events referred to are Jesus’ ascension and Titus’ entry into Jerusalem. 13

An Arabic Scholion to Genesis 9:18–21

129

Since we are dealing with a piece of commentary, it is fitting to make a few remarks about the biblical text itself. Moreover, since the scholion is in Arabic, and since the study of the numerous versions of the Bible in Arabic (especially as used by Christians) is a field that has hardly been thoroughly tapped, as relatively most of the relevant material remains only in manuscripts, this is a suitable place to present a modicum of the data, though only for Gen 9:20– 21, if for no other reason than to highlight the complexity of the question and encourage future work on this very important topic. Of course, this is hardly the place to go into any sort of detailed discussion of the subject or a presentation of the status quaestionis.16 Here I simply give the Arabic version as quoted in the catena together with a few other texts; the aim here is merely to underline the variety of the available texts and emphasize the great potential of future research to be done in this field, from initial comparison of manuscripts and the preparation of editions to specific studies, especially regarding Vorlagen and translation technique. Since the English translations are very similar, some differences in grammar and vocabulary are indicated in brackets. In the Catena, according to Leiden Or. 230, fol. 110v œ œœ ĬƢƊƃŔ ħƢƣĭ ťƉƢƃœ ĸƢūĭ (Garshuni):17 ęƢƄƐƘ Ŕ ęıĿƧĥ ŸƇƙſ ķĥ įŴƌ ˯ŧĪƦŨĥĭ œ œ œ ĬƼŨ ƁƘ ƚƤƃŁĭ “Noah began [VIII stem] cultivating the ground and planted a vineyard. He drank of its wine and got drunk, and was uncovered [V stem] in his tent [bayt].” Saadia Gaon:18 Ϧϣ Ώήηϭ .Ύϣήϛ αήϐϓ νέϻ΍ ΔΣϼϓ ΡϮϧ ϯΪΘΑ΍ Ϋ΍ϭ ϪϳΎΒΧ ϲϓ ϒθϜΗϭ ήϜγϭ ήϤΨϟ΍ “When Noah began [VIII stem] cultivating the ground, he planted a vineyard and drank of its wine, got drunk, and was uncovered [V stem] in his tent [khibć(’)].”

I am in the process of preparing a bibliography on the subject of the Bible in Arabic. 17 Lagarde’s edition in Arabic script, Materialien, vol. 2, 86, reads: ΍ΪΘΑ΍ϭ ϪΘϴΑ ϲϓ ϒθϜΗϭ ήϜδϓ ϩήϤΧ Ώήηϭ Ύϣήϛ αήϏϭ νέϻ΍ ΢Ϡϔϳ ϥ΍ ΡϮϧ As below, I heartily thank Ronny Vollandt for having shared this and some other of these MS readings with me. 18 J. Derenbourg, Œuvres complètes de R. Saadia ben Iosef al-Fayyoûmî, vol. 1 (Paris, 1893), 16. I have transcribed the edition’s Hebrew script into Arabic letters. 16

130

Adam C. McCollum

Leiden. Warn. 377:19 ϪϨϣ ήμϋϭ Ύϣήϛ αήϏϭ ϞϤόϳ νέϻ΍ ϲϓ ΡϮϧ ΍ΪΑϭ ϪϳΎΒΧ ϲϓ ϒθϜϧΎϓ ϡΎϧϭ ήϜγϭ ϪϨϣ Ώήηϭ ΍ήϤΧ “Noah began [I stem] working the ground and he planted a vineyard. He pressed wine from it and drank of it, got drunk, and went to sleep. He was then uncovered [VII stem] in his tent [khibć(’)].” Al-ʗćrit b. Sinćn (Vat. Ar. 1, fol. 38v):20 ϥ΍ ΎΣϮϧ ϲϨϋ΍ ϥΎδϧϻ΍ ΍ΪΘΑ΍ϭ ϪΘϴΑ ϲϓ ϒθϜΗϭ ήϜδϓ ϩήϤΧ Ϧϣ Ώήηϭ Ύϣήϛ αήϐϳϭ νέϻ΍ ΢Ϡϔϳ “The man (that is, Noah) began [VIII stem] cultivating the ground and planting a vineyard. He drank of its wine and then got drunk and was uncovered [V stem] in his tent [bayt].” Vat. Ar. 465, fol. 8r: Ώήηϭ Ύϣήϛ αήϏϭ νέϻ΍ ΢Ϡϔϳ ϥ΍ ΡϮϧ ΍ΪΘΑ΍ϭ ϪΗέϮϋ ΖϧΎΑϭ ϪΘϴΑ ϲϓ ϒθϜΗϭ ήϜγϭ ϩήϤΧ ήϴμϋ “Noah began [VIII stem] cultivating the ground and planted a vineyard. He drank what had been pressed [‘aʜĪr] of its wine, got drunk, was uncovered [V stem] in his tent [bayt], and his genitals [‘aura] were visible.” Vat. Ar. 468,21 pt. 1, fol. 7v, col. 2: ΢Ϡϔϳ ϥ΍ ΎΣϮϧ ϲϨϋ΍ ϥΎδϧϻ΍ ΍ΪΘΑ΍ϭ ϪΘϴΑ ϲϓ ϒθϜΗϭ ήϜδϓ ϩήϤΧ Ώήηϭ Ύϣήϛ αήϏϭ νέϻ΍ “The man (that is, Noah) began [VIII stem] cultivating the ground and planted a vineyard. He drank its wine and then got drunk and was uncovered [V stem] in his tent [bayt].” Sin. Ar 3, fols. 35r–v: Ώήηϭ Ύϣήϛ αήϏϭ νέϻ΍ ΢Ϡϔϳ ϥ΍ ΡϮϧ ΍ΪΘΑ΍ϭ ϪΘϴΑ ϲϓ ϒθϜΗϭ ήϜγϭ ήϤΧ ήϴμϋ “Noah began [VIII stem] cultivating the ground and planted a vineyard. He drank the wine that had been pressed [‘aʜĪr], got drunk, and was uncovered [V stem] in his tent [bayt].” St. Mark’s, Jerusalem 44 (Garshuni), f. 80r:22 ƨŮĿ ķŴƄſœ ķĥ įŴƌ ŧűŨĭ œ œ ƢƄƏĭ œ ĬƢƊƃŔ ƎƉ ħƢƣĭ ťƉƢƃœ ĸƢūĭ ĬŁŴƏ ƦƙƤƄƌĥĭ Ŕ ęıĿƧĥ ŸƇƙſ “Noah began [I stem] to be a man cultivating the ground and he planted a

Lagarde, Materialien, vol. 1, 10. Cf. A. Mai, Scriptorum Veterum Nova Collectio e Vaticanis Codicibus Edita, vol. 4 (Rome, 1831), 1–2. This translation is from the 5th column of the Hexapla. 21 See S. Euringer, “Zum Stammbaum der arabischen Bibelhandschriften Vat. ar. 468 and 467,” Zeitschrift für Semitistik und verwandte Gebiete 7 (1929): 259–273. 22 In Arabic script: Ώήηϭ Ύϣήϛ αήϏϭ .νέϻ΍ ΢Ϡϔϳ ϼΟέ ϥϮϜϳ ϥ΍ ΡϮϧ ΍ΪΑϭ ϪΗ(˯)Ϯγ ΖϔθϜϧ΍ϭ ήϜγϭ ϩήϤΧ Ϧϣ. 19 20

An Arabic Scholion to Genesis 9:18–21

131

vineyard. He drank of its wine and got drunk, and his genitals [sau’a] were uncovered [VII stem].” Erpenius, Pentateuchus Mosis Arabice:23 [?] ϲϧ΍ήΨλ ϞΟέ ΡϮϧ ΍ΪΑϭ ΎΒΧ ςγϭ ϲϓ ϒθϜϧ΍ϭ ήϜγϭ άϴΒϨϟ΍ Ϧϣ Ώήηϭ ΎϧΎϨΟ αήϏϭ “Noah began [I stem] [to be] a farming [?] man and planted gardens [janćn]. He drank of the wine [nabĪd], got drunk, and was uncovered [VII stem] within a tent [khibć(’)].” For completeness and easy comparison, I also list the Masoretic text, LXX, Peshitta, and Syro-Hexapla: Hebrew: %7! 4#6! *!! *) 76!! :'4# - ! ) 6! + %! % "7 LXX:24 ̍΅Ϡ όΕΒ΅ΘΓ ̐ЗΉ ΩΑΌΕΝΔΓΖ ·ΉΝΕ·ϲΖ ·ϛΖ, Ύ΅Ϡ πΚϾΘΉΙΗΉΑ ΦΐΔΉΏЗΑ΅. Ύ΅Ϡ σΔ΍ΉΑ πΎ ΘΓІ ΓϥΑΓΙ Ύ΅Ϡ πΐνΌΙΗΌ΋, Ύ΅Ϡ π·ΙΐΑЏΌ΋ πΑ ΘХ ΓϥΎУ ΅ЁΘΓІ.

ñ įŴƌ IJƢƣĭ ñ Peshitta:25 26ĬƢƊŶ ƎƉ IJƦƣĥĭ .ťƉƢƃ ħ̙ƞƌĭ ĘťƕĿŤŨ ŧűũƕ ųƍƄƤƉ ŴŬŨ ƁƇūŁĥĭ IJĭĿĭ ñ IJƢƣĭ Syro-Hexapla:27 ĖťƉƢƃ ħƞƌĭ .ťƕĿĥĪ ŧƢƃĥ ťƤƌƢŨ įŴƌ ĖųƇſĪ ŦƦƀũŨ ƁƇūŁĥĭ ęIJĭĿĭ .ŧƢƊŶ ƎƉ IJƦƣĥĭ The likely interrelationships between these Arabic translations and their possible Vorlagen will not be discussed here; only a few observations about the biblical text in question as translated in the Arabic catena will suffice. We note, first, the unique absence of “from” before “wine.” The two Syriac versions cited here, the Hebrew, and the Septuagint all have this preposition, as do the Arabic translations given above, with the exception of those from Sin. Ar. 3, Var. Ar. 465, and Vat. Ar. 468. The beginning of the translation in the catena, “And Noah began to cultivate the ground,” while it makes perfect sense, does not exactly match any (Leiden, 1622), 18–19. J.W. Wevers, Genesis (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1974), 130. 25 The Peshiʜta Institute, The Old Testament in Syriac according to the Peshiʞta Version, pt. I, fasc. 1 (Leiden: Brill, 1977), 16–17. 26 MS. 5b1 (i.e. BL Add. MS. 14425) has simply ŧƢƊŶ, a unique reading. This part of that important MS is original, in the hand of John of Amid from 463/4. For details see The Peshiʜta Institute, The Old Testament in Syriac, vi. 27 P. de Lagarde, Bibliothecae Syriacae (Göttingen, 1892), 38. 23 24

132

Adam C. McCollum

of the possible Vorlagen in terms of syntax and parts of speech. Finally, at the end of these verses, our translation only has “he was uncovered28 in his tent,”29 without specific mention of Noah’s genitals, like most other Arabic versions (and the Hebrew, Greek, and Syriac texts), but unlike Vat. Ar. 465 and St. Mark’s 44. In terms of these and similar points of inquiry, the (Christian) Arabic versions of the Bible for the most part remain, unlike Noah, covered; until a Ham (in fact, several of them), who will in this case merit a blessing and not a curse, comes along and makes them better known, there will remain a significant gap in the field of Christian Arabic literature and indeed in the study of eastern Christianity in general. We now turn to the Gen 9 scholion, the only part of the Catena attributed to Philoxenos.30 I give the scholion first in Garshuni according to Leiden Or. 230, fol. 110v,31 and then in Arabic script from Lagarde’s edition:32 ï ñ þƧĭĬ ķĥ ęŰũƍƉ ƚƠƏĥ ĸŴƍƀƐƃŴƇƀƘ ĵŤƟ þťŨƧĥ ĶĬ ęĬƦƆƦƭ õ õ õ ñ ƗƀƊŮ ŁĿųż ĶųƍƉĭ ęŦĬŴƇƉĭ ıĿƧĥ ƁƇƕ ŦŴƇƏŤƌŁñ IJűƭ ò Ć õ ĩƢũƭ ŴƍŨ ęĬƦƆƦƭ þƧĭĬ ƈƐƌĭ ęƗſŤƌƞƭ ƁƘ ĬųũƤƊƭ õ õ ñ ĬƢƊƃõ ħƢƣĭ ťƉƢƃ ĸƢū ķǃŴƠƌĭ ęƢƄƏ õ įŴƌ ťƉŤƘ ęƈŨŤũŨ ò ƁƘĭ ęķŤƘŴźƭ űƖŨ ñ ƎƉ ųƆĭƧĥ ųƍƐƭ ƁƘ ęĶƢƄƭ ĸƢū õ įŴƌ ò ñ ƢƊƄƭ ñ ęķŤƘŴźƭ űƖŨ ĖƢƄƏĭ ųƍƐƭ ñ ĬƦƆĥƦƭ õ įŴƌ ħƢƣ õ õ

Note that Leiden Or. 230 and most other versions use the V stem, but Leiden Warn. 377, St. Mark’s 44, and Erpenius’ text use the VII stem. 29 The word used is bayt, often meaning “house,” but also sometimes “tent,” as here. The same may be said of ΓϥΎΓΖ in the Greek version, but the difference in rendering between the Peshitta (ųƍƄƤƉ) and Syro-Hexapla (ųƇſĪ ŦƦƀŨ), not surprisingly, follows the Greek closely and clearly reflects at least a technical lexical distinction between the two Syriac words. 30 See Lagarde, Materialien, vol. 1, xvi. 31 As before, I sincerely thank Ronny Vollandt for sharing the reading of this scholion in the MS with me. 32 Materialien, vol. 2, 86, ll. 25–29, with one correction from Harold Sidney Davidson, De Lagarde’s Ausgabe der arabischen Übersetzung der Genesis (Cod. Leid. Arab. 230) nachgeprüft (Leipzig: Drugulin, 1908), 16. 28

An Arabic Scholion to Genesis 9:18–21

133

In Arabic script: ϱάϟ΍ ˯ΎΑϻ΍ Ϣϫ ΔΜϠΜϟ΍ ˯ϻϮϫ ϥ΍ ΞΒϨϣ ϒϔγ΍ αϮϨϴδϛϮϠϴϓ ϝΎϗϭ ϲϓ ΔϬΒθϤϟ΍ ϊϴϤΟ ΕήϬχ ϢϬϨϣϭ ΎϫϮϠϣϭ νέϻ΍ ϰϠϋ ΍ϮϠγΎϨΗ αήϏ ΡϮϧ ΎϣΎϓ ϞΑΎΒΑ ΝήΒϟ΍ ϮϨΑ ΔΜϠΜϟ΍ ˯ϻϮϫ Ϟδϧϭ ϊϳΎϨμϟ΍ ΔϨδϟ΍ ϲϓ ϡήϜϟ΍ αήϏ ΡϮϧ ϥ΍ ϝϮϘϧϭ ήϜδϓ ϩήϤΧ Ώήηϭ Ύϣήϛ Ώήη ϥΎϓϮτϟ΍ ΪόΑ ΔΜϟΎΜϟ΍ ΔϨδϟ΍ ϲϓϭ ϥΎϓϮτϟ΍ ΪόΑ Ϧϣ Γϻϭϻ΍ ήϜγϭ ήϤΨϟ΍ ΡϮϧ Philoxenos, Bishop of Mabbug, said: These three are the fathers that propagated over the earth and filled it. From them appeared every problem in the [various] skills. The progeny of these three built the Tower in Babel. As for the text, “Noah planted a vineyard, drank its wine, and then got drunk,” we say that Noah planted the vineyard in the first year after the Flood, and in the third year after the flood he drank the wine and got drunk.

This scholion consists of two parts, the first of which, regarding the dispersal of Noah’s descendants through his sons, is somewhat obvious, but the line “From them appeared every problem [ΔϬΒθϣ] in the [various] skills,” at least is of interest. For the word ΔϬ͉Β˴θ˵ϣ, both Al-MuʚĪʞ33 and the Maronite Germanos Farhat34 give ΔϠϜθϣ, and I have followed them here in my understanding of the passage. Kazimirski35 only lists the word as a feminine adjective, but offers the French meanings, “1. Assimilé. 2. Douteux, obscur, ambigu.” The former of these meanings given by Kazimirski is the more usual, but the latter, which agrees with Al-MuʚĪʞ and Farhat, is almost certainly the one required here. On these skills or arts of sin, we might well think of Canaan as the subsequent renewer of certain arts, especially (at least some

Al-FĪrŠzćbćdĪ, Al-QćmŠs Al-MuʚĪʞ (Beirut: Dar Ehia al-Tourath alArabi, 2003), 1148–1149. 34 Dictionnaire arabe, ed. Rochaïd de Dahdah (Marseilles, 1849), 571. He vocalizes the word with fatʚa over the mĪm. 35 A. de Biberstein Kazimirski, Dictionnaire arabe-français, vol. 2 (Cairo, 1875), 662. 33

134

Adam C. McCollum

kinds of) music, after the Flood, a tradition found in The Cave of Treasures36 and The Book of the Bee.37 The second part of the scholion, regarding the timing of Noah’s planting of the vineyard and subsequent enjoyment of its fruit, is more unique in the exegetical history of this passage. These details about Noah’s activity are not obvious from the text but are reliant upon a tradition associated with it. Readers familiar with Ephrem’s Commentary (ťƠƣŴƘ) on Genesis will perhaps recognize this second part of the scholion, and more will be said on the connection between our scholion and Ephrem’s Commentary below. Despite the fact that it occurs in Ephrem’s work on Genesis, however, this detail about Noah does not seem to have been Carl Bezold, ed. and trans., Die Schatzhöhle, syrisch und deutsch, vol. 2 (Leipzig, 1888), 106 (Syriac) and 107 (Arabic); I unfortunately do not have immediate access to the edition and translation of A. Su-Min Ri, La caverne des trésors. Les deux recensions syriaques, CSCO 486–487/SS 207–208 (Louvain: Peeters, 1987). The text is somewhat too long to cite in full here, but the idea is that Satan entered Canaan after he was grown, and Canaan thus “became [if we should read not ųƆ ŦĭĬ but ŦĭĬ—Cain then being the subject and not Satan—which seems to fit the passage better and also agrees with the Arabic] a teacher of sin and renewed the work/worship [ťƍŷƆŴƘ] of the family of Cain and he constructed and made flutes and lyres, and demons entered into them and dwelt there, and right when air was blown through them, the devils sang from within and gave off a strong sound...” (Syriac text). The Arabic version says that Canaan was “an instrument of Satan” (for a similar use in Greek with ϷΕ·΅ΑΓΑ, cf. G.W.H. Lampe, A Patristic Greek Lexicon [Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1961], 969, to which may be added ̏ΝΣΐΉΘ, Θϲ ΘΓІ ̕΅ΘΤΑ ϷΕ·΅ΑΓΑ in Martyrium S. Nicetae Iunioris 3.110, in F. Halkin, ed., Hagiographica Inedita Decem, CCSG 21 [Turnhout: Brepols, 1989], 131) in addition to being “a teacher of sin” and mentions more musical instruments than the Syriac text. 37 E.A.W. Budge, ed. and trans., The Book of the Bee, Anecdota Oxoniensia, Semitic Series, vol. 1, pt. 2 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1886), ò ò ET 33, Syr 34: .ŦƦƀźŶĪ ŦŁŴƍƉĭĥ ķŁűŶƦƌ ųƕĿĮ ƎƉĪ ŦĭĬ űſƦƕĪ ƈƕĭ ò ñ ƎƖƍƃĪ ųƕĿĮ ƎƉĪ ƈźƉ .ťƀƍƏ ťƌƮƕŴƏ ķĭųƇƃĪĭ ŧűƟĿĪĭ ťƌĥ ƢƉĥ ŧƢƉĮĪ ŦŁĭƢƉĮĪ ŧĪĬ ŦŁŴƍƉĭĥ ƦƠƙƌ Budge’s translation: “...and also because the arts of sin—I mean music and dancing and all other hateful things— were about to be revived by his posterity, for the art of music proceeded from the seed of Canaan.” 36

An Arabic Scholion to Genesis 9:18–21

135

popular in later Syriac (or, as far as I know, Arabic) exegesis. To mention only a few sources: The Cave of Treasures38 records the event, but not with the chronological details given here. The interpretation in the Arabic scholion likewise does not recur in the commentary of Isho‘dad or the Arabic work of Ibn al-ʝayyib, who heavily relied on Isho‘dad. Barhebraeus’ remarks on this biblical passage in his Storehouse of Mysteries are confined to the following: “‘Noah began to be a worker of the earth,’ because he believed in the Lord’s covenant. ‘And he planted a vineyard and drank of its wine and got drunk,’ because he was not experienced with drinking it, he thought of it like water.”39 We have just mentioned the Arabic commentary of Ibn al-ʝayyib, but to cite another Arabic commentary, that of the Coptic writer Marqus al-DarĪr b. MawhŠb b. al-Qanbar40 does not deal exactly with Noah’s drunkenness as an event in and of itself, but it does give an extended interpretation of Noah here as a type of Christ in his death and resurrection, including an appeal to Ps 78:65 (f. 82v), a connection also made in The Cave of Treasures.41 The scholion on the Gen 9 passage that is attributed to Philoxenos, however, may in fact not be his at all, but rather Ephrem’s. In his prose commentary on Genesis, Ephrem gives two proofs for the fact that it was Noah’s long absence from wine that allowed him to get as drunk as he did: the years it took to plant a vineyard and have it bear fruit, and the years it would have taken Bezold, Schatzhöhle, vol. 1 (GT), 24–25, vol. 2 (Syriac and Arabic), 104–105. It is interesting that The Cave of Treasures, in both Syriac and Arabic, uses plural verbs for the sowing, planting, and pressing of the vineyard and its fruit; in this view, Noah was apparently not alone in his agricultural endeavor. 39 Mor Gregorios Yohanna, ed., Bar Ebroyo. Die Scheune der Mysterien: Kommentar zum alten und neuen Testament (Losser: Bar-Hebraeus Verlag, 2003), 19. 40 See GCAL, vol. 2, 329–332. I have consulted the commentary from St. Mark’s, Jerusalem, MS no. 44 (Garshuni), beginning at f. 80r, the full manuscript having been made available online thanks to the Center for the Preservation of Ancient Religious Texts, Brigham Young University, cpart.byu.edu (see GCAL, vol. 1, 101–103 for information on the Pentateuch of this commentary). 41 Bezold, Schatzhöhle, vol. 2, 108 (Syriac) and 109 (Arabic). 38

136

Adam C. McCollum

for the Flood’s survivors to build a city and streets. The latter tradition is based on a textual reading that also occurs in Targums Onqelos and Pseudo-Jonathan,42 but the former comment is directly in contrast to another Jewish tradition, the assertion in Midrash Tanhuma (Buber) and Bereshit Rabba43 that Noah planted the vineyard, harvested the fruit, and drank his wine all on the same day.

On “in the street (or marketplace)” (36; the Hebrew text has “outside,” 1) as where Ham informed his brothers of their father’s nakedness, see Targums Onqelos and Pseudo-Jonathan to Gen 9:22, with the notes of Bernard Grossfeld, The Targum Onqelos to Genesis, The Aramaic Bible 6 (Wilmington, Del.: Michael Glazier, 1988), 59, n. 4, and Michael Maher, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: Genesis, The Aramaic Bible 1B (Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 1992), 46, n. 16), and, for the Ephrem passage in particular, S. Brock, “Jewish Traditions in Syriac Sources,” Journal of Jewish Studies 30 (1979): 212–232 (p. 219 in particular) (reprinted in Studies in Syriac Christianity [Hampshire, Great Britain and Brookfield, Ver.: Ashgate, 1992], chap. IV). For the possibility of Ephrem here preserving an earlier reading of the biblical text than that of Peshitta MSS—contrary to Edward G. Matthews and Joseph P. Amar, trans., St. Ephrem the Syrian: Selected Prose Works, ed. Kathleen McVey, The Fathers of the Church 91 (Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 1994), 144, n. 313, this reading with “street” is not in the Peshitta—, see M.P. Weitzman, The Syriac Version of the Old Testament: An Introduction (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), 288. Van Rompay accepts this possibility, but opts rather for the likelihood “that he [Ephrem] knew of its existence, adopted it, and used it in its most literal sense (‘in the street’ rather than ‘outside’), because it suited his reasoning” (“Antiochene Biblical Interpretation,” in J. Frishman and L. Van Rompay, eds., The Book of Genesis in Jewish and Oriental Christian Interpretation: A Collection of Essays [Louvain: Peeters, 1997], 113). 43 Tanhuma Buber 2.20 (Salomon Buber, ed., Midrasch Tanchuma. Ein agadischer Commentar zum Pentateuch von Rabbi Tanchuma ben Rabbi Abba [Vilna, 1885], 48; ET, John T. Townsend, trans., Midrash Tanhuma Translated into English with Notes (S. Buber Recension), vol. 1, Genesis [Hoboken, NJ: Ktav, 1989], 52) and Bereshit Rabba 36.21 (J. Theodor, ed., Bereschit Rabba mit kritischem Apparat und Kommentar. Parascha I–XLVII [Berlin, 1912], 338; ET, H. Freedman, trans., Midrash Rabbah. Genesis, vol. 1 [London: Soncino, 1939], 290). 42

An Arabic Scholion to Genesis 9:18–21

137

Now following are five points of consideration that shed light on the question of the Arabic scholion’s origin. 1. The passage cannot be found in Philoxenos’ surviving works. For his exegetical works,44 we have his partially preserved Gospel Commentary, but that really is all.45 His doctrinal works are well known, and of his epistolary remains Baumstark remarks, “Bald die dogmatische, bald die asketische Richtung waltete in einer ausgedehnten Korrespondenz des Ph. vor...”,46 that is, these letters are often of dogmatic or ascetic interest, but not so much exegetical. With specific regard to this Arabic scholion, de Halleux remarks, “quant à la second citation, elle provient effectivement d’un commentaire philoxénien, mais c’est de celui de Luc.”47 He later48 cites the Arabic scholion as a witness to Philoxenos’ interpretation of Lk 3:23–38 on the genealogy of Jesus and the Image of God. This Arabic scholion, he says, fits into that scheme because it deals with the transmission of the Image of God through the sons of Noah.49 In this fragment, Philoxenos is indeed concerned with the Image of God and he comments on some of the earlier parts of Genesis there, but not as far as the narrative and records of Noah and his sons in Gen 5:30–10:32. There is, therefore, no concrete cause for connecting the Arabic scholion to this segment of Philoxenos’ oeuvres. True, Philoxenos’ name is attached to the scholion, but the disentangling of names and the See de Halleux, Philoxène de Mabbog, chapter one. In his memra on Philoxenos, Eli of Qarʜmin (13th cent.) says that Philoxenos, being learned in both Greek and Syriac, ƎſŁƭƦƆ ơƤƘ ò (André de Halleux, ed., Éli de QartamĪn. MĔmrć sur Mćr ŦƦƤſűƟò ĸŤƠſŁŤſĪ Philoxène de Mabbog, CSCO 233 / Syr 100 [Louvain: Secrétariat du CorpusSCO, 1963], 5, line 131). This verb de Halleux translates as “traduisit” (André de Halleux, trans., Éli de QartamĪn. MĔmrć sur Mćr Philoxène de Mabbog, CSCO 234 / Syr 101 [Louvain: Secrétariat du CorpusSCO, 1963], 5, with n. 3) but it can of course also mean “explain, interpret, comment on, etc.” 46 GSL, 142. 47 Philoxène de Mabbog, 126 48 Ibid., 149 49 See fr. 57 in J.W. Watt, Philoxenos of Mabbug, Fragments of the Commentary on Matthew and Luke, CSCO 392–3 / Syr 171–2 (Louvain: Secrétariat du CorpusSCO, 1978), 87–93; ET, 74–80. 44 45

138

Adam C. McCollum

scholia associated with them in catenae is no easy task, and accepting these attributions uncritically is rarely wise. 2. I leave to readers more familiar with his work to answer more definitively the question of how Philoxenian the air of this scholion is, but it gives the initial impression, at least, of being rather more along the lines of something a more Antiocheneinspired commentator might write.50 Indeed, both the type of comment given and the very fact that it is on a passage from Genesis marks it as somewhat suspect in terms of Philoxenian provenance. While Philoxenos did, it seems, write on Genesis, we do not know much about his work on that book aside from some remarks on Gen 1–2.51 Indeed, the interpretation in this Arabic scholion is found in Ephrem’s commentary on Genesis (see the next item), which Van Rompay selected as containing links with Antiochene exegesis, while not itself being fully within that fold.52 3. As already mentioned, the idea found in the second part of this scholion is present in Ephrem’s Commentary on Genesis.53 Since On the Antiochene school and its proximity to the Syriac-speaking world, see R.B. ter Haar Romeny, “Eusebius of Emesa’s Commentary on Genesis and the Origins of the Antiochene School,” in J. Frishman and L. Van Rompay, eds., The Book of Genesis in Jewish and Oriental Christian Interpretation: A Collection of Essays (Louvain: Peeters, 1997), 125–142. Van Rompay’s general description will serve well here: “Antiochene exegesis concentrates above all on the historical facts narrated in the Bible. The Bible contains a faithful report of these facts, couched in human and understandable language. There is only one level of meaning, the one envisaged by the biblical author” (“Antiochene Biblical Interpretation,” 108). In Romeny’s words, one practice of an Antiochene exegete is that “he fills gaps in the story” (“Eusebius of Emesa,” 128), which is exactly what happens in Ephrem’s comment on this passage and in the Arabic scholion under discussion. 51 On the Memra on the Tree of Life as witness to Philoxenos’ Old Testament exegetical activity, see de Halleux, Philoxène de Mabbog, 126–127. 52 See his “Antiochene Biblical Interpretation,” but especially 110, n. 22; 111–113; and 122–123; on 112–113, the Gen 9 passage is briefly discussed. See also Romeny, “Eusebius of Emesa,” 139 and the sources mentioned at 129, n. 21. 53 The much later Armenian commentary on Genesis attributed to Ephrem passes over the passage without remark, turning to focus on the curse of Canaan (Edward G. Matthews, Jr., The Armenian Commentary on the 50

An Arabic Scholion to Genesis 9:18–21

139

this passage is so relevant for a proper consideration of our Arabic scholion, I give it in full in Syriac54 and English.55 IJƦƣĥĭ ťƉƢƃ €÷åƒ .įŴƌ ƈƕ ħƦƃĥ ƎƀƆĬ ĿƦŨ ħĭŁ [1] ƋƀŶ ŦŵŶĭ .ųƍƄƤƉ ŴŬŨ ƁƇūŁĥĭ .ƅƉĪĭ IJĭĿĭ .ĬƢƊŶ ķĶ ̙ õ ò ĬŁŴſĭĿ .ťƟŴƤŨ IJĬŴŶĥ ƎſƭƦƆ IJŴŶĭ .IJĬŴŨĥĪ ŦŁŴƀƇŹƢƕ ŧƢūŴƍƆĪ ƈźƉ ťƆĥ .ŦŤƀŬƏ ŁĭĬ ŧƢƊŶ ƎƉ ŴƆ ƎſĪ ƈźƉ .ŦĭĬ ŦƦƣñ ŧƢƊŶ ŴƆ Ƣƀū ŦŁŴũƠŨ .ŦĭĬ ųſƦƣĥ ťƘƢƉ ƢƐŨ ƈƃĪ ťƌűŨĥ ĶŴſ ťƇƘĥĪ ŧƢƊŶ ųƆ ĥĭĬ ̙ ĖŦŁŴũƠƆ ŴƇƖƊƆ ƈźƉĭ .IJƦƣĥ ťƆĭ ťƍƘŴŹĪ ŦƦƍƣ IJĬñ ŦĭĬĪ Ʀƀƃ ƈźƉ ƢſŤŨ ťƖũƣĭ Ƣƀū ƎſƢƐƖŨ .ƋƏ ťƆ ťƉƢƃ .ơƙƌĪ ŦƦƍƤŨĪ ò ƎŨĮ .ĥĭĬ ŦƦƊƀƏ ƎŨĮ ŦĭĬ ťƆĭ .ĥĭĬ ̙ ťƆ ŦƦƆŴƖŨ ̙ ơƙƌĪ ƎƉ ťƉƢƃ ƋƏ ŦƦſƦƀƆŁ ŦƦƍƤƆĪ Ʀƀƃ ƈźƉ .ťƉƢƃĪ ò ò ťƌŴƤƊƃ űƕ .ŦŁŴũƟ ŴŬƆ ųƊƕ ŦĭĬ ƈƕĥĪ ŦƦƤƘĥĪ ò Ʀƣ ƎſųƆ ƎŷƃƦƤƉ .ƗŨĿŤƆ Ļĥ Ǝƀƍƣ ƦƆƦƆ ťƉƢƃ ŦĭĬñ ĖťƠſĪŵƆ ųƆ ĥ̙ĭĬ ƋƀƖŹ ťƆ ŧƢƊŶ ŦƦƕƞƊŨ Ǝƀƍƣò .ƢƉĥ ĬĿűŨ ĭĬñ ƈźƉĭ .ųſƦƣĥ ŧƢūŴƍƆĪ ĺĪŴƌĪĭ [2] ò ķĭųƆ ĥ̙ĭĬ ťƄſĥ ƎƉ .ťƟŴƤŨ IJĬŴŶŤƆ IJŴŶĭ ƋƀŶ ơƙƌĪ ŦƦſƢƟ ķĥĭ .ķĭųƆ ŁĭĬ ťƀƍŨ ŦƦſƢƟĪ ťƆ ŴƆĥ ĝ ťƟŴƣ ò ñ ò ƎƀƍŨ Ļĥ ŦĬ .ĭĭĬ ĬĭŤƍŨ ŦŁŤƀŬƏ ĭĬ ̙ ťƀƍƤƆ .ŴƍŨ ̙ ò ò ñ ò ƅſĥ ĭ̙Ĭ ťƀƍƤƆĪ ƎſĪųƏ ųƀƟŴƣĪ ŦŁĭƢſűƏĭ ŦƦſƢƟ ĖŦĭĬ ĬĿűŨ ĭĬñ ƈźƉĭ .ŧƢƊŷƆ ťũƏ ųſƦƣĥ ƎƌƢƉĥĪ Book of Genesis Attributed to Ephrem the Syrian (Ph.D. diss., Columbia University, 1996), 639; I do not have access to Matthews’ later edition of the work in CSCO 572–573 / Arm 23–24 [Louvain: Peeters, 1998]). But the Severus Catena (for some general remarks see L. Van Rompay, “Severos, Commentary of the Monk,” in The Gorgias Encyclopedic Dictionary of Syriac Heritage (Piscataway: Gorgias, forthcoming), and Matthews, Armenian Commentary, 50–53), as given in Assemani’s edition (Sancti Patris Nostri Ephraemi Syri Opera Omnia, vol. 1 [Rome, 1737], 152), has it in almost exact agreement with Ephrem’s Commentary, but with some additional material afterward; see Matthews, Armenian Commentary, 84–87, for a brief discussion (with English translation). 54 R.-M. Tonneau, Sancti Ephraem Syri in Genesim et in Exodum Commentarii, CSCO 152 / Syr 71 (Louvain: Imprimerie Orientaliste, 1955), 63–64; his Latin translation may be found in CSCO 153 / Syr 72, 50–51. 55 The English translation given here is adapted, in some places rather heavily, from Matthews and Amar, Ephrem the Syrian, 144.

140

Adam C. McCollum 7.1 After these things, [Scripture] recorded about Noah, that “he planted a vineyard and drank of its wine, got drunk, fell asleep,56 and lay uncovered in his tent. Ham saw the nakedness of his father and told his two brothers outside.” Noah’s drunkenness was not from an excess of wine but because it had been a long time since he had drunk [any wine]. In the ark he had drunk no wine; although all flesh was going to perish, Noah was not permitted to bring any wine onto the Ark. Because, therefore, Noah did not drink [any wine] the year of the Flood, and in the year that he left [the Ark], he did not plant a vineyard, for he came out of the ark on the twenty-seventh of Iyyćr [May]—not the time of [fruit] maturing and not the time for planting a vineyard—and so, because in the third year he planted the vineyard from the grape stones57 that he brought with him on the ark, until there was a [productive] vineyard in three or even four years, there were six years’ of interval during which the just one had not tasted any wine. 7.2 To indicate that it had been a long time since he had drunk [any wine], and for that reason it made him drunk, [Scripture] said, “Ham went out into the street and told his brothers.” How could they have a street, unless they had built a village? If they had built a village, it would have taken them several years to build. Therefore the building of the village and the laying out of its streets also bear witness that it had been years, as

This verb is not in the Peshitta version of the text, but the rest of Ephrem’s citation agrees with it almost exactly. The other main difference, as mentioned above, is the reading “outside.” 57 While Bereshit Rabba 36.20 (Theodor, 337; for an English translation, see Freedman, Midrash Rabbah, 289) says that the vineyard was planted from shoots (74)) that Noah had brought on the Ark, according to the lesser known (at least among non-Rabbinic scholars) Tanhuma Buber 2.20 (Buber, 48; for an English translation, see Townsend, Midrash Tanhuma, 52), it was grape seeds ('!+24) brought along in the Ark that were the source for the vineyard, just as Ephrem says here. For other Jewish traditions about the narrative, see Louis Ginzberg, Legends of the Jews, vol. 1, trans. Henrietta Szold (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1909), 167–174, with notes in vol. 5 (1925), 190–196. 56

An Arabic Scholion to Genesis 9:18–21

141

we said, since the old man had drunk any wine, and for that reason it made him drunk.

In a note to their translation, Matthews and Amar58 also point to Ephrem’s Nis. 57.5 and, in contrast, Virg. 1.10. It will be worthwhile to give these passages and discuss them in a little detail. First, in Nis. 57.5–6,59 part of a sogitć, we find Satan boasting, ŦŁŴƊƆĪ ƅſĥ ťƆŴƊƊƆ ŦĭĬ ťƃĮĪ įŴƌ ŧƢƊŶ IJųƀƃĮĪ IJĬŴƇƕ ƦƄŷū ƋŶĪ ųƉŴƙŨ Noah, who conquered the flood like death, With Ham’s mouth I laughed at him whom wine conquered.

To which Death replies,

ƅƇſĪ ƅƌŤƉ ťƆĥ ƚūƦƏĥ įŴƌ ŴƆ ò ƥũƆ ŧűũƕ ŦĭĬĭ IJųſƦƤũƆĪ ŦƦŹŴƆ õ Noah was not harmed, but your own vessel Put on curses, because you had put him on and he became a servant.

Satan first declares that he was using wine to weaken and denude Noah, but Death, on the other hand, implies that Noah himself did not succumb to any vinous temptation, nor was he in and of himself susceptible to its destruction: rather, Satan first had, in a sense, to embody and “bedevil” him. The harm of wine that came upon Noah, then, was in fact harm that came upon Satan himself! While it is sometimes dangerous to attribute any words or views of an author’s interlocutors to that author himself, there is nothing to bar us from hearing Ephrem claiming, here too as in the Commentary on Genesis, Noah’s freedom from guilt or blame in the incidence of the vineyard and its fruit. In the second relevant passage, Virg. 1.10,60 we have Ephrem counseling a female solitary: Ephrem the Syrian, 144, n. 314. For E. Beck’s ed., see Des heiligen Ephraem des Syrers Carmina Nisibena, pt. 2, CSCO 240 / Syr 102 (Louvain, Secrétariat du CorpusSCO: 1963), 85; GT, CSCO 241 / Syr 103, 74; in G. Bickell’s earlier ed., S. Ephraemi Syri Carmina Nisibena (Leipzig, 1866), the text will be found at 112, with a LT on 196. 60 I have quoted from E. Beck’s ed., Des heiligen Ephraem der Syrers Hymnen de Virginitate, CSCO 223 / Syr 94 (Louvain: Secrétariat du 58 59

142

Adam C. McCollum ĬĿűŨ ťƃĮĪ 61ŧƢƀƠſ įŴƍƆ ųƀƏƢƘĪ ŧƢƊŶ ƎƉ ƁƇŶĪ ĬƦƃĮ ŧƢƊŶĪ ťƇƕŴƣ ťƃŵƌĪ IJƞƉŁĥ ťƀƉò ĵŴƊƉĪ ƢũƆĪ ŦĭĬ ųƍƐŶ ťƆ ťƍƘŴŹĪĭ ŦŴūĪ ŧƢƊŶ ųƍƐŶ ò ŧƢƊŶ IJųſűƣ ƁƏƢƘ ťƉĬŴŹ ƥſĿ įŴƍƆĪ ñ ťƃĮ ťƊƃ ŦŁűŶŴƤƉ Ɓƃ ƁƄƆ Fear wine that laid Noah bare: it made drunk the61 righteous who conquered; A little wine conquered the one who had been able to conquer the floodwaters. The one the Flood did not prevail over on the outside, Wine prevailed over on the inside. Since wine laid bare and cast down Noah, the head of families, Then how much more will it conquer you, solitary woman!

The text of this part of the hymn is somewhat sketchy, as a look to Beck’s apparatus will show, but the exact meaning of one part of it has also perhaps been misunderstood. At the end of the first line, Rahmani translated ĬĿűŨ ťƃĮĪ with “prae ceteris clarum,” Beck with “den Sieger in seiner Generation,” and McVey with “victorious in his generation.” These three similar renderings are possible, to be sure, but an alternative reading is also worth suggesting, especially in light of Ephrem’s remarks on the passage in his Commentary. At 7.2 there (see above), we met the form CorpusSCO, 1962), 3; GT, CSCO 224 / Syr 95, 3, but see also Ignatius Ephraem II Rahmani, S. Ephraemi Hymni de Virginitate (Sharfeh, 1906), Syr 3, LT 3 and, for an ET, Kathleen E. McVey, trans., Ephrem the Syrian: Hymns (New York: Paulist Press, 1989), 264. 61 This is certainly the more difficult reading. BL Add. 17141 has ťƠſĪĮ, which adjective is applied to Noah at Gen 6:9 and here fits rather euphonically with the following word. Note that this adjective “just” is added, presumably from Gen 6:9, to Noah in Gen 9:20 of Targum Neofiti and the Genizah Targum (for the latter see, Michael L. Klein, Genizah Manuscripts of Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch, vol. 1 [Cincinnati: HUC Press, 1986], 26-27). On the other hand, Bereshit Rabba stresses that while Noah had been called “righteous” in Gen 6:9, he was subsequently “a man of the ground” (Theodor, Bereschit Rabba, 337; ET, Freedman, Midrash Rabbah. Genesis, 290). Philoxenos calls Noah ťƠſĪĮ in the passage referred to below under no. 4.

An Arabic Scholion to Genesis 9:18–21

143

ĬĿűŨ, not meaning “in his generation” (b-dćreh), as the form here in this hymn is supposed to mean by the aforementioned translators, but “made him drunk” (baddreh). Since we have the same form in both passages, and since they deal with the same theme, it is fitting to ask whether the form has not been misread. It is true that the meaning “make drunk” is rare for baddar: the lexica, when they give it, only cite §7.2 in the Genesis commentary,62 but there is hardly any other way to understand the word in that passage. Another possible objection to this reading is that the expression “in his generation” might for some readers call to mind the description of Noah in Gen 6:9, but the word “generation” there, in both Hebrew (!74) and in the Peshitta (IJĬĭƭűŨ ŦĭĬ ƋƀƉŁĭ ơſĪĮ Ƣũū įŴƌ), is plural, not singular, which it would have to be here in Ephrem’s hymn if that word is understood. So it is not conclusive, but the alternative reading proposed here and in the translation of the passage above does at least deserve serious consideration. 4. While Ephrem in his Genesis Commentary, as well as the author of the Arabic scholion, is at pains to leave Noah blameless for his drinking incident,63 Philoxenos himself64 specifically cites Noah as having given in to his desire for drink. There he puts Noah forth as one of a number of biblical personages—including Cain, Esau, and the Sodomites—whom “the lust of the belly” has conquered, and he offers nothing whatsoever in Noah’s defense. Gabriel Cardahi, Al-Lubćb. Dictionarium Syro-Arabicum (reprint, Damascus: Sidawi, 1994), 87; Michael Sokoloff, A Syriac Lexicon (Piscataway/Winona Lake: Gorgias/Eisenbrauns, 2009), 120. 63 Other patristic writers also give reasons to support Noah’s ultimate guiltlessness. According to Thedoret of Cyr, Noah was the first man to drink wine and therefore inexperienced in its use and effects (Questions on the Octateuch 53 [Gen 56]). Cyprian (Letters 63.2–3) and Jerome (Hom. in Gen. 13) see, like Ibn al-Qanbar as mentioned above, in Noah’s drunkenness a prefiguration of the passion of Christ. (For all these, see Andrew Louth, ed., Genesis 1–11, in collaboration with Marco Conti, Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, Old Testament I [Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2001], 156–158). Similarly, on Joseph in Gen 43:34, “Is it true,” Jerome (Hom. Pss 13) asks, “and is it literally possible that a holy man became drunk?” (see conveniently Mark Sheridan, ed., Genesis 12–50, Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, Old Testament II [Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2002], 286). 64 Budge, Discourses, vol. 1, 458.10–11; vol. 2, 439. 62

144

Adam C. McCollum

This Philoxenos passage is from his eleventh Discourse, ‘Al ‘anwćyutć w-kubbćšć d-pagrć, that is, On Asceticism and the Subjugation of the Body; that both eating and drinking are in view is clear not only from the negative examples cited in this place, but also from an express statement of Philoxenos previously in the Memra.65 Defending Noah would, of course, be out of place for Philoxenos’ purpose in this Memra and any excuses would nullify Noah as an example of the danger inherent in the “the lust of the belly,” but in any case, Philoxenos, while he may at times have considered Noah blameless in the drunkenness incident, we only have clear evidence for his contrary opinion. 5. Finally, Ephrem—who admittedly is a common source for this Catena66—is the supposed source for the scholion following the one in question, but it has nothing to do with the scholion attributed to Philoxenos. Might the sources, though, simply have gotten mixed up, both scholia in fact really stemming from Ephrem? In that case, the question remains: Why is Philoxenos’ name in the text to begin with? Perhaps the first part of the scholion, up to “the Tower in Babel,” is indeed Philoxenian, but the latter part is actually Ephrem’s. Another question, though, in that case is why the catena-collector (or a copyist?) fails to attribute this interpretation to Ephrem. As Burkitt said many years ago of the Severus Catena, “It is often impossible to discover where the passages taken from S. Ephraim really begin or end, and even if a passage be accepted as S. Ephraim’s there is generally nothing to shew that a Biblical quotation occurring in it may not have been supplied or edited by Severus.”67 The Arabic Catena edited by Lagarde has yet to be the subject of any complete text— or sourcecritical analysis, so it is impossible to answer this question, but at least the prospective investigator has Lagarde’s index of authors cited to begin from, and of course hardly one of these authors has

Ibid., vol. 1, 456.10–11; vol. 2, 437. On Philoxenos and asceticism see Robert A. Kitchen, “The Lust of the Belly is the Beginning of All Sin,” in the previous issue of Hugoye, 13.1 (2010), 49–63. 66 See Lagarde, Materialien, vol. 1, xv, for a list of scholia attributed to him. 67 S. Ephraim’s Quotations from the Gospel, Texts and Studies 7.2 (Cambridge, 1901), 87. 65

An Arabic Scholion to Genesis 9:18–21

145

remained in the same state in terms of editions and studies as when Lagarde wrote. Hopefully this humble inquiry has gone some way in highlighting both the stimulating character and the possible problems of this text. While scholars and other readers of Christian literature in Arabic may continue to hope for further evidence of Philoxenos in Arabic sources, most probably this particular scholion should be struck from the list of likely fragments.

BIBLIOGRAPHY J.S. Assemani, ed. and trans. Sancti Patris Nostri Ephraemi Syri Opera Omnia. Vol. 1 (Rome, 1737). Anton Baumstark. Geschichte der syrischen Literatur (Bonn: A. Marcus and E. Webers Verlag, 1922). Edmund Beck, ed. and trans. Des heiligen Ephraem des Syrers Carmina Nisibena, pt. 2, CSCO 240 / Syr 102 (Louvain, Secrétariat du CorpusSCO: 1963). ________. ed. and trans. Des heiligen Ephraem der Syrers Hymnen de Virginitate, CSCO 223 / Syr 94 (Louvain: Secrétariat du CorpusSCO, 1962). Carl Bezold, ed. and trans. Die Schatzhöhle, syrisch und deutsch. 2 vols. (Leipzig, 1883, 1888). G. Bickell, ed. and trans. S. Ephraemi Syri Carmina Nisibena (Leipzig, 1866). S. Brock, “Jewish Traditions in Syriac Sources,” Journal of Jewish Studies 30 (1979): 212–232. Reprint, in Studies in Syriac Christianity (Hampshire, Great Britain and Brookfield, Ver.: Ashgate, 1992), Chap. IV. Salomon Buber, ed. Midrasch Tanchuma. Ein agadischer Commentar zum Pentateuch von Rabbi Tanchuma ben Rabbi Abba (Vilna, 1885). E.A.W. Budge, ed. and trans. The Book of the Bee. Anecdota Oxoniensia, Semitic Series, Vol. 1, Pt. 2 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1886). ________. ed. and trans. Discourses of Philoxenos. 2 vols. (London, 1894). F. Crawford Burkitt. S. Ephraim’s Quotations from the Gospel. Texts and Studies 7.2 (Cambridge, 1901). Gabriel Cardahi. Al-Lubćb. Dictionarium Syro-Arabicum. Reprint, Damascus: Sidawi, 1994. Louis Cheikho. Catalogue des manuscrits des auteurs arabes chrétiens depuis l’Islam [In Arabic] (Beirut, 1924).

146

Adam C. McCollum

Harold Sidney Davidson. De Lagarde’s Ausgabe der arabischen Übersetzung der Genesis (Cod. Leid. Arab. 230) nachgeprüft (Leipzig: Drugulin, 1908). J. Derenbourg. Œuvres complètes de R. Saadia ben Iosef al-Fayyoûmî. Vol. 1 (Paris, 1893). Thomas Erpenius. Pentateuchus Mosis Arabice (Leiden, 1622). S. Euringer. “Zum Stammbaum der arabischen Bibelhandschriften Vat. ar. 468 and 467.” Zeitschrift für Semitistik und verwandte Gebiete 7 (1929): 259–273. Germanos Farhat. Dictionnaire arabe. Edited by Rochaïd de Dahdah (Marseilles, 1849). Al-FĪrŠzćbćdĪ. Al-QćmŠs Al-Mu‫ف‬Ī‫( ډ‬Beirut: Dar Ehia al-Tourath al-Arabi, 2003). H. Freedman, trans. Midrash Rabbah. Genesis. Vol. 1 (London: Soncino, 1939). Louis Ginzberg. Legends of the Jews. Translated by Henrietta Szold. Vols. 1 and 5 (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1909, 1925). Georg Graf. Geschichte der christlichen arabischen Literatur. Vols. 1–2. Studi e Testi 118, 133 (Vatican City: Bibliotheca Apostolica Vaticana, 1944, 1947). Bernard Grossfeld. The Targum Onqelos to Genesis. The Aramaic Bible 6 (Wilmington, Del.: Michael Glazier, 1988). F. Halkin, ed. Hagiographica Inedita Decem. CCSG 21 (Turnhout: Brepols, 1989). André de Halleux, ed. and trans.. ÉlĪ de QartamĪn, MĔmrć sur s. Mćr Philoxène de Mabbog. CSCO 233–4 / Syr 100–1 (Louvain: Secrétariat du CorpusSCO, 1963). ________. Philoxène de Mabbog. Sa vie, ses écrits, sa théologie (Louvain: Imprimerie Orientaliste, 1963). Rudolf Helm, ed. Die Chronik des Hieronymus. GCS 24, Eusebius Werke 7.1 (Leipzig, 1913). Josef Karst, trans. Die Chronik, aus dem armenischem übersetzt. GCS 20, Eusebius Werke 5 (Leipzig, 1911). A. de Biberstein Kazimirski. Dictionnaire arabe-français. Vol. 2 (Cairo, 1875). Robert A. Kitchen. “The Lust of the Belly is the Beginning of All Sin.” Hugoye, 13.1 (2010): 49–63. Michael L. Klein, ed. and trans., Genizah Manuscripts of Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch. 2 vols. (Cincinnati: HUC Press, 1986). Paul de Lagarde, ed. Bibliothecae Syriacae (Göttingen, 1892). ________, ed. Materialien zur Kritik und Geschichte des Pentateuchs. 2 vols. (Leipzig: Teubner, 1867).

An Arabic Scholion to Genesis 9:18–21

147

G.W.H. Lampe. A Patristic Greek Lexicon (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1961). J.P.N. Land. Anecdota Syriaca. Vol. 3 (Leiden: Brill, 1870). Andrew Louth, ed. Genesis 1–11. In collaboration with Marco Conti. Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture. Old Testament I (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2001). Michael Maher. Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: Genesis. The Aramaic Bible 1B (Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 1992). A. Mai. Scriptorum Veterum Nova Collectio e Vaticanis Codicibus Edita. Vol. 4 (Rome, 1831). Edward G. Matthews, Jr.. The Armenian Commentary on the Book of Genesis Attributed to Ephrem the Syrian (Ph.D. diss., Columbia University, 1996). ________, ed. and trans. The Armenian Commentary on Genesis Attributed to Ephrem the Syrian. CSCO 572–573 / Arm 23–24 (Louvain: Peeters, 1998). ________ and Joseph P. Amar, trans. St. Ephrem the Syrian: Selected Prose Works. Edited by Kathleen McVey. The Fathers of the Church 91 (Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 1994). Kathleen E. McVey, trans. Ephrem the Syrian: Hymns (New York: Paulist Press, 1989). The Peshi‫ډ‬ta Institute. The Old Testament in Syriac according to the Peshi‫ډ‬ta Version. Pt. I, Fasc. 1 (Leiden: Brill, 1977). Ignatius Ephraem II Rahmani, ed. and trans. S. Ephraemi Hymni de Virginitate (Sharfeh, 1906). R.B. ter Haar Romeny. “Eusebius of Emesa’s Commentary on Genesis and the Origins of the Antiochene School.” In J. Frishman and L. Van Rompay, eds. The Book of Genesis in Jewish and Oriental Christian Interpretation: A Collection of Essays (Louvain: Peeters, 1997), 125–142. Mark Sheridan, ed. Genesis 12–50. Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture. Old Testament II (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2002). Michael Sokoloff. A Syriac Lexicon (Piscataway/Winona Lake: Gorgias/Eisenbrauns, 2009). A. Su-Min Ri, ed. and trans. La caverne des trésors. Les deux recensions syriaques, CSCO 486–487/SS 207–208 (Louvain: Peeters, 1987). J. Theodor, ed. Bereschit Rabba mit kritischem Apparat und Kommentar. Parascha I–XLVII (Berlin, 1912).

148

Adam C. McCollum

R.-M. Tonneau, ed. and trans. Sancti Ephraem Syri in Genesim et in Exodum Commentarii. CSCO 152–153 / Syr 71–72 (Louvain: Imprimerie Orientaliste, 1955). John T. Townsend, trans. Midrash Tanhuma Translated into English with Notes (S. Buber Recension). Vol. 1, Genesis (Hoboken, NJ: Ktav, 1989). L. Van Rompay. “Malpânâ dilan Suryâyâ. Ephrem in the Works of Philoxenos of Mabbog: Respect and Distance.” Hugoye 7.1 (2004). ________. “Antiochene Biblical Interpretation: Greek and Syriac.” In J. Frishman and L. Van Rompay, eds. The Book of Genesis in Jewish and Oriental Christian Interpretation: A Collection of Essays (Louvain: Peeters, 1997), 103–123. ________. “Severos, Commentary of the Monk.” In The Gorgias Encyclopedic Dictionary of Syriac Heritage (Piscataway: Gorgias, Forthcoming). Abraham Wasserstein and David L. Wasserstein. The Legend of the Septuagint from Classical Antiquity to Today (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006). J.W. Watt, ed. and trans. Philoxenos of Mabbug, Fragments of the Commentary on Matthew and Luke. CSCO 392–3 / Syr 171–2 (Louvain: Secrétariat du CorpusSCO, 1978). M.P. Weitzman. The Syriac Version of the Old Testament: An Introduction (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999). J.W. Wevers, ed. Genesis (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1974). J. Just Witkam. Inventory of the Oriental Manuscripts of the Library of the University of Leiden. Vol. 1 (Leiden: Ter Lugt, 2007). Mor Gregorios Yohanna, ed. Bar Ebroyo. Die Scheune der Mysterien: Kommentar zum alten und neuen Testament (Losser: Bar-Hebraeus Verlag, 2003). H. Zotenberg. Catalogues des manuscrits syriaques et sabéens (mandaïtes) de la Bibliothèque Nationale (Paris, 1874).

Hugoye: Journal of Syriac Studies, Vol. 13.2, 149–175 © 2010 by Beth Mardutho: The Syriac Institute and Gorgias Press

ARGUMENTATIVE STRATEGIES IN PHILOXENOS OF MABBUG’S CORRESPONDENCE: FROM THE SYRIAC MODEL TO THE GREEK MODEL DANA IULIANA VIEZURE SETON HALL UNIVERSITY

ABSTRACT The shift in argumentative strategies utilized by Philoxenos in his polemical correspondence over the nearly forty years of his ecclesiastical career reveals an adaptation of his literary practice to the model of legitimation found in Greek Christological polemics. Four phases are identified here based on chronology and style. Over time Philoxenos moved from a disputational approach relying on scriptural arguments and the Syriac literary tradition of Ephrem to an emphasis on historical precedent and the orthodox pedigree of the Miaphysite tradition and finally to a more pragmatic strategy for the success of the Miaphysite Christology within the Imperial Church.

An overview of Philoxenos of Mabbug’s correspondence allows one to trace noteworthy changes in the author’s thematic focus, argumentative choices, modes of historical representation and rhetoric of self-representation, from his earliest epistolary attempts 149

150

Dana Iuliana Viezure

to the letters written in the period of his exile.1 While Philoxenos’ doctrinal program remained essentially the same throughout his entire career, the manner in which he defended this program underwent various changes over the years.2 The main focus of Philoxenos’ letters shifted from matters of doctrine (in the early correspondence) to issues of ecclesiastical practice and discipline (in the late correspondence). At the same time, his arguments gained in concreteness and started to focus on the history of earlier Christological controversies, echoing a need to find additional elements of legitimation. A shift can be discerned also from scriptural argumentation to patristic argumentation. These changes reflect Philoxenos’ increasingly involved participation in the Christological controversies of the late fifth and early sixth century, and represent to a large extent an adaptation of his literary practice to the style of Greek Christological polemics.3

The correspondence is evenly distributed over four decades, from the early years of his episcopacy to his exile. Philoxenos was appointed bishop to the see of Mabbug in 485 (it is unclear, however, whether he was immediately able to exert his episcopal authority in a see where he seems to have had very limited support; see his Letter to the Monks of Senun, 83). He was exiled soon after Justin I’s accession, in 519. According to his biographer, Elias of Qartamin, he died in 523. 2 Some points moved up or down in the author’s priorities—for example, the impact of a Dyophysite Christology on Trinitarian doctrine is among his main concerns in the early letters, but loses importance in the late ones. 3 The larger background of the transformations analyzed in this paper is a more deep-rooted process of change (amply discussed by S. Brock; see, for example, S. Brock, “Syriac Attitudes to Greek Learning”) in which, starting from the late fifth century, Syriac writers appear inclined to move away from the Syriac heritage and to embrace the Greek cultural patrimony, in an effort to adapt their discourse to the requirements of contemporary controversies. See also the relevant changes analyzed by Lucas Van Rompay in “Mallpânâ dilan Suryâyâ: Ephrem in the Works of Philoxenos of Mabbog: Respect and Distance.” 1

Argumentative Strategies

151

THE EARLY CORRESPONDENCE Exhortations, threats, anathemas and various other severe pronouncements set the tone of Philoxenos’ early correspondence.4 The author requires from his addressees a full, direct and public doctrinal disclosure, along the lines of Matthew 10:32–33, which he quotes in the Letter to the Monks: “Everyone therefore who acknowledges Me before others, I also will acknowledge before My Father in heaven; but whoever denies Me before others, I also will deny before My Father in heaven.” Philoxenos’ unyielding intransigence sets the dominant tone of the three letters examined here: For anything that does not stem from the truth is cast out from the truth, whether [it stems from] fear or lie[s], whether [from] vanity or hypocrisy; whether [from] love of pleasures or [from] the deceitfulness of power. These and others that are similar are cast out from the truth. And, just as these things cannot be in the truth, so also the people who are under their sway cannot abide in the truth and possess faith.5

Within this context, the theme of voluntary martyrdom for the truth comes up frequently, in a variety of discursive arrangements, moving from personal disposition to general plea. Philoxenos advocates a spirit of disputation, encouraging the monks he addresses to engage in theological discussions and to be prompt in countering the doctrinal arguments of the adversaries: “one should not only proclaim the truth in simple words before [one’s] friends, but also profess it before [one’s] enemies with the This section of the paper deals with the following letters: the Letter to the Monks (dated to the period of the Trisagion controversy, written most likely in the first half of Calandion’s patriarchate in Antioch, that is, sometime between 479 and 482), the First Letter to the Monks of Teleda (dated to the period 482-484) and the First Letter to the Monks of Beth-Gogal (late 484/early 485). 5 Letter to the Monks, 130 (95): ¾Ć߃ ÊãàÜ ÀÊü ûÙÄ À˜ûü çâ ûÂß ~† ¿šÍåûñÍü ~ .¿šÍà㠐~† ¿ÿàσ ~ .À˜ûü ç⠋…†ÿØ~ K K K çÙ߅ .¾æÓßÍüƒ ¿ÿïÁ ~† .¾ÐÙåƒ ¿ÿãϘ ~ .¾ñ½Á Ãéâ .À˜ûýÁ ç؆Ìåƒ ¾Ø÷â ¾Ćß çÙ元 ÞØ~† .çØÊü À˜ûüƒ Ìæâ ûÂß ç؅šÍÜ~ƒ† N †ÊÏ½å† À˜ûýÁ †Íùåƒ ¾ÐÝýâ çØÌß çØÊÂïý⃠çÙàØ~ ¾Ćß ”~† .¿šÍæã؅ 4

152

Dana Iuliana Viezure

steadfastness that fights with death.”6 On occasion, he provides them with actual scenarios for these confrontations; in the Letter to the Monks, he enjoins his monastic audience to reply to those who presumptuously raise the question of how God can die with a question of their own, namely, “how can God be born”?7 Similarly, in the Letter to the Monks of Teleda he teaches the monks what they ought to retort to those provocatively asking them “who governed the world during the three days when God was dead,” “if the angels cannot die, how can one say that God died?,” or “how is it possible that He be mortal and immortal at the same time?”8 The largest part of Philoxenos’ early correspondence consists of doctrinal expositions. Of main importance in these expositions is a strong and unremitting rejection of Dyophysite Christology, the defense of the term Theotokos and of the Trisagion hymn enlarged with the formula “Who was crucified for us,” a fervent insistence on the unity of subject in Christ and constantly repeated affirmations of the genuine kenosis. In an effort to adapt this type of discourse to his audience, he explains to the monks how perseverance in monastic discipline does not, in and of itself, situate them among the righteous. Withdrawal from the world does not justify them, unless the practice of monastic spirituality is accompanied by public professions of the true faith: Do not stand in awe of men and do not stop from being zealous and fighting on behalf of it [the truth]; and say that: “We are diligent in the stillness of our ascetic life.” Ascetic life is beautiful. The labors of righteousness are praiseworthy. But they are members and truth is their head. And if the head is cut off, the members are destroyed.9

K K Letter to the Monks, 128 (94): ¾ĆãÏăß ¿ÿãÙÐü ¾ĆàãÁ ƒÍÐàÁ Í߃ J K ™ÿÜÿ⃠¾æà܆ÿÁ .‹…ÍÙààã å ¾ÂÁÊàïÁ Êø ”~ ¾Ćß~ .À˜ûýß ‹…Í؇ăÝå N ¿šÍâ äî. 7 Letter to the Monks, 136 (99). 8 First Letter to the Monks of Teleda, 472; 486. 9 Letter to the Monks, 143 (104): ¾Ć߆ .†šÌÁš ¾Ćß ¾ýå~ ç↠çÙñ÷Ø çØăÁ†ƒƒ ¾ÙàýÁƒ †ûâ~š† .‹…Íòàσ ¾ü†ÿܚ† ¾ææÒ ç⠐Íøÿüš K K K Íå~ ¾âƒ… ¾Ćß~ .¿šÍù؃‡ƒ ¾Ćàãî çÙÐÙÂü .ÀăÁ†ƒ çØăÙòü .çæÏ K .¾âƒ… ÍàÂϚ~ ¾ü˜ úéñÿ⠐~† .À˜ûü †Ìü˜ ‹…†ÿØ~ƒ N 6

Argumentative Strategies

153

The Philoxenian letters dated to this period differ in tone and content both from the texts produced by the first generation of anti-Chalcedonians (whose most authoritative figure was Timothy Aelurus), and from those produced by Philoxenos’ prestigious contemporary—and master in the polemics of this period— Severus of Antioch. In contrast with the former’s pointed campaign against the Council of Chalcedon and Pope Leo I, Philoxenos’ agenda appears at times imprecise. In contrast with the latter’s keen preoccupation with linguistic clarity, Philoxenos’ Christological vocabulary strives, at this early stage of his correspondence, for freshness of imagery more than it does for terminological precision. The points of doctrine addressed in these letters are elaborated upon in a style which is reminiscent of Saint Ephrem the Syrian more than it is of fifth-century Miaphysite authors. The vocabulary and images chosen by Philoxenos to describe the mystery of the Incarnation are strongly evocative of one of St. Ephrem’s favorite literary device: the paradox.10 Side by side, below, are images drawing on two of the most intriguing paradoxical statements: “the Creator became creature” and “the Most-High became the lowest:” Philoxenos: “He Who, as God, fashions, molds, composes, joins, and creates new babies inside the wombs, He, as man, was fashioned and molded, and became a baby in person.”11 Ephrem: “While His body was forming within the womb, His power was fashioning all members! While the Conception of the Son was fashioning in the

The Mêmrê against Habbib, written around the same time as the letters examined in this section of the paper (482–484) further confirm Philoxenos’ dependence on St. Ephrem—a more explicit dependence, this time: Philoxenos appended to his discourses against Habbib a florilegium of patristic authorities in which St. Ephrem is by far the most frequently quoted author (about half of the total number of excerpts). For a closer analysis of Philoxenos’ relation with Ephrem in the Mêmrê, see Lucas Van Rompay, “Mallpânâ dilan Suryâyâ: Ephrem in the Works of Philoxenos of Mabbog: Respect and Distance.” 11 First Letter to the Monks of Beth-Gogal, 150 (108). 10

154

Dana Iuliana Viezure womb, He Himself was fashioning babes in the womb.”12 Philoxenos: “The Ancient of days became a child. And the Most High became a baby inside the womb. And God became man in the womb.”13 And further on: “[Although] of a divine nature, He became man according to nature; [although] of a divine nature, He was born to a creature according to nature. [Although] of a divine nature, He sucked milk according to nature. And [although] of a divine nature, He grew in His stature.”14 Ephrem: “the Highest came down to the lowest.”15 And elsewhere: “The Holy One dwelt bodily in the womb.”16 And again: “The High One became as a little child, and in Him was hidden a treasure of wisdom sufficing for all! Though Most High, yet He sucked the milk of Mary, and of His goodness all creatures suck!”17

Similar statements occupy considerable portions of all of Philoxenos’ early letters. Like St. Ephrem, Philoxenos uses the rhetoric of the paradox to counter his adversaries’ rational attempts at defining the Incarnation.18 This can be understood as a tendency to criticize his opponents for their over-interpretation, going beyond paradoxical images, his opponents disregard the inexpressible character of the Incarnation. Although the rhetoric of the paradox is replaced by a more complex doctrinal discourse in the later correspondence, under the influence of the Christological controversies in which he Hymns on the Nativity 3, 233. Letter to the Monks, 133 (97). 14 Letter to the Monks, 134–5 (98). 15 Hymns on the Nativity 3, 229. 16 Hymns on the Nativity 3, 232. 17 Hymns on the Nativity 3, 233. Habbib, the opponent who attacked Philoxenos’ Letter to the Monks, saw this type of formulations as originating in the heretical writings of Bardaisan. In his reply to this, Philoxenos argues for Ephrem as the origin of these statements. See discussion in Lucas Van Rompay, “Bardaisan and Mani in Philoxenos of Mabbog’s Mêmrê against Habbib.” 18 Cf. First Letter to the Monks of Teleda, 471–2. 12 13

Argumentative Strategies

155

became progressively more involved, Philoxenos preserves this concern with over-interpretation throughout the entire body of his correspondence. In the Letter to Maron, a Lector of Anazarbos (ca. 514/5–518), for example, he launches a vehement diatribe against those who, using “secular science,” interpret the word “incarnate” in the formula “one incarnate nature of God the Word” as signifying a different nature;19 similarly, in the Letter to the Monks of Senun (521), he states: “The things that are confessed by means of these expressions cannot be comprehended by science, but they are explained only by faith: and by this not because it comprehends them, but because it knows only to believe in them.”20 An unusual feature in the context of contemporary Christological controversies, Philoxenos’ early correspondence gives almost exclusive preference to scriptural—rather than patristic—proof texts. The argument from the Fathers is completely absent from the letters examined in this section.21 Moreover, the early correspondence contains surprisingly few concrete and direct references to contemporary historical circumstances. When present, these references play the role of basic contextualizing elements, and the polemics around them come into focus infrequently and only by way of allusions. Historical argumentation is lacking in these letters (aside from a few mentions of fourth-century arch-heretics such as Arius, Letter to Maron, 42–44. J K çÙ߅ ÊÙÁƒ áÙ܅ ¾åăîÍè Letter to the Monks of Senun, 10: ¾Ćàø J ƒÍÐàÁ çÙüûñÿâ ¾Ćß~ .ÍýÂÏÿåƒ ¾Ø÷â ¿ÿîÊØ ÿÙϚ Íß ç؃†šÿâ N N ÍæãØÌãß ƒÍÐàÁ “ƒšƒ ¾Ćß~ .Íå~ ˜ƒš Íß ÀƒÌ߆ .¿šÍæãØÌß N N .†ÌÁ 21 Philoxenos’ lack of sophistication in using patristic proof texts in this period is further confirmed by the florilegium appended to the Mêmrê against Habbib, where about half of the number of quotations comes from St. Ephrem the Syrian. It was in the midst of a controversy over the orthodoxy of the Theopaschite Trisagion (approx. 482-484) that Philoxenos took up the practice of using proof texts in support of his position, and he refined this method of argumentation from tradition over time. A comparison between the florilegium appended to the Mêmrê and that incorporated in the Letter to the Monks of Senun shows how, toward the end of his life, Philoxenos had come to use all the authorities commonly cited by participants in the Christological controversies, while at the same time reducing his use of St. Ephrem. 19 20

156

Dana Iuliana Viezure

Eunomius, Apollinaris and Macedonius, which can hardly be seen as arguments from history, playing little more than a rhetoricalmoralizing role). Some historical references can be found in the Letter to the Monks where Philoxenos alludes to his being persecuted by those who pay allegiance to the powerful of the day and mentions the orthodoxy and the spirit of resistance manifested by the Syrian monasteries.22 In the First Letter to the Monks of Teleda he mentions the addition “Christ King” made by Patriarch Calandion of Antioch during the early 480s in an attempt to render the enlarged Trisagion acceptable outside Miaphysite circles.23 In the same Letter to the Monks of Teleda he alludes to treatises written against him by his adversaries.24 The First Letter to the Monks of Beth-Gogal is richer in historical references, having, at the same time, a more vehemently polemical tone. Philoxenos mentions his presence in Constantinople (484), makes a passing reference to contacts between the Syrian monastery and Zeno, and declares the orthodoxy of the emperor. These historical references notwithstanding, the portrayal of his enemies in the Letter to the Monks and in the First Letter to the Monks of Teleda is veiled, being made up almost exclusively of doctrinal details (those who divide Christ into two, who dare to say “one and the other,” who distinguish the actions of the divinity from those of the humanity, thus denying the unity of subject in Christ). In contrast to this, in the First Letter to the Monks of BethGogal Philoxenos provides his audience with more specific details about these enemies.25 This mutation was certainly motivated by the favorable circumstances he had met with—and the support he must have gained–on the occasion of his visit in the capital around the year 484; by that time, Zeno had defeated the Isaurian complotters Illus and Leontius, and the Christological document published two years earlier—the Henoticon, a document in which Letter to the Monks, 131 (95), 143–4 (103–104). First Letter to the Monks of Teleda, 498. He does so, however, in a blurred manner, without mentioning the author of the addition or the magnitude of the conflicts it generated. 24 Philoxenos, Letter to the Monks of Teleda 460–5. 25 About one third of the First Letter to the Monks of Beth-Gogal consists of long tirades against his opponents. 22 23

Argumentative Strategies

157

Philoxenos invested great expectations—was starting to show its unitive potential. It is difficult to say to what extent the historical elusiveness of the early letters was a matter of political pragmatism (trying to avoid attracting blame—or even persecution—on account of his writings) or simply a matter of personal stylistic choice. After all, the Letter to the Monks was written at a time when, although ordained, Calandion could not exert his episcopal privileges in Antioch, due to popular opposition. In this case, it is unclear how great of a risk Philoxenos would have run, should he have decided to attack Calandion in a more personal manner and to attempt to steer the monasteries of the East in a direction that was not endorsed by the patriarch.

FIRST INTERMEDIARY PERIOD The epistolary arsenal of doctrinal expositions produced by Philoxenos in the period leading up to 498, the year of the accession of Patriarch Flavian II of Antioch, is significantly more elaborate than that of his early correspondence.26 His Christological language, though preserving the oxymoronic register of the Ephremian paradoxes, gains in precision and sophistication. His scriptural exegesis, however, is only seldom presented in the form of paradoxes (and in this intermediary period the Scriptures, mainly the New Testament, still represent his unique textual authorities). Philoxenos’ visit in the capital and his contacts with the Christological polemics there seem to have re-directed his theological interest from St. Ephrem, the local Syrian authority, to one with a larger-scale impact on the Christological controversies of the Greek world: Cyril of Alexandria. Philoxenos was probably influenced by an increasing awareness of the intense debates in which the Greek world became involved around this time concerning the true meaning of Cyril’s works. Although Cyril is not mentioned by name in any of the two letters examined here (nor is, for that matter, any other patristic authority), in the Second Letter to the Monks of Beth-Gogal Philoxenos’ allusions to the doctrines of the This section of the paper examines two letters dated to the period 486–498: the Second Letter to the Monks of Beth-Gogal and the Letter to Abu ‘Afr, the Stratelates of Hira. 26

158

Dana Iuliana Viezure

Dyophysites appear to be formulated as objections to Cyril’s anathemas.27 His preoccupation with the interdiction regarding rational attempts at interpreting the divine mysteries is further pursued, to such an extent that it could be seen as a moral framework within which the theological “aberrations” of the adversaries are refuted; to be sure, its polemical potential is better exploited than in the early correspondence. The exhortations made to the monks to engage in theological arguments with their opponents are accompanied in the Second Letter to the Monks of Beth-Gogal by a larger number of arguments—also formulated in a more precise theological language—offered to the monks for use in Christological confrontations. In the two letters examined in this section, the “enemies” receive names, faces and a history of damnation: it is Theodore, his writings and his followers in the Second Letter to the Monks of BethGogal; it is (mainly) Theodoret—and his (in Philoxenos’ view) duplicitous rejection of Nestorius—in the Letter to Abu ‘Afr. In this latter text Philoxenos also proposes a genealogy of the “Nestorians,” placing them in the direct lineage of the Jews and Arians.28 While not exactly sophisticated, this genealogy is developed, in contrast to the considerably more random mentions of fourth-century arch-heretics which one finds in Philoxenos’ early correspondence. At the same time, Philoxenos makes several attempts at historical reconstruction in these letters. Some of them have deeper polemical implications, and reveal to us an author who is on the path to adapting his epistolary discourse to the style of contemporary controversies. Thus, in the Letter to Abu ‘Afr, Philoxenos presents the events that took place between 448 and 451 in such a way as to completely dissociate the name of Dioscorus of Alexandria from that of Eutyches. His solution is to leave out all mention of the Second Council of Ephesus (449). Eutyches was a fool who maintained that “the body of the Son of

See discussion in A. de Halleux, “La deuxième lettre de Philoxène aux monastères du Beit Gaugal,” 18. 28 Letter to Abu ‘Afr, Harb edition 188–195; Mingana translation, 353–5. 27

Argumentative Strategies

159

God came down with Him from heaven.”29 He was condemned and, after this condemnation, “Leo of Rome [...] sent an epistle to receive Nestorius and his impure interpretations.”30 From here, Marcian summoned a council in which Dioscorus was the only one who refused to side with the “renegades.” The controversial Ephesus II, in defense of which, only a generation earlier, Timothy Aelurus had written extensively, is now completely eliminated from the picture drawn by Philoxenos, and the complications it was bound to bring along for the Miaphysites are thus by-passed.31 Another example of a similar reconstruction is the presentation of the events that took place in 457–8 in Alexandria: the murder of Proterius, the Chalcedonian Bishop of Alexandria, and Timothy Aelurus’ role in the bloody events. According to Philoxenos, Timothy left Alexandria for Abyssinia immediately after Chalcedon, willingly withdrawing from among those who had condemned Dioscorus in 451, and only returned to Alexandria after Proterius’ death.32 Philoxenos relates: Letter to Abu ‘Afr, Harb, 201: ÀûÅñ ¿†…N ÿÐå Ìãî ¿Ìß~ƒ …ûÁ .¾Ùãü çâN Translation from Mingana, 357. 30 Letter to Abu ‘Afr, Harb, 201: ¿†… Ñàü Ú↘ƒ †½Ćß ðãü Ê܆ N N N K K .¾ÂÙé⠋…ÍùüÍò߆ ˜ÍÓéæß ÌÙåÍàÂùåƒ ¾æ܅ ¿šûĽÁ †Ìß Translation from Mingana, 357. 31 The same representation can be found in the Letter to the Monks of Senun, 17. 32 Timothy’s whereabouts in the period 451–457 are not entirely clear. A note in Liberatus’ Breviarium (XIV, 124) suggests that, upon their refusal to recognize the new Chalcedonian Patriarch Proterius, Timothy Aelurus and Peter Mongus were condemned by Proterius. According to John Rufus’ The Life of Peter the Iberian (92, 141), Proterius made himself guilty of extreme violence against Timothy on this occasion, and the condemnation was accompanied by exile: “Finally, he [Proterius] did not refrain from rushing in against the divine baptistery, and from the holy Jordan, that is, from the font of the worshipful baptism, like a rebel he took by force the holy Timothy along with Anatolius, his brother, and they led him to Taposiris, a desert fortress thirty miles distant from the city. There they imprisoned him under guard by soldiers, so that from then on that impious Proterius, finding a time that was opportune for his madness, again manifested many evils against those monks and laypeople who were unwilling to take part in his wickedness, especially against those responsible for the ordination of the blessed Timothy.” Philoxenos 29

160

Dana Iuliana Viezure “The inhabitants of Alexandria, stirred up with the zeal of God, entered his house [Proterius’], stoned him, killed him, dragged him out, and threw him into the sea. When the priests, the deacons and the laymen that had fled from Alexandria with Timothy, disciple of Dioscorus, heard that the accursed syncellus was dead, they returned and implored the faithful Bishops to elect Timothy their Patriarch, because they had heard that the holy Dioscorus had died in exile in Gangra.”33

His presentation of the events leading up to Chalcedon, which omits Ephesus II, and his presentation of Proterius’ death, which excludes Timothy, point to Philoxenos’ intention to dissociate the Miaphysite past from all circumstances which might bring the orthodoxy of his side into question. Dioscorus is redeemed from his ill-fated association with Eutyches by the complete elimination of the Council of 449 from the narrative; Timothy is redeemed from the accusations of unlawful ordination and murder by means of a conveniently-timed trip to the distant region of Abyssinia. As a counterpoint, Philoxenos increases the number of undesired associations on the side of his opponents, for example, Theodoret of Cyrrhus is made into a blood relation of Nestorius, namely his first cousin.34 It is unclear how widespread this legend was among the Miaphysites, since no other source refers to it. Philoxenos’ defamation of Theodoret, although less developed in preserved the “trip,” but eliminated the negative elements of condemnation and exile. The difference in toponyms given by John Rufus and by Philoxenos as Timothy’s place of residence after his condemnation (Taposiris vs. Abyssinia) may be accounted for by a confusion in the literary/manuscript tradition, but can be equally understood as an intentional alteration by Philoxenos, meant to present Timothy as far removed as possible from the stage of conflict in Alexandria. 33 Letter to Abu ‘Afr, Harb, 204–205: ¾ØĂÊéÝß~ Íï؇šš~ ÀÊÐ↠N K ‹…†ûĆ ‹…ÍàÓø† ¾ñ½ÝÁ ‹…Íãʆ ‹…Íàî ††…N Íàî† ¾ØÌß~ ¾ææÓÁ N K K K ††…N çÙùØûîƒ ¾æãØÌâ äý↠¾ýÙýø ††…N Íïãü Ê܆ .‹…†~Êü ¾ĆãÙÁ† T¾ÓÙß ¾ĆàùåÍè †…J Ìß ÿÙ⃠‘†˜ÍùèÍ؃ƒ …ÊÙãߚ ‘†~šÍãÙÒ äî ™ÍÝß N K K ¾ÜûØûÓñ ‘†~šÍãÙÓß ‹ÌÙå†ÊÂïåƒ ¾æãØÌâ ¾ñÍùéÙñ½Ćß ÍéÙñ~† ÍÁûø N áÓâ .¾Ø˜ÍéܽÁ ÀûÅæÅÁ ÌÁƒ ‘†˜ÍùèÍ؃ ¾ýØÊø Ìß ÿÙ⃠Íïãüƒ N Translation from Mingana, 357. 34 Letter to Abu ‘Afr, Harb edition 191–195; Mingana translation, 354– 355.

Argumentative Strategies

161

style and plot, mirrors similar attempts made by his contemporary, Severus of Antioch.35 In his Thirtieth Cathedral Homily (about St. Simeon the Stylite), for example, Severus craftily portrays Theodoret as a villain who tried to mask his own blasphemous actions with pious narrations of St. Simeon’s good works.36 Further, Severus compares Theodoret with Eusebius of Caesarea, who, “contaminated with the disease of Arius, narrated the heroic deeds of the glorious martyrs of Palestine.”37 These historical arguments, although much more in line with the discourse of contemporary Christological controversies, and within the Greek-speaking world, were not produced in that particular context. The letter that contains them was addressed to a Persian official. We do not know whether Philoxenos’ account was endorsed by the stratelates of Hira and further disseminated on Persian territory, but there is some evidence that this may have indeed been the case. The Chronicle of Seert suggests a growing concern among Persian Dyophysites with the Miaphysite “corruptors,” who, in this period, “started to spread their doctrine in Persia and to corrupt the faith of the people.”38 Philoxenos and his party must have been in a tough competition with the Persian Dyophysites for winning over certain segments of the Persian society (monasteries, as is the case in the Second Letter to the Monks of Beth-Gogal, or secular rulers, as is the case in the Letter to Abu

Analyzing the legendary blood relationship, F. Nau makes an interesting comment, namely that the anti-Chalcedonian tradition “identifie le plus possible Théodoret avec Nestorius pour avoir quelque raison d’affirmer que le concile de Chalcédoine en absolvant le premier a aussi absous le second” (F. Nau, “La Naissance de Nestorius,” 425). Yet Philoxenos’ narrative does not explicate this association; as already noted, arguments from historical reconstruction slowly make their way into the Philoxenian letters, but—at this stage—they are not fully developed, nor are they artfully exploited. 36 Cathedral Homily 30, Patrologia Orientalis 36/4, 609–10. J ¾å…˜ÍÝÁ ÊÜ 37 Cathedral Homily 30, 610: u¿†… ÿÝ⠑Íؘ~ƒ †… N K †ÌÙæÏ÷æß J K K .¿ÿÙïüÿÁ €ÿÜ~ ÚæÙÓë½ĆàòÁƒ Íå… ¿šÍ܇ ÚÐÙÂü ÀƒÌëƒ N 38 Chronicle of Seert, 122. (English translation adapted from the French translation of Addaï Scher) 35

162

Dana Iuliana Viezure

‘Afr).39 Philoxenos’ interest in the situation in Persia therefore determined the inclusion of historical representations in the letters from this period; however, the source of inspiration for this change in argumentative strategies was most likely Philoxenos’ contact with the discourse of contemporary Greek polemics on Christology.

SECOND INTERMEDIARY PERIOD Sources from this period include the extant fragments of two Philoxenian letters40 produced circa 509–512 (the years of the controversy that led to the condemnation of Flavian of Antioch), as well as the Letter to Maron, a Lector of Anazarbos, written sometime during the patriarchate of Severus in Antioch (most likely between 514/515 and 518).41 These letters reflect in their doctrinal treatments the Christological canon that had developed among the Greek Miaphysites over the fifty years following Chalcedon (arguments which were continuously receiving new emphases with each new debate). Philoxenos’ accounts in this period are now more in line with those written in the same period by Severus of Antioch, offering the same types of arguments (with scholastic emphases at times) for the refutation of Chalcedon and of its supporters, and the same attacks on neo-Chalcedonian attempts at peace by compromise. Ultimately, as the stress in his argumentation shifts from winning others over to his position to simply winning an argument, legitimation from historical precedent becomes significantly more important to his rhetorical strategy. At this stage, Philoxenos’ fight was by no means one over doctrine alone. The points of doctrine Flavian had accepted (including the approval of Cyril of Alexandria’s Twelve Anathemas) were not significantly different from those Philoxenos had Chronicle of Seert, 126. A Dyophysite counterpart to Philoxenos’ Letter to Abu ‘Afr is mentioned in an episode of the Chronicle of Seert: Eliseus, under Acacius’ commission, writes for Kawad “a work on the true religion, divided into thirty-eight chapters,” a work which eventually obtained the favor of the king. 40 The Letter to the Monks of Palestine and the Letter concerning The Council of Ephesus. 41 See De Halleux, “Textes Inédits de Philoxène de Mabboug I,” 30. 39

Argumentative Strategies

163

required. The fight was now at least as much over tradition and authority as it was over doctrine.42 This change of focus is not surprising, if one takes into consideration the type of accusations Philoxenos and the Miaphysites had to withstand: condemnations for their heretical past, unlawful ordinations, forgeries, and, not the least important, made-up misdemeanors.43 These accusations could The ultimate stumbling block in the “conversion” of Flavian was his refusal to reject Dyophysites who either inspired or followed Nestorius at some point in their careers: Diodore, Theodore, Theodoret, Ibas, Cyrus (of Hierapolis), Eutherius (of Tyana), and John (of Antioch). The Letter of the Palestinian Monks to Alcison of Nicopolis, a Chalcedonian bishop, written around 515–6 (quoted by Evagrius in his Ecclesiastical History, III, 31) construes this additional request as a proof that Philoxenos was by no means inclined to peace alleging that despite Flavian’s numerous compromises, Philoxenos kept making new, unacceptable claims. 43 An example from the latter category can be found in the Letter of the Palestinian Monks to Alcison of Nicopolis, in which the Miaphysites are accused as follows (Letter of the Palestinian Monks to Alcison of Nicopolis in Evagrius, Ecclesiastical History, III, 31, tr. M. Whitby, 171, emphasis added): “Meanwhile they also demanded from the bishop of Jerusalem a written statement of faith; this he produced and dispatched it to the emperor by means of men who were followers of Dioscorus. They presented this, which contained an anathema of those who spoke of two natures. But the bishop of Jerusalem himself, asserting that it had been forged by them, presented another without such an anathema. And no wonder: for indeed they have forged many works of the Fathers, and many works of Apollinaris they have through their headings attributed to Athanasius and Gregory the Wonder-Worker and Julius. By these means above all they attach many to their particular impieties.” Although not impossible to imagine, it is nevertheless hard to believe that Elias of Jerusalem would have chosen to send his Chalcedonian profession of faith to the Emperor through “followers of Dioscorus.” Moreover, Cyril of Scythopolis, a Chalcedonian himself, would have probably mentioned this incident, had it actually occurred. In the place of this doubtful incident, Cyril relates the episode of St. Sabas’ mission to Constantinople, sent by Patriarch Elias of Jerusalem in 511, “since the emperor Anastasius, in utter exasperation, was attempting to reverse and overturn the whole state of the churches of Palestine.” (Lives of the Monks of Palestine, 149) An accusation of this kind necessitated more than 42

164

Dana Iuliana Viezure

not be repelled with doctrine alone. Doctrinal expositions become more formulaic in the Philoxenian letters from this period, and a switch of interest can be observed, from strictly doctrinal polemics to issues of ecclesiastical practice and discipline. A large part of the Letter to Maron is dedicated to dismantling the neo-Chalcedonian claim that Chalcedon should be received for its anathemas against Nestorius and Eutyches, and not for its Christology. The necessity of anathematizing certain Dyophysites by name is emphatically formulated. The main arguments produced by Philoxenos are those of proper ecclesiastical practice, not of doctrine. Little is left of the pronouncedly symbolic, markedly Ephremian style of the early correspondence. Philoxenos is significantly more concerned in this phase with the condemnation of writings and persons than he is with the formulation of doctrinal explanations. For example, his preoccupation with Cyril’s Twelve Anathemas—which, as was mentioned in the analysis of the Second Letter to the Monks of BethGogal, set the tone of Philoxenos’ doctrinal pronouncements in the previous phase—is preserved; however, his main interest now lies not with the refutation qua content of doctrinal expositions which are inconsistent with the Anathemas, but with the personal condemnation of those who had written against the Anathemas at the time of the First Council of Ephesus (431). Philoxenos mentions both the “usual suspects,” Theodoret of Cyrrhus and Andew of Samosata, and others who, although known to have been vehement adversaries of Cyril of Alexandria, are not mentioned by other sources as authors of refutations of Cyril’s Anathemas, namely Alexander of Mabbug and Eutherius of Tyana.44 Philoxenos would later deny the zeal he manifested in this period with regard to personal condemnations, claiming that he had always been guided by tolerance in the field of ecclesiastical politics.45 But, this time around, he was not alone in his zeal. doctrinal arguments, and Philoxenos, embracing more efficient argumentative strategies, was now prepared to offer them. 44 See the Letter to the Monks of Palestine, 34. 45 This zeal is confirmed not only by the letters analyzed in this section, but also by other sources. Cf. Evagrius, III, 31 (the Letter of the Monks of Palestine to Alcison of Nicopolis): “When that man had anathematized Nestorius along with his ideas, he switched again from him to Dioscorus, and Theodore, and Theodoret, and Ibas, and Cyrus, and

Argumentative Strategies

165

Severus himself, who later in the period of his exile would entreat Simeon of Teleda to receive repentant Dyophysites to communion, manifests a keen interest in personal condemnations in the period of his patriarchate in Antioch.46 The changes in argumentative focus referred to in the previous section are further pursued in the letters dating from this period, though not with remarkable advances. Philoxenos starts dealing with issues which will be of major interest to the sixth-century Miaphysites under Justinian, such as providing an explanation for Dioscorus’ reception of Eutyches to communion in 449.47 Philoxenos’ argument is but a faint attempt (as far as we can tell from the fragments preserved): he explains that Dioscorus had only received Eutyches because he was not aware of his heresy, which he later anathematized, both at the Council of Chalcedon and afterwards. This position is consistent with Philoxenos’ abovementioned attitude in the Letter to Abu ‘Afr, where, by leaving out Ephesus II altogether, he tried to dissociate the name of Dioscorus from that of Eutyches. A similar attempt can be found in Philoxenos’ last preserved letter, the Letter to the Monks of Senun, where the author seems to purposely downplay the accusations against Eutyches by calling him a Manichean, thus trying to divert attention from the more common—and, to Philoxenos and his party, who were associated with Eutyches by their opponents, more concretely detrimental—accusations of Apollinarianism.48 Philoxenos is evidently concerned with tradition in this period: he constructs and defends the legitimacy of the Miaphysite tradition; at the same time, he attacks the illegitimacy of the Dyophysite tradition (beyond the mere establishing of a heretical lineage).

Eutherius, and John, and we know not who else or from where he collected them.” For Philoxenos’ denial, see the Letter to the Monks of Senun, 84. 46 Severus of Antioch, Letter to Simeon the Presbyter and Archimandrite of the Monastery at Teleda, 323–4. 47 Cf. the Conversations of 532. 48 Letter to the Monks of Senun, 11. This strategy had already been used by the first generation of anti-Chalcedonians, especially by Timothy Aelurus.

166

Dana Iuliana Viezure

THE LATE CORRESPONDENCE In 519, with the accession of Emperor Justin I and his restoration of Chalcedon, Philoxenos—like numerous other anti-Chalcedonian bishops—was sent into exile, first to Gangra in Paphlagonia, and then to Philippopolis in Thrace. The letters he wrote in exile are characterized by thematic and stylistic unity, and they differ in many respects from all the previous stages of Philoxenos’ correspondence.49 In these letters the reader can discover Philoxenos as a mature author, in whom the polemical tendencies had been tempered by the awareness that controversy had reached a stage where compromise alone—if anything—could restore the lost unity of the Imperial Church. Philoxenos’ historical representations are now visibly more developed, and fully consistent with those commonly produced by the Miaphysites: the condemnation of Eutyches was essentially a smokescreen meant to conceal an ill-intentioned attack on Cyril of Alexandria, the repudiation of Chalcedon is the defense of Cyril, and the association between Nestorius and Chalcedon is not only doctrinal, but also historical: And this took place at the end of Nestorius’ life, as is said. And everything was written and sent to him while he was in exile: the act [drawn up] before Flavian, and also the Letter of Leo. And had the judgment of the Lord not come fast and taken him away before the council gathered, he was summoned to come together with the other bishops. And I say these things not simply from hearsay, but because I learned them in truth from the one who was sent after him.50 Two letters will be analyzed in this section: the Letter to Simeon of Teleda (520–522) and the Letter to the Monks of Senun (521). K 50 Letter to the Monks of Senun, 17–18: ¾ĆãßÍü Úñ½Ćß ûîÿè~ çÙ߅† J K €ÿܚ~ Êâ áÜ ”~† u Àûâ~ÿ⃠ÞØ~ƒ †… .‘ÍؘÍÓéåƒ ‹…ÍÙσ N J u ¾æØÍàñ Êø š†…ƒ N ‹… êéÜûñ† .¾Ø˜ÍéܽÁ ‹…†ÿØ~ ÊÜ v Ìß ˜ƒÿü~† u ¾Øûâ ç⃠¾æ؃ N N ˜ÎÄ ÍÁ…ûèƒ ¾Ćß Íß~† .†½Ć߃ ¿šûÄ~ ”~† €†š† J †…N ”~† u ‘ƒÌåÍè þæܚšƒ çÙ߅ äî ¿š½Ćãß ‹ûøš~ Êø çâ Ìãؘ~† N K ¾åăÏ~ ¾Ćß~ .¾ĆãÙÐü ¾ïãü çâ Íß u Úæâ ûâ~š~ çÙ߅† .¾òùéñ~ K J .…˜ÿÁ ˜ƒÿü~ƒ †… çâ u À˜ûýÁ çÙå~ ÿòà؃ A similar reconstruction (in a weaker formulation) comes up in a letter sent by Severus of Antioch to the Church of Emesa (sometime 49

Argumentative Strategies

167

And a few paragraphs further: Likewise Nestorius praises those things that were done by Flavian against Eutyches. And he affirms that they are also his: because it is defined in them to call Christ two natures and because, through Eutyches, Flavian sought to attack also the [sayings] of blessed Cyril. For in the [sayings] of Eutyches it is Cyril who was being accused, by Nestorius and by all those who agreed with his doctrine, and said about his [Cyril’s doctrine]: “Cyril adheres to and is in agreement with the doctrines of Mani and of Apollinaris and of Eutyches.” And because of this Nestorius says here: “I know those things that were done by Flavian against Eutyches and those who share his [belief].” For by this he refers to blessed Cyril. For through these things, as I have said, Cyril was reviled by all. And with him so also were all the Fathers and those doctors who had orthodox beliefs. For Cyril supported his teaching with these testimonies which he collected and brought from their writings.51 during Severus’ patriarchate, 512–518): according to Severus, Dorotheus of Marcianopolis—one of Nestorius’ fiercest supporters—petitioned the new Emperor Marcian for the recall of Nestorius. Severus quotes a fragment of this petition: “Therefore, merciful kings, in consideration of their so ridiculous, that is lamentable, opinions, renew the firm maintenance of the connaturality while it is possible, while there is time, by recalling Nestorius from exile, and join together the people of Christ who are divided, lest, as I pray may not happen, the past be repeated.” (A Collection of Letters of Severus of Antioch from Numerous Syriac Manuscripts, XXV, 65–66). Nestorius’ recall is also mentioned in another contemporary source, John Rufus’ Plerophories (36, 83–85). Most interestingly, Rufus reports having taken this story from the History of Timothy Aelurus. He thus places it in a strong lineage going back to the first generation of anti-Chalcedonians. For further evidence concerning the invitation extended to Nestorius to take part in the Council of Chalcedon, see G. Bevan, The Case of Nestorius: Ecclesiastical Politics in the East 428–451, 432–440. K çÙßÌß êؘÍÓéå áÙ܅ ÑÂü 51 Letter to the Monks of Senun, 19–20: ‹†…ƒ N J ÊÜ v ¾æØÍàñ çâ K áî u çÙå~ Ìà؃ƒ ”~† “ƒ†~† .¾ÜÍ҆½Ćß ¿†… ~ƒ J K çØÚ ¾ÐÙýâ áî ûâ½Ćãß çØÌÁ ÍãϚƒ ”~† ¾ÜÍ҆~ ÊÙÁƒ áî† .¾æÙÜ J : ¾ÜÍ҆~ƒ ûÙÄ çÙßÌÁ .úòåƒ ¾æØÍàñ ”÷Ø êàؘÍø ¾æÁÍ҃ çÙßÌß

168

Dana Iuliana Viezure

The growing presence of the historical element in Philoxenos’ correspondence matches a growing awareness of the necessity to prove that the doctrine he and his party supported was not only orthodox, but also mainstream, and that their tradition identified itself with that of the orthodox Imperial Church. In these last letters Philoxenos uses more arguments from historical precedent than in his entire earlier correspondence. Most of these arguments are built on examples taken from the period of the Arian controversy. In the Letter to Simeon of Teleda, Philoxenos argues that the anti-Chalcedonians should be lenient in receiving repentant Dyophysites to communion, just as the Fathers of the Council of Constantinople in 381 had been in receiving repentant Arians.52 Further, he argues that the baptism, the ordination and the consecration of churches performed by Dyophysites are valid; to support his claim, he reminds his addressees that Meletius of Antioch and Basil the Great had been ordained by Arians, and that this did not diminish the validity of their ordinations.53 Conversely, in the Letter to the Monks of Senun, he argues for the invalidity of the excommunications performed by the heretics: Athanasius of Alexandria, Peter of Alexandria and others had not lost their episcopal authority once they had been deposed by heretics; by the same principle, Philoxenos’ deposition and that of the other antiChalcedonian bishops are invalid.54 It is somewhat surprising that Philoxenos takes the arguments from historical precedent as far back as the Arian controversy.55

J …ÿÙî˜ÿ߃ çÙàØ~ †ÌàÜ ç↠u êؘÍÓéåƒ Ìæ↠¿†… úýîÿâ êàؘÍø† K êØûåÍßÍñ~ƒ† Úå½Ć⃠äß ¾æòßÍ؃ u ‹…Íàî ††… †ûâ~† .Íãàü N v ‘ÍؘÍÓéå ¾Ü˜… ûâ~ ‹…J áî† .êàؘÍø ¾î˜ÿ↠ÊÙÏ~ v ¾ÜÍ҆~ƒ† N J K çÙßÌß ÿîÊ؃ J .Ìà؃ çÙî˜ÿ⃠çÙàØ~† v ¾ÜÍ҆~ áÂøÍß ¾æØÍàñ ç⠋†…ƒ J J J ÊÙÁ Î☠ÊÜ †ÌàÜ ç⠚ûâ~ƒ ÞØ~ ăÙÄ çØÌÁ .êàؘÍø ¾æÁÍÒ áî Àƒ… N N K †ÌàÜ ”~† €†š Ìãî† .¿†… ¾ÐÒ÷â K çÙàØ~ ¾æòà↠¿šÌÁ~ N K ‹ÿØ~† þæ܃ çÙàØ~ ¿š†ƒÌè ÊÙÁ ‘ÍàؘÍø †…ƒ N çÙ߅ v ÿØ~÷ؘš ÍÙ~ƒ J v …šÍæòàâ çéÏ †ÌÙÁÿÜK çâ 52 Letter to Abbot Simeon of Teleda, 175. 53 Letter to Abbot Simeon of Teleda, 176. 54 Letter to the Monks of Senun, 78–79. 55 His approach is not exceptional. Severus of Antioch uses examples from the time of the Arian controversy quite often. See, for example,

Argumentative Strategies

169

There are, however, certain features of this controversy that may have made it appealing to the anti-Chalcedonians: the Nicenes, who had lost almost everything by 350, were able to make a startling recovery (Philoxenos emphasizes this aspect); it was a historical episode which, by the late-fifth century, was beyond all debate, and was thus safe to use as historical precedent; moreover, as E. Schwartz noted, Antioch had been construed in the fifth century as the centre of orthodoxy at the time of the Arian controversy (by Theodoret, mainly); this may have increased the appeal of examples from the Arian controversy in the eyes of Antiochene anti-Chalcedonians.56 Philoxenos’ discourse appears to be more and more inspired by Greek models. His refutation of Pope Leo’s Tome in the Letter to the Monks of Senun is evocative of that written by Timothy Aelurus (it follows the same arrangement: excerpts from the Tome followed by their association with ideas of Nestorius and then by their disproof).57 He even takes over Timothy’s play on the word “tomos” (from the Greek tomein, “to cut”): Leo’s letter “was justly called the Tome, on account of the divisions that occurred because of it.”58 Philoxenos has internalized the Greek tradition of opposition to the Council of 451, reaching as far as its linguistic stereotypes. In the Letter to the Monks of Senun, Philoxenos adopts yet another familiar aspect of anti-Chalcedonian literature: he made extensive use—for the first time in his correspondence, as far as we can tell by the extant letters—of patristic argumentation, in the form of a florilegium.59 He uses this literary device more persuasively

Severus’ Letter against those who say that men who have communicated with the Synod of Chalcedon and are penitent [...] must be re-anointed, 294–5. 56 E. Schwartz, Publizistische Sammlungen, 242. 57 Cf. Letter to the Monks of Senun, 22–25. 58 Letter to the Monks of Senun, 48: ÿØûøš~ ÿؽå½Ü [¿šûÄ~] N N K áÓâ u ¾éâÍÒ. J…ÊؽÁ ††…ƒ çÙàØ~ ¾øÊè N 59 There are in fact two well-separated florilegia in the Letter to the Monks of Senun (33–43). Interestingly, the first one contains authentic citations and resembles more, by the names it includes, his earlier florilegium from the Mêmrê against Habib; the second one is composed almost entirely of Apollinarian forgeries, out of which none was present in

170

Dana Iuliana Viezure

than in his earlier work, the Mêmrê against Habib: while in this latter work the florilegium was simply appended to the main text, and no other explanations were formulated, in the Letter to the Monks of Senun the citations are incorporated in the letter and commented upon with great interest; more generally, they are exploited in a systematic manner. The most striking feature of the florilegium contained in the Letter to the Monks of Senun is the almost complete absence of citations from St. Ephrem, in contrast with Philoxenos’ earlier florilegium of the Mêmrê against Habib, in which St. Ephrem had the highest representation. If one adds to this the fact that, in the Letter to the Monks of Senun, Philoxenos even criticizes St. Ephrem for lack of terminological precision, it becomes very clear that the author had turned away from the Syriac tradition to embrace the Greek.60 As the analyses included in the previous sections of this paper have demonstrated, this was not a sudden turn, but, rather, a progressive transformation. In his late correspondence Philoxenos denies his earlier intolerance, both that manifested in the field of doctrine (he now advises his addressees to follow the example of the bishops who took part in the First Council of Constantinople in 381 and who, in order to avoid disturbances, did not ask those whom they were receiving back to communion to give detailed professions of faith)61 and that manifested in ecclesiastical affairs (in the Letter to the Monks of Senun he relates how, upon his becoming a bishop, he did not ask for the condemnation of his “heretical” predecessors, Alexander and Cyrus of Mabbug).62 At the same time, Philoxenos encourages the monks to be more diplomatic and to show more reserve in pronouncing anathemas.

his earlier piece, all of them being present in another famous Miaphysite florilegium, the one from Vat. Gr. 1431. 60 Letter to the Monks of Senun, 53–55. See discussion of this in Lucas Van Rompay, “Mallpânâ dilan Suryâyâ. Ephrem in the Works of Philoxenos of Mabbog: Respect and Distance,” 25–27. 61 Letter to Simeon of Teleda, 176. 62 Letter to the Monks of Senun, 84. Cf. his earlier insistence on the anathematization of the name of Cyrus, during the conflict with Flavian of Antioch.

Argumentative Strategies

171

In the Letter to Simeon of Teleda (520–522), Philoxenos joins all these new elements in a perfectly fitting ethical framework: that of oikonomia (flexibility) vs. akribia (strictness). Doing away with the zealous, militant polemicist of the early correspondence, who confessed his willingness to embrace martyrdom, Philoxenos characterizes himself here as one who has always abided by the principles of oikonomia, which he also recommends to his addressee: I have always preferred to act according to oikonomia, which is helpful, rather than according to akribia, which harms. I also convinced others to take the course of oikonomia if they wished to achieve the peace of the churches and the confirmation of the true faith. In fact, akribia, agitating the Church and troubling the faith, is to be considered cruelty, something that angers God. Oikonomia, on the other hand, strengthens the faith and brings peace to the Church; it is the right course of action, which greatly pleases even our Lord God. Therefore, it was those who knew how to administer the affairs of the Church wisely that used oikonomia.63

Indeed, he could have hardly found a better form of presentation for his new stance. Akribia and oikonomia had a long history in Church literature. They were often used to pass judgment on various figures of the past, and, while akribia was admired in a select few, who had found a righteous way to stand by their principles, those who had acted according to oikonomia were almost always presented in a very good light by Church historians.64 It is likely that Philoxenos appropriated this conceptual framework from contemporary Greek anti-Chalcedonian literature (it occupies, for example, an important role in the Miaphysite collection of the Vaticanus Gr. 1431).

CONCLUSION During the patriarchate of Calandion (who seems to have enjoyed limited popular support in Antioch), and while addressing the monks of the East with limited involvement in wider controversies Letter to Abbot Simeon of Teleda, 179. (English translation mine, from the Latin translation of Lebon) 64 See, for example, Theodoret’s characterization of Acacius of Beroea in A History of the Monks of Syria, II, 9. 63

172

Dana Iuliana Viezure

that affected the Imperial Church, Philoxenos could afford to fight under the mantle of confessorship, construing scriptural arguments as the most powerful weapons, and the Syriac literary tradition of St. Ephrem as the most valid framework for achieving legitimation. The need for more developed argumentation and confrontational strategies was reduced. However, by the time of his conflict with Flavian of Antioch, this situation had changed radically, and, for the remainder of his career, Philoxenos’ correspondence reflects very closely, with growing acumen, the fight to monopolize orthodoxy in which the Chalcedonians and the anti-Chalcedonians were equally engaged. This required significant changes in argumentative strategies. Key among them was the adoption of the argument from historical precedent. We can, if we choose to, look at Philoxenos in the same way in which Eduard Schwartz looked at Peter Fuller, when he wrote about him that “in order to gain recognition and status, Peter Fuller gathered some ‘Apollinarian’ (that is, anti-Chalcedonian) monks around him and campaigned with extremism for the liturgical formula of the ‘crucified God.’ ”65 Yet the historical benefit of such an approach would be minimal. Looking at seemingly small textual and literary details with a view to establishing their more profound implications brings more profit for the understanding of these authors. They were not as monolithic as a characterization in the vein of Schwartz’s would have us believe. And, more often than not, their argumentative choices were dictated less by personal caprice and more by changing political and intellectual contexts.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Primary Sources Cyril of Scythopolis. Lives of the Monks of Palestine. Tr. R. M. Price. Kalamazoo, MI: Cistercian Publications, 1992. Ephrem the Syrian. Nineteen Hymns on the Nativity of Christ in the Flesh. In Gregory the Great (II), Ephraim Syrus, Aphrahat, 223–262. Ed. Philip Schaff. Tr. J. B. Morris and A. Edward Johnston. A Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, II, 13 (1898). Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.

65

Ed. Schwartz, Publizistische Sammlungen, 182.

Argumentative Strategies

173

Evagrius Scholasticus. The Ecclesiastical History of Evagrius Scholasticus. Tr. Michael Whitby. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2000. Histoire Nestorienne II, 1 (Chronique de Séert). Patrologia Orientalis 7. Ed. and tr. Addai Scher. Paris: Firmin-Didot, 1911. John Rufus. John Rufus: The Lives of Peter the Iberian, Theodosius of Jerusalem and the Monk Romanus. Ed. and tr. C.B. Horn and R.P. Phenix. Atlanta, GA: Society of Biblical Literature, 2008. Liberatus of Carthage. Breviarium causae Nestorianorum et Eutychianorum. Acta Conciliorum Oecumenicorum II, V, 98–141. Ed. Eduard Schwartz. Leipzig: Walter de Gruyter, 1936. Philoxenos of Mabbug. Letter to the Monks, in Three Letters of Philoxenos, Bishop of Mabbôgh, Being the Letter to the Monks, the First Letter to the Monks of Beth-Gaugal, and the Letter to Emperor Zeno, 127–145. Ed. A. A. Vaschalde. Rome: Tipografia della R. Accademia dei Lincei, 1902. _______. First Letter to the Monks of Beth-Gogal. In Three Letters of Philoxenos, Bishop of Mabbôgh, Being the Letter to the Monks, the First Letter to the Monks of Beth-Gaugal, and the Letter to Emperor Zeno, 146–162. Ed. A. A. Vaschalde. Rome: Tipografia della R. Accademia dei Lincei, 1902. _______. La lettera di Filosseno ai monaci di Tell’addâ (Teleda). Ed. Ignazio Guidi. Atti della R. Accademia dei Lincei, Memorie della classe di scienze morali, storiche e filologiche 12: 446–506. Rome: Tipografia della R. Accademia dei Lincei, 1884. _______. Second Letter to the Monks of Beth-Gogal. In De Halleux, André, “La deuxième lettre de Philoxène aux monastères du Beit Gaugal.” Le Muséon 96 (1983): [5–79], 28–79. _______. Letter to Abu ‘Afr. Edited text and French translation in Harb, P., “Lettre de Philoxène de MabbŠg au phylarque AbŠ Ya‘fŠr de HĪrtć de BĔtna'mćn (selon le manuscrit no 115 du fond patriarcat de Šarfet),” Melto 3,1–2 (1967), 183–222. English translation and partial edition in Mingana, Alphonse, “The Early Spread of Christianity in Central Asia and the Far East. A New Document.” Bulletin of John Rylands Library 9 (1925): 352–371. _______. Letter to the Monks of Palestine. In De Halleux, André, “Nouveaux textes inédits de Philoxène de Mabbog I.” Le Muséon 75 (1962): [31–62], 33–39. _______. Letter Concerning the Synod of Ephesus. In De Halleux, André, “Nouveaux textes inédits de Philoxène de Mabbog I.” Le Muséon 75 (1962): [31–62], 39.

174

Dana Iuliana Viezure

Philoxenos of Mabbug. Letter to Maron, a Lector of Anazarbos. In Lebon, Joseph, “Textes inédits de Philoxène de Mabboug.” Le Muséon 43 (1930): [17–84. 149–220], 39–56. _______. Letter to Simeon of Teleda. In Lebon, Joseph, “Textes inédits de Philoxène de Mabboug.” Le Muséon 43 (1930): [17–84. 149– 220], 175–182. _______. Letter to the Monks of Senun. Ed. A. de Halleux. Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium 231. Leuven: Secrétariat du CorpusSCO, 1963. Severus of Antioch. A Collection of Letters From Numerous Syriac Manuscripts. Ed. and tr. E. W. Brooks. Patrologia Orientalis 12. Paris: FirminDidot, 1915. ________. Les Homiliae Cathedrales de Sévère d’Antioche, 26–31. Patrologia Orientalis 36,4. Ed. and tr. M. Brière and F. Graffin. Tournhout: Brepols, 1974. ________. The Sixth Book of the Select Letters of Severus Patriarch of Antioch in the Syriac Version of Athanasius of Nisibis. Ed. and tr. E. W. Brooks. Vol. 1–2. London: William and Norgate, 1903. Theodoret of Cyrrhus. A History of the Monks of Syria. Tr. R.M. Price. Kalamazoo, MI: Cistercian Publications, 1985.

Secondary Sources Brock, Sebastian P. “From Antagonism to Assimilation: Syriac Attitudes to Greek Learning.” In East of Byzantium: Syria and Armenia in the Formative Period, 17–34. Ed. Nina G. Garsoian, Thomas F. Matthews and Robert W. Thomson. Washington: 1982. _______. The Luminous Eye. The Spiritual World of St. Ephrem. Kalamazoo, MI: Cistercian Publications, 1992. De Halleux, André. Philoxène de Mabbog, sa vie, ses écrits, sa théologie. Leuven: Imprimerie orientaliste, 1963. Nau, François. “La naissance de Nestorius.” Revue de l’Orient Chrétien 14 (1909): 424–6. Schwartz, Eduard. Codex Vaticanus gr. 1431, eine antichalkedonische Sammlung aus der Zeit Kaiser Zenos. Munich: Verlag der Bayer. Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1927. _______. Publizistische Sammlungen zum acacianischen Schisma. Munich: Verlag der Bayer. Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1934.

Argumentative Strategies

175

Van Rompay, Lucas. “Bardaisan and Mani in Philoxenos of Mabbog’s Mêmrê against Habbib.” In Syriac Polemics: Studies in Honour of Gerrit Jan Reinink, 77–90. Ed. Wout Jac. Van Bekkum, Jan Willem Drijvers, and Alex C. Klugkist. Leuven: Peeters, 2007. ________. “Mallpânâ dilan Suryâyâ. Ephrem in the Works of Philoxenos of Mabbog: Respect and Distance.” Hugoye: Journal of Syriac Studies 7, 1 (2004): http://syrcom.cua.edu/hugoye/Vol7No1/ HV7N1VanRompay.html

Hugoye: Journal of Syriac Studies, Vol. 13.2, 177–249 © 2010 by Beth Mardutho: The Syriac Institute and Gorgias Press

THE PHILOXENIAN GOSPELS AS RECONSTRUCTED FROM THE WRITINGS OF PHILOXENOS OF MABBUG1 J. EDWARD WALTERS PRINCETON THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY

ABSTRACT This study presents the data for the text of the Philoxenian version for various Gospel passages as those texts can be reconstructed from the citations of Philoxenos. Several trends of translation technique become evident within the Philoxenian version: lexical changes for more “accurate” translation, attempts at more accurate and consistent translation of verb tense, lexical omissions and additions based on the Greek text, and alterations in the Syriac word order to reflect the This project began as my M.A. thesis project directed by J.W. Childers: J. Edward Walters, “The Philoxenian Gospels as Reconstructed from the Exegetical Writings of Philoxenos of Mabbug,” M.A. thesis (Abilene Christian University, 2009). I am grateful to Dr. Childers for chairing my thesis committee and for introducing me to textual criticism, to Syriac, and to Philoxenos. I also want to thank the other members of my thesis committee, Curt Niccum and Frederick Aquino, for their helpful suggestions in moving this project forward. And finally, I am grateful to guest editor Dr. David Michelson both for his encouragement and interest in my work, and to Dr. Andreas Juckel for his helpful comments and suggestions for improving my original thesis into the present publication. 1

177

178

J. Edward Walters Greek. This translation technique confirms what is known about Greek-to-Syriac translation technique in the sixth-century during which there was an intentional movement toward a more word-forword translation. This technique was still in flux throughout the sixth-century until the creation of the hyper-literal Harclean version in the early seventh-century.

1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 Philoxenos’ Theological Motivation for the Translation Project Philoxenos, bishop of Mabbug (d. 523),2 is most well-known for the New Testament translation project that he sponsored in the first decade of the sixth century.3 Though his chorepiscopos, Polycarp, carried out the work of the translation, the new version produced has become known as the Philoxenian version.4 For the most comprehensive introduction to Philoxenos, see André de Halleux, Philoxène de Mabbog: sa vie, ses écrits, sa theologie (Louvain: Imprimerie Orientaliste, 1963). For a more recent survey, see David Michelson, “Practice Leads to Theory: Orthodoxy and the Spiritual Struggle in the World of Philoxenos of Mabbug (470–523)” (Ph.D. Dissertation, Princeton University, 2007). 3 According to the subscriptions of the Harclean version, the version was produced “in the year 819 of Alexander the Macedonian” (i.e. 507/8 CE). For the Syriac text and English translation of one such subscription, see William H.P. Hatch, “The Subscription of the Chester Beatty Manuscript of the Harclean Gospel,” HTR 30, no. 3 (Jul. 1937), 149–150. 4 Despite the fact that this version bears the name of Philoxenos, he did not carry out the actual translation. Tradition holds that the translation was carried out by Philoxenos’ chorepiscopos, Polycarp. The attribution of the project to Polycarp is found in a letter of Moshe of Aggel. See I. Guidi, Rendiconti della Reale Accademia dei Lincei 4/2 (1886), 404. Cf. Sebastian Brock, “The Resolution of the Philoxenian/Harclean Problem” in New Testament Textual Criticism. Its Significance for Exegesis. Essays in Honor of Bruce M. Metzger, eds. E.J. Epp and G.D. Fee (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1981), 325, n. 2. Though A. Mingana points out that there is a discrepancy in the tradition because another manuscript seems to suggest that Philoxenos carried out the translation himself. A. Mingana, “New 2

The Philoxenian Gospels as Reconstructed

179

Philoxenos sponsored this new translation because, in his opinion, the translators of the Peshitta had made errors, both intentional and accidental in their representation of the Greek text. This oftcited passage serves as Philoxenos’ explicit reasoning for the creation of a new translation: ª ÍÙ僚~ ÊÜ áÙ܅ çÙßÌß K :¾ÁÿÜ Íùýñ äØÊø ç⃠Í兆 [ÍÓÏ] u¿ÿîÊØ ¾Ćß ç⠐~† †ÌæÙÁ÷Á ~ K K çÙàؽÁ ƒÍÐàÁ Íß .¿š½ÙÅéÁ ¿šÍåûÁÊâ áî çòà⃠K çÙ߅ áÓâ çÂØÿ܃ ¾Üûüƒ çÙßÌÁ ”~ ¾Ćß~ uûéÂÁƒ ¾ü… ¿†…§ çß ”~ Àƒ… áî† .¾åăÏ~ ¾æÙîĂ v¾ÙؘÍéß ¾ÙåÍØ ç⠐Íùýñÿå þؘƒ ç⠀†šƒ u¾æïÓàùü K .5 K ¿šÊϪ ¾øÿ؃ƒ ¾ýØÊø ¾ÁÿÜ Thus when those who were of old applied themselves and translated the scriptures, whether by their will or as a result of ignorance, they erred in many [regards], not only in the things that are taught concerning the economy of the flesh, but also in the rest of the scriptures because of these other ways of thinking. And it was because of this that now we have taken the trouble6 to translate the Holy Scriptures of the new covenant again from Greek into Syriac.

Moreover, in his discussion of the translation of Heb 5:7, we see even more explicitly that Philoxenos’ desire for a new translation is fueled by the christological debates of the fifth- and sixth-centuries. He argues that the Peshitta’s rendering of the phrase “in the days of his flesh” (ŦĭĬ ƥƀũƆ ŧƢƐŨ űƃ) was influenced by Nestorianism.7 Thus, the study of the Philoxenian version cannot be removed Documents on Philoxenos of Hierapolis, and on the Philoxenian Version of the Bible,” 9th series, vol. 19 (1920), 149–160. 5 André de Halleux, Philoxène de Mabbog, Commentaire du prologue johannique (Ms. Br. Mus. Add. 14,534) CSCO 380 (versio) and 381 (textus), Scriptores Syri 165, 166 (Louvain: Secrétariat du CorpusSCO, 1977), 53. Hereafter CPJ. 6 S. Brock uses this translation for the phrase ťƍƖźƇƠƣ and notes that this word is “frequently found in colophons of sixth-century MSS referring to the sponsors who had the MSS copied,” in “The Resolution of the Philoxenian/Harclean Problem” in E.J. Epp and G.D. Fee, eds., New Testament Textual Criticism: Its Significance for Exegesis: Essays in Honour of Bruce M. Metzger (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1981), 329. 7 CPJ, 53.

180

J. Edward Walters

from the context in which it was conceived and created. However, the post-Chalcedonian christological debate is not the only context that shaped the text of the Philoxenian version. 1.2 Greek-to-Syriac Translation Technique in the Sixth-Century It has been well-established that there was a significant change in Syriac-to-Greek translation technique taking place between the fifth- and seventh-centuries. This change in technique, characterized by Sebastian Brock as a move toward a more “wordfor-word” translation technique and away from a “sense-for-sense” technique,8 applies to works of Greek authors being translated into Syriac9 and to translations of the Bible.10 Thus, just as we must Brock has a number of articles in which he takes up this topic. See especially Brock, “Aspects of Translation Technique in Antiquity,” in Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies XX (Durham, 1979), 69–87, repr. in Brock, Syriac Perspectives on Late Antiquity (London: Variorum Reprints, 1984); idem., “Greek into Syriac and Syriac into Greek,” Journal of the Syriac Academy III (1979): 1–17, repr. in Brock, Syriac Perspectives; idem., “Limitations of Syriac in Representing Greek.” in B. Metzger, The Early Versions of the New Testament: Their Origin, Transmission, and Limitations (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1977), 83–98; idem., “Some Aspects of Greek Words in Syriac,” in A. Dietrich, Synkretismus im syrisch-persischen Kulturgebeit (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1975), 80–108, repr. in Brock, Syriac Perspectives; and idem., “Towards a History of Syriac Translation Technique.” in III Symposium Syriacum 1980: Les contacts du monde syriaque avec les autres cultures (Rome: Pont. Institutum Studiorum Orientalum, 1983): 1–14. 9 On this type of project, see D. King, The Syriac Versions of the Writings of Cyril of Alexandria: A Study in Translation Technique (Louvain: Peeters, 2008). 10 There has been some debate as to the role that the Philoxenian version played within this history. B. Aland argues that there was a particular strand of translation technique beginning with the Philoxenian version and ending with the hyper-literal Harclean version, and that some authors writing in the period between the production of these texts used the Philoxenian version for citations in works they were translating. B. Aland, “Die Philoxenianisch-Harklensische Übersetzungstradition,” Le Muséon 94.3–4 (1981), 321–383; however, R.B. ter Haar Romeny disagrees with Aland’s conclusion, arguing that the Philoxenian translation project 8

The Philoxenian Gospels as Reconstructed

181

consider the context of the christological controversies of the fifthand sixth-centuries when making observations about the Philoxenian version, so must we also consider the context of the changing Greek-to-Syriac translation technique taking place concurrently with its production.11 However, any attempt to compare the text of the Philoxenian version to other Scripture translation projects in order to determine the relationship between those texts is hindered by a glaring problem: the Philoxenian version does not actually exist as a text. 1.3 The Philoxenian-Harclean Problem When Joseph White published the manuscript that he claimed to be the Philoxenian version,12 it seemed that there was finally an answer to the problem of the precise relationship between the Philoxenian and Harclean versions.13 We know from subscriptions of the Harclean version that Thomas of Harkel used the Philoxenian version in his own translation work, so when White’s manuscript was published, it seemed to be a prime candidate because it is a Syriac biblical text with copious detailed marginalia was not necessarily the first such translation project and, moreover, that authors writing after Philoxenos translated Biblical quotations for themselves rather than consulting the “authoritative” Philoxenian version. Bas ter Haar Romeny’s response to Aland’s article, “A PhiloxenianHarclean Tradition? Biblical Quotations in Syriac Translations from Greek,” in Wout Jac. van Bekkum, Jan Willem Drijvers and Alex C. Klugkist, Syriac Polemics: Studies in Honour of Gerrit Jan Reinink (Louvain: Peeters, 2007), 59–76. 11 For example, the translated works of Cyril of Alexandira must be taken into account because, as D. King argues, these translators “shaped Philoxenos’ reading and theology,” King, “New Evidence on the Philoxenian Versions of the New Testament and Nicene Creed,” Hugoye 13.1 (2010): 9–30. 12 J. White, Sacrorum Evangeliorum versio Syriaca Philoxeniana cum interpretatione et annotationibus (Oxford: Clarendon, 1778). 13 For a survey of the history of modern scholarship concerning the Philoxenian version, see D. King, Syriac Versions, 281–289; for more information on the Harclean version, see A. Juckel, “Introduction to the Harklean Text,” in G.A. Kiraz, Comparative Edition of the Syriac Gospels, Vol. 1: Matthew (Piscataway: Gorgias Press, 2002), xxxi–lxxxii.

182

J. Edward Walters

that could represent Thomas’ original notes correcting the Philoxenian text. The debate over whether or not White’s text was actually the versio philoxeniana persisted for nearly two-hundred years, with scholars arguing both sides, until Sebastian Brock finally resolved the question once and for all. By comparing Scripture citations from Philoxenos’ Commentary on the Prologue of John with the corresponding texts in both the Peshitta and the Harclean version, Brock concluded that the Philoxenian version is lost, save for the citations found in the writings of Philoxenos.14 Thus, the task stands before us now to attempt to reconstruct as much as possible of the text of the original Philoxenian version by examining the writings of Philoxenos, finding his Scripture citations, applying the appropriate methodology for discerning accurate citations, and providing support for the unique readings that may stand as the only surviving witness of a long lost biblical text. The present study is limited to the text of the Gospels,15 though the following criteria are applicable for the remaining documents of the NT as well.

2. METHOD For a project of this kind, it is necessary to establish and employ methodologies both for discerning accurate citations of Scripture in patristic works and for concluding that a reading does in fact represent the text of the Philoxenian version. First, with respect to patristic citation methodology, it is not necessary to construct here an entire set of guidelines because other scholars have already Brock, “The Resolution of the Philoxenian/Harclean Problem,” 341. For more evidence of text of the Philoxenian version, see J. Gwynn’s discussion of the the possible Philoxenian version of the minor catholic epistles: J. Gwynn, “The Four Minor Catholic Epistles” in Remnants of the Later Syriac Versions of the Bible (Piscataway: Gorgias Press, 2005); idem., The Apocalypse of St. John in a Syriac Version hitherto unknown (Dublin: Hodges, Figgis, and Co., 1897; repr. Amsterdam: Philo Press, 1981 and Piscataway: Gorgias Press, 2005); and for the Pauline corpus, see the volumes of the critical edition of the Syriac New Testament already in print: B. Aland and A. Juckel, eds., Das Neue Testament in Syrischer Überlieferung, Die Paulinischen Briefe, 3 Vols. (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1991, 1995, 2002). 15 More specifically, this study is limited to Matthew, Luke and John because Philoxenos almost never cites the Gospel of Mark. 14

The Philoxenian Gospels as Reconstructed

183

proposed such guidelines,16 nor is it necessary to recount what these scholars have said. Instead, we will offer here only the guidelines that are most applicable to the case of Philoxenos. 2.1 Works of Philoxenos Considered One very important criterion for determining the accuracy of patristic citations is that of the genre of writing because, generally speaking, patristic authors are more likely to cite Scripture accurately in exegetical works and in theological treatises than they are in other styles of writing. Philoxenos was a prolific author, and his surviving works testify to the breadth of writing style: exegetical commentaries, theological treatises, homilies, ascetic instruction, and letters to various individuals and groups. Any attempt to reconstruct the text of the Philoxenian version must begin with the exegetical and theological materials. This is not to suggest that the other works are not possible repositories of Philoxenian readings; it is just more likely that Philoxenos would have been more careful about the wording of his Scripture citations in the works that deal specifically with arguments about Scripture. Thus, the present project began with the Gospel citations in Phiolxenus’ two exegetical commentaries: the Commentary on the Prologue of John (CPJ)17 and the partial Commentary on Matthew and Luke (CML).18 Once these citations were gathered, they were compared with See especially G. Fee, “The Use of Greek Patristic Citations in New Testament Textual Criticism,” ANRW 26.1 (1992): 256–262; and C. Osburn, “Methodology in Identifying Patristic Citations in NT Textual Criticism.” NovT 47, no. 4 (2005): 313–343. 17 See n. 4 above. 18 J.W. Watt, Philoxenos of Mabbug: Fragments of the Commentary on Matthew and Luke, CSCO 392 (versio) and 393 (textus), Scriptores Syri 171, 172. (Louvain: Secrétariat du CorpusSCO, 1978). Because of the transmission history of many of the fragments of CML, some have questioned its usefulness in reconstructing the text of the Philoxenian version. However, one MS (British Museum Add. 17126 = Watt’s MS A) dates to the lifetime of Philoxenos (510/11 CE) and can thereby be considered a viable witness for citations without the danger of later scribal assimilation to more familiar texts. Moreover, de Halleux argues that this manuscript could be a product of the scriptorum at Mabbug sponsored by Philoxenos, Philoxène, 144–145. 16

184

J. Edward Walters

citations of the same verses that occurred in the other works of Philoxenos that met an additional external criteria: date of composition. More specifically, when using the writings of Philoxenos to determine accurate Philoxenian citations, we must distinguish between works that pre-date and those that post-date the NT translation project and use them accordingly.19 Thus, Philoxenos’ theological treatise on the Trinity20 was written after the project was completed and therefore may be considered as a possible source for Philoxenian readings, but Philoxenos’ most extensive surviving work, The Discourses,21 was written earlier in Philoxenos’ career and cannot be considered a reliable source. The writings of Philoxenos that post-date the translation project, but do not meet the genre criteria, may be used as reference for additional support, but unless they include explicit discussion of the wording of a particular text, it is too tenuous to base an argument for authentic Philoxenian readings on these writings. Thus, the present study makes use of Philoxenos’ Letters to the Monks of Senoun (LMS),22 to compare citations that also occur in Philoxenos’ other works, but it does not rely on any citations that occur only in LMS. 2.2 Criteria for Assessing Citations Now that we have discussed “external” criteria for accurate Scripture citations in Philoxenos’ works, we may now turn to a brief discussion of “internal” criteria. The first, and most reliable, criterion is that of explicit discussion of the wording of a text. Philoxenos offers such explicit discussions for only a precious few verses, but it is precisely these passages that give us some insight into the kinds of revisions in which Philoxenos was most The two commentaries CPJ and CML were most likely being written concurrently with the translation project. 20 A. Vaschalde, Philoxeni Mabbugensis: tractatus tres de trinitate et incarnatione, CSCO 9 (versio) and 10 (textus), Scriptores Syri 9, 10 (Louvain: Imprimerie Orientaliste, 1955). 21 E.A. Wallis Budge, The Discourses of Philoxenos, 2 Vols (London: Asher & Co., 1894). 22 A. de Halleux, Philoxéne de Mabbog: Lettre aux moines Senoun, CSCO 231 (versio) and 232 (textus), Scriptores Syri 98, 99 (Louvain: Secrétariat du CorpusSCO, 1963). 19

The Philoxenian Gospels as Reconstructed

185

interested.23 This criterion is the only one that can provide absolute certainty that we have the unique Philoxenian reading, but there are other criteria that can provide a high degree of certainty for other verses. A second internal criterion for accurate Philoxenian citations is multiple occurrences of a citation in the same form. If a citation in Philoxenos’ works contains a variant from the reading of the Peshitta and that variant is attested in another citation elsewhere, we can conclude with a high degree of certainty that this reading represents the text of the Philoxenian version. However, when a citation occurs multiple times in different forms, this criterion is not necessarily helpful.24 The third internal criterion is an expressed intent to cite without an explicit discussion of the wording. This intent can be expressed with either the Syriac citation marker äß or with some kind of introductory formula like -Ī ƢƉĥ (“[Someone] said”) or -Ī ŪſƦƃ (“it is written”). As with many patristic authors, this criterion does not provide absolute certainty. That is, Philoxenos displays a varied use of such introductory markers. However, my research in the Philoxenian Gospels shows that Philoxenos’ use of these introductory formulae are generally reliable enough to be considered part of the argument for whether or not a citation is accurate.25 However, there is one additional problem with the use of these introductory formulae: Philoxenos uses them with equal frequency with unique citations from the Philoxenian version and citations that are equivalent to the Peshitta reading. Thus, while these formulae are reliable for a high probability of accuracy, they In the present study, see the discussion below of Mt. 1:1 and 1:18. However, Philoxenos also explicitly discusses the translation of Rom 1:3, Heb 5:7, and Heb 10:5. See de Halleux’s discussion of these passages in Philoxène, 123–124. 24 For a prime example of this, see the discussion of Lk 1:35. 25 Of those 61 uses of ƋƆ found in CPJ and MS A of CML, 59 of them (96.7%) occurred with an accurate citation of either the Philoxenian version or the Peshitta. Similarly, Philoxenos’ use of other introductory formulae is relatively reliable: 28 of 33 (84.8%) citations that include such formulae are accurate citations of either the Philoxenian version or the Peshitta. For more on Philoxenos’ use of these introductory formulae, see Chapter 4 of my thesis; Walters, “The Philoxenian Gospels,” 126–130. 23

186

J. Edward Walters

are not reliable for distinguishing between readings of the Philoxenian version and the Peshitta. Thus, Philoxenos’ use of introductory formulae may be used to an extent to determine the text of the Philoxenian version, but it should not be the only criterion upon which one bases the argument for a unique Philoxenian reading. A fourth criterion is the relationship of the text found in the citation to the texts of the Peshitta and the Harclean version. Following Zuntz’ original claim that the Philoxenian version was a “halfway house” between the Peshitta and Harclean version26 and Brock’s conclusion in support of this claim,27 it is reasonable to assume that unique Philoxenian readings will, in various ways, resemble aspects of both texts. That is, some readings of the Philoxenian version will agree with the Peshitta over and against the Harclean version, and some readings that make revisions to the Peshitta text will agree with the revisions found in the Harclean version.28 We know that Thomas of Harkel made use of Philoxenos’ translation in his own work, so it is reasonable to conclude that citations that differ from the Peshitta but agree with the Harclean version have a high probability of representing the text of the Philoxenian version.29 A final internal criterion for determining an accurate Philoxenian citation is the translation technique of Philoxenos as established in other citations determined to be accurate. In other G. Zuntz, The Ancestry of the Harklean New Testament, British Academy Supplemental Papers, no. 7 (London: The British Academy, 1945). 27 Brock, “The Resolution of the Philoxenian/Harclean Problem,” 341. 28 For example, while the Philoxenian version frequently matches the Harclean version in rearranging the Syriac word order to match Greek word order, it also consistently differs from the Harclean version on the addition of the possessive -ƈſĪ to represent a form of the Greek pronoun ΅ЀΘΓІ. 29 In such cases, is not necessary to argue that Philoxenos or Polycarp were the originators of such unique readings as they may have known of these revisions from other translation projects. But we are concerned here only with determining the text of the Philoxenian version, and originality is not a criterion for accurate Philoxenian citations. 26

The Philoxenian Gospels as Reconstructed

187

words, if there is a unique reading that occurs only once and does not meet the above criteria, we may ask the question: Does this revision match the kind of revisions found in other Philoxenian citations? Or, if the revision does not match another citation, we may also ask: Based on the revisions found in other Philoxenian citations, is it reasonable to conclude that the Philoxenian version might have included this reading? This criterion is highly tenuous and should be used only with the utmost care and a fair dose of skepticism, but that does not mean that it cannot be applied in some instances.

3. PRESENTATION OF THE DATA Based on the criteria outlined above, the present study seeks to present the unique readings of the Philoxenian version (Ph) that can be reconstructed based on the accurate Scripture citations in the works of Philoxenos. The text of these citations is presented along with the corresponding texts of the Peshitta (P) and Harclean version (H).30 For reference, the Greek text (G)31 is also included for each citation. The use of brackets [ ] around a word indicate that there is some question about the inclusion of that word within the text of Ph. The discussion following the verse will indicate the reasons for uncertainty.

The texts of P and H presented in this study are those found in G. Kiraz, Comparative Edition of the Syriac Gospels: Aligning the Sinaiticus, Curetonianus, Peshitta and Harklean Versions, 4 Vols (Piscataway: Gorgias Press, 2004), though the Philoxenian readings were also compared with the textual variants listed in P.E. Pusey and G.H. Gwilliam, eds. Tetraeuangelium Sanctum (Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1901); repr. as Tetraeuangelium Sanctum: The Fourfold Holy Gospel in the Peshitta Syriac Version with Critical Apparatus (Piscataway: Gorgias Press, 2003). 31 The Greek text shown is that of the 27th edition of Nestle-Aland. However, where applicable I have included textual variants from the Greek tradition. 30

188

J. Edward Walters

3.1 Philoxenian Gospel of Matthew 1:1 ĶĬƢŨĥĪ ĬƢŨ űſĭĪĪ ĬƢŨ ťŷƀƤƉ ĺŴƤſĪ ĬŁĭűƀƇſĪ ťŨƦƃ ĶĬƢŨĥĪ ĬƢŨ űſĭĪĪ ĬƢŨ ťŷƀƤƉ ĺŴƤſĪ ťſĭĬĪ ťŨƦƃ ĶĬƢŨĥĪ ĬƢŨĪ űſĭĥĪĪ ĬƢŨĪ ťŷƀƤƉ ĺŴƤſĪ ťſĭĬĪ ťŨƦƃ

P Ph H

G ΆϟΆΏΓΖ ·ΉΑνΗΉΝΖ ͑΋ΗΓІ ̙Ε΍ΗΘΓІ ΙϡΓІ ̇΅ΙϟΈ ΙϡΓІ ̝ΆΕ΅Σΐ

The text of Matthew 1:1 presented above is one of the few readings that we may attribute to the text of the Philoxenian version with absolute certainty because Philoxenos explicitly discusses the deficient translation of this passage as found in the text of the Peshitta and proposes his own translation. Philoxenos cites this passage six times: three of the six include the entire verse32 and the other three contain the first half of the verse.33 Philoxenos expresses an intent to cite with the citation marker ƋƆ in both of the full length citations that include the text of Ph.34 In the third citation that contains the whole verse, Philoxenos provides the text of the Peshitta version, which he introduces with the phrase, “[These things] now stand in the Syriac [version, i.e., the Peshitta]” ò (ťƀſĿŴƐŨ ťƣĬ ƎƊƀƏĪ ).35 In his discussion of this verse, Philoxenos argues that the translation of P is inadequate because the Greek word ·ΉΑνΗΉΝΖ should be translated as ťſĭĬ rather than ĬŁĭűƀƇſĪ.36 Brock asserts that Philoxenos’ motivation behind this revision is “manifestly christological,” because “in his polemic against the Antiochene theologians, [Philoxenos] wishes to associate the genesis of these passages with John 1:14.”37 Whether or not Philoxenos was aware of another translation using ťſĭĬ rather than ĬŁĭűƀƇſĪ is not clear; but it is clear that the Philoxenian translation shows a preference for words built from the stem ŦĭĬ CPJ 41.10–11; 42.18–20; 49.17–18. CPJ 47.13; 50.11–12; 52.12–13. 34 CPJ 41.10–11; 49.17–18. 35 CPJ 42.18–20. 36 CPJ 41–43. It also appears that Philoxenos made a mistake in his understanding of the meaning of the Greek words involved, Brock, “Resolution of the Philoxenian/Harclean Problem,” 328. 37 Ibid., 329. 32 33

The Philoxenian Gospels as Reconstructed

189

rather than words built from űƇſ, as evidenced by Matt 1:1 as well as the next passage.38 1:18 űƃ ŦĭĬ x ťƍƃĬ x ťŷƀƤƉ x ĺŴƤſĪ ƎſĪ űƃ x IJĬĭƦſĥ ťƍƃĬ ťſĭĬ ťŷƀƤƉ ƎſĪ ĺŴƤſĪ x űƃ ŦĭĬ IJĬĭƦſĥ ťƍƃĬ ťſĭĬ ťŷƀƤƉ ƎſĪ ĺŴƤſĪ x ťƆűƕ x x ťƆűƕ x x ťƆĪ ĶűƟ ƎƉ

ĬűƇſ P x Ph x H

ƚƏŴƀƆ x ųƉĥ ƋſƢƉ x ŁĭĬ ŧƢƀƄƉ P ƚƏŴƀƆ x ųƉĥ ƋſƢƉ x ŁĭĬ ŧƢƀƄƉ Ph ƚƏŴƀƆ ųƇſĪ ťƉĥ ƋſĿŤƉ Ƣƀū ŁĭĬ ŧƢƀƄƉ H

ťƣĪŴƟĪ ťŶĭĿ ƎƉ ťƍźŨ x x ƦŷƃƦƣĥ ťƤſűƟ ťŶĭĿ ƎƉ ťƍźŨ x x ƦŷƃƦƣĥ ő ťƣĪŴƟĪ ťŶĭĿ ƎƉ ťƏƢƄŨ ųƆ ƦſĥĪ ƦŷƃƦƣĥ

ķŴƘŁĭƦƤƌ P ķŴƘŁĭƦƤƌ Ph ķŴƘŁĭƦƤƌ H

G ̖ΓІ

Έξ ͑΋ΗΓІ ̙Ε΍ΗΘΓІ ψ ·νΑΉΗ΍Ζ ΓЈΘΝΖ ώΑ. ΐΑ΋ΗΘΉΙΌΉϟΗ΋Ζ ΘϛΖ ΐ΋ΘΕϲΖ ΅ЁΘΓІ ̏΅Εϟ΅Ζ ΘХ ͑ΝΗφΚ, ΔΕϠΑ ύ ΗΙΑΉΏΌΉϧΑ ΅ЁΘΓϿΖ ΉЀΕνΌ΋ πΑ ·΅ΗΘΕϠ σΛΓΙΗ΅ πΎ ΔΑΉϾΐ΅ΘΓΖ Υ·ϟΓΙ

Philoxenos cites all or part of Matt 1:18 twelve times,39 and he introduces two of these citations with introductory formulae: IJƦƉĭ ƢƉĥ (“And Matthew said”)40 and -Ī ħƦƃ Ŏ (“[He] wrote that...”).41 The discussion of Matt 1:1 above also applies to 1:18 as Philoxenos mentions both verses as examples of the inadequacy of the Peshitta translation.42 Yet again, Philoxenos argues that the word ŧűƇſ should be removed from the translation and replaced by ťſĭĬ.43 Outside the Gospels, we also see the preference for ŦĭĬ words in Romans 1. 39 Full: CPJ 41.11–14; 43.4–7; 44.12–15; Partial: CPJ 41.20–21; 42.20– 21; 43.24–25; 47.14; 50.12–14; 52.13–14; 120.1–2; 227.5–6; 236.11–12. 40 CPJ 47.14; 50.12–14. 41 CPJ 236.11–12. 42 CPJ 42–43. 43 Zuntz also found this revision in the text of Matt 1:18 in Tractatus Tres and commented that this word choice was “one of philosophical rather than of biblical flavour,” The Ancestry of the Harklean Version, 45. It is interesting, however, that Zuntz does not comment on the possible theological connotations of this lexical change. 38

190

J. Edward Walters

As with Matt 1:1, Philoxenos quotes the text of P and then provides his own translation.44 Philoxenos replaces the verb ŦĭĬ at the end of the first phrase with the verbal phrase IJĬĭƦſĥ, likely in an attempt to better represent the Greek imperfect verb ώΑ. All seven of Philoxenos’ citations that include this portion of the verse include IJĬĭƦſĥ,45 and this reading is retained in the text of H. Moreover, given the attention that Philoxenos dedicates to the proper wording of this verse, it is safe to assume that he would have cited this verse with great care. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that the text presented above is the accurate reading of Ph. 1:20 ő ƎƉ ųŨ űƇſŁĥĪ x Ƣƀū ĭĬő x .ĴŁƦƌĥ ƋſƢƊƆ ŪƐƊƆ ƈŶĪŁ ťƆ P ő ƎƉ x űƇſŁĥ ųŨĪ Ƣƀū ĭĬő x :ĴŁƦƌĥ ƋſƢƊƆ ƢŨűƊƆ Ŏ ƈŶĪŁ ťƆ Ph ő ƎƉ x ĜűƇſŁĥ ųŨĪ Ƣƀū ĭĬő ƅƇſĪ ŦŁƦƌĥ ƋſĿŤƊƆ ƢŨűƊƆ ƈŶĪŁ ťƆ H

x ťƣĪŴƟĪ ĭĬ ťŶĭĿ x ťƤſűƟ ĭĬ ťŶĭĿ IJĬĭƦſĥ ťƤſűƟ x ťŶĭĿ

P Ph H

G ΐχ ΚΓΆ΋ΌϜΖ Δ΅Ε΅Ώ΅ΆΉϧΑ ̏΅Εϟ΅Α ΘχΑ ·ΙΑ΅ϧΎΣ ΗΓΙp Θϲ ·ΤΕ πΑ ΅ЁΘϜ ·ΉΑΑ΋ΌξΑ πΎ ΔΑΉϾΐ΅ΘϱΖ πΗΘ΍Α Υ·ϟΓΙ.

In two citations46 of this verse, the text of Ph renders the Greek word Δ΅Ε΅Ώ΅ΆΉϧΑ as ƢŨűƊƆ though a third citation47 retains ŪƐƊƆ as found in the text of P. While ŪƐƌ (“to take, receive”) is generally a better word-for-word translation than ƢŨĪ (“to lead, guide”) for the Greek word Δ΅Ε΅Ώ΅ΆΉϧΑ, the idiom ŦŁƦƌĥ ƢŨĪ means “to take a wife” or “to marry.”48 It is possible that the text of CPJ 42.20–21. None of the citations in CPJ contain ŦĭĬ here, but two of the citations of this verse from Tractatus tres de Trinitate, which are otherwise identical, include ŦĭĬ in addition to IJĬĭƦſĥ. 46 CPJ 227.7–8; CPJ 41.15–16. 47 CPJ 41.21–22. 48 J. Payne Smith, A Compendious Syriac Dictionary (Eugene: Wipf and Stock, 1999), 82; M. Sokoloff, A Syriac Lexicon (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns; Piscataway: Gorgias Press, 2009), 271. 44 45

The Philoxenian Gospels as Reconstructed

191

Ph included ƢŨűƊƆ and Philoxenos simply reverted to the Peshitta reading ŪƐƊƆ in one citation by accident, but this seems unlikely because the two readings occur within just a few lines of each other. However, whether or not the use of ŪƐƊƆ is an accident, it is reasonable to conclude that the text of Ph reads ƢŨűƊƆ for two reasons: 1) Philoxenos cites the full verse with this reading twice; and 2) this reading is also found in H. The text of H moves the ő in an attempt to match the word order of the Greek text phrase ųŨ ő Ƣƀū ĭĬ, and by rendering Θϲ ·ΤΕ πΑ ΅ЁΘϜ ·ΉΑΑ΋ΌξΑ as űƇſŁĥ ųŨĪ this word order also occurs once in Ph.49 However, in the other two full citations and in an additional partial citation of this verse, ő űƇſŁĥĪ [Ƣƀū] ĭĬ[Ī].50 Philoxenos cites the word order of P: ųŨ Only one of the four citations includes Ƣƀū, and it is the same citation that matches the reading found in H. So, in three citations, Philoxenos includes the word order of P, but in one citation his wording matches that of H exactly. There is also some question as to whether or not the text of Ph includes the prefix -Ī in this phrase. The three citations that match the Peshitta word order also include the -Ī, but the citation that matches the text of H does not include it. The various forms of the citation of this verse and the fact that Philoxenos does not explicitly discuss the wording as he does with the previous citations make it difficult to ascertain which form of this verse represents the text of Ph. However, it seems ő most likely that the text of Ph read űƇſŁĥ ųŨĪ Ƣƀū ĭĬ because it matches the word order of the Greek text and because the text of H also includes this reading. The variations in the other citations may be explained by accidental reversion to the Peshitta wording ő ) and inconsistent citation habits with regard to (placement of ųŨ particles/participles (inclusion of Ƣƀū and -Ī). Unlike the previous two citations discussed above, the precise wording of this verse was CPJ 227.7–8. CPJ 41.15–16; CPJ 41.21–22; and (partial) CPJ 236.13–14. It is also worth noting that both word orders appear in two citations of this verse found in the Syriac translation of Cyril of Alexandira’s work Apologia Duodecim Capitulorum contra Theodoretum, King, Syriac Versions, 396. The Peshitta word order is also retained in two citations from Tratatus tres (236.38; 268.28–29); however, both of these are partial citations that begin with the phrase in question and this may affect the word order of the citation. 49 50

192

J. Edward Walters

not as crucial to Philoxenos, so it is not surprising that his citations are varied slightly. 1:23 P ƈſĥŴƍƊƕ x ųƊƣ ķĭƢƠƌĭ ŧƢŨ űƆĥŁĭ ƎźŨŁ x ŦƦƆĭƦŨ ŦĬĪ Ph ƈſĥŴƍƊƕ ųƇſĪ ťƊƣ ķĭƢƠƌĭ ŧƢŨ űƆĥŁĭ ƎźŨŁ ťƏƢƄŨ ŦƦƆĭƦŨ ŦĬ H ƈſĥŴƍƊƕ

x

ųƊƣ ķĭƢƠƌĭ ŧƢŨ űƆĥŁĭ ƎźŨŁ

x

ŦƦƆĭƦŨ ŦĬĪ

x x P ‹…†ÿØ~ƒ †…ª Ph IJĬĭƦſĥĪ ĭĬő H

ķųƆĥ

ƎƊƕ ƋūĿŁƦƉ

x

x

¿Ìß~

çãî

x

úýñÿâ

ÊÜ

ŦųƆĥ

ƎƊƕ

x

ơƤƘƦƉĪ

x

G ϢΈΓϿ ψ Δ΅ΕΌνΑΓΖ πΑ ·΅ΗΘΕϠ ρΒΉ΍ Ύ΅Ϡ ΘνΒΉΘ΅΍ ΙϡϱΑ, Ύ΅Ϡ Ύ΅ΏνΗΓΙΗ΍Α Θϲ ϷΑΓΐ΅ ΅ЁΘΓІ ̳ΐΐ΅ΑΓΙφΏ, ϵ πΗΘ΍Α ΐΉΌΉΕΐ΋ΑΉΙϱΐΉΑΓΑ ΐΉΌв ψΐЗΑ ϳ ΌΉϱΖ.

The portion of this citation that is a quote from Isa. 7:14 is identical in the texts of P and Ph. However, the text immediately following this quotation is different. Philoxenos quotes this verse five times, and three of those five citations include the whole verse.51 Moreover, one of the three full citations also includes 1:22,52 which is indicated as a citation with the marker ƋƆ. Based on the length of this citation and the use of the citation marker, we may reasonably conclude that Philoxenos is quoting from a particular text in this verse and not from memory. The text of Ph appears to reflect a word-for-word translation of the Greek phrase Ϸ πΗΘ΍Α ΐΉΌΉΕΐ΋ΑΉΙϱΐΉΑΓΑ with the Syriac phrase űƃ IJĬĭƦſĥĪ ĭĬ ơƤƘƦƉ. In addition to the change in word order, the text of Ph also uses ơƤƘ (Aph.—“to explain, translate”) instead of ƋūĿŁ (“to interpret, translate”) as the translation of the Greek word ΐΉΌΉΕΐ΋ΑΉΙϱΐΉΑΓΑ.53 All three full citations of this verse also 51

Full: CPJ 46.6–8; 56.15–17; 42.13–14; Partial: CPJ 44.7; CPJ 47.

19–20. CPJ 56.14–17. This translation choice may have been part of a broader translation movement in the fifth and sixth centuries because both forms also exist in the Syriac translation of the works of Cyril of Alexandria (ƋūĿŁƦƉ in Scholia de Incaratione Verbi and ơƤƘƦƉ in Epistle 39; King, Syriac Versions, 398. This reading is also found in the citation of this verse from Tratatus tres (169.4). 52 53

The Philoxenian Gospels as Reconstructed

193

include the temporal preposition űƃ, likely an attempt to emphasize that this verb is a participle. However, the translator of H has omitted it, so this appears to be a reading unique to Ph. 2:1 ťƄƇƉ ĸĪĭĿĬ ƁƉŴƀŨò ŧĪĭųſĪ ƋŷƆ ƦƀũŨ x ĺŴƤſ űƇſŁĥ ƎſĪ űƃ P ò ŧĪĭųſĪ ƋŷƆ ƦƀũŨ x ĺŴƤſ űƇſŁĥ ƎſĪ űƃ Ph ťƄƇƉ ĸĪĭĿĬ ƁƉŴƀŨ ťƄƇƉ ƑſĪĭƢſĥ ƁƉŴƀŨò ĪĭųſĪ ƋŷƆ ƦƀũŨ űƇſŁĥ ĺŴƤſ x ƎſĪ űƃ H

ƋƇƣĿĭŤƆ x ƋƇƣĿĭŤƆ ĭŁĥ ƋƇƣĿĭŤƆ ĭŁĥ

ťŷƌűƉ ƎƉ ťƣŴŬƉò ò ťŷƌűƉ ƎƉ ťƣŴŬƉ ò ťŷƌűƉ ƎƉ ťƣŴŬƉ

ĭŁĥ x P x ŦĬ Ph x ŦĬ H

G ̖ΓІ Έξ ͑΋ΗΓІ ·ΉΑΑ΋ΌνΑΘΓΖ πΑ ̅΋ΌΏνΉΐ ΘϛΖ ͑ΓΙΈ΅ϟ΅Ζ πΑ ψΐνΕ΅΍Ζ ̽ΕФΈΓΙ ΘΓІ Ά΅Η΍ΏνΝΖ, ϢΈΓϿ ΐΣ·Γ΍ ΦΔϲ ΦΑ΅ΘΓΏЗΑ Δ΅ΕΉ·νΑΓΑΘΓ ΉϢΖ ͒ΉΕΓΗϱΏΙΐ΅ Philoxenos cites this verse fully twice54 and partially on two other occasions.55 Two of the citations (one full length and one partial) contain the citation marker ƋƆ.56 In the full length citation that contains the citation marker ƋƆ, it stands in the place of the postpositive particle ƎſĪ. However, in the other full length citation, Philoxenos includes ƎſĪ after űƃ. The Greek text includes Έν as the second word in the sentence, so it is likely that the text of Ph included ƎſĪ, but that Philoxenos has simply replaced the particle with ƋƆ in one citation. It is interesting that the translator of Ph has not transposed the order of ĺŴƤſ űƇſŁĥ as the translator of H has done in order to reflect the Greek word order. However, all three citations of this verse that contain this portion of the text retain the same word order as P.57 There is some question about the two revisions in the second half of the verse: the addition of ŦĬ and the placement of the verb ĭŁĥ. One full length citation contains the wording equivalent to the text of P,58 but the other full length citation contains the CPJ 43.12–14; 44.17–18. CML 4.19–20; CPJ 43.25–26. 56 CPJ 43.12–14; 43.25–26. 57 As does the one citation of this verse in Tractatus tres 265.14–15. 58 CPJ 44.17–18. 54 55

194

J. Edward Walters

reading presented above. It is more likely that the text of Ph included the revised version found above for several reasons: 1) the revised citation includes the citation marker ƋƆ and the other one does not; 2) the addition of ŦĬ is an attempt to translate the Greek word ϢΈΓϾ and the placement of ĭŁĥ in the revised text reflects the placement of Δ΅ΕΉ·νΑΓΑΘΓ in the Greek word order; 3) the text of H also includes both of these revisions; and 4) it is easier to explain the presence of a citation of P in Philoxenos’ writings than it is to explain a variant reading that just so happens to display translation techniques characteristic of the translator of Ph. Philoxenos is not making an explicit point about the wording of this text, so we may assume that the citation that reflects the text of P is the result of Philoxenos quoting a more familiar wording. 2:2 ò ƎſŵŶ űƇſŁĥĪ ťſĪĭųſĪ ťƄƇƉ x x x ŴƄſĥ ƎſƢƉĥĭ x P ò ő ƎſŵŶ x ťſĪĭųſĪ ťƄƇƉ űƇſŁĥĪ ĭĬ IJĬĭƦſĥ ťƄſĥ ƎſƢƉĥ űƃ Ph ò ƎſŵŶ x ťſĪŴſĪ ťƄƇƉ űƇſŁĥĪ ĭĬő IJĬĭƦſĥ ťƄſĥ ƎſƢƉĥ űƃ H ųƆ űŬƐƊƆ ƎƍſŁĥĭ ťŷƌűƊŨ x ųũƃŴƃ Ƣƀū P ųƆ űŬƐƊƆ ƎſŁĥĭ ťŷƌűƊŨ x ųũƃŴƃ [Ƣƀū] Ph Ŏ ųƆ űŬƐƊƆ ƎƍſŁĥĭ ťŷƌűƊŨ ųƇſĪ ťũƃŴƃ Ƣƀū H G Ών·ΓΑΘΉΖ· ΔΓІ πΗΘ΍Α ϳ ΘΉΛΌΉϠΖ Ά΅Η΍ΏΉϿΖ ΘЗΑ ͑ΓΙΈ΅ϟΝΑ; ΉϥΈΓΐΉΑ ·ΤΕ ΅ЁΘΓІ ΘϲΑ ΦΗΘνΕ΅ πΑ ΘϜ ΦΑ΅ΘΓΏϜ Ύ΅Ϡ όΏΌΓΐΉΑ ΔΕΓΗΎΙΑϛΗ΅΍ ΅ЁΘХ.

Philoxenos cites this verse twice,59 but the two citations display different readings of the first half of the verse. One citation includes the first phrase as it is worded above ( ťƄſĥ ƎſƢƉĥ űƃ ò ťſĪĭųſĪ ťƄƇƉ űƇſŁĥĪ ĭĬő IJĬĭƦſĥ),60 but this citation does not include the rest of the verse. The second citation contains the full verse, but it is identical to the wording of P.61 It is concluded here that the text of the shorter citation represents the text of Ph for the first half of the verse because it agrees with the text of H and follows the kind of translation technique characteristic of the CPJ 43.14–15; 44.18–20. CPJ 43.14–15. 61 CPJ 44.18–20. 59 60

The Philoxenian Gospels as Reconstructed

195

translator of Ph. Moreover, it is safe to assume that the second half of the verse (beginning with ƎſŵŶ) is an accurate reflection of both P and Ph because Philoxenos’ citation agrees with the virtually identical texts of P and H.62 With regard to the first half of the verse, the text of Ph extends the contraction ŴƄſĥ to the phrase ĭĬ IJĬĭƦſĥ ťƄſĥ and moves the verb űƇſŁĥ to the position immediately following this phrase in order to provide a word-for-word translation of the Greek wording ΔΓІ πΗΘ΍Α ϳ ΘΉΛΌΉϧΖ. The word Ƣƀū is placed in brackets in the presented text above because while it does not appear in Philoxenos’ citation, it is not necessary to conclude that the text of Ph omitted Ƣƀū. In the text of CPJ, there is a ƋƆ where the Ƣƀū would stand. It is strange that ƋƆ appears at this position in the sentence, as it usually appears near the beginning of a citation. However, the replacement of a conjunction with ƋƆ need not necessarily be considered a definitive omission. As seen in Matt 2:1, Philoxenos sometimes replaces post-positive conjunctions with the citation marker ƋƆ. This, in addition to the fact that the Greek text includes ·ΤΕ here and both P and H contain Ƣƀū, allows us to conclude reasonably that the text of Ph likely included Ƣƀū. 2:6 ťƄƇƊŨò ťƌƮŨűƊŨ

x ŧƢſƞŨ IJƦſĭĬ ťƆ ĜŧĪĭųſĪ Ʀƌĥ ŧƢſƞŨ

x ƋŷƆ ƦƀŨ IJƦƌĥ Ļĥ

x ťƆ ĜŧĪĭųſĪ ťƕĿĥ ƋŷƆ ƦƀŨ

P

Ʀƌĥ x Ph

ťƌƮŨűƊŨ ƁƄſƦſĥ ŦŁƢſƞŨ ƅƏ ťƆ ĜŧĪĭųſĪ ťƕĿĥ ƋŷƆ ƦƀŨ IJƦƌĥĭ x

H

IJĬŴƀƕƢƌ x ĭĬĪ ťƄƇƉ ľŴƙƌ Ƣƀū ƁƄƍƉ .ŧĪĭųſĪ P ƈſĥƢƐſĥ x ƁƊƖƆ IJĬŴƀƕƢƌĪ x ĭĬő ťƌƢŨűƉ ľŴƙƌ Ƣƀū ƁƄƍƉ .ŧĪĭųſĪ Ph ƈſĥƢƐſŤƆ ƁƇſĪ ťƊƖƆ IJĬŴƀƕƢƌĪ ťƍſĥ ĭĬő ťŨƢŨűƉ ľŴƙƌ Ƣƀū ƁƄƍƉ .ŧĪĭųſĪ H ƈſĥƢƐſĥ x ƁƊƖƆ

G Ύ΅Ϡ ΗϿ Ά΋ΌΏνΉΐ, ·ϛ ͑ΓϾΈ΅, ΓЁΈ΅ΐЗΖ πΏ΅ΛϟΗΘ΋ ΉϨ πΑ ΘΓϧΖ ψ·ΉΐϱΗ΍Α ͑ΓϾΈ΅· πΎ ΗΓІ ·ΤΕ πΒΉΏΉϾΗΉΘ΅΍ ψ·ΓϾΐΉΑΓΖ, ϵΗΘ΍Ζ ΔΓ΍ΐ΅ΑΉϧ ΘϲΑ Ώ΅ϱΑ ΐΓΙ ΘϲΑ ͑ΗΕ΅φΏ.

The only difference being the addition of ųƇſĪ in H. This is a consistent revision found in H but not in Ph. Brock also asserts that this is true of the distinctions between the Philoxenian and Harclean recensions of the Syriac Euthalian material. Brock, “The Syriac Euthalian Material,” 129. 62

196

J. Edward Walters

Philoxenos quotes this verse only once,63 but he expresses an intent to cite by introducing this citation with the phrase ťƊƀƏ ķŴƖƇŬƌĭŤŨ (“a statement in the Gospel”) and including the citation marker ƋƆ. The texts of Ph and H add the word ťƕĿĥ, perhaps in an attempt to render more accurately the Greek phrase ·ϛ в̌ΓϾΈ΅. However, there is a textual variant in the Greek witnesses that could account for the lack of this word in the text of P. Some Greek witnesses read ΘϛΖ в̌ΓΙΈ΅ϟ΅Ζ rather than ·ϛ в̌ΓϾΈ΅.64 Thus, the most likely explanation for the presence of the word ťƕĿĥ in Ph and H is that their Vorlagen included the word ·ϛ. The text of Ph also omits the verb IJƦſĭĬ and adds the enclitic second person pronoun Ʀƌĥ following ŧƢſƞŨ, perhaps in an attempt to reflect the Greek word order that places the second person singular verb ΉϨ after πΏ΅ΛϟΗΘ΋. Moreover, the translator of Ph has chosen to translate the Greek word ψ·ΉΐЏΑ with the Syriac word ťƌƢŨűƉ (‘leader, ruler, governor’) rather than ťƄƇƉ (‘king’). 3:15 ő ŦŁŴƌŤƃ ųƇƃ ťƇƊƌĪ ƎƆ x ŦŤſ Ƣƀū ťƍƃĬ ťƣĬ ľŴũƣ P ő ő ŦŁŴƠſĪĮ ųƇƃ ťƇƊƌĪ ƎƆ x ŦŤſ [Ƣƀū ťƍƃĬĪ] ťƣĬ ľŴũƣ Ph ő ŦŁŴƠſĪĮ ųƇƃ ŴƀƇƊƊƆ ƎƆ ųſƦſĥ ťſŤƘĪ Ƣƀū ťƍƃĬ ťƣĬ ľŴũƣ H

G ΩΚΉΖ ΩΕΘ΍, ΓЂΘΝΖ ·ΤΕ ΔΕνΔΓΑ πΗΘϠΑ ψΐϧΑ ΔΏ΋ΕЗΗ΅΍ ΔκΗ΅Α Έ΍Ύ΅΍ΓΗϾΑ΋Α.

Philoxenos cites this verse twice, though one of them is a partial citation.65 The reading in brackets above is uncertain because only one of the two citations contains this part of the verse and it contains two minor variations that are difficult to resolve confidently: the citation of this verse adds the proclitic -Ī to the word ťƍƃĬ and omits the conjunction Ƣƀū that immediately follows ťƍƃĬ in the texts of P and H. It is possible that both of these variations are accidental and that neither is actually the reading of Ph. However, it is also possible that the translator of Ph attempted to render the phrase ΓЂΘΝΖ ·ΤΕ not with the literal Ƣƀū ťƍƃĬ but with ťƍƃĬĪ. However, as the text of Ph tends to CPJ 42.5–8. The witnesses that attest to this variant are D pc it sys.c.p. 65 CPJ 215.2–3; Partial: CML 22.10–11. 63 64

The Philoxenian Gospels as Reconstructed

197

reflect a more word-for-word translation, it is unlikely that the text of Ph actually omits Ƣƀū. Philoxenos’ citation of this verse also substitutes the word ŦŁŴƠſĪĮ for the word ŦŁŴƌŤƃ as a translation of Έ΍Ύ΅΍ΓΗϾΑ΋.66 Because CPJ is generally more reliable than CML and because H also includes ŦŁŴƠſĪĮ, it is reasonable to conclude that this was the reading of Ph as well. Moreover, Brock notes that this precise lexical change is characteristic of the citations evident in the Syriac Euthalian materials.67 10:17 ò ò ƦƀũƆ Ƣƀū ķŴƄƆ ƎƀƊƇƤƉ ķŴƄƌĭűŬƍƌ x ķĭĬƦƣŴƍƄŨĭ ťƍſĪ ò ò ƦƀũƆ 68[Ƣƀū] x ķŴƄƌŴƊƇƤƌ ķŴƄƌĭűŬƍƌ x ķĭĬƦƣŴƍƄŨĭ ťƍſĪ ò ò ķŴƄƌĭűŬƍƌ ķĭųƇſĪ ŦƦƣŴƍƄŨĭ ťƀƣŴƍƄƆ Ƣƀū x ķŴƄƌŴƊƇƤƌ

P Ph H

G Δ΅Ε΅ΈЏΗΓΙΗ΍Α ·ΤΕ ЀΐκΖ ΉϢΖ ΗΙΑνΈΕ΍΅ Ύ΅Ϡ πΑ Θ΅ϧΖ ΗΙΑ΅·Ν·΅ϧΖ ΅ЁΘЗΑ ΐ΅ΗΘ΍·ЏΗΓΙΗ΍Α ЀΐκΖ.68

Philoxenos does not include the first phrase of this verse in his only citation,69 but he does introduce the citation with the marker ƋƆ. Although the translator of H revises the text of P in a number of places, there is only one revision in the text of Ph. The translator of Ph changed the form of the verb ƎƀƊƇƤƉ (plural participle) to ķŴƊƇƤƌ (third person imperfect plural). It is likely that the translator made this change to reflect the future tense of the Greek verb Δ΅Ε΅ΈЏΗΓΙΗ΍Α. However, it is not clear why the translator added the second person plural pronoun (functioning as the direct object) to the end of the verb. Generally, the translators of Ph and H attempt to match the Greek word order, but in this case, the word order of the text of P better resembles the Greek Δ΅Ε΅ΈЏΗΓΙΗ΍Α ·ΤΕ ЀΐκΖ. Once again, we should not regard the omission of Ƣƀū as a variant of the text of Ph because Philoxenos has placed the citation marker ƋƆ in the position of Ƣƀū in the However, the partial citation of this verse in CML reads ŦŁŴƌŤƃ. Brock, “The Syriac Euthalian Material,” 128. Though, as King points out, the mid seventh-century Syriac translation of Severus’ Ad Nephalium reverts to the usage of ŦŁŴƌŤƃ; King, Syriac Versions, 399. 68 The brackets indicate that the word is not in the citation taken from Philoxenos’ writings but should be considered part of the text of Ph. 69 CPJ 127.23–24. 66 67

198

J. Edward Walters

citation, and we have already seen that this is not indicative of an omission in Ph. 10:21 ƈƕ ťƀƍŨò ķŴƉŴƠƌĭ ĬƢũƆ ťŨĥĭ ŦŁŴƊƆ IJĬŴŶŤƆ ťŶĥ ƎſĪ ƋƇƤƌ P ƈƕ ťƀƍŨò ķŴƉŴƠƌĭ ĬƢũƆ ťŨĥĭ ŦŁŴƊƆ IJĬŴŶŤƆ ťŶĥ [ƎſĪ] ƋƇƤƌ Ph ò ķŴƉŴƠƌĭ ŧƢũƆ ťŨĥĭ ƈƕ ťƀƍŨ ŦŁŴƊƆ ťŶŤƆ ťŶĥ ƎſĪ ƋƇƤƌ H ò P ķŴƌĥ ķĭƦƀƊƌĭ ķĭųſųŨĥ ò ķŴƌĥ ķĭƦƀƊƌĭ ŦųŨĥ Ph ò ķŴƌĥ ķĭƦƀƊƌĭ ŦųŨĥ H

G ̓΅Ε΅ΈЏΗΉ΍ Έξ ΦΈΉΏΚϲΖ ΦΈΉΏΚϲΑ ΉϢΖ ΌΣΑ΅ΘΓΑ Ύ΅Ϡ Δ΅ΘχΕ ΘνΎΑΓΑ, Ύ΅Ϡ πΔ΅Α΅ΗΘφΗΓΑΘ΅΍ ΘνΎΑ΅ πΔϠ ·ΓΑΉϧΖ Ύ΅Ϡ Ό΅Α΅ΘЏΗΓΙΗ΍Α ΅ЁΘΓϾΖ.

The text of this verse as cited by Philoxenos70 omits the conjunction ƎſĪ, though we should not consider this to be an actual omission from the text of Ph. This is most likely an accidental omission, though it could be a stylistic choice for the context of the citation. The primary revision found in the text of Ph is the omission of the third person plural possessive ending from ò ò ķĭųſųŨĥ , leaving the word ŦųŨĥ . This is likely an attempt at word-for-word translation because there is no possessive pronoun here in the Greek text. 11:27 ťƇŬƌĪ ťƇŬƌĪ ťƇŬƊƆ G

ŧƢŨ ŧƢŨ ŧƢŨ

ő ťŨĽĪ x ƎƊƆĭ ő ťŨƞƌĪ x ƎƊƆĭ ő ťŨƞƌ ķĥĪ ĭųƆĭ

P Ph H

Ύ΅Ϡ С πΤΑ ΆΓϾΏ΋Θ΅΍ ϳ ΙϡϲΖ ΦΔΓΎ΅ΏϾΜ΅΍.

Although this citation is rather short,71 there is good reason to conclude that it reflects the wording of Ph. The variant in question ő here is the change of the verb ťŨĽ (“to choose”) from ťŨĽ (perfect participle) to ťŨƞƌ (imperfect) in order to reflect the subjunctive mood of the Greek verb ΆΓϾΏ΋Θ΅΍. We may 70 71

CPJ 127.24–25. CPJ 180.26–27.

The Philoxenian Gospels as Reconstructed

199

reasonably conclude that this reading represents the text of Ph because Philoxenos includes the citation marker ƋƆ, other citations from Ph demonstrate an attempt to translate the tense of Greek verbs more accurately,72 this reading is attested in one of Philoxenos’ other later works,73 and the variation is also found in H. 16:18 ő ųƌŴƍƐŷƌ ťƆ ĵŴƀƣĪ ťƕƭŁĭ x IJŁűƖƆ ò őųƌŴƍƐŷƌ ťƆ ĵŴƀƣĪ ťƇƃŴƉĭ x IJŁűƖƆ őųƌŴƍƐŷƌ ťƆ ĵŴƀƣĪ ťƕƭŁĭ ƁƇſĪ ŦŁűƖƆ

ő ųƀƍŨĥ ťƘŤƃ ŧĪĬ ƈƕĭ P őųƀƍŨĥ ťƕŴƣ ťƌĬ ƈƕĭ Ph ő ųƀƍŨĥ ťƕŴƣ ťƌĬ ƈƕĭ H

G Ύ΅Ϡ πΔϠ Θ΅ϾΘϙ ΘϜ ΔνΘΕθ ΓϢΎΓΈΓΐφΗΝ ΐΓΙ πΎΎΏ΋Ηϟ΅Α Ύ΅Ϡ ΔϾΏ΅΍ βΈΓΙ ΓЁ Ύ΅Θ΍ΗΛϾΗΓΙΗ΍Α ΅ЁΘϛΖ.

ΘχΑ

In Philoxenos’ citation of this verse74 two out of three variations from the text of P agree with the text of H. The later translators have exchanged ťƘŤƃ for ťƕŴƣ and altered the demonstrative pronoun from the feminine ŧĪĬ to the masculine ťƌĬ to match this change. This revision appears to be a revision aimed at a more “accurate” translation of ΔνΘΕθ. P. Hill asserts that ťƕŴƣ “unambiguously means ‘rock,’ whereas ťƘŤƃ may mean ‘stone’ or ‘rock’,” as well as other elliptical meanings such as “column,” “stone vessel,” and “idol.”75 The most interesting variation in the text of Ph in this passage, ò however, is the change from ťƕƭŁ (“gates”) to ťƇƃŴƉ (“bars [of iron]”). This variant is interesting because it seems that Philoxenos preserves a reading found in the Diatessaron that is not found in either P or H. Brock76 and Murray77 argue that Tatian included the ò word ťƇƃŴƉ based on an early Christian interpretation of Psalm 107:16 regarding the descent of Christ to hell after his death. In ò this interpretation, the ťƇƃŴƉ are the bars of Sheol that Christ has See discussion of 3:12 above. LMS 70.3. This citation also adds ĭĬ as a translation of the Greek article ϳ. 74 CPJ 128.15–16. 75 Hill, “Matthew 16:18 in the Philoxenian Version,” 7. 76 Brock, “Some Aspects of Greek Words in Syriac,” 95–98. 77 R. Murray, “The Rock and the House on the Rock,” OCP 30 (1964): 341. 72 73

200

J. Edward Walters

broken down in order to defeat death and harrow Hell.78 The ò reading ťƇƃŴƉ (Gr. ΐΓΛΏΓϟ) is not listed as a textual variant in the apparatus of NA27 or Pusey and Gwilliam’s critical Peshitta text, so it is unlikely that the translator of Ph simply kept this reading from the base P text or translated it from the Greek Vorlage. Moreover, it ò is also worth noting that Philoxenos also uses ťƇƃŴƉ in his citation of this verse in LMS.79 There are several possible explanations for the occurrence of this reading in the text of Ph: perhaps Philoxenos had access to a copy of the Diatessaron; perhaps the variant reading existed in the Peshitta text of Philoxenos (and Polycarp); or perhaps Philoxenos knew of the interpretive tradition of Psalm 107 and agreed with it to the extent that he was willing to include the reading in his version. Or, perhaps it is a combination of these factors. Hill concludes that it is possible that the Greek Vorlage of Ph included ΐΓΛΏΓϟ as a gloss and that the translator, being aware of the interpretive tradition, chose to include this reading against the text of P.80 Given the fact that the text of Ph generally represents an attempt to translate the Greek text more literally, it seems that this is the best explanation for the existence of the reading in Ph. Thus, ò the fact that Philoxenos includes ťƇƃŴƉ in his text lends support to the theory of Murray and Brock that this was in fact a strong interpretive tradition.

Brock, “Some Aspects of Greek Words in Syriac,” 96. However, P. ò Hill argues that ťƇƃŴƉ may not have been the original reading of the Diatessaron but rather a gloss by Ephrem based on the interpretive tradition mentioned above. Hill, “Matthew 16:18,” 8. 79 LMS 77.23–24. The text of this citation is identical to the text presented above except that it uses the extended possessive clause ŦŁűƖƆ ƁƇſĪ as found in H as opposed to IJŁűƖƆ. 80 Hill, “Matthew 16:18,” 10. 78

The Philoxenian Gospels as Reconstructed

201 19:28

x ķĭƦƌĥĪ ķŴƄƆ ťƌĥ ƢƉĥ ƎƀƉĥ .ĺŴƤſ ķĭųƆ ƢƉĥ

x

x

x

P

x x x Ph x ķĭƦƌĥĪ [ķŴƄƆ ťƌĥ ƢƉĥ ƎƀƉĥ ĺŴƤſ] ķĭųƆ ƢƉĥ Ŏ ķŴƌĬ ķĭƦƌĥĪ ķŴƄƆ ťƌĥ ƢƉĥ ƎƀƉĥ x ķĭųƆ ƢƉĥ ĺŴƤſ ƎſĪ ĭĬ H ĸŴƌĿŁ ƈƕ ťƤƌĥĪ ĬƢŨ ħƦſĪ ťƉ ŦŁűŶ ťƊƇƖŨ IJĿƦŨ ķĭƦſŁĥĪ P ő ťƀƏĿŴƃ ƈƕ ťƤƌĥĪ ĬƢŨ ħƦſĪ ťƉ ƥſĿĪ ƎƉĪ ŧűƇƀŨ IJĿƦŨ ķĭƦſŁĥĪ Ph ťƀƏĿŴƃ ƈƕ ťƤƌĥĪ ĬƢŨ ħƦſĪ ťƉ ŀĿűƍƉĪ ťſĭųŨ

x ĜƁƍƌĭƦƙƠƌĪ

H

x ķŴƌĭĪŁĭ x ķŴƏƭŴƃ ƢƐƕƭŁ ƈƕ ķĭƦƌĥ Ļĥ ķŴŨŁŁ x ųŷŨŴƣĪ

P

x ķŴƌĭĪŁĭ x ŦŁŴƏƭŴƃ ƢƐƕƭŁ ƈƕ ķĭƦƌĥ Ļĥ ķŴŨŁŁ x ųŷŨŴƣĪ

Ph

ķĭƦƌĥ ƎƀƍſĪ űƃ ŦŁŴƏƭŴƃ ƢƐƕĿŁ ƈƕ ķĭƦƌĥ Ļĥ ķŴŨŁŁĜųƇſĪ ťŷŨŴƣĪ

H

ò ƈſĥƢƐſĥĪ ťźũƣ ò ƈſƢƐſĥĪ ťźũƣ

ƢƐƕƭŁ

P

ƮƐƕĿƦƆ

Ph

ƈſĥƢƐſĥĪ ŦƦŨƮƣ ĥƮƐƕŁĿƦƆ

H

G ϳ Έξ ͑΋ΗΓІΖ ΉϨΔΉΑ ΅ЁΘΓϧΖ· ΦΐχΑ Ών·Ν ЀΐϧΑ ϶Θ΍ ЀΐΉϧΖ Γϡ ΦΎΓΏΓΙΌφΗ΅ΑΘνΖ ΐΓ΍ πΑ ΘϜ Δ΅Ώ΍··ΉΑΉΗϟθ, ϵΘ΅Α Ύ΅ΌϟΗϙ ϳ ΙϡϲΖ ΘΓІ ΣΑΌΕЏΔΓΙ πΔϠ ΌΕϱΑΓΙ ΈϱΒ΋Ζ ΅ЁΘΓІ, Ύ΅ΌφΗΉΗΌΉ Ύ΅Ϡ ЀΐΉϧΖ πΔϠ ΈЏΈΉΎ΅ ΌΕϱΑΓΙΖ ΎΕϟΑΓΑΘΉΖ ΘΤΖ ΈЏΈΉΎ΅ ΚΙΏΤΖ ΘΓІ ͑ΗΕ΅φΏ.

Philoxenos introduces this citation81 with the phrase -Ī ŪſƦƃ (“it is written [that]”). The brackets above indicate that this citation does not include the phrase ķŴƄƆ ťƌĥ ƢƉĥ ƎƀƉĥ ĺŴƤſ, but this is likely the result of an adaptation based on citing context and it should not be concluded that this phrase is absent from the text of Ph. The various attempts to translate the Greek word Δ΅Ώ΍··ΉΑΉΗϟ΅ (“state of being renewed; experience of a complete change of life, rebirth”)82 result in one of the rare occasions in which none of the three witnesses agree with one another. The text of P renders the word “the new age” (ŦŁűŶ ťƊƇƖŨ), while the translator of Ph renders the word “the rebirth” (ƥſĿĪ ƎƉĪ ŧűƇſ). The translator of Ph exchanges ŦŁűŶ for ƥſĿĪ ƎƉ, which can be translated idiomatically as “again.”83 This appears to be an attempt by the translator of Ph to translate the Greek compound word by translating the two CPJ 210.4–8. BDAG, 752. 83 Smith, CSD, 540. 81 82

202

J. Edward Walters

words of the compound word separately. While this technique works for ΔΣΏ΍Α (“again”), the translator seems to mistake ·ΉΑΉΗϟ΅ for a derivative of ·ΉΑΑΣΝ (“to beget, give birth”) rather than ·ϟΑΓΐ΅΍ (“to become, happen”). This explains the use of ŧűƇſ. The translator of H, on the other hand, retains the phrase ƥſĿĪ ƎƉ but translates ·ΉΑΉΗϟ΅ with the Syriac word ťſĭĬ from ŦĭĬ (“to happen, become”). The differences between the readings of this variant actually provide support for the representation of the text of Ph—it shows that translators struggled with how to translate Greek words for which there was no Syriac equivalent. The next variant appears to be an attempt to correct an inconsistency in the translation of P within this verse. The Greek word ΌΕϱΑΓΖ appears twice in this verse, and the text of P offers two translations: ĸŴƌĿŁ, transliterated from the Greek ΌΕϱΑΓΖ, and ķŴƏƭŴƃ (sg: ťƀƏĿŴƃ), which also means “throne.” The texts of Ph and H, however, replace ĸŴƌĿŁ with ťƀƏĿŴƃ so that the translation is consistent. 3.2 Philoxenian Gospel of Luke 1:31 ĺŴƤſ x ųƊƣ ƎſƢƟŁĭ ŧƢŨ ƎſűƆĥŁĭ ťƍźŨ ƎƀƇũƟŁ Ƣƀū ŦĬ ĺŴƤſ x ųƊƣ ƎſƢƟŁĭ ŧƢŨ ƎſűƆĥŁĭ ťƏƢƄŨ ƎƀƍźŨŁ x ŦĬĭ ĺŴƤſ ųƇſĪ ťƊƣ ƎſƢƟŁĭ ŧƢŨ ƎſűƆĥŁĭ ťƏƢƄŨ ƎƀƍźŨŁ x ŦĬĭ

P Ph H

G Ύ΅Ϡ ϢΈΓϿ ΗΙΏΏφΐΜϙ πΑ ·΅ΗΘΕϠ Ύ΅Ϡ ΘνΒϙ ΙϡϲΑ Ύ΅Ϡ Ύ΅ΏνΗΉ΍Ζ Θϲ ϷΑΓΐ΅ ΅ЁΘΓІ ͑΋ΗΓІΑ.

Philoxenos quotes this verse three times,84 and two of the citations include the text presented above. The text of Ph omits Ƣƀū most likely because ·ΣΕ does not appear in the Greek text.85 The text of Ph includes a more literal rendering of the Greek phrase ΗΙΏΏφΐΜϙ πΑ ·΅ΗΘΕϟ (lit: “you will become pregnant in [the] belly”) by changing the phrase ťƍźŨ ƎƀƇũƟŁ (lit: “you will receive pregnancy”) to ťƏƢƄŨ ƎƀƍźŨŁ (lit: “you will become pregnant in the belly”). One of the three citations86 of this verse from CPJ 45.9–10; 45.11–12; 47.15–17. Ƣƀū does appear in a citation of this verse in LMS (58.22), but it appears after, not before, ƎƀƍźŨŁ. 86 CPJ 47.15–17: ŧƢŨ ƎſűƆŁĥĭ .ťƀƇƕĪ ųƇƀŷƆ ƎſĪ ŴƌĬ .ťƍźŨ ƎƀƇũƟŁĪ 84 85

The Philoxenian Gospels as Reconstructed

203

Philoxenos’ writings includes the wording of P (ťƍźŨ ƎƀƇũƟŁ). The rest of the text of this citation, however, has clearly been adapted to the author’s style, as it is conflated with a portion of Lk 1:35; so this citation should not be considered part of the text of Ph. However, the citation that includes the wording of P is significant because Philoxenos includes the introductory formula ƎſĪ ťƟŴƆ ƢƉĥ (“But Luke says”). Thus, in his three quotations of this verse, Ŏ Philoxenos provides an introductory formula only for the quotation that agrees with P. However, despite the lack of introductory formula, it is reasonable to conclude that the text of Ph contains the reading ťƏƢƄŨ ƎƀƍźŨŁ because this wording appears twice in full citations in CPJ, it appears once in an extended citation in LMS,87 and it appears in H.88 1:35 ĭĬő x ťƌĬ ƈźƉ .ƁƄƀƇƕ ƎŬƌ ťƀƇƕĪ ųƇƀŶĭ x .ŦŁĥŁ ťƣĪŴƟĪ ťŶĭĿ P ĭĬő Ļĥ ŧĪĬ ƈźƉ .ƁƄƀƇƕ ƎŬƌ ťƊſƢƉĪ ųƇƀŶĭ ƁƄƀƇƕ ŦŁŤƌ ťƤſűƟ ťŶĭĿ Ph ĭĬő Ļĥ ŧĪĬ ƈźƉ .ƁƄƀƇƕ ƎŬƌ ťƊſƢƉĪ ųƇƀŶĭ ƁƄƀƇƕ ŦŁŤƌ ťƤſűƟ ťŶĭĿ H ŧƢƟƦƌ ŦųƆĥĪ ĬƢŨĭ x ĭĬ ťƤſűƟ ƁƄŨ űƇſƦƉĪ x ŦųƆĥĪ ĬƢŨ ŧƢƟƦƌ x ťƤſűƟ [ƁƄƍƉ] űƇſƦƉĪ x ŦųƆĥĪ ĬƢŨ ŧƢƟƦƌ x ťƤſűƟ x űƇſƦƉĪ

P Ph H

G ΔΑΉІΐ΅ Χ·΍ΓΑ πΔΉΏΉϾΗΉΘ΅΍ πΔϠ Ηξ Ύ΅Ϡ ΈϾΑ΅ΐ΍Ζ ЀΜϟΗΘΓΙ πΔ΍ΗΎ΍ΣΗΉ΍ ΗΓ΍· Έ΍ϲ Ύ΅Ϡ Θϲ ·ΉΑΑЏΐΉΑΓΑ Χ·΍ΓΑ ΎΏ΋ΌφΗΉΘ΅΍ ΙϡϲΖ ΌΉΓІ

The Ph text of Lk 1:35 is particularly difficult to determine because Philoxenos cites this verse several times in conflicting forms, even within the same work.89 There are five citations of this verse in Philoxenos’ exegetical writings: two full90 and three

LMS 58.22. The Syriac translation of Cyril of Alexandria’s Epistle 39 also indicates the change in verb to ƎƀƍźŨŁ, but it does not include either ťƍźŨ or ťƏƢƄŨ; King, Syriac Versions, 422. 89 CPJ, LMS, and Tractatus tres all contain multiple citations of this verse and the citations are varied in all three works. 90 CPJ 211.26–28; CPJ 41.2–4. 87 88

204

J. Edward Walters

partial,91 and there are two full citations of this verse in LMS92 and Tract. tres.93 In two of the citations, Philoxenos demonstrates an intent to cite with the citation marker ƋƆ.94 Moreover, all of the full citations are nearly identical, though their minor discrepancies make establishing portions of this verse quite difficult. All of the citations that contains the verb demonstrate a revision in the gender of the verb ŦŁĥ (“to come”) from feminine to masculine in order to portray the Holy Spirit as grammatically masculine rather than feminine.95 The text of Ph also adds the phrase ƁƄƀƇƕ (“upon you”) to represent the Greek phrase πΔϠ Ην; this too is attested in all of Philoxenos’ full citations of the verse. There is some discrepancy in the Philoxenian rendering of ЀΜϟΗΘΓΖ. In two citations96 Philoxenos retains ťƀƇƕ from P and in the other three he uses ťƊſƢƉ. However, one of the citations that uses ťƀƇƕ is found in CML and the other is the partial citation that appears to be simply an allusion.97 All of the full citations of this verse use CPJ 41.34–24; CPJ 196.19; CML 54.12–13, though CPJ 196.19 is clearly an allusion. 92 LMS 39.16–17, 60.9–11. 93 Tract. tres 236.29–237.1; 95.2–5. 94 CPJ 211.26–28; CML 54.12–13 (This citation comes from MS A in CML). 95 In early Syriac writings, the Holy Spirit is generally considered to be feminine because grammatically the word ¾Ï†˜ is feminine. For more on the shift within the Syriac language from a feminine to a masculine Holy Spirit, see S. Brock, “‘Come, Compassionate Mother..., Come Holy Spirit’: A Forgotten Aspect of Early Eastern Christian Imagery,” Aram 3 (Oxford, 1991), 249–257; reprinted in Brock, Fire From Heaven. Moreover, Zuntz found this revised translation in Tractatus Tres and noted its significance with regard to translation technique, The Ancestry of the Harklean Version, 43. 96 CPJ 196.19; 47.15–17. The latter of these two citations is conflated with Lk 1:31 and is mentioned in the discussion of that verse above. In both 1:31 and 1:35, this citation retains readings from the text of P. However, Philoxenos has clearly adapted the wording to fit his context, so it is difficult to argue that this citation represents the text of P, particularly when there are longer citations that do not agree with the text of P. 97 King notes that when Philoxenos alludes to this verse, his wording tends to revert to that of P rather than citing precisely the text of Ph. King, Syriac Versions, 424. 91

The Philoxenian Gospels as Reconstructed

205

ťƊſƢƉ, and this is also found in the text of H. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that ťƊſƢƉ is the reading of the text of Ph. The next three variants are extremely difficult to deal with because Philoxenos quotes this verse twice in CPJ and twice in LMS and both works contain conflicting forms of the text with regard to the following variants. The first is the question of the addition of Ļĥ in order to reflect the Greek conjunction Ύ΅ϟ. The text of H includes the addition, and two of Philoxenos’ citations do as well,98 but two of the full citations lack this word. One of Philoxenos’ full length citations of this verse omits Ļĥ. Given the fact that Philoxenos includes Ļĥ twice and that it exists in the text of H, it seems that the best explanation is that it was part of the text of Ph and that Philoxenos simply forgot it in two other citations: It is easier to explain its omission in his citations than its inclusion. Next, it is difficult to determine which form of the phrase ƈźƉ ŧĪĬ/ťƌĬ is the original text of Ph. Two of the four full citations of this verse use ťƌĬ and the other two use ŧĪĬ, and once again, both readings appear in CPJ and in LMS.99 It is tempting to assert that the reading of Ph is ŧĪĬ because of its prevalence in other translations of the time100 and because it appears also in H. However, because the citations of Philoxenos are split and all four citations are full length citations, it is not easy to dismiss ťƌĬ so easily.101 Moreover, we cannot rely on the argument that one is a “better” translation than the other. However, it is easier to explain an accidental reversion to the Peshitta reading than it is to suggest an accidental revision to a reading that also happens to occur in other versions. Thus, it seems best to conclude that the text of Ph read ŧĪĬ ƈźƉ. There is also some question as to whether or not the text of Ph agrees with P or H with regard to the retention of the phrase ƁƄŨ. Two of Philoxenos’ citations of this verse (one from CPJ and one

This citation in LMS (60.9–11) also includes a -ĭ attached to Ļĥ. Both citations of this verse in Tractatus tres use ťƌĬ. 100 King notes that ŧĪĬ is found universally in the Syriac translations of the works of Cyril and calls Philoxenos’ use of this wording “archaic.” King, Syriac Versions, 424. 101 ťƌĬ also appears in both citations of this verse in Tract. tres. 98 99

206

J. Edward Walters

from LMS) omit ƁƄŨ,102 but one retains it.103 Moreover, to make the matter more complicated, Philoxenos’ fourth full citation of this verse includes ƁƄƍƉ.104 Of the two citations of this verse in Tractatus tres, one retains ƁƄŨ and one includes ƁƄƍƉ. The discrepancy could be the result of a textual variant in the Greek manuscripts used in translation: Several Greek witnesses attest to the inclusion of the phrase πΎ ΗΓІ following the verb ·ΉΑΑЏΐΉΑΓΑ (űƇſƦƉ).105 Although the preposition -Ũ is not the common translation of πΎ, this textual variant can explain the use of ƁƄŨ in the Syriac text of P. However, this does not necessarily explain why Philoxenos presents three different forms of this text. To complicate matters further, ƁƄƍƉ is also a variant reading in the Peshitta tradition.106 It could be argued that the ƁƄƍƉ reading is the text of Ph because it is a better translation of the Greek phrase, but this does not explain the use of ƁƄŨ in multiple citations. Based on the text critical axiom that the reading that best explains the others is the best reading, it seems that the best explanation is this: the Greek Vorlage used in making Ph included the Greek phrase πΎ ΗΓІ, which the translator (correctly) revised from P’s ƁƄŨ to ƁƄƍƉ;107 the single occurrence of ƁƄŨ in Philoxenos’ citation is an accidental reversion to the reading of P; and the two omissions of the phrase are accidental omissions. The final revision of this verse in the text of Ph is far more easy to establish with confidence than the previous three. The text of Ph demonstrates a revised word order of the final phrase by placing the verb before the direct object. This alteration is likely an attempt to reproduce the Greek word order ΎΏ΋ΌφΗΉΘ΅΍ ΙϡϲΖ

CPJ 211.26–28; LMS 60.9–11. CPJ 41.2–4. 104 LMS 39.16–17. 105 The witnesses that attest to this reading are C* Ɗ f1 33 pc a c e vgcl lat Ir Tert Ad Epiph. 106 Pusey and Gwilliam, Tetraeuangelium Sanctum, 322. 107 Though, it is possible that the version of P with which the translator was familiar used ƁƄƍƉ. 102 103

The Philoxenian Gospels as Reconstructed

207

ΌΉΓІ. All of the full citations of this verse in Philoxenos’ writings

and the text of H also include this revised word order.108 1:42 ò IJƦƌĥ ŦƦƃƢũƉ ƁƄƏƢƄŨĪ ŧĿŤƘ ĭĬ ĴƢũƉĭ ťƤƍŨ ò ƁƄƏƢƃĪ ŧĿŤƘ ĭĬ ĴƢũƉĭ ťƤƍŨ IJƦƌĥ ŦƦƃƢũƉ ò IJƦƌĥ ŦƦƃƢũƉ ƁƄƏƢƃĪ ŧĿŤƘ ĭĬ ťƃƢũƉĭ ťƤƍŨ G ΉЁΏΓ·΋ΐνΑ΋ ΗϿ πΑ Ύ΅ΕΔϲΖ ΘϛΖ ΎΓ΍Ώϟ΅Ζ ΗΓΙ

·ΙΑ΅΍ΒϠΑ

Ύ΅Ϡ

P Ph H

ΉЁΏΓ·΋ΐνΑΓΖ

ϳ

Philoxenos introduces this citation and expresses an intent to cite with the phrase ŁƢƉĥĪ ŪſƦƃ (“It is written that she [Elizabeth] said...”).109 The variation in question is the omission of the preposition -Ũ in the final word of the phrase (ƁƄƏƢƄŨĪ or ƁƄƏƢƃĪ). The text of P is translated “Blessed is the fruit that is in your womb,” with the initial -Ī functioning as a relative pronoun and the preposition -Ũ specifying the location of the fruit. However, there is no preposition in the Greek text to represent -Ũ because it uses the genitive phrase ϳ Ύ΅ΕΔϲΖ ΘϛΖ ΎΓΏϟ΅Ζ ΗΓΙ (“the fruit of your womb”). By removing the preposition -Ũ, the text of Ph allows the initial -Ī to function as a genitive and renders the Greek more accurately as ƁƄƏƢƃĪ ŧĿŤƘ (‘the fruit of your womb’). 1:43 IJŁŴƆ ŦŁĥŁ x IJƢƉĪ ųƉĥĪ x ŧĪĬ ƁƆ ťƄƊſĥ IJŁŴƆ ŦŁĥŁ x IJƢƉĪ ųƉĥĪ x ŧĪĬ ƁƆ ťƄſĥ ƎƉĭ IJŁŴƆ x ƁƇſĪ ťſƢƉĪ ųƉĥ ŦŁĥŁĪ ŧĪĬ ƁƆ ťƄſĥ ƎƉĭ

P Ph H

G Ύ΅Ϡ ΔϱΌΉΑ ΐΓ΍ ΘΓІΘΓ ϣΑ΅ σΏΌϙ ψ ΐφΘ΋Ε ΘΓІ ΎΙΕϟΓΙ ΐΓΙ ΔΕϲΖ πΐν;

The citation of this verse110 contains a revised translation of the Greek word ΔϱΌΉΑ and replaced ťƄƊſĥ (“where? whence?”) with

Of the two citations of this verse in the Syriac translation of Cyril of Alexandria’s works, one demonstrates the word order of P and the other that of Ph/H. King, Syriac Versions, 423–424. 109 CPJ 209.7–8. 110 CPJ 209.8–9. 108

208

J. Edward Walters

the virtually equivalent phrase ťƄſĥ ƎƉ (“whence?”).111 While ΔϱΌΉΑ does mean “where?” or “whence?”, it also carries the tertiary meaning “why?”, and it is this meaning that is used in Luke 1:43. Thus, neither Ph nor P correctly interprets the nuance of the question. 2:6 ò ő űƆĥŁĪ ĬƦƉŴſ ŴƀƇƉŁĥ ķŴƌĥ ƎƉŁ x űƃĪ x ŦĭĬĭ ő ò űƆĥŁĪ ŦƦƉŴſ ŴƀƇƉŁĥ x ƎƉŁ ķĭųſƦſĥ űƃĪ [ƎſĪ] ŦĭĬŎ ò űƆĥŁĪ ŦƦƉŴſ ŴƀƇƉŁĥ x ƎƉŁ ķĭųſƦſĥ űƃĪ ƎſĪ ŁĭĬ

P Ph H

G π·νΑΉΘΓ Έξ πΑ ΘХ ΉϨΑ΅΍ ΅ЁΘΓϿΖ πΎΉϧ πΔΏφΗΌ΋Η΅Α ΅ϡ ψΐνΕ΅΍ ΘΓІ ΘΉΎΉϧΑ ΅ЁΘφΑ

In his citation of this verse,112 Philoxenos provides intent to cite with the citation marker ƋƆ. The text of this verse in CPJ does not include the conjunction ƎſĪ, but the citation marker stands in the text where this conjunction would stand, and we have already seen evidence that Philoxenos often replaces post-positive conjunctions with the citation marker. Thus, while it is not certain that the text of Ph originally included ƎſĪ, it is likely that the translator of Ph, like the translator of H, added this conjunction to reflect the Greek Έν. The translator of Ph has also added the verbal phrase ķĭųſƦſĥ as a translation of the Greek verb ΉϨΑ΅΍ ΅ЁΘΓϾΖ in the phrase πΑ ΘХ ΉϨΑ΅΍ ΅ЁΘΓϾΖ. While the translation of P implies the same meaning as the Greek phrase, we see the translators of Ph and H attempting a “literal” translation of each Greek word. 2:7 ő ĬƢŨ ŁűƇſĭ P őĬƢũƆ ĬŁűƇſĭ Ph

ťſĿĭŤŨ ĬƦƀƉĿĥĭ ŧĿĭƭŵƖŨ ĬƦƃƢƃĭ ĜŧƢƃŴŨ x x ő ťſĿĭŤŨ ĬƦƐūĥĭ ŧĿĭƭŵƖŨ ĬƦƃƢƃĭ ŧƢƃŴŨ x x ő ťſĿĭŤŨ ĬƦƐūĥĭ ĬŁĿĿŵƕĭ x .ŧƢƃŴŨ ĭĬő ųƇſĪ ŧƢũƆ

ŁűƇſĭ H

G Ύ΅Ϡ σΘΉΎΉΑ ΘϲΑ ΙϡϲΑ ΅ЁΘϛΖ ΘϲΑ ΔΕΝΘϱΘΓΎΓΑ, πΗΔ΅Ε·ΣΑΝΗΉΑ ΅ЁΘϲΑ Ύ΅Ϡ ΦΑνΎΏ΍ΑΉΑ ΅ЁΘϲΑ πΑ ΚΣΘΑϙ.

Ύ΅Ϡ

The citation of this verse113 includes the addition of the third person direct object pronoun Ĭ- to the end of the verb ŁűƇſ as well Smith, CSD, 13. CPJ 209.4–5. 113 CPJ 209.5–6. 111 112

The Philoxenian Gospels as Reconstructed

209

as the direct object marker -Ɔ to the word ŧƢŨ. It is possible, though not certain, that Philoxenos’ text of the Peshitta retained this reading because the OS manuscript S also read ĬŁűƇſĭ, though Pusey and Gwilliam do not list this variant in their critical edition of the Peshitta. However, the use of this direct object marker is an orthographic variation that does not change the meaning of the phrase at all, so its inclusion in the text of Ph has no bearing on the meaning of the sentence, but there is no reason to conclude that it was not part of the text of Ph. Moreover, the text of H also retains the direct object marker. Thus, we may tentatively conclude that this wording is the text of Ph. The text of Ph also includes ĬƦƐūĥ, an Aphel form of Ƒū (“to make recline, to seat”), as the translation for the Greek word ΦΑνΎΏ΍ΑΉΑ rather than ĬƦƀƉĿĥ, from ťƉĿ (“to put, place”) as found in P.114 The translator of H also retains this reading, so this revision was likely an attempt at a better translation. 2:14 ò ťũŹ ŧƢũƏĭ ťƤƌĥò ƁƍũƆ x x ťƊƇƣ ťƕĿĥ ƈƕĭ P ò x x x ťƍƀŨĽ x ťƤƍƀƍũŨĭ ťƊƇƣ ťƕĿĥ ƈƕĭ Ph ò x x x ťƍƀŨĽ ŁĭƢƀƙƣ ťƤƍƀƍũŨĭ ťƍƀƣ ťƕĿĥ ƈƕĭ H G

Ύ΅Ϡ πΔϠ ·ϛΖ ΉϢΕφΑ΋ πΑ ΦΑΌΕЏΔΓ΍Ζ ΉЁΈΓΎϟ΅Ζ

The revision found in this citation115 of Ph from the text of P may be the result of textual variation in the Vorlagen of these ò translations. The text of Ph reads ťƍƀŨĽ ťƤƍƀƍũŨĭ (“and among ò ťũŹ ŧƢũƏĭ people [good] will”) while the text of P reads ƁƍũƆ ťƤƌĥò (“and good will to/for people”). The text of Ph appears to be an attempt to accurately translate the word order of the Greek phrase πΑ ΦΑΌΕЏΔΓ΍Ζ ΉЁΈΓΎϟ΅Ζ. The text of Ph uses the word ťƍƀŨĽ (“will, desire, delight”) as an equivalent for the Greek ΉЁΈΓΎϟ΅, replacing the translation of P ťũŹ ŧƢũƏ (“good will”). The translator of H also uses the word ťƍƀŨĽ but adds the modifier ŁĭƢƀƙƣ (from Ƣƀƙƣ “fair, good, lovely”) as a translation of the Greek prefix ΉЁ-. It is odd that Philoxenos’ citation does not One citation of this verse from Tract. tres (265.22–23) retains the reading of P here, but is otherwise identical to the text given above. 115 CPJ 57.10–11. 114

210

J. Edward Walters

include a translation of this prefix. Concerning this variation, Bas ter Haar Romeny argues that while it could be assumed that Philoxenos is simply careless here, the differences in the translations “demonstrate the independence of the translators.”116 Thus, while it is possible that Philoxenos was careless in this citation and accidentally omitted a word, it is also possible that the text of Ph did not include a separate word to translate the prefix ΉЁ-. 2:34 ƋƀƏ ťƌĬ ŦĬ ųƉĥ ƋſƢƊƆ x ƢƉĥĭ ķŴƖƊƣ ķŴƌĥ ĴƢŨĭ ő ƋƀƏŎ ťƌĬ ŦĬ ųƉĥ ƋſƢƉ ŁŴƆ ƢƉĥĭ ķŴƖƊƣ ķŴƌĥ ĴƢŨĪ Ŏ ƋƀƏ ťƌĬ ŦĬ ųƉĥ ƋſƢƉ ŁŴƆ ƢƉĥĭ ķŴƖƊƣ ķŴƌĥ ĴƢŨĭ

P Ph H

ò ťƍſƢŶĪ ŦŁŤƆĭ ƈſƢƐſŤŨ ŦŤƀŬƏĪ ťƊƀƠƆĭ ŦƦƆŴƙƊƆ ò ŦƦƊƀƠƆĭ ŦƦƆŴƙƊƆ ťƍſƢŶĪ ŦŁŤƆĭ ƈſĥƢƐſŤŨ ŦŤƀŬƏĪ ò ŦƦƀƍſƢŶƦƉ ŦŁŤƆĭ ƈſĥƢƐſŤŨ ŦŤƀŬƏĪ ŦƦƊƀƠƆ ŦƦƆŴƙƊƆ

P Ph H

G Ύ΅Ϡ ΉЁΏϱ·΋ΗΉΑ ΅ЁΘΓϿΖ ̕ΙΐΉАΑ Ύ΅Ϡ ΉϨΔΉΑ ΔΕϲΖ ̏΅Ε΍Τΐ ΘχΑ ΐ΋ΘνΕ΅ ΅ЁΘΓІ, ͑ΈΓϿ ΓЈΘΓΖ ΎΉϧΘ΅΍ ΉϢΖ ΔΘЗΗ΍Α Ύ΅Ϡ ΦΑΣΗΘ΅Η΍Α ΔΓΏΏЗΑ πΑ ΘХ ͑ΗΕ΅χΏ Ύ΅Ϡ ΉϢΖ Η΋ΐΉϧΓΑ ΦΑΘ΍ΏΉ·ϱΐΉΑΓΑ

Reconstructing the text of this verse from Philoxenos’ writings is difficult because he quotes it three times, but one citation is only the first phrase,117 and the other two citations contain the rest of the verse (but not the first part). This is complicated further by the fact that the latter two citations differ from one another in a few regards.118 However, despite the fact that the citation from CML includes the citation marker ƋƆ, the text has at least partially been adapted in the context (see previous footnote for the texts).The first phrase of the sentence includes one revised reading from the text of P: the extension of the phrase ƋſƢƊƆ (“to Mary”) to the longer, but equivalent in meaning, phrase ƋſƢƉ ŁŴƆ. This alteration Romeny, “A Philoxenian-Harclean Tradition?,” 67. CPJ 209.12–13. ª K 118 CPJ 220.6–7: ¿½ÙÅèƒ ¿ÿãÙù߆ ¿ÿßÍòãß äÙè§ ¾å… ¿… § ¾æØûσ ¿š½Ć߆ áØ~ûéؽĆß CML 44.5–6: ûÙÄ Íå… áØ~ûéؽÁ ¾ĆãÙù߆ ¿ÿßÍòãß äÙè äß ¿… ¾æØûσ ¿š~ “ÍýØ 116 117

The Philoxenian Gospels as Reconstructed

211

is likely an attempt by the translator of Ph to account for the presence of the Greek preposition ΔΕϱΖ. One of the two citations that includes the remainder of the verse includes the citation marker ƋƆ in the place of ťƌĬ. However, we should not conclude that the text of Ph omits ťƌĬ because Philoxenos frequently replaces inconsequential words with this citation marker.119 There is some question about whether or not the text of Ph should read ťƊƀƠƆĭ (with P) or ŦƦƊƀƠƆ (with H). In one citation, the text of this verse reads ťƊƀƠƆĭ, and Philoxenos includes the citation marker in this citation.120 However, this text is found in CML and the fragment that contains this text is found only in two late MSS.121 Because of the late date and scribal transmission of this text, it is more likely to have been altered (intentionally or not) to the received spelling of the Peshitta. Both citations from Philoxenos include the initial -ĭ, so it seems clear that it was included in the text of Ph. Thus, we may conclude that the text of Ph read ŦƦƊƀƠƆĭ. There is, however, a variant reading in the text of CPJ that we do not ascribe to the text of Ph. The citation from CPJ reads ƈſĥƢƐſŤƆ (“to/for Israel”) rather than ƈſĥƢƐſŤŨ (“in Israel”). If the text of Ph did include the former reading, then both the translator of H and a later scribe responsible for the text of the fragment in CML changed the -Ɔ back to a -ħ. While this is certainly a possible explanation, it seems unlikely that the translator of Ph who generally corrects prepositions based on the Greek text would have translated the Greek phrase πΑ ΘХ в̌ΗΕ΅φΏ as ƈſĥƢƐſŤƆ. It is also possible that the scribe responsible for the MS of CPJ accidentally included -Ɔ because the two previous nouns (ŦƦƆŴƙƊƆ and ŦƦƊƀƠƆĭ) included the prefix -Ɔ. Thus, we conclude that the text of Ph originally read ƈſĥƢƐſŤŨ.

Though it is worth noting that in most cases Philoxenos omits a conjunction and not a pronoun. 120 CML 44.5–6. 121 MSS D and E are listed as 13th century mss. See Watt, 10, for a description. 119

212

J. Edward Walters 2:35 ò ò x ŦƦũƤŷƉ x ƎƀƇūƦƌĪ ƅſĥ ťŷƉĭĿ ƢũƕŁ ƁƄƇſĪ ƎſĪ ƁƄƤƙƍŨĭ P ò ò ƎƉ ŦƦũƤŷƉ x ƎƀƇūƦƌĪ ťƍƄſĥ ťŷƉĭĿ ƢũƕŁ ƁƄƇſĪ ƎſĪ ƁƄƤƙƍŨ Ph ò ťƍƄſĥ ťƙƀƏ ƢũƖƌ ƁƄƇſĪ ƎſĪ ƁƄƤƙƍŨĭ H ò ƎƉ ŦƦũƤŷƉ ŁŴƠſƢƏ ƎƀƇūƦƌĪ ò ŦŁŴũƆĪ ò ŦŤƀŬƏĪ ò ò ŦŤƀŬƏ ŦŁŴũƆ ò ŦŤƀŬƏò ŦŁŴũƆ

P Ph H

G Ύ΅Ϡ ΗΓІ [Έξ] ΅ЁΘϛΖ ΘχΑ ΜΙΛχΑ Έ΍ΉΏΉϾΗΉΘ΅΍ ϹΓΐΚ΅ϟ΅, ϵΔΝΖ ΪΑ ΦΔΓΎ΅ΏΙΚΌЗΗ΍Α πΎ ΔΓΏΏЗΑ Ύ΅ΕΈ΍ЗΑ Έ΍΅ΏΓ·΍ΗΐΓϟ.

The citation presented above is part of a longer quotation encompassing most of 2:34 and all of 2:35.122 The text of Ph is nearly identical to the text of P, except for two minor revisions that are also included in the text of H. The text of Ph includes the contraction ťƍƄſĥ instead of the shorter ƅſĥ. There is no apparent reason for this change because there is no change in the meaning, and there is no apparent Greek word which the translator of Ph is attempting to replicate. The other revision from the text of P in this verse is the addition of the preposition ƎƉ. The text of the OS S contains this word, but the text of P does not. However, this could also be the result of a textual variant in the Vorlage of the text of P. Several manuscripts omit the preposition πΎ,123 so it is possible that the Greek text behind the text of P also omitted it and, likewise, that the Greek texts behind the translations of Ph and H included it. However, it is also possible that the Greek text behind the translation of P did include πΎ and that the translator(s) of P utilized the genitive action of the prefix -Ī to convey the same meaning. Considering the fact that both Ph and H omit this prefix, this is the most likely explanation. Thus, syP should be removed from the critical apparatus of NA27 as a witness to the absence of πΎ.

122 123

CPJ 220.6–9. See discussion of 2:34 above. The witnesses that omit πΎ (other than P) are: D sa bomss.

The Philoxenian Gospels as Reconstructed

213 2:43

Ŵƕűſ ťƆ ųƉĥĭ ƚƏŴſĭ ƋƇƣĿĭŤŨ ųƆ ƥƘ ťƀƇŹ x ƎſĪ ĺŴƤſ x x ĺűſĥ x ƋƇƣĿĭŤŨ ųƆ ƥƘ ťƀƇŹ x x ĺŴƤſ x x Ŏ ťƆĭ x Ŵƕűſ ťƆĭ x x ƋƇƣĿĭŤŨ x x ťƀƇŹ ĭĬő x ĺŴƤſ ųƆ ƥƘ x x x x ųƉĥĭ ƚƏŴſ ųƇſĪ ťƉĥĭ ƚƏŴſ

P Ph H P Ph H

G ЀΔνΐΉ΍ΑΉΑ ͑΋ΗΓІΖ ϳ Δ΅ϧΖ πΑ ͑ΉΕΓΙΗ΅Ώφΐ, Ύ΅Ϡ ΓЁΎ σ·ΑΝΗ΅Α Γϡ ·ΓΑΉϧΖ ΅ЁΘΓІ

The citation of this verse from Ph124 and the text of H both omit the conjunction ƎſĪ, presumably because there is no conjunction here in the Greek text. The conclusion that this omission is not accidental or simply a result of Philoxenos’ stylistic concerns is strengthened by evidence later in the phrase that the translations of Ph and H reflect the Greek word order. Each of the later translations transposes the phrase ųƉĥĭ ƚƏŴſĭ (“And Joseph and his mother”) with the verbal phrase Ŵƕűſ ťƆĭ (“and they did not know”) in order to reflect the Greek word order. However, there is some question as to what the original Greek text of this phrase actually read. The critical text of NA27 reads ΓЁΎ σ·ΑΝΗ΅Α Γϡ ·ΓΑΉϧΖ ΅ЁΘΓІ (“His parents did not know”),125 but a well attested variant reads ΓЁΎ σ·ΑΝ в̌ΝΗχΚ Ύ΅Ϡ ω ΐφΘ΋Ε.126 Thus, it is clear that the Vorlagen of P, Ph, and H attest to the latter variant reading, though the translators of Ph and H have attempted to translate the word order more precisely. It also appears that the translator of Ph has attempted to translate the third person singular σ·ΑΝ by using ĺűſĥ Ŏ rather than the third person plural Ŵƕűſ. It is unclear whether or not the Greek text behind the text of H included a singular or a plural verb, though given the systematic pursuit of word-for-word translation throughout the text of H, including verb tense and person, it can be assumed that the Vorlage(n) of H had the plural verb. CPJ 209.13–14 The witnesses that attest to this reading are: ʠ B D L W Ʃ f1 33. 579. lat sa 126 The witnesses that attest to this reading are: A C ƙ 0130 f 13 it bopt. 124 125

214

J. Edward Walters 2:48 ťƍƃĬ ƎƆ Łűũƕ ťƍƊƆ IJƢŨ .ųƉĥ ųƆ ŁƢƉĥĭ ő ťƍƃĬ ƎƆ Łűũƕ ťƍƊƆ IJƢŨĪ . ųƉĥ ĬŁŴƆ [ ŁƢƉĥĭ ] Ŏ ťƍƃĬ ƎƆ Łűũƕ ťƍƊƆ IJƢŨ .ųƉĥ ĬŁŴƆ ŁƢƉĥĭ

G Ύ΅Ϡ ΉϨΔΉΑ ΔΕϲΖ ΅ЁΘϲΑ πΔΓϟ΋Η΅Ζ ψΐϧΑ ΓЂΘΝΖ;

ψ

ΐφΘ΋Ε

P Ph H

΅ЁΘΓІ· ΘνΎΑΓΑ, Θϟ

In this citation,127 the translator of Ph replaces the preposition -Ɔ with the independent preposition ŁŴƆ as the translation of the Greek preposition ΔΕϱΖ. The texts of Ph and H consistently demonstrate this same revision in other verses, so it is reasonable to conclude that this minor revision is in fact part of the text of Ph. The citation shown above omits the initial -ĭ, but we need not conclude that the text of Ph omitted it because it is likely that Philoxenos simply omitted it based on the context in which he quoted the verse. The citation also adds a -Ī to the beginning of the word ŁƢƉĥ in order to introduce direct discourse. It is possible that this addition is part of the text of Ph, but the translator of H does not include this revision, so we have no external evidence to support this conclusion. 2:52 ò ťƤƍƀƍŨĭ ŦųƆĥ ŁŴƆ ŦŁŴũƀźŨĭ ĬƦƊƄŷŨĭ ĬƦƉŴƠŨ ŦĭĬ ťŨĿ ƎſĪ ĺŴƤſ P ő ò ťƤƍƀƍŨĭ ŦųƆĥ ŁŴƆ ŦŁŴũƀźŨĭ ŦƦƊƄŷŨĭ ŦƦƉŴƠŨ ŦĭĬ ťŨĿ x [ĺŴƤſĭ] Ph ò ŦųƆĥ ŁŴƆ ŦŁŴũƀźŨĭ ŦƦƉŴƠŨĭ ŦƦƊƄŷŨ ŦĭĬ ŻƣĭƦƤƉ x ĺŴƤſĭ H ťƤƍƀƍŨĭ

G Ύ΅Ϡ ͑΋ΗΓІΖ ΔΕΓνΎΓΔΘΉΑ [πΑ ΘϜ] ΗΓΚϟθ Ύ΅Ϡ ψΏ΍Ύϟθ Ύ΅Ϡ ΛΣΕ΍Θ΍ Δ΅ΕΤ ΌΉХ Ύ΅Ϡ ΦΑΌΕЏΔΓ΍Ζ

Philoxenos quotes this verse eight times, and although only two of these quotations are found in CPJ, five of the remaining six are

CPJ 209.15–16. There is a citation from CML that incorporates the latter portion of this verse, but it is omitted from this section for three reasons: 1) the portion discussed above is not included in the citation from CML; 2) the citation from CML is found only in later (13th century) mss, and is thus not as reliable as CPJ; and 3) the text of the citation from CML accurately represents the text of P, so there is no need to include it here. 127

The Philoxenian Gospels as Reconstructed

215

found in MS A, the earliest witness for CML.128 Philoxenos displays an intent to cite with the citation marker ƋƆ in three of the citations129 and introduces the text of the citation found above with the phrase IJĬŴƇƕ ťũſƦƃĪ IJĬő. The text of Ph omits the conjunction ƎſĪ, as does the text of H. This is likely an intentional omission by the translators because there is no post-positive conjunction in the Greek text. The verse in Greek does begin with Ύ΅ϟ, and the translator of H has added -ĭ to the first word to account for this. The -ĭ does not appear in any of the citations of Ph, but it is not necessary to conclude that the text of Ph omits this conjunction because the citations begin here and the -ĭ is not necessary. The only other alteration of the text of P found in Ph is the omission of the possessive pronoun Ĭ- from the words ŦƦƉŴƠŨ and ŦƦƊƄŷŨ (“stature” and “wisdom”). It is not clear why these pronouns were used originally, as they are unnecessary; and this is likely the reason for their omission in the text of Ph and H.130 One citation of this verse does display the transposed word order of H for these two words,131 but six citations contain the word order found above. Thus, it seems most likely that the text of Ph retained the word order of P and that Philoxenos accidentally transposed the words in one citation. 3:23 x .ƎſƦƆŁ Ǝƀƍƣò ƢŨ ƅſĥ ŦĭĬ IJĬĭƦſĥ ĺŴƤſ ƎſĪ ĭĬ P ő ƎſƦƆŁ Ǝƀƍƣò ƢŨ ƅſĥ ŦĭĬ IJĬĭƦſĥ ĺŴƤſ - - Ph ƅſĥ IJĬĭƦſĥĪ .ŧƢƤƉĪ ƅſĥ IJĬĭƦſĥĪ .ŧƢƤƉĪ ƎſƦƆŁ ťƀƍƣò ƢŨ ƅſĥ ŦĭĬ IJĬĭƦſĥ ĺŴƤſ x ĭĬĭ H x

x

ƚƏŴſ ƢŨ ŦĭĬ ƢŨƦƐƉĭ

P

ƢŨ ŦĭĬ ƢŨƦƐƉĪ Ph Ŏ ƚƏŴſĪ ŧƢŨ ŦĭĬ ƢŨƦƐƉĪ H ƚƏŴſ

G Ύ΅Ϡ ΅ЁΘϲΖ ώΑ ͑΋ΗΓІΖ ΦΕΛϱΐΉΑΓΖ БΗΉϠ πΘЗΑ ΘΕ΍ΣΎΓΑΘ΅, ЖΑ ΙϡϱΖ, БΖ πΑΓΐϟΊΉΘΓ, ͑ΝΗφΚ D ώΑ Έξ ͑΋ΗΓІΖ БΖ πΘЗΑ [ΘΕ΍ΣΎΓΑΘ΅] ΦΕΛϱΐΉΑΓΖ БΖ πΑΓΐϟΊΉΘΓ ΉϨΑ΅΍ ΙϡϲΖ ͑ΝΗφΚ CPJ 71.25–26; 184.29–185.2; CML 44.22; 53.2–4; 53.5; 54.8–9. CPJ 71.25–26; CML 54.8–9; 65.13–14. 130 Philoxenos does retain this possessive on ĬƦƉŴƄŨ in one brief allusion to this verse: CML 44.22. 131 CML 53.5: ŦĬƦƉŴƠŨĭ ŦƦƊƄŷŨ 128 129

216

J. Edward Walters

In Philoxenos’ commentaries there are six citations of this verse, though only one contains the whole verse, and this full citation is the only one found in CPJ.132 The text of Philoxenos’ citation begins with the word ĺŴƤſ, so we cannot conclude whether or not the text of Ph omitted ƎſĪ and included -ĭ at the beginning of the verse as the text of H. The texts of Ph and H have added the ő (‘beginning’-a participle of ŧƢƣ) after ƎſƦƆŁ Ǝƀƍƣò, phrase ŧƢƤƉĪ most likely as an attempt to render the Greek participle ΦΕΛϱΐΉΑΓΖ. The addition of this word, as well as the word order of all three texts, presents an interesting problem: none of the three texts reflect a word-for-word translation of the word order of the Greek text as it stands in NA27. This is not surprising with regard to the text of P, but it is surprising with regard to the texts of Ph and H. However, there is a variant reading for this verse that could explain the variation in word order. Although the word order of the texts of Ph and H does not correspond precisely to that of D, it is much closer to its order than to that of the Əƃ27 critical text. With the exceptions of placing the verbal phrase ŦĭĬ IJĬĭƦſĥ (the translation of ώΑ) after the subject (Jesus) rather than before it, and, similarly, placing the verb IJĬĭƦſĥĪ (the translation of ΉϨΑ΅΍) before the clause ŦĭĬ ƢŨƦƐƉĪ ƅſĥ (the translation of БΖ πΑΓΐϟΊΉΘΓ), the word order of Ph and H is identical to that of D. Moreover, there is some question about the word order of the text of Ph with regard to the placement of IJĬĭƦſĥĪ in the text. One of the five shorter citations133 renders the final phrase ŦĭĬ ƢŨƦƐƉ ƚƏŴſ ƢŨ IJĬĭƦſĥĪ ƋƆ. The word order of this citation is precisely equal to the word order of D. This citation comes from CML, but it is found in the portion of the text attested by MS A and is thus quite likely to be authentic. Moreover, this quotation includes the citation marker ƋƆ. The change in word order is more easily explainable in this shorter citation, as it is more likely to have been altered to Philoxenos’ style. However, either way the word order of the text of Ph is closer to the word order of D than it is to NA27. Thus, it appears that there is a link between the Vorlage(n) of Ph and H and the text to which Codex D attests for this verse. This claim is tentative, but based on the word-for-word translation

132 133

Full: CPJ 41.6–8; Partial: CML 80.27; 81.9; 82.19–20; 84.4; 87.6. CML 80.27.

The Philoxenian Gospels as Reconstructed

217

technique of the translator of H, and to a lesser but still notable degree, the translator of Ph, the claim is defensible. 3.3 Philoxenian Gospel of John 1:3 ŦĭĬ ĬűſŤŨ ƈƃ ŦĭĬŎ ĬűſŤŨ ĶűƊƇƃ ò IJĭĬ ĬűſŤŨ ƎſųƇƃ

G

P Ph H

ΔΣΑΘ΅ Έ΍в ΅ЁΘΓІ π·νΑΉΘΓ

While this citation is only a short portion of the text of Jn 1:3, we may confidently attribute this text to the Philoxenian version. Philoxenos cites this portion of the verse four times,134 and in one of the four he includes the citation marker ƋƆ.135 Moreover, all four citations attest to the use of ĶűƊƇƃ rather than ƈƃ.136 Moreover, ĶűƊƇƃ is also found in three separate citations of this verse in the writings of Cyril of Alexandria, so it is clear that this reading was used in other fifth/sixth century translations.137 1:3 ŧĿĬŴƌ ƈƕ ĪųƐƌĪ x ťƆĥ ŧĿĬŴƌ x ŦĭĬ x ĭĬ ťƆ ŧĿĬŴƌ ƈƕ ĪųƐƌĪ x ťƆĥ ŧĿĬŴƌ x ŦĭĬ IJĬĭƦſĥ ĭĬő ŴƆ Ŏ ŧĿĬŴƌ ƈźƉ ĪųƐƌĪ ťƍƄſĥ ťƆĥ ŧĿĬŴƌ ĭĬő ŦĭĬ IJĬĭƦſĥ x ťƆ

P Ph H

G ΓЁΎ ώΑ πΎΉϧΑΓΖ Θϲ ΚЗΖ, ΦΏΏв ϣΑ΅ ΐ΅ΕΘΙΕφΗϙ ΔΉΕϠ ΘΓІ ΚΝΘϱΖ

In the one citation of this verse,138 the text of Ph adds the verbal phrase IJĬĭƦſĥ to ŦĭĬ, in an attempt to translate more precisely the Greek aorist verb ώΑ. This translation style is characteristic of Ph, and the revision is retained in H, so it is reasonable to conclude CPJ 140.11–12; 132.13–14; 213.4–5; 241.18. CPJ 140.11–12. 136 The citation of this verse in LMS 4.17–19 also reads ĶűƉ ƈƃ. The OS C also contains ĶűƊƇƃ, so it is possible that this reading was retained in Philoxenos’ version of P. 137 King, Syriac Versions, 430. 138 CPJ 241.21–22. 134 135

218

J. Edward Walters

that this is the reading of Ph. However, there is some question about attributing the negative particle ŴƆ at the beginning of the sentence to the Philoxenian version. Pusey and Gwilliam do not list ŴƆ as a textual variant for 1:8, and neither the Peshitta nor the Harclean version displays this reading. This evidence does not preclude the possibility that the text of Ph included ŴƆ; it simply means that there is no other external evidence to validate this reading. It is even possible that this reading was found in Philoxenos’ text of P and that this variant simply was not included in the critical edition. Thus, we may tentatively conclude that ŴƆ is found in the text of Ph. 1:10 ųƕűſ ťƆ x ťƊƇƕĭ ŦĭĬ ĬűſŤŨ ťƊƇƕĭ ŦĭĬ x ťƊƇƖŨ P ĺűſŎ ťƆ ųƆ Ŏ ťƊƇƕĭ ŦĭĬ ĬűſŤŨ ťƊƇƕĭ ŦĭĬ IJĬĭƦſĥ ťƊƇƖŨ Ph ĺűſ ťƆ ųƆ ťƊƇƕĭ ŦĭĬ ĬűſŤŨ ťƊƇƕĭ ŦĭĬ IJĬĭƦſĥ ťƊƇƖŨ H

G πΑ ΘХ ΎϱΗΐУ ώΑ, Ύ΅Ϡ ϳ ΎϱΗΐΓΖ Έ΍в ΅ЁΘΓІ π·νΑΉΘΓ, Ύ΅Ϡ ϳ ΎϱΗΐΓΖ ΅ЁΘϲΑ ΓЁΎ σ·ΑΝ

The text of this verse is part of a lengthy citation comprised of Jn 1:10–13,139 though there are also two other partial citations of this verse as well.140 Philoxenos indicates his intention to cite with the citation marker ƋƆ (after ťƊƇƖŨ) and introduces the citation with the phrase “the evangelist wrote and said thus concerning him” (Ī ťƍƃĬ ťźƐƇŬƌĭĥ IJĬŴƇƕ ƢƉĥĭ Ƣƀū ħƦƃ Ŏ Ŏ ...). As with Jn 1:8 above, the text of Ph adds the verb IJĬĭƦſĥ to ŦĭĬ in order to translate the verb ώΑ, and the Harclean version includes this revision as well. The other variation of the text of Ph from the text of P in this verse is the replacement of the direct object pronoun Ĭ- with the independent direct object ųƆ in the final phrase of the sentence. This variation does not change the meaning of the phrase, but it does reflect the Greek word order (΅ЁΘϲΑ ΓЁΎ σ·ΑΝ). The Harclean version also includes this revision.

139 140

CPJ 38.1–3. CPJ 38.10; 38.11.

The Philoxenian Gospels as Reconstructed

219 1:11

x IJĬŴƇũƟ ťƆ ųƇſĪĭ x ŦŁĥ ųƇſűƆ x x IJĬŴƇũƟ ťƆ ųƇſĪ ƎƀƆĬĭ ŦŁĥ ųƇſűƆ x Ŏ Ŏ ő ŦŁĥ ųƇſĪ ƎƀƆųƆ IJĬŴũƐƌ x ťƆ ųƇſĪ ķŴƌĬĭ

G

P Ph H

ΉϢΖ ΘΤ ϥΈ΍΅ ώΏΌΉΑ, Ύ΅Ϡ Γϡ ϥΈ΍Γ΍ ΅ЁΘϲΑ ΓЁ Δ΅ΕνΏ΅ΆΓΑ

Philoxenos cites this verse with the same wording on two occasions in CPJ, and he uses the citation marker ƋƆ for both.141 The first is part of a long quotation from Jn 1:10–13, and the second citation comes from the discussion following this quotation. The only revision in the text of Ph from P is the addition of the demonstrative pronoun ƎƀƆĬĭ. This addition does not necessarily conform more closely to Greek word order, but it seems to be an attempt to translate the Greek plural Γϡ ϥΈ΍Γ΍ because the Syriac ųƇſĪ does not reflect the plural antecedent. Although the text of H displays the pronoun ķŴƌĬ rather than ƎƀƆĬ in order to distinguish the gender, these translations are virtually equivalent, and it appears that the translators had similar intentions.142 1:14 ƅſĥ ťŷŨŴƣ x .ųŷŨŴƣ ƎſŵŶĭ ƎŨ Ǝūĥĭ ŦĭĬ ŧƢƐŨ ŦƦƇƉĭ x P Ŏ ƅſĥ ťŷŨŴƣ x .ųŷŨŴƣ ƎſŵŶĭ ƎŨ Ǝūĥĭ ŦĭĬ ŧƢƐŨ ŦƦƇƉ ĭĬĭ Ph ƅſĥ ťŷŨŴƣ .ųƇſĪ ťŷŨŴƤƆ ƎƍſŵŶĭ ƎŨ Ǝūĥĭ ŦĭĬ ŧƢƐŨ ŦƦƇƉ ĭĬĭ H ŦƦƣŴƟĭ ŦŁŴũƀŹ x ťƇƉĪ ťŨĥ ƎƉĪ ťſűƀŷſĪ ŧĿƢƣĭ ŦŁŴũƀŹ x ťƇƉĪ ťŨĥ ƎƉĪ ťſűƀŷſĪ ŧĿƢƣĭ ŦŁŴũƀŹ ƎƉ ťƇƉĪ ťŨĥ ƎƉĪ ťſűƀŷſĪ

P Ph H

G Ύ΅Ϡ ϳ Ώϱ·ΓΖ ΗΤΕΒ π·νΑΉΘΓ Ύ΅Ϡ πΗΎφΑΝΗΉΑ πΑ ψΐϧΑ, Ύ΅Ϡ πΌΉ΅ΗΣΐΉΌ΅ ΘχΑ ΈϱΒ΅Α ΅ЁΘΓІ, ΈϱΒ΅Α БΖ ΐΓΑΓ·ΉΑΓІΖ Δ΅ΕΤ Δ΅ΘΕϱΖ, ΔΏφΕ΋Ζ ΛΣΕ΍ΘΓΖ Ύ΅Ϡ ΦΏ΋ΌΉϟ΅Ζ.

CPJ 38.3–4; 38.14–15. The text of H takes this concept one step further by adding ƎƀƆĬ at the beginning of the sentence to reflect the other Greek plural in the first phrase of the verse (ΘΤ ϥΈ΍΅). 141 142

220

J. Edward Walters

The task of determining the Philoxenian version of Jn 1:14 is extremely complex because Philoxenos quotes some portion of this verse over 50 times throughout his commentaries and his wording is inconsistent. Moreover, despite the fact that he refers to this verse so many times, Philoxenos never quotes the full verse in any one place. Thus, we are left with the task of reconstructing his wording from partial citations. Such a task is tenuous, but the high number of citations, varied though they may be, actually make such a reconstruction possible. The inclusion of the pronoun ĭĬ at the beginning of the phrase is questionable because of the 50 citations in the commentaries that include the opening phrase only twelve have it.143 We cannot appeal to citation markers or intent to cite in this case because Philoxenos uses the citation marker ƋƆ in citations with and without ĭĬ. The particle ĭĬ is found in the text of H, and clearly represents an attempt to represent the Greek definite article ϳ. King asserts that “most of his [Philoxenos’] allusions do not allow for” the inclusion of ĭĬ.144 While this is true, it is tenuous to use allusions to establish accurate citations. Moreover, as is true for the use of Greek witnesses in textual criticism, we cannot allow the sheer number of occurrences of a variant to determine the original. The fact that Philoxenos quotes Jn 1:14 so many times suggests that he was highly concerned about the interpretation of this verse, and the addition of ĭĬ emphasizes and helps to clarify the subject of the verse. Moreover, there is evidence of this same translation technique elsewhere in Ph.145 Therefore, it seems reasonable to conclude that the text of Ph also includes ĭĬ here as a translation of the Greek article.146 There is some question about the word order of ŧƢƐŨ ŦƦƇƉ ŦĭĬ in Philoxenos’ citations of this verse because he frequently conforms it to the more idiomatic Syriac word order of VerbSubject-Object, rendering the phrase ŧƢƐŨ ŦƦƇƉ ŦĭĬ. However, This reading is also found in three of the four citations containing this portion of the verse found in Tract. tres (120.7; 143.14–15; 239.24–25). 144 King, Syriac Versions, 431. 145 See the discussion above of Mt 2:2. 146 It should be noted that none of the citations of this verse in LMS contains ĭĬ, but all of these citations are either allusions or very brief (usually only the opening phrase). 143

The Philoxenian Gospels as Reconstructed

221

despite the frequency with which Philoxenos provides this wording, it may be concluded that citations with this word order are properly classified as allusions—Philoxenos is clearly referring to the language and ideas of a particular verse, but he has altered the wording to fit his own context. Philoxenos omits the conjunction -ĭ each time he cites the portion of the text that includes ƎſŵŶ, but this should not necessarily lead to the conclusion that it does not exist in Ph. Philoxenos cites this portion of the text five times, and all five of these citations begin with the word ƎſŵŶ. Thus, when Philoxenos cites this portion of the verse, he is not doing so in continuation from the first part of the verse, rendering the -ĭ unnecessary.147 The text ųƇſĪ ťŷŨŴƣ as opposed to ųŷŨŴƣ is also in question because Philoxenos cites both wordings in close proximity to one another in CPJ.148 However, Philoxenos does include the citation marker ƋƆ with the former wording, and this citation is longer than the citations that read ųŷŨŴƣ, providing some evidence that the longer rendering is actually in the text of Ph. The translation ųƇſĪ ťŷŨŴƣ is a more literal rendering of the Greek word order ΈϱΒ΅Α ΅ЁΘΓІ, but this type of revision is not characteristic of the translation technique of Ph.149 However, the existence of the reading ųƇſĪ ťŷŨŴƣ among the citations of Philoxenos must be explained somehow because it is not typical of idiomatic Syriac. It has already been noted that Philoxenos quotes this verse over fifty times, so it is highly likely that the wording of this verse received more attention than other verses. Thus, it is possible that the more literal reading ųƇſĪ ťŷŨŴƣ was originally part of the text of Ph simply because of the attention that Philoxenos paid to its interpretation. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that the text of Ph here reads ųƇſĪ ťŷŨŴƣ rather than ųŷŨŴƣ.

Moreover, P. J. Williams asserts that the presence or absence of -† should not reflect whether or not there is a Ύ΅ϟ in the Greek Vorlagen. Williams, Early Syriac Translation Technique, 149–159. 148 CPJ 239.7–9; 240.24–25. 149 Aside from this citation, there are eighteen occasions for which we have the text of Ph in which the translation of H replaces an enclitic possessive pronoun with the independent possessive particle, and in all eighteen cases the text of Ph agrees with P against H. 147

222

J. Edward Walters

Philoxenos quotes the final phrase of the verse three times, and each time he uses ŧĿƢƣ rather than ŦƦƣŴƟ to render ΦΏ΋ΌΉϟ΅Ζ. This reading is one of the few cases in which the text of Ph agrees with one of the OS texts (in this case, C) over and against the text of P. Pusey and Gwilliam do not list ŧĿƢƣ as a variant, though it is possible that the Peshitta text with which Philoxenos was familiar retained ŧĿƢƣ from the text of the OS, though this must remain uncertain. However, it is not necessary to conclude that Philoxenos’ text of P included ŧĿƢƣ, as it is likely a lexical revision by the translator of Ph to offer a more accurate translation. The text of H also includes ŧĿƢƣ rather than ŦƦƣŴƟ, adding further support to the case that the text of Ph read ŧĿƢƣ as well. 1:15 IJĿƦŨĪ x ŁƢƉĥĪ ĭĬ x ŴƌĬ ƢƉĥĭ x ťƖƟĭ IJĬŴƇƕ ĪųƏ ƎƍŶŴſ P ő ő ő ƎƍŶŴſ Ph űƃ ťƖƟĪ IJĬŴƇƕ ĪųƏ IJĿƦŨĪ ĭĬő ŁƢƉĥĪ ĭĬő IJĬĭƦſĥ ťƌĬ ƢƉĥ Ŏ ő ő ő IJĿƦŨĪ ĭĬ ŁƢƉĥĪ ĭĬ IJĬĭƦſĥ ťƌĬ ƢƉĥ űƃ ťƖƟĭ ĬƦƇźƉ ĪųƏ ƎƍŶŴſ H x

x

ƁƍƉ ĭĬ ƁƉűƟĪ ƈźƉ

x

ƁƉűƟ

x ųƆ ŦĭĬĭ ŦŁĥ P ő x ŦŁĥ Ph

ŦĭĬ IJĬĭƦſĥ x x ƁƉűƟĪ ƈźƉ ŦĭĬŎ ƁƉűƟ ƎƉ x ŦĭĬ IJĬĭƦſĥ ƁƍƉ x ťƀƉűƟĪ ƈźƉ ŦĭĬ ƁƉűƟ ƎƉ x õ

x ŦŁĥ

H

G ͑ΝΣΑΑ΋Ζ ΐ΅ΕΘΙΕΉϧ ΔΉΕϠ ΅ЁΘΓІ Ύ΅Ϡ ΎνΎΕ΅·ΉΑ Ών·ΝΑ, ̒ЈΘΓΖ ώΑ ϶Α ΉϨΔΓΑ, ͟ ϴΔϟΗΝ ΐΓΙ πΕΛϱΐΉΑΓΖ σΐΔΕΓΗΌνΑ ΐΓΙ ·ν·ΓΑΉΑ, ϵΘ΍ ΔΕЗΘϱΖ ΐΓΙ ώΑ.

Philoxenos quotes the full version of 1:15 twice150 and cites phrases of the verse twice as well.151 In one of the two full citations, Philoxenos provides the citation marker ƋƆ.152 While there are minor variations among Philoxenos’ quotations, they are similar enough to confidently attribute the reading above to the text of Ph. There are several additions within the text of Ph that appear to be the result of providing a more precise translation: the addition of ő , the addition the temporal preposition űƃ to the participle ƢƉĥ of the verbal phrase IJĬĭƦſĥ as a translation of ώΑ, and the addition of the pronoun ĭĬ as a literal translation of the Greek definite article ϳ so that the Greek text ϳ ϴΔϟΗΝ ΐΓΙ is rendered IJĿƦŨĪ ĭĬ CPJ 231.13–15; 242.16–17. CPJ 242.2; 242.22–23. 152 CPJ 241.13–15. 150 151

The Philoxenian Gospels as Reconstructed

223

(though ĭĬ is functioning grammatically as a pronoun). The text of Ph also places the verb ŦĭĬ after the preposition ƁƉűƟ to match the Greek order σΐΔΕΓΗΌνΑ ΐΓΙ ·ν·ΓΑΉΑ. And as we have seen elsewhere, the text of Ph adds the full verbal phrase ŦĭĬ IJĬĭƦſĥ at the end of this sentence to reflect the Greek verb ώΑ.153 1:16 ŦŁŴũƀŹ ƚƇŶ ŦŁŴũƀŹĭ ƎũƐƌ ƎƇƃ ƎƍŶ x ĬŁŴƀƇƉ ƎƉĭ ŦŁŴũƀŹ ƚƇŶ ŦŁŴũƀŹĭ ƎũƐƌ ƎƇƃ Ǝƍŷƌĥ x ųƀƆŴƉ ƎƉ ŦŁŴũƀŹ ƚƇŶ ŦŁŴũƀŹĭ ƎƍũƐƌ ƎƇƃ ƎƍŶ ųƇſĪ ťƀƆŴƉ ƎƉĭ

P Ph H

G ϵΘ΍ πΎ ΘΓІ ΔΏ΋ΕЏΐ΅ΘΓΖ ΅ЁΘΓІ ψΐΉϧΖ ΔΣΑΘΉΖ πΏΣΆΓΐΉΑ Ύ΅Ϡ ΛΣΕ΍Α ΦΑΘϠ ΛΣΕ΍ΘΓΖ

Philoxenos’ commentaries contain one full154 and two partial155 citations of this verse. The revisions are slight: the text of Ph replaces ŦŁŴƀƇƉ with the virtually identical ťƀƆŴƉ, both derivatives of the verb ťƇƉ. It is also interesting to note that while H also uses ťƀƆŴƉ, Ph retains the possessive suffix -Ĭ found in P order to reflect the use of the Greek ΅ЁΘΓІ whereas the text of H uses the extended ųƇſĪ. The text of Ph also provides the extended form of the first person plural pronoun Ǝƍŷƌĥ. Philoxenos quotes this precise wording on two different occasions, and one of the citations includes ƋƆ, so it is reasonable to conclude that this is the wording of Ph.156 1:17 űƀŨ x x ŦŁŴũƀŹĭ ƎſĪ ŧĿƢƣ ħųſŁĥ ťƣŴƉ űƀŨ ťƏŴƊƌĪ ƈźƉ P űƀŨ ŧĿƢƣĭ ƎſĪ ŦŁŴũƀŹ x x ħųſŁĥ ťƣŴƉ űƀŨ ťƏŴƊƌĪ ĵŴźƉ Ph Ŏ űƀŨ ŧĿƢƣĭ 157ƎſĪ ŦŁŴũƀŹ x x ħųſŁĥ ťƣŴƉ űƀŨ ťƏŴƊƌĪ ƈźƉ H

Jn 1:8,10. CPJ 245.5. 155 CPJ 245.20–21; 245.27 156 This word is marked with an asterisk and obelus in the Harclean tradition to denote Thomas’s insertion of a word not found in his Greek Vorlagen. For the explanation of these sigla, see Juckel, “Introduction to the Harklean Text” in G. Kiraz, Comparative Edition of the Syriac Gospels, Vol. 1: Matthew, xxxiii–xxxv. 153 154

224

J. Edward Walters ŦĭĬ ťŷƀƤƉ ĺŴƤſ

P

ŦĭĬ ťŷƀƤƉ ĺŴƤſ Ph ŦĭĬ ťŷƀƤƉ ĺŴƤſ H

G ϵΘ΍ ϳ ΑϱΐΓΖ Έ΍Τ ̏ΝϼΗνΝΖ πΈϱΌ΋, ψ ΛΣΕ΍Ζ Ύ΅Ϡ ψ ΦΏφΌΉ΍΅ Έ΍Τ ͑΋ΗΓІ ̙Ε΍ΗΘΓІ π·νΑΉΘΓ

Philoxenos provides two quotations of this verse, and both reflect the wording found above.157 In order to provide a word-for-word translation of the Greek ψ ΛΣΕ΍Ζ Ύ΅Ϡ ψ ΦΏφΌΉ΍΅, the text of Ph inverts the word order of ŧĿƢƣ and ŦŁŴũƀŹ and moves the particle ƎſĪ. 1:33 ò ťƀƊŨ űƊƕĥĪ ƁƌĿűƣĪ x ƎƉ ťƆĥ ųƆ ƦſĭĬ ĺűſ ťƆ ťƌĥĭ P ò ťƀƊŨ űƊƕĥĪ ƁƌĿűƣĪ x ƎƉ ťƆĥ ųƆ ƦſĭĬ ĺűſő ťƆ ťƌĥ Ph ò ťƀƊŨ ĭűƊƖƊƆ ƁƌĿűƣĪ ĭĬő x ťƆĥ ųƆ ƦſĭĬ ĺűſ ťƆ ťƌĥĭ H x ťŶĭĿ ŦƦŷƌĪ Ʀƌĥ ŦŵŶĪ x x ťƍſĥĪ ƁƆ ƢƉĥ ĭĬ P ő ő ĭųƆĪ ő Ʀƌĥ ŦŵŶĪ x x ƁƆ ƢƉĥ ĭĬŎ Ph ƦŷƌĪ ťŶĭƢƆ x Ŏ ƦŷƌĪ ťŶĭƢƆ x Ʀƌĥ ŦŵŶĪ ĭĬő ƈƕĪ x ƁƆ ƢƉĥ ĭĬ H ŴƌĬ IJĬŴƇƕ ťſŴƠƉĭ P ťƣĪŴƟĪ ťŶĭƢŨ űƊƖƉ x x ő .ťƤſűƟ ťŶĭƢŨ űƊƖƉĪ ĭĬ IJĬĭƦſĥ ťƌĬ IJĬŴƇƕ ŦŴƠƉĭ Ph ťƤſűƟ ťŶĭƢŨ űƊƖƉĪ ĭĬő IJĬĭƦſĥ ťƌĬ IJĬŴƇƕ ŦŴƠƉĭ H G ΎΦ·А ΓЁΎ ϔΈΉ΍Α ΅ЁΘϱΑ, ΦΏΏв ϳ ΔνΐΜ΅Ζ ΐΉ Ά΅ΔΘϟΊΉ΍Α πΑ ЂΈ΅Θ΍ πΎΉϧΑϱΖ ΐΓ΍ ΉϨΔΉΑ, ̳Κв ϶Α ΪΑ ϥΈϙΖ Θϲ ΔΑΉІΐ΅ Ύ΅Θ΅Ά΅ϧΑΓΑ Ύ΅Ϡ ΐνΑΓΑ πΔв ΅ЁΘϱΑ, ΓЈΘϱΖ πΗΘ΍Α ϳ Ά΅ΔΘϟΊΝΑ πΑ ΔΑΉϾΐ΅Θ΍ Υ·ϟУ

Philoxenos cites this verse only once, but he quotes the whole verse.158 The text of Ph omits the pronoun ťƍſĥĪ and replaces it ő . The change in meaning in this phrase is not drastic, with ĭųƆĪ though it is likely an attempt by the translator of Ph to render more literally the Greek prepositional phrase ̳Κв ϵΑ. It appears also that the text of H attempts to render this phrase even more literally with the phrase ĭĬő ƈƕĪ. Thus, the translation of this phrase is an 157 158

CPJ 245.6–7; 246.27–28. CPJ 216.8–11.

The Philoxenian Gospels as Reconstructed

225

example of the intermediary status of the translation of Ph between P and H. The text of Ph also alters the word order of the phrase ťŶĭĿ ŦƦŷƌĪ to read ƦŷƌĪ ťŶĭƢƆ, which more accurately represents that of the Greek Θϲ ΔΑΉІΐ΅ Ύ΅Θ΅Ά΅ϧΑΓΑ. The translator of Ph also adds the verbal phrase IJĬĭƦſĥ as a translation of πΗΘϟΑ. 1:34 ŦųƆĥĪ ĬƢŨ x x ŴƌĬĪ ŁĪųƏĥĭ ƦſŵŶ ťƌĥĭ P ő ƦſŵŶő ťƌĥĭ Ph ŦųƆĥĪ ŧƢŨ x IJĬĭƦſĥ ťƌĬĪ ŁĪųƏĥĭ ŦųƆĥĪ ŧƢŨ ĭĬő IJĬĭƦſĥ ťƌĬĪ ŁĪųƏĥĭ ƦſŵŶ ťƌĥĭ H G ΎΦ·А οЏΕ΅Ύ΅ Ύ΅Ϡ ΐΉΐ΅ΕΘϾΕ΋Ύ΅ ϵΘ΍ ΓЈΘϱΖ πΗΘ΍Α ϳ ΙϡϲΖ ΘΓІ ΌΉΓІ

In the citation of this verse,159 the text of Ph adds the verbal phrase IJĬĭƦſĥ in order to reflect the presence of the Greek verb πΗΘϟΑ. This type of revision is characteristic of the translation technique of Ph, and the text of H also displays this translation, so it is reasonable to conclude that this revision represents the text of Ph. 3:16 ĵƦƌ ťſűƀŷſ x x ĬƢũƆĪ ťƍƄſĥ ťƊƇƖƆ ŦųƆĥ ŪŶĥ Ƣƀū ťƍƃĬ P ħųſ Ŏ ťſűƀŷſ x x ĬƢũƆĪ ťƍƄſĥ ťƊƇƖƆ ŦųƆĥ ŪŶĥ [Ƣƀū] ťƍƃĬ Ph ħųſ ťſűƀŷſ ĭĬő ųƇſĪ ŧƢũƆĪ ťƍƄſĥ ťƊƇƖƆ ŦųƆĥ ŪŶĥ Ƣƀū ťƍƃĬ H

G ΓЂΘΝΖ ·ΤΕ ω·ΣΔ΋ΗΉΑ ϳ ΌΉϲΖ ΘϲΑ ΎϱΗΐΓΑ, ГΗΘΉ ΘϲΑ ΙϡϲΑ ΘϲΑ ΐΓΑΓ·ΉΑϛ σΈΝΎΉΑ

There are three full citations of this verse in Philoxenos’ writings.160 All three citations lack the conjunction Ƣƀū, though it is not necessary to assume that it is missing from the text of Ph because one of the citations includes ƋƆ in the place of Ƣƀū,161 and the omission is likely accidental or the result of adaptation to Philoxenos’ citation context. All three citations of this verse demonstrate a change in the verb from ĵƦƌ to ħųſ. Despite the fact that the spelling of these words differs significantly, ĵƦƌ is a defective form of ħųſ. Thus, it appears that this revision is an CPJ 216.11–12. CML 74.5–6; 78.11–12 (both in MS A); LMS 28.15–17. 161 Though the citation in LMS contains ƋƆ where Ƣƀū would stand. 159 160

226

J. Edward Walters

attempt by the translators of Ph and H to render more literally the perfect tense of the Greek verb σΈΝΎΉΑ.162 All of Philoxenos’ citations of this verse conclude with the addition of the word IJĬŴƙƇŶ (“on account of it [i.e. the world]”).163 However, it is not necessary to conclude that this word was included in the text of Ph because each citation ends here and does not continue on to include 3:17. Thus, the inclusion of IJĬŴƙƇŶ is likely an attempt to “resolve” the verse and make it coherent as a self-contained thought. 3:28 IJĬŴƉűƟĪ x ťƌĥ x ťŷƀƇƣ ťƆĥ .ťŷƀƤƉ x x x ƦſĭĬ ťƆ ťƌĥĪ P ĭĬő ĶűƟ x ťƌĥ ĿűƤƉĪ x ťƆĥ .ťŷƀƤƉ x ťƌĥ IJƦſĥő x ťƆĪ x Ph ĭĬő ĶűƟ IJƦſĥ x ĿűƤƉĪ x ťƆĥ .ťŷƀƤƉ ĭĬő ťƌĥ IJƦſĥ x ťƆĪ x H

G ΓЁΎ ΉϢΐϠ π·А ϳ ΛΕ΍ΗΘϱΖ, ΦΏΏв ϵΘ΍ ΦΔΉΗΘ΅ΏΐνΑΓΖ ΉϢΐϠ σΐΔΕΓΗΌΉΑ πΎΉϟΑΓΙ

Philoxenos only quotes the second half of this verse,164 but the portion that he does quote reflects revisions characteristic of other citations from Ph. The text of Ph replaces the verb ƦſĭĬ with the verbal phrase ťƌĥ IJƦſĥ. The text of H also includes this reading, though it adds the pronoun ĭĬ to reflect the presence of the Greek definite article. The text of Ph also replaces ťŷƀƇƣ with the verbal phrase ĿűƤƉĪ, which seems to be a more accurate translation of the Greek participle ΦΔΉΗΘ΅ΏΐνΑΓΖ. Once again, the text of H reproduces the variant reading found in Ph, though it replaces the first person singular pronoun ťƌĥ with the verb IJƦſĥ in the final phrase.

Though it is also worth noting that ĵƦƌ also appears in OS C and in the citation of this verse in the Syriac translation of Cyril, so it is possible that Philoxenos inherited this reading. King, Syriac Versions, 437– 438. 163 Including the three citations mentioned above and three additional citations found in Tract. tres. 164 CPJ 216.13–14. 162

The Philoxenian Gospels as Reconstructed

227 3:31

x ĭĬő ƈƃ ƎƉ ƈƖƆ ŦŁĥ x ƈƖƆ ƎƉĪ Ƣƀū ĭĬ IJĬĭƦſĥ x ƈƃ ƎƉ ƈƖƆ ŦŁĥ [ťƀƊƣ x] ƎƉĪ x ĭĬő IJĬĭƦſĥ x ƈƃ ƎƉ ƈƖƆ ŦŁĥ x ƈƖƆ ƎƉĪ x ĭĬ

G

P Ph H

͟ ΩΑΝΌΉΑ πΕΛϱΐΉΑΓΖ πΔΣΑΝ ΔΣΑΘΝΑ πΗΘϟΑ·

In the brief citation of this verse,165 the text of Ph and the text of H omit the conjunction Ƣƀū, likely because there is no conjunction in the Greek text. In the final phrase, the text of Ph replaces the verbal enclitic ĭĬ with the verb IJĬĭƦſĥ as a translation of πΗΘϟΑ, and the text of H also reflects this revision. In addition to these two revisions which seem to fit the translation technique of Ph, this quotation also reads ťƀƊƣ (“heaven”) rather than ƈƖƆ (“above”). Without external validation, either from its inclusion in the text of H or a second citation with the same wording, it is tenuous to conclude that the text of Ph actually read ťƀƊƣ. And while it is possible that that Philoxenos (or the translator of Ph) thought that ťƀƊƣ was a better translation in this context than ƈƖƆ, this does not seem likely as ƈƖƆ is the more “literal” translation of ΩΑΝΌΉΑ. Thus, it seems more likely that this is a mistake of memory or an adaptation by Philoxenos and should not be considered part of the text of Ph. 3:33 x ĭĬ ŧƢſƢƣ ŦųƆĥĪ ĶƦŶ P IJĬĭƦſĥ x ŧƢſƢƣ ŦųƆĥĪ ĶƦŶ Ph IJĬĭƦſĥ x ŧƢſƢƣ ŦųƆĥĪ ĶƦŶ H G

πΗΚΕΣ·΍ΗΉΑ ϵΘ΍ ϳ ΌΉϲΖ ΦΏ΋ΌφΖ πΗΘ΍Α

Philoxenos’ quotation of this verse is only a portion of the longer verse,166 but the translation technique in this brief citation is consistent with that of Ph elsewhere. The text of Ph replaces ĭĬ with IJĬĭƦſĥ as a translation of the Greek word πΗΘ΍Α at the end of the verse. The text of H also retains this reading, so it is reasonable to conclude that this is the text of Ph. 165 166

CPJ 216.21. CPJ 216.22–23.

228

J. Edward Walters 5:34 ƎƀƆĬ ťƆĥ ŦŁĭĪųƏ ťƌĥ ŪƐƌ x ťƤƌĥ ƢŨ ƎƉ ŦĭĬ ťƆ ƎſĪ ťƌĥ P ő x ťƆĥ ŦŁĭĪųƏ ťƌĥ ŪƐƌ x ťƤƌƢŨ ƎƉ ŦĭĬ ťƆ x ťƌĥĪ Ph ƎƀƆĬ ťƆĥ x ťƌĥ ŪƐƌ ŦŁĭĪųƏ ťƤƌƢŨ ƎƉ x ŴƆ ƎſĪ ťƌĥ H x ťƌĥ ƢƉĥ P ő ķŴŨĮĭƦƣŁ ķĭƦƌĥĪ x ƎƀƆĬ ťƌĥ ƢƉĥ Ph ķŴŨĮĭƦƣŁ ķĭƦƌĥĪ ťƍƄſĥ x ťƌĥ ƢƉĥ H ķŴŶŁ

ķĭƦƌĥĪ

x

G π·А Έξ ΓЁ Δ΅ΕΤ ΦΑΌΕЏΔΓΙ ΘχΑ ΐ΅ΕΘΙΕϟ΅Α Ώ΅ΐΆΣΑΝ, ΦΏΏΤ Θ΅ІΘ΅ Ών·Ν ϣΑ΅ ЀΐΉϧΖ ΗΝΌϛΘΉ.

The text of 5:34 in Philoxenos’ citation167 is nearly identical to the text of P, though the difference between them is enough to justify categorizing this verse as a citation of Ph. The revision in word order of ťƌĥ ƢƉĥ ƎƀƆĬ is inconsequential, and because it is not reflected by H or by the Greek text, there is little evidence to demonstrate that the actual text of Ph reflected this reading. However, because the text of Ph frequently demonstrates a revision toward the Greek word order, the possibility remains that the Vorlage of the text of Ph had the word order Ών·Ν Θ΅ІΘ΅. It is also possible that Philoxenos simply made a mistake with regard to the placement of ƎƀƆĬ in this citation, but even if this is a mistake, there is evidence of another revision characteristic of Ph at the end of the verse. The text of Ph changes the verb from ķŴŶŁ to ķŴŨĮĭƦƣŁ (from ħĮŴƣ, Ethp: ‘to be delivered’) and revises the voice of this verb from active to passive in order to render literally the Greek passive verb ΗΝΌϛΘΉ. The text of H also includes this reading.

167

CPJ 242.12–14.

The Philoxenian Gospels as Reconstructed

229 7:39

ťƆĪ

x ƈźƉ

ťƆĪ

x ƈźƉ

ťƆ ĺŴƤſĪ ƈźƉ

x

x

ťŶĭĿ ŁĭĬ ƦŨųſŁĥ x ƈƀƃűƕ Ƣƀū ťƆ P

x ťƣĪŴƟĪ ťŶĭĿ ŦĭĬ ħųſŁĥ x 168ťũſųſ

x [Ƣƀū] ťƆ Ph

Ʀſĥ Ƣƀū ƈƀƃűƕ x ťƆ H

ťƤſűƟ ťŶĭĿ ŦĭĬ

ĺŴƤſ ŦĭĬ ŸŨƦƣĥ ƈƀƃűƕ P ĺŴƤſ ŦĭĬ ŸŨƦƣĥ ƈƀƃűƕ Ph x

ŦĭĬ ŸŨƦƣĥ ƈƀƃűƕ H

G ΓЄΔΝ ·ΤΕ ώΑ ΔΑΉІΐ΅, ϵΘ΍ ͑΋ΗΓІΖ ΓЁΈνΔΝ πΈΓΒΣΗΌ΋168

Philoxenos quotes this verse only once,169 but he includes the citation marker ƋƆ. As he often does, Philoxenos places ƋƆ in the position of the post-positive conjunction, so although the citation does not include Ƣƀū, we should not necessarily conclude that it was omitted from the text of Ph. It is possible that the omission of ƈƀƃűƕ in the text of Ph was intentional because the Greek word ΓЄΔΝ carries the meaning of the Syriac phrase ƈƀƃűƕ ťƆ. Thus, it is possible that the text of Ph represents an attempt at a word-forword correspondence and omitted ƈƀƃűƕ. This explanation is supported by the fact that the texts of P, Ph, and H all display a longer form of this text including a form of the verb ħųſ (“to give”). This appears to be a result of a textual variant, as several witnesses include the phrase ΔΑΉІΐ΅ Χ·΍ΓΑ ΈΉΈϱΐΉΑΓΑ.170 Thus, the text of Ph (¾üƒÍøƒ ¾Ï†˜ ¿†… €Ìؚ~ Ƣƀū ¾Ćß, ‘For the Holy Spirit had not been given’) represents a translation of the variant reading. The text of Ph also includes a revision in the gender of the verb ħųſŁĥ from feminine to masculine in order to represent the Holy Spirit as male, not female.171

This word is marked with an asterisk and obelus in the Harclean tradition to denote Thomas’s insertion of a word not found in his Greek Vorlagen. See n. 156 above. 169 CML 52.17–18. This citation comes from MS A. 170 The witnesses that include this variant are B pc e q syh 171 See the discussion of this aspect of Syriac translation technique in Lk 1:35. 168

230

J. Edward Walters 12:26

Ŧĭųƌ ƎƉŁ IJƦſĥ ťƌĥĪ ťƄſĥĭ x IJĿƦŨ ŦŁŤƌ x ƥƊƤƉ ƥƌĥ ƁƆ ķĥ P ő ťƄſĥĭ ŦŁŤƌ IJĿƦŨ x x ƥƊƤƉ ƥƌĥ ƁƆ ķĥ Ph Ŧĭųƌ ƎƉŁ ťƌĥ IJƦſĥĪ Ŏ Ŧĭųƌ ƎƉŁ ťƌĥ IJƦſĥĪ ťƄſĥĭ x x ƚƠƌ [ƁƆ ƥƊƤƉ ƥƌĥ] ƁƆ ķĥ H ťŨĥ IJĬŴſƢƠƀƌ ƥƊƤƉ x x x x x ƁƆĪ ƎƉő ƁƍƤƊƤƉ Ļĥ P ťŨĥ IJĬŴſƢƠƀƌ ƥƊƤƉ ƁƆ ƥƌĥĪ ĭĬ ķĥĭ x ƁƇſĪ x ťƍƤƊƤƉ Ļĥ Ph 172[ťŨĥ

IJĬŴſƢƠƀƌ] ƥƊƤƉ ƁƆ ƥƌĥ x ķĥĭ [ŦŴƌĬ ƁƇſĪ x ťƍƤƊƤƉ Ļĥ] H

G πΤΑ πΐΓϟ Θ΍Ζ Έ΍΅ΎΓΑϜ, πΐΓϠ ΦΎΓΏΓΙΌΉϟΘΝ, Ύ΅Ϡ ϵΔΓΙ ΉϢΐϠ π·А πΎΉϧ Ύ΅Ϡ Έ΍ΣΎΓΑΓΖ ϳ πΐϲΖ σΗΘ΅΍· πΣΑ Θ΍Ζ πΐΓϠ Έ΍΅ΎΓΑϜ Θ΍ΐφΗΉ΍ ΅ЁΘϲΑ ϳ Δ΅ΘφΕ172

In the citation of this verse from CPJ,173 the text of Ph inverts the word order of the phrase IJĿƦŨ ŦŁŤƌ in P. While this is essentially an inconsequential revision, the text of Ph matches the Greek πΐΓϠ ΦΎΓΏΓΙΌΉϟΘΝ. Moreover, the text of Ph inverts the order of the phrase IJƦſĥ ťƌĥ in order to reflect more accurately the Greek text. The text of H also displays this revision. The phrase ĭĬ ķĥĭ ƁƆ ƥƌĥĪ in the text of Ph is not found in the text of P, but the text of H retains this reading (with the exception of ĭĬ). Thus, the text of Ph appears to be an attempt at a more word-for-word translation of the Greek text. 14:2 ŧĿŁĥ ķŴƄƆ ŪƀŹĥĪ ťƌĥ ĵĮĥĪ P ő Ph ŦƦƃĭĪ ķŴƄƆ ŪƀŹĥĪ ťƌĥ ĵĮĥĪ ŦƦƃĭĪ ķŴƄƆ ŪƀŹĥ ťƌĥ ĵĮĥĪ H

G

ϵΘ΍ ΔΓΕΉϾΓΐ΅΍ οΘΓ΍ΐΣΗ΅΍ ΘϱΔΓΑ ЀΐϧΑ

The brackets in the Harclean text here, as found in the Comparative Edition of the Syriac Gospels, denote that these words are ineligible in the primary manuscript used for the Harclean text (Vat. Syr. 268), and that these words come from Vat. Syr. 267. G. Kiraz, “Introduction to the CESG,” in idem., Comparative Edition of the Syriac Gospels, Vol. 1: Matthew, xxv. 173 CPJ 210.9–12. 172

The Philoxenian Gospels as Reconstructed

231

The only revision in this citation174 is the replacement of ŧĿŁĥ with the virtually equivalent ŦƦƃĭĪ. The text of H and a citation in the Syriac translation of Cyril175 also display this reading, providing support for its existence in the text of Ph. 14:3 ķĭĭĬŁ ķĭƦƌĥ Ļĥ x IJƦſĥ ťƌĥĪ ťƄſĥĪ IJŁŴƆ ķŴƃƢŨĪĥĭ ŦŁĥ ħĭŁ P ő ő ŦŁĥ ķĭĭĬŁ ķĭƦƌĥ Ļĥ ťƌĥ IJƦſĥĪ x ťƄſĥĪ IJŁŴƆ ķŴƃƢŨĪĥĭ ħĭŁĪ Ph Ŏ ķĭĭĬŁ ķĭƦƌĥ Ļĥ ťƌĥ IJƦſĥĪ x ťƄſĥĪ IJŁŴƆ ķŴƃƢŨĪĥĭ ŦŁĥ ħĭŁ H x

P

x

Ph

ķŴƄſƦſĥ

H

G ΔΣΏ΍Α σΕΛΓΐ΅΍ Ύ΅Ϡ Δ΅Ε΅ΏφΐΜΓΐ΅΍ ЀΐκΖ ΔΕϲΖ πΐ΅ΙΘϱΑ, ϣΑ΅ ϵΔΓΙ ΉϢΐϠ π·А Ύ΅Ϡ ЀΐΉϧΖ ώΘΉ

In this citation,176 the text of Ph reflects the inverted word order of the phrase IJƦſĥ ťƌĥ in order to conform it to the Greek ΉϢΐϠ π·Џ. This reading is also found in the text of H. 16:12 ƁŬƏ x ħĭŁ P x ķĭƦƌĥ ƎƀŷƄƤƉ ťƆ ťƆĥ .ķŴƄƆ ƢƉĥĪ ƁƆ Ʀſĥ ŦŁŤƀŬƏò x - Ph Ŏ ò ƎſĪ ħĭŁ H ƎƖźƊƆ ķĭƦƌĥ ƎſƞƉ ťƆ ťƆĥ .ķŴƄƆ ƢƉŤƊƆ ƁƆ Ʀſĥ ŦŁŤƀŬƏ űŶŤƊƆ ķĭƦƌĥ ƎƀŷƄƤƉ ťƆ ťƆĥ .ķŴƄƆ ƢƉŤƊƆ ƁƆ Ʀſĥ

x

ťƣĬ

P

ƎƖźƊƆ ťƣĬ Ph x

ťƣĬ

H

G σΘ΍ ΔΓΏΏΤ σΛΝ ЀΐϧΑ Ών·Ή΍Α, ΦΏΏв ΓЁ ΈϾΑ΅ΗΌΉ Ά΅ΗΘΣΊΉ΍Α ΩΕΘ΍

Philoxenos’ exegetical writings contain three full citations of this verse, and all three include citation markers.177 The three citations are not identical, but they demonstrate a high level of similarity. All three of Philoxenos’ citations read ƢƉĥĪ rather than the infinitive Ŏ CPJ 210.12. King, Syriac Versions, 456. 176 CPJ 210.13–14. 177 CML 9.12–13; CPJ 159.1–3; 178.9–11. 174 175

232

J. Edward Walters

ƢƉŤƊƆ found in P and H. All three quotations also include ƎƀŷƄƤƉ rather than ƎſƞƉ as found in H. Indeed, the three quotations from Philoxenos are in perfect unison until the final phrase. Two of the quotations agree with the text of P with regard to content and to word order (ťƣĬ űŶŤƊƆ),178 and one of the quotations agrees with the word choice of H but reverses the order (ƎƖźƊƆ ťƣĬ).179 We are not able to appeal to the authority of one commentary over and against the other, however, as each reading appears in CPJ. It seems that the most obvious answer is to allow majority to rule and to assume that the text of Ph agrees with the text of P. However, this explanation does not account for the fact that the text of H displays the variant reading that would be dismissed if Ph agrees with P. There are also a few possible explanations for the difference between the texts. It is possible that the text of Ph included the reading ƎƖźƊƆ, but Philoxenos accidentally reverted back to the text of the Peshitta two of the three times he wrote this verse. After all, there is no major christological issue at stake in this change in translation, so it could be assumed that Philoxenos could quite easily forget that this word had been changed. Moreover, it is possible that a scribe altered (intentionally or not) the text of any of the three citations to conform it to the more familiar text. Despite the fact that both disputed words are included above in brackets to illustrate some amount of uncertainty, it seems more likely that the text of Ph originally read ƎƖźƊƆ because this best explains the use of the same word in the text of H.180

CML 9.12–13; CPJ 178.9–11. CPJ 159.1–3. 180 Brock asserts that Jn 16:12–13 “excellently illustrates Ph’s intermediary position” between P and H, “Resolution of the Philoxenian/Harclean Problem,” 331. 178 179

The Philoxenian Gospels as Reconstructed

233 16:13

ŧĿƢƣ ųƇƄŨ x ķŴƃƢŨűƌ ĭĬ ŧĿƢƣĪ ťŶĭĿ x x x ƎſĪ ŦŁĥĪ ťƉ P ő ĭĬ ŧĿƢƣĪ ťŶĭĿ x x ŦŁĥĪ ŧĿƢƣ ųƇƃ ŁŴƆ ķŴƃƢŨűƌ ƎſĪ x ťƉ Ph Ŏ Ŏ ő ő ŧĿƢƣ ųƇƄŨ x ķŴƄſĪųƌ x ŧĿƢƣĪ ťŶĭĿ ĭĬ :ĭĬ ŦŁŤƌĪ ƎſĪ x IJƦƉĥ H

G ϵΘ΅Α Έξ σΏΌϙ πΎΉϧΑΓΖ, Θϲ ΔΑΉІΐ΅ ϳΈ΋·φΗΉ΍ ЀΐκΖ πΑ ΘϜ ΦΏ΋ΌΉϟθ ΔΣΗϙ·

ΘϛΖ ΦΏ΋ΌΉϟ΅Ζ,

Philoxenos quotes this verse four times with two full181 and two partial citations.182 The text of Ph, along with the text of H, places ƎſĪ before the verb ŦŁĥ, reflecting the placement of Έν in the Greek text. Two of the four citations of this verse in Philoxenos include this reading;183 one omits the conjunction altogether;184 and one replaces ƎſĪ with Ƣƀū.185 However, Pusey and Gwilliam also list this word order as a textual variant for the Peshitta, so while we can safely conclude that this is the word order of Ph, we cannot conclude that this word order was revised by the translator of Ph. The text of Ph also demonstrates the translation ųƇƃ ŁŴƆ in place of the shorter phrase ųƇƄŨ. Philoxenos quotes this portion of the text twice, and both times he uses the longer phrasing.186 This is likely an attempt to produce a word-for-word translation of the Greek, but the fact that the text of H includes ųƇƄŨ complicates this explanation because the text of H is generally more accurate with respect to word-for-word translations than the text of Ph. It is also possible that this translation is the result of textual variation in the Greek Vorlagen. The critical text of NA27 reads πΑ ΘϜ ΦΏ΋ΌΉϟθ, but several MSS replace πΑ with ΉϢΖ.187 The slight difference of CPJ 159.3–4; CML 9.12–13. CPJ 178.11–12; CML 3.20–21. 183 CPJ 159.3–4; 178.11–12. 184 CML 3.20–21. This citation is quite short and should probably be considered an allusion. Thus, there is no need to postulate that the text of Ph omitted ƎſĪ. 185 CML 9.12–13. 186 CML 9.12–13; CPJ 159.3–4. 187 The variant is attested by codices A and B and a few vulgate mss. Moreover, this variant was included in the text of NA25 as noted by the symbol † in the textual apparatus. Thus, the text of the witnesses for this variant are ancient enough to have been found in a Vorlage used by the translator of Ph. 181 182

234

J. Edward Walters

nuance between these words could certainly cause a translator to replace the preposition -Ũ with ŁŴƆ, which, like ΉϢΖ, carries the connotation of ‘to, toward’ rather than ‘in.’ Thus, we conclude that the text of Ph provides support for an established textual variant not found in the other Syriac versions. Moreover, it appears that the translator of H had access to a Vorlage that included πΑ and subsequently corrected the text of Ph. 16:28 ťƌĥ ĵĮĥĭ ťƊƇƖƆ ťƌĥ ơũƣ ħĭŁĭ .ťƊƇƖƆ ƦſŁĥĭ ťŨĥ ŁŴƆ ƎƉ ƦƠƙƌ P ő ő ħĭŁĭ .ťƊƇƖƆ ƦſŁĥĭ ťŨĥ x ƎƉ ƦƠƙƌ Ph ťƌĥ ĵĮĥĭ ťƊƇƖƆ ťƌĥ ơũƣ ťƌĥ ĵĮĥĭ ťƊƇƖƆ ťƌĥ ơũƣ ħĭŁ .ťƊƇƖƆ ƦſŁĥĭ ťŨĥ x ƎƉ ƦƠƙƌ H ťŨĥ ŁŴƆ ƁƆ ťŨĥ ŁŴƆ x ťŨĥ ŁŴƆ x

P Ph H

G πΒϛΏΌΓΑ Δ΅ΕΤ ΘΓІ Δ΅ΘΕϲΖ Ύ΅Ϡ πΏφΏΙΌ΅ ΉϢΖ ΘϲΑ ΎϱΗΐΓΑ· ΔΣΏ΍Α ΦΚϟ΋ΐ΍ ΘϲΑ ΎϱΗΐΓΑ Ύ΅Ϡ ΔΓΕΉϾΓΐ΅΍ ΔΕϲΖ ΘϲΑ Δ΅ΘνΕ΅

Philoxenos displays his intent to cite this verse with the citation marker ƋƆ.188 The texts of both Ph and H omit the preposition ŁŴƆ in the first phrase of this verse. It is possible that this revision is the result of textual variation in the Greek Vorlagen. The NA27 critical text words the opening phrase πΒϛΏΌΓΑ Δ΅ΕΤ ΘΓІ Δ΅ΘΕϱΖ, but several witnesses replace Δ΅ΕΣ with the preposition πΎ.189 It is possible, then, that ŁŴƆ is a translation of Δ΅ΕΣ from the Greek Vorlage of the text of P,190 and, likewise, that the Greek Vorlagen of Ph and H read πΎ rather than Δ΅ΕΣ. This explains the absence of ŁŴƆ in these “word-for-word” translations. However, it is not necessary to conclude that this revision is the result of a textual variant. It is also possible that the translators of Ph and H simply omitted ŁŴƆ and allowed ƎƉ to represent Δ΅ΕΣ. In the final phrase of this verse, both Ph and H omit ƁƆ. The inclusion of this phrase CPJ 238.6–8. This variant is attested by codices B, C*, L, and ƙ, as well as a few others later mss. This variant was included in the text of NA25 as noted by the symbol † in the textual apparatus. 190 Cf. John 1:1 for an example of šÍß translated from Δ΅ΕΣ. 188 189

The Philoxenian Gospels as Reconstructed

235

in the text of P is likely the result of the idiomatic Syriac grammatical feature known as the pleonastic dative, which emphasizes the subject of a verbal phrase by adding a personal pronoun to the preposition -Ɔ. The translators of Ph and H omitted this phrase for the sake of literal translation of the Greek word order. 17:11 x .ƁƆ ƦŨųſĪ ĭĬő x ƅƊƤŨ ķŴƌĥ ƢŹ ťƤſűƟ ťŨĥ P ĭĬő x ƅƊƤŨ ķŴƌĥ ĿŴŹ ťƤſűƟ ƁŨĥ Ph x .ƁƆ ƦŨųſĪ Ŏ ťƍƄſĥ ĜƁƆ ƦŨųſĪ ĭĬő ƅƇſĪ ťƊƤŨ ķŴƌĥ ƢŹ ťƤſűƟ ƁŨĥ H x x ƎƍŶĪ x ťƍƄſĥ űŶ x ķĭĭųƌĪ P x x ƎƍŶ ĻĥĪ ťƍƄſĥ űŶ x ķĭĭųƌĪ Ph Ŏ ƎſƦſĥ űŶ ƎƍŶ ĻĥĪ ťƍƄſĥ űŶ ķĭųſƦſĥ ķĭĭųƌĪ H G ΔΣΘΉΕ Χ·΍Ή, ΘφΕ΋ΗΓΑ ΅ЁΘΓϿΖ πΑ ΘХ ϴΑϱΐ΅Θϟ ΗΓΙ С ΈνΈΝΎΣΖ ΐΓ΍, ϣΑ΅ ИΗ΍Α ςΑ Ύ΅ΌАΖ ψΐΉϧΖ.

In Philoxenos’ only citation of this verse,191 the text of Ph uses ƁŨĥ rather than ťŨĥ. It was common in early Syriac to add the first person (sg. or pl.) possessive ending to titles, such as ķƢƉ (“lord”) and ťŨĥ (“father”). However, it is not necessary to conclude that these endings reflect a possessive pronoun in the Greek Vorlagen of these texts.192 J.P. Lyon notes, however, that idiomatically the word ťŨĥ by itself implies the translation “my father.”193 If Lyon’s assertion is correct, then it appears that the translators of Ph and H have changed ťŨĥ to ƁŨĥ in order to note the absence of a possessive pronoun, despite the fact that the opposite appears to be true. The texts of Ph and H both include the conjunction Ļĥ in the final phrase of the verse, but the text of P omits it. This discrepancy is likely based on a textual variant in the Greek tradition—the inclusion of Ύ΅ϟ in the phrase ςΑ Ύ΅ΌАΖ [Ύ΅Ϡ] ψΐΉϧΖ.194 Based on the existence and attestation of this variant, it CPJ 210.14–15. Williams, Early Syriac Translation Technique, 23–24. 193 Lyon, 135–136. 194 This variant is attested by P107, codices B, Ɗ, and several other later mss and versions. 191 192

236

J. Edward Walters

seems reasonable to conclude that the Vorlage of the text of P did not include Ύ΅Ϡ and the Vorlagen of Ph and H did. 17:22 ťƍƄſĥ űŶ x ķĭĭųƌĪ ķĭųƆ ƦŨųſ ƁƆ ƦŨųſĪ x ťŷŨŴƣ ťƌĥĭ P ő ťƍƄſĥ űŶ x ĭĭųƌĪ ķĭųƆ ƦŨųſő ƁƆ ƦŨųſĪ Ŏ Ŏ ĭĬ ťŷŨŴƣ ťƌĥĭ Ph ő ťƍƄſĥ űŶ ķĭųſƦſĥ ķĭĭųƌĪ ķĭųƆ ƦŨųſ ƁƆ ƦŨųſĪ ĭĬ ťŷŨŴƣ ťƌĥĭ H x ƎƍŶ űŶ ƎƍŶĪ P ƎſƦſĥ x űŶ ƎƍŶĪ Ph ƎſƦſĥ

x űŶ ƎƍŶĪ H

G ΎΦ·А ΘχΑ ΈϱΒ΅Α ϋΑ ΈνΈΝΎΣΖ ΐΓ΍ ΈνΈΝΎ΅ ΅ЁΘΓϧΖ, ϣΑ΅ ИΗ΍Α ςΑ Ύ΅ΌАΖ ψΐΉϧΖ ςΑ

In his commentary, Philoxenos introduces this citation not with a citation marker, but with a hermeneutical paraphrase of the verse: ķĭĭųƌ űŶ ƎŨ ķŴƌĬ Ļĥĭ (“And also they shall be one in us”).195 Philoxenos then quotes the verse to which he is alluding and provides the text above. The text of Ph includes the pronoun ĭĬő as a translation of the Greek relative pronoun όΑ, and the translator of the text of H also includes this translation. It is likely that the translator of P thought that the relative pronoun -Ī prefixed to the next word was sufficient to carry the intended meaning, but the “word-for-word” translations of Ph and H include the additional pronoun to reflect the Greek text. In the final phrase of this verse, both Ph and H replace the first person plural pronoun ƎƍŶ with the first person plural verb ƎſƦſĥ. The previous verse discussed196 ends with a phrase that is quite similar to the final phrase of this verse. The text of H includes the verb ƎſƦſĥ in both cases while the text of Ph includes it here only. This could be a case of inconsistent translation on the part of the translator of Ph, but it is more likely that this revision is a result of a textual variant in the Greek texts. Several Greek witnesses197 include πΗΐνΑ at the end of the sentence, precisely where the texts of Ph and H read the equivalent CPJ 210.19–20. There is also an adapted allusion to this verse in CPJ 213.13–14. 196 Cf. Jn. 17:11. 197 This variant is attested by corrections in ʠ and C, and in the original text of A, Ɗ, and ƙ. 195

The Philoxenian Gospels as Reconstructed

237

translation ƎſƦſĥ. The existence of πΗΐνΑ in the Greek Vorlagen of Ph and H is the best explanation for the existence of ƎſƦſĥ. 17:24 Ļĥ ťƌĥĪ x ĿŁĥĪ ťƌĥ ťŨĽ ĜƁƆ ƦŨųſĪ ķŴƌĬő ťŨĥ P ő Ļĥ ťƌĥ IJƦſĥĪ ťƄſĥĪ ťƌĥ ťŨĽ .ƁƆ ƦŨųſĪ ƎƀƇſĥ ƁŨĥ Ph Ŏ Ļĥ ťƌĥ IJƦſĥĪ ťƄſĥĪ ťƌĥ ťŨĽ ĜƁƆ ƦŨųſĪ ķŴƌĬő ƁŨĥ H x ķĭĭųƌ ķŴƌĬŎ P ĭĬő ƁƇſĪ ťŷŨŴƣ ƎſŵŶ ķĭĭųƌĪ x ƁƊƕ ő ťƍſĥ ƁƇſĪ ťŷŨŴƣ ƎſŵŶ ķĭĭųƌĪ x ƁƊƕ x ķĭĭųƌ ķŴƌĬŎ Ph ĭĬő ƁƇſĪ ťŷŨŴƤƆ ƎſŵŶ ķĭĭųƌĪ ťƍƄſĥ ƁƊƕ ķĭųſƦſĥ ķĭĭųƌ ķŴƌĬŎ H x ƁƆ ƦŨųſĪ P ťƊƇƕĪ ĬƦƀƉƭŁ ĶűƟ ƎƉ ƁƌƦũŶĥĪ x ƁƆ ƦŨųſĪ Ph Ŏ ťƊƇƕĪ ĬƦƀƉƭŁ ĶűƟ ƎƉ ƁƌƦũŶĥĪ ƈźƉ ƁƆ ƦŨųſĪ H ťƊƇƕĪ ĬƦƀƉƭŁ ĶűƟ ƎƉ ƁƌƦũŶĥĪ

G ΔΣΘΉΕ, ϶ ΈνΈΝΎΣΖ ΐΓ΍, ΌνΏΝ ϣΑ΅ ϵΔΓΙ ΉϢΐϠ π·А ΎΦΎΉϧΑΓ΍ ИΗ΍Α ΐΉΘв πΐΓІ, ϣΑ΅ ΌΉΝΕЗΗ΍Α ΘχΑ ΈϱΒ΅Α ΘχΑ πΐφΑ, ϋΑ ΈνΈΝΎΣΖ ΐΓ΍ ϵΘ΍ ω·ΣΔ΋ΗΣΖ ΐΉ ΔΕϲ Ύ΅Θ΅ΆΓΏϛΖ ΎϱΗΐΓΙ

Philoxenos quotes this verse twice in CPJ, but only one citation contains the whole verse.198 As seen above in the discussion of 17:11, it is not necessary to consider the possessive pronoun on the first word ƁŨĥ as a reflection of the existence of a possessive pronoun in the Greek Vorlagen. The citation of this verse shown above omits the third person plural pronoun ķŴƌĬ and adds the virtually equivalent phrase -Ī ƎƀƇſĥ. It is possible that the text of Ph included this reading. If it is original, it seems that this variation is an attempt to translate more accurately the Greek relative pronoun ϶ in the absence of the third person plural pronoun in the Greek text. The text of P renders the Greek phrase ϵΔΓΙ ΉϢΐϠ π·Џ (“where I am”) with the phrase ťƌĥĪ ĿŁĥ (“the place that I [am]”). In order to be more true to the word order of the Greek text, the text of Ph renders the phrase ťƌĥ IJƦſĥĪ ťƄſĥ (“where I am”), so that the pronoun comes after the verb as it is in Greek. And again, the text of Ph replaces the third person singular pronoun ĭĬ with the phrase -Ī ťƍſĥ in order to more accurately translate the Greek relative pronoun ϊΑ. 198

Full: CPJ 210.22–25; Partial: CPJ 59.19–20.

238

J. Edward Walters 18:8 ƎƀƆĮĥ ƎƀƆųƆ ŴƟŴũƣ ķĭƦƌĥ ƎƀƖŨ ƁƆ x ķĥĭ ťƌĥ ťƌĥĪ ƎƀƆĮĥ ƎƀƆųƆ ŴƟŴũƣ ķĭƦƌĥ ƎƀƖŨ ƁƆ x ķĥĭ IJƦſĥő ťƌĥĪ ő ŴƟŴũƣ ķĭƦƌĥ ƎƀƖŨ ƁƆ ƈƀƃĬ ķĥ IJƦſĥ ťƌĥĪ ƎƀƆĮĥ ķŴƌųƆ

P Ph H

G ϵΘ΍ π·Џ ΉϢΐ΍. ΉϢ ΓЇΑ πΐξ Ί΋ΘΉϧΘΉ, ΩΚΉΘΉ ΘΓϾΘΓΙΖ ЀΔΣ·Ή΍Α

This citation199 also includes an example of a revision toward a more word-for-word translation with respect to the word order of the Greek phrase π·Џ ΉϢΐϟ by replacing the enclitic pronoun ťƌĥ with the verbal phrase IJƦſĥ. The translator of H also includes this reading.

4. CONCLUSIONS The primary focus of the present study has been to simply present the data for the text of the Philoxenian version for various Gospel passages as those texts can be reconstructed from the citations of Philoxenos. While this study has focused only on citations from the Gospels and presented data for only fifty-two verses, it is possible to make some tentative conclusions200 about the nature of the Philoxenian version and its place within the shifting Syriac translation technique of the sixth-century. First, we summarize briefly the types of revisions that are evident within the Philoxenian version, and then we will offer a few brief suggestions about the implications of these conclusions for the future of study with regard to the Philoxenian version. 4.1 Revisions Characteristic of the Philoxenian Version Based on the revisions found in the Scripture passages presented above, it is possible to discuss a few trends of translation technique evident within the Philoxenian version. These trends include: lexical changes for more “accurate” translation, attempts at more accurate and consistent translation of verb tense, lexical omissions CPJ 166.11. These conclusions must remain tentative until the completion of a similar project for Philoxenos’ citations outside the Gospels and a more thorough comparison with other sixth-century translation projects. 199 200

The Philoxenian Gospels as Reconstructed

239

and additions based on the Greek text, and alterations in the Syriac word order to reflect the Greek. 4.1.1 Lexical Changes for more Accurate Translations The most well known lexical revision in the Philoxenian version is the replacement of words built from the stem űƇſ in Matt 1:1 and 1:18.201 In both of these passages, Philoxenos replaces a word built from űƇſ with the word ťſĭĬ (“becoming, birth”).202 Given his opposition to “Nestorianism,” it is not surprising that Philoxenos demonstrates a strong concern for the language used in reference to Jesus’ birth.203 In particular, Philoxenos seems to be concerned that speaking about the birth of Jesus might suggest that there was a change in the nature of Christ that might lead the reader to a dyophysite Christology. Thus, this lexical change is likely best explained by Philoxenos’ preference for the incarnational language of the prologue of the Gospel of John in which the word “becomes” (ŦĭĬ) flesh.204 This seems to be the most likely explanation considering how formative Jn 1:14 is in Philoxenos’ concept of the Incarnation, as evidenced by the fact that he quotes some portion of Jn 1:14 over fifty times throughout the commentaries.

These verses are considered together here because Philoxenos explicitly cites both in relation to the same translation issue, CPJ, 41–42. 202 However, Philoxenos does not replace every occurrence of the word űƇſ with regard to Jesus’ birth. Philoxenos cites Matt 1:20 four times, and three of the citations include the word űƇſŁĥ as a translation of the Greek ƤƦƮƮƨƩƞƮ. The fourth citation replaces űƇſŁĥ with ƦſĥĪ, but this substitution appears to be the result of Philoxenos’ adaptation to his writing context rather than an intentional translation change. And again in Matt 2:2, Philoxenos retains the use of the word űƇſŁĥ in reference to Jesus. 203 However, the case of Matt 1:1 is particularly intriguing because although the word ĬŁĭűƀƇſĪ is built from the root űƇſ, the meaning of the word in this context (“descendants, generations”) has nothing to do with Jesus’ birth. 204 Cf. Brock, “Resolution of the Philoxenian/Harclean Problem,” 329. 201

240

J. Edward Walters

There is also a fascinating example of a lexical change in Matt 16:18 in which Philoxenos preserves a reading from the ò (“bars [of iron]”) rather Diatessaron, translating ΔϾΏ΅΍ as ťƇƃŴƉ than ťƕƭŁ (“gates”). As noted in the discussion of this verse above, one possible explanation for the use of this translation in the Diatessaron is a christological interpretation involving Ps 107 and the “bars” of Sheol. In this interpretation, the “bars” of Sheol in Matt 16:18 are the bars that cannot withstand Jesus in the harrowing of Hell. Thus, the fact that the texts of P and H do not retain this reading begs the question of why the text of Ph does. Either Philoxenos (or Polycarp) had access to a copy of the Peshitta that retained this reading (which is unlikely), or Philoxenos knew of the christological interpretation of this verse and chose to include it in his new translation.205 There are two examples in which the translator of Ph replaces the preposition -Ɔ (“to, for”) with the independent preposition ŁŴƆ (“to, toward”) as the translation of the Greek preposition ΔΕϱΖ.206 This translation revision could be explained in one of three ways: 1) the translator has decided that ŁŴƆ is simply a better translation than -Ɔ based on the context; 2) the translator of Ph is attempting to render the Greek word order more faithfully, and the addition of ŁŴƆ represents ΔΕϱΖ in the translation; or 3) perhaps it is motivated by a concern for the consistency of the translation of prepositions. The best explanation is likely is some combination of these three factors, though the third factor is perhaps the most defensible because every time the text of P translates ΔΕϱΖ as ŁŴƆ, the translator of Ph retains ŁŴƆ, but every time the text of P translates ΔΕϱΖ as -Ɔ, the translator of Ph revises the text to read ŁŴƆ, and, moreover, when the text of P includes ŁŴƆ and there is no ΔΕϱΖ in the text, the translator of Ph omits ŁŴƆ.207 In Matt 2:6, the translator of Ph replaces two occurrences of the word ťƄƇƉ (“king”) in the text of P with ťƌƢŨűƉ (“leader, ruler, governor”) as a translation of the Greek word ψ·ΉΐЏΑ. This appears to be a conscious attempt to retranslate the Greek because For a fuller discussion of this reading, see the explanation for the text of Matt 16:18 given above. 206 Cf. Lk 2:34 and 2:48 207 For examples of retaining the translation of P, see Jn 1:1; 14:3; omitting ŁŴƆ, see Jn 16:28; and adding ŁŴƆ, see Lk 2:34 and 2:48. 205

The Philoxenian Gospels as Reconstructed

241

ťƌƢŨűƉ provides a more precise translation. Matt 19:28 offers a similar attempt to render Greek words consistently. The Greek word ΌΕϱΑΓΖ occurs twice in the verse, but the text of P uses two different words, ĸŴƌĿŁ (“throne”-transliterated from Greek) and ťƀƏĿŴƃ (also “throne”). In an attempt to make the translation consistent, the translator of Ph replaced ĸŴƌĿŁ with ťƀƏĿŴƃ so that both instances of ΌΕϱΑΓΖ were translated with ťƀƏĿŴƃ. Thus, we see an attempt on the part of the translator of Ph to translate Greek words more precisely and more consistently, though it is interesting to note that the text of P includes a Greek loan word and the translators of Ph and H replace the loan word with a native Syriac word. In Luke 2:14, the translator of Ph replaces the word ŧƢũƏ (which can mean “hope, trust; thought, opinion”) with ťƍƀŨĽ (“will, desire”). This example is intriguing because the Greek word in question is ΉЁΈΓΎϟ΅Ζ (“good will”), and while it seems that ťƍƀŨĽ is a better translation than ŧƢũƏ, the translator of Ph does not add an adjective to ťƍƀŨĽ to translate the ΉЁ- prefix. The texts of P (ťũŹ) and H (ŁĭƢƀƙƣ) both add adjectives, but it appears that the translator of Ph was attempting to translate ΉЁΈΓΎϟ΅Ζ with a one-word equivalent for the sake of matching the Greek text. Thus, we see the translator of Ph revising the translation of P in an attempt to offer a better translation and an equivalent word-forword translation of the Greek. Matt 19:28 is an interesting example because all three versions (P, Ph, and H) attempt to find an equivalent translation for the Greek word Δ΅Ώ΍··ΉΑΉΗϟ΅ (“state of renewal; rebirth”). The translator of Ph correctly identified the first part of the Greek word compound word as ΔΣΏ΍Α (“again”) but mistakenly translated the second half of the word as a derivative of ·ΉΑΑΣΝ rather than ·ϟΑΓΐ΅΍, thus rendering the phrase ƥſĿĪ ƎƉĪ ŧűƇſ (lit: “birth from the beginning,” idiomatically: “rebirth”). In this example, it is possible to see the translator of Ph attempting to retranslate Greek words “literally” when there is no Syriac equivalent. 4.1.2 Translating Greek Verbs There are two trends in translation technique discernible in the Philoxenian version with respect to Greek verbs: replacing Syriac participles with imperfects in order to translate the Greek future

242

J. Edward Walters

tense and adding the preposition űƃ to Syriac participles when translating a Greek participle. There are three examples of the translator of Ph retranslating Greek future tense verbs as Syriac imperfects.208 Brock notes that the Syriac imperfect is the characteristic translation of the Greek future tense but also notes that participles are occasionally used for the future tense.209 While Syriac participles can convey the same meaning as Syriac imperfects, it appears that the translator of Ph is concerned not just with meaning but with rendering the tense of the Greek verbs more precisely. It is likely that the second trend of adding űƃ to Syriac participles210 when translating Greek participles is done for similar reasons—that is, the translator wanted to make sure that verb tenses were translated accurately. Thus, the translator of Ph seems to demonstrate the following technique with regard to Greek verbs: Greek future = Syriac imperfect and not Syriac participles Greek participle = Syriac participle + űƃ Another trend in the translation technique of Ph with regard to verbs is the consistent use of the verbal phrase -Ʀſĥ + personal pronoun when translating forms of ΉϢΐϟ.211 There are at least eighteen examples of this trend, though there are variations of how this translation is implemented depending on which form of ΉϢΐϟ is being translated. However, the translator of Ph is quite consistent with this technique. The following list provides the Greek form of ΉϢΐϟ and the corresponding form of -Ʀſĥ used in the translation. The footnote supplied offers the texts in which these examples are found.

Matt 3:12; 10:17; 11:27. Brock, “Limitations of Syriac,” 90–91. 210 Matt 2:2; John 1:15. 211 D. King also notes this is a translation technique evident in Quod Unus sit Christus and Responsiones ad Tiberium, King, Cyril of Alexandria, 106, 117. 208 209

The Philoxenian Gospels as Reconstructed ΉϢΐϟ πΗΘϟΑ ΉϨΑ΅΍ πΗΐνΑ ώΑ

243

212

IJƦſĥ IJĬĭƦſĥ Ʀſĥ (+ context sensitive pronoun)214 215 ƎſƦſĥ IJĬĭƦſĥ (usually + ŦĭĬ)216 213

Given the frequency and the consistency of the examples above, we can see that the translator of the text of Ph consistently translates forms of the Greek verb ΉϢΐϟ with forms of -Ʀſĥ when the text of P translates the text in idiomatic Syriac with either the use of an absolute state noun in the predicate position217 or the enclitic use of ŦĭĬ.218 4.1.3 Word Order This category includes revisions pertaining to the order of the words found in the Syriac translation and the corresponding order of words in the Greek texts. This category includes moving the particles to reflect the placement of equivalent particles in the Greek word order such as ƎſĪ,219 prepositional phrases,220 and the the order of subject/verb/object phrases.221 Other than the examples just provided, there are at least eight more examples of the translator of Ph changing the word order of the Syriac translation in order to make it more “literal” with respect to the word order of the Greek text.222

Jn 3:28; 17:24; 18:8. Matt 1:23; 2:2; Jn 1:33. 214 Lk 2:6; 3:23. 215 Jn 17:22. 216 Matt 1:18; Jn 1:8, 10, 15 (twice). In three of the five instances ŦĭĬ is also included. 217 See T. Nöldeke, Compendious Syriac Grammar, trans. and ed. by James A. Crichton (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2001) § 204, 158–159. 218 Ibid., § 299, 238–239. 219 Matt 1:18. 220 Matt 1:20; Lk 2:14. 221 Lk 1:35; Jn 12:26; 16:13. 222 Matt 2:1; Lk 2:43; John 1:10, 15, 17, 33; 14:3; 18:8. 212 213

244

J. Edward Walters

4.1.4 Omissions This category refers to the instances in which the translator of Ph omits words found in the translation of P based on the wording of the Greek text. There are at least seven examples of this category, but it includes only minor omissions such as particles (ƎſĪ 223 and Ƣƀū 224), pronouns (relative and personal),225 and prepositions.226 This category represents a conscious effort on the part of the translator of Ph to render the Greek text more “literally” by omitting words not found in the Greek text. 4.1.5 Additions This category overlaps with the above discussion of the translation of ΉϢΐϟ as the translator of Ph frequently adds the word -Ʀſĥ when the meaning is merely implied in the translation of P. This category also includes prepositions and prepositional phrases,227 nouns,228 pronouns,229 and verbs.230 In addition to the examples just mentioned, there are at least seven more examples of the translator of Ph making additions to reflect the presence of words in Greek.231 4.2 Implications of the Present Study for Future Scholarship The intent of the present study has been to present the data for the unique readings of the Gospels of the Philoxenian version as reconstructed from the exegetical writings of Philoxenos. The results of this study confirm the resolution of the Philoxenian/Harclean problem as concluded by Sebastian Brock: the Philoxenian version is a distinct translation from both the Peshitta and the Harclean version. Moreover, it is clear that the translation technique evident throughout the citations discussed Lk 2:43, 52. Lk 1:31. 225 Lk 1:35; 2:6; John 1:15; 3:31. 226 Jn 16:28. 227 Lk 1:35; 2:34; Jn 1:10. 228 Matt 2:6. 229 Jn 1:11; 17:22, 24. 230 Matt 2:1; Jn 1:15. 231 Matt 1:23; 2:2; Lk 2:6; 3:23; Jn 1:33; 17:11 223 224

The Philoxenian Gospels as Reconstructed

245

here fits well within what we already know about Greek-to-Syriac translation technique in the sixth-century: there was an intentional movement toward a more word-for-word translation, but this technique was very much still in flux throughout the sixth-century until the creation of the hyper literal Harclean version in the early seventh-century. The reconstruction of the Philoxenian version of the New Testament is by no means completed, as the project encompasses only the Gospels. Hopefully the present project will serve as a model by which further inquiry can be made into the Philoxenian text of the NT documents outside the Gospels and as an aide in our broader understanding of sixth-century translation technique.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Primary Sources for Philoxenos De Halleux, André. Eli de Qartamin: Memra sur Mar Philoxène de Mabbog. CSCO 233, 234. Louvain: Secrétariat du CorpusSCO, 1963. _______. Philoxène de Mabbog: Commentaire du prologue johannique (Ms. Br. Mus. Add. 14,534). CSCO 380, 381. Louvain: Secrétariat du CorpusSCO, 1977. _______. Philoxène de Mabbog: Lettre aux moines Senoun, CSCO 231, 232. Louvain: Secrétariat du CorpusSCO, 1963. Vaschalde, A. Philoxeni Mabbugensis: Tractatus Tres de Trinitate et Incarnatione. CSCO 9, 10. Louvain: Secretariat du CorpusSCO, 1907. Watt, J. W. Philoxenos of Mabbug: Fragments of the Commentary on Matthew and Luke. CSCO 392, 393. Louvain: Secrétariat du CorpusSCO, 1978.

Other Sources Aland, Barbara and A. Juckel, eds. Das Neue Testament in Syrischer Überlieferung, Die Paulinischen Briefe, 3 Vols. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1991, 1995, 2002. _______. “Die Philoxenianisch-harklensische Übersetzungstradition: Ergebnisse einer Untersuchung der neutestamentlichen Zitate in der syrischen Literatur.” Le Muséon 94 (1981): 321–383. Baumstark, Anton. Geschichte der syrischen Literatur. Bonn, 1922. Brock, Sebastian. “Aspects of Translation Technique in Antiquity.” Pages 69–87 in Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies XX. Durham, 1979.

246

J. Edward Walters

Repr. in Brock, Syriac Perspectives on Late Antiquity. London: Variorum Reprints, 1984. Brock, Sebastian. The Bible in the Syriac Tradition. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2006. _______. “The Christology of the Church of the East.” Pages 159–179 in Traditions and Heritage of the Christian East. Edited by D. Afinogenov and A. Muraviev. Moscow: Izdatelstvo, 1996. Repr. in Repr. in Brock, Fire from Heaven: Studies in Syriac Theology and Liturgy. Burlington: Ashgate Publishing Company, 2006. _______. “‘Come, Compassionate Mother..., Come Holy Spirit’: A Forgotten Aspect of Early Eastern Christian Imagery,” Aram 3 (Oxford, 1991), 249–257; Repr. in Brock, Fire From Heaven: Studies in Syriac Theology and Liturgy. Burlington: Ashgate Publishing, 2006. _______. “Greek and Syriac in Late Antique Syria.” Pages149–160 in Literacy and Power in the Ancient World. Edited by A.K. Bowman and G. Woolf. Cambridge, 1994. Repr. in Brock, From Ephrem to Romanos: Interactions between Syriac and Greek in Late Antiquity. Burlington: Ashgate Publishing, 1999. _______. “Greek into Syriac and Syriac into Greek.” Journal of the Syriac Academy III. Baghdad (1979), 1–17. Repr. in Brock, Syriac Perspectives on Late Antiquity. London: Variorum Reprints, 1984. _______. “Greek Words in Syriac: Some General Features.” Studia Classica Israelica 15. Jerusalem, 1996: 251–262. Repr. in Brock, From Ephrem to Romanos: Interactions between Syriac and Greek in Late Antiquity. Burlington: Ashgate Publishing, 1999. _______. “Limitations of Syriac in Representing Greek.” Pages 83–98 in The Early Versions of the New Testament: Their Origin, Transmission, and Limitations. By Bruce Metzger. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1977. _______. “The ‘Nestorian’ Church: A Lamentable Misnomer.” Pages 23– 35 in The Church of the East: Life and Thought. Edited by J.F. Coakley and K. Perry. Bulletin of the John Rylands University Library of Manchester 73:3, 1996. Repr. in Brock, Fire from Heaven: Studies in Syriac Theology and Liturgy. Burlington: Ashgate Publishing Company, 2006. _______ and M. A. Mathai Remban. Philoxenos of Mabbug. SEERI Correspondence Course 9. Kerala: St. Ephrem Ecumenical Research Institute, 1989.

The Philoxenian Gospels as Reconstructed

247

Brock, Sebastian. “The Resolution of the Philoxenian/Harklean Problem.” Pages 325–343 in E. J. Epp and G. D. Fee, eds., New Testament Textual Criticism: Its Significance for Exegesis: Essays in Honour of Bruce M. Metzger. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1981. _______. “Some Aspects of Greek Words in Syriac.” Pages 80–108 in Synkretismus im syrisch-persischen Kulturgebeit. By A. Dietrich. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1975. Repr. in Brock, Syriac Perspectives on Late Antiquity. London: Variorum Reprints, 1984. _______. “The Syriac Background to Hunayn’s Translation Techniques.” Aram 3, Oxford, 1991. Repr. in Brock, From Ephrem to Romanos: Interactions between Syriac and Greek in Late Antiquity. Burlington: Ashgate Publishing, 1999. _______. “Towards a History of Syriac Translation Technique.” Pages 1–14 in III Symposium Syriacum 1980: Les contacts du monde syriaque avec les autres cultures. By René Lavenant. Rome: Pont. Institutum Studiorum Orientalum, 1983. Burkitt, F.C. Evangelion da-Mepharreshe. The Cruetonian Version of the Four Gospels, with the Readings of the Sinai Palimpsest and the early Syriac Patristic Evidence. 2 vols. Cambridge: University Press, 1901. De Halleux, André. Philoxène de Mabbog: sa vie, ses écrits, sa théologie. Louvain: Imprimerie Orientaliste, 1963. Fee, Gordon D. “The Use of Greek Patristic Citations in New Testament Textual Criticism.” ANRW 26.1 (1992): 256–62. Guidi, I. “La lettera di Filosseno ai monaci di Tell’adda-Teleda,” Atti della Reale Accademia dei Lincei, Serie 3 (Memorie, 1884). Gwynn, John. The Apocalypse of St. John in a Syriac Version hitherto unknown. Dublin: Hodges, Figgis, and Co., 1987. Reprinted, Amsterdam: Philo Press, 1981; Piscataway: Gorgias Press, 2005. _______. Remnants of the Later Syriac Versions of the Bible. Piscataway: Gorgias Press, 2005. Hatch, William H. P. “The Subscription of the Chester Beatty Manuscript of the Harclean Gospel,” The Harvard Theological Review 30, no. 3 (Jul. 1937): 141–155. Hill, Peter A. L. “Matthew 16:18 in the Philoxenian Version.” TC: A Journal of Biblical Textual Criticism, 13, 2008. Available at URL: http://rosetta.reltech.org/TC/vol13/Hill20008.pdf. Kiraz, George A. Comparative Edition of the Syriac Gospels: Aligning the Sinaiticus, Curetonianus, Peshitta and Harklean Versions, 4 Vols. Piscataway: Gorgias Press, 2004.

248

J. Edward Walters

Lyon, Jeffery P. Syriac Gospel Translations: A Comparison of the Language and Translation Method Used in the Old Syriac, The Diatessaron, and The Peshitto. CSCO 548, Sub. 88. Louvain: Peeters, 1994. Metzger, Bruce M. The Early Versions of the New Testament: Their Origin, Transmission, and Limitations. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1977. Michelson, David. “Practice Leads to Theory: Orthodoxy and the Spiritual Struggle in the World of Philoxenos of Mabbug (470– 523).” Ph.D. Dissertation, Princeton University, 2007. Murray, Robert. “The Rock and the House on the Rock. A Chapter on the Ecclesiastical Symbolism of Aphrahat and Ephraem.” Orientalia Christiana Periodica 30 (1964): 315–362. Nöldeke, T. Compendious Syriac Grammar. Translated and edited by James A. Crichton. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2001. Osburn, Carroll D. “Methodology in Identifying Patristic Citations in NT Textual Criticism.” NovT 47, no. 4 (2005): 313–343. Pusey, P. E. and G. H. Gwilliam, eds. Tetraeuangelium Sanctum. Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1901. Reprinted as Tetraeuangelium Sanctum: The Fourfold Holy Gospel in the Peshitta Syriac Version with Critical Apparatus. Piscataway: Gorgias Press, 2003. Romeny, Bas ter Haar. “A Philoxenian-Harclean Tradition? Biblical Quotations in Syriac Translations from Greek.” Pages 59–76 in Wout Jac. van Bekkum, Jan Willem Drijvers and Alex C. Klugkist, Syriac Polemics: Studies in Honour of Gerrit Jan Reinink. Louvain: Peeters, 2007. Smith, J. Payne, ed. A Compendious Syriac Dictionary. Eugene: Wipf and Stock, 1999. Van Rompay, Lucas. “Bardaisan and Mani in Philoxenos of Mabbog’s Memre Against Habbib. Pages 77–90 in The Peshitta: Its Use in Literature and Liturgy: Papers Read at the Third Peshitta Symposium. Edited by Bas ter Haar Romeny. Monographs of the Peshitta Institute Leiden 15. Leiden: Brill, 2006. Vööubs, Arthur. Early Versions of the New Testament: Manuscript Studies. Papers of the Estonian Theological Society in Exile, no. 6. Stockholm, 1954. _______. “New Data for the Solution of the Problem Concerning the Philoxenian Version,” in Spiritus et veritas: Festschrift Karl Kundzins. Eutin: A. Ozolins, 1953. White, Joseph. Sacrorum Evangeliorum versio Syriaca Philoxeniana cum interpretatione et annotationibus. Oxford: Clarendon, 1778.

The Philoxenian Gospels as Reconstructed

249

Williams, P. J. Early Syriac Translation Technique and the Textual Criticism of the Greek Gospels. Texts and Studies, Third Series, vol. 2. Piscataway: Gorgias Press, 2004. Zuntz, G. The Ancestry of the Harklean New Testament. British Academy Supplemental Papers, no. 7. London: The British Academy, 1945.

Hugoye: Journal of Syriac Studies, Vol. 13.2, 251–271 © 2010 by Beth Mardutho: The Syriac Institute and Gorgias Press

THOMAS MERTON’S NOVITIATE CONFERENCES ON PHILOXENOS OF MABBUG (APRIL-JUNE 1965): PHILOXENOS ON THE FOUNDATIONS OF THE SPIRITUAL LIFE AND THE RECOVERY OF SIMPLICITY1 THOMAS MERTON, OCSO .

Edited, with an introduction, by DAVID M. ODORISIO PHOENIXVILLE, PENNSYLVANIA

Research for this paper was made possible through a 2008 Shannon Fellowship Award granted by the International Thomas Merton Society. I am grateful for Paul M. Pearson and Mark Meade, archivist and assistant archivist, respectively, of the Thomas Merton Center, Bellarmine University, for their assistance with this research. Sections of this paper were delivered at the 11th General Meeting of the International Thomas Merton Society at Nazareth College, Rochester, NY on June 12, 2009. Many thanks to the Merton Legacy Trust for permission to publish this previously unpublished material. 1

251

252

David M. Odorisio

ABSTRACT This paper presents Thomas Merton in a relatively unexamined role: that of novice master, teacher, and scholar of monastic history. Transcribed here for the first time in print are Merton’s novitiate conferences on Philoxenos’ first two Discourses. This material, however, is not only a study of a 5th/6th century Syrian mind. When examined through the lens of one of the most synthetic and creative monastic theologians of the 20th century, Philoxenos comes alive in a unique and strikingly contemporary way as Merton draws comparisons to Mencius, Zen Buddhism, the insights of C.G. Jung, Martin Buber and others.

HUGOYE GUEST EDITOR’S NOTE Thomas Merton may seem a surprising source for Syriac studies and Philoxenos of Mabbug in particular. A Roman Catholic Trappist monk who died tragically in 1968, Merton was a prolific author on the spiritual life, monasticism and prayer. His early autobiography The Seven Storey Mountain (1948) was a remarkable bestseller for decades and can still be found in most major bookstores. Two of his many important works introduced readers—such as myself in the early 1970’s—to the Desert Fathers of Egypt. The Wisdom of the Desert Fathers: Sayings from the Desert Fathers of the Fourth Century (1960) is his own selection of apophthegmata from the Latin version, and in Zen and the Birds of Appetite (1968), Merton juxtaposed the sayings of the Desert Fathers with the stories of Japanese Zen Buddhist monks he was enthusiastically discovering. In his introductions he notes that the Desert Father material was also recorded in Syriac, Coptic... a subliminal message that would eventually lead me to take a course in Syriac. Merton was also a prodigious keeper of diaries, correspondent by letters to all sorts of public and private figures, and the novice master at Our Lady of Gethsemani Abbey in Kentucky. In the years since Merton’s death, the corpus of his works has vastly expanded as his diaries and letters have been edited,

Thomas Merton’s Novitiate Conferences

253

and now audio recordings of his novice conferences have been released and transcribed. Several of these lectures/conferences are transcribed for the first time below by David Odorisio. Merton came across a volume in the early years of the French Sources Chrétiennes series: Philoxène de Mabboug. Homélies (1956), translated and introduced by Eugène Lemoine. Merton approached Philoxenos not from an academic or scientific perspective, but as a student and practitioner of the monastic and spiritual life and art. Cistercian Publications has collected his lecture notes on the early church fathers in two volumes entitled Pre-Benedictine Monasticism. The second volume includes 46 pages of his notes and commentary on Philoxenos’ Discourses. Sidney Griffith wrote the Preface for the second volume, helping to locate the Syriac tradition within the purview of Merton’s conferences for an audience interested primarily in Merton. Griffith observes, “It is startling to find in his novitiate conferences what one now realizes must have been the first general survey in America of several of the works of the major ‘monastic’ thinkers among the Syriac-speaking Fathers of the Church” [Pre-Benedictine Monasticism: Initiation into the monastic tradition, Vol. 2, by Thomas Merton (Kalamazoo, MI: Cistercian Publications, 2006), viii]. Merton also treats the works of Aphrahat and Ephrem, but it is with Philoxenos that the form of the latter’s Discourses most closely matches the situation in which Merton finds himself— conferences with novices in the monastic journey. David Odorisio’s efforts enable us to listen in on an ancient conversation that has become remarkably modern—Philoxenos speaking with an American accent.—R. Kitchen.

INTRODUCTION Arguably the most influential spiritual writer of the 20th century, Thomas Merton (1915–1968) was a monk, poet, author, contemplative and student of monastic history. His entrance into the Cistercian Order of the Strict Observance (Trappists) at the age of 26 marked the beginning of a life long quest for deeper solitude, silence, personal integration, and the interior peace of a heart surrendered to God. Merton died at the age of 53 in Bangkok,

254

David M. Odorisio

Thailand, while attending a conference on monastic inter-religious dialogue. From 1955–1965 Merton (who received the name “Louis” upon entering religious life) served his monastic community as Master of Novices—a responsibility which involved the formation and education of the young men aspiring to enter the community. Merton gave conferences multiple times a week on topics ranging widely from current liturgical trends in Catholic worship, to Sufi mysticism, to literary greats such as Rilke and Faulker’s work, “The Bear.” The majority of the conferences, however, centered on monastic history, Cistercian spirituality, and Merton’s own brand of practical wisdom and humor centered upon the reality of the monastic lifestyle. It was during this period as novice master that Merton first encountered, and later re-visited in depth, the writings of the 5th/6th century Syrian bishop, monastic, and theologian Philoxenos of Mabbug. It was in the spring and summer of 1965 while working on material for his novitiate conferences on pre-Benedictine monasticism that Merton began to devote more and more time to the 13 memre (homilies) on the ascetic life by Philoxenos.2 In total, Merton gave 13 recorded novitiate conferences on Philoxenos.3 Selections of four of these live conferences,4 pertaining particularly to Philoxenos’ first memra on the foundations of the spiritual life For a brief, yet thorough, introduction of Philoxenos with bibliography see The Syriac Fathers on Prayer and the Spiritual Life, trans. Sebastian Brock, CS 101 (Kalamazoo: Cistercian, 1987) 102–5, 132–3. 3 For an encyclopedic introduction to the Philoxenos material in Merton’s novitiate conference notes, see, Thomas Merton, Pre-Benedictine Monasticism: Initiation into the Monastic Tradition 2, ed. Patrick F. O’Connell (Kalamazoo: Cistercian, 2006) xliii–l. A list cataloging the entirety of the Philoxenos conferences can be found in Appendix B (ibid., pp. 361–2). The Philoxenos material begins with Merton’s 3–14–65 conference (tape # 141–3) and concludes on 8–15–65 (tape # 153–4). This material, along with his hand written (and later typed) conference notes, is archived at the Thomas Merton Center, Bellarmine University. 4 Merton’s first conference on Philoxenos and simplicity is not included here, due not only to its length, but also because Merton mostly summarizes the memra and is quite faithful to his conferences notes, which have already been published in Pre-Benedictine Monasticism, 289–91. 2

Thomas Merton’s Novitiate Conferences

255

and his two memre on simplicity are published here for the first time.5 There are many fruits of Merton’s reading of Philoxenos. He makes an important appearance in Merton’s essay, “Rain and the Rhinoceros,”6 as well as a notable mention in “Day of a Stranger.”7 There are also 46 pages of novitiate conference notes, more than any other early monastic figure that Merton presented to his novices.8 As Patrick O’Connell points out, Merton also uses the Philoxenos material to draw important comparative insights between Christianity and Zen Buddhism as evidenced both in a 1965 letter to D.T. Suzuki and in Merton’s posthumously published, The Inner Experience.9 There are minimal references to Philoxenos in the journals.10 I believe this material is important for a variety of reasons. Merton’s ability to creatively and prophetically draw connections between monastic figures of late antiquity and their relevance to the modern world is simply masterful. Through Merton, Philoxenos’ voice comes to life in a vivid and contemporary way. Another important reason for studying this material is that these Discourses 1, 4 & 5. For an ET see, The Discourses of Philoxenos Bishop of Mabbogh, A.D. 485–510, Vol. II, trans. E.A. Wallis Budge (London: Asher, 1894), 70–152. A modern English translation of this text has yet to be completed. See, Syriac Fathers 106–131, for other Philoxenos material. 6 Thomas Merton, Raids on the Unspeakable (New York: New Directions, 1966), 9–23. For an excellent commentary on the Philoxenos material in “Rain,” see Pre-Benedictine Monasticism xlvii-iii. 7 Thomas Merton, Day of a Stranger (Salt Lake City: Gibbs M. Smith, 1981) 35. For a rough draft of this essay see, Thomas Merton, Dancing in the Water of Life: Seeking Peace in the Hermitage. Journals, vol. 5: 1963–1965, ed. Robert E. Daggy (San Francisco: HarperCollins, 1997) 239–242. Philoxenos forms part of Merton’s “mental ecology” in the hermitage (Day of a Stranger 35). 8 Pre-Benedictine Monasticism 279–325. 9 Ibid., xlviii–l. For the letter to D.T. Suzuki, see, Thomas Merton, The Hidden Ground of Love: Letters on Religious Experience and Social Concerns, ed. William H. Shannon (New York: Farrar, Strauss, Giroux) 570–1. For the reference in Inner Experience, see, Thomas Merton, The Inner Experience: Notes on Contemplation, ed. William H. Shannon (San Francisco: HarperCollins, 2003) 20. 10 See, for example, Dancing in the Water of Life, 217, 227, 252. 5

256

David M. Odorisio

conferences provide ample and clear evidence of Merton’s interreligious thinking, and act as an important hermeneutical tool for how respectful and credible monastic inter-religious dialogue can be accomplished in a contemplative milieu. These conferences also show Merton’s unfolding interest in the anthropology of religion and the psychological and religious insights of C.G. Jung. My hope is that these transcriptions highlight Merton’s powerful insights on the nature and importance of simplicity in the spiritual life, his critique of the increasing complexity of monastic and religious institutions, and his developing inter-religious thought.

SELECTIONS FROM THE NOVITIATE CONFERENCE RECORDINGS: PART I: ON THE FOUNDATIONS OF THE SPIRITUAL LIFE From Merton’s first conference on Philoxenos, Homily 1 11 Now maybe we’ve got 5 minutes to get back to our friend Philoxenos.12 So we’ll start out with his Homilies. He’s got one sort of general introduction on the spiritual life. The idea is, where do you begin? What is the proper way to start out on this whole question of spiritual ascent? He says that the basic idea, the basic thing you have to get clear is the importance of a certain order in the spiritual life. Why is there an order? Because the spiritual life, like everything else, is an art. What does [this] mean? A discipline. An art in the sense of carpentry being an art, or cooking being an art. In this context, art means the way of doing something by means of a skill—a training—especially a traditional training.

Thomas Merton, Tape #142–4 [recorded 4–11–65] (Thomas Merton Center, Bellarmine University, Louisville, KY). Subsequent references will be cited as “TMC.” For an ET of Philoxenos’ first memra, see, Discourses 1–22. For Merton’s corresponding conference notes, see, Pre-Benedictine Monasticism, 284–5. 12 Merton spends the first 10 minutes of this conference updating the novices on current events, including segregation protests in Alabama, the war in Vietnam, and deaths in the Order. For the next 17 minutes he lectures on Angela of Foligno, whom he describes as “very modern” in her anthropology, fitting in “fine with people like Jung.” 11

Thomas Merton’s Novitiate Conferences

257

Now, the spiritual life, in the monastic context, is a traditional art, a traditional discipline, a training, and in the time of Philoxenos when you went to be a monk, it was understood that you had to learn a craft, a job, a spiritual art—you get this in the Rule of St. Benedict, he talks about the instruments of good works being the instruments of a spiritual art and the monastery being a workshop13—this is important to stress because we don’t think of this today, we don’t think in these terms, you don’t get this kind of training today. You get a different kind of training. You get a technical training, you go to school—engineering school—you get courses in it. But here, you learn the spiritual life the way you learn to be a carpenter, or the way you learn how to be a basket-maker, or any of those things—a potter, a ceramist—any of the crafts a person exercised in these days, a traditional craft, you learn it from a master, who has learned it from a master, who’s learned the archetypal way of making a basket—they have traditional forms for making a basket. Each one takes the traditional form that he got from way back and it goes back to some god or other who first invented the basket and gave it to man.14 And the idea is that it is something that has a root in a sacred origin, a sacred past, which is outside of history and above history. Well, transferring that into the realm of the spiritual life—goes back to a past, which we know—the past of the first Christians. But [Philoxenos says,] in an apprenticeship, in a craft, you always have to start out at the beginning. And in a craft you go to be an apprentice to a basket maker and what is the first thing you do with the basket maker? You go out and cut willows. You listen to Brother Gerard for several days [laughter] on the history of basketmaking in this monastery—which is very traditional actually—with this goes the history of how it was done. [Br. Gerard] wasn’t just gabbing when he said this. This is something which is implanted in man’s nature that he hands down with his craft stories about the people who have practiced the craft so that you are in contact with the ancestors of your job. And you are in contact with brother soRB 4.75–78. The Rule of Saint Benedict 1980, ed., Timothy Fry (Collegeville: The Liturgical Press, 1981) 187. 14 Merton, being a person of his time as well as speaking to an allmale monastic audience, did not use gender inclusive language. In order to be faithful to the conferences, I have left his original phrasings. 13

258

David M. Odorisio

and-so and brother so-and-so who made baskets in 1890 and brother so-and-so who made baskets in 1860 and before him the whole line of basket makers who made baskets in France—and this ties in with a tradition of basket making that goes back to preRoman times in Western France [laughter]—but this is no joke! It’s true! So the art which you guys have learned goes back to Western France in the days of the Celts—or it should [laughter]. If you’re wrestling, [Philoxenos] says—and prize-fighting is part of the same thing—when you learn how to wrestle you don’t rush blindly into the ring and start a bout, or when you learn how to box—what is the first thing you learn when you learn how to box? [Monk answers: “the first thing I learned was how to defend myself!”] Well, the first thing in how to defend yourself is to learn how to square off, the position to get into, how do you hold your hands, what is the traditional way of holding your hands and putting your feet. And it’s much more complicated than that if you’ve ever learned fencing—weeks and weeks and weeks of moving up and down this strip of matting that you fence on—how do you advance and how do you retire, how do you lunge? If somebody really wants to learn or to read about learning a traditional craft in a spiritual context, read a book called Zen in the Art of Archery.15 This fellow, a European, for years goes to a Japanese master, and all [the master] shows him is how to hold a bow. So for years he’s still standing there [laughter]. Finally the master says to him, “Well, you want to know how to shoot the thing?” And the fellow says, “Yeah, let me see.” [And the master says,] “Well, watch.” And he turns out the light. It’s completely black and [he] gets five arrows and shoots them in the dark: one, two, three, four, five, zing, zing, zing. And [then he] turns on the light and they’re all one on top of each other in the middle of the target. [Bell rings to end conference] ***

15

1953).

Eugen Herrigel, Zen in the Art of Archery (New York: Pantheon,

Thomas Merton’s Novitiate Conferences

259

From Merton’s second conference on Philoxenos, Homily 1 16 Now let’s get back to Philoxenos and the fundamentals that he is talking about. The first blow you learn in boxing is a straight left, normally, because that is what you keep the other guy away from you with. Alright, well, the first thing you learn in the monastic life is a straight left. Very useful! Is that just a joke? Not exactly. Is the monastic life a battle or isn’t it? Who are you fighting? Are you fighting or aren’t you? Who do you fight in the monastic life? You have to learn to keep your passions at arms length. And of course the first thing [is that] you’ve got to see what it is you’re hitting, you’ve got to see the passions. So the first thing that [Philoxenos] stresses here is getting to know [the passions]. [Merton reads an extended passage from Philoxenos’ 1st memra on the multiplicity and complexity of the passions].17 What he’s really trying to do is make you realize how much you don’t know. All these things can possibly happen to you and you don’t know any of them. And that therefore the conclusion is, if you are going to begin the spiritual life you’ve got to be convinced that you’ve got to learn. To have a real conviction that one needs to learn. A person who comes in with a conviction that he doesn’t know anything about it and that there is a great deal to learn is liable to learn a lot. This goes on all your life. You find that in the real spiritual life as you get along you never really learn anything—you learn very little. And the little bit that you do learn, you got to keep re-learning it, and re-learning it over and over and over again. And really the only thing that you actually learn in the spiritual life is first of all how much you don’t know about it and then eventually how much you’re never going to know about it and then it begins to dawn on you that how much nobody in the joint knows about it. And this is very important, a person has to have at the same time this feeling of a great need for knowledge of what’s necessary in the spiritual life and a realization that it’s very hard to get and that people don’t have it, and if they have it they can’t communicate it. And so what you get there is then a feeling, an Thomas Merton, Tape #144–2 [recorded 4–25–65] (TMC). For Merton’s corresponding conference notes, see, Pre-Benedictine Monasticism 285–7. Merton introduces this conference with the tentative title, “In Church with Louie: Monastic Life in the Raw.” 17 Pre-Benedictine Monasticism 285–6. 16

260

David M. Odorisio

attitude, of constant dependence on God, that one is going to learn through life, through living itself, and that the first thing one has to do before he is going to learn anything, is he has to get to the point that he is certain that he is committed to this for life, because unless a person makes that commitment he never learns. You don’t begin to learn until you’ve really made that commitment. And then somehow or other you begin to learn a little bit from God. But that commitment has to first be made. Until you learn in depth—you can learn a great deal on the surface about the life—but the first step in really learning about the life is [making the commitment to the life]. Of course this commitment has to be renewed and if you’re going to learn more deeply as life goes on, it comes from a deepening of one’s commitment, a renewal of one’s commitment on a deeper level, in a different way. [Through examining the passions, Philoxenos] is trying to get all kinds of confusion and ambiguity out of the life. Now this is very important, too, because we are constantly confused. We are living in a state of almost perpetual confusion and what we try to do, we try to get out of the confusion by making something definite on a level where its very easy to make it definite, like its definitely the Rule to do this and not definitely the Rule to do that because that looks clear, but it isn’t, because it’s not clear on a level where clarity is needed and what he’s getting at is this idea that a person has to be extremely clear and definite on certain things. What can you be clear and definite about? About what you really mean. There is such a thing as a person being clear about what he’s after. What am I trying to do? What do I want? What do I mean? And of course this has to constantly be checked and re-checked because it is well known that we can kid ourselves on this too. It has to be worked over and renewed. But one of the most important things about [clarity] is that it’s not saying what we don’t mean. This is actually much more common. Let’s say I say three things that I do mean. I [then] proceed to say about 5,000 things I don’t mean! That I can’t mean! We have a habit in the spiritual life of saying with great firmness things that we couldn’t possibly mean. But we tell ourselves if we put enough ‘oompf’ into it we really do mean it, but we don’t! I mean this business of, ‘Oh, Jesus, I love you more than anything’ but to translate into common English means ‘I wish I did,’ but in point of fact I love more things than you, namely, me!

Thomas Merton’s Novitiate Conferences

261

Now a couple of Zen stories will illustrate this business of being clear in the spiritual life by not obfuscating the spiritual life by things about which you’re not clear. Now the first story is of course not clear at all, Zen isn’t at all clear, except the thing about it is that there’s a clarity in it, which is so obvious that you can’t see it! Now this first story is actually very clear indeed, but there’s no explanation of it. A monk goes to one of the Zen masters and he says, “Master, resolve my doubts, I have many doubts, I am full of doubts.” Now the Master says, “Fine, that is very good, come around we’ll have a conference and you will come up and I will resolve your doubts.” So the conference starts and the monk comes out and stands in front of him and makes a bow in front of him and the Master jumps down and shakes the guy and says, “Man, look at this fellow! Here is a monk with doubts!” And then he just drops him and walks out. And that’s the end of the conference [Laughter]. Now it’s actually extremely simple, I’m not going to explain it! But you see it, in point of fact, he cleared everything up for the monk right then and there! And then there’s another Zen story. This is simpler and can be explained. A fellow comes to a Zen master and he says, “Master, I want you to show me your eye which deceives no one.” Now this is a Japanese way of saying, I want you to show me a direct intuition into the heart of reality. Direct, straight, sure, guaranteed, no faking. Straight stuff. And the Master looks out and he says, “Well, its winter.” Period. And the disciple says, “No, but I want the ultimate principles!” And the Master says, “After winter, it will be spring” [Laughter]. And now what is the point of this in terms of what I was saying—about certainty, no doubts and that sort of thing? [A monk answers, “You start where you are.”] You start where you are! The Master is not adding anything on to this, no theory, no explanation about anything. Because a theory or explanation or reasoning is added on to what’s [already] there. If you want the straight stuff you take what’s right in front of your nose. If you start adding theories onto it, they may be very fine, they may be very good, and they may be very deep and very religious, but do you know what you are talking about? If you know what you are talking about, fine, but if you’re not sure you know what you’re talking about sooner or later you are going to get to a point where you make a big fool out of

262

David M. Odorisio

yourself and everybody else. And that is the point that they are making there. And that is what we don’t do. We don’t start with what’s right in front of our nose. We have this business of starting with a big theory. Or a big statement that’s been made about it by somebody else. And you pick up the big statement that’s been made about it by someone and here we are in the monastic life. What is the monastic life? The monastic life is this thing [bangs a post] and this table and this microphone and you people, that’s the monastic life. But oh no! The monastic life is some big fantastic theory of the monastic life that somebody thought up a thousand years ago and you got to know this theory and then you got to pass it through your head and chew it and so forth and then come out and regurgitate this theory in your own words and then you go through this then you argue about it with somebody, then you write an article about it in a monastic magazine, then somebody else attacks it, then you write a book about it to refute this guy’s attack and then you get everybody completely confused, along with you, and this is how you’re learning to live the monastic life. But all the while what the monastic life is all about is this table and this post and this microphone and you people. And that’s the value in this because about this we’re certain. [Bell rings to end conference]. ***

PART II: ON SIMPLICITY From Merton’s second conference on Philoxenos, Homily 4 18 Let’s get back to this description of real simplicity. This is Adam and Eve before the fall. This is one of these passages where you can really take every word and do something with it. Remember this idea that God would come and walk with Adam and Eve in the evening in the garden of paradise. And so here is what [Philoxenos] says: Thomas Merton, Tape # 147–4 [recorded 5–27–65] (TMC). For an ET of Philoxenos’ fourth memra, “On Faith, and How by Simplicity a Man May Receive the Commandments of Christ,” see, Discourses 70–114. For Merton’s corresponding conference notes, see, Pre-Benedictine Monasticism, 291–2. 18

Thomas Merton’s Novitiate Conferences

263

And He showed them everything from near at hand like a man. And they received no thought about Him in their Spirit.

Now this is the important stuff, this of course is important for the contemplative life. This is really a description of the simplicity of the contemplative life, “they received no thought about Him in their Spirit.” No thought about Him. They never asked: Where does He live who shows us these things? How long has He existed? And if He created all else, was He also created? And we, why has He created us? Why has He placed us in this Paradise? Why has He given us this Law? All these things were far from their minds, because simplicity does not think such things, but is completely absorbed in listening to what it hears, and all its thought is mingled with the word of him who speaks, as is the little child absorbed in the one who speaks to him. So, then, God put simplicity into the first leaders of our race, and it was to simplicity that he gave the first commandment.19

This is very important, because this is the whole story of the contemplative life. This is what the contemplative life is. And what the contemplative life is not is a simplicity upon which you reflect. And this whole business of cultivating a simplicity upon which you reflect is self-contradictory but its what we do. Being simple and being aware that you’re simple is not the thing, all this does is make you tired! So the first thing Adam and Eve never did was that they never tried to be simple. They never made the slightest effort to be simple. As soon as you try to be simple you’re through, you’ve had it. You’re already complicated. So this is a most important point. The thing to do is to absorb this and immediately forget it. When you walk out of this room, don’t give simplicity another thought for the Pre-Benedictine Monasticism, 292; Discourses, 79–80. This is the passage Merton included in his 1965 letter to D.T. Suzuki: “I have been reading a remarkable passage in a Syrian Christian thinker of the fifth century, Philoxenos…. I think you will especially like this passage which discusses the simplicity which is a prime essential of spiritual life, and which was ‘normal’ to Adam and Eve in paradise. Hence it is a description of the ‘paradise life’ of prajna and emptiness” (Hidden Ground of Love 570). 19

264

David M. Odorisio

rest of your life! Have nothing more to do with simplicity. Simply walk with God in the reality that He has given us, in which we’re not thinking about Him—we are immediately united with Him— and we just simply walk with God. We are not aware we are walking with God, because 9/10’s of the trouble comes from wanting to see that we are walking with God and not with somebody else. How do I know it’s you? That’s not the question one asks. Adam and Eve didn’t think about Him. They didn’t say, “Where did you come from? Where were you at 9:00 this morning? You weren’t here then, you’re coming only in the afternoon!” [Laughter]. And “Who made you?” Well, mind your own business! [Laughter]. I think this is a very excellent expression of what this whole idea of simplicity is and where [Philoxenos] really gets it across is where he speaks about the child being completely mingled with the word of Him who speaks. And what this does, this throws Buber out the window right away fast. What there is in simplicity is there isn’t even an “I-Thou” relationship.20 And all this “I-Thou” relationship business is very nice but the way it is usually expressed is that its too complicated, because all there is, is the “Thou” which is “I” because the “Thou” and the “I” are the same. There isn’t an “I” and a “Thou,” the “I” has become “Thou” and the “Thou” has become “I.” That’s simplicity. And as soon as you start dividing them up then you’ve already got the fallen state. The point about the [monastic] life is, you don’t come here and then start thinking about how to be simple. If we can keep the life the way its supposed to be or make the life the way its supposed to be, keep it simple in itself—and as primitive and as uncomplicated as we can—then everything else follows. Then if you eat when you eat and sleep when you sleep and pray when you pray it’s all done for you. [Bell rings to end conference] ***

Merton is referring to Jewish philosopher and scholar Martin Buber, specifically his work, I and Thou (New York: Scribner’s, 1970). 20

Thomas Merton’s Novitiate Conferences

265

From Merton’s third conference on Philoxenos, Homily 4 21 So let’s get back to Philoxenos and simplicity and so forth. Now underlying Philoxenos, underlying this view of simplicity is [the] idea of human nature. What are people really like? And underlying this basic idea of simplicity is the idea that people are really what? That people are naturally what? Naturally simple. Which means to say that this is an optimistic view of human nature. That people are basically good, by nature they are simple. Even after the fall, they are still naturally simple. Philoxenos pushes the thing so far that he says that actually people are naturally simple it’s society that makes them un-simple. They’re so naturally simple that even after the fall if you can keep them away from society they’ll still be all right, and that it is society that is fallen.22 I think you have all had experience of this. One of my earliest memories of the ‘school of hard knocks’ is you go to school and you’re talking to Johnny so-and-so by himself, just him and you, and he’s a real nice guy, and then all of a sudden one day Johnny so-and-so and then Bill-this and Jim-that all appear together and none of them are very nice at all, see they all land on you and beat your head in for no reason! For no reason at all except that they’re together, and they decide that this is what they’re going to do. And then later on you meet Johnny so-and-so by himself and he’s a real nice guy, but after that you know! And there are reasons for this, reasons that make this understandable. Because actually, people function with other people in a way that is not purely their own self and this is one of the most important things about the coenobitic life, which is to Thomas Merton, Tape # 148–3 [recorded 6–7–65] (TMC). In his opening announcements and updates prior to beginning the conference Merton remarks, “Now I hope you noticed today, that when the concelebrants were giving each other the kiss of peace, the fraternal charity was so powerful that the lighting system went [out] [Laughter]. That tells you how spiritual power is generated right there in the sanctuary! So I hope it was edifying, it was fun for us.” 22 See Merton’s notes here in Pre-Benedictine Monasticism, “Man is made simple by nature. He comes simple from the hand of God. Society endows him with craftiness and duplicity” (289). Compare this to Merton’s juxtaposition in “Rain and the Rhinoceros” of “the rain” and his own life in the woods with “the city” where “the rain brings no renewal” (Raids 9–12). 21

266

David M. Odorisio

learn to live with other people so that you are a community and not a gang. To learn to live with other people so that you can continue to deal with other people as you are and as they are and you still function as a group and you don’t affect each other for the worse, but for the better. This is why the coenobitic life is extremely important. If you take this and deduce, ‘well, the thing to do is just to stay away from people,’ this isn’t going to work either, because after all, the other side of the thing is you need people. You can’t simply stay away from people. [Philoxenos] says if you just leave somebody in the desert that they’ll grow up OK, but let’s be realistic.23 To grow up properly you have to deal with other people, because you need the relationship that you establish with other people to become a person yourself. You can’t be a person if you never deal with any body else. Let’s assume that Tarzan did OK with the apes, but normally, to be a person you have to be able to recognize yourself in another. And if you don’t recognize yourself in another and learn how to treat the other as yourself you don’t grow.24 Let’s see what Philoxenos says here: If someone were to take a year-old child and go forth and bring him up in the desert … where there is no occupation of men and no use of things of this world, and where he will see absolutely nothing of the activity of men, the child can maintain himself in all the simplicity of nature even when he has attained to the age of man, and he can quite easily perceive divine visions and spiritual thoughts and can promptly become a receptacle that will accept the divine wisdom.25

See Merton’s notes, “If a man were to remain in the desert, untouched by social influences, he would remain simple” (Pre-Benedictine Monasticism 289). 24 See Merton’s (at this point) yet-to-be-written essay, “Love and Need”: “We do not become fully human until we give ourselves to each other in love” (Love and Living [New York: FSG, 1979] 27). 25 Pre-Benedictine Monasticism, 292; see Discourses, 80–81. Philoxenos illustrates this argument scripturally, using first the example of John the Baptist who, “became a receptacle [of simplicity] in the desert” and was able to perceive “the things which none of the early prophets had 23

Thomas Merton’s Novitiate Conferences

267

So now what he’s saying here is if you leave people alone and don’t corrupt them with society, with social life, and get them involved in artificial life, then they are by nature open to the action of grace [and therefore, divine wisdom].26 One of the places where this comes up [the fundamental question of whether human nature is good or evil] is in ancient China.27 This came out very clearly between some of the Confucian philosophers, especially Mencius and he wrote what he called [The Ox Mountain] parable [as] a way of explaining the basic goodness of human nature against those who say that they can’t see any good in man.28

perceived” (Discourses 81). Philoxenos then turns to the Exodus narrative to explain how, “when God redeemed the people out of Egypt, He led them out into the desolate wilderness where simplicity could be obtained, and I believe that He brought them forth into the desert that, being freed from the customs and habits of mankind, and from the cunning and wisdom of the world which they had received in the land of Egypt, they might become accustomed to the simplicity of nature, and receive divine instruction with sincerity” (Discourses 81–2). Philoxenos interprets the wilderness experience of the Israelite people as a purgation of a learned evil carried by the first generation out of Egypt; however, as they begin to die off it is the second generation—raised in the simplicity of the desert— that “might go in and inherit the land of promise” (Discourses 82). 26 This line of thought is strikingly similar to Merton’s underlying thesis in “Rain” (see fn. 22 above). Merton continues: “Normally when we get too involved—when we become ‘city slickers’ or something like that—we no longer have that simplicity.” 27 Before turning to ancient Chinese thought, Merton briefly discusses the differences in the basic social philosophies of democracy versus communism: “The more pessimistic a view you have of human nature the more you’re going to get dictatorship.” There was much conversation between Merton and the novices which made it difficult to render a coherent transcription. 28 Merton then summarizes Mencius’ Ox Mountain Parable, introducing it with, “Now this is a point on which I feel deeply, so I will tell this story with feeling!” See O’Connell’s note in Pre-Benedictine Monasticism 292–3 (fn. 440). Merton’s translation of the Ox Mountain Parable can be found at the conclusion of his essay, “Classic Chinese Thought,” in Mystics and Zen Masters (New York: FSG, 1967) 65–68.

268

David M. Odorisio

So human nature is like that too. If you are constantly cutting everything down and constantly burning over it and making it take a beating and so forth well then pretty soon there’s nothing left. But still [Mencius] kept saying basically there is this good there and that’s what Philoxenos believed. Now in this Mencius parable, [he] emphasizes these periods of rest when the rain and the dew came, the dew of the night, helping things to start growing back. Now Philoxenos says, its very important that we should create in our lives these periods of silence and peace and refreshing ‘dew and rain’ to help our simplicity to grow back. So the thing that he says then, is alright, it’s been pretty well chewed up and pretty well beaten but its still there and if you provide the right conditions it will come back. Now I think that is one of the basic things of the monastic life…29 So therefore [Philoxenos] says, ‘Thou therefore, O disciple remain in the purity of thy spirit. It is for the Lord to know how He will guide thy life and He will deal with thee as is best for thee.’30 It sounds like purity of heart, but actually it is a some-what more biblical concept than purity of heart….31 What is Cassian’s ‘purity of heart’? On the first level, freedom from passions, and on the second level, is freedom from thoughts. Now what is the purity of the spirit here? Your spirit is pure of what? Anxiety about yourself. What is going to happen to me? Now this, I would say, is extremely important. This is the big thought. And this is the thought that we as monks really need to learn how to handle. This is the thought. What is going to become of poor me? One year from now, ten years from now, where am I going to be? What is going to happen? How’s it going to be? So I’m going to croak, but how, when, where? It doesn’t matter. What we have to do is attain this Here Merton continues with his previous thought on human nature as good or evil (tied to political theory) and compares it to the monastery. The first view (“the right view”) is that the monastery needs to provide the conditions for a monk’s natural simplicity to unfold. The second is that the monks “are all potential convicts” who need to be “reigned in pretty tightly or else they will wreck the place” which creates “an extremely regimented existence.” 30 Pre-Benedictine Monasticism 293. 31 There is much dialogue here between Merton and the novices which I have chosen to leave out of the transcription for brevity’s sake. 29

Thomas Merton’s Novitiate Conferences

269

purity of spirit and let God take care of it. What is going to happen to me is of no importance. Why? Not because in itself it is of no importance. But it is useless for me to worry about it because it is already taken care of. So this is purity of spirit in this particular context. And this is simplicity. [You] don’t stand back and judge what God has said or done. In this particular case you don’t stand back and judge what God is making out of your life. This is absolutely essential. What we are constantly doing [is] constantly looking at our lives: where are we going, how is it going, how are we going to get there, how am I going to get around the next corner and what happens at 5 pm or 5:26 and what’s going to happen at 5:27? How am I going to get this done? What’s going to happen if he says this, what do I say? And if Reverend Father makes the foundation in Norway, then what? This is what we have to learn not to do. It’s extremely important for the contemplative life. And this is the real contemplative life to stop doing this! But it’s extremely hard. It’s very difficult indeed. And so what we have all got in our heads is a whole lot of gimmicks about ‘how to make it’ and ‘how can I handle this’ and all these eventualities and so forth. So there’s a great deal of anxiety. And the answer is hope. We have got to have real hope in God, because when we’re thinking about ourselves and figuring out about ourselves we’re not hoping—we’re figuring! To figure is not to hope! We have to put all the important stuff in God’s hands. [Which means] not being pre-occupied with this ‘I’ who is going to be there tomorrow. Where the trouble comes [from] is this centering our thoughts on the ‘I’ that is here: ‘Here I am.’ But this ‘I’ is not all that important because it isn’t all that real. What we experience as ourselves is 99% imagination. We construct an imaginary self that we have to live with, and this is not for real. And it’s not important. The real self, the depth of our true self that is going to last, is a self that we don’t see, we can’t observe and can’t plan for. And that self is in God’s hands, and is constantly safe, constantly secure, can’t get out of God’s hands. Everything that is real in us belongs completely to God and he isn’t going to let go of it for two seconds. He is not worried about the unreal in ourselves, but we are. So constantly if we are worrying about the unreal part of

270

David M. Odorisio

ourselves, which is the part that we worry about, then we have to constantly keep constructing it, and protecting it, and defending it, and fixing it up so that it won’t collapse and pushing it along so that it will get through these things and so forth. And there’s nothing there! But we waste all this time worrying about this. And if we can get rid of this we [would have] a great more time for doing more important things and we can forget about this business of keeping this self which isn’t really that important and really isn’t that much there. We can forget about this and think about God and not worry about ourselves and He’ll take care of the rest. So hope then is this great important thing.32

BIBLIOGRAPHY Martin Buber, I and Thou (New York: Scribner’s, 1970). The Discourses of Philoxenos Bishop of Mabbogh, A.D. 485–510, Vol. II., trans. E.A. Wallis Budge (London: Asher, 1894). Eugen Herrigel, Zen in the Art of Archery (New York: Pantheon, 1953). Thomas Merton, Dancing in the Water of Life: Seeking Peace in the Hermitage. Journals, vol. 5: 1963–1965, ed. Robert E. Daggy (San Francisco: HarperCollins, 1997). _______. Day of a Stranger (Salt Lake City: Gibbs M. Smith, 1981). _______. The Hidden Ground of Love: Letters on Religious Experience and Social Concerns, ed. William H. Shannon (New York: Farrar, Strauss, Giroux). _______. The Inner Experience: Notes on Contemplation, ed. William H. Shannon (San Francisco: HarperCollins, 2003). _______. Love and Living (New York: FSG, 1979). _______. Mystics and Zen Masters (New York: FSG, 1967). _______. Pre-Benedictine Monasticism: Initiation into the Monastic Tradition 2, ed. Patrick F. O’Connell (Kalamazoo: Cistercian, 2006). _______. Raids on the Unspeakable (New York: New Directions, 1966). _______. Tape #142–4 [recorded 4–11–65] (Thomas Merton Center, Bellarmine University, Louisville, KY). _______. Tape #144–2 [recorded 4–25–65] (TMC). Merton asks the class which figure from the Old Testament Philoxenos uses as a model for simplicity, and when one of the monks guesses correctly (Jacob), Merton enthusiastically responds, “How did you get into my notes?” The bell immediately rings to end class amidst laughter. 32

Thomas Merton’s Novitiate Conferences

271

_______. Tape # 147–4 [recorded 5–27–65] (TMC). _______. Tape # 148–3 [recorded 6–7–65] (TMC). The Rule of Saint Benedict 1980, ed., Timothy Fry (Collegeville: The Liturgical Press, 1981). The Syriac Fathers on Prayer and the Spiritual Life, trans. Sebastian Brock, CS 101 (Kalamazoo: Cistercian, 1987).

BIOGRAPHICAL NOTE David M. Odorisio earned an M.A. in the History of Christian Spirituality and Monastic Studies from Saint John’s University (Collegeville, MN). A member of the International Thomas Merton Society since 2001, he has held numerous positions of service, including Young Adult Advisor to the Board of Directors. He has taught as well as worked as campus minster at both the high school and college levels.

Hugoye: Journal of Syriac Studies, Vol. 13.2, 273–338 © 2010 by Beth Mardutho: The Syriac Institute and Gorgias Press

A BIBLOGRAPHIC CLAVIS TO THE WORKS OF PHILOXENOS OF MABBUG DAVID A. MICHELSON UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA

ABSTRACT Philoxenos of Mabbug was one of the more prolific Syriac authors of late antiquity. Since 1963 the carefully researched monograph of André de Halleux, Philoxène de Mabbog: Sa vie, ses écrits, sa théologie, has served as a handbook to the works of this key figure in the history of the West Syrian tradition. De Halleux’s work has been so productive in opening up the riches of Philoxenos for study in a variety of fields (history, theology, New Testament studies, and the study of Syriac literature) that now, nearly half a century later, there is a need for a revised clavis to make accessible the new editions, translations, and secondary literature. This clavis is a simple supplement to the work of de Halleux.

CONTENTS I. Preface ............................................................................................. 274 II. General Studies and Presentations ............................................ 279 A. Sections in introductory works and handbooks related to Syriac studies .......................... 279 B. Articles in dictionaries and encyclopedias ......................... 281 C. Mention in bibliographic reference works ........................ 285 273

274

David A. Michelson

III. Vitae and Biographical Studies .................................................. 285 A. Vitae ........................................................................................ 286 B. Biographical studies ............................................................... 288 IV. Survey of the Works Attributed to Philoxenos ...................... 288 A. Extant works and fragments ................................................ 289 B. Lost works .............................................................................. 310 C. Dubious and spurious works ............................................... 312 V. Studies and Mention in Selected General Works ................... 321 A. Monographs with extended treatment of Philoxenos ..... 321 B. Monographs with mention of Philoxenos ......................... 322 C. Unpublished dissertations and theses ................................ 325 D. Articles and chapters in collected volumes with extended treatment of Philoxenos .......................... 326 E. Articles and chapters in collected volumes with mention of Philoxenos .............................................. 334

I. PREFACE Philoxenos of Mabbug (d. 523) was a driven figure living in a time of ecclesiastical volatility. Over his lifetime he successfully played several different leadership roles within the churches of lateantique Syria including those of bishop, ascetic guide, theologian, exegete, patron of biblical scholarship, polemicist, and even wouldbe imperial counselor. In these various roles he wrote prolifically, leaving works in a wide range of genres including polemics, Biblical commentary, homilies, doctrinal theology, letters, and ascetic paranaesis. As the Christological controversies permanently separated the Western churches from the Syriac churches, knowledge of Philoxenos or his works faded in West. If he was mentioned at all, he usually suffered condemnation in the same breath as anathemas of his “monophysite” Christology. Beginning in the nineteenth century, however, western scholars began to rediscover and publish his works (one of which had actually continued to circulate in Greek during the middle ages under the name of Isaac of Nineveh—see no. 44 below). In the first half of the twentieth century, western interest in Philoxenos flourished due to two factors. First, J. Lebon’s sympathetic and nuanced study of the onenature Christology of Philoxenos and Severus opened the way for scholars to move beyond the narrow and caricatured categories

A Biblographic Clavis

275

which the Christological controversies had left in their wake. At the same time, the work of I. Hausherr and his students made the contemplative systems of eastern Christian asceticism accessible to western theologians. As one of the most prominent voices in the West Syrian tradition for both one-nature Christology and Evagrian asceticism, Philoxenos began to enjoy increased scholarly attention. In 1963, Philoxenos was the subject of a careful and detailed study by A. de Halleux.1 Building on the work of E.A.W. Budge, Lebon, and others, de Halleux offered a comprehensive guide to the works of Philoxenos on several levels ranging from codicology to Christology. De Halleux’s work remains today the starting point for all work on Philoxenos. At the time of its publication, however, only a little over half of the works of Philoxenos were published and the secondary literature dedicated to Philoxenos was limited (apart from textual work on the Philoxenian New Testament which had been active since the eighteenth century but was only secondarily interested in Philoxenos). In 1963 de Halleux was able to present the bibliography for his nearly six-hundred-page study in just over twenty pages. As a guide to Philoxenos since that time, de Halleux’s work has been enormously successful and has opened the flood gates to the study and publishing of Philoxenian works. After nearly half a century, however, a supplement to de Halleux is needed, if only to guide students and scholars to find new editions and translations of Philoxenos’ considerable corpus. In preparing this clavis I have made use of the excellent models previously published by Dirk Kruisheer, Lucas Van Rompay, and Edward Mathews, Jr. in Hugoye.2 I have generally followed their format with regards to structuring the clavis and to citation style. I have also followed their precedent with regard to scope, opting not to survey manuscript catalogues or present manuscript evidence in detail. Like these authors, I have also relied on the bibliographies of Moss, Brock, and now Pinggéra and Kessel. While I have personally inspected nearly all of the items in A. de Halleux, Philoxène de Mabbog: Sa vie, ses écrits, sa théologie (Louvain 1963). 2 D. Kruisheer and L. Van Rompay, “A Bibliographic Clavis to the Works of Jacob of Edessa,” Hugoye 1.1 (1998) and Edward Mathews, Jr., “A Bibliographic Clavis to the Corpus of Works attributed to Isaac of Antioch,” Hugoye 5.1 (2002). 1

276

David A. Michelson

this bibliography, I have relied on these bibliographies for a few items I was not able to access. In the cases of such items, I have only marked items as “non vidi” when the item was sufficiently rare as to leave the citation uncertain. In addition to the work of these aforementioned bibliographers, the greatest debt of this present clavis is to the work of de Halleux. This clavis is meant to supplement, not replace, de Halleux’s monograph. I have purposely keyed my list of Philoxenos’ works to mirror their order of presentation in De Halleux so that this clavis can be easily consulted in conjunction with the work of de Halleux. Moreover, while this clavis is the result of a few years of collecting bibliography, I have not intended it to exhaustively answer all Philoxenian-related questions.3 More modestly, this bibliography is designed to bring the reader up-to-date with regard to the scholarly questions first posed by de Halleux (primarily questions of ascesis, christology, and history). Indeed, I would like to make an appeal to the scholarly community by pointing out that in the areas of Philoxenian scholarship where de Halleux’s monograph did not lay particularly detailed groundwork further preliminary research needs to be done before we can have a comprehensive clavis. For example, at the time of writing de Halleux was not able to consult many middle eastern manuscript collections and thus the question of what Philoxenian works remain to be re-discovered is still wide open. Or, as another example, due to the aims of his work de Halleux did not devote much attention to cataloging and tracing the numerous liturgical traditions which were later attached to Philoxenos’ name; this field remains another fruitful area for future research. There is enough here to occupy more than one scholar. We could use detailed studies on Philoxenos’ interaction with his contemporaries (especially Severus), on Philoxenos’ legacy in the other literatures of eastern Christianity (particularly in Armenian and Arabic literature), and on Philoxenos’ reception-history within the For this reason, I have generally not included book reviews in the clavis except in the case of reviews making important interventions. Further monographs reviews can be located through the articles in encyclopedias and dictionaries listed in section II. B. See particularly the list in E. Kettenhofen’s “Philoxenos” in Biographisch-Bibliographisches Kirchenlexicon, vol. VII (Herzberg 1994), 542–549. 3

A Biblographic Clavis

277

intellectual and devotional life of the Syrian Orthodox Church.4 Accordingly these topics can only be treated in a preliminary way in the present clavis. Most importantly, readers are referred to de Halleux for detailed lists of manuscripts containing Philoxenian works. Below, I have only indicated the manuscripts of primary importance as an aide to the reader in navigating the literature or locating unpublished works. A complete manuscript tree of the Philoxenian corpus taking into account collections catalogued since de Halleux remains to be another major project which I hope to undertake at a later date (and for which I would invite readers to send me citations to correllate with the present clavis). On a related note, I also alert the reader that this clavis has not attempted to be exhaustive with regards to the question of the Philoxenian New Testament. This decision is not due to lack of literature, but because the scope and aims of the text critical scholarship on the Philoxenian are distinct enough to merit their own treatment by scholars competent in Biblical studies. I have, nevertheless, included most of the relevant recent bibliography on the Philoxenian in the hopes that it will be useful for a Biblical scholar to prepare an addendum on the Philoxenian Biblical version. In fact, such is my aim in general for this clavis, that it would serve as a modest but useful supplement to de Halleux and in some small way follow his example and encourage further scholarship on the extensive corpus of Philoxenos. The prospects for future scholarship are quite bright. In addition to the increasing number of monographs, dissertations, and articles appearing on Philoxenos, his works are becoming accessible in greater numbers and new formats. For example, Some recent work is being done on these questions as documented below, but there is room for more. Specifically, see the work of Roger Akhrass on compiling a new complete corpus of Philoxenos including middle eastern MSS and liturgica; the work of Iuliana Viezure on the role of Philoxenos in the theopaschite controversies; the work of S. Peter Cowe and Karl Pingèrra on the legacy of Philoxenos in Armenia; the article in this current issue of Hugoye by Adam McCollum on the reception of Philoxenos in Arabic, and the work of Dan King and my own work on the place of Philoxenos in the later developments in Syriac thought and theology. Another particularly interesting question would be how the later anti-Julianist controversy affected the reception of Philoxenos. 4

278

David A. Michelson

Robert Kitchen is nearing completion of a new English translation of the “Discourses” which will ensure that the largest and mostwell-known Philoxenian work will continue to be accessible to students, scholars, and the general public alike. Similarly, Roger Akhrass has undertaken to make a popular-level modern Arabic translation of nearly all of the works of Philoxenos.5 Akhrass’ work also includes re-editing the Syriac texts thus creating a unified corpus in Syriac. Kristian Heal, Akhrass, and I are now working to incorporate this corpus of over 500,000 words into the larger Syriac digital corpus project at Brigham Young University with the end result of creating an online searchable corpus of the works of Philoxenos. In a similar vein, I am pleased to let readers know that I plan to expand and update a version of the present clavis online to include Syriac incipits for the texts and more detailed manuscript schemata. I have written this clavis to serve as the model entry for a larger online clavis for all Syriac authors which will be curated by Beth Mardutho and hosted by several university partners. The proposed online clavis, The Syriac Reference Portal, will have an advantage over the present clavis in that it can be perpetually updated. To succeed in producing work similar to the three published in Hugoye so far (i.e. for Jacob of Edessa, Isaac of Antioch, and now Philoxenos), such an online clavis will need a large number of contributors and collaborators. Accordingly, I use the publication of this clavis as an opportunity to invite all scholars who might be interested in producing a clavis to consider joining this initiative. For interested scholars and institutional partners a preliminary description is available through the University of Alabama’s Syriac Research Group homepage (www.syriac.ua.edu).6 Such are the prospects for future work on Philoxenos. At present we do not quite yet live in a world where research on Philoxenos is so accessible and so I would like to express my gratitude to a number of people who assisted me in the preparation of this clavis. First, my wife Bethany and my children put up with See above. Three volumes have appeared with a fourth in preparation according to a communication with the author. 6 Preliminary information (as of November 2010) is available at www.syriac.ua.edu. Further information about this project will be presented in a workshop at the 2010 North American Syriac Symposium at Duke University and will also be made available on the web. 5

A Biblographic Clavis

279

Philoxenos’ presence as a member of our family for which I am grateful beyond words. Bob Kitchen and George Kiraz both showed remarkable patience and provided assistance and encouragement as I put this together. Peter Brown also continued to reminder me of the value of studying Philoxenos. Sebastian Brock and Roger Akhrass both offered a number of helpful corrections. At various points Luk Van Rompay, David Taylor, Mary Hansbury, Karl Pinggéra, Gregory Kessel, Sergey Minov, Robin Darling Young, Jack Tannous, Dan Schwartz, Scott Johnson, Thomas Carlson, Iuliana Veizure, Dan King, Kutlu Akalin, Jon Loopstra, Adam McCollum, and especially James Walters all helped me with verifying citations or making me aware of an item. Moreover, my research assistants at Princeton University and the University of Alabama also put in time ferrying books and finding articles, especially Anna Megill, Chris Sherrill, Corbin Karl, Andrew Martin, and Robert Aydin. Similarly I also owe a whole shelf-load of thanks to the interlibrary loan staff at Gorgas Library at the University of Alabama. Lastly some of my colleagues helped me with languages or scripts beyond my reach, especially Dan Riches, Margaret Peacock and Ian Chapman. All mistakes and omissions, of course, remain my own. Finally, I would like to conclude by making an appeal for readers to send me comments, especially with items I may have overlooked. I will incorporate these items and suggestions into the searchable online version I am preparing.

II. GENERAL STUDIES AND PRESENTATIONS A. Sections in introductory works and handbooks related to Syriac studies J.S. Assemanus, Bibliotheca Orientalis Clementino-Vaticana II (Rome 1719) 10b–46a, et passim. W. Wright, A Short History of Syriac Literature (London 1894) 72–76, et passim. R. Duval, La littérature syriaque, 3rd ed. (Paris 1907) 254–256, et passim. C. Brockelmann, “Die syrische und die christlich-arabische Litteratur,” in Geschichte der christlichen Litteraturen des Orients (Leipzig 1907), 27.

280

David A. Michelson

A. Baumstark, Die christlichen Literaturen des Orients, I. Einleitung. I. Das christlich-aramäische und das koptische Schrifttum (Leipzig 1911) 47, 56, 70–75, 89. A. Baumstark, Geschichte der syrischen Literatur (Bonn 1922) 141–144, et passim. J.-B. Chabot, Littérature syriaque (Paris 1934) 64–66. W.H.P. Hatch, An Album of Dated Syriac Manuscripts (Boston 1946) 59, 77, 83, see also 81, 110, 148, 149, 155, 158. [sample manuscript pages from Philoxenos’ works] A. Baumstark, “Aramäisch und Syrisch”, in Semitistik, Handbuch der Orientalistik III. 1–3 (Leiden 1954), 183–184. A.I. Barsoum, Kitaab al-lu’lu’ al-manthuur fii taariikh al-culuum wa’l-aadaab alsuryaaniyya (Aleppo 1956; Glane-Losser 1987) [Eng. tr., in A.I. Barsoum, The Scattered Pearls: The History of Syriac Literature and Sciences, tr., Matti Mousa, 2nd Rev. Ed. (Piscataway, N.J. 2003) 262–270]. I. Ortiz de Urbina, Patrologia Syriaca, 2nd ed. (Rome 1965) 157–161. J. Assfalg and P. Krüger, Kleines Wörterbuch des Christlichen Orients (Wiesbaden 1975), 297 et passim. F. Winkelmann, Die östlichen Kirchen in der Epoche der christologischen Auseinandersetzung (5.–7. Jh.) (Berlin 1980), 53–54. C. Detlef G. Müller, Geschicte der Orientalischen Nationalkirchen in Die Kirche in ihrer Geschichte, Band 1, Lieferung D2 (Göttingen 1981), 280. W.S. Mc Cullough, A Short History of Syriac Christianity to the Rise of Islam (Chicago 1982), 80–81. C. Sélis, Les Syriens orthodoxes et catholiques (Brepols 1988), 44–53, 68–69, 111–114. P. Bettiolo, “Lineamenti di Patrologia Siriaca” in A. Quacquarelli (ed.), Complimenti interdisciplinari di Patrologia (Rome 1989), 552–557. “Philoxenos of Mabboug,” in S. Beggiani, Introduction to Eastern Christian Spirituality: The Syriac Tradition (Cranbury, N.J. 1991), 48–53. L. Knezevich, “Philoxenos of Mabbug” in The Coptic Encyclopedia, vol. 6 (New York 1991), 1961–1962. M. Albert, “Langue et littérature syriaques”, in M. Albert et al., eds., Christianismes orientaux: Introduction à l’étude des langues et des littératures (Paris 1993) 316, 349–50, et passim. R. Le Coz, Histoire de l'Eglise d’Orient: Chrétiens d’Irak, d’Iran et de Turquie (Paris 1995), 54. P. Bettiolo, “VI. Letteratura Siriaca,” in A. di Berardino, Patrologia V. Dal Concilio di Calcedonia (451) a Giovanni Damasceno (†750): I Padre

A Biblographic Clavis

281

Orientali (Genoa 2000), 462–465. [Eng. tr.: P. Bettiolo, “VI. Syriac Literature” in A. di Berardino, Patrology V: The Eastern Fathers from the Council of Chalcedon (451) to John of Damascus (†750), tr. Adrian Walford (Cambridge 2006), 458–461.] C. Capizzi, “Filosseno (Xenajas)” in Dizionario enciclopedico dell’Oriente cristiano (Rome 2000), 306. J.M. Fiey, “347. Philoxène” in Saints Syriaques (Princeton 2004), 151. T. Hainthaler, “Philoxenos von Mabbug” in W. Klein, ed., Syrische Kirchenväter (Stuttgart 2004), 180–190. K.M. Rajan, Calendar of the Syrian Orthodox Church (Kottayam 2004), 40, 64, 83. S.P. Brock, An Introduction to Syriac Studies, revised 2nd ed., Gorgias Handbooks 4 (Piscataway, NJ 2006), 5, 14. P. Bruns, “Philoxenos” in H. Kaufhold, Kleines Lexikon des Christlichen Orients (2 Auflage des Kleinen Wörterbuches des Christlichen Orients) (Weisbaden 2007), 409–410. S.P. Brock, A Brief Outline of Syriac Literature, Moran ’Eth’o 9, 2nd ed. (Kottayam 2009) 31–34, 195–199. M. Tamcke, Die Christen vom Tur Abdin (Frankfurt am Main 2009), 98–120. C. Lange and K. Pinggéra, Die altorientalischen Kirchen (Darmstadt 2010), 79, 137. D.A. Michelson, “Philoxenos of Mabbug” in The Gorgias Encyclopedic Dictionary of the Syriac Heritage (Piscataway, N.J., forthcoming), n.p.

B. Articles in dictionaries and encyclopedias7 [W.] Gass, “Philoxenos”, Real-Encyklopädie für protestantische Theologie und Kirche, vol. 11, 1st ed. (1859), 607–609. E. Venables, “Philoxenos (4) (Xenaias)” in A Dictionary of Christian Biography, Literature, Sects and Doctrines (London, 1880), 391–393. [W.] Gass, “Philoxenos”, Real-Encyklopädie für protestantische Theologie und Kirche, vol. 11, 2nd ed. (1883), 653–655.

It should be noted that in their current editions neither the Dictionnaire d’histoire et de géographie ecclésiastiques nor the Reallexikon für Antike und Christentum have reached the volumes for “P”—thus there is no corresponding entry for Philoxenos. No article was written on Philoxenos in the Dictionnaire d'archéologie chrétienne et de liturgie. 7

282

David A. Michelson

J.H. Worman, “Philoxenos of Mabug or Hierapolis” in Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature, vol. 8 (n.p. 1867– 1887; reprint, Grand Rapids, Mich. 1981), 143. R. Zöpffel, “Philoxenos (Xenaias)” in Lexikon für Theologie und Kirchenwesen (Braunschweig 1888), 846–847. “Philoxenos” in Kirchliches Handlexikon, vol. 5 (Leipzig 1897), 313. G. Krüger, “Philoxenos (Xenaia, Axenaja)” in Realencyklopädie für protestantische Theologie und Kirche, vol. 5, 3rd ed., (Leipzig 1904) 367–70. V. Schmidt, “Filoxenos” in Kirke-Leksion for Norden, Bind II (Aarhus 1904), 56. A.A. Vaschalde, “Philoxenos (Akhsenćyć) of Mabbogh” in The Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. XII (New York 1911), 40. M. Buchberger, “Philoxenos” in Kirchliches Handlexikon, vol. 2 (München 1912), 1482. R. Abramowski, “Philoxenos (Xenaja)” in Die Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart, zweite völlig neubearbeitete Auflage, vol. 4 (Tübingen 1930), 1236. E. Tisserant, “Philoxène de Mabboug” in Dictionnaire de théologie catholique, vol. 12 (Paris 1933) 1509–1532. A. Rücker, “Philoxenos (Xenaia, Axenaja)” in Lexikon für Theologie und Kirche, vol. 8 (Freiburg im Breisgau 1936) 248–49. G. Krüger, “Philoxenos (Xenaia, Axenaia)” in The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, vol. 9 (New York 1949), 43–44. I. Ortiz de Urbina, “Filosseno di MabbŠg” in Enciclopedia Cattolica, vol. 5 (Vatican City 1950), 1367. B. Altaner, “8. Philoxenos of Mabbug (Heirapolis)” in Patrology, translated by Hilda C. Graef (Edinburgh 1960), 408. [transl. of art. in Patrologie, 5th German ed., 1958]. B. Spuler, “Philoxenos (= syr. Aksenaja)” in Die Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart, dritte, völlig neu bearbeitete Auflage, vol. 5 (Tübingen 1961), 357. O. Bardenhewer, “§71.2 Philoxenos von Mabbug” in Geschicte der altkirchlichen Literatur: Vierter Band, Das fünfte Jahrhundert mit Einschluß der syrischen Literatur des vierten Jahrhunderts (Darmstadt 1962), 417–421. A. de Halleux, “Philoxenos (Xenajas)” in Lexikon für Theologie und Kirche 8, 2nd ed. (Freiburg 1963), 479. J. van der Ploeg, “Philoxenos van Mabboeg” in Romen’s Woordenboeken (Roermond en Maaseik 1968), 3871–3872.

A Biblographic Clavis

283

J.G.C. Norman, “Philoxenos” in The New International Dictionary of the Christian Church (Grand Rapids, Mich. 1974), 778. “Philoxenos” in The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, 2nd ed. (London 1974), 1086. F. Rilliet, “Filosseno di Mabbug” in Dizionario Patristico e di Antichità cristiane, vol. 1 (Casale Monferrato 1983) 1372–1374. F. Graffin, “Philoxène de Mabboug” in Dictionnaire de Spiritualité, Ascétique et Mystique, vol. 12 (Paris 1984), 1392–1397. “Firukusenosu” ሃᇑሙᇝᇩᇼᇧ (Philƽxenos) in Kirisutokyň jinmei jiten ᇛመᇧᇶ⯟ᕀ᪓嘤៾ (Tokyo 1986), 1233b. F. Drċczkowski, “Filoksen, Xenajas” in Encyklopedia Katolicka, vol. 5 (Lublin 1989), 232. T. Gregory, “Philoxenos of Mabbug” in Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium, vol. 3 (Oxford 1991), 1664. F. Rilliet, “Philoxenos of Mabbug” in Encyclopedia of the Early Church, vol. 2 (New York 1992), 684. [transl. of art. in Dizionario patristico e di antichità cristiane, 1983 ed.]. “Philoxenos of Mabbug” in The Concise Dictionary of Early Christianity (Collegeville 1992), 139. E. Kettenhofen, “Philoxenos” in Biographisch-Bibliographisches Kirchenlexicon, vol. VII (Herzberg 1994), 542–549. [Bibliographic updates continue to be made to the online version of this article as of 2010: http://www.bautz.de/bbkl/p/philoxenos.shtml]. “Filoksen,” in Khristianstvo: Entsiklopedicheskii Slovar’, Tom 3 (Moskva 1995), 121.8 A. de Halleux, “Philoxenos von Mabbug” in Theologische Realenzyklopädie, vol. XXVI (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1996), 576–580. “Philoxenos of Mabboug” in Historical Dictionary of the Orthodox Church (Lanham, Md. 1996), 262–263. S. Ashbrook Harvey, “Philoxenos of Mabbug” in Encyclopedia of Early Christianity, 2nd ed., vol. 2 (New York 1997), 918. J. Habbi, “Filosseno” in Enciclopedia dei santi, Le Chiese oriental, vol. 1 (Rome 1998), 885–886. “Philoxenos” in Who’s Who in Christianity (New York 1998), 245. J. Healey, “Philoxenos of Mabbug” in The Blackwell Dictionary of Eastern Christianity (Oxford 1999), 381. This article cites the following work in relation to Philoxenos, but I was unable to get access to a copy to report its contents: V. Rozhdestvenskii, Bibleiskie Perevody, Siriiskaia Literatura (Moskva 1878). 8

284

David A. Michelson

J. Martikainen, “Philoxenos (Xenajas)” in Lexikon für Theologie und Kirche vol. 8, 3rd ed. (Freiburg 1999) 262–263. J. Assfalg, ‘Philoxenos v. Mabbug’, in Lexikon des Mittelalters, vol. 6 (Stuttgart [1977]–1999) 2105–2106, in Brepolis Medieval Encyclopaedias—Lexikon des Mittelalters Online. P. Bruns, “Philoxenos of Mabbug” in Dictionary of Early Christian Literature (New York 2000), 486–87. [transl. of art. in Lexikon der antiken christlichen Literatur, 1998, 505–506]. K. Fitschen, “Philoxenos von Mabbug” in Metzler Lexicon Christlicher Denker (Stuttgart 2000), 556. “Philoxenos” in Dictionary of Christian Biography (New York 2001), 972. P. Bruns, “Philoxenos von Mabbug” in Lexicon der antiken christlichen Literatur, vol. 3, volst neu bearb. U. erw. Aufl. (Freiburg 2002), 577–578. M. Tamcke, “Philoxenos von Mabbug” in Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart, vierte, völlig neu bearbeitete Auflage, vol. 6 (Tübingen 2003), 1317. G.T. Dennis, “Philoxenos of Mabbugh” in New Catholic Encyclopedia, 2nd ed., vol. 11 (Detroit 2003), 308–309. C. Kannengeisser, “Philoxenos of Mabbug (CA. 450 – CA. 522)” in Handbook of Patristic Exegesis: The Bible in Ancient Christianity, vol. 2 (Leiden 2004), 1433. “Philoxenos of Mabbug” in The Westminster Handbook to Patristic Theology (Louisville 2004), 272. “Philoxenos of Mabbug” in Nelson’s Dictionary of Christianity (Nashville 2005), 549. F. Rilliet, “Filosseno di Mabbug” in Nuovo dizionario patristico e di antichità cristiane, ediziione aggiornata e augmentata (Genova 2007), 1968– 1970. R.A. Kitchen, “Philoxenos of Mabbug” in The New SCM Dictionary of Church History, vol. 1 (London 2008), 517; [The New Westminster Dictionary of Church History, vol. 1 (Louisville 2008), 517.] D.A. Michelson, “Philoxenos of Mabbug” in The Encyclopedia of Ancient History (New York forthcoming)

A Biblographic Clavis

285

C. Mention in bibliographic reference works9 C. Moss, Catalogue of Syriac Printed Books and Related Literature in the British Museum (London 1962), 886–891, addenda 187–188. P. Peterson, ed., Eastern Christianity; A Bibliography Selected from the ATLA Religion Database, revised ed. (N.P. 1984), 408. K. Frank, Lehrbuch der Geschichte der Alten Kirche (Paderborn 1996), 424. S.P. Brock, Syriac Studies: A Classified Bibliography (1960–1990) (Kaslik, Lebanon 1996), 244–247. S.P. Brock, Syriac Studies: A Classified Bibliography (1991–1995), Parole de l’Orient 23 (1998), 329. S.P. Brock, Syriac Studies: A Classified Bibliography (1996–2000), Parole de l’Orient 29 (2004), 382. S.P. Brock, Syriac Studies: A Classified Bibliography (2001–2005), Parole de l’Orient 33 (2008), 415. F. Alpi, La route royale: Sévère d’Antioche et les églises d’Orient (512–518) II: Sources et documents (Beyrouth, 2009), 155. K. Pinggéra and G. Kessel, “Philoxenos of Mabbug” in A Bibliography of Syriac Ascetic and Mystical Literature (Leiden forthcoming), 183– 192.10

III. VITAE AND BIOGRAPHICAL STUDIES The standard work on the life, works, and theology of Philoxenos remains the magisterial monograph of A. de Halleux (vide supra, subsequent references to the work of de Halleux will be abbreviated as DH). De Halleux notes that biographical comments can be found in many of the works of Philoxenos and of his contemporaries (such as the letters of Severus or Simeon of Beth Sergey Minov kindly shared with me an unpublished list of citations from his bibliography on Syriac studies which he is preparing as a database in cooperation with the Center for the Study of Christianity at the Hebrew University. I also benefitted from the fact that the bibliography in E. Kettenhofen’s article “Philoxenos” in the BiographischBibliographisches Kirchenlexicon, vol. VII (Herzberg 1994) has continued to be updated in its online version (http://www.bautz.de/bbkl/p/ philoxenos.shtml). 10 I am grateful to Karl Pingèrra and Gregory Kessel for allowing me to cite an advance copy of their bibliography, a greatly needed first step toward a new clavis for Syriac literature. 9

286

David A. Michelson

Arsham). Biographical notices, often hostile, can be found in some Byzantine histories and chronicles (cf. Evagrous Scholasticus, Ecclesiastical History, bk. 3, ch. 31 or The Chronicle of Pseudo-Joshua the Stylite § 30 or Pseudo-Zacharias). Lastly, Vitae of varying lengths are preserved as Syrian Orthodox hagiographies. Selections of some those works are listed here. A. VITAE [DH 3–9] (a) “Victory of Mar Aksnoyo”11 The manuscript containing this vita is a copy commissioned by Mingana from an original in Basibrina, Tur Abdin. The copy was then in the collection of J. Rendel Harris from whence it was sold to Harvard University. Because this manuscript was not included in any of Mingana’s manuscript catalogues nor physically present at Selly Oaks both de Halleux and Vööbus assumed it had been lost when they went to look for it half a century later. Fortunately, it is still extant as Harvard MS Syriac 38. It also seems like that the original in Tur Abdin was available to Barsoum whose list of Philoxenos’ work relies heavily on it. It may also be the case that Barsoum published an Arabic translation.12 Cambridge, Mass. Harvard University, Houghton Library, MS Syriac 38, ff. 111v–121v. An edition of this text has been published in S.P. Brock, “Tash‘ita de-Mar Aksnaya,” Qolo Suryoyo 110 (July/Aug 1996), 253–244 (sic). An English translation of this text was published along with citations for smaller biographical notices by Mingana in A. Mingana, “New Documents on Philoxenos of Heirapolis and the Philoxenian Version of the Bible,” The Expositor 8.19 [110] (1920), 149–160.

Philoxenos was known both as Philoxenos and also as Aksnaya (often rendered Xenias in Latin). In the manuscript tradition his name takes a number of spellings including: ‘ÍæÙéÝÙàÙñ ‘ÍæéÜÍàÙñ ¾ÙæéÜ~ êæéÜÍààÙñ ‘ÍæéÜÍààÙñ ‘ÍæÙéÜÍààÙñ ‘ÍæéÝàÙñ êæÙéÝàÙñ ‘ÍæÙéÝàÙñ K ‘ÍæÙéÝàñ ‘ÍæÙéÝÙàñ . 12 The New York Public Library lists the following short item in its online catalogue: E. Barsom, Philoxenos, Bp. of Hierapolis. A Short Account of His Life, Translated from the Syriac into Arabic by Efram Barsom (Dair alZafaran 1911). I was unable to consult this work or locate other copies. 11

A Biblographic Clavis

287

(b) Elia of Qartmin, “Memra on the Saint Mar Philoxenos of Mabbug” Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, MS Syr 377, ff. 219r–241v. Edited text and French translation published as A. de Halleux, ed., Éli de Qartmin: Memra sur S. Mar Philoxène de Mabbog, CSCO 100–101 (Louvain 1963).

(c) “Qala... Concerning Mar Philoxenos, Bishop of Mabbug of the East” Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, MS Syr 165, f. 237v. Edited text and French translation published in A. de Halleux, ed., Éli de Qartmin: Memra sur S. Mar Philoxène de Mabbog, CSCO 100–101 (Louvain 1963), 21.

(d) [Notice on the Mar Aksnoyo] This notice, embedded into the Anonymous Chronicle of 846, is preserved in two versions. De Halleux has proposed that they should be interpreted as a pro-chalcedonian original and an expurgated miaphysite version which portrays Philoxenos in a better light. St. Catherine’s Monastery, Sin. Syr. 10, ff. 48r–49v. [Chalcedonian Original] London, British Library, MS BL Add. 14,642, ff. 27v.–28r. [Expurgated miaphysite version] Edited text and French translation of both versions published in A. de Halleux, “À la source d’une biographie expurgée de Philoxène de Mabbog,” Orientalia Lovaniensia Periodica 6–7 (1975–1976), 253–66. Edited text and Latin translation of BL Add. 14,642 published in E.-W. Brooks, ed. and J.-B. Chabot, trans., “Chronicon ad annum domini 846 pertinens,” in I. Guidi, ed., Chronica Minora, CSCO, Scriptores Syri Ser. 3, t. 4 (Paris 1903), textus 220–221, versio 168. Edited text and French translation of BL Add. 14,642 published as F. Nau, “Notice inédite sur Philoxêne, évêque de Maboug,” Revue de l’Orient chrétien 8 (1903), 630–633.

(e) “Mar Philoxenos Bishop of Mabug, Wise in God and Enlightened in Knowledge” Vatican City, BAV, MS Vat. Syr. 155 f. 5r. Edited text published in Three Letters of Philoxenos, Bishop of Mabbogh (485– 519): Being the Letter to the Monks, the First Letter to the Monks of Beth-Gaugal, and the Letter to Emperor Zeno, edited and translated by Arthur Adolphe Vaschalde (Roma 1902), 175–176.

288

David A. Michelson

(f) Additional Vitae A number of other manuscripts with vitae or biographical notices have been identified in A. Vööbus, “La biographie de Philoxène. Tradition des manuscrits,” Analecta Bollandiana 93 (1975), 111– 114. These remain as yet unpublished.

B. BIOGRAPHICAL STUDIES i. Monographs I. Yacoub III, Mysteries in the struggle of Saint Philoxenos of Mabboug [in Arabic], (Damascus, 1970) [non-vidi]. A. de Halleux, Philoxène de Mabbog: Sa vie, ses écrits, sa theologie (Louvain 1963).

ii. Articles Several of the longer articles listed above in section II are worth consulting as biographical studies, especially: T. Hainthaler, “Philoxenos von Mabbug” in W. Klein, ed., Syrische Kirchenväter (Stuttgart 2004), 180–190. A. de Halleux, “Philoxenos von Mabbug” in Theologische Realenzyklopädie, vol. XXVI (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1996), 576–580. F. Graffin, “Philoxène de Mabboug” in Dictionnaire de Spiritualité, Ascétique et Mystique, vol. 12 (Paris 1984), 1392–1397. A. I. Barsoum, The Scattered Pearls: The History of Syriac Literature and Sciences, tr., Matti Mousa, 2nd Rev. Ed. (Piscataway, N.J. 2003) 262–270 [Originally published in Arabic in 1956]. E. Tisserant, “Philoxène de Mabboug” in Dictionnaire de théologie catholique, vol. 12 (Paris 1933) 1509–1532. J.S. Assemanus, Bibliotheca Orientalis Clementino-Vaticana II (Rome 1719) 10b–46a.

IV. SURVEY OF THE WORKS ATTRIBUTED TO PHILOXENOS In this section I have attempted to provide standardized English titles. Already half a century ago, de Halleux had lamented that many of the works of Philoxenos are known by western names (such as the Tractatus Tres) that do not reflect how the work was known in the time of Philoxenos or in the manuscript traditions (e.g. The Book of Sentences). My main aim has been to aid those attempting to identify new fragments of Philoxenos in recently catalogued manuscripts. Accordingly, I have whenever possible

A Biblographic Clavis

289

attempted to mirror in English the title given in the manuscripts. I also have in preparation, but not ready for publication a list of titles, incipits and varients in Syriac.13 In this clavis, when the title in the manuscript has been too incomplete (or occasionally when it has not accurately reflected the nature of the work) I have offered suggestions. To aid in navigating the clavis, each Philoxenian title is also sequentially numbered. Because much of the work in de Halleux’s monograph remains essential the corresponding page number in de Halleux is also given with the abbreviation DH. (Unfortunately the works in de Halleux are not given a complete sequential numbering and most of the spuria and dubia are not presented systematically at all. They are offered systematically below after extant and lost works.) Finally, I have retained the order in which de Halleux has presented the works because this will most easily assist the reader in using this clavis in conjunction with de Halleux. I have, however, abandoned the thematic classification of the works as exegetical, dogmatic, and spiritual which de Halleux inherited from Tisserant. As I have argued elsewhere, this distinction adds an artificial division into the holistic vision of churchmanship in Philoxenos’ works where he blended the fight against Christological error, the pursuit of asceticism, and the contemplation and interpretation of the Biblical text into a unified spiritual endeavor. A. EXTANT WORKS AND FRAGMENTS (1) The Philoxenian New Testament and Bible [DH 115]14 No copies survive of the translation of the New Testament commissioned by Philoxenos and undertaken by his corepiscopos Polycarp. The history of the Philoxenian has largely been eclipsed by that of the later Harklean version. Identifying fragments of the As noted above, this current clavis is an initial draft of an interactive online clavis I am preparing that will eventually collect into a searchable database the Syriac wording for all of the incipits, attributions, and subscriptions related to Philoxenos in the manuscript tradition. 14 I reiterate my earlier statement that a comprehensive treatment of the scholarship on the Philoxenian New Testament would require a separate clavis, most likely to be done by a Biblical scholar. Instead, I have merely presented the primary and most recent works here and refer the reader to them for further orientation. 13

290

David A. Michelson

Philoxenian has been a contentious topic of scholarly debate. Indeed, references to the Philoxenian in secondary literature made prior to 1981 should be treated cautiously. Since 1981, the problem of the Philoxenian and Harklean has been successfully resolved by S.P. Brock. For which see: Tjitze Baarda, “The Syriac Versions of the New Testament,” in B.D. Ehrman and M.W. Holmes, eds., The Text of the New Testament in Contemporary Research. Essays on the Status Quaestionis (Grand Rapids, Mich. 1995), 97–112. S.P. Brock, “The Resolution of the Philoxenian/Harclean Problem,” in E.J. Epp and G.D. Fee, eds., New Testament Textual Criticism. Its Significance for Exegesis. Essays in honor of Bruce M. Metzger (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1981), 325–343.

Material from the Philoxenian New Testament (collected fragments and an analysis of the reception history) is available in the following works inter alia: J.E. Walters, “The Philoxenian Gospels as Reconstructed from the Writings of Philoxenos of Mabbug,” Hugoye 13:2 (2010), 57–129. J.E. Walters, The Philoxenian Gospels as Reconstructed from the Exegetical Writings of the Philoxenos of Mabbug, M.A. Thesis, Abilene Christian University (Abilene 2009). R.B. ter Haar Romeny, “A Philoxenian-Harclean Tradition? Biblical Quotations in Syriac Translations from Greek” in W.J. van Bekkum et al, eds., Syriac Polemics: Studies in Honour of Gerrit Jan Reinink, Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 170 (Leuven 2007), 59– 76. B. Aland, “Monophysitismus und Schriftauslegung. Der Kommentar zum Matthäus und Lukasevangelium des Philoxenos von Mabbug,” in Unser ganzes Leben Christus unserm Gott überantworten. Studien zur ostkirchlichen Spiritualität. Fairy von Lilienfeld zum 65. Geburtstag, ed. P. von Hauptmann (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1982), 142–66. B. Aland, “Die Philoxenianische-Harklensische Übersetzungstradition,” Le Muséon 94.3 (1981), 321–83. S.P. Brock, “Syriac Euthalian Material and the Philoxenian Version of the New-Testament,” Zeitschrift für die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der Alteren Kirche 70.1 (1979), 120–130. J. Gwynn, Remnants of the Later Syriac Versions of the Bible, 2 vols. (London 1909).

A Biblographic Clavis

291

Readers are also advised that the version published as J. White, Sacrorum evangeliorum, actorum apostolorum et epistolarum tam catholicorum quam paulinarum versio syriaca philoxeniana (Oxford 1778–1803) is not the Philoxenian but the Harklean version.

There is slight evidence for a version of at least some Old Testament books (Genesis, Exodus, Isaiah and, possibly but less likely, Psalms) to which the name of Philoxenos could be attached, though the authenticity of this attribution remains open to question given the paucity of evidence available. Relevant material (collected fragments and an analysis of the reception history) is available in the following works inter alia: R.J.V. Heibert, “The Place of the Syriac Versions in the Textual History of the Psalter” in P.W. Flint and P.D. Miller, eds., The Book of Psalms: Composition and Reception (Leiden 2005), 505–536. R.G. Jenkins, “Quotations from Genesis and Exodus in the Writings of Philoxenos of Mabbug,” Studia Patristica 18:4 (1990), 245–248. R.G. Jenkins, The Old Testament Quotations of Philoxenos of Mabbug, CSCO 514/Subs. 84 (Louvain 1989). R.G. Jenkins, “Some Quotations from Isaiah in the Philoxenian Version,” Abr-Nahrain 20 (1981–1982), 20–36.

(2) “Memra on the Theoria of the Tree of Life” [DH 126]15 This letter is preserved in citations by Moses Bar Kepha. Barsoum also reports that it is quoted in a Dayr al-Za‘faran MS (no. 223) containing the works of John of Dara. Fragments preserved in several MSS, most notably in Moses Bar Kepha’s On Paradise in New Haven, Conn., Yale University, Beinecke MS Syriac 10.

Yonatan Moss at Yale University is preparing an edition of these fragments and kindly shared a copy of his work in progress with me. It may also be that an additional fragment is transmitted in Bar Kepha’s “On the Soul,” preserved in Birmingham, University of Birmingham, Mingana Collection, MS Syriac 9, which I was not able to inspect. I was unable to find any fragments in the version of Bar Kepha’s “On the Soul” published as Moses Bar-Kepha und sein Buch von der Seele, trans. Oskar Braun (Freiburg 1891). Based on the comments of Barsoum and others it seems likely that as we are able to identify further manuscripts of Bar Kepha they may hold additional Philoxenian citations. 15

292

David A. Michelson

Latin version of the fragments are published in Commentaria de Paradiso, ed. A. Masius in J.-P. Migne, ed., Patrologiae Graeca, vol. 111 (Paris, 1863), cols. 479–608, reprinted from A. Masius, De Paradiso commentarius, scriptus ante anno prope septingentos à Mose Bar-Cepha Syro, episcopo in Beth-Raman, & Beth-Ceno, ac curatorum rerum sacrarum in Mozal, hoc est Seleucia Parthorum (Antverpiæ 1569). Cf. I.A. Barsoum, The Scattered Pearls: The History of Syriac Literature and Sciences, 2nd Rev. Ed. (Piscataway, N.J. 2003), 269.

(3) “Commentary” [on Matthew and Luke] [DH 128] This text has been published in two English versions. The critical edition of Watt is preferred due to being both more complete and a true edited text (as opposed to the emmended facsimile edition of Fox which is unsatisfactory in its attempt to be simultaneously an accurate facsimile and a critical edition). Fragments preserved in several MSS, most notably, London, British Library, MS BL Add. 17,126, ff. 1r–10v, 14r–38v. Facsimile text of MS BL Add. 17,126 with conjectural emendations and English translation published in Douglas J. Fox, The “MatthewLuke Commentary” of Philoxenos: Text, Translation, and Critical Analysis (Missoula, Mont. 1979). Edited fragments from MS BL Add. 17,126 and other MSS with English translation published as Fragments of the Commentary on Matthew and Luke, edited by J. W. Watt, CSCO 392–93 (Louvain 1978). Edited fragment and German translation published as “Der Sermo des Philoxenos von Mabbug De annuntiatione Dei Genetricis Mariae,” edited by Paul Krüger, Orientalia Christiana Periodica 20, 1–2 (1954), 153–165. N.B.: Review of these editions and translations in A. de Halleux, “Le Commentaire de Philoxène sur Matthieu et Luc,” Le Muséon 93 (1980), 5–35.

(4) “Commentary” [on the Prologue of John] [DH 150] London, British Library, MS BL Add. 14,534, ff. 1r–199v and possibly MS BL Add. 17,126, ff. 11–13. Edited text and French translation of BL Add. 17,126, ff. 11–13 published in A. de Halleux, “Le Commentaire de Philoxène sur Matthieu et Luc,” Le Muséon 93 (1980), 5–35.

A Biblographic Clavis

293

Edited text and French translation of BL Add. 14,534 published as Commentaire du prologue johannique (Ms. Br. Mus. Add. 14,534), edited and translated by André de Halleux, CSCO 380–81 (Louvain 1977).

(5) “We Believe in the Trinity of One Eternal Nature” [DH 170] Multiple MSS including London, British Library, MS BL Add. 17,201, f. 6rb–vb which provides evidence of the antiquity (6–7th century MS) of this text.

(6) “Letter to the Emperor Zeno Concerning the Embodiment and Inhomination [¿šÍæýåûÁÿâ] of God the Word” [DH 171] De Halleux suggested that this work should more properly classified as a profession of faith rather than a letter. Vatican City, BAV, MS Vat. Syr. 135 ff. 17ra–19vb. Edited text based on edition of Vaschalde with Arabic translation published in R.-Y. Akhrass, ed. and trans., áîƒ ¿šăÄ~

(¿ÿÙâÊø ¿ÿæâ) ÍÂ⃠‘ÍæÙéÜÍàÙñ ‹û⃠¿šÍæã؅ (Ma‘arret Saidnaya 2007), 193–218. Edited text and English translation published in Three Letters of Philoxenos, Bishop of Mabbogh (485–519): Being the Letter to the Monks, the First Letter to the Monks of Beth-Gaugal, and the Letter to Emperor Zeno, edited and translated by Arthur Adolphe Vaschalde (Roma 1902), 118–26, 163–73.

(7) “Reply When Someone is Asked ‘How Do You Believe?’: My Faith is in the Trinity” [DH 173] Fragments in two MSS.16 Edited fragment and German translation based on MS BL Add. 14,670 published in P. Krüger, “Philoxeniana inedita,” Oriens Christianus 48 (1964), 157–161. Edited text based on MS BL Add. 14,529 published in E.A. Wallis Budge, The Discourses of Philoxenos, Bishop of Mabbôgh, A.D. 485–519, vol. 2 (London 1894), xcvi–xcviii.

While I have attempted to present the salient manuscript citations, the reader is referred to the relevant section in de Halleux for further manuscript documentation. 16

294

David A. Michelson

(8) “Response of Philoxenos” [to John II of Alexandria?] [cf. DH 173–175] The fragment is acephalous and found in only one manuscript (a manuscript which contains two other Philoxenian fragments, (and a discourse by John of Alexandria). At the end of the fragment is an attribution which can be taken as either a subscription to it or a title for the subsequent section of the manuscript. The attribution reads: “ ¾ñÍùéñ~ ‹û⃠¾ĆãÄÿñ ÚåÍñ ÍÂ⃠¾ÙæéÜ~.” De Halleux took this title to apply to subsequent text and thus did not discuss this fragment. Subsequently, P. Krüger observed that the other two Philoxenian fragments in the manuscript appear to have subscriptions, hence the attribution in question should also be taken as a subscription. Fragment preserved in London, British Library, MS BL Add. 14,670, ff. 19r–20v. Edited text and German translation published in P. Krüger, “Philoxeniana inedita,” Oriens Christianus 48 (1964), 150–157.

(9) “Catalogue of the Heresies which Hold to Error” or “Catalogue of All Heresies” [DH 175] Three MSS. Edited text and French version published in F. Nau, “Documents pour server à l’histoire de l’Église Nestorienne,” Patrologia Orientalis 13.2 (Paris 1919), 248–249. Edited text and English translation published in E.A. Wallis Budge, The Discourses of Philoxenos, Bishop of Mabbôgh, A.D. 485–519, vol. 2 (London 1894), cxxxvi–xxxviii, xlv–xlviii.

(10) “We Confess Three Divine Persons, One God” [DH 176] Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, MS Syr 112, f. 278r–v. Edited text and French version published in F. Nau, “Documents pour server à l’histoire de l’Église Nestorienne,” Patrologia Orientalis 13.2 (Paris 1919), 250–251.

(11) [Six or Seven] “Particular Chapters” [that We Should Anathematize Each One Who is Nestorian] [DH 179] Two MSS; similar texts but different numeration such that one has six and the other seven chapters. London, British Library, MS Add. 14,604, ff. 67r–68r (six chapters). London, British Library, MS Add. 14,529, ff. 66v–68r (seven chapters).

A Biblographic Clavis

295

Edited text and partial English translation of BL MS Add. 14,529 published in E.A. Wallis Budge, The Discourses of Philoxenos, Bishop of Mabbôgh, A.D. 485–519, vol. 2 (London 1894), cxx–cxxiii, xxxvii–xxxix.

(12) [Seven] “Chapters Against Those Who Say that It Is Fitting that the Evil Portion of the Doctrines of the Heretics Should Be Anathematized, But that It Is Not at All Right that They Should Be Rejected with Their Whole Doctrine” [DH 181]17 London, British Library, MS Add. 14,604, ff. 113ra–115rb.

(13) [Three] “Primary Chapters Against the Heresies that Wage War with the Church” [DH 182] London, British Library, MS Add. 14,529, f. 69rb–vb.

(14) [Twelve] “Chapters Against Those Who Say Two Natures in Christ and One Person” [DH 183] London, British Library, MS Add. 14,597, ff. 91rb–98vb. Fragment in London, British Library, MS Add. 17,201 , ff. 14rb–15ra. Edited text based on MS Add. 14,597 published in E.A. Wallis Budge, The Discourses of Philoxenos, Bishop of Mabbôgh, A.D. 485–519, vol. 2 (London 1894), civ–cxx.

(15) “Twenty Chapters Against Nestorius” [DH 185] London, British Library, MS Add. 14,597, ff. 98vb–105va. Edited text and partial English translation published in E.A. Wallis Budge, The Discourses of Philoxenos, Bishop of Mabbôgh, A.D. 485–519, vol. 2 (London 1894), cxxiii–cxxxvi, xxxix–xliv.

(16) “Ten Chapters against those Who Divide Our Lord after His Indivisible Union” [DH 186] London, British Library, MS Add. 14,597, ff. 105va–107va. Edited text and summary English translation published in E.A. Wallis Budge, The Discourses of Philoxenos, Bishop of Mabbôgh, A.D. 485– 519, vol. 2 (London 1894), c–civ, xxxvi–xxxvii.

(17) “Letter to the Monks on Faith” [DH 189] Multiple MSS.

Volker Menze and I have prepared a draft edition and translation of this work which we are planning to publish at a future date. 17

296

David A. Michelson

Edited text based on editions of Vaschalde and Graffin with Arabic translation published in R.-Y. Akhrass, ed. and trans., ¿šăÄ~ (¿ÿÙâÊø ¿ÿæâ) ÍÂ⃠‘ÍæÙéÜÍàÙñ ‹û⃠¿šÍæã؅ áîƒ, (Ma‘arret Saidnaya 2007), 21–64. Edited text and French translation published in Sancti Philoxeni Episcopi Mabbugensis dissertationes decem de uno e sancta trinitate incorporato et passo (Memre contre Habib), edited and translated by M. Brière and F. Graffin, PO 41.1. (Turnhout, Belgium 1982), 38–57. Edited text and English translation published in Three Letters of Philoxenos, Bishop of Mabbogh (485–519): Being the Letter to the Monks, the First Letter to the Monks of Beth-Gaugal, and the Letter to Emperor Zeno, edited and translated by Arthur Adolphe Vaschalde (Roma 1902), 93–105, 127–45.

(18) [First] “Letter to the Monks of Teleda” [DH 192]18 Vatican City, BAV, MS Vat. Syr. 136 ff. 3ra–29rb and fragments in other MSS. Edited text based on edition of Guidi with Arabic translation published in R.-Y. Akhrass, ed. and trans., ‹û⃠¿šÍæã؅ áîƒ ¿šăÄ~ (¿ÿÙâÊø ¿ÿæâ) ÍÂ⃠‘ÍæÙéÜÍàÙñ, (Ma‘arret Saidnaya 2007), 65–192. Edited selections from the edition of Guidi and a facsimilie of one folio published in H. Gismondi, Linguae syriacae grammatica et chrestomathia cum glossario scholis accommodata (Beirut 1900), 130– 140, 166. Edited text based on Vat. Syr. 136 and BL Add. 14,663 with Italian summary published as La lettera di Filosseno: Ai monaci di Tell'addâ (Teleda), Memoria del socio Ignazio Guidi, edited by I. Guidi (Roma 1886). Partial edited text (one folio) from Vat. Syr. 136 published in I. Guidi, “Mundhir III. und die beiden monophysitischen Bischöfe,” Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 35 (1881), 142– 145.

(19) “Letter to the Arzonites” [DH 196] A fragment cited in Vatican City, BAV, MS Vat. Syr. 135 f. 89ra–b.

18

I am currently preparing an English translation of this work.

A Biblographic Clavis

297

(20) “Letter Concerning Zeal” [to the Monks of Amida] [DH 197] Fragment in multiple MSS. Edited text based on edition of Vööbus and Nau with Arabic translation published in R.-Y. Akhrass, ed. and trans., áîƒ ¿šăÄ~ (¿ÿÙæؘš ¿ÿæâ) ÍÂ⃠‘ÍæÙéÜÍàÙñ ‹û⃠¿šÍæã؅, (Ma‘arret Saidnaya 2007), 74–80. Edited text and English translation in A. Vööbus, Syriac and Arabic Documents Regarding Legislation Relative to Syrian Asceticism (Stockholm: ETSE, 1960), 51–54. French translation based on Paris, Bibliothèque National, MS Syr. 62, f. 218v in F. Nau, “Literature canonique syriaque inédite, I,” Revue de l’Orient chrétien 14 (1909), 37–38. Cf. A. Vööbus, History of Asceticism in the Syrian Orient. A Contribution to the History of Culture in the Near East, III, CSCO, Subsidia, 81 (Louvain 1988), 123–142, 170–172. Cf. A. Vööbus, Syrische Kanonessammlungen, I. Westsyrische Originalurkunden I. B, CSCO, Subsidia, 38 (Louvain 1970), 316–325.

(21) “First Letter to the Monks of Beth Gogal” [DH 198] Vatican City, BAV, MS Vat. Syr. 135 ff. 19vb–23vb. Edited text based on edition of Vaschalde with Arabic translation published in R.-Y. Akhrass, ed. and trans., áîƒ ¿šăÄ~ (¿ÿÙâÊø ¿ÿæâ) ÍÂ⃠‘ÍæÙéÜÍàÙñ ‹û⃠¿šÍæã؅, (Ma‘arret Saidnaya 2007), 219–258. Edited text and English translation in Three Letters of Philoxenos, Bishop of Mabbogh (485–519): Being the Letter to the Monks, the First Letter to the Monks of Beth-Gaugal, and the Letter to Emperor Zeno, edited and translated by Arthur Adolphe Vaschalde (Roma 1902), 105–118, 146–162.

(22) “Second Letter to the Monks of Beth Gogal” [DH 201] Vatican City, BAV, MS Vat. Syr. 136 ff. 35vb–53rb. Edited text based on edition of de Halleux with Arabic translation published in R.-Y. Akhrass, ed. and trans., áîƒ ¿šăÄ~ (¿ÿÙâÊø ¿ÿæâ) ÍÂ⃠‘ÍæÙéÜÍàÙñ ‹û⃠¿šÍæã؅, (Ma‘arret Saidnaya 2007), 259–370. Edited text and French translation published as “La deuxième lettre de Philoxène aux monastères du Beit Gaugal,” edited and translated by André de Halleux, Le Muséon 96, 3–4 (1983), 5–79.

298

David A. Michelson

(23) “Letter to Abu Ya‘fur” [DH 203] This text enjoys a contentious secondary literature and a complex manuscript history due to the clear interpolation of a section about the history of the Turks in the text. There are at least three main versions of the text. Given the contentious manuscript history of this text, a full listing of known MSS is given here in the hopes that further work will be done or new copies discovered.19 Some introduction to the literature and the history of the text are found in the following: M. Dickens, TurkćyĔ: Turkic Peoples in Syriac Literature prior to the Seljüks, PhD thesis, University of Cambridge, 2008, 227–236. S.P. Brock, “Alphonse Mingana and the Letter of Philoxenos to Abu ‘Afr,” Bulletin of the John Rylands Library 50 (1967), 199–206. MSS which have been edited: Beirut, Daroun Harissa, Library of the Syro-Catholic Patriarchate at Sharfeh, MS Rahmani 115 ff. 103v–123v. Birmingham, University of Birmingham, Mingana Collection, MS Syriac 71, ff. 40r–47r. London, British Library, MS Add. 14,529, ff. 61ra–65va. London, British Library, MS Add. 17,134, f. 4v. London, British Library, MS Add. 17,193, f. 83r–v. Manchester, John Rylands Library, MS Syr. 59, ff. 105r–113v. MSS with content unknown: Beirut, Daroun Harissa, Library of the Syro-Catholic Patriarchate at Sharfeh, MS Rahmani 178, ff. 1v–27r. Barsoum reports (without a citation) that a manuscript in the Syrian Orthodox patriarchal library (then at Homs) contains the work including the interpolation. He also mentions a connection to a similar Armenian account. This manuscript cannot be identified as among those presently listed in current catalogue (1994) of the patriarchal library in Damascus.

Editions and literature: Edited text based on editions of Martin, Mingana, and Harb with Arabic translation published in R.-Y. Akhrass, ed. and trans., ¿šăÄ~ Muriel Debié announced in a presentation at the 2008 Symposium Syriacum in Grenada that she was preparing some of the texts in Sharfeh MS. 178. Mark Dickens has indicated tentative plans for editing the fragments on the Turks pending access to the MSS. 19

A Biblographic Clavis

299

(¿ÿÙâÊø ¿ÿæâ) ÍÂ⃠‘ÍæÙéÜÍàÙñ ‹û⃠¿šÍæã؅ áîƒ, (Ma‘arret Saidnaya 2007), 371–428. Edited text and French translation based on MS Sharfeh 115 published as “Lettre de Philoxène de MabbŠg au phylarque AbŠ Ya‘fŠr de HĪrtć de BĔtna'mćn (selon le manuscrit no 115 du fond patriarcat de Šarfet),” edited and translated by Paul Harb, Melto 3, 1–2 (1967), 183–222. Partial edition and partial English translation based on MS John Rylands 59 published in Alphonse Mingana, “The early spread of Christianity in Central Asia and the Far East: A New Document,” Bulletin of the John Rylands Library 9.2 (July, 1925), 343–367. French translation based on edition of Martin published as “La lettre de Philoxène à ’Abou-Niphir,” translated by J. Tixeront, Revue de l’Orient chrétien 8 (1903), 623–30. Edited text based on MS British Library 14529 published in P. Martin, Syro-chaldaicae institutiones, seu introductio practica ad studium linguae aramaeae (Paris 1873), 71–78. Cf. I.A. Barsoum, The Scattered Pearls: The History of Syriac Literature and Sciences, 2nd Rev. Ed. (Piscataway, N.J. 2003), 269.

(24) “Letter to the Monks of Palestine on Faith” [DH 208] London, British Library, MS Add. 14,532, ff. 178va–181vb. Edited text based on edition of de Halleux with Arabic translation published in R.-Y. Akhrass, ed. and trans., áîƒ ¿šăÄ~ (¿ÿÙâÊø ¿ÿæâ) ÍÂ⃠‘ÍæÙéÜÍàÙñ ‹û⃠¿šÍæã؅, (Ma‘arret Saidnaya 2007), 429–456. Edited text and French translation published in "Nouveaux textes inédits de Philoxène de Mabbog: I. Lettre aux moines de Palestine -Lettre Liminaire au Synodicon d'Éphèse," edited and translated by A. de Halleux, Le Muséon 75, 1–2 (1962), 31–62.

(25) “Letter Placed at the Beginning of the Synodicon” [DH 208] London, British Library, MS Add. 14,533, f. 168r. Edited text based on edition of de Halleux with Arabic translation published in R.-Y. Akhrass, ed. and trans., áîƒ ¿šăÄ~ (¿ÿÙâÊø ¿ÿæâ) ÍÂ⃠‘ÍæÙéÜÍàÙñ ‹û⃠¿šÍæã؅, (Ma‘arret Saidnaya 2007), 457–460. Edited text and French translation published in “Nouveaux textes inédits de Philoxène de Mabbog: I. Lettre aux moines de Palestine—

300

David A. Michelson Lettre Liminaire au Synodicon d’Éphèse,” edited and translated by André de Halleux. Le Muséon 75, 1–2 (1962), 31–62.

(26) “Letter to Abbots Theodore, Mamas, and Severus” [DH 209]20 Fragments in London, British Library, MS Add. 12,155, f. 41ra–b. Fragments in London, British Library, MS Add. 14,532, f. 8rb.

(27) “Letter Against Flavian of Antioch” [DH 210] Fragments in London, British Library, MS Add. 12,155, f. 41rb. Fragments in London, British Library, MS Add. 14,532, ff. 7vb–8ra.

(28) “Letter to the Lector Maron of Anazarbus” [DH 211] London, British Library, MS Add. 14,726, ff. 19v–24v. Edited text based on edition of Lebon with Arabic translation published in R.-Y. Akhrass, ed. and trans., ‹û⃠¿šÍæã؅ áîƒ ¿šăÄ~ (¿ÿÙâÊø ¿ÿæâ) ÍÂ⃠‘ÍæÙéÜÍàÙñ, (Ma‘arret Saidnaya 2007), 461–522. Edited text and Latin translation published in “Textes inédits de Philoxène de Mabboug,” edited and translated by J. Lebon. Le Muséon 43, 1–2 (1930), 17–84.

(29) “Letter to the Scholasticus Uranius” [˜†~] [DH 214] Single fragment preserved in multiple MSS.

(30) “Letter to John the Arab” [DH 216] Single fragment preserved in multiple MSS.

(31) “Second letter to the Monks of Teleda” [DH 217, cf. 188] De Halleux has identified a series of fragments as a second letter to the Monks of Teleda. It should be noted that the document identified by Assemani as the Second Letter to the Monks of Teleda is in fact the Letter to the Monks on Faith (no. 17 supra). Multiple fragments preserved in anti-Julianist MSS, most notably in London, British Library, MS Add. 14,529, ff. 14vb–15va.

(32) “Letter to the Monks in Defense of Dioscorus, that He Canonically Received Eutyches” [DH 220] Fragment preserved in London, British Library, MS Add. 12,155, f. 163ra.

I am in the process of collecting most of the smaller fragments identified in the clavis and plan to publish them with an English translation. 20

A Biblographic Clavis

301

Edited text based on edition of Lebon with Arabic translation published in R.-Y. Akhrass, ed. and trans., ‹û⃠¿šÍæã؅ áîƒ ¿šăÄ~ (¿ÿÙâÊø ¿ÿæâ) ÍÂ⃠‘ÍæÙéÜÍàÙñ, (Ma‘arret Saidnaya 2007), 523–528. Edited text and Latin translation published in “Textes inédits de Philoxène de Mabboug,” edited and translated by J. Lebon. Le Muséon 43, 1–2 (1930), 57, 83–83.

(33) “Letter on the Monks of the Orient” or “Letter on the Economy of the Church” [DH 220] Six fragments preserved with varying titles in London, British Library, MS Add. 14,533, ff. 50ra–52ra, 169vb–170ra, 184rb. Edited text based on edition of Lebon and de Halleux with Arabic translation published in R.-Y. Akhrass, ed. and trans., ¿šăÄ~ (¿ÿÙæؘš ¿ÿæâ) ÍÂ⃠‘ÍæÙéÜÍàÙñ ‹û⃠¿šÍæã؅ áîƒ (Ma‘arret Saidnaya 2007), 35–73. 3 fragments edited with French translation published as “Lettre aux moines orthodoxes d’Orient” in “Nouveaux textes inédits de Philoxène de Mabbog: II. Lettre aux moines d'orient,” edited and translated by André de Halleux, Le Muséon 76 (1963), 5–26. 3 fragments edited with Latin translation published in “Textes inédits de Philoxène de Mabboug,” edited and translated by J. Lebon, Le Muséon 43, 1–2 (1930), 175–220.

(34) “Letter on Ecclesiastical Affairs to Simeon, Abbot of Teleda” [DH 222] London, British Library, MS BL Add. 14,533, ff. 48va–50ra. Edited text based on edition of Lebon with Arabic translation published in R.-Y. Akhrass, ed. and trans., ‹û⃠¿šÍæã؅ áîƒ ¿šăÄ~ (¿ÿÙæؘš ¿ÿæâ) ÍÂ⃠‘ÍæÙéÜÍàÙñ, (Ma‘arret Saidnaya 2007), 3–34. Edited text and Latin translation published in “Textes inédits de Philoxène de Mabboug,” edited and translated by J. Lebon, Le Muséon 43, 3–4 (1930), 167–193. Partial edited text and Latin translation published in J. Lebon, Le Monophysisme Sévérien (Louvain 1909), B1–4 [553–555].

(35) “Letter to the Monks of Senun” [DH 223] Inter alia this text is notable for the patristic florilegium embedded in the middle of the text (see pp. 32–51 of the edition below). Vatican City, BAV, MS Vat. Syr. 136, ff. 58vb–130vb.

302

David A. Michelson

London, British Library, MS BL Add. 14,597, ff. 35vb–91ra. Edited text based on edition of de Halleux with Arabic translation published in R.-Y. Akhrass, ed. and trans., áîƒ ¿šăÄ~ (¿ÿÙæؘš ¿ÿæâ) ÍÂ⃠‘ÍæÙéÜÍàÙñ ‹û⃠¿šÍæã؅ (Ma‘arret Saidnaya 2007), 81–354. Edited text and French translation based on both MSS published as Lettre aux moines de Senoun, edited by André de Halleux, CSCO 231–32 (Louvain 1963). Partial French translation of MS BL 14597 published as “Lettre de Nestorius aux habitants de Constantinople, d’après Philoxène de Mabboug,” in F. Nau, ed. and trans., Nestorius: Le Livre d’Héraclide de Damas, traduit en français, suivi du texte grec des trois homélies de Nestorius sur les tentations de Notre-Seigneur et de trois appendices: Lettre à Cosme, présents envoyés d’Alexandrie, lettre de Nestorius aux habitants de Constantinople (Paris 1910), 370–373.

(36) “Volume” [¿ÿÙùæñ] [against Habib] [DH 225] This volume, preserved in multiple MSS but primarily MS BL Add. 12,164 and Vat. Syr. 138, contains several works which together document a debate between Philoxenos and a dyophysite monk, Habib. The individual works are:

(36a) [Ten Memre against Habib] Memre against Habib (I–II): edited text and Latin translation published as Sancti Philoxeni episcopi Mabbugensis dissertationes decem de uno e sancta trinitate incorporato et passo, edited and translated by Maurice Brière, PO 15.4 (Turnhout, Belgium 1920). Memre against Habib (III–V): edited text and Latin translation published as Sancti Philoxeni episcopi Mabbugensis dissertationes decem de uno e sancta trinitate incorporato et passo, edited and translated by M. Brière and F. Graffin, PO 38.3 (Turnhout, Belgium 1977). Memre against Habib (VI–VIII): edited text and French translation published as Sancti Philoxeni episcopi Mabbugensis dissertationes decem de uno e sancta trinitate incorporato et passo, edited and translated by M. Brière and F. Graffin, PO 39.4 (Turnhout, Belgium 1979). Memre against Habib (IX–X): edited text and French translation published as Sancti Philoxeni episcopi Mabbugensis dissertationes decem de uno e sancta trinitate incorporato et passo, edited and translated by M. Brière and F. Graffin, PO 40.2. (Turnhout, Belgium 1980).

A Biblographic Clavis

303

(36b) [Chapters of Habib] or “Mamlla of the Adversary” This text is a selection of quotations from Habib’s Mamlla compiled by Philoxenos and interspersed with critical comments. Edited text and French translation published in Sancti Philoxeni episcopi Mabbugensis dissertationes decem de uno e sancta trinitate incorporato et passo (Memre contre Habib), edited and translated by M. Brière and F. Graffin, PO 41.1.186 (Turnhout, Belgium 1982), 5–33.

(36c) [Brief Refutation] The chapters are followed by a brief refutation by Philoxenos. Edited text and French translation published in Sancti Philoxeni episcopi Mabbugensis dissertationes decem de uno e sancta trinitate incorporato et passo (Memre contre Habib), edited and translated by M. Brière and F. Graffin, PO 41.1.186 (Turnhout, Belgium 1982), 32–37.

(36d) “Letter to the Monks on Faith” [same as no. 17 supra] The volume then includes the Letter to the Monks on Faith as the occasion for Habib’s Mamlla. Edited text and French translation published in Sancti Philoxeni Episcopi Mabbugensis dissertationes decem de uno e sancta trinitate incorporato et passo (Memre contre Habib), edited and translated by M. Brière and F. Graffin, PO 41.1. (Turnhout, Belgium 1982), 38–57.

(36e) “Testimonies Written by the Fathers” [Florilegium] The volume concludes with a lengthy Florilegium compiled by Philoxenos. Complete edited text and French translation published in Sancti Philoxeni episcopi Mabbugensis dissertationes decem de uno e sancta trinitate incorporato et passo (Memre contre Habib), edited and translated by M. Brière and F. Graffin, PO 41.1.186 (Turnhout, Belgium 1982), 58–129. Many of the citations of the florilegium were published in piecemeal fashion according to attribution in various earlier publications. Partial edited text and French translation (for the citations of Ephrem) published with commentary and bibliography concerning previous partial editions in F. Graffin, “Le florilège patristique de Philoxène de Mabbog,” in I. Ortiz de Urbina, ed., Symposium Syriacum, 1972 (Roma 1974), 267–290.

(37) “Memra on the Hymn Holy Art Thou God” [On the Trisagion] [DH 238] Three fragments preserved in multiple anti-Julianist MSS.

304

David A. Michelson

(38) “The Book of Sentences” [DH 240] Primarily preserved in Vatican City, BAV, MS Vat. Syr. 137. Edited fragment and German translation based on MS BL Add. 14,670 published in Edited text and German translation published in P. Krüger, “Philoxeniana inedita,” Oriens Christianus 48 (1964), 161–162. [The hypothesis that this fragment belongs to the Book of Sentences is that of de Halleux not Krüger.] Short excerpt translated into English in W.A. Wigram, The Separation of the Monophysites (London 1923), 202–203. Edited text and Latin translation based on MS Vat. Syr. 137 published as Tractatus tres de trinitate et incarnatione, edited and translated by Arthur Adolphe Vaschalde, CSCO 9–10. (Louvain 1907).

(39) “Memre on the Inhomination [¿šÍæýåûÁÿâ]” [DH 246] Thirteen fragments preserved in multiple anti-Julianist MSS.

(40) “Refutation against the Synod of Chalcedon” [249] Three fragments preserved in four MSS. Edited text and English translation of one fragment published in E.A. Wallis Budge, The Discourses of Philoxenos, Bishop of Mabbôgh, A.D. 485–519, vol. 2 (London 1894), xcviii–xcix, xxxiii–xxxvi.

(41) “On Faith” [Fragment] [DH 251] Preserved in London, British Library, MS BL Add. 17,206, ff. 30v–33r.

(42) [Fragment without Title, no. 1] [DH 251] Preserved in London, British Library, MS BL Add. 12,155, f. 161rb.

(43) [Fragment without Title, no. 2] [DH 251] Preserved in Birmingham, University of Birmingham, Mingana Collection, MS Syriac 37, f. 4v.

(44) “Letter to Patricius Edessene Monk” [DH 254] This work exists in two Syriac recensions (long and short) in multiple MSS and also circulated in a Greek version (of the shorter recension) as a work attributed to Isaac of Nineveh. While the shorter Syriac version has been included in the apparatus of critical editions it remains unpublished as an integral text.21

Emmanuel Papoutsakis has mentioned that he may prepare an edition. 21

A Biblographic Clavis

305

Longer version prserved in multiple MS including London, British Library, MS BL Add. 14,649, f. 180r–200v. Short version preserved only in Vatican City, BAV, MS Vat. Syr. 145r– 158r. Edited text based on edition of Lavenant with Arabic translation K published in R.-Y. Akhrass, ed. and trans., ‹û⃠¾ÙæÏ†Ă ¾ĆãÙè (¿ÿÙâÊø ¿ÿæâ) ÍÂ⃠‘ÍæÙéÜÍàÙñ, (Ma‘arret Saidnaya 2007), 5–230. Edited Syriac text and French translation of longer recension with reference to shorter version published as La lettre à Patricius de Philoxène de Mabboug, edited and translated by René Lavenant, PO 30.5 (Paris 1963). Partial edited Syriac text and Latin translation of longer recension published in M. Kmosko, Liber Graduum, Patrologia Syriaca 3 (Paris, 1926), CCIII–CXXIV. Partial edited Syriac text and Latin translation of longer recension published in I. Rahmani, Studia Syriaca, vol. 4 (Sharfeh 1909), 70– 73, ƒ–-–. Discussion of the transmission of the Greek text in S.P. Brock, “Syriac into Greek at Mar Saba: The Translation of St. Isaac the Syrian,” in J. Patrich, ed., The Sabaite heritage in the Orthodox Church from the Fifth Century to the Present, Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 98 (Leuven 2001), 200–208. Edited Greek text of shorter recension published in N. Theotokou, ed., ̖ΓІ ϳΗϟΓΙ Δ΅ΘΕϲΖ ψΐЗΑ ͑Η΅ΤΎ πΔ΍ΗΎϱΔΓΙ ̐΍ΑΉΙϫ ΘΓІ ΗϾΕΓΙ ΘΤ ΉЀΔΉΌνΑΘ΅ ΅ΗΎ΋Θ΍ΎΣ (Leipzig, 1770) and reprinted by

I. Spetsieris (Athens 1895), 366–395. Edited Greek of shorter recension text published in A. Mai, Nova Patrum Bibliotheca, vol. 8 (Rome 1871), 157–187.

(45) “Letter to Abraham and Orestes, Priests of Edessa, Concerning Stephen Bar Sudaili the Edessene” [DH 259] Vatican City, BAV, MS Vat. Syr. 103 ff. 60r–63v. Edited text based on edition of Frothingham with Arabic translation K published in R.-Y. Akhrass, ed. and trans., ‹û⃠¾ÙæÏ†Ă ¾ĆãÙè (¿ÿÙâÊø ¿ÿæâ) ÍÂ⃠‘ÍæÙéÜÍàÙñ, (Ma‘arret Saidnaya 2007), 231–258. Textual emendations published in T. Jansma, “Philoxenos’ Letter to Abraham and Orestes Concerning Stephen Bar Sudaili: Some

306

David A. Michelson

Proposals with Regard to the Correction of the Syriac Text and the English Translation,” Le Muséon 87.1 (1974), 79–86. Greek translation based on edition of Frothingham published in W. Dommershausen, Pseudo-Hierotheos, Person und Werk. Ein Beitrag zur syrischmystischen, Ph.D. thesis Johannes Gutenberg Universität (Mainz 1949), 255–266. Edited text and English translation based on MS Vat. Syr. 103 published in A.L. Frothingham, Jr., Stephen Bar Sudaili the Syrian Mystic and the Book of the Hierotheos (Leyden 1886), 28–48.

(46) “Letter to One Newly Converted from the World and Letter to a Disciple” [DH 262] This work exists in two variant forms with different titles and closing sections. Multiple MSS Edited text based on edition of Olinder with Arabic translation published K in R.-Y. Akhrass, ed. and trans., ‘ÍæÙéÜÍàÙñ ‹û⃠¾ÙæÏ†Ă ¾ĆãÙè (¿ÿÙâÊø ¿ÿæâ) ÍÂâƒ, (Ma‘arret Saidnaya 2007), 259–294. Italian translation published in Filosseno di Mabbug. I sensi dello Spirito: Lettera a un suo discepolo, Lettera parenetica a un ebreo diventato discepolo, translated by S. Chialà, Testi dei Padri della Chiesa 48 (Monastero di Bose 2000). French translation based on MS BL Add. 12,167 published as “Lettre inédite de Philoxène de Mabboug a l’un de ses disciples,” translated by M. Albert, L’Orient syrien, 6 (1961), 243–254. Edited text and English translation based on MS Vat. Syr. 136, MS BL Add. 14,649, and MS BL Add. 12,167 published as “A Letter of Philoxenos of Mabbug Sent to a Novice,” edited and translated by Gunnar Olinder, Göteborgs Högskolas Årsskrift 47 (1942), i–20.

(47) “Letter of Exhortation to One Converted from Judaism” [DH 265] London, British Library, MS BL Add. 14,726, ff. 10r–11v. Italian translation of MS BL Add. 14,726 published in Filosseno di Mabbug. I sensi dello Spirito: Lettera a un suo discepolo, Lettera parenetica a un ebreo diventato discepolo, translated by S. Chialà, Testi dei Padri della Chiesa 48 (Monastero di Bose 2000). French translation of MS BL Add. 14,726 published as “Une Lettre inédite de Philoxène de Mabboug à un juif converti engagé dans la vie monastique,” translated by M. Albert, L'Orient Syrien 6 (1961), 41–50.

A Biblographic Clavis

307

(48) “Letter to a Scholasticus Having Become a Monk” [DH 266] London, British Library, MS BL Add. 12,167, ff. 278ra–282vb. French translation published as “Une Lettre inedite de Philoxène de Mabboug à un avocat, devenu moine, tenté par Satan,” edited and translated by François Graffin, L’Orient Syrien 5,2 (1960), 183–96.

(49) “Letter to Recluse Brothers” [DH 267] Three fragments in three MS.

(50) [On Prayer] [DH 268] Three fragments with attribution but without a title. P. Bettiolo has convincingly demonstrated that the third fragment is actually from John the Solitary. S.P. Brock has suggested that the attribution of the other two fragments to Philoxenos be retained only with a measure of uncertainty. Three fragments in London, British Library, MS BL Add. 12,167, ff. 182va–184vb. English translation of two fragments published as “Excerpt on Prayer [Nos. 3 and 4]” in The Syriac Fathers on Prayer and the Spiritual Life, translated by Sebastian Brock (Kalamazoo, Mich. 1987), 129– K 131. Syriac version published in S. Brock, ¿šÌÁ~ƒ ¿šÍæòàâ ¿šÍߖ áîƒ ¾ÙØĂÍè (Glane-Losser, Holland 1988) [non vidi]. Edited text and Italian translation of all three fragments published in P. Bettiolo, “Sulla preghiera: Filosseno o Giovanni?” Le Muséon 94 (1981), 75–89.

(51) “Memra on the Faith through Questions” [DH 276] Fragments preserved in multiple MSS. Edited text based on edition of Assemani and Tanghe with Arabic K translation published in R.-Y. Akhrass, ed. and trans., ¾ĆãÙè (¿ÿÙâÊø ¿ÿæâ) ÍÂ⃠‘ÍæÙéÜÍàÙñ ‹û⃠¾ÙæφĂ, (Ma‘arret Saidnaya 2007), 295–360. English translation based on edition of Tanghe published as “On the Indwelling of the Holy Spirit” in The Syriac Fathers on Prayer and the Spiritual Life, translated by Sebastian Brock (Kalamazoo, Mich. 1987), 106–127. Syriac version published in S. Brock, K ¿šÍߖ áîƒ ¾ÙØĂÍè ¿šÌÁ~ ƒ ¿šÍæòàâ (Glane/Losser 1988), [non vidi]. English translation partially reprinted in S.P. Brock, Spirituality in the Syriac Tradition, 2nd ed. (Kottayam 2005) 129–131.

308

David A. Michelson

Edition and French translation of a fragment from MS BL Add. 17,193 published as “Memra de Philoxène de Mabboug sur l’inhabitation du Saint Esprit,” edited and translated by Antoine Tanghe, Le Muséon 73, 3–4 (1960), 39–71. Partial edition and Latin translation of a fragment from MS Borgia Syr. 10 published in S.-E. and J.-S. Assemani, Bibliothecae apostolicae vaticanae codicum manuscriptorum catalogus, vol. 2 (Rome 1759), 349– 350.

(52) “On He Who Willingly Transgresses the Prohibition of Priests” [DH 279] Single fragment preserved in Vatican City, BAV, MS Vat. Syr. 126 f. 391vb–392rc.

(53) “Discourses” [DH 280, cf. 276]22 This work has the most extensive manuscript tree of any of Philoxenos’ works.23 One discourse circulated in Melkite monasteries under the name of Gregory of Nyssa. It also survives in an Arabic version. De Halleux also assigns to the “Discourses” several fragments which Budge has published as fragments of separate works.24 Arabic translation published in H. Aho, trans., T̙arĪq al-kamćl / FĪluµksĪnuµs al-ManbajĪ (Damascus 2008) [non vidi]. Revised French translation published as Philoxène de Mabboug, Homélies, translated by Eugène Lemoine, nouvelle edition revue par René Lavenant, S.J., SC 44 bis (Paris 2007). Partial Finnish translation published in S. Seppälä, Kerubin silmin. Luostareissa, luolissa, erämaissa ja pylväillä kilvoitelleiden syyrialaisten askeettien historiaa (Helsinki 2002), 277–281, 294–295, 296, 300– 301, 312 [non vidi]. R.A. Kitchen is nearing completion of new English translation of the Discourses. 23 Readers are refered to de Halleux for the manuscript evidence and also to the discussion of discourse 11 in a palimpsest in S.P. Brock, “Notulae syriacae: Some Miscellaneous Identifications,” Le Muséon 108:1– 2 (1995), 69–78. 24 Pinggéra and Kessel mention in their bibliography (vide infra) a vocalized edition based on Budge’s edition: K. Budaq, et al., eds, ¾Ï˜†~ ‘ÍæÙéÜÍàÙñ ‹ûâ ¾æÁÍÓß çØûÙâ~ƒ ¿šÍæؚûâ áî ¾Áăü ¿š†ûÙã㠁ÍÂ⃠¾ñÍùéñ~. (2008) [non vidi]. 22

A Biblographic Clavis

309

An edition and translation of an abbreviated version of Discourse 9 attributed to Gregory of Nyssa published in M.F.G. Parmentier, “Pseudo-Gregory of Nyssa’s Homily on Poverty,” ARAM 5 (1993), 401–426. A photostatic reprint of the edition of Budge with Arabic introduction published as T̙arĪq al-kamćl / allafahu bi-al-lughah al-SuryćnĪayh FĪluµksĪnuµs al-ManbajĪ (Baghdad 1978) [non vidi]. French translation published as Philoxène de Mabboug, Homélies, translated by Eugène Lemoine, SC 44 (Paris 1956). Edited text and English translation published as The Discourses of Philoxenos, Bishop of Mabbôgh, A.D. 485–519, edited and translated by E.A. Wallis Budge, 2 Vols. (London 1894). Edited text of Discourses 5 and 10 (“On Simplicity” and “On the Lust of the Belly” published in J.E. Manna, ed., Morceaux choisis de littérature araméenne, vol. 2 (Mosul 1901), ťƕĿ-ųƃĿ. German translation of “On Faith” published in F.W.A. Baethgen, “Philoxenos von Mabug über den Glauben,” Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte 5.1 (1882), 122–138. Fragments found in an Arabic manuscript of Der-el-SŠryćn, are published in Anba Samuel, ed., Al-’ćbć’ al-hćdiqŠn fĪ l-‘ibćda, vol. 1, (Egypt, 19511/19722/ 20053) [non vidi]. Cf. the following review articles: R.A. Kitchen, review of Lemoine, E. and Lavenant, R., trans., Philoxène de Mabboug. Homélies (1956 and 2007), Hugoye 13:1 (2010), 65–73. T. Jansma, review of E. Lemoine, trans., Philoxène de Mabboug. Homélies (1956), Vigiliae Christianae 12:4 (1958), 233–237. I. Hausherr, “Spiritualité syrienne: Philoxène de Mabboug en version française,” Orientalia Christiana Periodica 23.1 (1957), 171–185.

(54) “Familiar Mamlla to the Brothers Concerning Stillness which is in the Service and Order of the Monastery” [DH 288–90] Fragments preserved in multiple MSS. Edition and French translation published C. Moulin Paliard, Un Mamllo sur le recueillement inédit du VIe siècle, Diplôme l’École Pratique des Hautes Études Sciences Réligieuses, Paris, 2005 [non vidi].

(55) [Fragments on Prayer Humility and Penance] [DH 288– 290] Two fragments preserved in multiple MSS.

310

David A. Michelson

Edition of one fragment from on MS BL Add. 14,582 published in K S. Brock, ¿šÍߖ áîƒ ¾ÙØĂÍè ¿šÌÁ~ƒ ¿šÍæòàâ (GlaneLosser, Holland 1988), 80 [non vidi]. English translation of one fragment from MS BL Add. 14,582 published as “Excerpt on Prayer” in The Syriac Fathers on Prayer and the Spiritual Life, translated by Sebastian Brock (Kalamazoo, Mich. 1987), 128.

(56) “On the Council of Chalcedon” [no reference in DH] Two fragments preserved in two MSS. One fragment in Cambridge, Mass. Harvard University, Houghton Library, MS Syriac 38, ff. 111v– 121v remains unpublished. French translation in A. de Halleux, “Un fragment philoxénien inédit de polémique anti-chalcédonienne,” in W.C. Delsman et al., eds., Von Kanaan bis Kerala: Festschrift für Prof. Mag. Dr. J.P.M. van der Ploeg O.P. zur Vollendung des siebzigsten Lebensjahres am 4. Juli 1979 überreicht von Kollegen, Freunden und Schülern (Neukirchen-Vluyn 1982), 431–441.

(57) “Letter to John Sa‘ara [Àûïè çæÏÍØ] of Amida” [DH 188] Brief quotations preserved in the vita by Elia of Qartamin (vita “b” supra) and the anonymous “Victory of Mar Aksnoyo” (see above). Cf. A. de Halleux, ed., Éli de Qartmin: Memra sur S. Mar Philoxène de Mabbog, CSCO 100–101 (Louvain 1963), textus 9–10. Cf. S.P. Brock, “Tash‘ita de-Mar Aksnaya,” Qolo Suryoyo 110 (July/Aug 1996), 246.

B. LOST WORKS (58) [Letter to the Isaurian Bishops Rejecting Strictness (¿š†ÿØÿÏ)] [DH 188] Severus of Antioch, in a letter to the presbyters at Alexandria (no. 39) mentions that Philoxenos had written to the Isaurian bishops rejecting their demands for purging the names of heretics from the diptychs. Cf. Severus of Antioch, A Collection of Letters of Severus of Antioch: From Numerous Syriac Manuscripts, edited and translated by E.W. Brooks, Patrologia Orientalis 12 (Paris 1919), 296.

A Biblographic Clavis

311

(59) “Letter to Beronikios [¾æÙùÙåûÁ], Abbot of Beth Mar Hanina” [DH 188] The chronicle of Pseudo-Zacharias mentions that Philoxenos wrote from exile to a certain Beronikios, Abbot of Beth Mar Hanina. Cf. E.W. Brooks, Historia ecclesiastica Zachariae rhetori vulgo adscripta, CSCO 84 and 88 (Louvain 1921 and 1953), 81, 56. Cf. S.P. Brock, “St Aninas/Mar Hanina and his monastery,” Analecta Bollandiana 124 (2006), 5–10 [non-vidi].

(60) [Earlier Letter to the Monks of Beth Gogal] [DH 188] In his Second Letter to the Monks of Beth Gogal (no. 22 supra), Philoxenos refers to an earlier letter which he wrote to them. Based on Philoxenos’ description, De Halleux concluded that this earlier letter is separate from the other extant letter to the monks of Beth Gogal (First Letter to the Monks of Beth Gogal, no. 21 supra). This third or “earlier” letter is now lost. Cf. A. de Halleux, “La deuxième lettre de Philoxène aux monastères du Beit Gaugal,” edited and translated by André de Halleux, Le Muséon 96, 3–4 (1983), 9–10, 28–29.

(61) “Letter to Eustorgius [‘ÍÙܘÍÓè~]” [DH 253] Mentioned as a work of Philoxenos in the life of Simeon of Qartamin. Cf. F. Nau, “Notice historique sur le monastère de Qartàmin” in Actes du XIV Congrès international des Orientalistes, vol. 2 (Paris 1906), 45, 83.

K ] and the (62) [Letters to the Sons of Gurzan [‡˜ÍÄ ÚæÁ People of Inner Persia] [no reference in DH]. Mentioned as a work or works of Philoxenos in the “Victory of Mar Aksnoyo” (see above). Cf. S.P. Brock, “Tash‘ita de-Mar Aksnaya,” Qolo Suryoyo 110 (July/Aug 1996), 246. Cf. I.A. Barsoum, The Scattered Pearls: The History of Syriac Literature and Sciences, 2nd Rev. Ed. (Piscataway, N.J. 2003), 268.

312

David A. Michelson

C. DUBIOUS AND SPURIOUS WORKS (63*) [Iconoclastic Fragments] [DH 88] At the Second Council of Nicaea in 787, Philoxenos and Severus of Antioch were charged as iconoclasts on the testimony of various church historians. De Halleux strongly rejected the validity of this charge on several grounds: the lack of such sentiments in Philoxenos’ extant works, the prejudice of the council against miaphysites, and the fact that all of the testimonies were ultimately reliant on the now lost work of Theodore Lector. De Halleux preferred to instead attribute Philoxenos’ opposition to the use of dove imagery as part of an effort to avoid syncretism with the worship of Atargatis in Syria. While admitting that the evidence from the council is suspect, Glenn Peers has subsequently argued for a more nuanced reading of Philoxenos’s Christology as having a “fundamental suspicion of images.” For further literature see: G. Peers, Subtle Bodies: Representing Angels in Byzantium (Berkeley 2001), 71 ff. Two of the fragments charging iconoclasm are translated in C. Mango, The Art of the Byzantine Empire 312–1453 (Toronto 1986), 43–44.

(64*) “Memra of Faith Concerning that Simon [Peter] Said Jesus of Nazareth was a Man from God. Spoken against Those Who Think that Jesus and Christ are the Names of a Man Who Came Down from God and Do Not Think that God Became Man” [DH 162] A fragment of this work is reported by Assemani, Bibliotheca Orientalis. vol. 2 (Rome, 1721), 45 as being preserved on a now illegible folio of MS Vat. Syr 136. De Halleux has questioned whether it should be viewed as a separate work due to lack of manuscript evidence other than Assemani. De Halleux suggests it may have been a fragment of the Memra Against Habib.

(65*) “Disputation with One of the Learned Nestorians Concerning the Fact that the God of Our Lord Jesus Christ is the Father of Glory” [DH 163] De Halleux questioned the authenticity of this short work on the grounds of genre and style and the anti-Julianist learnings of the text. If these elements are Philoxenian, he suggests that at the least they have been redacted. Vatican City, BAV, MS Vat. Syr. 135 ff. 71va–77rb.

A Biblographic Clavis

313

(66*) “Natural [¾ÙæÙÜ] Disputation of Nestorians and Orthodox” [DH 164] This anonymous work is not attributed to Philoxenos but is preserved in a manuscript composed primarily of Philoxenian texts. Vatican City, BAV, MS Vat. Syr. 135 ff. 77rb–80va.

(67*) “A Dialogue between the Church and Nestorius” [DH 165] This acephalous and fragmentary text is attributed to Philoxenos but its inconsistencies with the rest of Philoxenos’ works have been noted by de Halleux. London, British Library, MS BL Add. 14,534, ff. 9–20.

(68*) “We believe in the Confession of One True God” [DH 177] De Halleux noted that the wide variation and anachronisms in the versions of this text indicate that it cannot be strictly attributed to Philoxenos at least in the extant versions. Preserved in multiple MSS and recensions. Edited text and English translation based on a Mor Gabriel MS in Edip Aydin, The Christological Thought of Philoxenos of Mabbug in Reaction to the Council of Chalcedon (London: Bachelor of Divinity Thesis, Heythrop College, University of London, 1995), 11–13.

(69*) “[Lost] Letter to Himyarites” [DH 188] The anonymous “Victory of Mar Aksnoyo” (see above) attributes a letter to the Himyarites to Philoxenos. De Halleux rightly points out that this is mostly likely a reference to a letter of Simeon of Beth Arsham. Barsoum’s description of the letter as “a letter to the Himyarite Christians during the adversity inflicted on them by Masruq the Jewish King because of their Christianity” fits this interpretation of de Halleux. Nevertheless, since no such letter is extant no futher conclusions can be drawn. Philoxenos did, however, ordain the first two bishops of Najran, however, so the existence of a letter to the Himyarites which may have been confused with the later letter of Simeon is possible. Cf. S.P. Brock, “Tash‘ita de-Mar Aksnaya,” Qolo Suryoyo 110 (July/Aug 1996), 246. Cf. I. Shahid, The Martyrs of Najran: New Documents, Subsidia Hagiographica (Bruxelles 1971), 238, 271, et passim.

314

David A. Michelson

Cf. I.A. Barsoum, The Scattered Pearls: The History of Syriac Literature and Sciences, 2nd Rev. Ed. (Piscataway, N.J. 2003), 269.

(70*) [On the Turks] [DH 203] In the Letter to Abu Ya‘fur (no. 23 supra), an interpolated section on the Turks has been attributed to Philoxenos. See discussion above. (71*) “Memra against Nestorians and Eutychians” [DH 224] A fragment of this work is reported by Assemani, Bibliotheca Orientalis, vol. 2 (Rome, 1721), 45 as being preserved on a now illegible folio of MS Vat. Syr 136. De Halleux has questioned whether it should be viewed as a separated work due to lack of manuscript evidence other than Assemani. De Halleux suggests it may have been a fragment of the Book of Sentences.

(72*) “Letter Sent to a Friend…Concerning the Three Steps” [DH 269] This work is repeatedly attributed to Philoxenos in the manuscript tradition. A small fragment also circulated as a prayer attributed to Philoxenos (see 78j* below). In the last half century, however, scholars—led by Paul Harb—have increasingly questioned its authorship. It has now been firmly determined to be the work of Joseph of Hazzaya. While the text has become central to the study of Joseph it did not play a similar position in modern scholarship on Philoxenos and thus the reassignment of authorship has not significantly affected existing interpretations of Philoxenos’ theology. Moreover, many of the Evagrian themes of the letter have parallels in the authentic works of Philoxenos. Nevertheless, it should be noted that works before the 1960s will usually have taken this work to be Philoxenian. Relevant information on history of interpretation of the text and a critical edition with French translation is published as Joseph Hazzaya, Lettre sur les trois étapes de la vie monastique, eds. P. Harb and F. Graffin, PO 45.2 (Brepols, 1992). A significant article on the attribution is P. Harb, “Faut-il restituer à Joseph Hazzaya la Lettre sur les trois degres de la vie monastique attribuée à Philoxène de Mabboug?” Melto 4.2 (1968), 13–36. A French translation, apparently independent of the previous edition of Olinder, published as “La Lettre de Philoxène de Mabboug à un

A Biblographic Clavis

315

supérieur de monstère sur la vie monastique,” translated by F. Graffin, L’Orient Syrien 6.1–2 (1961), 317–352, 455–486. A facsimile edition based on MS BL Add. 17,262 and collated with two other MSS is published as “A Letter of Philoxenos of Mabbug Sent to a Friend,” edited and translated by G. Olinder in Acta Universitas Gotoborgensis, Göteborgs Högskolas Årsskrift, vol. LVI (1950), i–63.

(73*) “Exhortation of Mar Philoxenos” [DH 275] De Halleux has identified that this work is actually letter no. 28 in the letters of Jacob of Sarug. Cf. G. Olinder, ed. Iacobi Sarugensis epistulae quotquot supersunt, CSCO 110 (Louvain 1937), 229. London, British Library, MS BL Add. 17,206, ff. 54r–59r.

(74*) [Works of Pseudo-Nilus] [DH 275] Although no examples are extant which pseudonymously substitute Philoxenos as the author of the works of Pseudo-Nilus, de Halleux has identified at least two scribal notes which suggest that this may have been the view of some medieval readers. (75*) [Fragments on Virgins and Tonsure] [DH 290] De Halleux notes that these fragments are too short to be authenticated. London, British Library, MS BL Add. 14,613, f. 141v. London, British Library, MS BL Add. 17,193, f. 83v. London, British Library, MS BL Add. 17,215, f. 43r.

(76*) “Concerning a Departed Brother” [DH 290] Attributed to Philoxenos but attested only in one manuscript and considered among the dubia by de Halleux on stylistic grounds. London, British Library, MS BL Add. 14,520, ff. 123v–125r.

(77*) “Commentary of Filekseyus”or “Commentary on the Paradise of the Fathers” [DH 291] Philoxenos is commemorated in the Ethiopian Church as one of three ascetic doctors. The work which circulated widely in Ge‘ez under the name of Filekseyus is actually Dadisho Qatraya’s commentary on Palladius. For further information see W. Witakowski “Filekseyus, the Ethiopic version of the Syriac Dadisho Qatraya’s Commentary on the Paradise of the Fathers,” Rocznik Orientalistyczny, 59:1 (2006), 281–296.

316

David A. Michelson

(78*) Prayers [DH 293–302] A substantial amount of liturgical material is attributed to Philoxenos. Many of these items do not yet have a critical edition and this is an area wide open for further scholarship. The general consensus from de Halleux to the present is that these works are generally later than Philoxenos, a conclusion supported by the date of the extant copies and the fact that some of the same items can be found attributed to other authors. De Halleux concludes that while some may be drawing on Philoxenian phrases and themes, the evidence has been so heavily redacted that authentication of Philoxenian elements is no longer possible. As indicated above, a comprehensive clavis to the liturgical works of Philoxenos cannot be written until further manuscript research has been done. At present, Roger Akhrass is beginning to collect and edit these texts. Further work in this area is the greatest desiderata with regard to unedited material in the Philoxenian and Pseudo-Philoxenian corpus. Several of prayers attributed to Philoxenos have been published in Y.I. Çiçek, ed., ÀĂÍâÎ↠(¾ÙؘÍè) ¾Øă؃ƒ ¿ÿÙÂü ¾ÙÂå Ê؆ƒƒ (Glane-Losser, Holland 1993), 3–4, 32–34, 42–43, 61– 64, 80–81, 104–118, 134–135 [non vidi] and reprinted with an K Arabic translations in R.-Y. Akhrass, ed. and trans., ¾ÙæÏ†Ă ¾ĆãÙè (¿ÿÙâÊø ¿ÿæâ) ÍÂ⃠‘ÍæÙéÜÍàÙñ ‹ûâƒ, (Ma‘arret Saidnaya 2007). See below for individual items.25 (78a*) “To you I pray at this time in fear...” [Eucharistic Prayer I] [DH 295] London, British Library, MS BL Add. 17,125, f. 78r.

(78b*) “I carry you, living God...” [Eucharistic Prayer II] [DH 295] London, British Library, MS BL Add. 14,529, f. 16v–17r. London, British Library, MS BL Add. 17,125, f. 78r. An edition and English translation published as A. Cody, “An Instruction of Philoxenos of Mabbug on Gestures and Prayer when One Receives Communion in the Hand, with a History of the Manner of Receiving the Eucharistic Bread in the West Syrian I am grateful to Roger Akhrass who assisted me in preparing this section including improving my translations of the titles and who, along with Sebastian Brock, provided citations for the texts published by Çiçek to which I did not have access. 25

A Biblographic Clavis

317

Church,” in N. Mitchell and J.F. Baldovin, eds., Rule of Prayer, Rule of Faith: Essays in Honor of Aidan Kavanagh, O.S.B. (Collegeville, Minnesota 1996), 56–79.

(78c*) “Great love unceasing...” [Penitential Prayer] [DH 296] De Halleux notes three passages in this prayer which are taken verbatim from the Discourses. Multiple MSS, but most completely in London, British Library, MS BL Add. 14,621, f. 160vb–164rb.

(78d*) “Glorious name that sanctifies...” [DH 298] De Halleux notes that this prayer is preserved as part of the Syrian Orthodox breviary. Multiple MSS. Edition based on the edition of Çiçek with Arabic translation published in K R.-Y. Akhrass, ed. and trans., ‘ÍæÙéÜÍàÙñ ‹û⃠¾ÙæÏ†Ă ¾ĆãÙè (¿ÿÙâÊø ¿ÿæâ) ÍÂâƒ, (Ma‘arret Saidnaya 2007), 378–381. Text previously published in Y.I. Çiçek, ed., (¾ÙؘÍè) ¾Øă؃ƒ ¿ÿÙÂü ¾ÙÂå Ê؆ƒƒ ÀĂÍâÎ↠(Glane-Losser, Holland 1993), 61–64 [non vidi].

(78e*) “Glory to you, God...” [DH 299] De Halleux notes that this prayer is the best preserved prayer attributed to Philoxenos, surviving in multiple MSS as part of the Syrian Orthodox breviary and also preserved in Arabic and Ethiopic. Multiple MSS. Edition based on the edition of Çiçek with Arabic translation published in K R.-Y. Akhrass, ed. and trans., ‘ÍæÙéÜÍàÙñ ‹û⃠¾ÙæÏ†Ă ¾ĆãÙè (¿ÿÙâÊø ¿ÿæâ) ÍÂâƒ, (Ma‘arret Saidnaya 2007), 382–391. Text previously published in Y.I. Çiçek, ed., (¾ÙؘÍè) ¾Øă؃ƒ ¿ÿÙÂü ¾ÙÂå Ê؆ƒƒ ÀĂÍâÎ↠(Glane-Losser, Holland 1993), 104–118 [non vidi].

(78f*) “I give thanks to you, God...” [DH 301] Multiple MSS. Edition based on the edition of Çiçek with Arabic translation published in K R.-Y. Akhrass, ed. and trans., ‘ÍæÙéÜÍàÙñ ‹û⃠¾ÙæÏ†Ă ¾ĆãÙè (¿ÿÙâÊø ¿ÿæâ) ÍÂâƒ, (Ma‘arret Saidnaya 2007), 372–373. Text previously published in Y.I. Çiçek, ed., (¾ÙؘÍè) ¾Øă؃ƒ ¿ÿÙÂü ¾ÙÂå Ê؆ƒƒ ÀĂÍâÎ↠(Glane-Losser, Holland 1993), 3–4 [non vidi].

318

David A. Michelson

(78g*) “Watcher who does not slumber or sleep...” [DH 301] Multiple MSS. Edition based on the edition of Çiçek with Arabic translation published in K R.-Y. Akhrass, ed. and trans., ‘ÍæÙéÜÍàÙñ ‹û⃠¾ÙæÏ†Ă ¾ĆãÙè (¿ÿÙâÊø ¿ÿæâ) ÍÂâƒ, (Ma‘arret Saidnaya 2007), 374–375, 380–381. Text previously published in Y.I. Çiçek, ed., (¾ÙؘÍè) ¾Øă؃ƒ ¿ÿÙÂü ¾ÙÂå Ê؆ƒƒ ÀĂÍâÎ↠(Glane-Losser, Holland 1993), 32–24, 80– 81 [non vidi].

(78h*) “I beg your holy name...” [no reference in DH] Edition based on the edition of Çiçek with Arabic translation published in K R.-Y. Akhrass, ed. and trans., ‘ÍæÙéÜÍàÙñ ‹û⃠¾ÙæÏ†Ă ¾ĆãÙè (¿ÿÙâÊø ¿ÿæâ) ÍÂâƒ, (Ma‘arret Saidnaya 2007), 376–377. Text previously published in Y.I. Çiçek, ed., (¾ÙؘÍè) ¾Øă؃ƒ ¿ÿÙÂü ¾ÙÂå Ê؆ƒƒ ÀĂÍâÎ↠(Glane-Losser, Holland 1993), 42–43 [non vidi].

(78i*) “Yea Lord my savior and my life-giver I ask...” [no reference in DH] Edition based on the edition of Çiçek with Arabic translation published in K R.-Y. Akhrass, ed. and trans., ‘ÍæÙéÜÍàÙñ ‹û⃠¾ÙæÏ†Ă ¾ĆãÙè (¿ÿÙâÊø ¿ÿæâ) ÍÂâƒ, (Ma‘arret Saidnaya 2007), 400–401. Text previously published in Y.I. Çiçek, ed., (¾ÙؘÍè) ¾Øă؃ƒ ¿ÿÙÂü ¾ÙÂå Ê؆ƒƒ ÀĂÍâÎ↠(Glane-Losser, Holland 1993), 134–135 [non vidi].

(78j*) “God make me worthy, that my mind may rejoice...” [Prayer before the Gospel] [DH 272] This text is actually an excerpt taken from Joseph Hazzayas’ “Letter Sent to a Friend…Concerning the Three Steps” a text noted above (see no. 72*) to often have been attributed to Philoxenos. Birmingham, University of Birmingham, Mingana Collection, MS Syriac 480, ff. 15v. Vatican City, BAV, MS Vat. Syr. 58 f. 72r–v. Edition based on the published editions of the “Letter Sent to a Friend… Concerning the Three Steps” (listed under 72* above) with Arabic translation published in R.-Y. Akhrass, ed. and trans., K , (¿ÿÙâÊø ¿ÿæâ) ÍÂ⃠‘ÍæÙéÜÍàÙñ ‹û⃠¾ÙæÏ†Ă ¾ĆãÙè (Ma‘arret Saidnaya 2007), 402–403.

A Biblographic Clavis

319

(79*) Ma‘nitha on the Nativity of Our Lord [No Reference in DH] Mentioned without citation in I.A. Barsoum, The Scattered Pearls: The History of Syriac Literature and Sciences, 2nd Rev. Ed. (Piscataway, N.J. 2003), 266.

(80*) Short Baptismal Ordo [DH 303] Edited text of an order of baptism based on edition of Assemani and additional manuscripts with Arabic translation published in K R.-Y. Akhrass, ed. and trans., ‘ÍæÙéÜÍàÙñ ‹û⃠¾ÙæÏ†Ă ¾ĆãÙè (¿ÿÙâÊø ¿ÿæâ) ÍÂâƒ, (Ma‘arret Saidnaya 2007), 407–414. The epiklesis is published based on the edition of Assemani in S.P. Brock, “The Epiklesis in the Antiochene Baptismal Ordines,” Orientalia Christiana Analecta 197 (1974), 183–218. Edited text of an order of baptism with and Latin translation published in J.A. Assemani, Codex liturgicus ecclesiae universae, vol. 2 (Rome 1749), 307–309 and reprinted in H. Denzinger, Ritus orientalium, vol. 1 (Wurzburg 1863), 318.

(81*) Anaphorae [DH 305] Three anaphorae are attributed to Philoxenos (enumerated I, II, and III here). Only Anaphora I has been published in Syriac. A. Raes provides manuscript details in A. Raes, ed., Anaphorae syriacae, I.i (Rome 1939), v–xlix and idem, Introductio in liturgiam orientalem (Rome 1947) [non vidi]. Cf. I.A. Barsoum, The Scattered Pearls: The History of Syriac Literature and Sciences, 2nd Rev. Ed. (Piscataway, N.J. 2003), 266. Edited text of Anaphora I based on the edition of Çiçek and Yeshu’ with Arabic translation published in R.-Y. Akhrass, ed. and trans., K , (¿ÿÙâÊø ¿ÿæâ) ÍÂ⃠‘ÍæÙéÜÍàÙñ ‹û⃠¾ÙæÏ†Ă ¾ĆãÙè (Ma‘arret Saidnaya 2007), 415–448. Edited text of Anaphora I based on edition of Çiçek with English translation published in A.Y. Samuel, ed., Anaphoras: The Book of the Divine Liturgies (Teaneck/Lodi, N.J. 1991), 383–406 [non vidi]. The English translation is also online: http://sor.cua.edu/Liturgy/Anaphora/Philoxenos.html.

320

David A. Michelson

Edited text of Anaphora I is published in Y.I. Çiçek, ÞØ~ À˜Íñ½å~ ¾ÐÁÍü š÷ؘš ¿ÿÙؘÍè ¿šÊîƒ ¾éÝÒ (Glane-Losser, Holland 1985), 169–182 [non vidi].26 Edited text of Anaphora I is published (with attribution to Basil) in Missale syriacum juxta ritum ecclesiae antiochenae syrorum (Rome 1847), -Ìæø ¾éø. Latin translation of Anaphora I and II is published in E. Renaudot, Liturgiarum orientalium collectio, vol. 2, 2nd ed. (Paris 1847), 300– 319.

(82*) [On the Eight Sleepers of Ephesus] [no reference in DH] J.E. Manna attributed to Philoxenos a text without provenance on the eight sleepers of Ephesus in in J.E. Manna, ed., Morceaux choisis de littérature araméenne, vol. 2 (Mosul 1901), ųƃĿ-IJĿ. There is no other extant reference to such a text by Philoxenos. This text is a misattribution by Manna who apparently took the text from I. Guidi, Testi orientali inediti sopra i Sette dormienti di Efeso (Roma 1885), 34–44. Guidi’s text is that of London, British Library, MS BL Add. 12,160 ff. 147r–153r. Neither Guidi nor the MS attribute the text to Philoxenos.27

(83*) [Arabic Scholion to Genesis 9:18–21] [DH 126] See the discussion of this scholion in the same issue of Hugoye as this clavis. McCollum concludes that the scholion is not likely to be Philoxenian based on style. A. McCollum, “An Arabic Scholion to Genesis 9:18–21 (Noah’s Drunkenness) Attributed to Philoxenos of Mabbug,” Hugoye 13:2 (2010), 7–30.

This same text may also be in Y.I. Çiçek, ed., À˜Íñ½æå~ƒ ¾ÁÿÜ (¾Ùܘ†š .¾ÙÁûî .¾ÙؘÍè) (Glane-Losser, Holland 1985) [non vidi], but a copy was not accessible for consultation. 27 I am grateful to Sebastian Brock for working out this provenance. 26

A Biblographic Clavis

321

V. STUDIES AND MENTION IN SELECTED GENERAL WORKS A. Monographs with extended treatment of Philoxenos28 J. Lebon, Le Monophysisme sévérien: Étude historique, littéraire et théologique sur la résistance monophysite au Concile de Chalcédoine jusqu’à la constitution de l’Église jacobite (Louvain 1909). G. Zuntz, The Ancestry of the Harklean New Testament, British Academy Supplemental Papers (London 1945). A. Vööbus, Studies in the History of the Gospel Text in Syriac, CSCO Subsidia (Louvain 1951). _______. Early Versions of the New Testament, Manuscripts Studies (Stockholm, 1954). A. Guillaumont, Les ‘Kephalaia Gnostica’ d’Évagre le Pontique et l’histoire de l’origénisme chez les Grecs et chez les Syriens’ (Paris 1962). A. de Halleux, Philoxène de Mabbog: Sa vie, ses écrits, sa theologie (Louvain 1963). I. Yacoub III, Mysteries in the struggle of Saint Philoxenos of Mabboug (Damascus 1970) [in Arabic, non vidi]. W. Strothmann, Johannes von Apamea (Berlin 1972). R.C. Chesnut, Three Monophysite Christologies: Severus of Antioch, Philoxenos of Mabbug, and Jacob of Sarug (Oxford 1976). D.J. Fox, The “Matthew-Luke Commentary” of Philoxenos: Text, Translation, and Critical Analysis (Missoula, Mont. 1979). J. Martikainen, Gerechtigkeit und Güte Gottes: Studien zur Theologie von Ephraem dem Syrer und Philoxenos von Mabbug (Wiesbaden 1981). G. Lardreau, Discours philosophique et discours spirituel: autour de la philosophie spirituelle de Philoxène de Mabboug (Paris 1985). S.P. Brock and M.A. Mathai, Philoxenos of Mabbug, Seeri Correspondence Course on Syrian Christian Heritage (Kottayam, India 1989). R.J.V. Hiebert, The “Syrohexaplaric”Psalter (Atlanta 1989). R.G. Jenkins, The Old Testament Quotations of Philoxenos of Mabbug, CSCO Subsidia (Louvain, 1989).

The following monographs have been included because they make significant mention of Philoxenos. As the decision as to what constitutes a “significant” reference to Philoxenos is subjective, I have erred on the side of inclusion so the reference to Philoxenos in some of the works below may not be central to the main themes of the work in question. 28

322

David A. Michelson

Anba Bishoy, Saint Philoxenos bishop of Mabboug, His biography, Sayings and Writings, (Egypt, 1999) [in Arabic, non vidi]. J. Hatem, La Gloire de l’Un: Philoxène de Mabboug et Laurent de la Résurrection (Paris 2003). D. King, The Syriac Versions of the Writings of Cyril of Alexandria: A Study in Translation Technique (Leuven 2008). F. Alpi, La route royale: Sévère d’Antioche et les églises d’Orient (512–518), 2 vols. (Beyrouth, 2009).

B. Monographs with mention of Philoxenos J.B. Chabot, De S. Isaaci Ninivitae vita, scriptis et doctrina (Paris 1892). J. Gwynn, The Apocalypse of St. John, in a Syriac version hitherto unknown (Dublin 1897). _______. Remnants of the Later Syriac Versions of the Bible, 2 vols. (London 1909) De L. O'Leary, The Syriac Church and Fathers (London 1909). W.A. Wigram, The Separation of the Monophysites (London 1923). R. Draguet, Julien d’Halicarnasse et sa controverse avec Sévère d’Antioche sur l’incorruptibilité du corps du Christ. Études d’histoire littéraire et doctrinale, suivie des fragments dogmatiques de Julien (Louvain 1924). P. Charanis, The Religious Policy of Anastasius I: Emperor of the Later Roman Empire, 491–518 (Madison, Wisc. 1935). W. de Vries S.J., Sakramententheologie bei den syrischen Monophysiten (Rome 1940). R. Devreesse, Le Patriarcat d'Antioche; Depuis la paix de l'Eglise jusqu' à la conquête arabe (Paris 1945). F.S. Marsh, The Book of the Holy Hierotheos Ascribed to Stephen Bar-Sudhaile (c500 A.D.) with Extracts from the Prolegomena and Commentary of Theodosios of Antioch and From the “Book of Excerpts” and Other Works of Gregory Bar-Hebraeus (London 1949). E. Stein, Histoire du Bas-Empire. Tome II: De la disparition de l’empire de l'occident à la mort de Justinien (467–565) (Paris 1949). E. Honigmann, Évêques et évêchés monophysites d’Asie antérieure au VIe siècle, CSCO Subsidia (Louvain 1951). W. de Vries S.J., Der Kirchenbegriff der von Rom getrennten Syrer (Rome 1955) [non vidi]. A. Vööbus, History of Asceticism in the Syrian Orient: A Contribution to the History of Culture in the Near East, 3 vols., CSCO Subsidia (Louvain 1958).

A Biblographic Clavis

323

I. Hausherr, Hésychasme et prière, Orientalia Christiana Analecta 176 (Rome 1966) [non vidi]. I. Shahid, The Martyrs of Najran: New Documents, Subsidia Hagiographica (Bruxelles 1971) E.P. Siman, L’Expérience de l’esprit par l’Église d’après la traditionne syrienne d’Antioche (Paris 1971). W. H. C. Frend, The Rise of the Monophysite Movement: Chapters in the History of the Church in the Fifth and Sixth Centuries (Cambridge 1972). J. Meyendorff, Christ in Eastern Christian Thought (Crestwood, N.Y. 1975). B.M. Metzger, The Early Versions of the New Testament: Their Origin, Transmission, and Limitations (Oxford 1977). P.T.R. Gray, The defense of Chalcedon in the East (451–553) (Leiden 1979). E. Klum-Böhmer, Das Trishagion als Versöhnungsformel der Christenheit: Kontroverstheologie im V. und VI. Jahrhundert (München 1979). L. Sako, Le rôle de la hiérarchie syriaque orientale dans les rapports diplomatiques entre la perse et Byzance aux Ve–VIIe siècles (Paris, 1986). G. Florovsky, The Byzantine Fathers of the Sixth to Eighth Century (Vaduz 1987). P. Brown, The Body and Society: Men, Women, and Sexual Renunciation in Early Christianity (New York 1988). S.P. Brock, Spirituality in the Syriac Tradition, 1st ed. (Kottayam, India 1989). _______. The Bible in the Syriac tradition, 1st ed. (Kottayam, India 1989). J. Meyendorff, Imperial Unity and Christian Divisions: The Church, 450– 680 A.D. (Crestwood, N.Y. 1989). I. Shahid, Byzantium and the Arabs in the Fifth Century (Washington, D.C. 1989). B. Varghese, Les Onctions baptismales dans la tradition syrienne, CSCO Subsidia (Louvain 1989). A. Palmer, Monk and Mason on the Tigris Frontier: The Early History of Tur Abdin (Cambridge 1990). B. Daley, The Hope of the Early Church: A Handbook of Patristic Eschatology (Cambridge 1991). C. Stewart, ‘Working the Earth of the Heart’: The Messalian Controversy in History, Texts, and Language to AD 431 (Oxford 1991). T. Merton and L. Cunningham, Thomas Merton, Spiritual Master: The Essential Writings (New York 1992). S.H. Moffett, A History of Christianity in Asia: Beginnings to 1500 ([San Francisco] 1992).

324

David A. Michelson

K. McDonnell and G.T. Montague, Christian Initiation and Baptism in the Holy Spirit: Evidence from the First Eight Centuries, 2nd edition (Collegeville, Minnesota 1994). S.P. Brock, The Holy Spirit in the Syrian Baptismal Tradition, 2nd ed. (Pune, India 1998). K. Fitschen, Messalianismus und Antimessalianismus. Ein Beispiel ostkirchlicher Ketzergeschichte (Göttingen, 1998). H. O. Old, The Reading and Preaching of the Scriptures in the Worship of the Christian Church: Volume 2, The Patristic Age (Grand Rapids, Mich. 1998). P. Escolan, Monachisme et Église. Le monachisme syrien du IVe au VIIe siècle (Paris 1999). T. Kollamparampil, Salvation in Christ According to Jacob of Serugh (Bangalore 2001). M.J. Panicker, The Person of Jesus Christ in the Writings of Juhanon Gregorius Abu’l Faraj Commonly called Bar Ebraya (Münster, 2002). K. Pinggéra, All-Erlösung und All-Einheit. Studien zum ‘Buch des heiligen Hierotheos’ und seiner Rezeption in der syrisch-orthodoxen Theologie (Würzburg, 2002) [non-vidi]. J.-E. Steppa, John Rufus and the World Vision of Anti-Chalcedonian Culture, Gorgias Dissertations (Piscataway 2002). E. Kaniyamparampil, The Spirit of Life: A Study of the Holy Spirit in the Early Syriac Tradition (Kottayam, India 2003). C.A. Karim, Symbols of the Cross in the Writings of the Early Syriac Fathers (Piscataway N.J, 2004). S.P. Brock, Spirituality in the Syriac Tradition, 2nd ed. (Kottayam, India 2005). A.H. Becker, Fear of God and the Beginning of Wisdom: The School of Nisibis and Christian Scholastic Culture in Late Antique Mesopotamia (Philadelphia 2006). P. Blaudeau, Alexandrie et Constantinople, 451–491: De l’histoire à la géoecclésiologie (Rome 2006). S.P. Brock, The Bible in the Syriac Tradition, 2nd ed. (Piscataway, N.J. 2006). F.K. Harrer, Anastasius I: Politics and Empire in the Late Roman World (Cambridge 2006). C.B. Horn, Asceticism and Christological Controversy in Fifth-Century Palestine: The Career of Peter the Iberian (Oxford 2006). T. Merton, Pre-Benedictine Monasticism: Initiation into the Monastic Tradition 2 (Kalamazoo, Mich. 2006). S.P. Brock, Studies in Syriac Spirituality (Bangalore 2008).

A Biblographic Clavis

325

B. Colless, The Wisdom of the Pearlers: An Anthology of Syriac Christian Mysticism (Kalamazoo, Mich. 2008). V. Menze, Justinian and the Making of the Syrian Orthodox Church (Oxford, 2008). V. Menze and K. Akalin, John of Tella’s “Profession of Faith” (Piscataway, N.J. 2009).

C. Unpublished dissertations and theses29 E. Bergsträsser, Monophysitismus und Paulustradition bei Philoxenos von Mabbug, Th.D. dissertation, Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, 1953. P. Harb, La vie spirituelle selon Philoxène de Mabbug, Ph.D. dissertation, L’Université de Strasbourg, 1968. R.A. Kitchen, The Just and Perfect in the Ascetical Homilies of Philoxenos of Mabbug and the Liber Graduum, M.A. thesis, The Catholic University of America, 1978. M. Mattathil, The Christology of Philoxenos of Mabbug Mainly Based on His Ten Discourses against Habib, Ph.D. thesis, Pontifical Oriental Institute 1984. E. Sleman, Devenir de Dieu et devenir des hommes selon Philoxène de Mabboug, Mémoire de maîtrise en Théologie, Institut catholique de Paris, 1988 [non vidi]. E.[H.E. Mor Polycarpus] Aydin, The Christological Thought of Philoxenos of Mabbug in Reaction to the Council of Chalcedon, Bachelor of Divinty thesis, Heythrop College, University of London, 1995. R.A. Kitchen, The Development of the Status of Perfection in Early Syriac Asceticism, with Special Reference to the Liber Graduum and Philoxenos of Mabbug, D.Phil. thesis, Oxford University, 1997. A.-M. Saadi, Moshe bar Kepha’s Commentary on Luke: A Ninth Century Apology, Ph.D. dissertation, Lutheran School of Theology at Chicago, 1999. G. Kourie, H ƵƲƪƢƥưƬưƤƠƢ Ƶưƶ ƗƪƬƽƯƦƮưƶ ƋƦƲƢƱƽƬƦƺƳ ƫƢƪ ƨ ƸƲƪƴƵưƬưƤƪƫƟ ƵƨƳ ƥƪƝƴƵƢƴƨ [Trinitarian Theology and its Christological Dimension, according to Philoxenos of Mabboug], master’s thesis, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, 2005 [non vidi].

Dissertations or theses that have subsequently been published as monographs have been excluded since the monographs are cited in the preceding section. 29

326

David A. Michelson

C. Moulin Paliard, Un Mamllo sur recueillement inédit du VIe sciècle, Diplôme de l’Ecole Pratique des Hautes Etudes Sciences Réligieuses, Paris, 2005. D.A. Michelson, Practice Leads to Theory: Orthodoxy and the Spiritual Struggle in the World of Philoxenos of Mabbug (470–523), Ph.D. dissertation, Princeton University, 2007. M. Dickens, TurkćyĔ: Turkic Peoples in Syriac Literature prior to the Seljüks, PhD thesis, University of Cambridge, 2008. G. Kourie, Ɖ XƲƪƴƵưƬưƤƠƢ Ƶưƶ ƗƪƬƽƯƦƮưƶ ƋƦƲƢƱƽƬƦƺƳ ƫƢƪ ƨ ƔƾƮưƥưƳ ƵƨƳ ƘƢƬƫƨƥƽƮƢƳ [The Christology of Philoxenos of Mabboug and the Synod of Chalcedon], Ph.D. Thesis, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, 2009. J.-N.M. Saint-Laurent, Apostolic Memories: Religious Differentiation and the Construction of Orthodoxy in Syriac Missionary Literature, Ph.D. thesis, Brown University, 2009. I. Viezure, Verbum Crucis, Virtus Dei: A Study of Theopaschism from the Council of Chalcedon (451) to the Age of Justinian, Ph.D. thesis, University of Toronto, 2009. J.E. Walters, The Philoxenian Gospels as Reconstructed from the Exegetical Writings of the Philoxenos of Mabbug, M.A. thesis, Abilene Christian University, Abilene 2009.

D. Articles and chapters in collected volumes with extended treatment of Philoxenos P. Corssen, “Die Recension der Philoxeniana durch Thomas von Mabug,” Zeitschrift für die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und Kunde der Älteren Kirche 2.1 (1901) 1–12. W.E.A. Axon, “A Saying Attributed to Jesus By Philoxenos,” Notes and Queries s9-IX, no. 226 (1902), 326. A. Baumstark, “Die Evangelienexegese der syrischen Monophysiten,” Oriens Christianus 2 (1902), 151–169, 358–389. F. Nau, “Note inédite sur Philoxène, évêque de Maboug (485–519),” Revue de l’Orient chrétien I, 8:4 (1903), 630–633. _______, “La naissance de Nestorius,” Revue de l’Orient chrétien 14 (1909), 424–426. J. Lebon, “La version philoxénienne de la Bible,” Revue d’historie ecclésiastique 12 (1911), 413–436.

A Biblographic Clavis

327

A. Mingana, “New Documents on Philoxenos of Hierapolis, and on the Philoxenian Version of the Bible,” The Expositor 8.19 [110] (1920), 149–160. P. Peeters, “Comptes Rendu [Un nouveau document sur l’histoire des Turcs],” Byzantion 4 (1927–1928), 569–574. [Reprised in P. Peeters, Recherches d’Histoire et de Philosophie Orientales, vol. 1 (Brüssel 1951), 208–213.] H. Guppy, “The Genuineness of ‘Al-Tabari’s Apology and of the Syriac Document on the Spread of Christianity in Central Asia in the John Rylands Library,” Bulletin of the John Rylands Library 14.1 (1930), 121–124. A. Mingana, “Remarks on the Early Spread of Christianity in Central Asia,” Bulletin of the John Rylands University Library of Manchester 14 (1930), 123–124. I. Hausherr, “Contemplation et sainteté: Une remarquable mise au point par Philoxène de Mabboug († 523),” Revue d’ascétique et de mystique 14 (1933), 171–195. _______, “De doctrina spirituali Christianorum Orientalium. Quaestiones et scripta,” Orientalia Christiana 30 (1933), 147–216. _______, “Le ‘De Oratione’ d’Évagre le Pontique en syriaque et en arabe,” Orientalia Christiana Periodica 5 (1939), 7–71. A. Vööbus, “New Data for the Solution of the Problem Concerning the Philoxenian Version,” in Spiritus et veritas. Festschrift Karl Kundzins (Eutin 1953), 169–186. E. Bergsträsser, “Philoxenos von Mabbug: Zur Frage einer monophysitischen Soteriologie” in Gedenkschrift für D. Werner Elert (Berlin 1955), 43–61. E. Lemoine, “Philoxène de Mabboug. Homélies sur la foi et sur la crainte de Dieu,” La vie spirituelle 94 (1956), 252–261. J. Gribomont, “Les Homélies ascétiques de Philoxène de Mabboug et l’écho du Messalianisme,” L’Orient Syrien 2.1 (1957), 419–432. I. Hausherr, “Spiritualité syrienne: Philoxène de Mabboug en version française,” Orientalia Christiana Periodica 23.1 (1957), 171–85. E. Lemoine, “La Spiritualité de Philoxène de Mabboug,” L’Orient Syrien 2.1 (1957), 351–366. T. Jansma, review of E. Lemoine, Philoxène de Mabboug. Homélies (1956), Vigiliae Christianae 12:4 (1958), 233–237. E. Lemoine, “Physionomie d’un moine syrien: Philoxène de Mabboug,” L’Orient Syrien 3.1 (1958), 91–102. E. Beck, “Philoxenos und Ephräm,” Oriens Christianus 46 (1962), 61–76.

328

David A. Michelson

L. Abramowski, review of A. de Halleux, Philoxène de Mabbog. Sa vie, ses écrits, sa théologie, Revue d’histoire ecclésiastique 60 (1965), 859–866. _______, “Ps.-Nestorius und Philoxenos von Mabbug,” Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte 77 (1966), 122–125. S.P. Brock, “Alphonse Mingana and the Letter of Philoxenos to Abu ‘Afr,” Bulletin of the John Rylands Library 50 (1967), 199–206. J.-M. Fiey, “Auteur et date de la Chronique d’Arbelès” L’Orient Syrien 12 (1967) 265–302. P. Harb, “Faut-il restituer à Joseph Hazzaya la Lettre sur les trois degres de la vie monastique attribuée à Philoxène de Mabboug?” Melto 4.2 (1968), 13–36. _______, “L’attitude de Philoxène de Mabboug à l’égard de la spiritualité ‘savante’ d’Évagre le Pontique,” in F. Graffin, ed., Mémorial G. Khouri-Sarkis (1898–1968), fondateur et directeur de l'Orient syrien, 1956–1967 (Louvain 1969), 135–155. _______, “La Conception pneumatique chez Philoxène de MabbŠg,” Meltho 5.1 (1969), 5–16. _______, “Die Unechtheit des Philoxenos-Briefes über die drei Stufen des monastischen Lebens,” in W. Voigt, ed., XVII. Deutscher Orientalistentag vom 21. bis 27. Juli 1968 in Würzburg: Vorträge, Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft, Supplement 1.2 (Wiesbaden 1969), 380–384. P. Harb, “Le Rôle exercé par Philoxène de MabbŠg sur l’évolution de la morale dans l’église syrienne,” Parole de l’Orient 1.1 (1970), 27–48. P. Harb, “Les origines de la doctrine de la “la-hašušuta” (apatheia) chez Philoxène de Mabbug,” Parole de l’Orient 5 (1974), 227–241. T. Jansma, “Philoxenos’ Letter to Abraham and Orestes Concerning Stephen Bar Sudaili: Some Proposals with Regard to the Correction of the Syriac Text and the English Translation,” Le Muséon 87.1 (1974), 79–86. A. Vööbus, “La Biographie de Philoxène: Tradition des manuscrits,” Analecta Bollandiana 93 (1975), 111–114. A. de Halleux, “A la source d’une biographie expurgée de Philoxène de Mabbog,” Orientalia Lovaniensia Periodica 6–7 (1975–1976), 253– 266. L. Wickham, review of R. Chesnut, Three Monophysite Christologies, Journal of Theological Studies 28 (1977), 576–571. L. Abramowski, “Die Schrift Gregors des Lehrers “Ad Theopompum” und Philoxenos von Mabbug,” Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte 89 (1978), 273–290 [English translation published as L. Abramow-

A Biblographic Clavis

329

ski, “Gregory the Teacher’s ‘Ad Theopompum’ and Philoxenos of Mabbug,” in L. Abramowski, Formula and Context: Studies in Early Christian Thought (Hampshire 1992), #VIII [1–19].] A. de Halleux, “Monophysitismus und Spiritualität nach dem Johanneskommentar des Philoxenos von Mabbug,” Theologie und Philosophie 53:1 (1978), 353–366. _______, “La Philoxénienne du symbole,” in F. Graffin and A. Guillaumont, eds., Symposium Syriacum 1976 (Rome 1978), 295–315. S.P. Brock, “Syriac Euthalian Material and the Philoxenian Version of the New-Testament,” Zeitschrift für die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der alteren Kirche 70.1 (1979), 120–130. A. Guillaumont, “La diffusion des opinions relatives à l’apocatastase chez Jacques de Saroug († 521) et Philoxène de Mabboug († 523),” Annuaire de l’École Pratique des Hautes Études, Ve Section: Sciences Religieuses 88 (1979–80), 369–371. F. Graffin, “Note sur l’exégèse de Philoxène de Mabboug à l’occasion du discours de S. Paul aux Athéniens (Actes 17, 31),” Parole de l’Orient 9 (1979–80), 105–111. A. de Halleux, “Monophysitismus und Spiritualität nach dem Johanneskommentar des Philoxenos von Mabbog,” in: W. Voigt, ed., XX. Deutscher Orientalistentag vom 3. bis 8. Oktober 1977 in Erlangen: Vorträge, Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft, Supplement 4 (Wiesbaden 1980), 66–67. A. de Halleux, “Le Commentaire de Philoxène sur Matthieu et Luc: Deux éditions récentes,” Le Muséon 93.1 (1980), 5–35. C.N. Tsirpanlis, “Some Reflections on Philoxenos’ Christology,” Greek Orthodox Theological Review 25 (1980), 152–162. J.W. Watt, “Philoxenos and the Old Syriac Version of Evagrius’ Centuries,” Oriens Christianus 64 (1980), 65–81. B. Aland, “Die Philoxenianische-Harklensische Übersetzungstradition. Ergebnisse einer Untersuchng der neutestamentlichen Zitate in der syrischen Literatur,” Le Muséon 94.3 (1981), 321–383. S.P. Brock, “The Resolution of the Philoxenian/Harclean Problem,” in E.J. Epp and G.D. Fee, eds., New Testament Textual Criticism. Its Significance for Exegesis. Essays in honor of Bruce M. Metzger (Oxford 1981), 325–343. A. Grillmeier, “Die Taufe Christi und die Taufe der Christen. Zur Tauftheologie des Philoxenos von Mabbug und ihrer Bedeutung für die christliche Spiritualität,” in H.J. auf der Maur et al., eds.,

330

David A. Michelson

Fides sacramenti sacramentum fidei. Studies in honour of Pieter Smulders (Assen 1981), 137–175. B. Aland, “Monophysitismus und Schriftauslegung. Der Kommentar zum Matthäus und Lukasevangelium des Philoxenos von Mabbug,” in P. von Hauptmann, ed., Unser ganzes Leben Christus unserm Gott überantworten. Studien zur ostkirchlichen Spiritualität. Fairy von Lilienfeld zum 65. Geburtstag (Göttingen 1982), 142–66. R.G. Jenkins, “Some Quotations from Isaiah in the Philoxenian Version,” Abr-Nahrain 20 (1981–1982), 20–36. A. Molina Prieto, “La Theotókos en las “Dissertationes” de Filoxeno de Mabbug,” Marianum 44 (1982), 390–424. J.W. Watt, “The Syriac Adapter of Evagrius' Centuries,” Studia Patristica 17 (1982), 1388–1395. J. Martikainen, “Erkenntnistheorie bei Philoxenos von Mabbug,” in F. Steppat, ed., XXI. Deutscher Orientalistentag vom 24. bis 29. März 1980 in Berlin: Vorträge, Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft, Supplement 5 (Wiesbaden 1983), 133– 136. A. de Halleux, “Le Mamlelã de ‘Habbib’ contre Aksenãyã. Aspects textuels d’une polémique christologique dans l’Église syriaque de la première génération post-chalcédonienne,” in C. Laga, et al., eds., After Chalcedon: Studies in Theology and Church History Offered to Professor Albert Van Roey for His Seventieth Birthday, Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 18 (Leuven 1985), 67–82. F. Graffin, “Quelques aspects de la doctrine monastique de Philoxène de Mabboug et sa Lettre à Patricius” in Association des amis de Sénanque, eds., Monachisme d’orient et d’occident: l’Orient monastique quelques jalons au cours du premier millénaire ([Sénanque, France] [1986]), 1–18. M.A. Mathai, “The Concept of ‘Becoming’ in the Christology of Philoxenos of Mabbug,” The Harp 2 (1989), 71–77. R.G. Jenkins, “Quotations from Genesis and Exodus in the Writings of Philoxenos of Mabbug,” Studia Patristica 18:4 (1990), 245–248. J.W. Watt, “The Rhetorical Structure of the Memra of Eli of Qartamin on Philoxenos of Mabbug,” in: R. Lavenant (ed.), V Symposium Syriacum, 1988: Katholieke Universiteit, Leuven, 29–31 août 1988 (Orientalia Christiana Analecta 236; Roma: Pontificium Institutum Studiorum Orientalium, 1990), 299–306. M. Mar Severios [M.A. Mathai], “The Suffering, Death and Resurrection of Christ—A Philoxenian View,” The Harp 4 (1991), 59–65.

A Biblographic Clavis

331

T. Baarda, “Philoxenos and the Parable of the Fisherman: Concerning the Diatessaron Text of Mt 13, 47–50,” in F. van Segbroeck, et al. eds., The Four Gospels 1992: Festschrift Frans Neirynck, vol. 2 (Leuven 1992), 1403–1423. _______, “‘He Holds the Fan in His Hand...’ (Mt 3:12, Lk 3:17) and Philoxenos, or How to Reconstruct the Original Diatessaron Text of the Saying of John the Baptist?,” Le Muséon 105.1 (1992), 63–86. P.S. Cowe, “Philoxenos of Mabbug and the Synod of Manazkert,” ARAM 5.1 (1993), 115–129. Tjitze Baarda, “The Syriac Versions of the New Testament,” in B.D. Herman and M.W. Holmes, eds., The Text of the New Testament in Contemporary Research. Essays on the Status Quaestionis (Grand Rapids, Mich 1995), 97–112. M. Nin, “Progresso spirituale ad esperienza di Dio in alcuni testi monastici siriaci,” in M. Starowieyski, ed., The Spirituality of Ancient Monasticism (Cracow 1995), 105–133. V.-P. Seppälä, “Syrialaisen evankeliumitekstin historiasta,” Ortodoksia 46 (1997), 18–33 [non vidi]. J. Hatem, “Le moine et l’un chez Philoxene de Mabboug,” in Le monachisme syriaque aux premiers siècles de l’Eglise, IIe – debut VIIe siècle. I: Textes français (Antélias, Liban 1998), 219–234. J.P. Mathew, “Philoxenos of Mabbug. The Eighth Discourse on Poverty,” The Harp 13 (2000), 173–176. Robin Darling Young, “Philoxenos of Mabbugh and the Syrian Patristic Understanding of Justification,” Communio 27 (2000), 688–700. S.P. Brock, “Syriac into Greek at Mar Saba: The Translation of St. Isaac the Syrian,” in J. Patrich, ed., The Sabaite heritage in the Orthodox Church from theFifth Century to the Present, Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 98 (Leuven 2001), 200–208. L. Abramowski, “Aus dem Streit um das ‘Unus ex trinitate passus est’: Der Protest des Habib gegen die Epistula dogmatica des Philoxenos an die Mönche,” in A. Grillmeier and T. Hainthaler, eds., Jesus der Christus im Glauben der Kirche: Die Kirchen von Jerusalem und Antiochien nach 451 bis 600 (Freiburg 2002), 570–647. T. Bou Mansour, “Die Christologie des Philoxenos von Mabbug,” in A. Grillmeier and T. Hainthaler, eds., Jesus der Christus im Glauben der Kirche: Die Kirchen von Jerusalem und Antiochien nach 451 bis 600 (Freiburg 2002), 500–569.

332

David A. Michelson

Theresia Hainthaler, “Der persische Disputator Simeon von Beth Aršam und seine antinestorianische Positionsbestimmung,” in A. Grillmeier and T. Hainthaler, eds., Jesus der Christus im Glauben der Kirche: Die Kirchen von Jerusalem und Antiochien nach 451 bis 600 (Freiburg 2002), 262–276. P. Bruns, “Aristoteles-Rezeption und Entstehung einer syrischen Scholastik. Am Beispiel von Iunilius Africanus’ Übersetzung der ‘instituta regularia’ des Paul von Nisibis, Philoxenos von Mabbug und Babai dem Grossen,” in P. Bruns, ed., Von Athen nach Bagdad. Zur Rezeption griechischer Philosophie von der Spätantike bis zum Islam (Bonn 2003) 29–41 [non-vidi]. R. Kitchen, “Syriac Additions on Anderson: The Garden of Eden in the Book of Steps and Philoxenos of Mabbug,” Hugoye 6.1 (2003). R. Bondi, “Living by the Word: Monastic Mentors,” Christian Century (Novemeber 2, 2004), 16. A.I. Lehto, “Aphrahat and Philoxenos on Faith,” Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 4 (2004), 47–59. L. Van Rompay, “Mallpânâ dilan Suryâyâ. Ephrem in the Works of Philoxenos of Mabbog: Respect and Distance,” Hugoye 7.1 (2004), n.p. A. Kofsky, and S. Ruzer, “Christology and Hermeneutics in Philoxenos’ Commentary on John 1:14,” Orientalia Christiana Periodica 71:2 (2005), 343–362. G. Kourie, “The ‘Theotokos’ according to Philoxenos of Mabboug” [in Arabic] in Theological and Dogmatic Articles (Damascus 2006), 3–19 [non vidi]. G. Kourie, “Faith, Science, and Knowledge according to Philoxenos of Mabboug” [in Arabic] in Theological and Dogmatic Articles (Damascus 2006), 20–29 [non vidi]. W. van Peursen, “Sirach Quotations in the Discourses of Philoxenos of Mabbug: Text and Context,” in: R.B. ter Haar Romeny (ed.), The Peshitta: Its Use in Literature and Liturgy. Papers Read at the Third Peshitta Symposium (Leiden 2006), 243–258. K. Pinggéra, “Christi Seele und die Seelen der Gerechten. Zum fünften Fragment aus dem Johanneskommentar des Philoxenos von Mabbug,” Studia Patristica 41 (2006), 65–70. J.W. Watt, “Two Syriac Writers from the Reign of Anastasius: Philoxenos of Mabbug and Joshua the Stylite,” The Harp 20 (2006), 275–293.

A Biblographic Clavis

333

G. Kourie, “Passions and purification according to Philoxenos of Mabboug” [in Arabic], Syrian Orthodox Patriarchal Journal 264–70 (2007), 210–230 [non vidi]. M. Nin, “La Lettera ai monaci di Senun di Filosseno di Mabbug: un esempio di cristologia anticalcedoniana in ambiente siriaco nel VI secolo,” in E. Vergani and S. Chialà, eds., La tradizione cristiana Sirooccidentale (V–VII secolo). Atti del 4° Incontro sull’Oriente Cristiano di tradizione siriaca (Milano, Biblioteca Ambrosiana, 13 maggio 2005) (Milano 2007), 83–108. L. van Rompay, “Bardaisan and Mani in Philoxenos of Mabbog’s MĔmrĔ against Habbib,” in W.J. van Bekkum et al, eds., Syriac Polemics: Studies in Honour of Gerrit Jan Reinink, Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 170 (Leuven 2007), 77–90. R.-Y. Akhrass, “La parole de Dieu dans la vie du moine selon Philoxène de Mabboug” (in Arabic) Awrćk ruhbćniyya 92–93 (2008), 241– 258. _______, “La théologie de l’eucharistie chez Philoxène de Mabboug,” Revue théologique de Kaslik 2 (2008), 57–71 [augmented Arabic version in Syrian Orthodox Patriarchal Journal 281–283 (2009), 47– 62], [non vidi]. P.A.L. Hill, “Matthew 16:18 in the Philoxenian Version,” TC: A Journal of Biblical Textual Criticism 13 (2008), 1–17. D.A. Michelson, “Though He Cannot Be Eaten, We Consume Him”: Appeals to Liturgical Practice in the Christological Polemic of Philoxenos of Mabbug,” in: G.A. Kiraz (ed.), Malphono w-Rabo d-Malphone: Studies in Honor of Sebastian P. Brock (Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2008), 439–476. G. Kourie, “The cause and aim of incarnation of God Logos according to Philoxenos of Mabboug” [in Arabic], Syrian Orthodox Patriarchal Journal 284–6 (2009), 180–191 [non vidi]. R.-Y. Akhrass, “La Vierge Mère de Dieu dans la pensée de Philoxène de Mabboug,” Hugoye 13:1 (2010), 31–48. D. King, “New Evidence on the Philoxenian Version of the New Testament and Nicene Creed,” Hugoye 13:1 (2010), 9–30. R.A. Kitchen, “Introduction,” Hugoye 13:2 (2010), 3-6. _______. “The Lust of the Belly is the Beginning of All Sin: Practical Theology of Asceticism in the Discourses of Philoxenos of Mabbug,” Hugoye 13:1 (2010), 49–63. _______, review of Lemoine, E. and Lavenant, R., trans., Philoxène de Mabboug. Homélies (1956 and 2007), Hugoye 13:1 (2010), 65–73.

334

David A. Michelson

A. McCollum, “An Arabic Scholion to Genesis 9:18–21 (Noah’s Drunkenness) Attributed to Philoxenos of Mabbug,” Hugoye 13:2 (2010), 7–30. D.A. Michelson, “A Biblographic Clavis to the Works of Philoxenos of Mabbug,” Hugoye 13:2 (2010), 154–219. _______. “Introduction to the Double Issue on Philoxenos of Mabbug,” Hugoye 13:1 (2010), 3–8. D.M. Odorisio, “Thomas Merton’s Novitiate Conferences on Philoxenos of Mabbug (April–June 1965): Philoxenos on the Foundations of the Spiritual Life and the Recovery of Simplicity” by Thomas Merton OCSO, introduced and transcribed by David M. Odorisio,” Hugoye 13:2 (2010), 133–153. I. Viezure, “Argumentative Strategies in Philoxenos of Mabbug’s Correspondence: From the Syriac Model to the Greek Model,” Hugoye 13:2 (2010), 31–57. _______, “Philoxenos of Mabbug and the Controversies over the ‘Theopaschite Trisagion,’” in Studia Patristica XLVIII (2010): 137–146. J.E. Walters, “The Philoxenian Gospels as Reconstructed from the Writings of Philoxenos of Mabbug,” Hugoye 13:2 (2010), 59–131. R.-Y. Akhrass, “Le sacerdoce dans la théologie de Philoxène de Mabboug ,” (in Arabic) Al-Manara 51/2 (forthcoming). R. Darling Young, “The Influence of Evagrius of Pontus on the Early Monastic Thought of Philoxenos of Mabbug,” in R. Darling Young and M. Blanchard, “To Dwell Beside the Enclosure of That Garden”: Studies in Syrian Asceticism (Washington, D.C. forthcoming).

E. Articles and chapters in collected volumes with mention of Philoxenos M.-A. Kugener, “Allocution prononcée par Sévère après son élévation sur le trône patriarcale d'Antioche,” Oriens Christianus 2 (1902), 265–271. F. Nau, “Notes sur diverses homélies pseudépigraphiques, sur les œuvres attribuées à Eusèbe d’Alexandrie et sur un nouveau manuscrit de la chaîne contra Severianos,” Revue de l’Orient chrétien 2.3 [13] (1908), 406–435. M. Sprengling. “Antonius Rhetor on Versification with an Introduction and Two Appendices,” The American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures 32.3 (1916), 145–216.

A Biblographic Clavis

335

A. Jülicher, “Zur Geschichte der Monophysitenkirche,” Zeitschrift für die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der Älteren Kirche 24.1 (1925), 17–43. R.H. Connolly, “A Negative Form of the Golden Rule in the Diatessaron?,” Journal of Theological Studies OS 35 [140] (1934), 351–357. M. Jugie, “La primauté romaine d’aprés les premiers théologiens monophysites,” Échos d’Orient 33 (1934), 181–189. H.-G. Opitz, “Das syrische Corpus Athanasium,” Zeitschrift für die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und Kunde der Älteren Kirche 33 (1934), 18–31. R.H. Connolly, “A Negative Form of the Golden Rule in the Syriac Acts of Thomas?,” Journal of Theological Studies OS 36 [140] (1935), 353–356. I. Hausherr, “Les grands courants de la spiritualité orientale,” Orientalia Christiana Periodica 1 (1935), 114–138. _______. “Aux origines de la mystique syrienne: Gregoire de Chypre ou Jean de Lycopolis?” Oxford Classical and Philosophical Monographs 4 (1938), 497–520. A. Grillmeier and H. Bacht, eds., Das Konzil von Chalkedon: Geschichte und Gegenwart, 3 vols. (Frankfurt am Main 1951–1954). I. Hausherr, “Ignorance infinie ou science infinie?,” Orientalia Christiana Periodica 25 (1959), 44–52. T. Jansma, “The Credo of Jacob of SĖrŠgh: A Return to Nicaea and Constantinople,” Nederlands Archief voor Kerkgeschiedenis 44 (1960), 18–36. L. Wickham, review of W.H.C. Frend, The Rise of the Monophysite Movement, Journal of Theological Studies 24 (1973), 591–599. K. Ware, review of W.H.C. Frend, The Rise of the Monophysite Movement, English Historical Review 91.395 (1976), 354–356. S.P. Brock, “Iconoclasm and the Monophysites,” in A. Bryer and J. Herrin, eds., Iconoclasm: Papers Given at the Ninth Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies, University of Birmingham, March 1975 (Birmingham 1977), 53–57. _______, “Limitations of Syriac in Representing Greek” in B. Metzger, ed., The Early Versions of the New Testament: Their Origin, Transmission, and Limitations (Oxford 1977), 83–98. A. Vööbus, “Discovery of a Treatise about the Ecclesiastical Administration Ascribed to Michael the Syrian: A Unique

336

David A. Michelson

Document in the Literary Genre of Canon Law,” Church History 47.1 (1978), 23–26. A. de Halleux, “Le Christologie de Jean le Solitaire,” Muséon 94.3–4 (1981), 5–36. S.P. Brock, “From Antagonism to Assimilation: Syriac Attitudes to Greek Learning,” in N. Garsoïan, ed., East of Byzantium: Syria and Armenia in the Formative Period (Washington 1982), 17–34; reprinted in S.P. Brock, Syriac Perspectives on Late Antiquity (London 1984), ch. V. _______, “Passover, Annunciation and Epiclesis - Some Remarks on the Term Aggen in the Syriac Versions of Luke 1.35,” Novum Testamentum 24.3 (1982), 222–233; reprinted in S.P. Brock, Fire from Heaven: Studies in Syriac Theology and Liturgy, (Aldershot, 2006), ch. XII. A. de Halleux, “Die Genealogie des Nestorianismus nach der frühmonophysitischen Theologie,” Oriens Christianus 66 (1982), 1–14. J.C. McCullough, “Early Syriac Commentaries on the New Testament,” Near East School of Theology Theological Review 5 (1982), 14–33, 79– 126. S.P. Brock, “Towards a History of Syriac Translation Technique,” Orientalia Christiana Analecta 221 (1983), 1–14; reprinted in S.P. Brock, Studies in Syriac Christianity (Aldershot 1992), ch. X. _______, “Hebrews 2:9B in Syriac Tradition,” Novum Testamentum 27:3 (1985), 236–244. J.S. Siker, “The Canonical Status of the Catholic Epistles in the Syriac New Testament,” Journal of Theological Studies 38.2 (1987), 311 – 340. S. Brock, “Maggnanuta: A Technical Term in East Syrian Spirituality and Its Background,” in R.G. Coquin et al., eds., Mélanges Antoine Guillaumont (Geneva 1988), 121–129. _______, “From Annunciation to Pentecost: The Travels of a Technical Term,” in S. Parenti, and E. Carr, eds., Eulogema: Studies in Honor of Robert Taft S.J., Studia Anselmiana (Rome 1993), 71–91; reprinted in S.P. Brock, Fire from Heaven: Studies in Syriac Theology and Liturgy, (Aldershot, 2006), ch. XIII. W. Witakowski, “Syrian Monophysite Propaganda in the Fifth to Seventh Centuries,” in L. Rydén and J.O. Rosenqvist, eds., Aspects of late Antiquity and early Byzantium 4: Papers read at a Colloquium held at the SRII 31 May - 5 June 1992 (Stockholm 1993), 57–66.

A Biblographic Clavis

337

S.P. Brock, review of J. Martikainen, Johannes I. Sedra, Journal of Theological Studies n.s. 45 (1994), 364–368. S.H. Griffith, “Julian Saba, ‘Father of the Monks’ of Syria,” Journal of Early Christian Studies, 2.2 (1994), 185–216. S.P. Brock, “Notulae syriacae: Some Miscellaneous Identifications,” Le Muséon 108:1–2 (1995), 69–78. B. Daley, “What Did ‘Origenism’ Mean in the Sixth Century?” In G. Dorival and A. le Boulleuc, eds., Origeniana Sexta: Origen and the Bible (Leuven 1995), 627–638. S.P. Brock, “The Gates/Bars of Sheol Revisited,” in W.L. Petersen et al., eds., Sayings of Jesus—Canonical and Non-canonical: Essays in Honour of Tjitze Baarda (Leiden 1997), 7–24. _______, “The Transmission of Ephrem’s Madrashe in the Syriac Liturgical Tradition,” Studia Patristica 33 (1997), 490–505. T. Bohm, “Remarks on Syriac translations of the ‘Prologue of John’,” Zeitschrift Fur Die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft Und Die Kunde Der Alteren Kirche 89.1 (1998), 45–65. A.M. Saadi, “Christological Contention and Tolerance in the Syriac Church Traditions,” Journal of Assyrian Academic Studies 12.1 (1998), 47–57. S.P. Brock, “Towards a Typology of the Epicleses in the West Syrian Anaphoras,” in H.-J. Feulner, et al., eds., Crossroad of Cultures. Studies in Liturgy and Patristics in Honor of Gabriele Winkler, Orientalia Christiana Analecta (Rome 2000), 173–192; reprinted in S.P. Brock, Fire from Heaven: Studies in Syriac Theology and Liturgy, (Aldershot, 2006), ch. VIII. P. Gray, “The Sabaite Monasteries and the Christological Controversies (478–533),” in J. Patrich, ed., The Sabaite heritage in the Orthodox Church from theFifth Century to the Present, Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 98 (Leuven 2001), 237–244. J.N. Ford, “Two Syriac Terms Relating to Ophthalmology and their Cognates,” Journal of Semitic Studies 47.1 (2002), 23–38. S.J. Beggiani, “The typological approach of Syriac sacramental theology,” Theological Studies 64.3 (2003), 543–557. V. Menze, “Die Stimme von Maiuma. Johannes Rufus, das Konzil von Chalkedon und die wahre Kirche,” in J. Hahn and C. Ronning, eds., Literarische Konstituierung von Identifikationsfiguren in der Antike (Tübingen 2003), 215–32. S.P. Cowe, “Armenian Christology in the seventh and eighth centuries with particular reference to the contributions of Catholicos

338

David A. Michelson

Yovhan Ňjnec‘I and Xosrovik T‘Argmaniă‘,” Journal of Theological Studies 55.1 (2004), 1–54. V. Menze, “Priest, Laity and the Sacrament of the Eucharist in Sixth Century Syria,” Hugoye 7.2 (2004), n.p. L. Van Rompay, “Society and Community in the Christian East,” in M. Maas, ed., The Cambridge Companion to the Age of Justinian (Cambridge 2005), 239–266. B. Caseau, “Sancta sanctis: Normes et gestes de la communion entre Antiquité et haut Moyen Age,” in Pratiques de l'eucharistie dans les Eglises d’Orient et d’Occident (Antiquité et Moyen Age), I: L’institution. Actes du séminaire tenu à Paris, Institut catholique (1997–2004), N. Bériou et al., eds. (Paris 2009), 371–420. S. Plathottathil, “Christological Differences between East and West Syrian Traditions,”The Harp 24 (2009), 285–309.

BOOK REVIEWS Michael Sokoloff, A Syriac Lexicon. A Translation from the Latin, Correction, Expansion, and Update of C. Brockelmann’s Lexicon Syriacum (Winona Lake, Indiana & Piscataway, New Jersey: Eisenbrauns & Gorgias Press, 2009), ISBN 978-1-57506-180-1 & 978-1-60724-620-6, l + 1688 pp + CD, Hardback, $149.50. SIAM BHAYRO, UNIVERSITY OF EXETER

This dictionary is a greatly revised and expanded version of the second edition of Carl Brockelmann’s Lexicon Syriacum (Brockelmann 1928). It contains the following innovations that make it very much improved and easier to use than Brockelmann’s Lexicon: — it is arranged alphabetically rather than according to root — many citations have been added — the etymologies have been updated — the presentation is much clearer, using an attractive Estrangelo font, and with entries divided into paragraphs. This is the fourth dictionary that Michael Sokoloff has produced, following on from his three Jewish Aramaic dictionaries (Sokoloff 1990, 2002 and 2003). As a former lexicographer, I know first-hand the day-to-day drudgery of the task of compiling a lexicon, and that many of the critical comments by ‘metalexicographers’ (for the term, see Green 1996, p. 469) display a lack of empathy with the lexicographer’s plight. So, as well as affirming Sokoloff’s status as the most prolific Aramaic lexicographer of his generation, I should also clarify that all comments in the present review are offered with much appreciation and gratitude for all of Sokoloff’s efforts and accomplishments. Several years ago, I organised Aramith, a conference on Aramaic lexicography, at the University of Sheffield (23–25 July, 2002), papers from which were published in subsequent issues of Aramaic Studies. At this conference, Sebastian Brock presented a learned assessment of the state of play, as it was then, in the field of Syriac lexicography (subsequently published as Brock 2003). Among Brock’s many observations were the following criticisms of the second edition of Brockelmann’s Lexicon: 339

340

Book Rewiews 1 — the use of Latin, making it unpractical for many modern users (Brock 2003, p. 168; similar comments are made regarding Payne-Smith 1879–1901) [2] — the failure to consider source texts that date from the late fourteenth century up until the present day (Brock 2003, pp. 168–169; also the case for PayneSmith 1879–1901) 3 — the use of outdated and often unreliable text editions (Brock 2003, pp. 169–170; again also the case for Payne-Smith 1879–1901) 4 — the use of page numbers instead of Syriac words in the Latin-Syriac glossary, making locating the entry more cumbersome (Brock 2003, p. 167)

Realising that the ideal solution of a completely new and fully comprehensive lexicon is not practical at this time, Brock suggested the following way forward (Brock 2003, pp. 177–178): 5 — build upon the three existing lexicons (Audo 1897, Brockelmann 1928 and Payne-Smith 1879–1901), supplementing largely by means of texts published after 1928, particularly those of the Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium (Scriptores Syri) and Patrologia Orientalis 6 — expand on point 5 by including excerpts from other authors (such as Philoxenos, Jacob of Edessa, Dionysius bar ʙalibi and Barhebraeus), translated authors (such as Gregory of Nazianus, Severus and Aristotle), liturgical texts and a selection of unpublished texts [7] — exclude texts composed during the last five centuries (suggesting that problem 2 cannot be satisfactorily resolved at this point in time).

Sokoloff was present at Brock’s Aramith presentation and he concurs with Brock’s assessment in the introduction to the work under review (p. xv; n. 47 is particularly interesting). The question before us, therefore, is whether or not Sokoloff has succeeded in addressing the problems identified by Brock and resolving them according to his suggested practical solution (ignoring, of course, points [2] and [7]). The answer in respect of points 1 and 4 is immediately clear. This is, thankfully, a Syriac-English dictionary, and the enclosed CD contains both an index of cited passages and a reverse English-

Book Rewiews

341

Syriac index. Two of Sokoloff’s previous dictionaries included indices of cited passages (Sokoloff 1990 and 2002), but the reverse index is a new and very welcome feature (cf. my comments in Bhayro 2004, p. 385). Similarly, it becomes clear from Sokoloff’s introduction (pp. xv–xvi, nn. 49–51), as well as his list of abbreviations (pp. xxiii–xlix) that he has resolved point 3. For example, Brock’s highlighting of Beck’s editions of the works of Ephrem (Brock 2003, p. 170) has certainly been addressed by Sokoloff (cf. p. xxxii and p. xv, n. 49). As already explained, this dictionary is based upon the second edition of Brockelmann’s Lexicon, so it does not completely fulfil point 5. It would be unfair, however, to criticise this dictionary for not being something it does not claim to be. Indeed, if one were to choose one of the three pre-existing lexicons on which to base a new, expanded edition, then Sokoloff has surely chosen well. Brockelmann’s Lexicon has long been recognised as the best Syriac dictionary available, and it is a relief to have it in English at long last. In his introduction, Sokoloff gives us fair warning that point 6 was not his top priority: “Since the purpose of the present work was not to produce a new Syriac dictionary, the writer did not comb the literature to find new entries and meanings. However, an exception was made for two important lexical articles: Juckel, Harklean and Schleifer” (p. xxii). This does, however, bring us to an important point. No matter how much effort is put into such a project, individual scholars will still have to annotate their own copy as they edit and read more and more texts. For example, the other day I was reading a poem by Giwargis Warda (13th century). In the midst of a description of the human body’s seven powers, we read ¿ÿò膚ƒ ¾ØÍσ ”~ ... ¿ÿßÍܽĆ⃠¾ñ†ÿå çØûÏ~ “another is the absorption of food... also that which discharges that which is surplus” (Gignoux 1999, p. 128). Sokoloff’s entry for ¾ñ†ÿå gives the glosses “attractive; distilling” (p. 955). For the former definition, we are also given a Greek term, two references (Ephrem and Galen) and the following extra piece of information: “one of eight natural forces of the body”. I will, therefore, need to add the following in the margin: “also, absorption (of food), Gignoux 1999:128; one of seven natural forces”. Similarly, the entry for ¿ÿò膚 gives “addition; more numerous” (p. 1632). Again, my marginal note will read: “also, surplus, in rel. to bodily

342

Book Rewiews

discharges, Gignoux 1999:128”. I am sure that all of us will make similar notes, just as we have done in the past with the previous lexicons. I mention this because it remains a shame that there is no single designated person or group to whom we can all send new text editions and lexical notes, in order for an online record to be established and maintained. Both Sokoloff (p. xv) and Brock (2003, p. 178) have issued very clear calls for a systematic, coordinated and concerted effort to be made in this regard. The question is, will anyone heed these calls? Bibliography: Audo, T. 1897. Dictionnaire de la langue chaldéenne (Mosul: Imprimerie des pères dominicains) Bhayro, S. 2004. Review of Sokoloff 1990 (second edition, 2002), Journal of Biblical Literature 123.2, pp. 382–385 Brock, S. P. 2003. ‘Syriac Lexicography: Reflections on Resources and Sources’, Aramaic Studies 1.2, pp. 165–178 Brockelmann, C. 1928. Lexicon Syriacum (second edition, Halle: Max Niemeyer; first edition, Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1895) Gignoux, P. 1999. ‘Un poème inédit sur l’homme-microcosme de Guiwarguis Wardà (13ème siècle)’, in Gignoux, P., (ed.), Ressembler au monde: nouveaux documents sur la théorie du macro-microcosme dans l’antiquité orientale, (Turnhout: Brepols Publishers), pp. 95–188 Green, J. 1996. Chasing the Sun. Dictionary Makers and the Dictionaries They Made (London: Jonathan Cape) Payne-Smith, R. 1879–1901. Thesaurus Syriacus (Oxford: Clarendon Press) Sokoloff, M. 1990. A Dictionary of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic of the Byzantine Period (first edition, Ramat-Gan: Bar Ilan University Press; second edition, Ramat-Gan & Baltimore, Maryland: Bar Ilan University Press & The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2002) _______, 2002. A Dictionary of Jewish Babylonian Aramaic of the Talmudic and Geonic Periods (Ramat-Gan & Baltimore, Maryland: Bar Ilan University Press & The Johns Hopkins University Press) _______, 2003. A Dictionary of Judean Aramaic (Ramat-Gan: Bar Ilan University Press).

Rana Sabbagh, Fayez Ayash, Janine Balty, Françoise Briquel Chatonnet, and Alain Desreumaux, Le martyrion Saint-Jean dans la moyenne vallée de l’Euphrate: Fouilles de la Direction Générale des Antiquités à Nabgha au nord-est de Jarablus. Documents d’archéologie syrienne XIII (Damascus: Ministère de la Culture: Direction Générale des Antiquités et des Musées, 2008). Pp. 54. DR. MARICA CASSIS, MEMORIAL UNIVERSITY OF NEWFOUNDLAND

One of the most problematic aspects in Syriac studies is the lack of an extensive, extant, and identifiable corpus of sites and structures, particularly given the number of such locations mentioned in various Syriac texts. Thus, every discovery carries with it the potential of providing confirmation of the physical context mentioned in the sources, but more importantly furthering our knowledge of the social and cultural world of the early Syriac churches. Le martyrion Saint-Jean dans la moyenne vallée de l’Euphrate: Fouilles de la Direction Générale des Antiquités à Nabgha au nord-est de Jarablus provides a brief and preliminary introduction to the salvage excavation of one room of a Syriac martyrion at the site of alNabgh al-Kebir in Syria. It is to be hoped that this report foreshadows a longer manuscript when more extensive excavations have been completed. The focus of this brief book is a single mosaic floor which was unearthed by accident in the region of Jarablus. The mosaic consists of two connected and contemporary pavements, one of which includes a lengthy Syriac inscription. Since this excavation was undertaken as a salvage operation, the excavators were unable to extend the project further than the boundaries of the mosaic (7). Nevertheless, given the significance of this find to Syriac studies, the decision to publish these preliminary results is to be applauded, although the data might have been better published as an article or a preliminary report. The title is somewhat deceptive, since only one room has been unearthed as yet. The reference to a martyrion comes from the Syriac inscription, but in fact the complete context of this mosaic remains unknown. The book consists of four sections: a brief discussion of the context of the site; a very short section on the archaeological material found in conjunction with the mosaic (Rana Sabbagh and Fayez Ayash, 9–10); the analysis of the mosaic (Janine Balty, 11–22); and the analysis of the Syriac inscription (Françoise Briquel Chatonnet, and Alain Desreumaux, 343

344

Book Rewiews

23–28). These sections are followed by sixteen coloured plates detailing the ceramics, the mosaic, and the inscription. The first of the short sections which make up this work details the finds located above the mosaic. It is clear from Sabbagh and Ayash, the authors of this section, that there was no undisturbed stratigraphy, since the ceramic assemblage involves twenty-two forms which range from the Hellenistic period to the Abbasid period (9). The publication of this material is thus of very limited value, and can only be used to suggest a possible lifespan for the habitation of the site. Only proper stratigraphical excavation of the entire site will provide evidence for the length and nature of occupation of this site. In the second section, Balty introduces and describes the mosaic. Measuring 9.59 X 5.34 (to 5.37) m (11), this pavement is a remarkable find. The western half of the mosaic consists of a primarily geometrical design made up of octagons and hexagons surrounded by other geometrical forms. Each of the octagons contains a central geometric or figural motif. The eastern half of the mosaic consists of two registers with four small panels separated by vegetation. The mosaic is bounded on three sides by a patterned border while the fourth side (the easternmost side) consists of a two-part Syriac inscription divided by a step or the start of a staircase (11). Balty’s presentation of the mosaic is thorough, and she presents a strong case for dating the two mosaics as a unit. She dates them to the very end of the fourth century or the beginning of the fifth century based on stylistic analysis with comperanda in Syria and Palestine. According to Balty, the presence of animals and floral motifs in the large geometric mosaic, and the layout in the smaller eastern mosaic, dates it to at least at the end of the fourth century (13–17). She bases her analysis on other mosaics, some securely dated and others dated solely through stylistic relative chronology. An important question addressed by Balty involves the evidence for iconoclastic or iconophobic activity. Several images were removed and carefully repaired by the Christian community associated with the church or complex. While Balty agrees with scholarship which suggests that this activity can be linked to the

Book Rewiews

345

Edict of Yazid II in the early eighth century,1 she also indicates that the presence of iconoclastic activity in this mosaic widens the geographical scope of the discussion: “Mais jamais jusqu’ici, pareilles manifestations d’iconophobie n’avaient été découvertes hors d’Arabie et de Palestine—où elles ne sont d’ailleurs pas systématiques.”(17). In fact, while the presence of this iconophobic or iconoclastic activity in inland Syria may be linked to the same activities elsewhere, it bears considering that not all of this activity is necessarily linked to the same cause. For example, official Byzantine Iconoclasm and the preferences of local clergy have been suggested as other possibilities.2 Further excavation will hopefully clarify the dates of this particular iconoclastic activity, and add to the overall question of the causes of this activity in the region. The final section of this book is an analysis of the Syriac inscription. Given the current lack of further contextual evidence for the structure that housed this mosaic, the Syriac inscription provides perhaps the most significant amount of historical data. Although missing its dating formula, the inscription indicates the names of the two abbots who oversaw the installation of the mosaic; two deacons of the church; the two mosaicists; and, perhaps most importantly, indicates that the structure was a martyrion dedicated to St. John. The inscription was done in two hands. Briquel Chatonnet and Desreumaux have provided a reconstruction of the dating formula which roughly corresponds to the stylistic dating evidence provided for the mosaic, placing the inscription in the earliest part of the fifth century. This date is confirmed by their palaeographic analysis, which situates the mosaic within the Edessan tradition but also suggests that the script contains transitional elements which indicate the shift from estrangelo to serto in the region (26–28). The publication of this inscription is extremely important, given that it is one of the earliest examples of a Syriac inscription in the region.

Balty relies heavily on the discussion in G.W. Bowersock, Mosaics as History (Cambridge: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2006), 91–111. 2 See, for example, Katherine M.D. Dunbabin, Mosaics of the Greek and Roman World (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), 203–204. 1

346

Book Rewiews

Overall, this short book does a valuable service in providing a brief, preliminary publication of one small part of a salvage excavation of a Syriac complex on the Syrian Euphrates. This structure provides a rare snapshot into the cultural milieu of the Syriac church in Syria in the late fourth or early fifth century. Indeed, more than anything, this chance find indicates the desperate need for increased scientific excavation of Syriac sites— and the subsequent excavations and publications of the martyrion of St. John will be of particular importance to Syriac studies.

Sebastian P. Brock, The History of the Holy Mar Ma‘in with a Guide to the Persian Martyr Acts. Persian Martyr Acts in Syriac: Text and Translation, 1. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2008. ISBN 978-1-59333222-8. SHAWN W.J. KEOUGH, FACULTY OF THEOLOGY, KATHOLIEKE UNIVERSITEIT LEUVEN

This volume inaugurates the new series edited by Adam Becker and published by Gorgias Press which will make available in bilingual Syriac/English editions the Persian Martyr Acts composed from the fourth century to the Islamic period, recounting the persecutions of Christians at the hands of Sasanian authorities (224–651). While many of these texts have certain historical events at their core others are clearly descriptions of the heroic deeds of revered martyrs and confessors of a purely legendary or mythological character. This corpus of martyrologies has for the most part already been printed (the lion’s share in the second and fourth volumes of P. Bedjan’s Acta Martyrum et Sanctorum); however, The History of the Holy Mar Ma‘in had never before been published in full. The launching of this exciting new series with this inaugural volume from Sebastian Brock therefore not only marks a fundamental contribution to the study of Syriac martyr acts but also another significant milestone in the publication and study of Syriac literature as a whole. The History of Ma‘in of Sinjar, a general under Shapur II (309– 379) who would suffer as a confessor subsequent to his conversion to Christianity, had previously received significant scholarly attention only twice: in his Auszüge aus syrischen Akten persischer Märtyrer (Leipzig, 1880) G. Hoffmann had dedicated six pages to providing an annotated summary of the text, which was followed almost a century later by M. Fiey’s 1971 Le Muséon article ‘Ma‘in, général de Sapor II, confesseur et évêque’ (vol. 84: 437–53). In his comprehensive and concise ‘Introduction’ Brock succeeds in admirably advancing the state of scholarship on this text. Following a synopsis and outline of the text, Brock notes its ‘literary pretensions’, identifying key biblical allusions (e.g., IV Macc 6.10; Acts 8.36, 9.16) and literary models (e.g., the Life of Abraham of Qidun, as well as some ‘general parallels’ with the Martyrdom of Qardagh). The date and setting of composition, the History’s topography (including a map of the broader Mesopotamian region 347

348

Book Rewiews

relevant to the text) and chronology, as well as the text’s historicity all receive thorough examination, and Brock is careful to note where his conclusions differ from that of previous scholarship (or, such as in his discussion of the text’s date of composition, where his conclusions, despite being built upon differing interpretations of the evidence, nevertheless on the whole agree with previous studies). The History is transmitted by only one manuscript, British Library Add. 12,174, dated to the late twelfth century and written in the monastery of Mar Barsaumo (a note at the end of the manuscript, indicating that it had been commissioned to fill a gap in the library’s holdings, was written by Patriarch Michael the Great). Brock’s edition reproduces the text in the manuscript while adding section numbers, resolving abbreviations and correcting obvious scribal errors; deviations from the manuscript are detailed in the apparatus. The text and translation appear in facing pages. The Syriac is printed in Estrangelć and the translation is eminently readable while remaining a faithful guide to the Syriac for novice readers. The detailed annotation clarifies and comments upon historical, prosopographical, linguistic, textual, and theological matters while making reference to significant scholarly studies as well as parallels in Syriac literature (both published and in manuscript). A valuable appendix follows the index of names and biblical references. Brock’s ‘Guide to the Persian Martyr Acts’ presents the entirety of the Syriac texts in a chronological arrangement headed by the reigning Sasanian monarch and makes reference to all previous printed editions and significant studies as well as the relevant ancient translations. This is followed by a concordance to Bedjan’s AMS II and IV, a listing of the Syriac, Greek, Armenian, Sogdian, Arabic and Coptic manuscripts, the major Greek translations, and a bibliography preceded by a discussion of general guides, reference works and major ancient sources. Brock’s ‘Guide’ is itself then followed by an Index covering all the Syriac Acts of Persian Martyrs in which personal names, biblical personal names, place names, and, all the names of Persian Martyrs appearing at the end of British Library Add. 12,150 (a manuscript copied in Edessa and dated to 411) as well as names preserved in Deir al-Surian Fragment 27 which are additional to F. Nau’s edition of BL Add. 12,150 in PO 10.

Book Rewiews

349

This inaugural volume to Gorgias Press’s new series of ‘Persian Martyr Acts in Syriac’ marks an auspicious beginning. The value of S. Brock’s contribution to this series is far out of proportion to its modest size or price, and will no doubt be of interest to all students of Syriac Christianity as well as martyrdom in late antiquity, who will all find that its pages repay serious study.

M. Immerzeel, Identity Puzzles. Medieval Christian Art in Syria and Lebanon. Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 184 (Leuven; Peeters 2009) Pp. 325. Hardback EMMA LOOSLEY, UNIVERSITY OF MANCHESTER

A comprehensive study of the Christian Art of Syria and Lebanon is long-overdue and so this new book must be applauded for attempting the first complete overview of a field that has thus far been fragmented and lacking a holistic approach to the subject. For far too long Syrian and Lebanese frescoes and icons have been explored only in the context of the art of Asia Minor (in particular Cappadocia), Cyprus and Egypt and been relegated to a footnote of art historical scholarship as “provincial Byzantine” or “Crusader” art. Immerzeel does the monuments of the region a great service by placing them firmly centre stage and arguing for provincial workshops across the Levant that had their own iconographic and stylistic traditions that were confident enough to draw inspiration from other regions whilst remaining secure in their own Syrian identity. The other issue with this subject has been that although we have had a series of monographs and articles on individual monuments or cycles (for example Erica Cruikshank Dodd’s monograph on Deir Mar Musa al-Habashi, Matt Immerzeel and other members of the Paul Van Moorsel Centre publishing extensively on Deir Al-Surian in Wadi Natrun as well as on many other sites across Syria and Lebanon) this is the first time that anybody has sought to establish a corpus of Syrian Christian art. This is no small task and, as an inventory of all frescoes and medieval icons known at this time, this is an invaluable addition to anyone with even a passing interest in the field. It is extensively and gorgeously illustrated and the photographs alone are a mine of valuable information. There is a clear and logical geographical arrangement of the material which makes it easy for the reader to compare and contrast the styles and iconographical preferences of different regions and to understand how these different workshops may have functioned individually and in collaboration with each other. On many levels this is a substantial and excellent guide to the Medieval Christian Art of Syria and Lebanon; however there is one crucial area in which this study is not wholly successful and the key 350

Book Rewiews

351

to this flaw lies in the title. In naming the book Identity Puzzles Immerzeel is clearly stating that his work will address issues of identity amongst the Christians of the region and, to some extent, disentangle the plethora of denominations that exist in the area. He also debates how far it is possible to link different styles of painting to different denominations and doctrinal beliefs. As he states in his introduction and first chapter this is a complex and, in many cases, impossible question to answer. Denominational borders are fluid and ever-changing and it would also be unrealistic to conclude that artists would be prepared only to work for one Church. This would have been financially unsustainable at the very least and it is untenable to presume that painters would have erected such rigid barriers unless the frescoes and MSS were carried out by monks, when on the contrary most evidence points to professional ateliers. Therefore Immerzeel sets himself a task which is, with the current state of scholarship, impossible to answer comprehensively. He succeeds admirably in synthesising the material in general and identifying the sites which can be clearly linked to a particular denomination, something that is not particularly arduous in Syria given the relative paucity of material and the fact that the denominational boundaries are relatively well-defined there. The problems occur in Lebanon and on the Syrian coast where various groups have inhabited different regions at different times in history and the extra factor of Western, Crusader influences is added into the equation. Here Immerzeel can, for obvious and well-explained reasons, do little more than advance hypotheses based on language, fashion and style. On balance this reviewer believes this to be a very good addition to the literature on the subject but has two reservations; the first is that this should have been edited with a little more care as the language is often clumsy (and in places slightly incorrect) for native English readers, but this is an exceptionally minor quibble! The other, more significant, concern is that this felt rather hastily produced and leads the reader to wonder if it would not have been better to have waited a little longer and produced a much more “finished” study. This very much reads as “work in progress” and is excellent as a statement of where the field has reached at this particular moment in time, but one very much hopes that Immerzeel will take the time to write a more extensive volume in the near future.

Edward M. Cook, A Glossary of Targum Onkelos According to Alexander Sperber’s Edition (Studies in the Aramaic Interpretation of Scripture 6), E.J. Brill, Leiden, 2008; ISBN 978-90-04-14978-6; xxi, 310 pp. (€ 113.00 / US$ 162.00) [Also available, for the same price, as a digital edition in pdf format.] DAVID G.K. TAYLOR, ORIENTAL INSTITUTE, UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD

The last twenty years have seen the publication of a number of excellent new Aramaic dictionaries, such as Michael Sokoloff’s dictionaries of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic (1990),1 Jewish Babylonian Aramaic (2002),2 and Judean Aramaic (2003);3 Abraham Tal’s dictionary of Samaritan Aramaic (2000),4 and Jacob Hoftijzer and Karel Jongeling’s dictionary of the North-West Semitic Inscriptions (1995),5 which includes Jewish epigraphic materials up to 300 CE. For linguists and other specialist scholars these dictionaries represent a revolution in our knowledge of the history and development of the Aramaic dialects, and of their regional varieties and idiosyncrasies, and provide us with tools that surpass anything previously published. But despite these advances, ordinary students and readers of texts written in Jewish Literary Aramaic, many of which were excluded from Sokoloff’s dictionaries for obvious linguistic reasons (since it is considered neither a pure Babylonian nor Palestinian variety), are still required

M. Sokoloff, A Dictionary of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic (Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press; Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1990; 2nd ed. 2002). 2 M. Sokoloff, A Dictionary of Jewish Babylonian Aramaic (Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press; Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2002). 3 M. Sokoloff, A Dictionary of Judean Aramaic (Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press, 2003). 4 A. Tal, A Dictionary of Samaritan Aramaic (2 vols.; HdO I.50; Leiden: Brill, 2000). 5 J. Hoftijzer and K. Jongeling, Dictionary of the North-West Semitic Inscriptions (2nd ed., 2 vols.; HdO I.21; Leiden: Brill, 1995). 1

352

Book Rewiews

353

to fall back upon the dictionaries of Jastrow6 or Levy7 which are bulky, dated, and based on old editions of the texts. This new Glossary of Targum Onkelos by Edward Cook is thus to be warmly welcomed, as it offers the reader a handy and reliable one-volume glossary of all of the vocabulary of Onkelos—the most widely used Jewish Aramaic translation of the Pentateuch—found in the best currently available edition of the targum, that of Sperber,8 in an easily usable format. The glossary was generated from the Targum Module of Accordance,9 for which Ed Cook was also the editor, which was itself created on the basis of files supplied by the Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon.10 The data was then re-checked against Sperber’s edition (and this reviewer has not yet found any errors!). The entries within the glossary are arranged according to alphabetical order, rather than by roots, and provide the lemma, the part of speech, a simple gloss, an indication of whether or not it is a loanword, a list of biblical references if the word occurs ten times or fewer, and then finally cross-references to the same or related lexemes in dictionaries of other Aramaic dialects, such as those mentioned in the first paragraph, but also the standard dictionaries of Syriac,11 Mandaic,12 and Christian Palestinian Aramaic.13 Personal names are not included in the glossary, but geographical names are listed on pp. 308–310. The entries are very generously and spaciously laid out, with rarely more than nine to the page, and they are printed in a large font size. This makes the glossary very M. Jastrow, A Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature (2 vols.; London: Luzac; New York: G.P. Puttnam, 1903; and many reprints). 7 J. Levy, Chaldäisches Wörterbuch über die Targumim und einen grossen Theil des rabbinischen Schriftthums (3rd ed.; 2 vols.; Leipzig: Baumgärtner, 1881). 8 A. Sperber, The Bible in Aramaic. Vol. I, The Pentateuch according to Targum Onkelos (Leiden: Brill, 1959). 9 http://www.accordancebible.com/about/articles/targ.php 10 http://cal1.cn.huc.edu/ 11 Primarily, C. Brockelmann, Lexicon syriacum (2nd ed.; Halle: M. Niemeyer, 1928). 12 E.S. Drower and R. Macuch, A Mandaic Dictionary (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1963). 13 F. Schulthess, Lexicon syropalaestinum (Berlin: G. Reimer, 1903). 6

354

Book Rewiews

uncluttered and easy on the eye, but also of course increases the length of the book. The lemmas of nouns, pronouns, adjectives, adverbs, prepositions, interjections, etc., are provided with the supralinear vocalization found in Sperber. Verbs, however, are given only in their unvocalized root form, and this seems to me to be a minor defect, given the likely users of this volume. It would have been helpful for students if the vocalized forms of the verb forms used, whether ithpaal, aphel, or just peal, had been provided after the bare root. The gloss for each entry is provided in English. The corresponding Hebrew terms in the Masoretic text, where there are such equivalents, are not provided. This is quite understandable, given the amount of extra work this would have demanded, although it would have been good to see them here. For these Hebrew equivalents readers will still need to use Chaim Kasovsky’s Otsar ha-Targum (1940),14 Emil Brederek’s Konkordanz zum Targum Onkelos (1906),15 or the Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon.16 It is useful to have references to the biblical passages where less common Aramaic words are used, but perhaps this process could have been taken a little further. For example, the provision of a simple figure in brackets to indicate the number of occurrences of words used more than ten times, or even an appendix with a listing by frequency of the most common words? It is always tempting for reviewers retrospectively to suggest more work for colleagues who have already laboured for years to produce valuable publications, and such tables are not found in other equivalent glossaries, but this is data that could be easily generated by the software that is being used, and the popularity of vocabulary frequency lists among students of Biblical Hebrew and New Testament Greek suggests that this might be a valued feature in any similar glossaries in the future. (There is no mention in the introduction of any planned glossary of, for example, Targum Jonathan to the Prophets, but given the usefulness of this volume, C.J. Kasovsky, ʸʶʥʠ ʟʭʥʢʸʺʤ ʠʩʶʰʣʸʥʷʰʥʷ ʭʥʢʸʺʬ ʱʥʬʷʰʥʠ (Jerusalem: Mosad Ha-Rav Kook, 1940). 15 E. Brederek, Konkordanz zum Targum Onkelos (BZAW 9; Giessen: Töpelmann, 1906). 16 http://cal1.cn.huc.edu/targumstartpage.html 14

Book Rewiews

355

perhaps Ed Cook or one of his graduates might be encouraged to produce one?) The cross-referencing to related lexemes in other Aramaic dialects is perhaps a little unexpected in a glossary such as this. I know that I, and many colleagues, will find this a very convenient and labour-saving index to common Aramaic terms in the various dictionaries we use, but I wonder whether our students will ever make use of this data? Perhaps I am not doing them justice, and the best of them will go look up the entries in Sokoloff’s dictionaries to see how the terms are used in other Jewish texts, but I suspect I may have to wait a while before they make use of Drower and Macuch’s Mandaic dictionary (more’s the pity!). So this cross-referencing is a useful addition to the tools available to scholars, but perhaps the provision of Hebrew equivalents would have been a better use of the considerable effort that must have been required for this work? In reviews of books published by Brill (and indeed of many other well-known publishers) it has become something of a cliché to grumble about the price, and I am reluctant to repeat the same old groans, but in this particular case I see no way of avoiding it. Ed Cook’s Glossary of Targum Onkelos is an absolutely essential purchase for all libraries with an interest in Jewish, Biblical, or Theological studies, and it is clearly going to become a standard tool for many of our students. However, whilst many of our libraries will find a means of paying, the price means that it is completely unaffordable for its main target user group, our students. And the digital copy, in pdf format, costs exactly the same as the paper copy. You do not have to be a prophet to see that unless Brill soon publishes a cheaper paperback student edition, or reprices its digital version, this volume is destined to be illegally reproduced by students in every library that owns a copy,17 thus depriving the author of well-deserved royalties, and the publishing house of due profits, for a beautifully produced and extremely useful book.

This reviewer clearly neither encourages nor endorses such illegal behaviour. 17

William H. Taylor, Antioch and Canterbury: The Syrian Orthodox Church and the Church of England, 1874–1928. Gorgias Press, Piscataway, 2005. ISBN 1-59333-312-9. [2], ix, 135 pp. $76 [Luxury edition of 50 copies, ISBN 1-59333-235-1, $234] DAVID G.K. TAYLOR, ORIENTAL INSTITUTE, UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD

At the end of the nineteenth and beginning of the twentieth century the Syrian Orthodox Church found itself and its people divided between two powerful empires, the Ottoman Empire in the Middle East, and the British Empire in India. In the Ottoman system it had the limited advantages of being a recognised millet, and its Patriarch possessed an Imperial Firman recognising him as the official representative of his community and forbidding any others from interfering in his decisions concerning appointments or management of properties and endowments. But unlike the Syrian Catholics, Chaldeans, Maronites, and other uniate churches who were under the declared protection of France, and the Byzantine Orthodox churches who were under the protection of Russia, the Syrian Orthodox had no foreign supporters or sponsors, and so were disadvantaged both in the regular outbreaks of inter-communal fighting over the ownership of churches and other properties, and in obtaining funding for schools and similar projects. In British India, and those notionally independent parts of India under British ‘protection’, the Patriarch was accorded no special status, and although the colonial authorities in theory abjured any interference in religious affairs, the reality was often far different from this. In particular, since 1816 evangelical missionaries from the Church of England, belonging to the Church Missionary Society (CMS), had been actively working among the Christians of South India and attempting to reform them according to Protestant ideals, with the result that the local Syrian Orthodox community was split, with, from 1843, one part owing allegiance to the new pro-Reform metropolitan Mar Athanasius, and one part to the established pro-Antiochene metropolitan Mar Dionysius. This led to bitter disputes over jurisdiction and property which dragged through the Indian courts for the rest of the century, and unsurprisingly both the Anglican hierarchy in India and the civil 356

Book Rewiews

357

colonial authorities almost always gave support to the pro-Reform metropolitan and his successors. It was in these circumstances that in 1874 Patriarch Peter III (in current Syrian Orthodox reckoning Peter IV) and Bishop Abdallah Sadadi of Jerusalem (later Patriarch Abdallah), travelled to London in an attempt to establish closer relations with the Church of England. The account of this voyage, and of subsequent similar contacts between Anglicans and Syrian Orthodox up to 1928, is the subject of this excellently researched monograph by William Taylor, which began life as a 1987 MPhil thesis at the University of Lancaster under the expert supervision of Chip Coakley, and which makes full use of key archival sources in the UK, such as the correspondence of the Archbishops of Canterbury at Lambeth Palace, and British Foreign Office files in the Public Records Office, as well as Syrian Orthodox accounts of these encounters published in Arabic. As such it makes a fine companion volume to Coakley’s own larger-scale work, The Church of the East and the Church of England. A History of the Archbishop of Canterbury’s Assyrian Mission (Oxford: OUP, 1992). But readers should beware that this is not a particularly cheerful or edifying tale! Patriarch Peter arrived in England in August 1874 looking for the equivalent of an Ottoman Firman recognising him as the head of the Syrian Orthodox community in India, as well as hoping for British government agreement to act as protectors of the Syrian Orthodox in the Ottoman Empire, and for the Church of England to finance his educational and printing initiatives. Unfortunately, although wise in the ways of Ottoman imperial politics and local inter-denominational rivalries, he had no experience or knowledge of the complexities of British politics and cultural attitudes, nor of the decentralised, disorganised, and doctrinally diverse nature of the Church of England. Consequently, like an infantryman in no-man’s land, he found himself caught in vicious cross-fire, often without being able to determine who was firing at him, or why. For many in the nineteenth-century Church of England, the Patriarch was the head of a heretical and decadent church, to be condemned both for its christological doctrines and for its primitive and unreformed practices, whether the use in scripture and liturgy of an ancient language not understood by the people, or its many ‘superstitious’ rituals and customs. The evangelical protestant wing of the Church of England in particular,

358

Book Rewiews

both in England and in India, openly and fiercely attacked him, and rejected his claims for the jurisdiction of his metropolitan in India. Even the more moderate Society for the Promotion of Christian Knowledge (SPCK) refused to consider funding schools or printing because this would have been to support a church whose beliefs they opposed. At the same time, although the Patriarch had received official permission for his journey to London, the Armenians in Istanbul had since denounced him to the Ottoman authorities for seeking foreign interference in the empire, the Ottoman ambassador thus refused to give him any support, and the British Foreign Office was becoming increasingly jumpy about the consequences of his visit, and utterly opposed any idea of British support for his church which could yield them no possible advantage, and would only empoison Anglo-Ottoman relations which were of key importance for British regional interests. After spending six months in England, Patriarch Peter left for Cairo and then India with very few of his ambitions fulfilled. Whilst civil authorities in India had been reprimanded for publicly favouring the pro-Reform metropolitan, the Anglican church authorities still clearly gave him their full support. The government refused to even consider intervening on behalf of the Syrian Orthodox within the Ottoman jurisdiction, and his political manoeuvring in London had clearly alienated potential sympathisers and allies, and had earned him the suspicion of the Ottoman authorities. Only within the realms of education and printing had he achieved some minor successes. He had made friends with a number of English families and clergy who promised him their support, and in March he had been granted an audience with Queen Victoria who clearly took to him, and asked to see him again. With the aid of these friends, and a generous donation from the Queen, the Syrian Patriarchate Educational Fund was established. This channelled some money towards Syrian Orthodox schools, and helped in the purchase of printing presses set up in the monastery of Dayr al-Za faran1, but after a brief flurry of activity the Fund sank into desuetude, and was almost entirely forgotten by the Anglican authorities. In 1892 it paid for O.H. Parry’s trip to Tur Abdin which led to the 1895 publication of his An account of this press and its publications is soon to be published by David Taylor and Jack Tannous. 1

Book Rewiews

359

Six Months in a Syrian Monastery—described, rather depressingly, by Taylor (p.72) as ‘the most singular achievement’ of the Fund. Bishop Abdallah Sadadi (now known as Mar Gregorius) returned to England in late 1887, where he remained until late 1888, and so was present for the Lambeth Conference of 1888 at which Anglican bishops from around the world were gathered. This encounter sparked some interest in the idea of intercommunion between the two churches, though discussions moved at a snail-like pace. He returned for a third visit (now as Patriarch Ignatius Abdallah) in 1908, and on this occasion discussions went far further than before, though there was never any real prospect of intercommunion. The Patriarch was more than aware of the internal divisions of the Church of England and the problems they posed; ‘I myself am most anxious for a rapprochement between the two churches, if it can be accomplished without the sacrifice of any vital doctrine. We are entirely at one with the High Church party, but the attitude of Low Churchmen is a great obstacle’ (Taylor, p.98). In reality internal divisions within his own church were just as problematic, and it was the opinion of contemporary observers that he was unwilling to commit himself to any agreement for fear that opponents in India would seize upon his statements and use them against him. Discussions about intercommunion continued into the 1920s, but by then the political context of the Syrian Orthodox had changed dramatically, and the incentives for intercommunion were greatly reduced. The third visitor around whose trips to London this book revolves is Afrem Barsoum, another future patriarch (and an impressive scholar), who came first in 1913 as a simple monk, and then in 1920 as the Metropolitan of Syria and the Syrian Orthodox envoy to the Paris Peace Conference, and finally in 1927. On each occasion he tried to gain financial and political support from the Church of England, but was constantly rebuffed. As he wrote to Randall Davidson, then Archbishop of Canterbury, in 1928; ‘The ordinary expressions “I will try”, and “I am sorry”, and “I regret” intimidate me. I regret very much that our church cannot engage the attention of the Episcopal Church and my three missions in 1913, 1920, and 1927 have been unsuccessful’ (Taylor, p.109). It is not surprising that the astute Barsoum realised that there was no advantage to be gained in the future from attempted alliances with European nations and churches, and so in the post-Ottoman world

360

Book Rewiews

he instead (especially after his elevation to the patriarchate in 1932) sought to link his church to the rising tide of Arab nationalism. This policy was arguably instrumental in gaining his church one of the longest periods of toleration and peace it had known in centuries, although it is now the subject of keen internal debate. William Taylor’s monograph Antioch and Canterbury neatly demonstrates the impact of international politics and internal faction-fighting on the relationship between the Church of England and the Syrian Orthodox Church over a key fifty-year period. It is a fascinating read, and impeccably documented, though not always very uplifting or encouraging! Repeated attempts at contact, on the initiative of both parties, ultimately yielded no substantial or lasting ecumenical results. The Anglicans were unwilling to provide any substantial financial support, and were incapable of delivering political support, and the Syrian Orthodox were unable publicly to compromise their doctrinal position. (The only positive note is that, almost by accident, it did inaugurate a period of Syrian Orthodox printing and publishing in the Middle East that became an important vehicle for education and identityformation.) In our own age, after break-through doctrinal agreements between the Catholic Church and the Syrian Orthodox, it is to be hoped that a new generation of Anglican and Syrian Orthodox leaders will once again attempt to foster links between the two churches. On a technical note, it should be noted that the book shows some signs of having been rushed through the final stages of preparation. In chapter I, footnotes 10 to 21 at the bottom of the page should be renumbered 9 to 20, in order to correspond to the relevant note numbers in the text. The list of abbreviations is not mentioned in the list of contents but is to be found after the bibliography, although not ordered alphabetically. The index is frankly a mess. ‘Eastern Churches Committee’ should go under E, not D; the only entry under G is ‘Heber, Reginald’; Syrian bishops, Mar Athanasius, Mar Dionysius, etc, are lumped together under M; Queen Victoria is under Q, Sultan Mahmud under S, etc. There are many typographical errors; those which particularly caught my attention (or amused me!) are the following: on p. 63, n. 34, for ‘See page 75’, read ‘See page 57’; Parry’s description of Patriarch Peter, p. 75, as ‘living day by day far removed ... from the softening influence of familiar intercourse with me’, should read not the

Book Rewiews

361

conceited sounding ‘me’, but ‘men’; on p. 107, line 22, for ‘the Parish Conference’, read ‘the Paris Conference’; on p. 112, n. 87, for ‘the Wet Syrian Church’ read ‘the West Syrian Church’; on p. 119, paragraph 2, line 2, for ‘complicated a lot of’, read ‘complicated the lot of’. The many other slips should not cause too many problems for readers. The luxury edition, limited to fifty copies and printed on high quality paper and in a red cloth binding, was produced to celebrate the twenty-fifth anniversary of the enthronement of the current Syrian Orthodox Patriarch, Mor Ignatius Zakka I Iwaz, which fell on the 14th September 2005. It has an extra page in which the Kiraz family dedicate the volume to this worthy successor to patriarchs Peter, Abdallah, and Afram, whose own ecumenical initiatives have been rewarded with incomparably greater success.

Christoph Baumer. The Church of the East: An Illustrated History of Assyrian Christianity. London and New York: I. B. Tauris, 2006, xi + 328 pp; hardcover. $49.50. JOEL WALKER, UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON

With its large format and dozens of stunning color images, it would be easy to mistake The Church of the East: An Illustrated History of Assyrian Christianity as a mere “coffee table book.” That label, however, would seriously underrate the book’s merits and importance. For at a time when many people still conceive of Christianity as a religion of Europe and the Americas, Christoph Baumer has written a superb survey of a Christian community that once extended across large areas of Mesopotamia, Iran, the Persian Gulf, southern India, Central Asia, and China. Other recent monographs have surveyed parts of the Church of the East’s history for a general audience, but none with the fullness and precision of this monograph, a translation of the original German version published in 2005.1 Baumer frames his work as an officially endorsed history of the Church of the East. A letter of appreciation and blessing from his Grace Mar Dinka IV, the Catholicos Patriarch of the Church of the East, opens the book, and the patriarch also appears with the author on the book’s dust jacket. Fortunately, the author’s sensitivity to the Church’s modern image rarely overrides the rigor of his historical analysis. On the controversial issue of the Church’s name, for instance, he notes that even the problematic label “Nestorian” is “not without honor” in the Church’s own theology and literature (8). “Assyrian,” the name favored in the modern Diaspora and used in the book’s title, is equally awkward when used to describe a Christian community that stretched so far beyond northern Mesopotamia. The book’s first four chapters explore the genesis and early development of the Church of the East in Mesopotamia, western Iran, and India. Baumer cautiously reviews the tales of the Church’s apostolic origins, variously attributed to the journeys of St. Thomas, Mar Addai, Mar Aggai, and Mar Mari. Few of these stories are attested before the sixth century, and one can easily be Frühes Christentum zwischen Euphrat und Jangtse: eine Zeitreise entlang der Seidenstrasse zur Kirche des Ostens (Stuttgart: Urachhaus, 2005). 1

362

Book reviews

363

skeptical about their historicity. The Acts of St. Thomas are much earlier, composed perhaps in Edessa ca. 200 CE, but its memorable vignettes of Thomas’s mission in the land of “King Gondophares” reveal little familiarity with actual Indian place names and customs. Here, as often in the book, Baumer wisely sets to one side the murky issue of origins to focus on the indisputable evidence for the Church’s growth by the end of late antiquity. The stone crosses with Middle Persian inscriptions erected on the Malabar Coast between the sixth and ninth centuries complement, for example, the testimony of the mid-sixth century Alexandrian merchant Cosmas Indicopleustes, who knew that the region’s clergy were appointed “from Persia.” Chapters 5–6 explore the development of the Church of the East in its core territories of the Sasanian Empire (224–642). Baumer’s summary of the Church’s political history nicely captures the increasingly intimate yet perilous bonds that linked Christians to the Sasanian throne. East-Syrian chroniclers preserve numerous stories about the fierce competition for influence between Christian and non-Christian parties at court. By the reign of Khusro II (r. 590–628), Christians had risen to the highest levels of the court, but their power was fractured by the bitter struggle between East-Syrian (Nestorian) and West-Syrian (Miaphysite or Jacobite) factions. Non-specialists may find Baumer’s account of these struggles overly dense with names and details, but his meticulous notes will usefully guide determined readers to the appropriate bibliography. His overview of the Church’s spirituality includes valuable introductions to the topics of East-Syrian monasticism, mysticism, and the organization and symbolism of East-Syrian churches. Here, as elsewhere, Baumer enriches his account with numerous illustrations of archaeological finds, such as the desolate ruined churches of northern Iraq and the Tur Abdin region of southern Turkey. Chapters 7–10 survey the history of the Church of the East under Islamic rule and the Church’s extraordinary expansion across Asia between the seventh and thirteenth centuries. Although many readers will have encountered bits and pieces of this story elsewhere, no previous book puts the pieces together so well. The evidence comes in an astonishing variety of forms: a Syriac chronicler’s report about the bishop of Merv’s humiliation of the Turkish shamans (169), Sogdian Christian inscriptions from the

364

Book reviews

borders of Tibet (175), Chinese Christian texts from Dunhuang (187), and cross-amulets from Inner Mongolia (196), to name a few examples. Contextualization of individual finds remains challenging, since the relevant literary sources are frustratingly thin. But the overall picture is clear: Nestorian Christians developed a significant and abiding presence in pockets all along the Silk Road, building churches and establishing monasteries in which they copied, translated, and composed an impressive range of Christian literature. Christianity also gained many adherents among the nomadic and semi-nomadic peoples of the northern steppe. Baumer estimates that one-third or more of the Turco-Mongolian tribes living between Lake Balkash (eastern Kazakhstan) and Manuchuria (northeastern China) were Nestorian Christians by the beginning of the thirteenth century (198). This may be a generous estimate, but there is ample documentation for the importance of Nestorians at the early Mongol courts—a situation that both surprised and appalled the Franciscan visitor William of Rubruck in 1254. Christianity was especially well rooted among the Mongol queens (khatuns), such as Sorqaqtani, daughter of the Kerait chieftain Toghril Khan and wife of Genghis Khan’s son, Tolui. Many readers may be surprised to learn that the woman who gave birth to both Kublai Khan, founder of the Yuan dynasty of China, and Hulagu, founder of the Ilkhanid dynasty of Iran, was a fervent Nestorian Christian. This could also be the area of Nestorian history most likely to yield new evidence as a result of growing archaeological research (and agricultural expansion) in Mongolia, western China, and Central Asia.2 The book’s final chapters (10–12) examine the sobering history of the Church of the East since the age of European expansion. In India, the “Thomas Christians” of the Malabar and Coromandel coasts initially welcomed the arrival of the Portuguese as potential allies against their Muslim neighbors. Relations soured as the Portuguese clergy began to inveigh against the “heretical” traditions of the region’s Christian community, which numbered around 30,000 families (ca. 150–200,000 people) in the early sixteenth Baumer has helped raise funds to support such archaeological research through the Society for the Exploration of Eurasia (www.exploration-eurasia.com). 2

Book reviews

365

century (236). At the notorious Council of Diamper in 1599, the clergy of Goa made bonfires from piles of local Syriac manuscripts. As Baumer laments: “thus the only branch of the Church of the East to escape Tamerlane’s frenzy of destruction was annihilated by Europeans” (239). In demographic terms, however, the indigenous Christians of South India have triumphed: the seven and a half million “Thomas Christians” in Kerala today eclipse the population of all other branches of the Church combined (245). Dialogue with the Catholic Church also reshaped the EastSyrian community of Iraq, which survived Tamerlane’s massacres (or to be more precise, some survived) by retreating to the highlands of northern Mesopotamia. The defection of the Nestorian bishop of Cyprus to Rome in 1445 marks the beginning of the prolonged ecclesiastical struggle that eventually led to the formation of the modern Assyrian and Chaldean Churches. Baumer conscientiously reviews the stages of this convoluted process through which “the hierarchical line of the ancient Nestorian Church of the East has become Catholic, while the hierarchical line that was once united with Rome has returned to the East-Syrian creed” (251). His account of this “period of trials and tribulations” includes thought-provoking remarks on the impact of Protestant missionaries from England and America, the introduction of the printing press, and the genocide of 1915– 1918—all topics worthy of further study. The “Renaissance” of Assyrian Christian culture in the Diaspora today offers an unsettling contrast to the continuing decline of the indigenous Christian communities of Iran, Iraq, and southeastern Turkey. In brief, this book is a major achievement, an insightful and meticulously researched survey of more than 2000 years of Christian history. The general public and scholars alike will benefit from its breadth and erudition.